Download Document

Men, women and ministry
in Hope Church
Nigel Halliday
A paper based on three sermons
given in May 2013
2
Introduction
When we adopted our church constitution in May 2008 we promised to review our
policy, endorsed by the constitution, that only men can be elders, as well as our practice
of only asking men to lead and teach on Sunday mornings. We carried out that review
with a series of Bible workshops open to the whole church, and a summary three
sermons from the elders.
The outcome of the review is that we cannot see any theological reason why women
cannot, under the authority of the elders, ‘lead’ our church gatherings or teach from the
Bible. However, we believe that the Bible shows us a pattern of male accountability
within the family and the church that leads to the conclusion that only men should be
elders.
For the benefit of those subsequently joining Hope, or others wanting to revisit this
subject, I have written up the three sermons in the following paper. To avoid having to
argue over phraseology, the paper is in my name. However, it has been approved by my
fellow elders, and seeks to faithfully represent our joint understanding of the main Biblical
passages that have led us to our current position.
I am conscious that, even with editing, this paper is quite long. But given the seriousness
of the subject, and the complexity of some of the arguments, it is important to give the
topic the space it needs.
Difficulties
We need to start by acknowledging the difficulties and debates that inevitably pressure
our understanding of these issues.
Firstly, we live in culture in which any suggestion of different responsibilities, or limitation
of opportunities for women, is likely to look like sexism, prejudice against the legitimate
rights and interests of women. This is fuelled by righteous indignation at the
mistreatment of women in many cultures, including our own, in which they have been
wrongly excluded from, among other things, education, property ownership, equal pay for
equal work, and a role in public life. Whilst there is widespread research and discussion
into the differences between men and women beyond the purely biological, there is great
sensitivity over gender stereotyping, from toy stores to the job market. One might, on
the other hand, argue that our culture is not nearly as equal-handed in practice as it is in
theory, and the apparent gains of female ‘equality’ may not have served women well.
There is, for instance, growing acknowledgement among those who originally campaigned
for sexual liberation in the 1960s that the results have largely favoured men rather than
women.
Secondly, Christians therefore have to tread carefully in this area. Our culture has some
very strong beliefs but, holding to a view that the universe is fundamentally purposeless
and meaningless, has no real basis or authority on which to ground them. Debate
therefore often skirts rational argument and can become shrill and aggressive, as though
truth and righteousness is established by power or passion alone. We must not lose sight
of the fact that our greatest witness is the way we behave, not our ability to win an
3
argument. Also, we do not want to look more different from our surrounding culture
than we need to: we don’t want to create any unnecessary hurdles for people to clear in
order to meet Jesus. But we have to balance this against the fact that we can’t sacrifice
Bible truth to the pressures of our culture to conform to its beliefs.
But thirdly, it is hard for us sometimes to know which pressures come from our culture.
If we talk about restrictions on what women can do, are we being influenced by the
patriarchal, sexist elements of our culture? But if we argue for complete equality and
interchangeability of men and women, are we being influenced by the growing trends
within our humanist culture? If we are going to be faithful to Jesus, we have to keep
examining ourselves and try humbly and faithfully to work out what the Bible teaches.
But that leads us to a fourth area of difficulty: some of the passages on this subject are
very hard to untangle, while some seem perfectly clear but are hard to square with other
passages. For instance, 1 Timothy 2:12 says, ‘I do not permit a woman to teach or to
have authority over a man’; but we know that Priscilla helped to teach Apollos (Acts
18:26). The Corinthians are told that ‘It is disgraceful for a woman to speak in the
church’ (1 Cor. 14:35) and yet women can pray and prophesy in church meetings (1 Cor.
11:5).
Finally, we also have to judge which commands in Scripture were specific for their time
and place, and need to be reinterpreted for our own; and which are normative for all
people and all times. This is true for all our Bible study, but is a particularly contentious
issue in this area.
So it’s not easy. Christians have come to passionately held, opposing views. But this does
not mean we can simply choose the view that suits us: that would be a disastrous
approach to Scripture, and tempt us into picking and choosing interpretations of other
parts of Scripture that suit our fallen desires. We have to enter into the heated debate,
but determined not to stoke the flames any higher through name-calling or impugning
motives. Rather we have to seek humbly after Biblical truth, remembering that there are
bigger issues in life than getting our own way: issues of love, patience, forebearance,
humility.
1. Men and women in the history of salvation
It is important to form our understanding of any subject within a Christian worldview that
is framed by the pattern of Creation – Fall – Redemption – Restoration. We look at
God’s revealed good plan in Creation; the consequences of our rebellion against him; and
the effects of his plan of salvation and restoration in Christ.
Genesis 1:26–28
Equal as God’s image The opening account of Creation in Genesis 1 emphasises that men
and women together and equally reflect the image of God. Verse 27 explicitly says that
God makes ‘male and female’ in his own image. It is not that man is more like God; nor
that when God made man he was only practising. Men and women are equally valued as
being made in the image of God. In a culture where Christianity is often assumed to be
4
‘anti-women’, we should make much of this fact. The Biblical emphasis on the equal value
of women is vastly different from the view of the ancient world where female infanticide
was so widely practised that there was a measurable imbalance between the sexes across
the population, as there is today in India and China. The Bible is very good news for
women.
Equal in the task The two sexes are jointly given the task of filling, subduing and ruling
the earth (‘so that they may rule’ v.26). ‘God blessed them and said to them, “Be fruitful
and increase ... fill ... subdue ... rule’ (v.28). Men and women together, of course, populate
the earth. But they also jointly explore and develop the potential of God’s wonderful
creation. There is nothing here to indicate that certain tasks in subduing the earth –
being an engineer, cleaner, teacher, primary carer for your children – is prescribed for
either sex: it is a joint task. We can also refer to Proverbs 31 for the description of the
‘wife of noble character’ who trades in goods and real estate, runs a manufacturing
operation, engages in social welfare, and is known for her wisdom and teaching – as well
as running the home and caring for her children. Her husband, meanwhile, sits among the
elders!
