Women as Pastors and Teachers

What Does the Bible Say about Women in Christian Leadership?
by Rev. Ken McGarvey
     Today many theological seminaries have more female students than male. Some denominations have had women as pastors and denominational leaders for many decades. Some still forbid women from ordination or serving as pastor, elders or even deacons. Most claim scriptural support for their position. In this discussion I am not going to quote any one Bible verse to give you the answer. I don’t want you to think you can have the answer to any theological question based on one or two verses. We will look at several things in the Bible before we draw our conclusions.
     Principles of hermeneutics are complex, as are the nuances of theological beliefs. In a paper this brief, my studies will be necessarily incomplete. But I want to look at the totality of Scripture, Old and New Testaments. One of the first things I learned in seminary was to study all of scripture within its context — historical, theological, personal. Who said it, to whom was it said, on what occasion or prompted by what or whom. Although this wasn’t mentioned as much, I have learned that all scripture must be understood within its total Biblical context as well.
     I’ve made another observation through the years. When a person studies the Bible seriously through many years, he notices certain things fitting into patterns. So he studies those patterns for consistency, and eventually makes a system out of those patterns. That system gives him a good grip on understanding the Bible. We immediately think of such systems as Covenant or Dispensational theology, but there are others as well.
     These systems tend to help everything to fall into place for understanding the meaning. But there are serious limitations to systems. When trying to understand a given text, we then apply our system to understand the text. I believe this to be a mistake! We have now made the scripture uncertain and have tried to understand it by our system, which now becomes the norm. I’m sorry, but when the scripture is subjected to our system, we are in dangerous territory.
     When God brought the Israelites out of the slavery of Egypt and sent them toward the Promised Land, early in the journey he gave them a series of rules to live by: the Ten Commandments. These were the absolute law of their society, rules to live by as they traveled to, and subsequently would live in, the Promised Land. Then in Leviticus and Deuteronomy many laws and rules were delineated, from sexual immorality, to property disputes, to inheritance, to Sabbath observance.
     Mankind loves rules. They delineate accepted and unaccepted behavior, and help settle disputes of all kinds. They separate the good guys (us) from the bad guys (them). Throughout the time from the giving of the Law to the beginning of the New Testament, Israelite leaders, mostly the rabbis, came up with fuller explanations of the rules, and what to do in all kinds of situations. I want to expound on a key difference in the mix. There are Rules and there are Principles. Principles state the idea of what is right and what is wrong. Rules take care of the circumstances under which the principles are to be applied or not applied.
     The law says, “Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy.” That is a principle. Over the years the rabbis drew up definitions of what constituted keeping it holy. The New Testament Pharisees were experts on interpreting and enforcing these rules. They judged Jesus harshly for breaking what they understood to be the meaning of the Sabbath commandment; but Jesus pointed out the silliness of their reasoning.
     In the male-dominated societies of Old Testament times, men led the nations and made the rules. Women had the babies and reared them. Women were subject to the men in their lives, their fathers, their husbands, their rulers, etc. Now some women had influence beyond that generalization, and they were used by God. We think of Rahab, Deborah, Jael, Esther, Huldah, etc. Deborah was chosen by God (apparently, as that is the implication of the Judges) to be the judge that was the leader of the nation. In Judges 4, she is referred to as a prophetess. She called Barak, a military leader, and said to him, “Has not the LORD, the God of Israel, commanded you, ‘Go, gather your men at Mount Tabor, taking 10,000 from the people of Naphtali and the people of Zebulun.’” Now Barak did not want to take direction from a woman, so he said, “If you will go with me, I will go, but if you will not go with me, I will not go.” Recognizing his sexist reluctance to taking instructions from her, she said, “I will surely go with you. Nevertheless, the road on which you are going will not lead to your glory, for the LORD will sell Sisera into the hand of a woman.” And so it was, that they went into battle and won the battle. But the hero of the battle was Jael, an Israelite housewife, who killed Sisera, the leader of the enemy nation. God often takes people out of their expected role to use them as He sees fit.
     In 2 Samuel, General Joab was pursuing Sheba, an enemy of King David, when they came to Abel-Beth-Maacah. Sheba had gone into the city, but the gates were locked, so Joab began to build a siege ramp to knock down the wall. An unnamed woman, one the scripture calls “a wise woman,” appeared at the top of the wall and summoned Joab. She accused him of trying to destroy an innocent city, the Lord’s inheritance. He said he didn’t want to destroy the city, he just wanted Sheba. She took the proposal to the city’s leaders and convinced them. So they killed Sheba and gave his head to Joab.
     In Proverbs 31 the author describes a “wife of noble character.” This woman raises her children, makes clothes, buys and sells property, is respected in the business world, and makes her husband proud of her.
