Spirit and Psyche

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.

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 second nature to them.

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. But, on the contrary, Paul was acting on 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.”

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)

Previously, I asserted that the scriptures do not speak with one voice on the role of women in ministry. On the one hand, we have Jesus’ selection of twelve men to be Apostles. On the other hand, we have the precedent established by Jesus when he taught Mary and allowed women to travel with him as part of his entourage of disciples.

On the one hand, we have Paul’s dogma that women are to remain silent in all the churches. On the other hand, we have Paul’s approving reference to women prophesying and praying in the assembly.

I could multiply examples, but the point is this. The scriptures vacillate on this topic because the role of women in the Church is a cultural matter; it is not a universal moral imperative.

Let’s step back at this point, and take a historical perspective on the issue. I promised, in an earlier post, to engage in this sort of historical analysis.
Read the rest of this entry »

In this post, I will begin to develop an argument for not excluding women from Church offices. The key is to situate all of the relevant texts (compare the previous post) in their proper historical context.

The principle:

The key text from an egalitarian perspective is Galatians 3:28:

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.

The principle can be expressed more broadly and more succinctly in these words:  God shows no partiality. We might refer to this concept as the “no partiality” principle.

• God is not partial to Jews over Gentiles (Acts 10:34-35; Ro. 2:9-12);
• God is not partial to masters over slaves (Eph. 6:9);
• According to Gal. 3:28, the same principle extends to relations between the sexes:  God is not partial to men over women. (In this context, Acts 2:16-18 is noteworthy.)

Indeed, God often shows a reverse partiality:

• God sides with the poor against the rich (Luke 6:20-24);
• God blesses those who are last ahead of those who are first (Mark 10:31; Luke 13:30);
• God exalts the humble and casts down the mighty (Luke 1:52);
• Accordingly, Jesus instructed his disciples to become servants of all (Mark 10:42-45) and youngest of all (Luke 22:26; Mt. 18:4).

It is reasonable to ask whether God’s reverse partiality extends to women. In most societies at most times in history, men have received preferential treatment. Perhaps the reverse is true with God. He prefers the poor to the rich, the vulnerable to the mighty, and the younger to the older:  perhaps he likewise prefers women to men!

The problem:

There is an exegetical problem associated with Galatians 3:28. All interpreters agree that God does not show preferential treatment to men when it comes to salvation. Men will not enter the kingdom of heaven ahead of women. And men will be saved on the same basis as women:  by God’s grace, through faith in the atoning sacrifice of Christ.

The controversy arises when egalitarians like myself extend the principle to the realm of social relations. Does Galatians 3:28 have any significance with respect to eligibility for offices in the Church? Does it have any significance for the relations between husband and wife? Or should we limit its application to soteriology (how people are saved)?
Read the rest of this entry »

One of my core beliefs is that God revealed himself in history:  i.e., through historical people and events.

The belief is important because of its corollary, that theology must be rooted in the study of history.

I would like to apply this approach to a contentious topic:  the role of women in the Church.

The New Testament is authoritative for Christians. But the New Testament doesn’t seem to speak with one voice on this topic:

• The author of 1 Timothy forbids women to teach or to exercise authority over men; rather, they are to remain quiet (2:12).
   
• Similarly, in 1Co. 14:33-35, Paul says that women must keep silent in the churches.
   
• But, earlier in 1 Corinthians, Paul says that women should cover their heads when they pray and prophesy (11:5) — so much for women remaining silent in church!
   
• And in Galatians, Paul says, “… there is neither male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus” (3:28). The text indicates that the conventional stereotypes about the sexes do not apply within the Christian community.

New Testament precedents are also important here. First, women associated with Jesus:

• Jesus chose twelve apostles:  all male.
   
• But Jesus also had female disciples. Some women supported Jesus financially and travelled from town to town with him and his male disciples (Luke 8:2-3).
   
• Jesus taught Mary, when the usual role of a woman was to serve (Luke 10:38-42).
   
• Similarly, the disciples were amazed to find him privately conversing with (instructing) the Samaritan woman (John 4:27).
   
• We should also note God’s choice of women as the first witnesses to Jesus’ resurrection (John 20; Mark 16).

Second, various women associated with St. Paul:

• Nympha was the hostess of a house church (Col. 4:15; evidently she had no husband).
   
• Euodia and Syntyche are described as “women who have labored side by side with me in the gospel” (Php. 4:2-3).
   
• Priscilla and Aquila are prominent figures in the early Church. Priscilla is a woman’s name; Aquila is a man’s name. The two are always named together:  perhaps they were married? But both Luke and Paul usually refer to the woman, Priscilla, first (Acts 18:18; 18:26; Ro. 16:3; 1Co. 16:19; 2Ti. 4:19), suggesting that she took the lead in the ministry of this husband-and-wife team.
   
• Paul refers to Phoebe as a deacon (diakonos). He further describes her as a benefactor of many. (Ro. 16:1-2)
   
• Andronicus and Junia are described as “outstanding among the apostles” (Ro. 16:7):  i.e., Junia — a woman — is described as an apostle, and an outstanding one at that.

A conservative approach to these divergent texts would take 1Co. 14:33-35 and 1Ti. 2:12 as determinative of everything else. The radical thrust of the other texts must then be explained away. Thus conservatives regard Phoebe as merely a “servant”, not a deacon; and they make Junia over as a man (“Junias” in the NIV and some other translations).

But who says that the two most conservative texts in the Bible should determine the interpretation of all the other texts listed above? Why shouldn’t we recognize the other thread that runs through the New Testament as determinative?

The egalitarian thread begins with the Lord Jesus himself, who taught Mary, and allowed women to travel with him as part of his entourage of disciples. It continues through the early church, with Paul’s reference to women prophesying and praying in the assembly; with Priscilla, Euodia, Syntyche, Nympha, Phoebe, and Junia, who were all ministers of the Gospel in one capacity or another; and it climaxes with Paul’s Magna Carta of the New Humanity, “there is neither male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus”.

Conclusion

I want to make two points in this post. First, I hope my readers will recognize that the issue is not black and white. There are two competing threads running through the New Testament. Therefore, one cannot resolve the issue by quoting one or two verses, and claiming that’s the last word on the subject.

Second, I want to suggest a way forward:  namely, to reconstruct the history of the early church, and see whether all the verses can be fitted into a likely historical framework.

Only then will we be in a position to evaluate whether women must be permanently excluded from the highest offices of the church.

(more to come …)

~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Scripture quotations are from The Holy Bible, English Standard Version, copyright 2001 by Crossway Bibles, a division of Good News Publishers. Used by permission. All rights reserved. I sometimes take the liberty of inserting paragraph breaks where I deem them appropriate.