Role of Women in Ministry & Society

Welcome to ON TRUTH A ministry of Dr. Cky J. Carrigan devoted to Apologetic Evangelism which seeks to equip the saints for the work of evangelism through a rigorous pursuit of TRUTH motivated by LOVE. HOME BACK TO INDEX

WHAT'S THE TRUTH ABOUT WOMEN IN THE CHURCH AND IN SOCIETY?

by Cky J. Carrigan , Ph.D.(Fall 1996)

Introduction

Did ideas from the Reformation generate both feminism and the biblical response to it? I think so. Some of the ideas of the Renaissance-Reformation and the radical ideas of the Fifth Wing contributed to the formation of civil democracy. The ideas of civil democracy spawned feminism at the turn of the twentieth century. And feminism has influenced some modern evangelicals to adopt various levels of egalitarianism in marriage, in the church, and in society.

The biblical Radicals and Magisterial Reformers also passed down the idea of ordering one's whole life according to Scripture. These Reformers laid two eggs that would be hatched in the twentieth century: feminism and the biblical response to it called Biblical Womanhood. The following essay radically opines about women and their roles in the church and in society.

Women in the Church

Women are an integral part of God's church. Women are made in the image of God, saved by the grace of God, gifted by the Spirit of God, and equipped by the church of God to do the meaningful work of ministry. Two clear biblical prescriptions, however, should guide the ministry of women in the church. Women should not: 1) occupy church offices or function in ways that require them to teach doctrines to adult men, or 2) exercise authority over adult men in the church.

The essential scriptural basis for these two biblical prescriptions may be found in 1 Timothy 2:11-15.

11 Let a woman learn in silence with all submission. 12 And I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man, but to be in silence. 13 For Adam was formed first, then Eve. 14 And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived, fell into transgression. 15 Nevertheless she will be saved in childbearing if they continue in faith, love, and holiness, with selfcontrol (NKJV).

There are at least five kinds of arguments that affect the interpretation of this passage. The first is an argument of scope. Is the text directed to a particular audience only, or to a universal audience? Does the prohibition of women to teach or have authority over men apply only to one situation in first century Asia Minor, or does it apply universally to churches of every age, or universally to all places at all times? Those who affirm particularity generally embrace an egalitarian view of the roles of women in the church. Those who affirm universality generally support some variation of the view I have stated and apply it to the church. Some also apply this universality to society.

I too, affirm the universal interpretation of this text. For Paul associates his assertion in verse 12 and his justification in verses 13-15 with Adam and Eve, the universal parents of the human race. I am not confident that we can universally apply this text, with absolute certainty, to the church and society.

My view of women in the church may be argued by appealing to the particularity of this text as well. While the limitation of women's roles is not necessary under the particular view, it is certainly permissible. Like Paul, one need only demonstrate that women teaching or having authority over men would present a problem in a particular church. And I believe this case can be made in nearly every church because wives and their husbands are present in them. Therefore, a particular interpretation of this text weakens my argument but it does not demand that I abandon my claim altogether.

The second argument is an argument of perspicuity. Egalitarians generally suggest that the clear biblical texts which affirm gender equality should supersede the difficult and obscure text of 1 Timothy 2.1 The glaring flaw in this kind of argument is that these so called equality texts are not ecclesiological at all. They are soteriological. They do not attempt to say anything about the role of women in the church. They speak only about the issue of equal access to saving grace by all kinds of people, male and female alike. Therefore, the argument for clarity is a spurious argument that mixes categories and should be rejected.

The third class of arguments are semantic ones. The implications of our passage for guiding women to appropriate roles in the church depends on the meaning of didaskein and oude authentein andros. Evangelical feminists who advocate either an unlimited role, or a limited teaching and authoritative role, for women in the church generally assign a meaning to these words that fit their positions but not the context. Their interpretations may fit within the possible range of meanings but do not fit this context or a natural reading of the text. I think this phrase should be translated naturally: "to teach (doctrine) or to have authority over a man."

An additional semantic argument centers around the meaning of gunaiki and andros. Role distinctions in the home are not undermined by this line of argument but role distinctions in the church are challanged by this view. For gunaiki and andros are translated as "wife" and "husband." This view prohibits wives from teaching or having authority over their own husbands, not over other men in the church. This argument, while semantically possible, is vulnerable on two fronts. The weight of the contextual analysis does not favor this interpretation and this interpretation rules out women teaching or having authority over their own husbands in their own churches. It is highly unlikely that women in ancient churches taught and had authority over men of one church while their husbands were part of another church in order to abide by Paul's prohibition.2

The forth kind of arguments are arguments about biblical authority and inspiration. Some egalitarians suggest a qualitative difference between what God says and what Paul says, and they argue that our text is merely a saying of Paul. They say Paul is merely giving an opinion here and not a decree from God. Other egalitarians posit that Paul's instructions here were flawed and culture bound, and not useful or appropriate for the modern era. I affirm the doctrine of plenary inspiration and employ it here against both of these arguments: God the Holy Spirit supernaturally superintended the men who wrote down all canonical Scripture with such perfect scrutiny that what was written in the autographs are as perfect and authoritative as if God wrote it Himself with His own hand.