     During the reign of Josiah, when the long-forgotten word of God was discovered in the temple, they sought Huldah, a prophetess, who delivered the message from God. “Thus says the LORD, the God of Israel: ‘Tell the man who sent you to me, Thus says the LORD, Behold, I will bring disaster upon this place and upon its inhabitants, all the words of the book that the king of Judah has read.’” God spoke His words through this woman, Huldah.
     In the New Testament, after Jesus was born, he was taken to the temple for a dedication ceremony. A widow named Anna, called “a prophetess,” approached Jesus. We read She did not depart from the temple, worshiping with fasting and prayer night and day. And coming up at that very hour she began to give thanks to God and to speak of him to all who were waiting for the redemption of Jerusalem. (Luke 2:37-38) She, like Huldah, was a prophetess, or one called to declare the message from the Lord.
     Contrary to common belief, prophets (and prophetesses) were called, not to foretell, but to declare truth from God. Usually it was bad news about the nation’s sins and the condemnation coming. However, sometimes it was good news, as in these cases.
     Although Jesus chose twelve men to be his core group, many women were among his followers. And when Jesus was crucified, the women had an unexpected role. Though in that society women’s testimony was not permitted in court (because they were women), when Jesus was raised from the dead God chose women to be the first witnesses to the empty tomb!
     When we begin to study what God wants for His church, we must understand first of all, that it is within His nature to use women as his instruments, sometimes at key times in history. That is part of the Biblical context for the subject at hand.
     Some years after Jesus’ resurrection and Pentecost, when the church was alive and growing, Paul and company visited the Philip the evangelist, in Caesarea. The writer of Acts, Luke the Apostle, tells us that Philip, one of the seven leaders of the church in Jerusalem, had four unmarried daughters, “who prophesied.” Again, to prophesy means to declare the message from God.
     When we think about what women are “allowed” to do in the church, who is doing the allowing, and why? In the entire Biblical context women have not been forbidden by God in anything written. When we see Paul saying to Timothy, “I do not permit a woman to teach or to exercise authority over a man; rather, she is to remain quiet.” we know isn’t saying women are incapable of teaching, as Timothy may well have learned much of his theology from women, when he was a child. I am reminded of your sincere faith, a faith that dwelt first in your grandmother Lois and your mother Eunice and now, I am sure, dwells in you as well.
     In the church at Corinth, which had many problems, Paul has some interesting things to say. In chapter 10, he tells the women to keep their heads covered “when praying or prophesying.” Since the entire chapter seems to be speaking about what goes on in their public services, he’s definitely not requiring them to keep quiet. To assume they were not prophesying to groups that included men is far too great to use to form a theological conclusion.
     In the last chapter of Romans, Paul gives personal notes, as in several of his letters. Among them he commends Phoebe (Romans 16:1-2), a deacon in the church. The Greek word mens servant or deacon. But it definitely does NOT mean deaconess. She was apparently the physical deliverer of the letter to the church. It appears to me that male translators feminized deacon in some translations, though the Greek name has a masculine ending. These same male translators apparently in verse 7, did not like Junia being respected among the apostles, and changed her name to Junius. However, there she is, in the Greek and in some English translations.
     Societies change, and the Bible doesn’t say much about women’s roles in society. It does speak of their roles in marriage, and, apparently, the church. Paul’s speaking of their limitations must be studied carefully.
     On Pentecost, Peter quoted from Joel, “Men of Judea and all who dwell in Jerusalem, let this be known to you, and give ear to my words. For these people are not drunk, as you suppose, since it is only the third hour of the day. But this is what was uttered through the prophet Joel: “‘And in the last days it shall be,’ God declares, ‘that I will pour out my Spirit on all flesh, and your sons and your daughters shall prophesy, and your young men shall see visions, and your old men shall dream dreams;’” (Acts 2:14-17)
     Most theologians believe that this was the beginning of the Church, as the Holy Spirit was given, and came to earth in a different role than ever before. There may be many interpretations of the next couple of verses, but as these men were filled with the Holy Spirit and preached the Gospel in languages they had apparently never studied, Peter said it was the answer to Joel’s prophecy of God’s pouring out of His spirit, and both sons and daughters will prophesy.
     What does that have to do with the topic at hand? Without going into any eschatological implications, apparently God does not believe that women should be silent about their relationship with God or the message that God has given them to share.
