A Response to the Current Women in Ministries Discussion in the Alliance

A Response to the Current Women in Ministries 

Discussion in the Alliance

The following paper is not an in-depth analysis of the topic of women in ministry, but rather a response of a personal nature to the topic. I will not be giving a detailed exegesis of the passages that concern the topic, nor will I cover all the passages, or arguments from both sides. The objective of this paper is to give a basic understanding on where I land on the issue and the reasoning behind this stance as concisely as I can. Also, I am not providing definitions of the two prominent sides, nor addressing their arguments. There are objects and arguments to my position, but from the starting gate, I will say that those objects and arguments have not swayed me because I do not believe they rightly divide the whole Word of God. My goal is to not create more division, but seek to be as faithful to God’s Word and his Church as possible.

Where do we start? To begin, the question is not do women have worth? I have seen this as a way to attack those who do not agree with an egalitarian position, yet, unless in a fringe group, I have never seen the argument that women are not made in the image of God, or have to go through a man/husband to be saved. Genesis 1:26-27 clearly reveals that the image bearer of God is both man and woman. Humans are image bearers from the beginning of creation and therefore have worth. Whatever issues that tarnish that worth in the eyes of other humans comes from the sinful actions of humanity in Genesis 3 and not from God’s created intention.

Following that, when writing Galatians 3:28, it is revealed through Paul that, there is no gender requirement to receive salvation through Jesus. A woman, like a man, has access to Jesus simply through faith. A man only needs to place his trust in Jesus as Savior to gain salvation, and a woman needs to do the same thing. A man/husband is not the mediator between woman and God, as Paul would later write in 1 Timothy 2:5, because there is only  one Advocate and that is Jesus himself. All of this though, needs to be placed in the context with which we find it. These passages speak to the access of a woman to the gift of salvation and their worth as a fellow creation of God. This is not the issue that we are discussing, and for someone to accuse another of denying women in ministry, is deceitful and baseless. The issue is not one of worth, nor one of salvation access, the real issue is this, is there a biblical argument to restrict ministry work, first in general, and then specifically with one of those specifics gender/sex?

There are a lot of places we could start, but before we do, I want to make a clarification, we are talking about areas of ministry within the context of Jesus’ Church, not Sinai Covenant Israel. Sinai Covenant Israel is a theocratic nation state with laws dealing with moral issues  and how to curb those issues through sacrificial and civil regulations. The Church is the people of God, indwelled and empowered by the Holy Spirit, being sanctified, through his word, with the goal of being made in the image of the Son, with the commission to be light in this dark world, until the day of the Savior’s return, for the glory of the Father into eternity. Sinai Covenant Israel can inform us, but cannot be taken as a one-to-one comparison of how the Church is to operate under the New Covenant system. If we treat the Church as a one-to-one comparison, we will follow into living under the law that Christ has freed us from. Therefore arguments can be made as to aid our understanding, but must be understood as not necessarily being for the Church.

So then, where should we begin? For this paper, I will begin by asking the question, are there general distinctions in the ministries of the Church? The answer is yes. Paul gives the rhetorical questions to the Corinthians in his first letter to them at the end of chapter 12. “Are/Do all…” is asked seven times in verses 29 & 30 (the number of completion should not go over our heads here). The answer to Paul’s questions are no, because prior to this, Paul walks us through an understanding the within the Church there are many parts that function in distinct ways. There is a one-to-one comparison that Paul is making between the distinct ways a body works, and how the Church works. This isn’t a salvation issue, it’s a ecclesiological one. In general there are distinctions within how the Church is to operate.

