Women, Ministry, and Pastors

I posted the following quote to Facebook from the book Untamed by Alan and Debra Hirsch.

"in just about every outbreak of a missional church movement in history, women have played a critical and up-front role ... interestingly, God doesn't appear to have the same hang-ups certain sections of the church currently have regarding women's involvement in official church ministry." - UNTAMED

Well, the quote sparked quite the conversation amongst friends. The comment section of Facebook isn't sufficient to explain my thoughts so I thought I'd do it here. Here we go ...

I will start with Ephesians 4:11 which lists the spiritual gifts that are given to believers to build up the church (apostleship, prophecy, evangelism, pastoring, and teaching). I think these gifts are given to all believers including women, and as such all believers (including women) should be using them in some way to build up the church. In my opinion, the current American church culture seems to value these backward. Teaching is most valued, followed by pastoring, followed by evangelism and so on. We in the States have no idea what to do with apostleship and prophecy! My observation is that in large Jesus movements around the world, the opposite is true. Apostleship is valued highest, followed by prophecy, and so on. Pastoring and Teaching are intended as church 'maintenance mode' gifts so when they are emphasized disproportionately, you get what the American church has largely become - a non kingdom expanding institution. Churches like Willow Creek and Saddleback started to emphasize evangelism over the last 20 years and structure their gatherings around it. This led to church growth. However, I think that in order to get true multiplication, and a true kingdom expansion movement, we will need to figure out how to emphasize apostleship and prophecy in the American church.

But I digress ...

So I believe women have these gifts and should use them. I agree with the quote above that the church is operating at a severe disadvantage and will never be what God intended as long as women are not allowed to use their gifts. I think that is why we see women deeply involved in most of the major Jesus movements around the world - because that is the way God intended it. However, this will call into question by some people (like some of my friends) passages like 1 Timothy 2 and 3. Here is how I reconcile all of that.

In all of the 'letter' books of the Bible, we must take into account the situation the book is being written to. Paul expresses core principles, but he also expresses specific practices. I think it is important that we not confuse the two. We should not make the specific practices a new sort of law. I think those practices were written to apply to that situation and we should read them as such. The principles, however, are universal.

For example, in 1 Timothy 2 and 3 we see several specific practices that should be applied in a situation like what Timothy was facing at the time (a growing church experiencing false teaching and disorder). I don't believe that for a church to be a church it has to have formal Overseers and Deacons as described in 1 Timothy 3. However, for churches who grow to a certain size and begin to experience disorder, this would be a really good idea - and we see most churches follow that model today. Paul is not defining church here. He is instructing Timothy on how to manage a specific church body and bring order to that church. We can learn a lot from it, but it is a specific practice, not a universal principle.

We would be good to take the specific instructions given here and use them when we appoint Overseers and Deacons. However, I believe these roles (Overseers and Deacons) are ones of accountability and service - not specific giftings. These 'offices' of accountability and service are intended to bring order and structure to the church. When we use these offices, we should follow the Biblical instruction and appoint men to these positions. However, I think verse 3:11 strong hints (particularly when translated deaconesses) at the fact that it should be a partnership with spouses being included in the role as well. After all, a married couple has become one. I don't see how these specific offices of Overseer and Deacon in any way would inhibit a woman from using her gifts like the gifts described in Ephesians 4:11. I also don't believe that Overseers and Deacons are required for every church - particularly one like a small house church.

So Overseers and Deacons are offices, not gifts, that a church can implement to bring order. When implemented, the Bible seems clear that they should be men (or couples).

Now - what about verses like 1 Timothy 2:11-12? Surely they limit a woman's gifts, right? I don't think so. I think we need to carefully separate the universal principle from the specific practice. Verse 11 contains the principle: women should practice an attitude of quietness and submission. This is consistent with principles given to women in other places in scripture. However these qualities are often inaccurately viewed and used to suppress women which is completely not Biblical. Accurately viewed, the principle incorporates verses like 1 Cor 11:11-12 and Ephesians 5:21. There is so much misuse of this principle! For example, I believe a woman could teach or lead while maintaining these attitudes just as I could teach or lead with an attitude of submission toward my church’s elders. I don't think it limits their gifts at all. It just provides a certain attitude that should be present when using the gifts.

Verse 12 is the specific practice: in that time and that place, the principle was best represented by not allowing women to teach and having them be silent. There could have been many reasons why this was appropriate at that time that I won’t go into here. Paul distinguishes this from a core principle by using the word ‘I’. To me this indicates that this is what he does … and it is not a universal principle. To put it in perspective for us, I think the early church much more resembled our small groups of today (where anyone could speak up) rather than our weekend services. There are very few people that would argue women shouldn’t speak at small group - which is where I'd believe you'd have to take this if you were arguing it was a universal principle.

You can find the same structure with a less controversial issue in 1 Cor 11 regarding head covering. Very clearly Paul is directing the practice that women use a head covering. He compares it to long and short hair, and many people use that comparison as an out to not apply these verses, but apply other ones like 1 Tim 2. But it is clear to me that hair is not what he’s talking about. He is just using it to emphasize his main point about head coverings. In India you can still see this practice of head coverings, and it is a beautiful symbol by the women of their godly attitude as they worship and pray. Why don’t we do that in the States? Because the core principle (a quiet and submissive attitude) is not well displayed by that specific practice (additional head covering) in our culture. Hardly anyone would argue that a woman should cover her head during small group or during the weekend gathering. That is because this was a practice for that time, and not a universal principle.

I'm not an expert, but this is what I believe and how I am able to work it all out logically in my little brain. The most beneficial thing for me is to realize that Jesus almost always spoke in principle, and not in specific practices. In fact, we see him ask wildly different practices of different people to reveal the core principles. He didn't ask everyone to give all they had to the poor - he just asked the rich young ruler. He was always going after the core - the heart. That is why I spend most of my time reading the Gospels. I think everything written in the New Testament we need to be very careful not to turn into more rules and regulations. We need to make sure we view it as it was written - advice to specific situations that demonstrate the core principles of Jesus. Personally, if I can't tie it to a core principle of Jesus, then I suspect that I'm probably reading it wrong. That's how I approach it. Don't know if it is right or wrong but it is helpful for me.

Let the comments begin ...