Genesis 2
Where Genesis 1 describes the creation as a sequence of ‘forming and filling’, culminating
in the creation of mankind to rule over it, Genesis 2 gives us an additional perspective,
which introduces differences between the sexes which the New Testament holds to be
important.
Man is created first Genesis 2 is explicit that there is a sequence of events in which man
is made, his being alone is declared by God to be ‘not good’ (the first thing in Genesis to
be declared so); and therefore God makes woman from man, not directly from the earth
(2:7, 21). It is conceivable that God could have made Adam and Eve at the same time
from the dust of the earth, but he clearly chose not to do so. The chapter ends with the
much-quoted v.24 about marriage: that the man leaves his parents and is united with his
wife as one flesh. The image is one of complementarity and completeness. Husband and
wife are different from each other, and that difference is a good thing, something to be
celebrated (see also 1 Cor. 11:11–12). But this isn’t just about marriage. The NT gives
us a revolutionary view of the value of singleness. A single person is every bit as much
made in the image of God – but never independently of the other sex: it is in our
complementarity that we reflect the image of God.
New Testament references The fact that man is made first is cited by Paul twice as of
particular significance, in 1 Corinthians 11:7 and 1 Timothy 2:12-13. Both passages are
difficult to unpack, but at this point it is important simply to log that Paul sees a particular
significance in the order of creation.
Woman is man’s helper In verses 18 and 20 woman is described as being made to be
man’s ‘helper’. This is not a demeaning term or role, because God describes himself as
Israel’s helper (e.g. Exodus 18:4; Psalms 30:10; 33:20; 54:4; 118:7, quoted in Hebrews
13:6). God is not inferior to Israel, but comes alongside Israel to rescue them. To be a
helper can be seen as an immense calling, without any loss of dignity, but only perhaps
within the Lord’s scale of values, not those of rebellious humanity! In the topsy-turvy
kingdom of our holy God, who humbles himself to become a servant to his rebellious
creatures, the greatest are those who humble themselves to be the servant of all.
5
However, this image does indicate an order and a relationship that is not of two identical,
interchangeable functions. Man is not described as woman’s ‘helper’.
It is as if man has been given a task, and the woman is there (perhaps in a superior way,
but certainly in an essential way) to help him fulfil his task. They are jointly subduing the
earth (1:28), but apparently with some distinction in contribution to the joint task; a
distinction in responsibility. Men cannot do their work without women, and women
stand beside men as God stands beside Israel.
Genesis 3
Man and woman share in sin This chapter shows us that men and women together fall
from the glory of God, usurping his authority in choosing to decide good and evil for
themselves. They both share in the consequences of curse, eviction from the garden, and
death.
Man and woman are divided by sin We also see in this account that sin causes men and
women to lose their God-given unity, and start to turn against each other. First the man
blames the woman (v.12). Then the curses probably signal the beginning of the ungodly
‘battle of the sexes’. When the woman is told that ‘Your desire will be for your
husband’, this in the context is clearly not a good thing: although it could refer to a
yearning for lost intimacy, many commentators interpret it as ‘You will desire to rule
over your husband’ (the same language is used in the next chapter when God warns Cain
that sin ‘desires to have you, but you must rule over it’ (Gen. 4:7), pointing to a grasping
desire met with a harsh rule). The next line, ‘and he will rule over you’ probably warns of
the man’s misuse of power; domination rather than servant-leadership.
We can note that the effects of sin and curse are different: for woman, the effects are
especially felt in childbearing, and in her relationship with her husband. For the man, the
effects of the curse are in manual labour. Some argue that this difference reflects ‘roles’
arising out of Genesis 2, but we should be cautious about reading these differences as
prescriptive rather than descriptive.
Man is held accountable for sin It is striking that, although Eve eats the fruit first, Adam is
held accountable (contrary, again, to much in our own and other cultures that blames
women as the source of temptation and evil). God speaks to Adam, not Eve, in the
garden (v.9). He holds it against Adam that he had ‘listened to his wife’ (v.17). Adam
had been led by her to disobey an instruction God had given him. This distinction is held
to be particularly significant in a number of passages in the NT (Rom. 5:12-14; 1 Cor.
15:20-22; 1 Tim. 2:14).
Equal in salvation
In the midst of the curses in Genesis 3 is also, already, the first promise of God’s plan of
salvation: that Christ will come and crush Satan (Gen. 3:15). When he does, it is equally
for women and men. Romans 3:23-24 emphasises that, just as all have sinned, so also
Christ’s redemption is for all sinners. Galatians 3:26-28 spells out that, just as salvation is
equally for Jews and Gentiles, and slaves and non-slaves, so also it is equally for men and
women.
Some have argued that, when Galatians 3 says that in Christ there is not ‘male and
female’, this abolishes all distinctions in male/female ministries and responsibilities. But
6
that is not what the passage says. Becoming a Christian did not mean someone stopped
being a slave or a free person: but that in the greatest issue of human life – our standing
before God – these differences made no difference.
It is interesting how Luke, in the book of Acts, specifically highlights the role of women:
that men and women will prophesy (2:17); men and women are added to the believers
(5:14); men and women are baptised (8:12). In each case he could have used the general
Greek word for ‘people’, but instead he chooses the words that emphasise the two
sexes, ‘men’ and ‘women’.
It is also notable that, when Saul sets out to persecute the church, he arrests ‘men and
women’ (Acts 9:2; 22:4), suggesting that women were playing a prominent role as active
participants and evangelists for the faith.
