Below is the question of a very dear friend of mine. We have been exceptionally affectionate friends for years and have been in the business of encouraging one another from the get go. First his question, then his response. That simple.
"hi friends-
these are some thoughts.this is a discussion board.
this is a very controversial topic and i know this. please respond if you'd like, but please be respectful of this topic and other people's responses.
i want to hear from you. i want to hear your thoughts.
my question is: has the female voice been lost? (specifically in ministry and leadership roles in the christian and church realms) if so, why? if not, why?
my thoughts:
i consider all people being created by God, for God, and in the image of God! we are each created uniquely and intentionally to proclaim the kingdom of God here on Earth. should women be given the opportunity to lead, speak out, have a voice, serve, "do ministry," etc. yes. can women be effective in ministry/leadership? yes.
i think the female voice has been lost, however, this is not a new idea or topic and i understand this. but why? in my limited experience, i have experienced 3 main types of women in ministry/leadership roles: (1) women who think they should be heard and think they deserve respect, when they haven't earned/deserve respect or honestly have nothing really to say, (2) women who don't say enough, they sit quiet on some occasions, but have extraordinary things to say, and (3) women who don't speak up at all, they remain silent, timid, or afraid, but should talk!
women should be in ministry and in leadership, which includes: pastor, speaker, book-writer, teacher, professor, shepherd, counselor, leader, communicator, etc.
do you think there is scriptural evidence that support women NOT being in ministry? if so, where and why? if not, why?
what are your thoughts on this loaded topic?"
There are some important frameworks that need to be established before diving into the practical implications on women's roles vs. men's roles in the church. . The truth is it is an issue that does not exist in a vacuum but in a web related to the rest of God’s moral will, natural law, and his character
Jason, the three points you bring to the conversation are more "practical implications" of how one attempts to bring to fruition whatever the scriptures teach about masculine and feminine roles in church; And that's not to say they aren't worth discussing, Paul teaches on practical implications of this matter in Titus and 2 Timothy--it is important to recognize why Paul injects his opinions into these practical matters; it is imperative to keep in mind these are an extension of Paul's understanding of "the deeper issue (i.e. the aforementioned framework--I'm going to get to it I promise) and given that we hold Paul's teachings as canonical we must therefore revere Paul's statements as being directly ordained from God rather than a mere "Pastor's opinion".
This “deeper issue”, the important framework to first establish before approaching the points you raise is this—has God created men and women with strictly feminine and masculine characteristics and roles? To first answer this I encourage you to look at the created order (Genesis 1:26-27):
“Then God said, “Let us make man in our image, after our likeness. And let them have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the heavens and over the livestock and over all the earth and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth. So God created man, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them.”
And in Genesis 2 we first see a distinction between masculinity and femininity:
“18 Then the Lord God said, ‘It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him a helper fit for him…’ 22 And the rib that the Lord God had taken from the man he made into a woman and brought her to the man…24 Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and they shall become one flesh.”
Now we see God created man and woman both in His own image (Gen. 1:27) and we see an initial distinction in the role of a man and woman; The reason woman was created was to be a “helper” to man (2:18) —I realize this can sound like loaded diction but let me paint the whole picture before any sort of emotional or intellectual responses well up.
God created both man and woman in His own image and both with distinct traits of His own likeness. To assume one likeness is better than the other is scripturally unfounded and absolutely prideful. That being said, men who claim the distinctions between women and men Holy likeness to God’s image as true but merit that the likeness of men as superior are simply scripturally out of line and tyrannical—it is an injustice that God will not stand for. Women were created to be the helper of men—this infers submission. The leadership men are called to display is NOT tyrannical (though such is the case far too often—a truth that truly burdens my heart) but rather to be that of Christ characterized by servitude, humility, (Matt. 20:24-28) and the desire to disperse good; the good to which I refer is the ultimate Goodness and Glory of God—that He be made famous, be praised, be glorified in all things. It is to this end all roles, positions, and pursuits are to exist—to glorify God and savor His goodness (which are two sides of the same coin).
