Gender Roles (7) -- Women in the Church

Read Part 1
Read Part 2
Read Part 3
Read Part 4
Read Part 5
Read Part 6

Women served in many prominent roles that many modern Christians would exclude them from. These roles include:

Prophetess
At the initial convening of the Christian church, Peter mentioned the role of the prophetess as indicative of the arrival of the kingdom prophesied of in Joel 2:28 (see Acts 2:17). It doesn't take long before we find the first recorded example of a prophetess in the church, when Acts 21:9 tells us that Philip's daughters prophesied. Also, the women in Corinth prophesied in the presence of men, and were not rebuked for doing so (1 Cor. 11:5-6). Rather, they were rebuked for their failure to honor their "heads" while prophesying. It is important to notice that prophecy was a PUBLIC ministry and a PUBLIC witness of the Spirit. The role of the prophet was to communicate God's message to his people. This is precisely the kind of role that women are prohibited from holding today.

Missionaries
Many women are presented in the New Testament as being "fellow-workers" with Paul. Label this how you will, but the term "fellow-worker" is typically used by Paul to indicated those who participated in his evangelistic and missionary activities. This number includes Euodia and Syntyche in Philippi (Philippians 4:2-3); Priscilla in Corinth (Rom. 16:3). Many others are mentioned in the New Testament as participating in this kind of work with Paul.

Apostle?
While the 12 were all men (discussed last week), it is interesting that Junia (a feminine name) as "highly respected among the apostles." I'm not sure exactly how to understand this. It could mean that she was viewed as holding an apostolic/ambassadorial role even though not one of the 12 (like Paul??). Or it could mean that she was highly respected BY the apostles. The problem with this latter interpretation is that most ancient and modern writers have always understood the verse to be referring to her as an apostle.

Deacon
We will discuss this passage at a later date, but it should be noted that Phoebe is referred to as a deacon of the church at Cenchrea in Romans 16:1.

While some of these have more ambiguity than others, this overview should show that women certainly had a much greater claim to leadership roles in the early church than they are allowed in many churches today. They led men, had authority over men, taught men, spoke in the presence of men, etc.

Gender Roles (6) -- Jesus and Women

Read Part 1
Read Part 2
Read Part 3
Read Part 4
Read Part 5

Review: God created and egalitarian order that was destroyed in the fall. This egalitarian order remained God’s ideal, however. While patriarchalism took hold quickly after the fall, there are indications in the Old Testament that God still saw women as equal participants in His purposes, using them as leaders of His people. While willing to use the patriarchalism of the world to accomplish his purposes, he did not hesitate to use women counter-culturally when it suited his purposes.

The above assessment was arrived at with some hesitation, as there are strong arguments in favor of the complimentarian perspective as well. However, on balance, I believe that the egalitarian interpretation best explains the texts. The strongest part of the egalitarian argument is their ability to explain Genesis 3 and the fall.

Admitting my own fallibility means that my assessment might be wrong. The Gospels and Epistles have not yet even been considered. The light that they shed on the Old Testament could very well tip the balance in favor of complimentarianism. As I stated at the beginning of this study, I have not yet formed an opinion on this issue. Each week enlightens my perspective so that the overall picture could change from week to week. I am simply looking at bite-sized chunks of Scripture and adding them to the “big picture” one bite at a time (mixed metaphor, I know.)

This brings us to the Gospels and the life of Christ. As the image of God, Jesus’ treatment of women will shed significant light on their role in a fallen world. So what do we see in Jesus’ interaction with women.

Clearly, Jesus had a high view of women; much higher, in fact, than the typical Jewish rabbi in his time. His dealings with specific women reinforce this (i.e. Mary and Martha, the Woman at the Well, etc.). About this there is no debate. Complimentarians and egalitarians both acknowledge that Jesus was counter-cultural in his acceptance and elevation of the place of women. The question of our study is specifically how this relates to leadership roles in the church, society, and home.

This is where the picture becomes murky. While women were disciples, and they were among His traveling entourage (Luke 8:1-3; Mark 15:40-41; Luke 23:49), those appointed to be apostles were men. Romans 16:7 calls Junia an apostle, but this was clearly in a different sense from the twelve. The ones that Jesus hand-selected to lead the church from its inception were men. In fact, when a new apostle was being selected in place of Judas, one of the requirements was that he be a male (In Acts 1:21, the word is the specifically male aner rather than the more general anthropos.).