So what are those distinctions? Here is where a group’s interpretation of a passage begins to diverge, because up to this point we should all be in agreement. Men and women both have access to the mediator, Jesus, because they are image bears of God. The Church is not a one-to-one comparison with Sinai Covenant Israel. There are distinctions in the way ministry is done in the Church. We should all be in agreement, but here comes the divergence, and at one of these places is how one interprets Ephesians 4:11-12, “11 And he gave the apostles, the prophets, the evangelists, the shepherds (pastors) and teachers (shepherd teachers),12 to equip the saints for the work of ministry, for building up the body of Christ…”

One approach is to say that these are offices or roles that are established to “run” the Church at the local level. If that were the case, then we should still have an apostle role, in addition to a role of a prophet, an evangelists, a pastor, and teacher. This is called a five-fold ministry. I believe this is wrong, for a few reasons. First, this isn’t how the early Church viewed it. The early Church had the Apostles, those commissioned by Jesus himself, and except perhaps one exception in Romans 16:7, there are none. Second, the context of the passage is one of gifts. In 4:7 we begin with the gift of Jesus from which all grace stems to believers. Then in 4:8, Paul quotes from Psalm 68:18, making his point that Jesus gives gifts to humanity. It’s in the context of gift giving that we are then told Jesus gives apostles, prophets, evangelists, pastors, and teachers. This is consistent in Paul’s use of these in other areas, such as Romans 12:6-8, and 1 Corinthians 12:8-28. There is overlap in calling apostleship, prophecy, and teaching gifts in these passages. Therefore when Paul uses evangelist and pastor in Ephesians 4:11, there is a direct connection that they too are gifts.

When understanding that the distinctions we have within the Church are gifting, we begin to weed out some of the issues we are having in this conversation, mainly those of titles. Because the titles we use in the modern Church, are gifts repackaged as offices. Pastor is a gift of counsel and service, yet we tend to call people who fill a paid position a pastor, even if they do not have the gift that reflects that title. Can a person who doesn’t have the pastoral gift do pastoral things? Yes, but they are not a pastor, because pastor is not an office of the Church, but rather a gifting. This is why in Acts 20:28, when Paul is telling a group of people that, “Pay careful attention to yourselves and to all the flock, in which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers, to care for the church of God, which he obtained with his own blood…” the word care is the basically same word that we translate as shepherd/pastor (poimainó in Acts 20:28, poimén Ephesians 4:11). Paul also calls people to do work that they might not have a gifting in, because it’s a part of their calling, which he does to Timothy in 2 Timothy 4:5. What we tend to title people with, are in fact giftings that are given by Jesus, that his Church would be built with, and people can work in even without the gifting. So, because apostleship is a gift, can women be apostles? Yes, this makes the Romans 16:7 a mute issue. Because prophecy is a gift, can women be prophetess? Yes, this makes the argument for Deborah (Judges 4) and Philips daughters (Acts 21:9) a mute issue. Then because shepherding/pastorship is a gift, can women be pastors? Yes, because none of these things are offices of the Church, but rather gifts given by the Jesus through the work of the Holy Spirit to build up the people of God.

In other words, what we classify as offices of the Church, with titles such as pastor, are a misuse of the word in the biblical context, and right there we have failed as a Church to correct for hundreds of years. And because we have failed in that context, we are dealing with issues that should have never been issues in the first place. We should confess and repent as a Church for causing unneeded strife in the Body of Christ.

So then, if pastor is not an office of the church, and shouldn’t be a title, but solely recognized as a gift, who leads? Acts 20:28, Philippians 1:1, 1 Timothy 3:2 & 8, and Titus 1:7 gives us the two words of elder (episkopos) and deacon (diakonos). In every circumstance that the word episkopos is used, it is never connected to a man or women, but to a group of people. However, when episkopos is used in 1 Timothy and in Titus, in the list of qualifications for elders, there is no indication that women are considered for the role. This is not a gifting issue, because Timothy, who is an elder, is called to work out a gifting that he may or may not have in being an evangelist. In fact there are several gifting that are implied or stated in the elder qualifications, meaning that an elder should be gifted in some of the areas and should work out the others. There is another word that the New Testament use that is a relative to episkopos and that is presbuteros. This word is only used by Peter (1 Peter 5:1) and John giving it a direct connection between a male and the office of elder.

This is not the case with the second word diakonos. The word for deacon is all over the New testament as both a call to all believers, and an office function of the Church. Even though women are not specifically called out as deaconess in 1 Timothy 3:8-10, the connection word, “likewise” in verse 11 links women to the role of deacon. It is in the office of deacon that we do have a connection to a woman being addressed as a deaconess, Phoebe, in Romans 16:1, which is given by Paul no less, who wrote down the qualification for both elder and deacons.