When looking at scriptures parsing the relationship between men and women they paint the picture of how Christ relates to the church (Ephesians 5:22-29); the church does not submit to Christ out of inferiority but out of joy; Christ works to perfect the Church not to clean up a rotten mess (as an ultimate end) but to restore People to a state of absolute joy by enjoying that which is perfectly good—being God in His fully majesty. This is what leadership and submission looks like when executed in the scripturally sound fashion God intends—it is an inexhaustible cycle of absolute joy.
So now that I have made the case for 1) a distinction in the roles of men and women and 2) that these roles do not carry implicit value over their counterpart but rather complete the human likeness in God when they come together (this is seen in Genesis 2:24 that “a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and they shall become one flesh”).
What exactly are these distinctions in the characteristic traits of men and women? Well from scripture we see men are called to be leaders in families and churches (Ephesians 5:22-29); the role of women would then naturally need to be the same as that in a family—nurturing, supportive to leadership in submission and servitude all with the end goal of Glorifying God and savoring Him and all His Fullness.
Why these specific distinctions? It seems they are based on the notion that women have an experience they share with our Creator that men will never understand—being a life giver. From this experience we see the flood of nurture and provision women are programmed with that men simply struggle even at their best times to understand. This is an experience they share solely with God the creator.
God had the distinction designed from the beginning with the intention of bringing them together allowing a deeper appreciation for Himself—this gloriously beautiful unity is reflected in how Christ relates to the Church (I will even argue marriage exists so we can better understand how Christ relates to the church in addition to better understanding the character of God—though I am sure at some level these are yet again two sides of the same coin but it is a notion I have yet to visit in study and meditation) and can be recognized, I argue, in any interaction between men and women.
Now let’s keep this in mind—this doesn’t say that all women submit to all men in all circumstances. (I’m borrowing this next example from C.S. Lewis) Would a woman relate to a paperboy the same as she would relate to her boss at work, her husband, father, or even her son? This woman has no more business submitting to this paperboy than she does to her very own son; the same would hold true for a woman superior in a the workplace and her subordinates. Women are encouraged to be savvy in economies and societies (look at the woman described in Proverbs 31—she hardly seems timid and weak yet she ascribes to the biblical role of being a wife and has no problem submitting to her husband). So for men that try to carry biblical roles in churches and families into other environments are simply fools. Also, keep in mind submission to authority in God’s kingdom doesn’t translate into inferiority as it does traditionally in the economies of Man. This article delves into the concept of Biblical authority that can be applied to this issue as well (http://www.cbmw.org/Resources/Articles/Embracing-God-s-Plan-for-Authority)
Now to the nitty-gritty of your three points Jason. The first type of person you describe is full of pride and lack the Christ-like humility we are called to as disciples—both men and women. A male voice in a church like that would be equally horrific.
The second person is a sad case also. A church that does not offer opportunities for it’s members to fellowship, talk, share ideas (in small groups or other venues) and foster healthy dialogues and faith issues is not a healthy church--Hebrews 10:23-25 encourage us to meet together, spur one another on, and encourage each other regularly. This second person sounds like they’re not in an environment encouraging said community.
The third person you described sounds like they need to be built up and encouraged, even discipled by another woman to teach them how to be in healthy, edifying community (Titus 2:3-5).
So in short, should women teach? Yes there are environments where they should teach and no there are environments where they should not teach. Should they pastor? No, that violates the scripture out right 1 Timothy 2:11-15 instructs women to not teach as with authority over men in the church—but shows that their role in leadership lies in the other likeness of God attributed to them through life-giving and nurturing. Submitting to authority is a beautiful thing whose function is to show us the ultimate Majesty of God—even the end of gender distinction is the Glory of the Father. This utility of submission is true for both men and women as all are subject the rules of submitting to authority.