Did Christ use men because he only approves of men in these positions, or is there another explanation? To answer this involves a certain degree of speculation, since it is not directly revealed WHY Christ chose men. It is simply revealed that He did. However, the following points from the egalitarian viewpoint are worthy of consideration.

1. The patriarchial culture cannot be dismissed. In our study of the Old Testament, we saw that God worked within the culture as much as possible, but was willing to be counter-cultural when it suited his purposes. It could be the case that Jesus’ assessment of his culture and society indicated to him that limiting the leadership roles to men would enable the establishment of the church to happen more effectively. Truly, a woman being viewed as the leader of this new movement would have created an additional stumbling block for many.
2. Women weren’t the only class that Jesus excluded in his selection of the twelve. No Gentiles were chosen. No slaves were chosen. Yet we believe that Gentiles and (theoretically) slaves would be acceptable leaders in the church, the home, and society. If Jesus’ exclusion of women from the 12 shows His desire for exclusively male leadership, wouldn’t His exclusion of Gentiles show His desire for exclusively Jewish leadership, and wouldn’t His exclusion of slaves show His desire for exclusively freeman leadership? Perhaps his choice had more to do with using those people that he felt would most effectively accomplish his will at the time.

Jesus' choice of apostles is a significant part of this discussion. However, the above points make it at least plausible that that the selection was not intended to be a statement about Jesus' will for women throughout the Christian age. Rather, it was His statement regarding His will in that place and time.

Gender Roles (5) – Old Testament Women

Read Part 1
Read Part 2
Read Part 3
Read Part 4

Having looked at the creation, the fall, and the Law, we now turn to a brief examination of some of the women who figure prominently into the Old Testament narrative. While the OT certainly presents a patriarchal societal structure within ancient Israel and its neighboring nations, this in no way indicates God’s approval or disapproval of that structure. The patriarchal structure could be understood as a result of God’s leading or of God’s curse. As previous posts will show, I currently favor the latter view. If patriarchalism was the result of God’s leading, then we would not see God using women in leadership roles. Furthermore, when they took leadership roles, we would expect to see evidence of his disapproval.

On the other hand, if the prevailing patriarchalism was the result of the fall, we would expect to see God using women as leaders, as well as approving of their acceptance of such roles. It would not be necessary that we see women leaders as frequently as we see men leaders because, while God certainly had the power to radically overturn culture, he also has the prerogative to work incrementally within culture.

I believe the Old Testament picture reflects the latter. God willingly used women in leadership roles over men and over groups. When they stepped into these roles, there is no indication of divine disapproval with a violation of God’s creative intent. Notice the following examples:

Miriam (Exodus 15:19-21; Micah 6:4) –We are not told a lot about Miriam, but we are told that she was a prophetess (Exodus 15:20), and was listed alongside Moses and Aaron as leaders in Israel (Micah 6:4). While she, like all Israelites, was subject to Moses’ leadership, she is presented as an equal to Aaron, the High Priest.

Deborah (Judges 4) – Deborah was a judge in Israel. She is spoken of as a “prophetess” who was “leading Israel” (Judges 4:4). She was both a military leader (the actual role of the biblical “Judge”) and a court judge (Judges 4:5). During her time, Barak was the general of Israel’s army, yet she held rank over him, being able to give him orders (vv. 6. 14) which he obeys. Although married, she seems to have been the highest ranking person in Israel.

Some have tried to claim that Deborah was put in this position by God simply because no men were willing to lead. There are several problems with this explanation:

1. There is nothing in the text that would indicate God’s displeasure with his inability to find a male leader. Such an interpretation is classic eisegesis. In fact, the only displeasure shown by God is towards Barak, the MAN, for his failure to follow Deborah’s order!
2. God has never let been deterred by man’s reluctance to lead. Gideon (Judges 6), Moses (Exodus 4), and Paul (Acts 9, 22) are a few examples of men who did not want to lead, but were used by God to do great things.
3. There is reason to believe that God DID have a male judge at this same time! Judges 5:6 indicates that Shamgar ruled as judge “after Ehud,” which would make his “term” overlap with Deborahs. (Overlapping judgeships is not abnormal in Judges.) Therefore, God had a male leader available if He wanted to use one. But he chose to use the woman, Deborah.