The sign of entering the NT people of God is baptism, equally applicable to both sexes, as
distinct from OT circumcision, which of course was applied to men only. Paul specifically
says that he wants women to learn (1 Tim. 2:11), contrary to OT Jewish practices, which
actively refused to educate women about the faith. Throughout the NT, generally the
gifts of the Spirit don’t seem to be differentiated by gender (1 Corinthians 12–14); women
as well as men can pray and prophesy; and the teaching and instructions, although
occasionally specifically directed to men and women separately (e.g. 1 Pet. 3:5; 1 Tim.
2:9), are generally for everyone together.
In the most important area of life – being made right with our God – there is no
favouritism, prejudice, or difference: every human being stands guilty before our Creator
God, is called to repent and turn to God, and is equally offered the grace of God, through
Jesus. We all share one hope, one faith, one Lord, one baptism (Eph. 4:5).
The ‘trajectory’ argument
Some have argued that God wants to establish absolute equality between men and
women; that this simply wasn’t practical in the patriarchal culture of the NT; but that the
NT sets a trajectory for behaviour and attitudes in the church that should lead ultimately
to that complete equality. The parallel is made to the question of slavery, which is not
forbidden in the NT, but which is so undermined by NT teaching (e.g. Eph. 6:9) that it
becomes repulsive as an idea and we forbid it by law.
However, this argument undermines the completeness of Scripture: that the meaning of
the Bible is not within the text, but is constrained by what has come afterwards. This
view is open to abuse, as we currently see in the arguments for accepting homosexual
practices within the church community. The Bible seems perfectly willing to challenge
human culture when it wants: to a polytheistic culture it says there is only one God; to
pagans who hold to a female creative principle, it says God is a Father; Jesus disappoints
the rich young ruler in a culture that assumes wealth is a sign of God’s blessing; and Jesus
sits and speaks with the Samaritan woman at the well – two transgressions in one! It
seems safer to assume that, if absolute equality of responsibility between men and women
were God’s desired outcome, we would see that clearly in Scripture.
This reading of Genesis does not condone any mistreatment of women by men, nor
should it create a fatalistic expectation that marriage will always be a war-zone. We seek
to mitigate the curses of the Fall through, for instance, pain-relief in childbirth and
advances in agriculture. In the same way we are to mitigate the effects of the Fall on our
relationships through godly behaviour towards one another, and Ephesians 5:22-33 seems
7
to be doing exactly this for marriage. However, the curses of the Fall, including their
effect on male–female relationships, will remain a reality until Jesus returns to make all
things new.
Summary so far
Men and women, different but complementary, together and equally reflect the image of
God. We share equally in the task of filling and subduing the earth. We are equal in
sinfulness and in redemption; and we share the same baptism, the same Holy Spirit.
And yet there are differences that the NT writers regard as significant: there is an order
in creation and different responsibilities or contributions to the joint task: woman is
described as man’s helper; man is not described as woman’s helper. ‘Helper’, however, is
not a demeaning term, as God describes himself as Israel’s helper. And in particular man
is held responsible for sin in a way woman is not.
This seems to be a pattern that fits with NT teaching on ‘headship’ in marriage in
Ephesians 5, paralleled to the unequal relationship of Jesus and the church, which is where
we go now.
2. What does ‘headship’ mean?
In 1 Corinthians 11 Paul says that ‘the head of the woman is man’, and in Ephesians 5:23
that ‘the husband is the head of the wife’. But what Paul means by ‘head’ is hotly
debated: claims are made that it means (i) ‘authority’; (ii) ‘source’; or (iii) ‘prominence’ or
‘representative significance’. To try to see what Paul means by ‘head’ – the Greek work is
kephale [pronounced kef-allay] – we have, as usual, to compare Scripture with Scripture,
but we also need to allow that the metaphor may change from passage to passage.
Before we look at the passages, there are some general observations.
Does kephale mean ‘authority’? Some argue that clearly ‘head’ means authority,
someone with the power to command others, as in headteacher or head of an
organisation. Jesus is the head of the church, it is argued: he is the boss, law-giver, ruler.
He has authority over it. Husbands therefore have authority over their wives etc.
However, when we look at the Septuagint – the translation of the Hebrew OT into
Greek, made c. 200–300 BC – we find something interesting. In Hebrew the word for
‘head’ – r’osh – has a similar set of meanings to English: i.e. it means the head on your
shoulders; it can also mean the beginning (r’osh hashanah, the Jewish new year, literally
means ‘head of the year’); and it can mean the boss-person. But when the OT uses r’osh
in the last sense, it was not translated into Greek as kephale but by other words clearly
denoting authority (arche or hegemon). This suggests that the word kephale, literally
meaning head, did not, at least at that time, have the metaphorical sense of authority. It
may refer to someone who has authority, but that authority was not taken to be what the
writer or speaker was pointing to.
Does kephale mean ‘source’ or ‘origin of life’? Just as we talk about the ‘head of river’,
meaning its source, some argue that kephale in the NT means ‘origin of life’. Thus, it is
suggested that when 1 Corinthians 11:3 speaks of Christ as the head of every man, man as
8
the head of the woman, and God as the head of Christ, Paul is not talking about authority,
but about the order of creation: that man was made by Christ (whom we now
understand to be the one through whom all things were made, John 1:3); that woman was
made from man; and that at the incarnation God made Christ to take on flesh.
Others deny that kephale is ever used in Scripture or Greek literature to mean source of
life: it can mean ‘source of a river’ but never source of a person. However, in 1
Corinthians 11 the idea that kephale means ‘source’ also runs into a number of other
serious problems, set out in the next section, which make it unsustainable.
Does kephale mean ‘pre-eminence’? We think so. Please read on.
