GENDER DISTINCTIONS IN CHURCH MINISTRY

Developed by Pastor Ken Moberg

For the Elders of Highland Community Church

September 1998

Introduction: This is an issue that causes a great deal of discomfort to me. I have seen firsthand its incredible destructive potential unleashed on a church, to the point where the fellowship was torn apart and now no longer exists. Ironically perhaps to some, as a male I feel particularly sensitive to fairly represent the interests of women in the matter, so that I’m not guilty of supporting a discriminatory status quo at the expense of my sisters in the ministry. Further, having two daughters myself, I am particularly sensitive to limitations that could be imposed on them in pursuit of their full potential under God’s hand. Accordingly, I have read articles and books that suggest that no distinctions should be made between the genders, and that the only criteria that should be considered is giftedness. I well understand this position. I have also read articles and books that would limit the roles that a woman can fill in the local church. I believe that the most critical issue in the entire matter is our consistency with the inspired and authoritative Scripture that we claim to follow as our only reliable guide for faith and practice. The conclusions we arrive at must be based on accurate exegesis of God’s inerrant Word.

Some Key Issues:

1. Apparent discrimination based on gender, implying inferiority of women.

2. Respect for the giftedness and contribution of all people in the church.

3. Cultural differences between 1st century Palestine and 20th century America.

4. Qualifications for electing leadership in the local church.

5. Authority of Scripture.

Some Key Scripture Passages:

1 I Corinthians 113-16 (especially vss 8-9, 14)

2 Ephesians 5:21-33 (especially vss 3 1-32)

3 I Timothy 2:11-14 (especially g 13-14)

Some Options:

1. Paul is sexist and should be disregarded in this matter. It would be extremely difficult to reconcile this position with an affirmation in the inerrancy of inspired Scripture.

2. The culture of our time and place is different from first century Palestine, and therefore the Gospel must be lived out in the light of the culture. Cultural differences do exist and must be weighed carefully. The hermeneutical principle that needs to be followed is to extract the timeless and transcultural truth from its cultural setting and make accurate application to our own culture. It appears from the passages cited above that the principle of differentiated roles for men and women is transcultural.

3. The writings of the New Testament, particularly the letters to Timothy and Titus, were occasional writings addressing specific problems in their locations that are not necessarily binding on us in our location. This option is close to #2. Added to the response to #2, we must ask whether or not the rest of Scripture supports the ideas presented in the questioned passages.

4. Scripture affirms differentiated roles for men and women. Differentiated roles for men and women are never attributed to culture alone or traced back to the fall of humankind into sin. Rather, the foundation of this differentiation is traced back to the way things were in Eden before differing cultures existed and before sin warped our relationships. Differentiated roles were not created by the Fall: they were a part of the design of God in a perfect world, and were corrupted by the Fall. When these roles are seen as a part of God’s plan, we find in them a complimentarity that can be cause not for division but for celebration. I believe that it is truly possible to see not only the truth of the vision of differentiated roles, but also its beauty; to get beyond a grudging acknowledgment that this is what the Scripture teaches to a joyful affirmation of the goodness of God’s plan for men and women. In other words, when men are fully men and women are fully women, the church and the home are equipped and served to their fullest potential.

I love and honor my sisters in the Lord, and in no way want to cast myself as their adversary. With all of my heart I honor their unique capabilities and the contributions they make to the cause of Christ. I am constrained to honor that uniqueness within the bounds of Scripture, and believe that Gods plan contained therein is an affirming and beautiful thing.

I. Exegesis of key passages

There are many texts that could be brought into the discussion. Many texts that call for distinctions in roles between men and women can be explained away in terms of differences between the culture of the time in which they were written and our present culture. For instance, we don’t normally see women wearing head coverings today, nor do we wash feet or greet one another in church with a kiss. There are, however, three texts that seem to transcend culture in finding their support in the doctrine of creation itself. Those texts are 1 Corinthians 11:3-16, Ephesians 5:21-33, and 1 Timothy 2:11-15. We must take note that these texts do not go back to the fall of humankind. but to creation as it was before the fall. In other words, before sin entered the world, there were distinctions that God built into His creation of man and woman, and these distinctions have vital significance for the genders today. Other texts could be explained away in terms of cultural conditioning of the Scriptures. but when these three texts are clear, we see that the others agree with them, reinforcing the argument.

I Corinthians 11:3-16

3 Now I want you to realize that the head of every man is Christ, and the head of the woman is man, and the head of Christ is

   God.

4 Every man who prays or prophesies with his head covered dishonors his head.

5 And every woman who prays or prophesies with her head uncovered dishonors her head--it is just as though her head were

   shaved.

6 If a woman does not cover her head. she should have her hair cut off; and if it is a disgrace for a woman to have her hair cut

   or shaved off. she should cover her head.