I hope I have painted a picture showing that the scriptural distinctions between men and women in churches (and families) are far from a bad thing. It offers complete experience in rejoicing in God’s goodness and savoring His Glory. I find it simply stunning that God created both men and women in His image to communicate a more full reality of His Fullness. Also, I’ve found http://www.desiringgod.org/Blog/1059_womens_ministry_in_the_local_church/ to be a great resource on the matter and is a gateway to other issues tying into the subject.
9 comments:
what is really shocking and sad about all of this is that you seem quite intelligent and have a theological education that enables you to write what is essentially a persuasive essay about why i am not called to ministry.
what are you using as your measure for scripture? you seem to privilege certain voices (paul) over others. did paul encourage slavery then? what of onesimus? should we revert to a system where entire races must "submit to the authority" of another?
did christ come to offer freedom? or a new law, which imposes guilt and suffering?
i am one hundred percent (and more) certain that god has summoned me into ordained ministry to offer healing and scriptural holiness to the nations. and ain't i a woman?
Women serve vital roles in countless ministries--and scripture encourages women to teach the scriptures (in Titus) and encourage women to be vigorously righteous (proverbs 31) so that their passionate Holiness may encourage, strengthen, and enable others to savor God's goodness.
God has no intention on preventing women from serving radically and wonderfully in His Kingdom nor do the scriptures say such; He just has different roles for men and women. Like I said by no means does God ever suggest one role is better than another but both are reflections of His own likeness.
Paul encourages servants to serve their masters joyfully and respectfully because they have an opportunity to share a level of servitude with Christ our savior. I would even say Paul and the rest of scripture argues we are to serve all people with the heart of a servant serving their masters--this is simply another means for bringing God more glory and savoring His Majesty (Matt. 20:28). Christ Himself, the incarnate of God's Glory, did not even consider Himself due any right over any man.
Paul partnered with women in ministry regularly. It's not that they are not called to ministry, there is no scriptural evidence of this at all--but that they have distinct roles in ministry, as men do, and these roles exist only as a means to communicate characteristic traits of God (we learn from both male and female roles about God's character) and unlock deeper and mightier means with which we can Savor God and continue in Sanctification.
Christ did not come to forsake the law but to fulfill the law. The law exits as a means to demonstrate how out of sync with God and His fullness we are. The law does not exist to condemn or bond but to show God's plan of freedom. Christ's sacrifice was not a fail safe in case Man forsook the Glory of God but was built into creation from the beginning with the end of Glorifying God through our restoration. The same holds true for sin and the law--these did not "get past" God but were intended from the onset of creation to be means of God's glorification.
God calls all His children, male and female, to to offer healing and scriptural holiness--but He also has frameworks for said intentions that are laid out in Scripture.
What pains me is that women have been required to pick up the slack of the lazy gender (men). In circumstances where no male leadership is available what else is there to do but have women leadership? What tragedy is our society has made faith, love, hope, mercy, and charity un-masculine traits. Men have been complete failures in church and family leadership and have left women--who already carry a load of servitude and roles as means of Glorification--with an absurdly full plate. The state of gender imbalance in ministries are the fault of men for being lazy, undisciplined, and selfish in my eyes.
By the way I really appreciate you taking the time to read and formulate a response to my post, I don't know if you know Jason or not but it's a very vital conversation. Even though there are opposing sides in the Body to the matter it is vital to never stop discussing such issues in the hope of Truth prevailing and coming down on one side or the other--without healthy dialogue Truth gets lost and the Body drifts further apart.
I believe that if men want to uphold the position of authority in the church, then they should be willing to conduct themselves in the area that Christ is concerned and that is with all those "positions", men don't want to serve. Pastor's need to serve in the nursery, in the kitchen's, in child care, in Youth Group, etc. After all, if we are Focus' ed on the Family, isn't that the most essential aspect to ministry? Let the women take care of preaching, since it is has been proven to be the least effective method to change lives.
So, in essence, women have been doing the ministry of Christ in the church, because men are too concerned with positional power to notice that the church is hurting.
