Priscilla Papers
Volume 3, number 3
Biblical Equality and Christian Ministry
Gretchen Gaebelein Hull
This material was first presented by the author of
Equal to Serve at the November' 88 meeting ofthe
Twin Cities Chapter of CBE. held at Bethel College.
When speaking to various CBE groups around
the country, I have shared two incidents to help put my
topics in focus. One is humorous, one sad. Both show
how pervasive is the notion of an "appropriate" (but
restrictive) role for women.
For the first: When clearing out family papers
last year, I came across a 1932 news clipping head­
lined "Methodist Women Ministers Denied Again."
This was a report of the Methodist General Conference
in Atlantic City that refused to accept women ministers
as equal with men ministers. The article gave the
views of one opponent of women's equality thus: "Six
days out of seven I must listen to a woman preaching
in my home. And on the seventh day the Lord said,
'Thou shalt rest.' It seems to me that there are things
higher and nobler for a woman than gallivanting
around filling pulpits."
Well, in the so-called "mainline" denomina­
tions, as far as equal opportunity for ordination is
concerned, "You've come a long way, baby!" Not so
in the Anglican Church. In 1988 I made a second
lecture trip to Australia, where ordination of women is
a key issue and is tied into the debate on the "proper"
role for women. I was also in England at the time of
the once-a-decade Lambeth Conference where the
"women question" was prominent on the Anglican
agenda.
Hence the second incident: Last June, after a
lecture I presented at the London Institute for Contem­
porary Christianity, a man got up in the discussion
period and said: "I don't understand why a woman
wants to go into ministry of any sort. Women were
created specifically to support men at home, and so
women have quite enough to do being wives and
mothers." He gave a lengthy discourse extolling wife
and mother as the only possible biblical role for
women, totally oblivious to the many single women
present, to childless women, widows, or women with
grown chillkcn. During his remarks, one single
Summer 1989 ISSN I 0898-753X
woman left, saying, "I just can't deal any longer with
the hurt he's causing me to feet"
The issue of role-playing is not confmed to
England or Asutralia. In recent years gender role­
playing has become an issue championed by the
religious right in America. For example, one very
conservative group denounced a primary grade reader
as teaching gender role reversal because one of the
illustrations showed a little boy making toast The
complaint was that it is a woman's role to cook, and
boys were being taught a woman's role. But where
does the Bible say men should not cook? What about
Jacob's gourmet stew for which Esau sold his birth­
right? And why shouldn't men help in the kitchen? I
could cite as my prooftext II Kings 21:13 which
records God's own action in these words: "I will wipe
Jerusalem as a man wipeth a dish, wiping it and
turning it upside down." If God refers to Himself as
wiping dishes, isn't this a perfectly suitable male role?
However, there is indeed a noticeable
increase in rhetoric from the conservative wing of the
church calling for rigid roles for men and women, in
effect defining activities in home, church, and society
primarily by gender. And very often this rhetoric
claims to be representing a Christian world view, thus
• at first glance - making its conclusion seem ironclad.
Well, any of you who have read my book.
EQUAL TO SERVE. know that I am a questionasker.
Therefore I ask: What is a Christian world view?
Surely it must be more than a televangelist's clich~ or
an empty religious slogan. A Christian world view
must mean a basic, scriptural way of looking at life
that will cut across denominational particularities or
emotional bias or cultural pressures. So let's explore
the matter to see if there is a broad outline to our
Christian world view that we can establish before we
go on to those particularities, or deal with that emo­
tional bias or cultural pressure.
Certainly if someone stopped you or me and
said, "Define a Christian world view," we would not
begin with particulars but would start with the broader
basics. So let's ask some Questions about those basics,
and see if our answers will shed light on this particular
matter of gender roles.
Asking questions
In being question-askers, you and I are in good
company: Job, the Psalmists, Habakkuk, those
Bereans in Acts 17 who searched Scripture for their
answers. From the beginning of recorded history,
throughout Bible times, and ever since, human beings
have been asking questions about their existence.
Today we might be phrasing the questions a little
differently, but we all still want to know: Who am I?
What am I doing here? What is life all about, anyway?
Do I have a meaningful role in life?
For the Christian, answers to these questions
will be found in a Christian world view. We do indeed
have a theologically-based world view, but I hasten to
point out that we are not alone in that. No matter how
much they might protest to the contrary, almost every
person's world view has a theological basis.
