You have heard (if you only because you read my News Weakly) that the Southern Baptist Convention (SBC) kicked out 5 churches last month for having female pastors. And, of course, that spawns all sorts of debate. So, first, according to the standard SBC Baptist Faith and Message, their ruling document, "While both men and women are gifted for service in the church, the office of pastor is limited to men as qualified by Scripture." So, yes, the SBC holds that position. And, of course, it is popularly disputed, even among genuine, conservative, Bible-believing Christians. (Especially women.) It is, nevertheless, biblical (2 Tim 2:9-14).
It is no longer fashionable to hold to that part of Scripture. For instance, if you were to posit that wives are to submit to their husbands (Eph 5:22-24), you would hear loud denials. One of the most popular denials tries to take a biblical approach. "No! We are supposed to be 'submitting to one another out of reverence for Christ'." (Eph 5:21) Well, let's look at that. First, "No, wives don't have to submit to their husbands" makes no sense if your position is "We're all supposed to submit to each other." Rather than "Wives don't have to submit to their husbands," the position would need to be "Husbands also need to submit to their wives." Second, the text is explicit. How are wives supposed to submit to their husbands? "As to the Lord" (Eph 5:22). It goes on to say, "As the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit to their husbands in everything" (Eph 5:24). If you want to hold that Christ submits to the church in the same way that the church submits to Christ, you're going to have to do some fancy dancing to make sense of that. Wives don't submit to the Lord in a mutual sense. It's not like, "Sometimes I submit to Him when He's right and sometimes He submits to me when I'm right." Doesn't happen.
Then what's going on here? It is clearly a command to mutual submission (Eph 5:21) followed immediately by a unilateral submission (Wives submit to their husbands as to the Lord). Paul is simply explaining his "submitting to one another." Wives do so in this way and husbands do so in that. They both submit, even though it's not in the same way. Husbands submit by giving up self (Eph 5:25) (which, I would contend, is much bigger than giving up authority). Husbands submit by loving their wives to a complete sacrifice of themselves and by taking responsibility for their well-being, especially spiritually. Big stuff. But in the end, the question comes down to something other than male/female relations. The question comes down to "Is my Bible right, reliable, and authoritative, or do I have a better idea?" That is the actual question being debated here, because there is no question on what Scripture teaches regarding headship in a family or in a church, like it or not.
15 comments:
I was involved in an online debate about women in church leadership and I got called crazy for holding to Paul's teaching.
Oddly, that's about the best argument you'll hear. No one offers a coherent "This is why we don't interpret that text that way" argument that makes sense with the text. The primary argument is "Scripture is wrong." Or it's just "You're crazy" or "You're wrong" with no backing except, perhaps, "The whole world disagrees with you" (which, of course, is a possible reason to think you might be right).
Ended up leaving that forum because all I could ever get in response to my positions was personal attack "you just have to be right" "we shouldn't gossip". I'm willing to entertain opposing views of they have any sort of Biblical basis.
I'm still waiting for any sort of biblical basis to come to some other conclusion.
Maybe that's their strategy, get you to hold your breath until they answer and just let you pass out so they don't have to.
I have heard arguments in favor of women pastors. Can't recall how they were presented, but I do recall finding them lacking in true Biblical support. Going from a memory getting less reliable with each passing day, I seem to recall only two verses which mention women in pastor/leadership roles in a congregation and they were both opposed. It had to do with our specific, special roles as either men or women. The UCC congregation of which I was once president and chairman of the Board of Elders (yeah...go figure) hired a woman for pastor (yeah...go figure) after the lefty pastor while I was there retired (I liked the guy, but he was a leftist). A certain insufferable blogger from Louisville has a female pastor (yeah...go figure). To say the least, sermons of this woman posted by this guy failed to impress, to say the least. When I was still in Illinois, there was a Christian station who played a variety of sermons at various times during the day, and one "show" would present sermons from one of three ministers, and English couple and their son. What they taught was sound in my opinion, but I did have reservations at the thought of having the woman as a pastor.
And this is something about which I'm less sure. To lead a church...is giving an occasional sermon the same thing? It's certainly teaching men, as men are in attendance and generally speaking...at least...that's not the role of women. I don't know the dynamics of the church at which these three preach, but I wouldn't necessarily run out or end my membership over an occasional chick at the podium. But that's just me. What say you?
As to the wives and husbands thing, I've made that argument myself, particularly as it regards the reality that each sex has its role in the Body of Christ. But yeah, between married couples, it seems to me the dude has the "tougher" row to hoe, as the roles are described in Scripture.
Finally, I'm not, generally, one to shake the dust from my sandals. I like trying to force the heretics and apostates to come to their senses. I think it could be my calling. I'm not doing a good job of it, but to abandon the truth in those situations simply because of childish petulance seems the wrong option to me. I let them know they can say what they like of me if they can't find a way to support their points of view, but they're only validating the fact they're wrong until they bring that support. I liken it to rubbing the puppy's nose in its poop. Not really a Christian attitude, but I need my fun now and again. At the same time, it becomes quite clear rather quickly they don't like the smell of their own waste. (See: Dan Trabue's blog)
On women as pastors, the primary text in question (1 Tim 2:11-15) is pretty clear. We just need to look at it carefully. Women are to be submissive (11). Specifically, in terms of men, there are two things they are not allowed to do (12): 1) Teach, and 2) exercise authority. We know from other places that this is specifically over men as, for instance, Paul urges older women to teach younger women. Women who teach men and women who exercise authority over men, then, are specifically not allowed. Everything else is fine.
The closest argument I received was about a husband and wife missionary couple (Aquilla and Prascilla always listed in that order) and of the female bishop mentioned by Paul (I forget her name or the reference). But I noted that the couple weren't church leaders but missionaries, and the requirements for a bishop don't require the ability to teach, so unless you're equating a bishop with a pastor or elder (which I know many denominations do) then there's no restriction for female bishops.
Bishop (overseer in modern translations) and Elder and Pastor are all interchangeable in Scripture if you look through it. For instance, in 1 Peter 5 he uses "elder" and "shepherd" interchangeably, and "shepherd" is "pastor". (Our modern "pastor" who is a special "clergy" category is not biblical.) Thus, overseers, elders, and pastors would share the same requirements. Therefore, there could be no female bishops (especially when you consider that one of the requirements for that is "the husband of one wife").
Oh right, it was a deaconess, not bishop.
Ah, yes, deaconess. Different role. No authority; no teaching requirement. And there is even biblical suggestion that there was one recognized by Paul. But our "deacon" model today is often twisted, so that twist might cause some confusion for some. Yes, David, deaconess.
I remember Hank Hanagraff spending a fair amount of time on this topic back in the day. I believe that he concluded that as long as the senior pastor was a guy, that women associate pastors were acceptable.
My problem with that is that Paul specifies two things women are not allowed to do -- exercise authority over or teach ... men. Teaching men under the authority of the senior pastor may alleviate one (authority), but not the other, does it?
I'd guess that the response might be something like "It's an issue of authority. As long as the woman is under the authority of a male pastor, then it is permitted." This is an issue that I'm currently struggling with, and working through.
I used to think so, Craig, but the text clearly puts an "or" in there -- exercise authority OR teach -- requiring that the two be considered independently. It can't be in combination or the "or" wouldn't make sense.
Post a Comment