7 A man ought not to cover his head, since he is the image and glory of God: but the woman is the glory of man.

8 For man did not come from woman. but woman from man.

9 neither was man created for woman. but woman for man.

10 For this reason, and because of the angels. the woman ought to have a sign of authority on her head.

11 In the Lord, however, woman is not independent of man. nor is man independent of woman.

12 For as woman came from man, so also man is born of woman. But everything comes from God.

13 Judge for yourselves: Is it proper for a woman to pray to God with her head uncovered?

14 Does not the very nature of things teach you that if a man has long hair, it is a disgrace to him.

15 but that if a woman has long hair, it is her glory? For long hair is given to her as a covering.

16 If anyone wants to be contentious about this, we have no other practice--nor do the churches of God.

There has been no shortage of discussion regarding what this “covering” is all about. Sonic would suggest that it is a veil, similar to those worn by Muslim women in certain cultures today. Others would suggest that it is a reference to how the hair is worn, that is, that a woman’s hair should be worn up on top of her head, rather than flowing freely. Still others suggest that it is a reference to a shawl, to be worn during corporate worship. Regardless of just what specific situation Paul was addressing. the point he makes is clear: women were to adorn themselves in a certain way. The question we need to ask is “Why?”

A key word in our understanding of this is issue is the word “head”.  Two suggestions have been put forward as to its meaning.  First, it has been suggested that the word means “source,” like the head waters of a river. This is the definition preferred by evangelical feminists. Second. it has been suggested that the word means “authority”.  Three lines of reasoning suggest that this is what the Apostle Paul had in mind:

1. The meaning “authority” is indisputable in a number of passages, while the meaning “source” is never clearly attested.

2. The word “head” never means “source” in the Septuagint (the Greek Old Testament), the most important source for Paul’s

    theology.

3. Paul’s own writings clearly attest the meaning “authority” for “head.” For example, in Ephesians 5:23, Paul says “the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church.” To suggest “source” as the meaning for “head” here is problematic - women do not derive their life from their husbands. Another example is Paul’s use of the word in Ephesians 1:22, where Christ is given as head over all things to the church. The entire passage focuses on the exaltation of Christ over all other authorities and powers. A parallel passage in Colossians 2:10 shows Christ as head over every power and authority, to include demonic powers of which He is certainly not the source.

To suggest, then, that the head of the woman is man, is to suggest that he is her authority, as Christ is the man’s and as God the Father is Christ’s. I will address separately the issue of functional hierarchy and ontological equality, but suffice it to say here that the eternal subordination of the Son to the Father (1 Corinthians 15:28) does not imply His inferiority. As well, His subordination was a voluntary one, in which He did not consider equality with God a thing to be grasped, but made Himself nothing, taking on the form of a servant on our behalf (Philippians 2:6). In the same way, the distinctions in role between the genders are not a matter of inferiority of personhood, whatever responsibilities those roles will require of men and women.

Verses 4 to 6 suggest that violation of a cultural sign of authority is a violation of the appropriate relationships intended by God. Paul’s point about head coverings is that it is appropriate for women to wear them and not for men. For a man to wear such a covering would be for him to masquerade as a woman, and thus to dishonor his head, that is. Christ. For a woman not to wear such a covering would be the same as her cutting or shaving off her hair, or passing herself as a man. This, too, would be dishonoring to her head, that is, her husband. The point is that within the context of the given culture, the woman should evidence her desire not to look like a man. What that may look like might van’ from culture to culture, but there is an appropriate femininity for women and an appropriate masculinity for men that should be maintained.

Verses 7 to 10 give further explanation of why Paul believes women should wear head coverings and men should not. A man should not wear one “since he is the image and glory of God” (verse 7a), and a woman should wear one because she is “the glory of man” (verse 7b). He is not arguing that women were created any lower than men, since he is well aware of male and female being created in the image of God (Genesis 1:26-27). The focus of his statement has to do with glory. He goes on in verses 8 and 9 to give two reasons why women are the glory of men. In verse 8, the reason is the order of creation. He suggests that since woman came from man, she is to be his glory, that is, she should honor him. And even as Christ is glorified in His own purposeful building up of the church (Ephesians 5:25-27), so the husband’s glory is reflected in his developing his own wife fully into the woman God intended her to be. This is his Christ-like role in the relationship: to love her in a sacrificial, sanctifying and purposeful way that leads her into her full potential.

The second reason Paul gives is that man was not created because of woman, but woman because of man (verse 9). Woman was created for man’s sake, to be man’s helper (Genesis 2:20), and therefore should fulfill her function iii honor to the man. Both of these reasons, it should be noted, are linked to God’s intention in creation, not to the consequences of sin in the fall. In other words, God’s intention in a perfect world involved a distinction in roles between the genders. Verse 10 suggests that the head covering becomes a symbol of the woman’s submission to her authority, the man.