But it is fair to ask why Deborah was the only female judge. All attempted answers to this are mere speculation, as the text doesn’t reveal the answer. We must simply accept that God used her in this leadership role and look at the broader picture of God to decide whether we think that, by doing so, He acted in a way contrary to his original intent in creation. I don’t believe that he did.

Hulda (2 Kings 22:14-20; 2 Chron. 34:22) – Also a prophetess, Huldah is the unsung hero in the great reformation of Josiah. It was in response to her prophecy that Josiah led the nation in the last great reformation of Israel.

The Virtuous Woman (Prov. 31:10-31) – This familiar passage is a wonderful testimony AGAINST the idea of a woman’s ONLY proper role being relegated to quietly serving her husband and family at home. Notice the following:

vv. 11, 23, 28 – When her husband is mentioned, it is in the context of how his life is blessed socially and financially by his wife. This indicates that she is involved in the community and in business.

vv. 13-14, 16, 18, 24 – She is a career woman, who has business interests in the mercantile and agriculture industries. She is not a “stay at home mom.”

v. 26 – She is a teacher.

v. 15, 21-22, 27 – She is a homemaker.

This woman is an “excellent wife” (v. 10) whose children and husband praise her (v. 28) and who has held up by Bible believers since this chapter was penned. Yet, she is not the type of woman that is held up as the ideal by many modern evangelical leaders who hold patriarchal or complimentarian understandings of the scriptures. While few will absolutely condemn a woman for working out of the home, it is now viewed as a lesser path. When women become successful in business, they are often maligned as doing a man’s work. Yet the excellent wife was excellent precisely because of her work as a homemaker, entrepreneur, teacher, humanitarian, and public figure.

God’s use of women in the OT does not conform with the teaching of patriarchalists and complimentarians, who claim that His creative intent was for women to be in a subservient role in the home, the church, and society. The “ideal” scenario painted by these commentators of a godly woman being a homemaker who leaves all public and leadership roles to her husband would consider all of the above women as, at best, less than ideal in fulfilling their roles. The Bible paints an entirely different picture.

Objections – It is also noteworthy that only men were allowed to be priests and kings in Israel. These two must be dealt with separately:

Priests – I haven’t yet come across a bullet-proof explanation of this exclusion. However, it is helpful to recognize that many people of both genders were excluded from being priests, but in the Christian Age, ALL are priests of God. ALL Christians may now enter the Most Holy Place (1 Pet. 2:5; Heb. 10:19-22). Therefore, while I don’t know WHY God chose to limit the priestly role to males, I do know that, in Jesus, there is NOW no exclusion from priestly duties.

Kings – In this discussion, we are seeking God’s ideal for gender. The role of King was something that God opposed from the beginning, although he accommodated them. He preferred the nation to be led by Judges (which included Deborah). The people wanted a king in order to be like the nations around them. The nations around them would have had kings who passed their reigns down to their first-born sons. It is, therefore, no surprise that the same structure was put in place for Israel.

Next week: Jesus’ ministry to women.

Gender Roles (4) -- The Law

Read Part 1
Read Part 2
Read Part 3

I don’t know if this study continues to interest anyone. My lovely wife tells me my posts are too long in this study. I will try to be as succinct as possible, but I also want to be thorough. I do wish this could become a conversation rather than a lecture, so feel free to offer your thoughts and reflections in the comments section.

Review: Thus far in our study, we have seen that there was no role/authority distinction based on gender in the creation. The tension between male and female and the consequent male domination of woman came as a result of the fall. God pronouncement of male rule in Genesis 3 was not necessarily prescriptive, but can be accurately understood as predictive.

Our study would be woefully incomplete if we stopped at Genesis 3. The rest of the Old Testament presents a mixed picture of gender roles. How can it be understood? We seek to answer this question today.

If our understanding of Genesis 1-3 is correct (and it very well may not be) then one might expect the Law that God gave to be consistent with that egalitarianism. However, the Law is anything but clear on how it views gender roles.

The law was delivered and recorded in the midst of a patriarchal world, as God predicted in Genesis 3. There are many aspects of the Law which fit perfectly well into that patriarchal culture. In fact, there are many things in the law which even the most traditional/patriarchal of modern readers would find objectionable. John Mark Hicks lists the following as examples:

A husband could overrule commitments made by his wife prior to her marriage but there is no indication that the reverse was true (Num. 30:6-15).