If you doubt that, think of the ordinary lan­
guage people use when they describe how they think
things are ordered in this world. For example, when
the New York City sanitation department opened its
ranks to women, there was a lot of controversy. From
the pictures I saw of the fIrst women sanitation
workers (in plain language, garbage collectors) these
women appeared physically capable, and they had
passed tests showing they could lift a certain weight.
Like their male counterparts, they wanted steady work
rather than be on some welfare program.
But in the case of these women, there was
further motivation: Not only were they minority
women (which, sad to say, can still be an unspoken
limitation in today'sjob market) but they were single
heads of households with a desperate need to put bread
on the table, and also provide their children with a
good role model, a work ethic. So these women were
capable of doing this heavy work, they wanted the
security of the sort of municipal job that would be
open to unskilled laborers, and they wanted to provide
for their families.
I was fascinated by the reactions of many men,
which, as reported by the New York papers, were
along this line: "It's against Nature for women to do
such work. Nature tells us that men do yard work and
women do dishes." (Obviously these men did not
know my prooftext, II Kings 21:13!)
Now I suggest that any time someone says,
"Nature tells us...,", that this is really a theological
statement. The person is saying: "The force behind
things has set up society in certain ways so that men do
this and women do that." Thus when we peel back
language, we see that most persons do indeed have a
theological basis for their world view. Whether it's
Nature, a "higher power" or "creative urge", or Fate,
or whether they acknowledge that the power behind
2
everything is God, most people are making a theologi­
cal statement of some sort as they articulate their
notion of how things in this life are set up.
Therefore we Christians need not ever feel
defensive about developing and promoting a Christian
world view. You might say that we are simply
sharpening or focussing the theological world view
that almost all human beings have - whether or not
they realize it (The only persons who might be
exempt from operating from a theological basis would
be those who espouse a complete randomness in the
universe, but they are in the distinct minority.)
So let's ask: What are the components of a
Christian world view? What makes us different from
the person who says vaguely, "Nature is in charge"?
Laying the Foundation
Most people today accept a moment of origina­
tion for the universe, popularly called "The Big Bang."
And many persons, including scientists, would
attribute that moment of origination to a higher power
of some sort That's roughly Deism, the concept that
God started everything off. Christians, however, take
the further step beyond Deism and say that God not
only started everything off but that God sustains it,
cares for it, and, as evidence of that care, at times
intervenes in His created world.
In explaining this to a non-Christian, I may use
the Argument from Design. To use an illustration: If
you came on a model train layout, you'd know
someone had made that layout And if you saw a little
train derailed, you'd assume the creator of the layout
would retumto put it back on track. Yes, the design
presupposes the Designer.
As we Christians look at the tremendous
intricacy of the vast design of the universe, we affIrm
that there is a living God who (because He is absolute
and we are only relative) must be self.revealing. That
is, because the Designer so transcends the design, God
must take the initiative in communicating with His
creation. We believe that one of God's initiatives is
the Bible, God's written Word, which presents God's
revelation of what we need to know to "get back on
track." We further believe that God's greatest initiative
was coming into our world of time and space in the
Person of Jesus Christ, as the ultimate means of
communicating with us, God's creatures. And we
also believe that God did all this because God loves
us: The God of the Bible is love.
In Byron's poem, CAIN, there is a very
provocative question. Cain asks about God: "Because
He is all-powerful, must all goad follow too?" In the
abstract sense, the answer could be "No." An all­
powerful force might not have to be goad.
However, as we Christians examine the
universe, its intricate design convinces us that its
Designer is not only all-powerful but all-goad too. For

example, we recall the tremendous passages in Job
and Isaiah where God says words to this effect: "The
created world with its provision for every aspect of
plant and animal life demonstrates that I care about My
world." Thus in other passages God says, "Because I
love My creation, I do indeed want what is best for it
And part of what is best for humanity is knowing
about Me and the abundant new life I offer to all who
believe, a new birth that gets them "back on track." So
for Christians, two of the most familiar verses in the
Bible are "The Lord is my shepherd" and "For God so
loved the world that He gave His one and only Son,
that whosoever believes in Him shall not perish but
have etemallife."
The word "whosoever" makes a very
strong point The God of the Bible cares about the
individual human being. Unlike other world views
featuring blind fate or some uncaring deity, the God of
the Bible recognizes and affmns our human individu­
ality.
That individuality is essential to our humanity.