1 Corinthians 11:2–16
The context for this passage is propriety in the gatherings of the church: Paul wants good
order in the church, so that the church and the Lord are not brought into disrepute. Part
of that good order is to avoid behaviour that would blur the distinction of the two sexes.
The passage is not about ministries, about who can pray or not pray, because both can: it
is about propriety in dress while praying.
As we have seen in the Genesis passages, unity in difference seems to be part of the way
in which we are the image of God. He is himself three distinct persons in the Godhead.
We are created as two distinct sexes who together are his image, although one of the
many consequences of the Fall is that, sadly, some people are born with, or acquire,
genuine confusion about their sexuality, and they must be treated with the utmost love
and compassion. For Hope Church, this passage should not lead us into a legalistic
debate about whether we should wear or not wear headgear when we pray. After all,
Paul’s appeal is to culture (v.13): ‘judge for yourselves’ what looks right. Rather the
question for us would be: ‘Are there any ways in which we are not maintaining and
celebrating the distinction of the two sexes?’
But then, in trying to understand what God is telling us about male–female relationships,
we have to ask what Paul means by ‘the head of the woman is man’ (v.3).
It comes in the middle of a sequence: Christ/man; man/woman; God/Christ. As is said
above, some want to argue that this is not about authority, but about chronology: Christ
gave life to man; then woman was made from man; then Christ came from God at the
incarnation. Thus, it is argued, kephale means ‘origin’ or ‘source’ of life, and thus Biblical
headship means having the function of a servant, giving life to others.
Whilst no one could object to headship involving servant-heartedness, there are major
problems with suggesting that kephale here means ‘source’. As already said, there is
dispute as to whether the word was ever used to mean ‘source of a person’. If it did, it
is a surprise that he does not use the word in verse 11 when the idea of ‘source’ is clearly
in view. In verse 3 he says that ‘man is the head of woman’, but then in verse 11 he wants
to deny any idea of independence between the sexes: woman came from man, but every
man is born of woman. If kephale means ‘source’ or ‘origin of life’, this would be a
perfect time to use it, but Paul does not. Even the key proponent of the argument that
‘kephale = source’ admits this is a weakness.
Also, if 1 Corinthians 11:3 describes a chronology, it would suggest that, just as there was
a moment in Genesis 2 when there was a man but no woman, so by analogy there was a
time when there was God but no Christ. The origin of the Son of God was a highly
contentious issue in early church, with some arguing that Christ is not co-eternal with the
9
Father, but ‘became’ the Son at a distinct point. If kephale means ‘source’ and this
passage was arguing that the Father was the source of Christ, as woman was made from
man, it would have been a powerful argument. But there is no record that anyone used it
that way: it was always understood as being about authority or pre-eminence, not
‘origin/source’.
On the contrary, the passage does seem to be talking about structure, indeed, if we can
use the word gingerly, hierarchy. It is about bringing or not bringing shame or dishonour
on someone else – someone you look up to; someone on whom your behaviour will
reflect: man is not to bring dishonour on his head, Jesus; woman is not to bring dishonour
on man. Man honours Christ; woman honours man; Christ honours the Father.
But ‘hierarchy’ is a very loaded term, and we need to look at Ephesians 5 to see more of
what Paul means by ‘headship’, and how it is to be lived out.
Ephesians 5
The great theme of Ephesians is the unity of all things through and under Christ. In
chapter 5 we see that part of us maintaining unity is to be filled with the Spirit (v.18),
which leads to us speaking to one another in an uplifting manner, giving thanks, and
submitting to one another (5:21). In this content Paul says, ‘wives submit to your
husbands’ (v.22).
Some argue strongly that verse 21 rules the whole passage, commanding mutual
submission, and therefore husbands must in their turn submit to their wives. But that
isn’t what the passage says. Certainly, verse 21 commands a general submissiveness of
believers to one another, but submission may take different forms in different
circumstances. This passage is not just about husbands and wives: it is about what Spiritfilled (v.18) behaviour looks like in a number of relationships: wives and husbands;
children and parents; slaves and masters. The latter two are certainly unequal, nonreciprocal relationships: parents don’t submit to their children; nor masters to slaves.
Nor, in the comparison Paul gives in verse 23, does Christ submit to the church.
Similarly, it does not say ‘Husbands submit to your wives.’ It does says something else,
and more demanding, to husbands, which we will address shortly.
Some argue that Paul is making a concession to a patriarchal society: for the sake of a
good witness, wives should forego their rights, and submit to their husbands as society
expects. But, as we have argued above, the Bible is perfectly willing to challenge cultural
norms when it wants to. Also, the reason Paul gives for wives submitting to their
husbands is not culturally relative: it is linked to the unchanging reality of our relationship
with Christ.
But does this mean that the church just slips back into brow-beating women into being
submissive housewives and doormats? No. The pattern for headship in marriage is Jesus’
being head of the church. So we need to look at what Paul says on that subject, which he
discusses a number of times in this letter, and in the companion letter to the Colossians.
In Ephesians there are three references to Christ being ‘the head’, and it is worth
comparing them:
Ephesians 1:10 Here we are told that, at the end of this age, God will ‘bring unity to all
things’ under Christ. The word kephale is lost in the English translation, but is present in
the Greek. The word means that all things will be summed up and brought together, with
Jesus being supreme – the ‘head’ – over them all (the word is also used in Romans 13:9
10
when Paul talks about all God’s separate laws being ‘summed up’ in the one rule ‘Love
your neighbour as yourself.’) The picture is of Jesus’ overarching, all-encompassing
authority. But we should note that this passage is talking of his being head of ‘all things’,
not specifically of the church.