The legal status of married women was analogous to that of a daughter. The wife had no greater degree of independence than a child (Num. 30:16)

A husbands could divorce his wife, but there is no indication that a wife could divorce her husband.

Polygamy was acceptable for males, but not for females.

Inheritance is passed through the male line without equal share for females in the line but where there are no male heirs, daughters inherit ahead of the brothers of the male who died (Num. 27:1-11).

A widow did not inherit the property of her husband but she was cared for by the inheritor of the estate (sons, brothers, etc.)

However, there were also elements of the law which ran against that patriarchalism. These elements may not catch the eye modern reader who is accustomed to a much more egalitarian society. However, when considered against the backdrop of the culture of the time, these elements certainly elevated the status of women. Again, John Mark Hicks gives examples:

• Adultery … is prohibitive for both male and female. It is viewed as destructive to the home.
• Wives are not generally regarded as property and there is an embedded ideal within the text of shared identity (image of God) and shared task (caring for the world).
• Deuteronomy 24:1-4 protects women. The law forbids a man from remarrying a woman he had previously divorced. In ancient Near Eastern culture men could remarry women to secure new assets they had acquired through another marriage.
• Females were not abandoned at birth as in many cultures.

So we have on the one hand indications that God wanted his people to be patriarchal in their practice and, on the other hand, indications that he wanted them to break free from the patriarchal practices around them. How are we to understand this? I see some possibilities:

(1) God endorsed patriarchalism, but understood that it could go “too far” and fail to recognize the woman as also created in God’s image. However, I still find it difficult to understand some elements of the Law. For instance, in Exodus 21:7-11 actually ALLOWS a father to sell his daughter into slavery. Perhaps my mind is too clouded by American democracy, but regardless of whether you are egalitarian, complimentarian, patriarchal, or feminist, I can’t fathom how this is representative of God’s ideal for society, His people, or families. Yet it is a part of the law which He gave.

(2) God’s ideal is egalitarianism. However, bringing about this ideal among people was something that He chose in His sovereignty to do incrementally. Thus, he accommodated the prevailing culture to some extent while clearly indicating a disagreement with that prevailing culture. This position makes sense to me, but certainly leaves many unanswerable questions. For instance, why would God choose to do this incrementally when He required his people to be radically different from culture in other ways (i.e. circumcision, diet, monotheism, etc.)? I don’t think this question is answerable beyond his divine wisdom and sovereignty. However, it rings truer to me than the previous option.

My plan was to cover the rest of the Old Testament in this post. However, I fear that I have already violated my previously stated desire to be succinct. Therefore, next week we will look at how God actually used women in Israel. Until then, do you see any weaknesses in my assessment of the Scriptures thus far? Would you interpret them differently?

Gender Roles (3) -- The Fall (Gen. 3)

"If Eve had persisted in the truth, she would not only not have been subjected to the rule of her husband, but she herself would also have been a partner in the rule which is now entirely the concern of males." ~ Martin Luther, Lectures on Genesis: Chapters 1-8, p. 203

Read part 1.

Read part 2.

In the creation, man and women were created as spiritual equals. Without woman, man is the only part of creation that God calls "not good;" yet woman is made from man. They are jointly given responsibilities over creation. Their only difference is physical.

Then came sin.

Who's Fault?
The common understanding is that Even ate the forbidden fruit, liked how it tasted, went to find Adam and persuaded him to eat it. However, as I read the text, I get an entirely different picture of how events transpired. While it is true that Eve is presented as Satan's target for the initial temptation, her sin was committed with Adam standing right there!! (v. 6). So the picture is more of a conversation with three "people" present: the serpent, Adam, and Eve. The primary conversation is occurring between two, but the third is taking it all in. In this scene, Adam is just as much a part of the initial sin as is Eve. She just happened to take the first bite! The text nowhere says that she seduced or tricked him into eating it. She took a bite and handed it to him, and he took a bite.

I don't know about you, but in my mind that was a significant realization. I had always believed that the woman sinning first was because she "usurped" the authority that was legitimately the man's and that the results serve as proof that she should have kept her proper role. Many other commentators throughout church history have also interpreted the story this way. John Mark Hicks notes several such scholars in his valuable study, found here (look at the bottom of the page for the entire series; go to lesson 2).

