Ceci n'est pas un blog
A biblical case for female pastors?
There's a purely cultural case for an "equal" (i.e., identical) role for men and women in the church. It goes something like this: For crying out loud, it's the 21st century!!!! However, I've been wondering if there might be a biblical case for female pastors (or elders, bishops, presbyters). It's obvious that some people think there is—even some people who would not be too keen on the aforementioned cultural argument (NT Wright, for example). What might such a biblical case look like?
This isn't something to which I've given too much attention so far. I've heard, considered, and accepted the arguments against female pastors that are used within my (conservative evangelical) "wing" of Christ's body. (In fact, it's pretty much a defining feature of that "wing" to take such a position.) But I want to give a hearing to the other side of the argument.
If there is a biblical case for female pastors, it might look something like the following. I'd need to do some more reading to figure out whether it's a good case (comments welcome!), but here goes…
- Those texts that seem to say that women should not preach (for example) have either been misunderstood, or are tied to the original cultural context in such a way that they do not apply today. (NT Wright makes that case, and it's not entirely fanciful.)
- The nature of the "headship" that a husband has towards his wife, and the created difference between men and women, are such that it would be perfectly appropriate, at least in some cultural contexts, for a woman to exercise the kind of authority that an elder has.
Then I think there are two possible routes…
- The New Testament pattern of church government is normative and unchanging.
- The New Testament gives evidence for a specific office of "widow", or "older woman", or "female elder", or "presbyteress", with responsibility for teaching the younger women, and this is reflected in the practices of the early church. (See this article by Robert A Morey.)
- We should at least recover that biblical office, even if we maintain a distinction between "presbyter" and "presbyteress".
- Society in New Testament times was largely segregated on gender lines. In our society, that is much less the case, so that the roles of "elder" (i.e., male elder) and "female elder" now overlap to the point that they are largely indistinguishable.
Or…
- The New Testament pattern of church government is descriptive, rather than prescriptive, and records what the church, in its Spirit-led wisdom, instituted for the context in which it arose. For example, a need arose for some people to be given responsibility for the distribution of food to the widows, and hence the church, in its wisdom, instituted a new office, which seems to be the office of "deacon" (though that term isn't used in Acts 6 itself).
- There were cultural reasons that explain why the church, in its Spirit-led wisdom, had only male elders (and similarly there were cultural reasons why Christ chose only men as his twelve disciples).
- The needs of the church in today's culture are such that there is no longer any reason to restrict the office of "elder" to men.
The argument would need a lot of fleshing out to make it compelling. Provisionally, I could probably go along with most of the points there, but I think the clincher would be the second point, regarding the difference between men and women, and the nature of the authority that a pastor exercises. What does "headship" mean? And what kind of authority does an elder have? These are questions of principle, rather than appeals to proof texts. And they are big questions...
| Print article | This entry was posted by Anthony on 26 Nov 2012 at 9.38 am, and is filed under Christian. Follow any responses to this post through RSS 2.0. You can leave a response or trackback from your own site. |



I live in York and I
about 5 months ago
Hi,
One problem that clouds the whole issue is that people try to lump together headship in marriage and headship in the church, which whilst related and with a bearing on each other are in many ways separate and different arguments.
The second issue of separation or otherwise that I see is between teaching and leading (raising the question of whether elder ship is teaching...) Should women teach is one issue, should women lead is another. Again these are related but not identical issues.
I find the cultural argument worrying on one level. If (as) we believe largely in a clear scripture that can for the most part be understood by ordinary people simply by close study of the texts themselves then endless appeals to cultural context suggest that we actually can't understand the Bible unless we have all this knowledge. The cultural argument is a dangerous one (and i've used cultural differences on passages such as in Corinthians where is speaks about head coverings to say women don't have to cover their heads). It's dangerous because it risks undermining our belief and trust in a clear scripture and the Spirit given ability for ordinary people to understand it.
Also on the cultural argument I've seen loads of material looking at the context of Paul's initial writing which suggests we should largely ignore it today and load quoting other primary context information which suggests we should accept what Paul says in Timothy. The point being that there are lots of initial context arguments on both sides - it's not enough simply to say, Paul wrote in an (obviously) unenlightened culture and wouldn't say the same today.