No matter how generous we try to be in overlooking
the insensitivity of others to our persons, each one of
us does have a certain self-awareness. It is a common
human desire not to be "lost in the shuffle", not to be
merely a cipher on a state income tax list. At a party
or a professional meeting, you and I know how
disappointing it is when the person with whom we're
conversing is always looking past us to see if there is
someone present more worth knowing.
All human beings want to be recognized and
respected as individuals, and we also want to live in a
society that allows us to express our individuality. It is
no accident that we speak of "the free world" when
describing countries with a democratic form of
government. As the phrase puts it, "We only go
around once" (in spite of Shirley McLaine and the
New Age movement), and most of us hope our
existence will be more than marginal.
The biblical perspective on our individuality is
that our origin was as beings created in the image of
God. In line with Genesis 1:26-28 and 5:1, 2, and also
Psalm 139 and Jeremiah 1:5, the Bible tells us about
human beings that "male and female created He them,"
and that God knew and knows each one of us even
when we were first formed in the womb. We also
believe that our future lies in God's hands, as promised
in John 14:1 and Romans 8: 17. Contrary to those who
see little meaning or dignity to human life, Christians
accept the biblical precept that each human being has
worth and value, and therefore that each individual life
is significant in the eyes of our Creator and Redeemer.
God-In-Christ loved our world so much He came to die
for all the "whosoevers" who willllC(lCpt His saving
power to get them "back on track-"
Thus Christians affirm an absolutely good and
loving Creator who set up a world where His creatures
3
could enjoy life to the fullest, and - as the ultimate sign
of the worth and dignity of the individual human being
- God gave men and women free will, freedom to act
as individuals and not as automotons. Then, even after
humanity's loss of innocence in the disobedience of
the Fall, in love God still reached out to offer re­
creation, renewal, restored spiritual fellowship, a
return to all we were created to be. Therefore a
Christian world view incorporates the sequence of
Creation, Fall, Redemption.
The Importance of Human Rights
One significant measure of the breadth of
God's love is that it is unconditional. In spite of the
estrangement of the Fall, and irrespective of any
individual human being's fmal decision about God's
redemptive plan, God loves us. Thus God has decreed
the sanctity of human life, and His Word sets forth
guidelines about how humanity is to be treated. These
guidelines form the basis of a scriptural view of human
rights.
The Bible indicates that we are to uphold each
person's rights to care and nurture on the physical
level, and also the person's rights on the spiritual level.
Study of Scripture shows that human rights fall into
these two basic categories: Natural or physical rights,
which are rights necessary to keep a person alive and
help the person develop as a human being originally
created in the image of God; and, secondly, spiritual
rights, which include the right to know God's plan of
redemption, the right to respond to that plan, and - if
the response is affmnative - the right as a new creation
in Christ Jesus to grow spiritually and to serve God as
God calls.
Careful reading of both Old and New Testa­
ments reveals that God's people are to be in the
forefront of upholding human rights. Over and over,
God's Word inveighs against injustice and inhumane
actions. These many passages are undergirded by
phrases like "It is the Lord who speaks" or "This is the
word of the Lord." Both individual Christians and the
institutional church must understand that God is deeply
concerned with justice issues and that God expects His
people to be concerned also.
In the Old Testament, Israel was repeatedly told
to respect the rights of those society considered
"lesser" - the widow, the orphan, the alien or stranger.
In the New Testament, Jesus not only showed care for
the natural or physical rights of all persons by healing
both Jew and Gentile, man and woman, rich and poor,
but Jesus supported the spiritual rights of all persons as
well. He commanded children be brouaht to Himj He
interacted wilh so-called "sinnora" IIld not only with
religious leaders; Ho did not tum aWRy me Romttn
centurion or the leper. Funher, He respected Ute
individual moral responsiblity of women, and upheld
women's right to learn of Him, and commissioned

women to tell others about Him.
The early church record in Acts and the
Epistles reveals that the fIrst Christians cared for
human life by helping each other with food, shelter,
and possessions. Remember Paul's exhortations to
liberality in II Corinthians 8, to the effect that we help
others when we are able so that when we are in need
they can help us. Compassion must be a part of our
Christian world view.
The early church record also shows that all
persons' spiritual rights were to be upheld, as the
Gospel was proclaimed to all persons - men, women,
Jew, Gentile, slave, free. Further, the Gospel was
proclaimed by all persons, as God called many diverse
individuals to spread His Good News of new life in
Christ.
