The NewLife Blog
[ # ] Should women be excluded from church leadership?
Posted by Eric Stillman on May 1st, 2007 under Church History, Women in ministryPrint This Post  Print This Post

If men and women are truly equal in the sight of God, why are so many churches dominated by male leadership?  Is this what God intended for His church?  Or are churches with only men in leadership misreading the Bible in how they have given out leadership and teaching roles?

We’re in the middle of a preaching series at NewLife on the Bible and gender, trying to understand what the Bible has to say about the role of men and women in the church, in marriage, and in society (you can listen to the sermons online at www.newlife-glastonbury.org).  If you’ve listened at all to the messages, you know that this is a complex issue that mature Christians have disagreed on over the years.  Our church believes the Bible is God’s Word and our authority for faith and practice, and so we take seriously what it has to say about men and women, from the Genesis creation account, to the way Jesus treated women, to the teachings of the apostle Paul on the subject, to the examples of men and women throughout the pages of the Bible. 

Even though we hold a high view of Scripture, there are three other voices that can inform a particular view on the Bible and gender.  The Wesleyan Quadrilateral, credited to John Wesley, the 18th century leader of the Methodist movement, is a model of theological reflection which theorizes that people of faith use four different sources in coming to their theological conclusions:

     Scripture – what does the Bible say about the issue?
     Tradition – what does the past two millennia of church history say about the issue?
     Reason – what does our rational thinking say about this issue?
     Experience – what has our personal experience as a Christian taught us?

This model can be helpful in understanding the differences between many strands of Christianity.  For example, Catholics place a high value on both Scripture and tradition, believing that the teachings of the Popes are just as important as the teachings of the Bible (which is why sometimes there is such extra-Biblical emphasis on things such as the saints, adoration of Mary, purgatory, sacraments, etc.).  So-called “liberal” churches place a high value on reason, which can lead to a downplaying of the miraculous elements of the Bible or an acceptance of cultural practices that may contradict the Bible.  Many Pentecostal churches place a high value on experience, believing that many manifestations of the Spirit are legitimate, even though they may not be found or emphasized in the Bible (e.g. holy laughter, being slain in the Spirit).  Evangelical churches like our own try to treat Scripture as of primary importance, and the other three sources as all of secondary importance.  In other words, we believe that we can learn a lot from tradition, reason, and experience, but if they contradict the Bible as we understand it, then the Bible takes priority.

All this introduction serves to bring us to this question:  what do we learn about the roles of men and women in the church when we take into account tradition, reason, and experience?  Recognizing that none of these trump Scripture, nevertheless, does looking at these three sources influence us in any way on the question of whether God’s will is for both men and women to fulfill all roles in the church?

I think I can deal with the “reason” and “experience” issues fairly quickly.  My experience, and that of many today, is that we have a lot to learn from both godly men and women, and that to silence the voice of half of God’s people in church or in leadership is to weaken the church.  Some may argue that their experience is that allowing women to be in leadership will cause fewer men to participate in church or to step up to leadership roles.  However, if men are insecure about sharing leadership with women or resort to passivity in the face of assertive women, that is hardly grounds for banning women from leadership.

As for “reason,” most rational thinkers would agree that men and women can complement each other well as leaders and teachers, having observed this in many secular professions.  In fact, many who believe that women should not function as pastors, teachers, or elders struggle to understand why God would make it this way when there are many women who are gifted leaders and teachers.  Therefore, I would argue that both experience and reason heavily support an egalitarian point of view, that church roles should be distributed on the basis of spiritual gifting, not gender.

The tradition issue (what church history has to teach us), of course, is much more complicated.  My hope is to raise the important questions in today’s post and then spend next week answering the questions, because I do believe we can learn something significant from examining church tradition.  I think this is a crucial thing to do in the discussion we’ve been having, because I would argue that many evangelical Christians assume the following three things:

    1) The church has traditionally held that only men can be pastors, teachers, and elders
     2) The increase in women pastors, elders, and teachers is due more to the influence of secular feminism than it is to Biblical scholarship. 
     3) Therefore, a Biblical church will resist cultural influence and allow only men to be pastors, teachers, and elders

Does this resonate with you?  Have you heard this argument before, or do you believe it yourself?  I have found that many churches and Christians, when faced with the complex issue of gender roles in church, would rather err on the side of “men only” leadership, because “that’s the way it’s always been.”