It’s here that another conclusion can be made. In the Church, all are given gifts to minister with that they may be servants and deacons of the Church. There are also two offices, that of elder who are men that exercise their gifts as overseers of local congregations, and deacons who are either gender/sex that exercise their gifts as servants of local congregations. If we are to give titles, the two titles are Elder and Deacon. We may recognize that an elder has the gift of pastoralship, but their title isn’t such, and it may be the same of woman who is a deacon.

But should this be the norm, with men serving in eldership roles but not women? Or is this a result of the fall and we should correct it? The answer to this, finds itself in the question, were there distinctions in creation that can illuminate this issue? Paul, prior to giving the qualifications of an elder and deacon, gives us this statement in 1 Timothy 2:12, “12 I do not permit a woman to teach or to exercise authority over a man; rather, she is to remain quiet. 13 For Adam was formed first, then Eve; 14 and Adam was not deceived, but the woman was deceived and became a transgressor.” Paul uses first the pre-fall order of creation to speak about authority. In the context of Genesis 2, it is Adam who is commanded by God not to eat the fruit not Eve. Could God have spoken to Eve, yes, but that isn’t what is revealed. Therefore Paul picks up on this idea of male authority. Then Paul uses a post-fall reality of Eve being the first who was deceived (Paul does not leave Adam off the hook, see Romans 5). By using both pre- and post-fall situations, Paul is showing us that there are distinctions of authority in the Church, which leads him into the chapter on elder and deacon qualifications.

But here’s where we have again failed the Church. We have sought after titles, whether those we find real connections (elder & deacon), loose connections (pastor), or no connection at all (reverend). In seeking these titles we have caused rifts in how we serve, both God and each other. When we should be seeking no titles. Our Savior and Lord said in Matthew 23:2-12, “2 The scribes and the Pharisees sit on Moses' seat, 3 so do and observe whatever they tell you, but not the works they do. For they preach, but do not practice. 4 They tie up heavy burdens, hard to bear, and lay them on people's shoulders, but they themselves are not willing to move them with their finger. 5 They do all their deeds to be seen by others. For they make their phylacteries broad and their fringes long, 6 and they love the place of honor at feasts and the best seats in the synagogues 7 and greetings in the marketplaces and being called rabbi by others. 8 But you are not to be called rabbi, for you have one teacher, and you are all brothers. 9 And call no man your father on earth, for you have one Father, who is in heaven. 10 Neither be called instructors, for you have one instructor, the Christ. 11 The greatest among you shall be your servant. 12 Whoever exalts himself will be humbled, and whoever humbles himself will be exalted.” The squabble over titles is what Jesus warned us against. They lead to improper leadership in the Body of Christ, making some greater than others. They also lead to titles being a point of worth, rather than being simply a child of God. A distinction in leadership is not in and of itself evil, but a desire to be distinct so that one may be recognized is.

As a Church we should repent of our desire to have titles. Casting them off that we may be servants of Jesus and nothing more. To those who hold their titles in esteem, it is a shackle by which the enemy has bound the Church too long, leave it behind that we may be one body in service to one another. Doing just what God’s Word has called us to and nothing more.

There is much more that could be said about this issue. There are depths of historical, and textual analysis that I could not cover in a short form writing such as this. Yet this is where I stand on the issue, pleading with the Church that it might turn away from the trap of titles, where we try to find our worth in them, rather than being a servant, finding our worth in our Savior alone. Paul said it like this in 1 Corinthians 1:28-31, “God chose what is low and despised in the world, even things that are not, to bring to nothing things that are, 29 so that no human being might boast in the presence of God. 30 And because of him you are in Christ Jesus, who became to us wisdom from God, righteousness and sanctification and redemption, 31 so that, as it is written, ‘Let the one who boasts, boast in the Lord.’” And our Lord said this of his disciples in Matthew 20:25-28, “25 But Jesus called them to him and said, ‘You know that the rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them, and their great ones exercise authority over them. 26 It shall not be so among you. But whoever would be great among you must be your servant, 27 and whoever would be first among you must be your slave, 28 even as the Son of Man came not to be served but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many.’”

May we be only Christ’s desires and nothing more. Amen.