Women

in Ministry: Framing the Conversation

By James Wibberding, D.Min. Introduction Sometime during my mid-teens, a woman preached at my home church. Over lunch, a discussion ensued, with the general view that this new experience was bad. The "reasons" ranged from the destabilizing inEluence of PMS to the unpleasantly high pitched sound of a woman's voice through the church speakers. Later, I joined the chorus of voices repeating strained arguments that contended for a pre-sin subordination of women to men . . . or tried to squeeze a deEinitive word from between the lines of texts about overseers being "the husband of one wife" . . . or pushed for male headship through the marriage paradigm. In the years since then, I have studied Scripture for myself and reached the opposite conclusion. If my belief that women should serve as equal partners in ministry is correct, why hasn't every serious Bible student reached the same conclusion? The answer may be very simple: The one who asks the questions wins the debate. Perhaps the easiest way to twist truth is to ask narrow questions and ignore the broad ones. For example, if I ask a gentle friend whether he has stopped beating his dog, I set him up. If he says, yes, he admits to the beatings. If he says, no, he admits they continue. By the question, I prove the guilt of an innocent friend. The conclusion is preset. Sadly, narrow questions like this have dominated the discussion on women in ministry. We need to address the narrow questions in order to undo the fogto challenge misconceptions about certain Scripture texts. For the moment, however, let us rise above the haze and look at four broad questions. By broad questions, I mean those questions that take the whole picture into account. Asking broader questions lets Scripture set the agenda. The Primacy of Functions The Eirst broad question is this: What ministry functions does God call women to? The New Testament church did not think in terms of ofEices or titles but functions. This appears in the way that church ofEices developed pragmatically around the needs of the mission. The church established deacons and elders as social and spiritual needs arose (Acts 6:1-7; 14:23), and then adapted their functions as needs changed. For example, deacon Philip (Acts 6:2-6) shifted from his deacon function of caring for social needs to an apostle function of preaching (8:4-8) when the mission required it. This functional pragmatism suggests that they were not concerned about ofEice boundaries but interested in serving the functions that the mission required. When looking at the biblical data, we need to understand it within this frame. The hierarchy of authority as we know it today was absent in the New Testament church. A quick survey of the functions God has called women to demonstrates that God has called them to every major function of a modern elder or pastor. Miriam and other women demonstrated high levels of spiritual leadership (Exod 15:20; Micah 6:4; Acts 21:9). Deborah, Priscilla, and others served as administrators among Gods people (Judg 4:4; Rom 16:1-4). Various women engaged in preaching and teaching, in spite of cultural norms against it (Acts 2:4, 16-17; 1 Cor 11:5; Phil 4:3). Finally, women engaged in what we call