But is that the way it’s always been?  And if that’s the way it’s always been, are there good reasons that it has been that way?

Next week I’ll do a more thorough analysis on how church tradition has handled this issue.  In the meantime, I would love to hear your thoughts on how reason and experience influence your views on the roles of men and women in the church.  Bible and tradition aside, what has been your experience of “men-only” church leadership?  What has been your experience of men and women working together in leadership, whether in the church or in society?  Do you see any rational basis to exclude women from positions of authority or teaching in the church?  If you have any thoughts or questions, please post your comments so that we might learn from each other on this subject. 


Read the Comments

[ # 662 ] Comment from Barbara [June 27, 2007, 7:16 am]

Eric,
As a woman in ministry in an evangelical setting, I have not always found the kind of affirming thinking exhibited in your blog. While I deeply respect the Romans 14 “disputable matter” nature of this issue, it has always been a great struggle to look at the gifts God has given me and compare them with the doors church leaders have been willing to open for me. The two have not always lined up.

I am in seminary now, studying in a largely male environment. While most of my classmates are respectful, considerate and open to God’s gifting in my life, I have experienced painful and awkward moments. These include men refusing to look at me during my class presentations and class assigned sermons, doodling on papers, fidgeting in their seats, etc. These include men who assume (quite incorrectly) that because I am a female associate pastor, I am also politically liberal, feminist and pro-abortion. Again, while I absolutely understand the disputable nature of this issue, I make every effort by the grace of God to respect “the other side.” It would be a huge step forward — and a great healing step–to experience the same respect from those who hold a different view than my own.

I am a licensed minister in a very supportive and encouraging evangelical setting (the C&MA), but even there women are restricted from a few roles that tradition has reserved for men. For example, in the C&MA, men and women train in absolutely identical ways for the ordination to ministry. Every paper, class, and requirement over a two-year process is identical regardless of gender. The 2 hour oral exam is identical for both men and women. The only difference appears at the end of all the work and preparation: men are ordained and can use the title Reverend. Women, instead, are “only” consecrated and can use the title, “Woman in Ministry.” Again, while Consecration is an honor and a blessing, and a definite step forward for conservative evangelicalism–it is very difficult to avoid the observation that there is an unbiblical double standard being applied here. Humility, faith, patience, courage, and a grateful heart sustain women in ministry under these circumstances.

It is immensely refreshing to read a young church leader in an evangelical setting who is thinking biblicly and coming up with a Galatians 3:28 answer to this difficult question. If you have not already done so, consider R.T. France’s slim volume, “WOMEN IN THE CHURCH’S MINISTRY:
A TEST CASE FOR BIBLICAL INTERPRETATION.”
THANK YOU!!!!

[ # 663 ] Comment from Eric Stillman [June 27, 2007, 8:46 am]

You’re welcome. I think it’s one thing to come to the conclusion that the Bible does not prohibit women from chuch leadership. It’s an entirely other thing to actually encourage and support women in pursuing and being successful in church leadership. Hopefully you can be an encouragement and support to the next generation of woman church leaders.

[ # 789 ] Comment from Rachel [July 9, 2007, 1:52 pm]

Thank you so much for posting this and your other blogs about women in the church!

I am about to start my senior year of high school, and I already feel that God has called me into the ministry to be a pastor. I have kept this low-key, partially for fear of open opposition. My father is not Christian and is of the opinion that I will not make it on this path simply because I am female. Thankfully, my home church supports women in all roles so I have many strong Christian women to look up to.

These blogs are so encouraging for me, I now feel as though I can stand up and defend my calling much more thoroughly to those who feel that I cannot make it. Thank you so much, I have enjoyed all of the blog entries of yours that I have read and I am glad to see there is someone out there who is still preaching Biblical truths.