Their joint guilt for this sin is bolstered by the presentation of the New Testament. While 1 Tim. 2:14 seems to place the primary responsibility on Eve, Rom. 5:12-14 and 1 Cor. 15:21-22 seem to place it on Adam. This is no contradiction; rather, it is Paul using the aspect of the story that was most fitting for the point that he was making at the time. Blame could legitimately be placed on either party because they were both EQUALLY guilty.

The Curse
As a result of the sin, each party involved receives a "curse." Relevant to this study is Gen. 3:16. "Your desire shall be for your husband, and he will rule over you." Whatever this means, it clearly indicates, for the first time, a subordinate relationship.

Jay Guin makes some important observations. First, he point out that "[Eve's curse] was a change. If Adam already had the rule over Eve, then why did God say He was doing this to her because of her sin? Thus, nothing in Genesis 1 or 2 can support an argument for male rule" (p. 37). Also, since complimentarians apply this curse not only to the home, but also to the church
and society, Guin notes, "God states that husbands rule over wives -- under His curse. He does not curse all women with being under the rule of all men" (p. 37). Therefore, even if the subordinate relationship of Genesis 3:16 is viewed as normative, it can only be applied to the home. Denial of female leadership roles in other areas cannot be supported from this passage.

So what is the female "desire" for her husband? In seeking an answer to this question, we must take seriously the similarity of language between Genesis 3:16 and 4:17. In4:17, we read that "[sin] desires to have you, but you must master it." This is almost identical in structure to the clause in 3:16. The meaning in 4:17 seems to be clear -- sin wants to be master (or ruler), but it must be mastered (or ruled). In the same way, while the wife may want to rule her husband, God says that the husband will rule the wife. In other words, marital strife comes as a result of sin.

Normative??
So subordination only came as a result of the Fall and was not a part of the created order. What does that mean for us today? Are we to recognize this as our just punishment and live as Christians under a curse? Or are we to seek to return things to their original created perfection?

One important observation in seeking to answer this question is that 3:16 may not even be a command, as in "I command you to desire your husband, and I command your husband to rule over you." Rather, it may very well be God exercising his divine foreknowledge to "predict" the general course that history would take from that point forward, as in "From now on, you're going to want to rule your husband, but he is going to rule you." History has certainly proven this to be the case, as men have generally run the world ever since.

Also, Christians are never told to accept the results of the fall, whether it be our separation from God, the resulting death, or the corruption of creation. Rather, we are called to escape the results of the fall through Christ (Eph. 4:22-24; 1 Cor. 15:21-26). It can be debated whether this escape is relegated to the afterlife, or is a reality that we are called to bring into the world as much as possible today.

However we interpret Eve’s “curse,” it should be consistent with our interpretation of the other “curses” mentioned. Once again, Jay Guin makes excellent points:

This argument will surely be hard for many readers to accept, but it becomes much clearer when we consider the other curses. The man is cursed to work by the sweat of his brow. Does this mean that air conditioning is a sin, because it is contrary to God’s eternal design? Are antiperspirants wrong? Is it wrong to use herbicides and pre-emergents to prevent the growth of weeds?

Didn’t God intend that we work the fields by hand to rid them of weeds? Mus all men work in the fields? Is office work sin?

Is it a sin to use anesthesia to relieve the pain of childbearing? Or is that also part of God’s eternal plan? For that matter, why should we resist any of the world’s corruption? God corrupted it, who are we to oppose it? (p. 40)

Conclusion
While my examination of Genesis 1-2 resulted in a slight preference for the egalitarian interpretation, the egalitarian case is much stronger in Genesis 3. The picture at this point seems to be fairly clear: God's created order did not involve a subordinate relationship between male and female. This only came as a result of the fall.

Next week: Women in the Old Testament

Gender Roles (2) -- The Creation Account (Gen. 1-2)

Whatever women do they must do twice as well as men to be thought has good. Luckily this is not difficult. ~Charlotte Whitton

The different positions on gender roles have been given different labels. I will primarily be considering the egalitarian and complimentarian viewpoints in this study, as they seem to be the most exegetically sound. Radical feminism and Paternalism both seem to draw their conclusions before consulting the text of Scripture (eisegesis). Egalitarians see equal value and equal roles for men and women in the church and in society. Complimentarians see equal value but different roles for men and women.