In sum, I appeal primarily to 1 Timothy 2:11-15 to defend my assertion that women should not occupy offices in the church or function in ways that require them to teach doctrines to adult men, or have authority over adult men in the church.3 My appeal is grounded upon the evidence that this text is an authoritative, universal prescription, decreed under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, that should not be superseded by the "equality texts" taken out of context. Furthermore, I am convinced that gunaiki and andros mean "woman" and "man" and didaskein . . . oude authentein andros means not "to teach . . . or exercise authority in any way over any adult man."

Together with a specific, albeit superficial, appeal to 1 Timothy 2, let me defend my thesis further by setting forth a general argument for Biblical Womanhood adopted from the "Danvers Statement" and John Piper's definitions of biblical femininity and masculinity.

The doctrine of Biblical Womanhood understands that Adam and Eve were created in the image of God, equal in personhood, but distinct in the roles of manhood and womanhood. In the church men are inclined to abuse or abdicate authority, while women are inclined to resist limitations or neglect their gifts. Redemption in Christ aims at restoring distorted relationships between men and women in the church. While it is acknowledged that many women feel called to teach and exercise authority over men in church, a woman's individual subjective call to ministry must not supersede the corporate understanding of objective biblical revelation. While there are limitations upon women's roles in the church, there is no shortage of meaningful ministries that a woman may perform to exercise her spiritual gifts.4

The doctrine of Biblical Womanhood also understands that "at the heart of mature femininity is a freeing disposition to affirm, receive and nurture strength and leadership from worthy men in ways appropriate to a woman's differing relationships. And at the heart of mature masculinity is a sense of benevolent responsibility to lead, provide for and protect women in ways appropriate to a man's differing relationships."5

Therefore, on the basis of 1 Timothy 2 and the above description of Biblical Womanhood, I should like to put forth a twofold principle to guide woman as they chose their roles in church. Women should not: 1) occupy church offices or function in ways that require them to teach doctrines to adult men, or 2) exercise authority over adult men in the church. More specifically, women should never serve as pastors, associate pastors, or worship leaders. They should not occupy any other staff position that puts them in a position of giving work direction to any men--staff or church member. Additionally, women should not chair a committee or lead a ministry group on which any men serve, or teach a Bible study class when men are present. Women, may and should, however, serve faithfully in thousands of roles in the church as long as they do not violate the two principles set forth above. And church leaders who agree with me will be well served to work creatively to increase opportunities for legitimate ministries for women, including teaching and leading vital ministries to women and children.

Women in Society

Furthermore, women should probably not function in society in ways that exercise authority over adult men. The evidence is not as strong for this assertion as it is for my thesis about women in the church. Although, all the evidence that supports my earlier claim weighs in on this claim as well. My argument for limiting the roles of women in society is influenced by the Danvers Statement and Piper's definitions based on biblical principles rather than any clear biblical prescriptions. However, by analogy, since practicing Biblical Womanhood means affirming and nurturing strength and leadership from worthy men, it would be inappropriate for a woman to exercise authority over a man in any relationship in society.

The defense of my claim is derived from the following analogy. What is good, godly, and appropriate for marriage and the church is good, godly, and appropriate for society, especially in distinctively Christian segments of society, and especially for Christians in society. If role distinctions in the church help protect role distinctions in marriage, then it follows that role distinctions in society strengthen essential role distinctions in the church and in the home.

Many advocates of functional distinctions between men and women in marriage and the church stop short of advocating functional distinctions between men and women in society, and this seems strange to me. We may not be able to produce a biblical prescription for role distinctions in society and we can not enforce this principle in society. But, we can certainly produce a biblical principle for functional distinctions between Christian men and Christian women who function in society. And we can educate and encourage men and women everywhere to apply the principles of Biblical Manhood and Biblical Womanhood in every area of their life.

Therefore, women should not occupy church offices or function in ways that require them to teach doctrines to adult men in the church. And, women also should not exercise authority over adult men in the church or in society at large? The Magisterial and Radical Reformers may have been unwilling progenitors of feminism. But, they were also the force of restoration, laying the groundwork for a doctrine called Biblical Womanhood.

__________________

1 "There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is neither male nor female; for you are all in Christ Jesus." (Gal. 3:28 NKJV) Other equality texts include 1 Cor. 11:11-12 and 1 Peter 3:7.

2 Other semantic arguments center around the meaning of hesuchia and hupotage in verses 11-12, but space does not permit further remarks.

3 1 Timothy 3:2,5,12 provide additional evidence to demonstrate that women should not hold the office of pastor or deacon, but space does not permit an analysis of these texts.

4 Adapted from "The Danvers Statement," in John Piper and Wayne Grudem, eds., Recovering Biblical Manhood and Womanhood: A Response to Evangelical Feminism (Wheaton: Crossway, 1991), 470-71.

5 John Piper, Ibid, 36.

***The views expressed in this article do not necessarily reflect the views of the North American Mission Board, the Southern Baptist Convention, or any other Southern Baptist Church or Agency***