Galatians 3:38, ..."No male and female." It is not, "neither, nor", as is Jew and Greek, slave and free, but the Greek is "No", pulling from Genesis 1:27.
I find it amazing how people can affirm that God somehow maintains socially constructed gender roles, which are not distinctly bad, but must be placed within the framework of the kingdom of God. If the crucifixion of Christ is in the center of the kingdom, then we dismantle those "roles", which have been used to crucify women and affirm that Christ is truly affirming our dignity as human, first and foremost. Even you have acknowledged that our humanity comes before the "roles", i.e. Genesis 1 in relation to Genesis 2.
Anyhow, I am a friend of Jason's and praise God that women have challenged my socially constructed understanding of gender roles. I also, don't need Scripture or anyone else to tell me I'm in control and I dominate, it comes so naturally. Scripture must challenge and redirect this male presupposition, not reinforce it.
Peace!
P.S. N.T. Wright has written extensively on I Timothy 2.
http://www.ntwrightpage.com/Wright_Women_Service_Church.htm
I'm not quite sure I fully understand the point you're trying to communicate when you say:
"If the crucifixion of Christ is in the center of the kingdom, then we dismantle those "roles", which have been used to crucify women and affirm that Christ is truly affirming our dignity as human, first and foremost."
The first statement I would regard as not being accurate. The center of the Kingdom is not the atonement witnessed at the Cross. The center of the Kingdom is the Glory of God, His Fullness, His Majesty, His Goodness being made famous. The Cross is a demonstration of God's Glory whose end is to make God Glorified--therefore, if the Cross was not an end to itself then it is not fair to say it is the center of God's kingdom.
An image cannot be greater than that which it represents; keep in mind the image here is not Christ Himself who is the full representation of God's fullness but rather the image is the atonement seen at the cross.
I am very unclear as to what you are trying to communicate after that statement--it seems your trying to make a connection between what happened at the cross and some other matter.
This is definitely touchy. David, I think you've done a great job explaining roles, but what I think the church has done, and perhaps Paul previously mentioned about the role the church has given to positions like pastors. They have been lifted up on pedestals- I personally do it all the time. We feel, that if someone's not in that pulpit- they're not hearing from God and aren't doing ministry. If you want to be heard, you gotta be speaking at 11:00 o'clock Sunday morning. All false, all things and thoughts I'm guilty of.
If I have to stand somewhere, I'll take Moody's position in saying: can women teach or pastor? sure (ever heard Beth Moore or Joy Meyers- some serious spirit filled revelation there). Are they going to be more equipped to minister to women- you know it. Do I believe they should be leading the church or gathering: I think, based on things that David laid out, it would be more biblical to have a male in this particular leadership role. A man that so emulates Christ (that he would lay down his life), that you want to be in a position of submission because you are confident that he will lead you well. The same way I know it's best if I submit my life to Christ- daily. There are certainly lazy men out there, most of which have never been challenged or discipled by a strong man of God because that doesn't fit our small group mold in the Western church.
Emily, I affirm that call on your life, and I don't think that imposes on the calling you have received.
Perhaps what we should be more concerned with is Christ's call for unity. A command that will distinguish us from the world.
I must always go back to the Great Commission coupled with the Great Commandment. If we aren't doing these, then the rest is junk. Go to Jerusalem first, then Judea... (local to global) making small groups, whoops i mean disciples of all nations (Matt 28:19). No one is talking about disciples in this discussion... guys disciple guys; girls disciple girls. It's easy. Baptizing them in the name of Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit... when the last time you baptized someone? I never have. Christ is commanding us to, even without a seminary degree. I heard about these Mongolians coming to Christ, being baptized- then baptizing the person behind them. It's not magic. They're not arguing saying a pastor, with a master's in divinity, who is a man has to do it.
Maybe you're finding this irrelevant, but when we focus on what Jesus said; Christendom comes second and seems pretty trivial. Love God, love others. The Kingdom has come and we're all under the authority of the King.