The Creation account (Gen. 1-3) provides the foundational material for all Christian theology, including gender studies. When we look at the creation account, the following observations seem applicable.

1. Humanity (both genders, Heb. adam) was made in God's image.


2. Humanity was given rule over creation.


3. Humanity was made as male and female.


4. Humanity was given the responsibility of populating the earth.


5. God created man from the dust of the ground.


6. God commanded the man not to eat of the tree prior to the creation of the woman.


7. God created woman as a response to man's need for companionship.


8. Man named the animals.


9. Woman was made from man's rib.


10. Adam named the woman.


11. Neither man nor woman felt any shame prior to the Fall.


12. Satan approached the woman to tempt her.


13. The Woman is described as being deceived, but it was with the man present.


14. The eating of the fruit seems to be virtually simultaneous.


15. Both man and woman were equally ashamed after sinning.


16. The man was first questioned by God.


17. The woman's curse includes the "he shall rule over you" clause (3:16)

Once again, these are simply observations from the text. I have purposely tried to leave interpretation out of the above observation. All would agree with the above statements, as they are plainly stated (#14 may be an exception). The way these facts are interpreted is the substance of the debate.

Winning Arguments for Egalitarians

1. Mutuality. Woman's creation "for" and "from" man is best understood as describing mutuality rather than role differentiation. Woman was created because man was incomplete without her. Men and women complete each other in relationships. In the Garden, man had God's presence in a much more tangible way than we do, even walking with God. But God's companionship is not what man needed, for He is man's Superior. Man also had the companionship of animals, an equally inadequate relationship since man is superior. Man needed an equal to be his companion. In response to this need, God created woman, prompting man to recognize that "she is bone of my bone, and flesh of my flesh." As we often say at weddings, Eve was not made from Adam's head, as if to rule over him, nor from his feet, as if to be in subjection to him, but from his side, as his equal. This is more than just a cute line that fits well in a wedding; it is actually a significant interpretation of the text.
   
   The creation of woman from man requires the man to recognize his wife as a part of himself. Man could rule all of creation, but the woman was not within his domain, for she was a part of him. In a very real way, she was him. In this way, the "one flesh" relationship can be viewed as a deterrent to male authoritarianism.
   
   In my view, the text makes the best sense theologically when understood as God's provision in response to man's need, not some kind of pre-ordained hierarchy or order which was meant to be normative.


2. Woman as "helper." In their decision to create woman, God declared "I will make a helper suitable for him." This passage has often been understood as an indication of male authority. This understanding is the unfortunate result of the translation process, for the Hebrew word 'ezer ("helper") did not carry such a meaning. In fact, the same word is used repeatedly in the OT to speak of God's relationship to his people (see Jay Guin, Buried Talents, pp. 32-35). Clearly, this does not mean that the people were authorities over God! Rather, Eve's designation as "helper"indicates that she was to compliment, or complete, the man. There is no indication of subordination inherent in this word.

Winning Arguments for Complimentarians

The complimentarians, however, also make good points. Their best points, in my view, are:

1. Man names woman. Several scholars have noted that, in the Semitic world, the act of giving a name was a statement of authority (see Mary Kassian, Women, Creation and the Fall, pp. 16-20). Therefore, Adam's naming of Eve would have been viewed by the original readers of Genesis as a clear statement of authority.
   


2. Primogeniture. Man was created first. To the Semitic mind that would have originally read the book of Genesis, this was significant. The first born male of a Jewish family was in a position of authority, for on him falls accountability and responsibility for the whole family. He was viewed as "first among equals." In the same way, complimentarians argue, the man is "first among equals" in relation to the woman, due in part to his chronological priority.

I must admit that I have no solid response to either of these arguments, and I have not yet come across one from the egalitarian writings I have consulted. However, it must be taken into account that both of these arguments are based on understandings of authority that developed in later Semitic cultures. Only a week had passed in this account and there were no cultural understandings. Adam and Eve would not have seen his naming of her or his being created first as a necessary indication of authority. Nevertheless, the author and earliest readers of Genesis would have most definitely made these connections. So is the normative value given to the narrative itself, or to the historical context in which it was written? I'm not sure.