Thus broad components of a Christian world
view include affirmation of God as Creator of this
world, and ourselves as beings created in God's image
- which means that all individual human beings share a
fundamental equality of being. Each individual has
worth and value, and each has been endowed by
Creator God with certain inalienable rights indicating
the sanctity of life, and the opportunity to know and
serve God. Further, God's people are to uphold the
rights of others, regardless of the person's race,
gender, or class. For Go4, there are no "second-class"
human beings, nor can there be for God's church.
What about Gender?
But then, what about that particularity· that
matter of gender roles that is so controversial today?
Some of the discussion is just plain silly, such as
saying men are better at certain roles like chauffering.
We've all heard the old saw that only women drive
into garage doors! I can recall that after I drove Chuck
Colson to an airport in record time he said, "If I didn't
know you wrote on discrimination I'd say 'You drive
like a man!' Well, I don't drive like a man. I drive like
me!
However, the issue of appropriate roles for
men and women is exactly where many tensions arise
in contemporary evangelicalism. You see, as more
women explore their modem educational and career
opportunities, they are often puzzled to be told by their
churches that certain spheres are closed to them simply
because they are women. They question why their
options in the secular world are increasing, while the
church tells them their options are static or decreasing.
The most frequent justifIcation for limiting
women's sphere is to invoke three New Testament
passages: I Corinthians 11:2-16 and 14:33-38, and I
Timothy 2:8-15. In my book, EQUAL TO SERVE,
these passages are dealt with in a lengthy Appendix
that shows quite graphically exactly why, in theologi.
ell! circles, thc)' arc cll!led "hard passages," Thcse
three Scripture portions contain over 50 exegetical
4
difficulties, that is, difficulties of meaning, and that
means that they also have many difficulties of interpre­
tation as well. Most English translations will not
indicate the depth and severity of the problems in these
hard passages, and so the person working only from a
translation may conclude that Scripture clearly teaches
a subordinate gender role for women. But in New
Testament Greek the matter is far different, as scholars
world-wide are aware.
Of course I recognize that this matter of gender
roles is a highly emotional issue. But since we need to
do much more work on the three New Testament
passages traditionally used to invoke a subordinate
gender role for women, then for me they must be put
temporarily to one side. I would challenge groups
wishing to restrict women to face honestly the
possibility that their cherished presuppositions and
long-held traditions about gender roles have been
based largely on passages as yet unclear to us in the
New Testament Greek. And, while specialists
continue their research into these passages, I would ask
all fair-minded people to be open to hearing fresh
evidence about these "hard passages."
Yet - sadly - some Christian leaders have felt
they must impose their views on these unclear pas­
sages without discussion of the exegetical difficulties
because their congregations cannot handle the fact that
there might be unclear areas in Scripture. I cannot
accept that reasoning. All sincere Christians can
appreciate the fact that we finite beings can never hope
to plumb the mind of the Infmite, and that there will be
places in the inspired Scriptures that are beyond our
comprehension. The sincere Christian can also
understand that our knowledge of ancient times and
ancient languages is expanding, and that verses that
seemed obscure at one time may well be opening up at
this time. And certainly the layperson understands
that, in line with Jesus' words in John 16:13, the Holy
Spirit will guide us into more cuth.
So let's turn to clearer evidence as we continue
examining what role gender might play in our Chris­
tian world view. We have already seen the ontological
or essential equality of men and women in their very
inmost being. Next we will take a quick look at some
actual case histories of women Scripture itself com­
mends for acting in roles that transcend any narrow
gender restriction.
For the Old Testament: In Micah 6:4 God
declared to Israel, "I sent Moses, Aaron, and Miriam to
lead you." God's own Word describes Miriam as a
leader. Then, Judges 4 and 5 tell us how God raised
up Deborah as Head of State for ancicnt Israel, and in
n Chronicles 34 we are tOld that the propheteSS Huldah
gave out the authoritative word of the Lord to the court
of King 1osiah, thus sparking a nauonal rcvival. In
addJuon, me p&U'D4Jsm or womllnhooll deSCribed In
Proverbs 31 is commended for being businesswoman,

real estate broker, estate manager, devotional leader, as
well as wife and mother.