Verses 11 and 12 keep the argument from going too far, reminding men and women of their interdependence in the Lord. They are equals in essence, though differentiated in function, and they need each other.

Verses 13 to 16 argues from “the nature of things” to reinforce Paul’s argument. There is, he suggests, something deep inside us that points to distinctions between men and women that are not to be denied. He uses the same word “nature” (thusia) in Romans 1:26 to 27, where he suggests homosexuality is contrary to nature, that is, a violation of the God-given created order and natural instinct. Paul is suggesting that even if there were no scripture to show us clearly what is right, nature itself speaks to us on the issue. We violate this God-given order at the expense of our own conscience.

There are, therefore, appropriate distinctions between the genders. How those are expressed will vary from culture to culture, but the principle of female submission to male authority is to be upheld, whatever cultural expression it finds. For the women in Corinth, to pray and prophesy without a head covering was a signal that they were no longer submitting to male authority. Paul considers this serious enough to address in Scripture because it threatens the distinction between the genders that God built into us. B implication, to eliminate that distinction is to open the door to the acceptance of homosexuality as a viable sexual option. It comes as no surprise, therefore, to see the Evangelical Woman’s Caucus, a feminist group, suggest the acceptance of lesbianism as a lifestyle (Christianity Today. Oct 3, 1986. p4042). There is a direct link, then, according to Paul, between women defying male authority and losing their femininity. The preservation of the latter depends on the preservation of the former.

Ephesians 5:21-33 (and Colossians 3:18-19)

21 Submit to one another out of reverence for Christ.

22 Wives, submit to your husbands as to the Lord.

23 For the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church, his body, of which he is the Savior.

24 Now as the church submits to Christ. so also wives should submit to their husbands in everything.

25 Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her

26 to make her holy, cleansing her by the washing with water through the word

27 and to present her to himself as a radiant church, without stain or wrinkle or any other blemish, but holy and blameless.

28 In this same way, husbands ought to love their wives as their own bodies. He who loves his wife loves himself.

29 After all, no one ever hated his own body, but he feeds and cares for it, just as Christ does the church--

30 for we are members of his body.

31 “For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh.”

32 This is a profound mystery--but I am talking about Christ and the church.

33 However, each one of you also must love his wife as he loves himself, and the wife must respect her husband.

Col 3:18 Wives, submit to your husbands, as is fitting in the Lord.

19 Husbands, love your wives and do not be harsh with them.

The verb provided in verse 21 is rightly taken as an imperative, though properly it is a participle, one of a string of participles begun in verse 19, showing what life in the Spirit looks like. The sense of the passage begins with verse 18, “Do not get drunk on wine, which leads to debauchery. Instead, be filled with the Spirit, speaking..., singing..., making music..., giving thanks..., submitting to one another.” The section that follows (s’22-33) expands on the last participle, “submitting,” and encompasses three key relationships: wives and husbands, children and parents, slaves and masters. It shows what appropriate submission looks like in each of these three relationships. As to the mutuality of the submission, it is popular these days to speak of complete mutuality, but the span of the three relationships and the parallel passage in Colossians 3:18-19 suggest otherwise. With regard to the span of the three relationships, Paul is not arguing for complete reciprocity of submission between wives and husbands any more than he is for children and parents or slaves and masters. He is speaking of the order that comes to relationships when one is in step with the Spirit: wives in proper submission to husbands, children to parents, slaves to masters. The “one another” of verse 21 envisions the three subgroups within the body of Christ that Paul is about to address (marriages, families, work situations), and calls on them to demonstrate roles that are appropriate to those respective relationships. This conclusion is confirmed by Colossians 3:18-25, which deals similarly w those three relationships (urging appropriate submission in one part of each of the three pairings), but without the exhortation to “mutual submission.” Further, even passage in the New Testament that deals with the relationship of the wife to her husband tells her to “submit” to him, using the same verb (Ephesians 5:22, Colossians 3:18, 1 Peter 3:1. Titus 2:4-5).

The meaning of the verb, “submit,” (hupotasso). is to subject or subordinate oneself, and implies a voluntary yielding in love. It appears in the middle voice, implying the choice of the person called upon to yield, rather than the involuntary subjection of the other in the pairing. The voluntary nature of the submission implies a basic equality. Out of which the wife is urged to choose to submit to her husband. Further. it is the wife who is addressed in this matter of submission, not the husband. In other words, husbands are never commanded to subordinate their wives; rather, wives are commanded to submit themselves to their husbands.

The issue of headship is dealt with in the section on I Corinthians 11:3-16.

