Q. What does the following text have to do with the role of women in the Church?
To the Jews I became as a Jew, in order to win Jews. To those under the law I became as one under the law (though not being myself under the law) that I might win those under the law. To those outside the law I became as one outside the law (not being outside the law of God but under the law of Christ) that I might win those outside the law. To the weak I became weak, that I might win the weak. I have become all things to all people, that by all means I might save some. I do it all for the sake of the gospel. (1Co. 9:20-23)
A. Christians can (and should!) make cultural accommodations to eliminate obstacles to evangelism. Those cultural accommodations might include relaxing certain New Testament limitations on the role of women in the Church.
The West as a mission field:
I wish Christians in North America would adopt a missionary mindset. I suppose that, in some parts of the USA, Christianity is still a dominant force. Therefore it is very difficult for Christians who live in those states to conceive of the USA as a mission field.
In other parts of the USA, it’s a different story. Likewise, in Canada, Australia, England, and continental Europe, the Church has been in steady decline for decades now. A sizeable percentage of the population is now three generations removed from any church connection.
The point is, the West is quickly becoming a mission field. And anyone who wants to succeed in evangelism must learn to think like a missionary.
The missionary mindset:
But what does that mean — to think like a missionary?
Missionaries communicate the Gospel across cultural boundaries. Therefore, missionaries must learn to distinguish between the moral imperatives of the Gospel and the culturally specific expressions of the Gospel that may be so familiar as to be second nature to them.
Interpretation of 1 Corinthians 9:
Some time after his conversion, Paul made the decision that obedience to the law of Moses is in the realm of culture; it is not a moral imperative. Therefore he could accommodate the preferences of whatever group he was evangelizing at a given time. When he was evangelizing Jews, he “became as one under the law”. When he was evangelizing Gentiles, he “became as one outside the law”.
Such flip-flopping has the appearance of unprincipled behaviour. On the contrary, Paul was acting consistently, as judged by a higher principle: a principle to which he subordinated all other considerations. The principle is, “I have become all things to all people, that by all means I might save some. I do it all for the sake of the gospel.”
That is the missionary mindset.
Application to the role of women in the Church:
I believe that women should be permitted to hold any office in the Church, on an equal basis with men. And I believe there is good scriptural precedent for that position:
There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is neither male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus. (Gal. 3:28 )
I could appeal to other texts instead: for example,
- to the precedent set by the Lord Jesus, who taught Mary and allowed women to travel with him as part of his entourage of disciples;
- to Paul’s reference to women prophesying and praying in the assembly; and
- to women that Paul identifies as ministers of the Gospel: Priscilla, Euodia, Syntyche, Nympha, Phoebe, and Junia.
Of course, there are texts on the other side of this issue, too (notably, Jesus’ selection of twelve male apostles; 1Co. 14:34-35; and 1Ti. 2:12).
What shall we make of the conflicting evidence? In my view, the scriptures vacillate because the role of women in the Church is a cultural matter; it is not a universal moral imperative.
Let’s exercise our imaginations a little, and try to reconstruct events chronologically.
In the first century, women were expected to “know their place”. When the early Church briefly elevated women to a position of equality, they scandalized the non-Christian population and thereby undermined the Gospel.
Scholars believe Galatians was written before 1 Corinthians. In other words, Paul’s initial position was egalitarian: “there is neither male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus.” But when certain churches began to put the principle into practice, it brought the Church into disrepute. So Paul reversed course (although he still allowed women to pray and prophesy in the assembly, according to 1 Corinthians 11) and ruled that women should be seen and not heard.
1 Corinthians 9:20-23 and Galatians 3:28:
Note the direct link between 1 Corinthians 9:20-23 and Galatians 3:28.
Galatians 3:28 lists three commonplace social distinctions: Jews and Greeks; slaves and free people; women and men. Note that the first of these social distinctions is the subject of 1 Corinthians 9:20-23 —
- neither Jew nor Greek: Adherence to the law of Moses is a purely cultural consideration, according to 1 Corinthians 9:20-23. Paul was free to obey the law when he ministered among Jews, and he was free to disregard the law when he ministered among Gentiles: all for the sake of the Gospel.
- neither slave nor free: I insist that slavery is contrary to God’s will (because it reduces a human being to an object, and makes him or her the property of another human being). And yet, for the sake of the Gospel, Paul did not campaign against the institution. Slavery was deeply entrenched in Roman society, and Paul was unwilling to make the Church an enemy of the state.
- neither male nor female: Paul limited women’s roles (in 1Co. 14:34-35 and 1Ti. 2:12) as an accommodation to the society in which he lived. He did not regard it as a universal moral imperative: any more than law-keeping or slavery are universal moral imperatives.
Conclusion:
We do not live in the first century any more. The non-Christian culture has moved on, and Christians must adapt to the new social context.
Christians could insist that men be circumcised when they convert to Christianity. But, if they do so, they will be creating a significant, unnecessary obstacle to the Gospel.
Christians could advocate slavery. They could argue, based on biblical texts, that it is OK for believers to own slaves. But, if they do so, they will scandalize the non-Christian community, bring Christ into disrepute, and erect an enormous obstacle to the Gospel.
It is no different with respect to the role of women in the Church.
I plead with my evangelical readers to consider what I’m saying. Evangelicals are well-meaning, I know. They believe they are being faithful to the Gospel in this matter. But in fact they are bringing the Church into disrepute.
Non-Christians now accept that women are equal to men. (Perhaps Galatians 3:28 influenced the evolution of Western society!) When the Church argues the opposite position — that God requires women to submit to men — we scandalize the non-Christian community. We thereby erect an obstacle to Christian faith.
The Church needs to adopt a missionary mindset “for the sake of the Gospel”, per 1Co. 9:23.