In the New Testament, Jesus' interaction with
human beings was not according to gender roles, and
in the matter of male/female relationships, nothing
Jesus ever said about marriage supports a hierarchical
concept. For example, contrary to Jewish practice,
Jesus' comments on divorce in Mark 10 and Matthew
19 place wives on an equal basis with husbands. And
nothing Jesus ever did or taught suggests Jesus
supported some sort of dominant/subordinate pattern
between the sexes. This is often overlooked by those
who teach that men should be leaders and women
should be followers.
The Book of Acts presents a gender-blind
view of the early church. The Holy Spirit was poured
out on women as well as men, a fact underscored by
Peter's quotation of Joel's prophecy. In Acts, Luke (a
careful historian) introduces many women's names in
the most natural manner as women respond to the
Gospel, and study and minister in everyday situations.
John Mark's mother courageously opened her home to
a house church; Phillip's daughters prophesied (the
highest spiritual gift, and one that undoubtedly
included preaching); the businesswoman Lydia spread
the Good News as she helped plant the church in
Philippi; Berean woman were among those called
"more noble" for searching Scripture; Priscilla taught
the man Apollos. In Acts, spiritual gifts were not
parcelled out according to gender.
And what about women martyrs who were
imprisoned? Persecutors held women and men equally
accountable for their faim (Acts 8:3). Then, as now,
those outside the church saw no role differential with
men more responsible and women less so.
The Epistles also record women in various
roles, including ministry. Paul commends Phoebe as a
diakonos, or minister, and also as aprostatis, or leader.
Romans 16 abounds with names of his female co­
workers, including Junia who may well have been an
apostle, and in Philippians Paul singles out Euodia and
Synteche as his fellow-laborers in contending by his
side for the Gospel. In addition, the Elect Lady
addressed in Second John led a house church. Thus
full rights and privileges in the early church flowed
from the saving work of Jesus Christ, not some gender
role.
As we develop our Christian world view, we
see that the Bible itself does not present a record of
only men in leadership and only women as subordi­
nates, or only men in certain roles and only women in
others. Both men and women serve in a wide variety
of roles. Yes, although this does conflict with some
contemporary teaching about gender, in the Bible
women do indeed act in leadership capacities.
As I point out in my book, it is not intellectu­
ally honest to say, "These women are exceptions to the
5
truth of gender role-playing." Truth cannot have
exceptions. If God had ordained a narrow female role
that precluded any activity outside the home or
prohibited women in leadership, then this would be a
timeless, transcultural truth and as such could have no
exceptions. Yet this is our common authority, the
Bible, that itself records women as well as men
operating in many different roles, including women
leaders of men and teachers of men.
The Question of "Headship"
However, the usual rationale for promoting
gender roles today is what is called male headship over
women, and the particular verses used to support this
are found in Ephesians 5:22-24, where the husband is
termed head of the wife, as Christ is head of the
church. Those who appeal to these verses say that the
Bible does indeed set up a gender-based authority
structure for home, church, and society, and that the
male role is to be in charge.
I am sure most of you are aware that there is
solidly scholarly disagreement over the meaning of the
word kephale, or head, as used in the New Testament
Greek. Because the Bible in English is a translated
book, it is indeed most important to discover all we
can about the precise meaning of the original Greek, so
that our translations are as accurate as possible. If the
best translation of kephale is "source" and not "chief
leader," then we should know and accept that.
However, my own conclusions about headship
are not drawn solely from the lexical meaning of
kephale. As I study the entire passage, Ephesians 5:21­
6:9, and not just a few verses, I find that Paul's own
description of "head" in this context is that "head" is to
be a sacrificial figure. Those who latch on to one or
two verses as prooftexts for male leadership can miss
the thrust of the larger context. This passage in
Ephesians is a household code, as is a similar passage
in Colossians, and when the entire passage is examined
it is clear that it is not a role that Paul is highlighting,
but the action of the person within the role. You see,
Paul cannot be highlighting or endorsing every role he
mentions, because then he would be endorsing slavery.
Rather, within the general admonition that all Chris­
tians be mutually submissive to one another out of rev­
erence to Christ, (Eph. 5:21) Paul calls on both the
unempowered persons (wives, children, and slaves)
and the empowered persons (husbands, parents,
masters) to be mutually submissive.