Ephesians 1:22-23 In these verses, however, there seem to be two metaphors. In verse
22 Jesus is again referred to as head over everything – he rules over all things. But note
that he is stated here not to be ruling over the church; but ruling over all things for the
church.
But then in verse 23, referring to Jesus and the church, the metaphor slides from that of
‘head’ as ruler over subjects, to ‘head’ as that which is attached to a body: the church is
Jesus’ body, ‘the fulness of him who fills everything in every way’. It is a difficult image to
unpack, but it has the sense of the church expressing or completing who Jesus is – as his
kingdom grows in and through the church, Jesus is gradually establishing his rule, filling his
universe with his presence, through his church. Jesus in this sense is the head of church,
organically linked, but with a role of shaping and directing its development to the fulness
of what it is intended to be.
So Paul here seems to interweave two metaphors: in relation to the cosmos, Jesus is the
‘head’ in the sense of supreme ruler and authority; but in relation to the church, Jesus is
the head of the body, suggesting pre-eminence, direction and leadership, but not in the
distanced relationship of king and subject, commander and soldier; but in the organic
unity of head and body; similar to the one-flesh unity of husband and wife; and the perfect
union of the Godhead, Father, Son and Holy Spirit.
Ephesians 4:15-16 The idea of Jesus’ pre-eminence, leading and shaping the church, is
then picked up again here: Christ is the head from whom the whole body grows and
builds itself. Again, it is not the idea of commanding authority, but of leading / guiding /
shaping towards a goal of mature unity between head and body.
So when we read that the husband is head of the wife as Jesus is the head of the church,
we should not be envisaging a distanced relationship of king/subject, master/servant (it is
worth noting also that the word used for wives ‘submitting’ (Eph. 5:22) is different to the
word used for children ‘obeying’ (Eph. 6:1)); but the organic unity of head and body; not
the idea of ruling authority, but more the model of pre-eminence, representative
significance, taking responsibility for leading, shaping, developing, in order to bring about
the full glory of the body. This in turn fits with the pattern we have seen in Genesis of
male accountability – that the man is held responsible in a way the woman is not –
something is expected of him that is not expected of her. It suggests hierarchy, but
without oppression. Hierarchy the way God does it.
What does that mean in practice?
The traditional interpretation of kephale has been to read ‘head’ as ‘authority’, leader,
decision-maker. Some specifically say that when husband and wife can’t agree, the
husband decides (and gets his way?) But that doesn’t really sound like a Biblical model for
conducting relationships and making decisions. And it isn’t what Ephesians 5 says at all.
As we have seen, Ephesians 5 is about what Spirit-filled living looks like in a series of
unequal relationships. In each case, the first mentioned is the one who in human society
would naturally be expected to submit: wives, children, slaves. But perhaps, in our focus
on women’s ministries and submission, we miss the real kick in this passage: what is said
11
to the husband, father and master, who of course may be one and the same person.
They are to love their wives, and to deal considerately with their children and their
slaves. This is a bombshell for heads of household, who under Roman law had virtually
untrammelled authority over wife, children, servants, and slaves. But Paul calls this
person to exercise Christlike servant-hearted authority.
We are naturally uneasy about ideas of hierarchy, in society or in marriage. In many
societies, including the west at times, women are tyrannised by their husbands, excluded
from the public square, from education, even from showing their faces. Too many
women have suffered abuse from their husbands (and, although there is no room to
expand here, it should be noted that in the view of many Christians no one is required to
remain in an abusive or violent marriage: the abuser has already broken the marriage, and
the abused partner is free to leave). Sadly, we are all deeply affected by the Fall, and we
have to take safeguards against its effects, including against the abuse of power in all
situations, whether in civil government or in the family.
But we shouldn’t lose sight of what the Bible tells us is God’s pattern. We often joke
about wanting to live under a benign dictatorship, but that is exactly what we do: God is
our absolute ruler, but he rules for the good of his people, even sacrificing himself for our
good, even when we rebel against him. Such a system will never happen in fallen human
society, because we are all corrupted by power: but the ideal picture that God sets
before us for family and church does seem to be one of benign, loving hierarchy, a
hierarchy which is exercised as God exercises it.
In that light, we should look again at Ephesians 5. Too often with these verses we make a
simple pairing of ideas: the wife submits; the husband is the head.1
vv. 22–23
Women
Men
Submit
Head
But the more logical pairing of ideas in this passage is: head/body; submit/sacrifice;
respect/love. The counterpart to ‘the husband is the head of the wife’ (v.23) is that the
wife is the body of the husband (v.28). The counterpart to ‘wives, submit to your
husbands’ (v.22) is ‘husbands, love your wives as Christ loved the church and gave himself
up for her’ (v.25).
Women
Men
vv. 23, 28
Body
Head
vv.22, 24
vv.23, 25
Submit
Sacrifice
v.33
Respect
Love
The following tables are borrowed from Sarah Sumner, Men and women in the church (IVP,
2003), p. 161.
1
12
We should also note that in the NT submission is a voluntary act. We choose to submit
to one another out of reverence for Christ, and there is no command to enforce
submission (i.e. it does not say, ‘Husbands, make sure your wives submit to you.’)
Summary so far
The Bible teaches the equal worth of man and woman, who together are the image of
God. But it points to an unequalness in the relationship which is patterned on the loving
unity but unequal relationship between Jesus and the church.
But if we exercise hierarchy, we are to do so as God does it. There seems to be a
hierarchy with the Godhead: the Father sends the Son and the Spirit, not vice versa. The
Son only does/says what he sees/hears from the Father. The Father gives authority to the
Son. The Son will one day hand it back to the Father. And yet divine hierarchy is
exercised through the humbling of the higher out of a desire to honour the lower: the
Father does not submit to the Son, but his great desire is that everyone should honour
his Son. The Spirit’s desire is that we all honour Jesus. Jesus is equally God as is the
Father, but he obeys the Father, and his desire is to honour him.