The Principle
     What I see is that as a general principle, God primarily uses men to teach and proclaim the Gospel. For whatever His reasons, women are generally on the receiving and encouraging end of the teaching/managing equation. However, to force from that a rule that women cannot teach men, at home, in the church or anywhere else is unfaithful to the Word of God, and becomes an exercise in silliness. Silliness? Where does that fit into a theological discussion? Just read theologians and scholars, and it makes frequent appearances. Even as the rabbis said one could not travel over X number of feet, meters, miles or whatever on the Sabbath, but could come one short of the maximum and be okay, to say that a woman can teach children for their first 12-15 years, giving them the concepts of God that will be theirs for the rest of their lives, but cannot teach adults is silly.
     To say that an intelligent, God-loving woman who studies the Word of God and graduates from seminary cannot teach a Sunday school class that includes men, none of whom is qualified, is silly. To say that a woman can go to a primitive country, evangelize communities, introduce men to Christ, teach them all about the Bible, and come back to her home church to share her ministry and not be allowed to do so from the pulpit, is just plain stupid. To say that a pastor’s wife, studying her Bible daily, coming up with eye-opening discoveries from the Word, cannot share them with her pastor-husband, is ludicrous. To suggest that Southern Baptist men feel so threatened by gifted female preachers that they lead their group to walk out of a conference before Anne Graham Lotz speaks is short-sighted, prideful and sinful!
     Does God’s law ever change? Are there exceptions to God’s laws? Actually, the answer is Yes to both. In Numbers 26 God, through Moses, gave instructions for the allotment of land in the Promised Land. He lists the tribes, the family heads and the descendants, all males. The land was to be distributed as an inheritance through the sons. In chapter 27, Zelophehad’s daughters complained to Moses and the other leaders that since their father had no sons, but only daughters, he would not have any inheritance in the land, and that would not be right. So Moses brought it to the Lord, who agreed with the daughters, and changed the law, so that any man who had no sons would not lose his land. The daughters would receive it, though they had to marry within their tribe. He also instructed them what to do if the man had no daughters or brothers, etc.
     In defending himself before the Pharisees, Jesus brought up something David did. When he and his men were fleeing from King Saul, and were hungry and without food, they approached the priest Ahimelech for food. He said all he had was the Bread of the Presence, which is forbidden to be eaten by anyone but a priest, and he gave it to David. He and his men ate it. Jesus approved of such and defended them before the Pharisees.
     Any New Testament teachings about women’s submission to men must be read in the context of the teachings of the entire Bible. In Acts, Luke speaks of the evangelist Apollos, who was a powerful preacher, but knew only the baptism of John. So God provided Aquila and his wife Priscilla to teach him the Word of God more completely. Interestingly, even though it was against social tradition to mention the wife’s name before her husband, Luke did just that, and on two occasions called them Priscilla and Aquila. And that was in the context of their teaching Apollos theology.
     As to principles versus rules, Paul said something similar to the Corinthians. Such is the confidence that we have through Christ toward God. Not that we are sufficient in ourselves to claim anything as coming from us, but our sufficiency is from God, who has made us sufficient to be ministers of a new covenant, not of the letter but of the Spirit. For the letter kills, but the Spirit gives life. (2 Corinthians 3:4-6 ESV) This new covenant is less defined by the letter of the law, and more so by the spirit. This is what was behind some of the statements in Jesus’ “Sermon on the Mount.” “They” said the details, but “I” say the principles” behind the laws and taking precedence over the letter.
     What I see at work in this equation is the Lord Acton principle. Lord Acton, a 19th century English statesman, famously said, “Power tends to corrupt; absolute power corrupts absolutely.” People in positions of power will often do anything to use and keep that power. That is much of what is behind racism, sexism, and laws protecting those in power.
     The church is supposed to influence society, rather than being influenced by society. When Paul and Barnabas were in Ephesus they were arrested. It seems their preaching had brought people to believe in Jesus, and they stopped buying idols. The idol-makers complained to the authorities and had Paul and Barnabas jailed. Mind you, these Apostles had not boycotted businesses, they had preached the Gospel. I’d like to say that today Evangelical Christians have made a negative impact on society by their public condemnation of and attempted legal sanction of behaviors not condoned. But to say so might detract from the main purpose of this paper, so I won’t.
     We readily interpret other Scriptures from their total Biblical context, instead of what the words appear to be saying. Jesus spoke to the rich young ruler, And Jesus, looking at him, loved him, and said to him, “You lack one thing: go, sell all that you have and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven; and come, follow me.” (Mark 10:21) Although this seems to be saying the way to be saved is to give everything to the poor, nobody is quoting it to that effect. That is because we have the common sense to understand it within its total Biblical context. When the entire Bible is full of instances where God used women in key leadership positions and blessed their work, that one verse in the New Testament is enough to negate it? Sorry, but that just doesn’t cut it.