In these household codes, the husband is to
sacrifice himself for his wife, the parent is to put the
needs of the child frrst by not acting in a tyrannical
way, the master is to act towards the slave as Christ
would act. Interestingly, there is a similar emphasis on
mutual submission for both wives and husbands in
Peter's parallel passage in I Peter 2:13-3:7, where both
marriage partners are to act towards each other "in like

manner" as did Christ who went to the cross for our
sakes.
Thus for me any emphasis on power-oriented
headship as a component of a Christian world view is
deeply puzzling. Since Paul's own definition of
kephale right in the Ephesians 5 passage itself is that
head is a sacrificial figure, then, if the husband takes
the lead in anything, it is in sacrificing himself for his
wife, not in being dominant over his wife. Surely that
is a much-needed corrective today as in the first
century. I suggest that an objective look at this entire
passage shows Paul's emphasis is on role worked out
in servanthood, and thus brings both men and women
back to the mutual submission enjoined of all believers
in Ephesians 5:21.
Individual Responsibility and Spiritual Gifts
Some proponents of male headship over
women do say headship involves sacrifice, and
describe the sacrifice as the weight of taking extra care
of the sex "liable to be deceived." For these people,
headship is the burden of extra responsibility for what
they term "the weaker, irresponsible sex."
However, as we have seen, a Christian world
view means that each individual is a morally respon­
sible human being, and each individual is accountable
to God for the most important decision any human
being can ever make, namely, the question of eternal
salvation. We each - on our own - must answer:
"What will you do with Jesus?" For me, it is com­
pletely illogical to say women are mature enough to
make the single most important decision in life, but
that in every other aspect women are irresponsible,
weak, liable to be deceived, and need the "sacrifice" of
male oversight
If some persist in saying women, as was Eve,
are easily deceived and thus cannot be trusted with
decision-making roles, I ask: Why would a deceived
person be a worse leader than a deliberately disobedi­
ent person, as Adam was? Rather than miring only
women in the sin of the Fall, cannot redeemed women
(as well as any disobedient men) also become new
creations in Christ Jesus and as such exercise their
spiritual gifts in the strength and wisdom God gives
them as God calls these women today?
Undeniably, women do have all types of gifts,
including leadership gifts. I have mentioned some
biblical examples of women in leadership, and
subsequently women have been proven leaders - from
Queen Elizabeth I to Golda Meir, Indira Ghandi, and
Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher. In America, we
see many women as capable leaders. One of my
college classmates is Dr. Hannah Holborn Gray, who
was Provost and Acting President of Yale University
and is now President of the University of Chicago, one
of the world's most prestigious universities. The
academic world did not elevate Dr. Gray to this
6
position of leadership just to be nice to a woman!
But when some conservative church groups
declare that a Christian world view means such women
should not use their leadership gifts, the result can be
confusion and pain. Why? Because the reason for the
prohibition is not that the gifts are inappropriate for the
tasks involved but solely that the gifts reside in
women's bodies. In trying to cope with this teaching,
many women feel that in the biblical sequence of
Creation, Fall, Redemption, only women are mired
forever in the effects of the Fall, unable to move out
into spiritual freedom and co-administer their spiritual
inheritance with their Christian brothers as equal
members of the priesthood of all believers.
Further, many dedicated Christian women
agonize over their spiritual responsibility to use their
gifts to the fullest, in line with Jesus' parable of the
talents in Matthew 25:14-30, which teaches that God's
servants are to use their God-given abilities and not
hide them. These women agonize over whether, when
they stand before the judgment seat of Christ, it will be
enough to say, "We were told not to use our gifts, and
so we hid them." Yes, we need to be very sensitive to
this question: Does the 20th century notion of gender
role-playing deny a fellow-believer's call to serve
God? The woman whose leadership, administrative,
decision-making, teaching, or planning gifts have been
confirmed and affirmed by the world, can feel tremen­
dous confusion and pain upon being told by her church
that she must restrict use of her gifts simply because
she is a woman.
Here I ask you to recall the Argument from
Design. Christians believe that all the myriad details
in this world show the love and care of our Creator.
God does know all about us because God made us and
formed us. God has given us rights necessary to
preserve and enhance our lives, including the right to
know God and the right to serve God as He calls, and
God has also given us talents - gifts - that God wants
us to use in His service.