Summary: After looking at the creation account, I see a slightly stronger argument coming from the egalitarian camp, although it is certainly not a clear victory. Complimentarianism's arguments are strong, but the difficulties raised in the above paragraph weaken them considerably in my mind. Of course, the consideration of creation is not complete until we look at Paul's appeal to creation in a discussion of male "headship" in 1 Cor. 11 and 1 Tim. 2. We will look at these together in due time.

Next time: The Fall (Genesis 3)

Does what's in your pants determine who wears the pants?

Today begins a study of gender roles and the Bible that will continue for several weeks.

Why do I feel the need to re-examine this very sensitive issue? Several reasons:

1. Beliefs should always be subject to challenge and re-examination. That's the only way growth happens.
2. I have come to the realization over the past few years that many of the things I was taught about the Bible were either wrong or grossly oversimplified.
3. I see this a an issue of utmost importance for Christianity in modern times.

What makes this issue so important?

1. If the Scriptures do, in fact, place limitations on the role of women in the life of the church, then Christians need to prepare for an increasingly intense reaction to standing by this teaching. To be sure, this reaction has been growing in intensity since the advent of the women's rights movement and will continue to do so. Fear of the reaction should never determine our conclusions, but when our conclusions will elicit intense reactions, we must prepare ourselves.
2. If the Scriptures do NOT place limitations on the role of women, or if we place stricter limits on women than do the Scriptures, then we are crippling God's work in the world. Women have always been more involved than men in church-going. Yet we only allow the men to have full participation, thereby only using less than half of God's workforce to do God's work!
3. Our world, including professed believers, is increasingly uninterested in participating in church life. If our restriction of women is biblically unnecessary, then we place an unnecessary hurdle before those who may otherwise entertain the idea of participating in church life,
4. Women are leaving the COC over this issue.
5. Women in the COC feel unable to answer God's call if it is not a call homemaking, women's ministry, or children's ministry.

Let me be clear that reasons 2-5 are irrelevant if the Bible clearly imposes limitations on women. Let me also be clear that I have NOT yet reached a conclusion on the issue. Therefore, this series will be unlike most posts, as I will be reflecting on my study even when that study has not been concluded. Hopefully your comments will add to the discussion.

Where I'm Coming From

Also, in the interest of full disclosure, allow me to place my comments in a fuller context. I was raised to believe that women were to have no part in leading the church. They certainly could not be ministers, elders, or deacons. The only sound made by women in public worship was in congregational singing. I even remember one church debating whether women should be allowed to speak up from their seat in order to correct or update an announcement! Even in private settings, women could not start songs or lead prayers in the presence of men. Women could not baptize. It was debatable whether Christian women could teach non-Christian men in an evangelistic study. Even chain prayers in youth groups would skip over the women. Women were welcome to teach other women and children. However, the definition of children became ambiguous when 10-12 year olds were baptized. In those situations, the church's male leadership would usually simply either ask a male to teach the class or send the baptized students into a class with a male teacher. Of course, we just wanted to "be safe." But when a more "liberal" church down the would hire a woman to serve as a "Children's Minister," we felt uneasy. We would never do that; it just didn't SOUND right. And, of course, we wanted to "be safe."

I see inconsistencies with our practice, though. A woman could read a scripture in Bible class if the male teacher called on her, but couldn't read a scripture in the service even if a male asked her to. A woman could stand up, walk down her pew to hand a communion tray to someone at the other end of the pew, but she could not stand up and walk down the aisles to hand the tray to someone on a different pew. In a small church with no men capable of leading singing, a man would stand at the front and inaudibly mumble the lyrics to a hymn while a woman sat in the pew and carried the congregation, but if that woman dared stand and face the congregation, she was viewed as stepping out of her role.

Clearly, even if our biblical position was correct, our practice was illogical and inconsistent. So either our position needs to change or our practice needs to. What will it be?

The Plan

I plan to discuss this issue in 6 posts. However, more may be added if there is a specific passage or area of research that I think warrants an individual post.

1. The Creation Account
2. The Old Testament
3. Jesus's teachings
4. Paul and the restof the New Testament
5. The Voice of Church History
6. Conclusions and Suggestions

As always, I hope that you will join me in this discussion. I will simply be starting the conversation. This study will be most effective when many of us are willing to comment.

So, to begin the discussion, what are your experiences both positive and negative with women's roles in the church. Also, for any female readers, how do you feel about your role in church life?