The analogy that is employed in describing the relationship between a husband and his wife is that of Christ and the church. As the church submits to Christ in everything, so the wife should submit to her husband in even-thing (v24). Appropriately, the husband is called upon to reflect that same analogy in his relationship with his wife, namely, to love her as Christ loved the church. Such love is self-giving and sacrificial (v25). as well as redemptive (v26) and purposeful (v27).

The grounding of this relationship in the order of creation comes in verse 31, where Paul quotes Genesis 2:24. Paul goes back to the pre-fall creation to show that the appropriateness of this manner of functioning between husband and wife was a part of God’s design from the start. Further. he then goes on to point out that the mystery of marriage (v32) was intended by God to point to the relationship between Christ and the church, In other words, when God was planning what marriage would be like, He planned it for the incredible purpose of giving a beautiful picture of the relationship that would someday exist between Christ and His church. It was a “mystery-” because it was unknown for generations, but is now revealed in Christ. What this means is that when Paul wanted to tell the Ephesians about marriage, he didn’t just hunt for an analogy and think of Christ and the church. It was, instead, the other way around. When God designed the ‘en- first marriage, He already had Christ and the church in mind. The order of submission and love that should characterize a wife and a husband, then, is part of the essence of marriage. Christ-like, loving headship and church-like, willing submission are rooted in creation and in God’s eternal purposes. not just in the passing trends of culture.

I Timothy 2:11-15

11 A woman should learn in quietness and full submission.

12 I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man: she must be silent.

13 For Adam was formed first, then Eve.

14 And Adam as not the one deceived: it was the woman who was deceived and became a sinner.

15 But women will be saved through childbearing--if they continue in faith, love and holiness with propriety.

The situation in Ephesus, where Paul writes to Timothy, appears to be similar to that in Corinth, which Paul had addressed years earlier. In Corinth, women had adopted a style of dress (or hairstyle) that proclaimed their independence from their husbands. In both cases, Paul instructs the women to adopt a manner of behavior that indicates their submission to male leadership in general and to their husbands in particular.

“Quietness’ (hesuchia, vii) may mean silence or peaceableness, and here is set in contrast to teaching. The role of the teachers is to teach, and Paul urges the women to learn in a way that does not seek to usurp the teachers’ authority, evidently a problem in Ephesus. The same word is used in I Timothy 2:2 to show the kind of lives Christians are to live in a pagan culture, and specifically refers to submitting to established authority.

Paul’s use of the word “permit” (v12) has been taken by some to refer to his own preferences, and not a prohibition that is binding today. Two things may be said about this: First, that Paul saw his own teaching as authoritative for the churches, and second, that his underlying reasons for why he says what he says in this regard are rooted in the creation account, as we shall see.

What does it mean that women are not “to teach” (didaskein)? In the New Testament, the verb denotes the careful transmission of the tradition concerning Jesus Christ and the authoritative proclamation of God’s will to believers in light of that tradition (see I Tim 4:11). In the pastoral epistles, teaching always has a very restricted sense of authoritative doctrinal instruction. While some would suggest that the authority in the first century rested in the teacher and now rests in the Scriptures, we should note that the Scriptures replace the apostles, who wrote the Scriptures, rather than the teachers who teach it. The grammatical construction suggests that it is specifically the teaching of men by women that Paul is prohibiting. The word “man” (andros) is the object of both the verb “teach” (didaskein), and the verb “have authority over” (authentein). Women are not to teach men or have authority over them.

In the pastoral epistles, the authority to which Paul refers is a governing function that is ascribed to the Elders of the church (1 Tim 3:5, 5:17). In practical terms, this would prohibit a woman from serving as an Elder in the way this office is described in the pastoral epistles. Some denominations refer to the office by another name (for instance, Baptists use the term “Deacon” to describe what we call ‘Elder”), but the principle rather than the name is what must be observed. An office that involves authoritative teaching and leadership over men, according to Paul, must be occupied by a man.

The basis of Paul’s instruction on this matter is rooted in the biblical accounts of creation and the fall. In the present passage as well as in its parallel in 1 Corinthians 11:3-10, the logic is clear: For Paul, the leadership God intended for man to have over woman is clear from the way He created them. The woman, created after man to be his helper, shows the position of submission God intended as a part of her relationship to the man. For a woman to teach or have authority over a man violates this divine intent. We must note that Paul takes us first back to creation rather than the fall, indicating that the submission of the woman is not the result of sin but the design of God before sin entered the picture.

Paul’s mention of the woman as having been deceived does not suggest that women are more gullible than men. As we will see from the Genesis account, Satan approached Eve to get her to make a decision for both herself and Adam that violated her role as helper and usurped Adam’s authority as leader, all of which took place while Adam stood and watched (Genesis 3:6).