If any person suggests that only on the ground
of gender a woman should restrict use of her abilities,
her special gifts, then that person is saying one of two
things: Either her Designer made a mistake in giving
her those gifts, or her Designer gave her those gifts
only to frustrate her by giving her no opportunity to
use them. But think what a warped view of God either
statement makes! The person who says some God­
ordained gender role restricts a woman full use of her
gifts is saying that either her design was faulty (and
thus Creator God was careless), or that her Designer
was cruel. But what a slander on the nature of our
loving, caring Creator! No, a just and loving and
omnipotent God could not be careless or cruel and still
be true to His nature as Absolute Good.
We must never forget that God is the One who
endows us human beings with gifts, and if God has

endowed a woman with leadership abilities, then what
a tragic denial of her individual personhood and of
God's divine creativity to discriminate against her
solely on the ground of her gender.
So the question must be asked: Is the current
notion of male headship over women not only an
artificial notion imposed on Scripture, but also an
evasion of Scripture's clear call to mutual submission
on the part of all believers, and thus on the part of male
believers as well as female? Yes, it can be very
difficult for some to be asked to give up a certain role
to which they feel entitled, but is not that just what
Christ asks us all to do?
Servanthood and Evangelism
Inescapably, whenever Jesus talked about
leadership it was within the context of giving oneself
for others, and Jesus defmed His own mission thus in
Mark 10:45: "The Son of Man has come not to be
served, but to serve, and to give His life a ransom for
many." A vital component of any Christian world view
is servanthood, and we must now ask: How does
servanthood relate to gender roles?
Of course I recognize that, as with racial and
social differences, sexual differences are a fact of our
humanity. But, in a Christian world view, those racial,
class, and gender differences are not the primary
factors controlling servanthood.
Thus we read that Judge Deborah was also a
wife and mother; Huldah the prophetess was a wife;
the wife and mother in Proberbs 31 played multiple
roles, as did women in ministry in the New Testament.
So we today may play many roles. We can be spouse
(husband =male role, wife =female role), or parent
(father =male role, mother = female role), and in
various career situations gender may well play a part
However, rather than concentrating on gender and
gender roles, the biblical emphasis for the believer is
on obedience to God's call. Certainly Jesus made that
plain in Luke 11:27,28. Paul then expands that
thought in II Corinthians 5: 16 where he teaches that
we Christians are no longer to view ourselves from a
worldly, fleshly, human point of view. Instead, Paul
challenges all believers to accept the mandate of II
Corinthians 5:20: Moving out into our primary role, a
spiritual role, as ambassadors for Christ.
This involves one further aspect of servan­
thood. Think again on Mark 10:45: "The Son of Man
has come not to be served,but to serve, and to give His
life a ransom for many." Inescapably, Christ came to
die for the lost, and we His ambassadors are His
deputies today in proclaiming that Oood News to those
still outside God's family. Thus a Christian world view
must also include evangelism. If our Lord Himself
said, "I lUll come to seek and to save those that are
lost," how can we ignore those who have Dot heard the
Gospel?
7
So think what any rigid role-playing that would
curtail women's full ambassadorship says about
concern for those without Christ. If the church afflrms
with John 3:36 that all without Christ will be eternally
separated from God, then how can any limitation of
Christ's ambassadors ever be justified? What does
exclusion of women from any area of ministry really
say about the church's concern for those outside the
Body of Christ?
I see only two conclusions, both tragic: Either
segments of the church do not really believe souls will
be separated from God, and thus espouse universalism,
or, those groups do not care whether those without
Christ hear the Good News. Surely, any rigid role­
playing that hinders proclamation of the Gospel by all
believers is in direct conflict with Jesus' clear com­
mand to "Go into all the world and make disciples"
and is in sad contrast to the sense of urgency of the
New Testament church.
Yes, I know very conservative church groups
say, "Of course we want people to hear the Gospel, but
we are not to use improper means. Certain preaching
and teaching roles are improper for women." My
rebuttal is that Jesus considered women apt to learn
His truth, and appropriate vehicles to transmit His
truth. As we have seen, Jesus' teaching in Luke 11:27,
28 is that women are not blessed by performing some
feminine role but by knowing and obeying the Word of
God, and Jesus charged all believers to obey His
command to "Go into all the world and make dis­
ciples." The propriety of women in all ministerial roles
is borne out by the actual practice of the New Testa­
ment church. Could it be that we need to hear again
Acts 10:15, "What God has called proper, we must not
call improper?"
Therefore, as we consider evangelism - this
vital component of our Christian world view - and as
we see the fields are still white with the harvest, dare
we restrict from working for that harvest women
laborers whom God has called and gifted to serve?