The hierarchy between Jesus and the church is also exercised through an absolute desire
to do good to the other party, even through self-sacrifice: hence, the example of Jesus’
headship in Ephesians 5 is that he is the church’s Saviour – he sacrificed his life to save
ours, even when we were rebels who hated him. That in turn is the pattern for us: the
hierarchy of man/woman is such that the man/husband is to be characterised by a willing,
even heroic, willingness and desire to sacrifice his own interests for the good of the
woman/wife.
3. Eldership
Jesus and women
We don’t have space to do so here, but it is instructive to look at how Jesus treated
women. This shows up, as said previously, that it is unfortunate that the issue of male
leadership in the church makes Christianity look anti-women, because the Gospel
significantly promotes the interests of women as equal in value and worth to men, and
positively encourages their education and participation in church and society. Dorothy L.
Sayers wrote on the subject:
They had never known a man like this Man – there never has been such another. A
prophet and teacher who never nagged at them, never flattered or coaxed or patronized;
who never made arch jokes about them, never treated them either as ‘The women, God
help us!’ or ‘The ladies, God bless them’, who rebuked without querulousness and praised
without condescension; who took their questions and arguments seriously; who never
mapped out their sphere for them; never urged them to be feminine nor jeered at them
for being female; who had no axe to grind and no uneasy male dignity to defend; who
took them as he found them and was completely unselfconscious. There is no act, no
sermon, no parable in the whole Gospel that borrows its pungency from female
13
perversity; nobody could possibly guess from the words and deeds of Jesus that there was
anything ‘funny’ about women’s nature.2
We should also note the range of activities in which we see women involved in the NT,
including:
Ø praying and prophesying (1 Cor. 11:4-5; 14:3-5, 12-19, 24-26, 31)
Ø teaching and admonishing (Col. 3:16; Titus 2:3; Eph. 6:1; cf 1 Tim. 5:9-10; 2
Tim. 1:5; 3:14-15; Acts 18:26. Eunice and Chloe teach Timothy (2 Tim. 1:5,
3:14-15))
Ø serving as deacons (Phoebe in Rom. 16:1; 1 Tim. 3)
Ø serving and commended as Paul’s fellow-workers (Euodia and Syntyche in
Phil 4:2-3)
Ø financially supporting, opening their homes etc.
In considering a possible restriction on an area of service, it is important to set it in the
context of the above, because the overall character of our life in Christ is freedom (Gal.
2:4) – freedom from the Law, from religion; not freedom to sin, but freedom to worship
God with all that he has made you to be.
1 Timothy 2
This is a notoriously difficult passage, because it is hard to make consecutive sense of how
one verse ties in with the others; and because verse 12 appears stark and clear, but
seems to sit awkwardly with other NT passages.
The context of the letter is that Paul is wanting Timothy to save the church in Ephesus
from false doctrine. He has left Timothy there to command certain people not to teach
these false doctrines (1:3) because they promote controversy and division, not love and
peace (1:3-4). In Chapter 2 Paul begins to explain how Timothy can do this.
Verses 1–7 The gospel, Paul says, is the only hope for everyone – so we need the best
conditions for being able to tell others the good news. So pray for peace and good order
in society.
Verse 8 The emphasis here therefore is probably not so much on the prayer, but the
‘holy hands … without anger or disputing’.
Verses 9–10 This brings a parallel wish for women: for spiritual behaviour that fosters
the unity that comes from the gospel, not envy and division.
Verse 11 Paul says that ‘A woman should learn...’: again, before getting into disputed
areas, we should note that this is a hugely positive statement. In Judaism women were
excluded from religious education. In the Christian church, Paul wants the women as well
as the men to learn.
However, he adds, they should learn ‘in quietness and full submission’. This does not
mean total silence, but in peacefulness. This probably implies that there was a certain
unruliness in the Ephesian church meetings Perhaps, as in Corinth, people were
overdoing what it meant to be ‘free in Christ’, and were inclined to argue back, and
Dorothy L. Sayers, Are women human? (1971), quoted in Derek and Diane Tidball, The
message of women (Bible Speaks Today series) (2012), p. 181.
2
14
disrupt the teaching of the church. Perhaps the false teachers were provoking
controversy. Possibly the similar passage in 1 Corinthians 14: 34–35 may help us: here
women are also told to be silent in church, and to ‘ask their own husbands at home’ if
they want to enquire about something. This suggests that the context is of formal
teaching in the church, which is not to be disrupted – not total silence in all parts of the
church gatherings (which would be at odds with 1 Corinthians 11, which clearly envisages
women praying and prophesying out loud in the church).
Verse 12 The statement ‘I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a
man’ is taken by many to be a straightforward, blanket ban on women teaching men in
any context. But its interpretation is particularly difficult, because its meaning hinges on a
single word, authentein, which is usually translated ‘to assume authority over’, but which in
fact has a huge range of possible meanings. To decide which meaning is most likely the
first recourse would be to see how the word is used elsewhere in Scripture, but in fact
this is the only time it is used. It has a basic sense of asserting oneself (English gets
various words from it, such as ‘authentic’, ‘author’, ‘authority’). It can have a neutral
sense (to exercise authority) or an aggressive one (to usurp, seize authority). It can even
mean ‘to murder’, an extreme form of seizing power over someone else.
Some have questioned whether Paul is here prohibiting one thing or two separate things.
Does he mean ‘I do not permit a woman to teach a man; and I do not permit a woman to
exercise authority over a man’? Or does he mean, ‘I do not permit a woman to teach a
man in such a way that she exercises authority over him’? The more natural reading is
the first option. Verses 11 and 12 are parallel: they start and finish with ‘quietness’.
v.11 a woman should learn in quietness and submit.
v.12 She should not teach or assume authority; she must be quiet.