Thanks again, and God bless!

[ # 807 ] Comment from Eric Stillman [July 10, 2007, 1:55 pm]

Rachel - you are very welcome, and thank you for the kind words. You are indeed a brave young woman to follow the call on your life despite the very real possibility of discrimination or opposition. But I truly believe that God did not make a mistake when he gave you the gifts He gave you, and it would be wrong for you to have those gifts and not use them in service to Him and others. May God bless you as you follow the call on your life!

[ # 809 ] Comment from Rob [July 10, 2007, 2:31 pm]

Kudos Eric,

Women preaching,teaching and leading, there has been no other topic that hascaused more division in the church. Why and where does it come from? Is it as Biblical as some want to think?

Ok where to start… 1 Timothy 2:12:
“I do not let women teach men or have authority over…” (NLT)

This is the first one. It’s hard to deal with because the words are black and
white. I had a discussion with a friend of mine who says this is the crux of it. And at face value I agree. But can we take all that the Bible says at face
value? I don’t believe so. When Paul, a few verses later, says in v.15:

“But women will be saved through child-bearing, and by continuing to live in
faith, love, holiness, and modesty”. (NLT)

Can we truly believe that women can only be saved through child-bearing!?
What do we do with those words that are so “black and white”? However we
want to take it, one thing is for sure, most, if not all Biblical commentators
(including myself) firmly believe that this verse is NOT saying women may
be saved only if they experience child birth. Men and Women are saved by
grace alone, not by any work. So what does v.15 say? We need to
understand how the grammar and words are functioning, how it fits with the
theology and theme of the entire letter. In fact, we need to compare and
understand it theological compared to the bible as a whole. It’s not “black
and white”! So in light of this, what makes v.12 so different to v.15.
Also, taking it a few verses back, in v.9, Paul says women should not wear
jewelry. Do we take that seriously today? Well, (the response I’ve heard too
many times), that is cultural and the command for women not teaching is
not. How do you know? Does that mean we don’t have to dress modestly
anymore (v.9 & 15). Can we truly dissect a paragraph and say that one
verse is cultural while the next is not. What exegetical method is that?Either you take it all as cultural or not.

Also it is important to note v.15 is a personal comment from Paul, he
specifically says that HE does not permit women teaching, it is not God that
does not permit it!

Ok next one, Titus 2:4
“These older women must train the younger women to love their husbands
and their children…” (NLT)

This verse is used to back 1 Tim 2:12. But is it imperative? I mean, does it
solely mean that women should train younger women and ONLY younger
women? Paul does not say ONLY younger women! There is nothing said by
Paul about older men training younger men, so what does that mean? Only
Timothy is given the charge.

God has used women throughout the Bible as leaders, when challenged with
those women, men like to respond that there were no men worthy enough
to stand up as leaders, and that this was a great travesty. But where in the
Bible is that said?? (For example: nothing is said about Deborah!!! In fact
she works together with other men leading Israel!).

The more we look into it the more it does not warrant the amount of hard
lined, conservative attention it gets. It baffles me why some people would
consider it heresy if a women were to preach in church based on verses that
really fall apart with just some simple Biblical exegesis.

[ # 817 ] Comment from Eric Stillman [July 10, 2007, 2:58 pm]

Thanks Rob for your comments & additions to the exegesis of the passages… I don’t think I’d say the verses just fall apart with simple Biblical exegesis, but I do agree with your conclusion as to the right of women to preach & lead in the church.

[ # 1079 ] Comment from Rosalie [July 19, 2007, 9:33 am]

I am preparing to write a research paper on Women in Ministry from the first 1500 years. I appreciate the insights shared on this topic and think they will be helpful. Thank you.

[ # 2140 ] Comment from Thobi Lwazi (SA) [August 24, 2007, 5:36 am]

I agree with the fact that Paul was being personal on certain issues and God wouldn’t raise females to preach if He was against it.

Write a comment