We Must Bring Women into the Church . . .

WHAT MUST THE CHURCH OF CHRIST DO TO BE SAVED? (18)

      In the ninth installment of this series (Nov. 1991) I stated that if the Church of Christ is to be saved it must cease to be male-dominated. I gave a list of steps we could take immediately to include women in the ministry of the church, public and private alike, all without violating either our conscience or the Scriptures. If you have not read that piece, I urge you to do so, for I believe you will find it liberating.

      In this installment I want to say more about the ministry of women, and in doing so I will urge that we "bring the women into the church," as a speaker put it recently at the Pepperdine University lectureship. I am persuaded that he said it as it is, as startling as it sounds, for we have virtually left women out of the church. They are members, of course, and their presence has always been crucial, but they are left out of the corporate worship of the church.

      So, in this installment I will ride coattail on the Pepperdine lecturer and say if the Church of Christ is to be saved it must bring women into the church. That means really bring them to the forefront of the work of the church and cease and desist with our present male-dominated services. I'll speak plainly, as did our brother at Pepperdine: We leave our women out, and that is a sin!

      The Pepperdine lecturer also said, "The Church of Christ is dead!" Perhaps he meant we are dying, but whatever he meant he related it to the way we have been treating our sisters in Christ. To be revived, he was saying, we must come to terms with the one line in Scripture that must be the arbiter for this entire question: There is neither male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus (Gal. 3:28).

      If that passage means anything it means that gender is not to be made a test of fellowship or ministry, such as, "She can't do that because she is a woman." Paul himself may have sometimes fallen short of that ideal of perfect equality, due to the pressures of custom, as in the case of slavery, which he tolerated, and which is forbidden in that same passage, "There is neither bond nor free." If socio-economic conditions had been different, Paul might not have said what he did about women and slaves, tolerating their unequal treatment.

      To put it another way, Paul almost certainly would not say to the 20th century church what he said to the first century church about women and slaves (and Jews!). But still he laid down the principle that applies to all generations because it so reflects the mind of Christ: In the Church of Christ there is to be no distinction between slaves and freedmen, Jews and Gentiles, men and women! We have to recognize that this was the ideal that even he was not always able to effect due to the conditions beyond his control.

      Take, for example, this absolute rule to the church at Corinth: "It is shameful for women to speak in church" (l Cor. 14:35). He allows for no exception, not in that context anyway. To whom is it shameful for a woman to speak in church. To God? To Paul? To the church? It probably refers to none of these, but to the general public, and this due to biases associated with temple prostitution in Corinth. It was shameful for a woman to be aggressive and assertive, domineering over men, as they did in the temple of Diana in Ephesus, to which city he also wrote about this.

      Are we to take a rule like this and apply it to the whole church for all time to come? Is it a shame for a woman to speak in a church in Paris or London or New York in 1992 ? We live in a culture where women speak in parliament, in the halls of congress, in corporate board rooms, in the public media — with no shame attached to it at all. A shame for a woman to speak in church? It may have been in the context of the problem Paul was dealing with, but not now.

      The biblical grounds for leaving women out of the church is due to a faulty hermeneutics, namely, an indiscriminate application of Scripture, or supposing that if a passage applies to a given situation it applies to all situations for all time to come.

      There is hardly any question but what the Bible lays down certain limitations on the ministry of women, such as in 1 Tim. 2:11-12: "Let a woman learn in silence with all submission. And I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man, but to be in silence." As we shall see, the apostle had what he believed were good reasons for such a restriction, and we may assume that Timothy, the evangelist to whom he was writing, took such instructions seriously as he ministered in Ephesus.

      It is unfaithful to Scripture to find artful ways to "explain away" such passages. The apostle did not want women speaking (or praying) in the churches like men did (period). It is true that he creates a problem when elsewhere he calls for women to both "pray and prophesy," albeit with her head covered, as in 1 Cor. 11:5. It is generally conceded that prophesying means teaching. Is she to be silent as in the first text or is she to pray and prophesy as in the second?