Another argument on the cultural front is that modern day living is very much like the situation Paul wrote to - battles of the sexes, selfishness etc etc Some would say this is even more culturally appropriate in the 21st Century.
My most fundamental difficulty with the 'equal and same' position is that (as far as i've read, seen and heard) it just doesn't seem to accept that one can have a fulfilled God honouring valuable life whilst having a different role or even being denied some roles.
Christ subordinated himself to the will of the Father, he came as a servant, he didn't not consider equality with God something to be grasped. It is possible to be in a subordinate position - to submit without devaluing yourself - To submit in the right manner and at the right time to God given leadership is to be Christ like.
Further - we are valuable because God says so, he sent his son to die for us, we are not valuable because of what job we do (or don't do).
I guess i'm trying to say that this position begins to deny our value is in Christ because is alleges that unless women are allowed identical roles they are not thought of as being as valuable or as valuable as men.
I think overall I see a pattern across the whole Bible of male headship and it's disruption via sin. That being said passages such as those in Timothy have had so much written about them (from both sides, much of it sounding convincing) that it's almost impossible to come to a conclusion on them (at present).
Hope that helps your thinking (and mine)
about 5 months ago
Thanks for that, Bob - lots of helpful thoughts there. I'd want to say that the core message of the Scriptures can be clearly understood by anyone reading them, but that there are some less central elements for which we need each other's help to hear what God is saying to us. And that can be a long process, requiring great patience and humility.
Cultural issues are difficult. On the one hand, that was a really different culture, so it's no surprise if there are big cultural differences. But, on the other hand, human nature hasn't changed, so it's no surprise that the issues faced in that culture are almost identical to the issues faced in our own culture. We need to tread carefully!
I quite agree on the general complementarian view, but the tricky issue is working out what that means in practice. It's not immediately obvious that if you say that men and women are of equal worth but have different roles, then that translates onto precisely such-and-such a set of differences in their roles in the leadership of the church today.
about 5 months ago
Indeed!
Whilst I personally feel relatively clear on the Bible principles that set out an equal but different view of men and women it is the practical day to day aspects that are difficult. Especially without creating arbitrary cut off points (not that these are always bad)
I think it's good to have a view but always be adapting it and strengthening/changing it as you understand more - as you say these things take a long time.
It's interesting on the practical side. I've seen things like this: http://www.fpcjackson.org/resources/family_and_culture/christian%20manhood%20and%20womanhood/articles/grudem_wayne_but_what_should_women_do_in_the_church.htm
by wayne Grudem which go into massive detail on the do's and don'ts
I've also seen things which say in effect 'forget about the overall leadership of churches, we should encourage women to minister to other women' as a way of honouring the ministry and gifts of women whilst not allowing it in overall leadership.
I'd certainly be interested in your further thoughts as and when they come.
about 5 months ago
That's a very detailed article! I think I could go along with the point from their Danvers Statement: "Some governing and teaching roles within the church are restricted to men." But Grudem's approach does seem somewhat arbitrary - we draw the line somewhere, and the way to decide where to draw the line is to draw the line in such a way that it's obvious that we have drawn the line somewhere. But there doesn't seem (to me) to be a deeper understanding of why a line needs to be drawn in this particular case in the first place.
I suspect that one helpful way to proceed would be to learn more about synagogue worship in NT times, as the role of "elder" seems to be drawn from that. And then reflect on the principles underlying those practices.
Another (alternative? complementary?) approach might be to think about what happens when the church gathers for worship. I've been thinking a bit about Christian worship as a covenant renewal ceremony (after reading A Better Way by Michael Horton, and somewhat like this). In that way of thinking, the minister in such a ceremony is playing the role of Christ, in bringing the word of Christ and in administering the sacraments. And it could, perhaps, be argued that it would be inappropriate for a woman to play the role of Christ in such a ceremony, if a mixed congregation is gathered, as that reverses the order of headship in 1 Corinthians 11.
More thought needed...
about 5 months ago
A very helpful book on this topic is "Why not Women? A Fresh Look at Scripture on Women in Missions, Ministry, and Leadership" (Seattle: YWAM Publishing, 2000), by Loren Cunningham and David Joel Hamilton. It does explain the NT culture and provide a clear rationale for women in ministry etc from a Biblical point of view. I has useful diagrams to further clarify the issues discussed. Highly recommended!
about 5 months ago
Hi Alida - thanks for that, looks a helpful book!
about 5 months ago
Hi Andy, you are exploring some important but complex issues. I have found it helpful to consider both Paul's praxis and his teaching.