     Almost every society in the history of mankind has been male-dominated. There are a number of reasons for that, and there is nothing wrong with that. But when men decide what women can and cannot do in the church based on patriarchal principles, they need to be called out for it. I read a recent column that pointed out that women were not allowed to preach for 1900 years until the women’s movement of the 1970s. Actually, that was wrong, as there have been women teachers and preachers occasionally throughout those years.
     When the Gospel is preached into new societies there is sometimes a desire on the part of the recipients to accept the Gospel, but to keep their own previous beliefs. We call that syncretism. But the Church in the United States today is syncretistic as well. We have added the Gospel to our patriarchal system of materialism. Writings by American theologians differ considerably from those by Asian and African theologians. They may not be the only ones guilty of syncretism.
     In recent years we have become aware of the rampant sins of church leaders, with sexual assault in Roman Catholic and Southern Baptist churches. Thousands of church leaders have remained silent on such things, while being upset if a woman teaches a Sunday school class or a seminary theology class. This is legalism of the worst sort. Jesus warned of those who would strain out a gnat and swallow a camel.
     It is high time for male Christian leaders to acknowledge their sin and offense against the Body of Christ by denying them gifted scholars and leaders who happen to be female. They may think they have proof-texts; but it takes more than a verse or two to contradict the general tone of the entire Bible.
     How many absolute rules are there in the New Testament that all churches must follow? Paul listed the qualifications for elders twice — once to Timothy and once to Titus. But they don’t agree. He told Timothy an elder was not to be a novice, though that wasn’t mentioned to Titus. Likely, in Crete, where Titus was, there were not enough experienced leaders, so that requirement was not included. What other circumstances might influence the list of qualifications?
     Rules are made to keep other people in line, according to our understanding of what is right and wrong. When I was young, many churches did not allow members to drink or smoke or go to movies or to dance or to gamble or to divorce. But now churches have pretty much disbanded those legalistic practices.
     Why does it seem people want so badly to have rules? A lawyer (an expert in rules) asked Jesus which of the commandments was the greatest. And he said to him, “You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind. This is the great and first commandment. And a second is like it: You shall love your neighbor as yourself. On these two commandments depend all the Law and the Prophets.” (Matthew 22:37-40)
     We want quantifiable rules. Those which can be seen and counted or measured in others. We condemn drunkenness, but not gossip or greed, because they are not measurable. Therefore people apparently claim plausible deniability. We condemn adultery, but not lust, while Jesus seemed to equate them.
     We cannot measure one’s call to ministry or spiritual gifts; but we can identify their gender (or at least we used to be able to).
     When we look at the totality of the Word of God we see God frequently acting in a way that contradicts what His people were expecting. In 1 Timothy 2:12 Paul says, “I do not permit a woman teach or to exercise authority over a man; rather, she is to remain quiet.” Nowhere else in all of Paul’s writing does he suggest anything he personally does not permit. I submit that Paul’s suggestion to Timothy was not a command of God, but rather a momentary personal suggestion, since it runs contrary to Paul’s other teachings, and the historical manner of how God has used women throughout the Bible.
     What are some of the important qualifications for being a pastor? Being called by God to such a ministry, being knowledgeable of the Word of God, living a life of obedience to the call of God, being willing to submit to those over you, praying faithfully, loving others, being humble. Some of those set forth by Paul, “above reproach, once-married, sober-minded, self-controlled, respectable, hospitable, able to teach, not a drunkard, not violent but gentle, not quarrelsome, not a lover of money, must have obedient children, well thought of by outsiders.” Oh yes, and must be male.(?) If we were more stringent on the main qualifiers, we would have better churches, but fewer pastors.
     The sexual offenses catalogued in the male-dominated Roman Catholic and Southern Baptist churches may have been minimized if there had been a fair representation of women among them. When a large portion of qualified people is automatically excluded from leadership, disaster is bound to happen! Since the two largest denominations have been victimized by total male leadership, what is happening in the smaller ones so constituted?
     Historically, churches have used the death penalty to purge the church from heresy. Is heresy really worse than what we have seen here? Orthodoxy (right beliefs) must be complemented by orthopraxy (right practices). Would balanced male/female leadership have prevented such abuses? Not totally, but it would likely have mitigated the cover-up, and enabled discipline of the offenders, thus reducing the amplitude of the problem.
     The issue of female ecclesiastical leadership cannot be settled by one verse. The totality of Scripture and reason support a more balanced and perhaps more effective church, especially in today’s society when so many women feel called by God to ministry, and have been educated and trained for such. They know the Word of God and have been blessed by God with skills that churches need. At the same time there is a shortage of qualified male pastoral candidates. Perhaps now is the time for churches take a more complete look at Scriptures and tradition and consider women for the pastorate.