      I am not sure these passages can be reconciled. One might say, I suppose, that to Paul a woman is to be silent in church, ordinarily; if and when she prays and prophesies, as per her special gift, she is to do so only with her head covered. The covered head would allay the criticism that called for the restriction to start with: assertive women are associated with all the shenanigans going on in temple prostitute worship.

      The reasons Paul gives for his restriction in 1 Timothy may appear odd to the modem church. "For Adam was formed first, then Eve," was Paul's first reason for women being silent. I would have difficulty telling a young sister who is majoring in music at the university that she cannot sing in church because of Adam's priority in creation. Paul's second reason is hardly more persuasive. Are you likely to explain to a sister who lectures in sociology in college that she is forbidden to teach a man in church because of Eve's priority in transgression?

      If those reasons were important to Paul, one is left to wonder why he would ever allow a woman to pray and prophesy even with her head covered. Paul must have learned such reasoning in his rabbinical education. The rabbis were all men, you know. It was in fact unlawful for a woman to even study the law! The reasons Paul gave for a woman's submission may well have been persuasive to his readers. But today? Don't centuries make a difference with some Scripture, while other passages are so crucial as to transcend all time and all cultures, as does: "There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus" (Gal. 3:28)

      Whether Paul was consistent or not, we must grant that he imposed restrictions upon women in contexts where this seemed appropriate to him. But it is reasonable for us to conclude that this was a temporary measure growing out of the Jewish! Greek culture of the times, and is not a rule for the church universal for all generations to come. Paul, of course, did not think of his instructions as "temporary," but for all churches for all time to come, but he had no way of knowing how things would be in cultures not yet born. To impose silence on women in today's church and say she can't teach a man appears to most Christians as a violation of "the sense of Scripture" and the one sure rule of interpretation, "the spirit of Christ."

      It is hardly conceivable that Jesus Christ would say to his community today: "The women must be silent; I forbid them to teach." Paul had his reasons for saying that in his situation, and we are to accept that; but he also ruled that the woman was not to have "braided (or plaited) hair or gold or pearls or costly clothing" (l Tim. 2:9). Does this mean the same thing today?

      We have no problem in saying "Does not apply" to a lot of things in the New Testament, some of which are stated as commands, such as footwashing (both a command and an example) and the holy kiss (commanded four times). And from these same passages in Paul we have the likes of head coverings and long hair, as well as the injunction against braided hair. In Acts 15 we have the apostles gathered with the whole church, and with the guidance of the Holy Spirit they laid down four "necessary things" - necessary it reads in verse 28. We have no problem at all in totaling ignoring three of the four. (It is debatable how seriously we take the fourth one, which enjoins against fornication!) Why? Custom, we say. What is so wrong about applying the same logic to these passages about the subjugation of women?

      We only need to realize the place of women in those days to understand why there would be such restrictions. While the place of woman in the home was honored in Jewish culture, her position as a whole was degrading. In Jewish law she was a thing rather than a person. To teach a woman was casting pearls to swine. In their prayers the men thanked God that they were not born a Gentile, a slave, or a woman.

      Men would not speak to a woman in public, not even their own wife or daughter. When walking in public the woman would walk behind the man. She had no part in the synagogue service; she often sat in the gallery where she could not be seen. Scriptures were read in the synagogue, but never by a woman. She could not even teach a school.

      Paul's restriction on women in 1 Timothy, along with a similar restriction in 1 Cor. 14:34-35, where it is added that if they want to learn they are to ask their husbands at home, was also influenced by Greek culture where the place of the woman was also debased. The Greek woman led a confined life, living in her own quarters and not even appearing at meals. She never appeared in the street alone. The aggressive women were associated with the prostitute cults at the Temple of Aphrodite in Corinth and the Temple of Diana in Ephesus, the two cities where Paul had imposed his restrictions. If the women in a church in a Greek city had assumed an active role, the church would have been thought of as a haven of loose women. This is why the veiled head, suggesting submission, would have blunted this charge.