Verse 15 has been the subject of significant misunderstanding, suggesting, according to some, that salvation for women is a matter of bearing children, It seems better to understand the verse as depicting the context in which Christian women vil1 work out their salvation, that is, in keeping to the key roles that women in Ephesus as well as in Corinth had abandoned. Those same roles are questioned in value by’ many today, who also suggest that women can only experience the fullness of what God has for them if they abandon the home and become actively involved in authoritative teaching and leadership.

One more word needs to be shared before we leave this text and the New Testament in general. Some have suggested that Paul might be referring only to role distinctions between husband and wife, and not between men and women in the broader sense. If that is the case, then we could read “husband” wherever “man” is referred to in contrast to a woman, and “wife” wherever “woman” is referred to in contrast to a man. You can read back through the texts of I Corinthians 11:3-16 and I Timothy 2:11-15, substituting “husband” for “man” and “wife” for “woman.” Where would that take us? In 1 Corinthians 11:3-16, it would bring the teaching to the context of marriage rather than the church, but it appears from the context that it is specifically the church that the apostle has in mind. In 1 Timothy 2:11-15. it would suggest (vii) that a wife should learn from her husband, a point well taken from 1 Corinthians 14:35. But again, the context of the entire passage suggests that Paul is talking about the church here rather than just the marital relationship. as in v12 he prohibits a woman from teaching or having authority over a man, and goes on to urge her silence as he does also in the context of the church in 1 Corinthians 14:34.

Unfortunately, to my knowledge there is no Greek word that speaks of a man as a man (and not as “man” in the generic sense) other than the word that also speaks of a man as a husband (andros). There is also no Greek word, to my knowledge, that speaks of a woman as a woman other than the word that also speaks of a woman as a wife (gune). So the context of each usage must determine whether the New Testament writer is speaking of men or of husbands, of women or of wives. More fortunately, though, the context of each usage seems to be clear, and the English translations have supported the assumptions I have presented in this paper (that is, that we are talking not only about husband/wife relationships as in Ephesians 5:21-33. but also about a broader norm for male/female relationships and roles within the church as in 1 Corinthians 11:3-16 and I Timothy 2:11-15).

Genesis 1-3

Since the key passages we have considered point back to Genesis as the basis for their teaching, we would do well to look at the biblical accounts of creation and fall to understand the foundation for the New Testament teaching on the role of women.

In the general statement of the creation of humankind in Genesis 1:26-28, we find that God created man and woman in His very image. Both genders bear the divine glory equally. There is no question of inequality between the genders, even as there is no inequality between the members of the godhead (Father, Son and Holy Spirit).

The close-up picture of the creation of man and woman given in Genesis chapter 2, however, speaks of a differentiation in role between the man and the woman. It is this differentiation that the New Testament writers call upon to underpin their arguments for male leadership and female submission. In Genesis 2, Adam is created before Eve, and also before Eve’s creation Adam is given responsibility for the care of the Garden of Eden (v15), and for the moral climate in the Garden (v6-17). Next, God notes that it is not good for the man to be alone, and before creating the woman, causes all the animals to parade by Adam so he can name them. The giving of names shows Adam’s authority over the animals, but the whole exercise also shows Adam that there is no helper among the animals who is suitable to his needs. None of them shares his nature.

In this context God creates woman to be a helper suitable for man. The suitability stems from her equality with man, indicated by her creation from his side. Her specific role is to be his helper. She is created to help him, not vice versa. It is this order to which the New Testament writers appeal.

Note also that Adam gives the woman her name. As he had named the animals, showing his headship over the created order entrusted to him, so he names the helper God had created to come alongside him.

Genesis 3 shows the fall of humankind into sin. As such, it portrays the corruption of the God-ordained distinctions between man and woman rather than the creation of those distinctions. It is important for us to realize that the distinctions between the genders are the result of the good creation of God in chapters one and two rather than the sin of chapter three. The distinctions between men and women were a part of God’s creation before sin entered the picture.

In the temptation and subsequent fall, Satan approaches Eve and asks her to reevaluate her life under God’s design. He deliberately avoids going to her husband and puts her in a position of leadership that was not intended for her. He asks her to be the leader and spokesperson for the couple, circumventing the roles God had established in His good creation of chapters 1 and 2. Satan suggests to Eve that his own design is better than God’s design, and that God is actually holding out on her with His rules for her life. He suggests that her life would be better without God’s rules, and urges her to eat what God has prohibited her and Adam from eating.

We might ask “Where is Adam during this?’ Verse 6 tells us that he is there with her, passively allowing the serpent to lead her astray when he should have taken authority over the serpent and protected his wife. Eve, without the protection and leadership of Adam, takes the lead herself. She eats the forbidden fruit and feeds sonic to Adam, who follows her into sin. Had the original man and woman observed the roles God purposed for them from the start, Adam would have taken authority over the situation and the serpent, and Eve would have been protected from the tempter. Adam instead abdicated his role as leader and exposed Eve to the temptation. Further, when God calls for an account of what has happened, it is Adam He seeks out because it is Adam who is responsible as leader. When God condemns Adam for his guilt in the matter, He condemns him because he passively ‘listened to his wife” rather than actively taking charge of the situation.