Praxis
From 1 Corinthians it seems clear that women preached (11:2-16); this does not however contradict 14:34-35 where the issue seems to have been women in the 'audience' talking to each other.
In Romans 16:1 we meet Phoebe who was a deacon of the church at Cenchreae. Whilst 'deacon' may not imply an official office that she held, there is also no reason to believe that it was not either. Add into the fact that being a letter carrier for Paul she would have been trusted, and her responsibility would have included reading it out in the church in Rome and then answer any questions the hearers had about the letter. In Romans 16:3 Priscilla is described as Paul's co-worker (cf. Phil. 4:2-3). Then later in Romans 16:7 we meet Junia, a woman, who is described as being an 'apostle' which likely involved authority. So in Romans we meet two women who held high profile positions in the Pauline churches.
Teaching
Where does Paul forbid women from preaching? As far as I can gather, the only passage is the passage in 1 Timothy. But all of the Pauline corpus are occasional letters composed for a specific reason, they are not systematic treatises. So what was the occasion? A plausible scenario is that certain women were causing trouble in the Ephesian church (1 Tim. 5:11-15; 2 Tim. 3:6-9) who were part of the cause of the false teachers' making headway there, hence it is likely that 1 Tim. 2:11-12 speak into a local problem and thus the prohibitions were culturally relative (cf. Ben Witherington's Letters and Homilies for Hellenized Christians).
Suffice it to say, I believe that a sound argument can be established in favour of women being pastors.
about 5 months ago
Thanks again for the comments, Richard. It's a plausible case you present. It is a big issue, and I'm apprehensive about it. First, the arguments on both sides rely too much on proof texts and too little on principles and theology (for my tastes at least!). Likewise, views about gender tend to be polarised, either holding that whether you are male or female is always irrelevant, which seems to be a denial of the rich diversity of God's creation, or holding that God's ideal is (coincidentally!) that men should conform to the Western/American ideal of a self-confident man with a gun, etc. I'm not comfortable with either of those.
What I'd love to read is a deeply Trinitarian account of gender and of how the church (including its leadership) reflects the Trinitarian life of God. If (following Michael Horton et al.) when the church is gathered, it is God renewing his covenant with his people, does it matter whether the one(s) playing the role of the Father and the Son in that renewal ceremony is/are male?
Book recommendations would be appreciated
about 5 months ago
Overall I'm a little skeptical about relating intra-Trinitarian relations and the gender debate. I'll point you to Fred Sanders' article entitled "The Trinity in Gender Debates".
In answer to your question; I don't think it matters whether the one(s) playing the role of the Father and the Son in that renewal ceremony is/are male. Partly because God is not male, moreover the creation mandate in Gen. 1:27 says that 'God created humankind in his image...male and female he created them.' Both men and women represent God equally in creation and grace restores nature so I can't see why both men and women would not represent God in the church. It strikes me that it is the minister who represents God, not the gender of the covenant renewal leader.
about 5 months ago
Thanks for the Sanders article - looks very helpful.
There must be difference in the way a man images God, unless the maleness of "Father" and "Son" is arbitrary or tied to a particular cultural context and might as well be "Mother" and "Daughter", or "Parent" and "Child".
about 5 months ago
Why must there be difference in the way a man images God?
We also need to keep in mind that in the Bible the divine is not equated with maleness; in the writings of Hellenistic Judaism we meet the divine feminine in Lady Wisdom (Prov. 1, 8; Sir. 24; Bar. 3-4).
We also need to keep in mind that the scriptures were written by people living in a very specific time period, this is part of the incarnational principle of scripture. So describing God as 'Father' and 'Son' was not arbitrary, but we should be careful not to make too much of that in inappropriate ways.
about 5 months ago
Hi Richard.
I agree (if I've understood you right) that it is not correct to say God is male or female but rather from him and in him are found the defining features of both genders. its wrong to say God is male because he displays characteristics we see in men. that is to put the cart before the horse as it were.