Then in verse 12 the two words ‘to teach’ and ‘to assume authority’ are separated by
other words. In fact, ‘to teach’ is placed in a position of emphasis as the first word in the
sentence: ‘A woman should learn in quietness and full submission. To teach I do not
permit a woman...’ This suggests a contrast being made: that ‘to teach’ would be the
opposite of learning in quietness and submission.
Whichever reading we take, the prohibition must be limited to the meetings of the
church. For we know that older women are positively enjoined to teach younger women
(Titus 2:3), and Priscilla was involved in teaching Apollos (Acts 18:26). So we should not
read into this more than authoritative teaching in the church.
Some argue that this verse is just a local prohibition for the circumstances at that time in
Ephesus. They point firstly to the fact that Paul uses the present tense, which would
normally be translated ‘I am not permitting’. This is an unusual construction for him,
which could be taken to suggest that this is a temporary rule, which he is imposing in this
new situation in order to guarantee good order – but the rule could be relaxed when
things have settled down.
Secondly, it is argued that the false teachings, and Paul’s way of dealing with them, are
shaped by the social context. Ephesus was dominated by the Temple of Artemis, the
goddess of fertility and child-birth. It is argued that the false teachings referred to by Paul
may have involved a typically pagan expectation of a female earth-mother kind of deity (an
expectation which is also suggested as the cause for the veneration of Mary, the mother
of Jesus, soon after Constantine made Christianity an official religion, when the church
received an influx of pagan-influenced, nominal believers expecting to find a female deity).
15
Certainly other parts of 1 Timothy suggest that the false teaching was specifically targeting
women (5:13; 2 Tim. 3:6) and forbidding marriage (4:3); and Paul was concerned about
younger women leading unproductive lives (5:13-15). And possibly Paul’s statement that
Eve was not the origin of creation, nor was she particularly wise – she was deceived –
may be relevant to this debate; as also to the implication in v.15. For God himself is the
‘God of childbirth’!
Verses 13–14 However, Paul’s specific reason for his command in verse 12 is not based
in local culture but in Genesis, which suggests a timeless truth rather than a culturally
specific command. It is very hard to unpack how Paul is wanting to argue his point here,
but it is clearly rooted in the order of creation, that man was created first; and involves
some question about Eve’s role in the Fall. Some have taken this to mean that the
judgement of all women is fatally flawed, but that is nonsense: women as specifically
commanded to teach other women. If there were a blanket issue over their judgement,
then surely teaching would be the sole preserve of men, as it had been under Judaism.
Others see verse 14 as pointing to man’s greater responsibility: Eve was only deceived,
but Adam knowingly sinned and was held accountable. But this too depends on the
reader supplying a lot of material that is not in the text itself.
Verse 15 The passage does not get any easier here, as it is difficult to see how this verse
makes consecutive sense with the preceding – although we have to assume, as the letter
was intended to be read out to the congregation, that the connection of ideas must have
been quite clear to Paul and his hearers. The phrase ‘But women will be saved through
childbearing’ cannot refer to physical safety, as this would have no obvious connection
with the preceding verse, and is not true in practice. Some see it as a reference to ‘the
child birth’, meaning the coming of Jesus. But that would be an odd reading. Perhaps the
best explanation is that this is written against the background of false teaching from
paganism and Platonism. We know that some were trying to forbid marriage (4:3); and
some pagans, who saw the physical world as entirely fallen, sinful and unredeemable, felt it
was better to go through life without giving birth and thus without adding to the material
realm. But, Paul may be saying, God has commissioned us to fill the earth – he greatly
approves of having children. Bearing children is still one of the great and unique
privileges of being a woman – albeit sadly not enjoyed by all – and is in no way a bar to
salvation or contrary to the holy living that is appropriate to the gospel.
What does 1 Timothy 2 mean for us?
The context of the letter is about teaching the body of true doctrine in the church and
resisting false doctrine. This involves good order in the church, and holy living. 1
Timothy 2 can only be referring to behaviour in the meetings of the church – not outside,
and can only be about authoritative teaching of the church. This passage cannot mean a
blanket ban on any woman teaching any man, as we have the specific example of Aquila
and Priscilla teaching Apollos, but seems to be about the authoritative teaching of the
church (which, as we shall see in the next section, is the responsibility of elders), i.e.
women in church are to submit, when the teaching is happening, to what is taught.
16
1 Timothy 3
This, with Titus 1, is the key NT passage for guidance in the appointment of elders and
deacons. It seems to be significant that the section on elders refers only to men, but the
section on deacons refers to men and women.
Verses 1–7 talk us through the qualifications for elders, who are only spoken of as male.
Verses 8–10 then talk us through a similar list of qualifications for deacons who are men.
Verse 11 refers to ‘the women’. This used to be translated as ‘deacons’ wives’, but that
is surely incorrect. The Greek simply says ‘the women’. It is highly unlikely that, in the
process of appointing male-only deacons, the church should consider the character of the
deacons’ wives, when no such stipulation is made about the appointment of male elders.
It is far more likely that this verse is parallel to verses 8–10, and a similar pattern is set
out, about being ‘worthy of respect’, about how they talk to others, and about being
temperate in their behaviour.
Verses 12–13 explicitly continue the discussion of deacons, confirming that verse 11 was
indeed on the same subject.
The absence of discussion of women as elders seems to be telling: that there is clearly an
assumption that deacons can be men or women, but that elders will be men. This is
supported by Acts 20:30, where Paul has called the elders of the Ephesian church to meet
him, to say goodbye. He warns them about the coming dangers, including the fact that
from among themselves certain false teachers will emerge. The phrase that he uses is
that ‘even from your own number men will arise and distort the truth’. Paul here does
not use the general word for people (anthropos), but the word that specifically identifies
‘men’ (andres), suggesting that the Ephesian elders were only men.