The part of the curse extended to Eve that deals with her relationship with her husband (3:l6b) has a remarkable parallel in Genesis 4:7. To Eve, God says. “Your desire will be for your husband, and he will rule over you.” In the next chapter, God says to Cain. “Sin is crouching at your door: it desires to have you, but you must master it.” The two key words of both verses (“desire” and “rule/master”) are the same two words in Hebrew. What they say is this: Just as sin’s desire it to have its way with Cain. God gives the woman up to a desire to have her way with her husband.  Because she usurped her husband’s headship in the temptation, God hands her over to the misery of competition with her rightful head. The curse corresponds measure for measure to her sin. The roles of man and woman, perfect in chapter two, have now become corrupted: Woman will seek to manipulate her husband, and man to bully his wife. We must be careful to see that this was not the intent of God in creation, but a corruption of His intent in the fall.

The intent of God for male leadership in the home and in the church is woven into the fabric of creation itself, and the failure of the first man and woman to live up to God’s design is played out on the stage of the first sin. When we fail to live up to God’s design we fall into the same error and expose ourselves to harm.

Galatians 3:28

28 There is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female. for you are all one in Christ Jesus.

Before moving on to other considerations, it is fitting that we should look at Galatians 3:28. This text has been cited by many Christian feminists to suggest that in Christ all distinctions between the genders are removed. But think for a moment: if this passage removes all distinctions between the genders, then it opens the door to full affirmation of homosexuality as a valid lifestyle! If in every sense there is no distinction between male and female, then anything goes. But the Bible in general, as well as Paul in particular, condemns homosexuality as sin (see, for instance, Romans 1:24-32). And while some evangelical feminists would suggest that we accept homosexuality as a valid lifestyle for the Christian, we cannot get around Scripture’s condemnation of that lifestyle without doing violence to the text.

What is the sense, then, in which there is neither male nor female, because of our oneness in Christ? The context of the passage makes it clear: Men and women are equally justified in Christ (v24), equally free from the bondage of legalism (v25), equally children of God (v26), equally clothed with Christ (v27), equally possessed by Christ (v29), and equally heirs to the promises to Abraham (v29).

This last blessing, that women are fellow heirs with men of the promises to Abraham, is particularly significant. In 1 Peter 3:1-7, the blessing of being heirs of “the gracious gift of life” (v7) is connected with the exhortation for women to be submissive to their husbands (v7) and for their husbands to “treat them with respect as the weaker partner” (v7). In other words, Peter saw no conflict between our equality as heirs of the promises and distinction of roles between men and women.

II. Hermeneutical issues

Exegesis is the interpretation of Scripture. Hermeneutics is the study of the rules of interpretation. Hermeneutics seeks to ask the question of how we determine what rules will govern our interpretation of Scripture. How can we tell, for instance, what is cultural and what is transcultural? How do we know what was situational for the first century churches that were originally addressed and what is intended to be normative for all churches everywhere? The challenge in hermeneutics is to determine the timeless principle of Scripture apart from its cultural expression.

The issue of head coverings is a good case in point. In Paul’s first letter to the Corinthians, it seems to have been a very important thing that women wear head coverings in the church. Today, it doesn’t seem to be an important thing at all. Why do we feel the freedom not to observe this command of Scripture (1 Corinthians 11:5-6)? Hermeneutics would suggest it is for the same reason we disregard the command of Paul to stop drinking only water and use a little wine (1 Tim 5:23). It is a specific command for a specific situation (in the one case, Timothy’s medical condition and in the other, a cultural sign of submission to authority). How, then, do you tell what is cultural and time bound and what is timeless and transcendent of culture? That is the vital question of hermeneutics.

Among the hermeneutical principles that govern the interpretation of Scripture are the following:

1. Didactic passages (that is, passages that teach) must be used to govern the interpretation of narrative passages and historical

    events.

2. Passages that deal systematically with an issue must be used to help us understand passages that deal incidentally with an

    issue.

3. Passages must be interpreted in the light of their context.

4. Passages that appear to be culturally bound must be interpreted in the light of the principles that underlie the culture-bound

    statement.

In the passages considered above, the normative principle throughout Scripture appears to be the wife’s subjection to her husband; however that subjection might properly show itself in the cultural setting of the time. So the sign of submission today might not be a head covering, but rather a spirit of affirmation of one’s husband in the presence of others.