That being said men and women to image different aspects of God's character to greater or lesser extents. childbearing is something unique to women and so in that they must image God differently to men. men can't show Gods glory in this way.
the question is which aspects of his character uas God associated with male humanity and which with female humanity.
@ Anthony. I wonder if you might expand on you distinction hetween proof texts and theology/principles to help me understand it more. thanks.
about 5 months ago
Hi Bob,
I am interested in you explaining a bit more on how you see men and women imaging different aspects of God's character.
Childbearing is indeed unique to women, but I can't see how this factors in...there are sex differences related to biology, but this is surely a different category from gender which is in part down to nurture?
Every individual reflects God's image in their own unique way, I am not sure we want to say that men and women as distinct groups image God differently.
about 5 months ago
Richard/Bob - thanks for the comments.
I would say the world and human society are modelled on God, not vice versa. I don't think God was wondering how to reveal himself to a society that had become patriarchal of its own accord and thought, "I know, maybe I'll be three Persons, and two Persons can be a Father and a Son, as that will connect most strongly with that society". Instead, it seems that fatherhood and sonship are, at least in part, modelled on the eternal fatherhood of the Father and the eternal sonship of the Son. I want to tread cautiously here, but it seems that human fathers are called to reflect the fatherhood of God the Father in some way that is not shared by mothers or non-parents. What that actually means, I'm not sure, but I think it probably does mean something rather than nothing.
Bob - I'm thinking of the value of theology as well as exegesis. There's a gap between what God said to them then (exegesis) and what God is saying to us now (application), and that gap is bridged by theology. We're trying to piece together why Paul said what he said. Why did Paul only appoint male elders and only allow men to exercise teaching authority in the church (assuming he did)? Can we make sense of that? Theological questions to ask: Why did God make male and female? How is the gospel contextualised in different cultures? It's only once we've addressed those questions that we can confidently apply what God said then to our situation now. Otherwise I think we end up applying the Scriptures in a fairly arbitrary way, without really understanding why it makes sense to do what we are doing. Proof texts are okay, but it really helps to have a systematic theology in place, which enables us to say, "Well, obviously Paul would have written that instruction to Timothy, because..."
about 5 months ago
Anthony, I believe there are difficult issues here; partly because we can ask what we mean by 'the eternal fatherhood of the Father and the eternal sonship of the Son'? How is the 'Father' in relation to the 'Son' and to what extent is this simply analogy (cf. Horton's Covenant and Eschatology).
Further, how do you deal with the feminine images of God? For example, God is said to have a "womb" (Job 38:29; Isa. 46:3-4). God is also described as a mother in Isa. 66:12-13 and Hos. 11. To me, it seems clear that such anthropomorphic language helps us to understand God rather than assigning God a gender. So God possesses attributes that we assign to mothers as well as attributes we commonly assign to fathers, hence we can speak of the fatherhood and motherhood of God.
See the relevant chapters of Goddesses And the Divine Feminine: A Western Religious History.
about 5 months ago
Richard - curious to know - would you be happy to pray "Our Mother, who art in heaven"? If not, why not?
about 5 months ago
Anthony,
Interesting question; I don't think I have any robust theological objections to such a practice, though I would find it weird, and question why one would wish to do it. Personally I wouldn't pray it, I don't see that it serves any purpose; God is our Father, so why mess around with the prayer that Jesus taught us? I am also wary of the 'Creator-Redeemer-Sanctifier' triad, which fails as a description of the persons of the Trinity owing to their being functional rather than personal.
We struggle, owing to the limits of human language; how do we best express the personal relations within the Trinity and between the Godhead and humanity, when the only human terms we can use are gender specific and when God is genderless?
about 5 months ago
Hi again,
In response to various previous comments my thoughts are as follows:
Whilst I agree that gender is partly down to nurture I would also believe that some aspects of gender are predisposed by biological factors. I would want to say that the biological differences between men and women do display something of God each in a different way. To give simplistic examples, men tend to be stronger, as they use their strength to manage creation (maybe through building or crafting) they image God's strength harnessed to creativity. Women could on the other hand image God's nurturing manner in a way that men could not so easily through child bearing. I'm not suggesting this automatically means we tell people how they should image God, neither am I suggesting that each person doesn't image God in some unique way. What I am trying to suggest is that God chose to cluster certain groups of characteristics about himself into male and female 'groups' if you will, which then are reflected in creation in human gender (whether biological aspects of it or psychological etc).