Thank you Nathan for pointing out areas I failed to discuss and for reiterating something I did not do enough--that said leadership is assuming Christ emulation and striving for continued sanctification.
On my drive home this afternoon I started to fear I put too much effort into exploring the issue--especially in such an affection-less medium like a blog. Though parties disagree it must not drive disunity. I participated in this discussion because Jason and I started it a few nights ago while he was back in Atlanta. A conversation such as this in an actual person to person environment offers itself to more affection--at least it is easier to communicate the affections.
For all issues of scripture interpretation the proper framework is always, without any equivocation, the supremacy and goodness of God in His full glory. I failed to acknowledge this from the get go and need to apologize. The framework I initially laid down is second, all are second, to the aforementioned lens with which we are to look at scripture and all of life's events, questions, and so forth. As those who claim Christ we can never hold a foundation higher than that of God's supremacy and Glory. To do so would put everything else into the wrong perspective and make efforts to find
Truth that much more difficult if possible at all.
Again, thank you Nathan for pointing out very important points I failed to stress or even make at all.
I know that you don't know me, but this seems too good a conversation to pass up.
I would love to know what do you mean when you say, "Glory of God?" I believe in God's glory, but either way, God's glory is manifest through suffering and through our identification with the oppressed, (those who are suffering), since the ministry of Christ is concerned with that. This is the hermeneutic of the cruciform life. God suffered in Christ (Trinitarian) to free humans from the "fear of death", which is at the heart of our participation with evil. "The fullness of God and the fullness of humanity is found in the crucifixion", (Jurgen Moltmann) if we believe in the Trinity.
When I say, "The crucifixion is at the center of the kingdom of God", I should have said, "Crucifixion and resurrection", but secondly, I think that the kingdom was brought near through Jesus' ministry; 'the blind had sight restored, the lame, walked, the deaf, heard, and the poor had good news brought to them'. The cross has not been seen as something which our participation with Christ requires, but has been laid onto the backs of women, in essence crucifying them, because the cross is about power. Power over another. The Romans, and Jewish authorities crucified Jesus because he threatened their system of power and they killed him for it. (their implicit and explicit evil participation). The issue is that Jesus willingly laid down his life to demonstrate that even death could not hold him.
Peace!
David, Emily is a friend of mine. We met a few times at LaGrange. I passed along your response to a few of my friends. Female friends who are going into church leadership and seeking ordination.
I have so many thoughts. I've been encountering responses like yours since I was 16. That is when I received my call to ministry that developed into my call to vocation as a pastor, preacher, and church leader.
I want to respect your opinion, but it hurts. It hurts, because like my Emily, you are denying our call to be church leaders. Yes, that means leading and teaching men, women, young and old.
You prescribed roles are confusing. You mention ministries that have been feminized, yet women have roles. If those roles and traits are not for women (compassion, mercy, love), what is for women? And since both these roles come from God, please start referring to God as She, too. I am made in God's image, too. Right? So She is perfectly appropriate? No?
As you can see, I disagree with your argument about roles and traits. And calling men a lazy gender makes it seem like my call to ministry (if you believe I have a call) as a female makes me an over bearing, zealous gender.
Gosh, I just want you to hear me preach. Not to prove I can do it. That's not what it is about. Promise. I know the good news of God's grace. I know it. And my goodness, I've experienced it. That is what I preach. The centrality of the Gospel, as revealed in the resurrection, is the hope of a new creation through the active grace that God enacts in the world through the work of the Spirit. It is about the Kin(g)dom of God, and imagining and building that Kin(g)dom on earth. Daily bread. Clothing. Water. Justice. Peace. The reign of God through grace manifest in love. Response and responsibility. I want to preach it! And I will! And maybe one day you will hear it.
I'm not going anywhere. Emily is not going anywhere. It is a call. My work will be in the church. My work will be in the church that has a mission to transform the world so God's reign can be known and experienced. It is not a role or trait that was prescribed but an individual calling.
One day.
Post a Comment