Because principles of hermeneutics are not so much given in Scripture as they are determined through the study of Scripture, opportunity for differences in principles is enormous. Some have suggested that all of Timothy and Titus be written off as letters to particularly troubled churches that required some special leadership for a time. It is for this reason that this paper has centered on the passages in which the design of God in creation itself is given as the reason for the particular instruction. Other passages, perhaps more culturally bound, may be interpreted safely in the light of the passages that are clearly transcultural.

III. Can there be differentiation without inferiority (functional hierarchy without ontological inequality)?

One of the texts that the Jehovah’s Witnesses use to suggest that Jesus isn’t really equal with God is 1 Corinthians 15:25-28. It shows the final state when everything in all creation is made subject to Christ, but concludes with Christ being subordinated to the Father.

25 For he must reign until he has put all his enemies under his feet.

26 The last enemy to be destroyed is death.

27 For he “has put everything under his feet.” Now when it says that “everything” has been put under him, it is clear that this

     does not include God himself, who put everything under Christ.

28 When he has done this, then the Son himself will be made subject to him who put everything under him, so that God may  

     be all in all.

What the Jehovah’s Witnesses can’t figure out is how Christ can be equal with the Father if He is functionally subordinated to Him. That is precisely the point of the equality and differentiation of roles between the genders. Though ontologicallv (in the very nature of their beings) equal, they are functionally differentiated, each with unique responsibilities, and this is as fitting for males and females as it is for the members of the godhead. It is no contradiction to say that Christ is equal with the Father even though He is eternally subordinated to Him.

IV. Beauty:

I am convinced that it is not enough to argue for the truth of the vision of biblical manhood and womanhood without affirming its beauty. To do so would be to end up at a point of grudging acceptance of truth we don’t like (as when the doctor tells you you’ve got cancer) rather, than at a sense of profound appreciation for the design of God in creation (as when you discover that Jesus Christ is the only way to salvation).

If the truths contained in this paper reflect the design of God in creation, and if God declared His creation very good when He had completed it in its sinless condition, then to align our lives with the intent of God in His design for us must be very good.

It is possible for us to operate our automobiles with complete disregard for the design of their manufacturer, but it won’t be long before they’re badly in need of repair. It is possible for us to abuse our bodies with drugs or overwork or lack of proper nutrition, but it won’t be long before we’re experiencing physical symptoms and requiring medical attention. In both cases, of automobiles and human bodies, the solution is to be found in following the original design. When that design is honored, whether in the operation of a car or in the maintenance of the body, the object functions as it was intended to function. If the truths about the genders reflected in this paper are a part of God’s design, then to follow them will be fulfilling and to disregard them will be perilous.

Let me illustrate with a positive example and then with a negative one.

One of the Olympic events I like best is the couples figure skating. The beauty of the performance is the result of hours and hours of practice, but there’s more to it than that. In couples figure skating, the man and the woman each have a specific role to play, and their conforming to those roles is the key to the beauty of what they do. It is specifically the strength and initiation of the man and the responsiveness and willingness of the woman to be acted upon by that strength that makes couples figure skating work. The roles are not interchangeable. When each of the pair functions according to his/her role, the end result is a thing of beauty. Likewise, the roles are not randomly assigned. They reflect the design of God in the physical creation of a man and a woman. And by reflecting that design, they allow the couple to accomplish something that an individual skater cannot do: to enact a drama on a purely physical level that commends itself to our sense of beauty.

What would happen if the couple decided to reverse its roles? If the woman were to work at holding the man above her head and spinning his body, throwing him up in the air and catching him on his descent, what would the outcome be? Futility. Not only would they experience the frustration of working overtime to try to accomplish something their bodies were not designed for, and not only would they fail to impress the judges, but they would also not commend themselves to us as a thing of beauty. Why? Because there is something deep inside of us that understands and appreciates the difference between men and women. Couples figure skating affirms that men and women are different, and that’s a good thing. The difference between men and women is not something to be overcome, but to be celebrated!

Now the negative example: Imagine a husband and wife walking downtown late at night, heading back to their car after an evening at the Grand Theatre. Out of the shadows a figure steps, and the eyes of the couple are drawn to a glint of steel from the object in his hand. What would you think of a man who says to his wife, “Good luck.  I hope your heels don’t slow you down,” and then takes off running? I know your response. You wouldn’t think much of him. There is something wrong about what he’s doing! He’s not fulfilling his role as her protector. What he should do is to say. “Honey, you walk to the car and get to safety. I’ll take care of this,” even though it might mean his life. There is something deep inside of us that affirms that response. I believe it’s what Paul refers to as “the very nature of things” in 1 Corinthians 11:14. It is evidence of God’s design, a part of us that affirms things at a fundamental level that our secular culture is trying to get us to deny.