pastoral care (Rom 16:1-2; Acts 9:36). There is no major ministry function that God did not call women to. Understanding Authority The second broad question is this: What level of authority does God call women to? Many who oppose women in pastoral ministry suggest that it is not about the functions God may call them to but the authority of the ofEice. We should carefully weigh this point. First, we must understand that the authority of church leaders does not reside in them. Instead, it is an extension of Christs authority. When Jesus commissioned the Eirst ministers of the Christian church, He identiEied Himself as the source of authority, saying, All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. Therefore go and make disciples of all nations . . . And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age. (Matt 28:18-20). In other words, Christ has the authority and His agents can serve His mission if He goes with them. The pastor or elder has no personal authority over anyone. Their ministry is only legitimate/authoritative when Christ works through the human agent. We must also understand that authority is not abstract. It is the authority to do something with legitimacy, to perform a function. The case of Paul demonstrates that authority accompanies function. After his theophany on the road to Damascus, Ananias ordained him to ministry by the laying on of hands (Acts 9:17-20). Later, the church of Antioch ordained him again for a new mission by the laying on of hands (13:2-4). Clearly, Pauls ministerial authority accompanied the function he was called to in each case. If it resided in him personally, he would have only required one ordination. Since the authority to do ministry comes with each ministry function God calls a person to, we must conclude that God calls women to all levels of church authority; because He has called them to all major functions. Stated Restrictions The third broad question is this: What stated restrictions does God place on women in ministry? We need to look for direct statements, not inferences drawn from other statements. We can Eind none. This is odd for an idea with such vehement opposition. If God so badly wants to exclude women from certain types of ministry, wouldn't He bother to tell us plainly? If we carefully examine each statement proposed as a prohibition of women being elders or pastors, we Eind that every one falls short. Even the ones that Eirst seem the clearest fall far short of a thus saith the Lord, women mustnt do this. The two texts most often used to oppose women in ministry come from the Eirst epistle to Timothy. Neither one says what it has been made to say, although these do appear to be the clearest anti-women-in-leadership statements available. By letting Paul deEine his own language, we uncover Elawed interpretations. The Eirst of these texts says, A woman should learn in quietness and full submission. I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she must be silent. (1 Tim 2:11-12). It sounds like a categorical forbiddance of female leadership. On closer scrutiny, we Eind that Paul intended no such thing. In this text, Paul pairs the Greek terms for wife and husband, not the general woman and man, which means that he is addressing his comments to the marriage context. Further, he tells all believers, not just wives, to be in quietness (v. 2) and submission (Eph 5:21). Historically, the teacher-student relationship carries with it the idea of superior and

inferior social standing. Paul contends that this is out of place in marriage. The text does not require wives to be lower than their husbands; it instructs wives to stop dominating their husbands. In essence, Paul calls the women in question to be models of good Christianity. That is all. He does not even address church leadership here. A second text so often used to oppose women in ministry says, Now the overseer must be . . . the husband of but one wife . . . (1 Tim 3:2) and later states that a candidate must manage his own family well. The combination of these two traits has been widely viewed as an airtight case against women serving this role; since both criteria related to masculine behavior. Letting Paul deEine his own language once again changes the picture. From his words, we could deduce that Paul assumes the candidates in Ephesus are male, that they should be monogamous, and that they should have a good management history. What he says is far short of prohibiting women from ever serving this role. We can be sure he means no such prohibition because he lists the same qualiEications for deacons (v. 12) but later endorses a female deacon (Rom 16:1, Greek diakonon). Without reading between the lines, we cannot Eind a text that forbids women to lead at the highest levels of the church. Instead, we Eind examples to the contrary. The Role of the Church The fourth broad question is this: What role does Gods church play in deciding who He calls? Of the four broad questions, this is the most neglected. However, I suggest that it is the most important question of all. We might be trying to settle a matter that God has reserved for Himself. Caution is in order. God does give His church a role in the process. On several occasions, the church is asked to carefully discern whom He has called. Whenever He this happens, He asks the church to look for two criteria. The Eirst is the fruit of the Spirit (Acts 6:3; Titus 1:7-9), or godly character. The second is the gifts of the Spirit (1 Cor 12:4-6, 21), or the ability to do the task. The churchs role is restricted to recognizing the call after the fact, identifying what God has already done in a person. Further proof that He reserves the right of selection for Himself is that He called some against the will of His people. Examples include Paul, the persecutor of the church (Acts 9:1-15, 26), and many of the prophets. God calls whomever He wishes to call. Do we dare stand in His way? If we see the fruits of the Spirit (a godly character) and the gifts of the Spirit (the ability to do the task), we have no right to oppose the Lords anointed. Conclusion The narrow questions that have framed the conversation to date still create strong barriers to consensus. Questions about gender roles at Creation and the fall, as well as ministry paradigms like the priesthood, eldership, apostleship, and marriage should be weighed. As you weigh these questions, keep the broad questions Eirmly in mind and take care to distinguish between what is in each text and what is drawn from between the lines. You will Eind, I believe, that the case against women in ministry is made by inference rather than explicit statements of Scripture. This should give you pause. We had best leave God to call whomever He wants to call. He is sure to know what He is doing.