Biblical People, not "Traditional" People
No matter how familiar or how ingrained, a
traditional world view is not necessarily a Christian
world view. Remember that the first Christians were
called "those who turned the world upside down."
They wanted to be biblical people more than they
wanted to be traditional people. They took to heart
Jesus' admonition in Mark 7, where He said, "You
have let go of the commands of God and are holding to
the traditions of men....Thus you nullify the Word of
Ood by your tnIdltion that you huve handed down."
My final question is: Don't we, too, want to be
biblical people more than we want to be traditional
people? Don't we, too, want to move on from blindly
accepting traditional answers, to the excitement and
challenge of implementing Christ-like answers?

 Affuming a Christian world view· a Christ-like
world view - must mean acting as Christ would act,
and thus embracing the servant role over all other
roles. When we stand before the cross of our Servant­
Lord, we see at last that there is no place in a Christian
world view for any feeling of entitlement to a preferred
position. We are all fellow-sinners for whom Christ
died; we are all fellow-servants of our Savior. There is
no biblical support for social mores or cultural
traditions or even a religious teaching that would say,
"One gender is ordained to be over another," or even
"One gender is to be protected by the other." When we
fmally begin to understand the import of Christ's new
commandment to love others as He loves us, we see
this decrees the death of self-interest. A Christian
world view always means putting the rights of the
other person above our own, and so encouraging all
believers to grow and mature into ambassadors for
Christ. A Christian world view means moving beyond
the artificial restrictions of rigid gender role-playing
and out into the greatest role any creature can ever
play: Ambassador of the King of Kings and Lord of
Lords.
Remember Paul's words in II Corinthians 5:16­
20: We no longer think of each other in fleshly,
human tenns; we are now new creatures in Christ
Jesus; we are therefore His ambassadors. Surely that
takes the emphasis off self, and off gender, and puts
the emphasis back where it belongs: On Jesus Christ,
and serving Him.
~The words of an old hymn are my prayer for us
all on our journey to servanthood:
May the mind of Christ our Savior
live in us from day to day,
By His love and power controlling
all we do and say.
May we run the race before us,
strong and brave to face the foe,
Looking only unto Jesus,
as we onward go.
May His beauty rest upon us,
as we seek the lost to win,
And may they forget the channel,
Seeing only Him.
From our mailbag:
I would like to introduce myself. I would defme
myself as a Christian who affirms biblical equality. I
and my husband are missionaries in Sao Paolo, Brazil,
working with the Mennonite Brethren. Previously we
worked as missionaries for five years in India, and
then studied together at the Mennonite Brethren
Biblical Seminary in Fresno, California. During this
time I wrote one chapter on the controversial texts in I
Corinthians for a study book that will.hartly be
published by our church. I am seriously considering
pursuing doctoral studies In New Testament within the
8
The Game ... The Road
©Alice Movius Painter 1984
There seems to be a game· that you must play,
if you would rise.
There seems to be a game - and with it lots of
compromise
You live to impress others, and you're as slick as you
can be.
But, where - oh, where- are perfect hearts, and deep
sincerity?
There seems to be a game - if you would rise up to the
top.
Be funny - always funny - or they say that you will
flop.
Be polished and professional - yes, that's the way to
be.
But, where - oh, where - is power, and where's
integrity?
There seems to be a game - and if you want to
get ahead,
You have to bypass God's way, and choose the world's
instead.
You must be superficial- and light as you can be.
But, where - oh. where - is depth, and where's
profundity?
There seems to be a way - that you can make yourself
a star.
Just boast of your achievements - tell how wonderful
you are.
Be full of self-importance - yes, thal's the way be be.
But. where· oh. where - is truth, and where's humility?
I cannot say it's wrong - but to myself I must be true,
and to my God - who says. "My child, it's servanthood
for you."
He's called me to the lowly road - it's paved with peace
and love.
Rewards will come· in their own time - and praise
from God above.
Mailbag (continued)
next few years. We have four children between the
ages of 10 years and 6 months. I would like to be in
touch with other women who are perhaps in similar
situations, involved in ministry and study as well as
molhering. I would also like to be aware of resources
available which address the issues of women in such
situations and stages of life written from a "biblical
equality" perspective.
Katrina Poer~r
Rua Deputado Martinho Rodriiues, J03
Chacara Monte Alegre
Sao Paulo, $,/'" BRAZIL 04646