This reading fits with the pattern of male headship that we have seen in parts 1 and 2
above. Some, again, suggest this was purely cultural: that there were no women elders at
that time simply because it was culturally impossible to envisage such a situation. But as
we have argued, there are clear examples in the Bible in which deeply held cultural beliefs
and taboos are directly challenged. If the intention had been that women should equally
govern the church along with men, it is reasonable to think that we would see it in
Scripture.
What do elders do?
It may be helpful to recall what elders do. They are ‘overseers/bishops of the flock’ and
‘shepherds of the church’ (Acts 20:28): they keep watch – which in the context is
primarily a watch over what is taught – to teach the whole will of God, the truth (Acts
20:30). This fits with the requirement in 1 Timothy 3:2 that elders must be ‘able to
teach’.
Elders are to ‘manage’ the church as a man will ‘manage’ his family (1 Tim 3:4-5 and 5:17).
The word here is prohistemi, meaning literally to ‘stand before’, or ‘superintend’. This
again has the sense of responsibility for overseeing. Their role is not to boss people
about, but to watch over the church family with the intention of seeing that all are
progressing well, problems and dangers averted.
Ephesians 4:11-12 refers to God giving the church ‘pastor-teachers’, suggesting again that
they care for the flock primarily through teaching God’s Word. Titus 1:9 also refers to
‘sound doctrine’ as being the chief tool with which elders will work.
17
Finally, elders are held accountable by God for the well-being of the church (Hebrews
13:17).
Summary
What the NT says about the duties of elders fits with the general pattern we have seen of
male headship and accountability in family and church. The Biblical pattern for the church
leadership is for elders to be men who are held accountable for the church, which they
rule through teaching God’s Word.
That said, going back to the subject of women teaching, we do not ourselves see any
reason why a suitably gifted woman cannot, under the authority of the elders, teach the
church. This is not permitted in some evangelical churches, but leads, in our view, to
certain absurdities: that a man may teach from a commentary written by a woman, but
the authoress would not herself be allowed to teach the church; that women can teach
males up to a certain – but unspecified – age, but then it is a terrible sin to do so any
more; that the least gifted man should teach the church rather than the most gifted
woman.
Some churches have a particularly high view of ‘preaching’ from the pulpit, which
attributes to the preacher an authority that is almost unquestionable. They therefore
hold that 1 Timothy 2 would preclude women from teaching from the pulpit. We do not
hold that view: all teaching in Hope Church is from flawed human beings, and is to be
tested by the whole church. If there is any serious error – including from the elders – it
is to be identified and corrected.
In that light, we are willing to allow suitably gifted women to teach on Sunday mornings,
and at other times as already happens.
A practical consideration
However, we are also minded of a particularly important, practical consideration, which
will probably mean that we, in practice, aim to preserve a predominantly, but not
exclusively, male leadership in the church – including at our Sunday gatherings.
There is an identifiable trend in our society, confirmed by research, that where churches
are led by women, or predominantly led by women, the men will simply not show up.
The converse is not true: women seem to be content to attend churches led by men (as
seen in the Roman Catholic church which is led exclusively by men, but where the clear
majority of attenders are women).
The reasons for this are not proven. It may be a lamentable case of sexism. It may be a
genuine outworking of the differences between men and women, which, we have seen
above, are real, even if hard to define.
This is a very big issue for us. We are as a church increasingly aware of our
responsibility for outreach: the gospel really is the answer to human need: everyone
needs it, for now and the future. And we must particularly reach out to men. Research
also shows that where churches focus their outreach on children – which is very common
– the results among the adults are negligible. Equally, if a wife becomes a Christian, the
chances of her husband coming to church are also very small (under 40%). But where a
man becomes a Christian, the chances of his wife and family following him are
disproportionately enormous (over 70%).
18
As a church we are unusual in having a roughly 50–50 split between men and women.
Whether this is because of our practice of only having men at the front, or despite it, is
impossible to prove. But we all – women as well as men – need to be aware of the
importance of this issue. It is in the interests of the whole church – male and female –
and of our outreach for God’s kingdom that we encourage, enable, prod and provoke
men to step up and take on responsibility – not to the exclusion of women, but to a very
significant degree.
Too much in our society, men shirk their responsibilities by hiding – through overwork,
drink, sport – leaving the women to fill in for us. But our society, and our church, is
crying out for men to step up and be men: not the fallen, sinful man, bristling with ego,
authoritarianism, and selfish power, but the hero who will lead with wisdom and courage,
putting aside his own interests to serve others, and sacrificing himself to save others.
If you, male or female, are unhappy with the conclusions we have reached, please do not
give up. We know that these conclusions may be tough. But God named his people
Israel, meaning ‘he struggles with God’. Don’t be afraid to carry on struggling with God
and his word: he can take it. He knows it’s hard. And it’s better to keep on struggling,
than to fall into the deceit of pretending that all is well when you know it is not.
Finally, let us remember, as we have inevitably ended up focusing on eldership and
authority: God wants us all, whether elders or not, to model ourselves on him. God
himself is humble: he has all the authority in the universe, but he humbles himself to serve
the best interests of others – without losing his dignity, identity, self-worth. And because
of his genuine willingness to humble and sacrifice himself, God exalted Jesus to the highest
place (Phil. 2:5–11). Jesus said: if you want to be great in his kingdom, you must humble
yourself and become the servant of all (Mk 9:35). It is the topsy-turvy kingdom of God,
the opposite of the values of the sinful, fallen world – and it works.
19
November 2015
Hope Church registered charity no. 1125198
20