I guess I would want to ask why God created male and female rather than just one gender. If as we agree God has no gender it seems sensible for him to create humanity with a single (or non) gender. I'd suggest his wisdom caused him to create two genders as this revealed his character and glory more.
The Our father question is interesting and I think we should ask: 'Why is God's fatherhood important as part of this prayer. Why does Jesus choose that word rather than another. For example, Our father could mean 'God who brought our nation into being and brought it up in his ways' or it could mean 'God who has in store for us an inheritance' or 'God who has a close personal affection for us.
This question also applies to the Eternal fatherhood and sonship. Is he the son because he is like the father - of the same kind or type. Is he the son because he is the one who is due to inherit everything. Is the father the father because he disciplines, trains and guides his son.
I think the Bible imagery is broader than we often allow.
We need to see which aspects are being drawn on in each instance of the use of a word. I think when words such as father are used, God is saying in effect 'I have created human fathers or mothers or whatever) as a way of showing something about myself. As you look at those fathers you get a glimpse of my character. Don't get it wrong and think I'm modelled on humans, but as you look as see the fallen father at work understand something about me'.
@Richard, Would you be able to explain what you feel the importance of and maybe implications of trying to regain some recognition of the feminine aspects of God are?
about 5 months ago
@Bob, Sure thing, a bit of bio, my home church is staunchly complementarian, I recently got married and we were recommended Chris Ash's Married for God and I have also read a few other marriage related books by complementarians. What struck me, was the number of assumptions under girding their explanation of gender differences, a major one was the assumption that God was male. Now, if asked the question "Is God male?" I am sure that they would all say 'No'. But implicit in some of their thinking through topics, is this view. We find this being explicitly taught by John Piper, who is all the rage in the Young Reformed movement. Piper said that "God revealed Himself in the Bible pervasively as king not queen; father not mother" moreover the "Second person of the Trinity is revealed as the eternal Son not daughter; the Father and the Son create man and woman in His image and give them the name man, the name of the male....from all of that I conclude that God has given Christianity a masculine feel." Here we find God being tied to male, in such a way that the female is less like God. These views are common in complementary churches, which cherish Bible study, yet they overlook (or explain away) those parts of the Bible where God is described in very feminine terms. The danger, as I see it, is that Christianity becomes seen as sexist etc.
about 4 months ago
Not sure if you've seen this:
http://krishk.com/2013/01/tim-keller-women-and-ignoring-your-own-rules/
about 4 months ago
Hadn't seen it yet - one of the many gems waiting for me on Google Reader! Thanks for that.
I suppose "Gospel Coalition" or FIEC or "Gospel Partnership" (perhaps?) in practice means more than "we agree on the fundamentals of the gospel", but also "we'd in all likelihood be happy to have your pastor preach at our church", or "we'd be happy to have a joint event at which any one of our pastors preaches", which presupposes agreement on the issue of female pastors. Most credo-baptists don't really care whether or not someone has really been baptised, so it's possible for credo-baptist churches and paedo-baptist churches to work together, in missions and even in church planting initiatives, but we haven't yet reached the same level of indifference on the issue of gender.
I do think the issue of gender is quite possibly the main attack on the church from the culture in our day (not the same thing as the main issue facing the church - which might well be global poverty, the environment, etc), but it seems that the conservatives have allowed themselves to draw very sharp lines in reaction to that. (For what it's worth, I still have a hunch that the complementarian position might be right, but I don't find the arguments compelling in either direction.)
about 4 months ago
I'd agree that the sharing of pulpits is the issue; if a complementarian refuses to share his pulpit with an evangelical egalitarian then they would be in effect saying that person either denies the gospel in some way or is a danger to the flock (of course, we are not saying that a complementarian should share his pulpit with a female evangelical preacher).
If I may relate this to the topic of church governments; one of the major flaws in the congregational model is that it allows a local church to be isolated and insulated from the wider body of Christ. So, independent churches, in my experience, tend to have a far stronger line on the gender debates than those churches that are part of a denomination that allows female preachers etc. And, more importantly, are far more dogmatic about it and critical about those who disagree.