When a man and a woman will function according to God’s design, the result will not be domination or abuse, but an interrelatedness that reflects the purposes of God in creation. That is something to be celebrated as a thing of beauty, not resisted as an unfortunate remnant of the past. It is a positive vision of men who know what it is to be a man and not a woman, and of women who know what it is to be a woman and not a man. The blurring of sex roles in our enlightened era has not created a thing of beauty but a thing of confusion, with boys and girls growing up not understanding what it is to be men and women. Is it any wonder that the incidence of abuse of women is increasing and not decreasing? Is it any wonder that homosexuality is becoming more pervasive? We clearly need a positive vision of manhood and womanhood. As believers, we can celebrate the fact that the Bible gives us one.

V. Structural Implications

Pluralism on “nonessentials” within the church is part of the EFCA, but this is an issue that has structural implications. We either elect women to the position of Elder, for example, or we do not. There is no middle ground. People who do not agree with our stand on the issue are welcome, but the structure we choose will reflect the church’s position.

It is my belief that primary responsibility for teaching and leadership in the church falls biblically to men, and that it is inappropriate for women to hold positions where they teach men or hold authority over men in the church. This is not to suggest that women are not to teach at all in the church.  Titus 2:3-5 suggests a teaching role of older women toward younger women. 2 Timothy 3: 14-15 speaks of the things Timothy learned from infancy, which were taught to him by his mother and grandmother (see 2 Timothy 1:5). And in Acts 18:26, Priscilla and Aquila as a couple take the learned Apollos aside and teach him the way of God more adequately than he had known to that point. But the primary responsibility for authoritative teaching and leadership in the church, tasks that sum up the role of Elder (see 1 Timothy 5:17), falls to men. It should be noted that in the New Testament, the words “elder.” “overseer,” “bishop” and “pastor” are used interchangeably of the same office, which is to be occupied by men only.

Some would suggest that voting in the congregation should be limited to men (as it is in the Wisconsin Synod of the Lutheran church), since voting is the ultimate authority in a congregational church. (It is, after all, how Elders are elected.) But while the congregation as a whole can be said to be the final authority, it is a different sort of authority than that of the Elder, who is called upon to exercise the authority of a spiritual office over both men and women in the church. Voting, therefore, should be open to all members of the church.

Leading worship is another function that has been called into question. In I Corinthians 14:34, Paul says that women should remain silent in the churches, even though he has already indicated in 1 Corinthians 11:5 that it is permissible for a woman to pray or prophesy in church so long as she has her head covered. The issue, then, is what Paul means by “remain silent.” The word used in 1 Corinthians 14:34 (sigao, “be silent, stop talking”) cannot mean that a woman can never speak in church, since praying and prophesying are allowed in 1 Corinthians 11:5. The question, then, is “When should a woman remain silent in the context of church?”

In 1 Timothy 2:12. Paul uses a different word to state that women are to be silent, also apparently in the context of the church. This time the word is hesuchia, which is also used in I Timothy 2:2 of the sort of life all believers are to live in society. We know that Paul isn’t commanding all Christians to a life of silence, but to a gentle and uncontentious spirit, particularly as we relate to authority, as the context of the verse suggests.

In short, what was prohibited in 1 Corinthians was not a woman speaking at all in church, since praying and prophesying (evidently not an authoritative form of communication) are allowed, but rather the authoritative weighing of prophetic utterance on behalf of the entire church (1 Corinthians 14:29), which takes us back to the issues of teaching and having authority over men (1 Timothy 2:12). As such, I do not see it inappropriate for a woman to lead worship or to lead the congregation in prayer.

A final question pertains to the role of Ministry Team Leader (MTL). It seems appropriate from Scripture and from the structure of the church that this role be open to men and women. The role is built around servanthood, based on the “Deacon” (diakonos) role in the New Testament (Acts 6:1-4, I Timothy 3:8- 13). The same word, literally “servant,” is used of a woman named Phoebe in Romans 16:1, and I Timothy 3: 11 may refer to female Deacons as easily as it may refer to the wives of Deacons. If a woman is an MTL with a work relationship with a male staff member, she should be sensitive to the application of I Timothy 2:12 to that work relationship. The same applies to a woman in the role of Administrator as she seeks to facilitate the ministries of both men and women.

VI. Conclusion

Three key texts (1 Corinthians 11:3-16, Ephesians 5:21-33, and I Timothy 2:11-14) call us back to the order of creation before the fall to undergird a normative pattern of male leadership in the home and in the church. Other texts, which could be interpreted differently, will affirm that same pattern when harmonized with those three. This pattern affirms full equality of personhood between men and women, but a differentiation of roles for each. In those roles, men are charged with primary responsibility for godly leadership, and women are charged with a corresponding responsibility for godly support of those leaders. When each functions according to these roles designed by God in His creation of man and woman, the result is a beautiful and harmonious picture of manhood and womanhood as God intended them to be.