      Considering this background, it is impressive that women in these earliest churches had as much freedom in ministry as they had. Early Christianity went far in liberating women. The church began on Pentecost with the prophetic cry that "Your sons and your daughters shall prophesy" (Acts 2: 17). It was a woman who was chosen to bear and nourish the Christ child, and women served with him in heralding the good news of the kingdom. It was four women among his disciples that were there when he was crucified.

      Women were ministers in the earliest congregations. Phoebe was a deacon (Rom. 16: 1); Euodia and Syntyche labored in the gospel with Paul (Philip. 4:2-3); several were prophets (Acts 21 :9); older women taught the younger (Tit. 2:3); it was women that helped to prepare Timothy for his work as an evangelist (2 Tim. 1:5); Priscilla taught a man the way of the Lord more perfectly (Acts 18:26).

      So, when it comes to "those passages against women teachers" we should at least recognize that there are two sides to the question. I don't see that they have to be reconciled, for our task in the 20th century is not to do precisely as they did, but to do for our generation what they did for theirs, bring in the kingdom of God. And our men and women should be at it today just as their men and women were at it back then, but not necessarily in exactly the same way.

      In reading Paul we are to understand that he sometimes speaks for the Lord and sometimes for himself. He draws such distinctions as "I command, yet not I but the Lord" (1 Cor. 7: 10), and "I, not the Lord, say" (1 Cor. 7: 10). We cannot always be sure when it is Paul and when it is the Lord. There is a difference, isn't there, whatever we make of apostolic authority? Most of us are inclined to pay greater heed to the words printed in red. What our Lord says is absolute and for all time and for all ages. Some of Paul's injunctions may be more temporary and circumstantial, though still to be taken seriously since he was an apostle of Christ. But not absolute.

      One might disagree with Paul, both in what he sometimes did and what he sometimes said. He is a problem to us when he "kept the law" by shaving his head and undergoing temple purification (Acts 21 :26). And he probably said more than he should have said in Gal. 5:12 when he scored the Judaizers who wanted to circumcise everybody, a passage most versions tone down. When you read it in the Jerusalem Bible, Paul wishes his enemies would circumcise themselves, and adds, "I would like to see the knife slip."

      An important passage in Paul is where he says "Follow me as I follow Christ." I'll buy that. But does he always follow Christ?

      You will observe that Paul enjoins women's submission with: "I do not permit a woman to teach, etc." Is that the same as Christ saying it? Is even Paul saying it for all time and for all cultures? Paul has to be interpreted in the light of the world in which he lived. While Jesus lived in that same world, it is not the same with him. His life (example) and teaching transcend time and circumstance. It is inconceivable that a Christian would disagree with Christ about anything. He is Lord!

      Paul is not our Lord, nor was he divine, nor was he infallible even if inspired. He properly said that we should follow him as he followed Christ. We should do just that, but not more than that.

      Having said that, I can say that I am uncomfortable with this whole matter of the subjugation of women to men, and submission of wives to their husbands, as in "the head of woman is man" (1 Cor. 11:3). It may have been a needed doctrine in Paul's day and perhaps for medieval times - that's what it is, medieval - but not for today's church and today's world. We should become more Christian with the passing centuries and more mature.

      I do not want my wife to be submissive to me anymore than I am submissive to her. We are equals in marriage and equals in the Lord. We make decisions together, share and share alike, joys and sorrows. It impresses me as unchristian and boorish for a man to want his wife to obey him. Perhaps he should obey her. Christ has made us one, and if there is any "authority" - I dislike that word for Christians -let it be shared equally. Christ has made us one. Let's work from that truth.

      What I want for the Church of Christ down the road is that there will be no social, racial, or sexual lines drawn. None whatever. Liberties and ministries will be shared equally and indiscriminately, according to gifts and talents. We must overcome the mentality that half (or more) of the church is to be subservient to the other half. All because of gender! Christ has made us one and we are all equal - and half of us are not more equal than the other half!

      We must obey Christ rather than men, and if that includes Paul or the way we interpret Paul, so be it. -- the Editor