And so our blog conference draws to a close officially tomorrow, though of course you are all welcome to continue the discussion in the comments section of each of the posts! It’s been great to see this happening, and an educational and stretching experience trying to keep on top of sometimes 4 or 5 simultaneous conversations!
In the coming week or so we will be gathering together the posts along with a number of the interactions in the comments into a printable pdf document which will be available for download on the site. This will help us provide access to the discussion to a wider readership including those without access to the internet, as well as having a useful resource for people to refer back to in a readable and more structured format. We’ll be posting the link here, and sending out an announcement through the update list, which you can still sign up to here.
Some Questions of the Perspectives
We thought it might be helpful to pose a few final questions to both egalitarians and complementarians surrounding issues which seemed to still be standing out after the discussion. Most of these will have been touched on in the discussion, but perhaps may need some specific focus. I get the easy role of asking the questions and not having to answer them myself, so I will pose 3 questions to each perspective, though each has many parts and clarifications!
- Some Questions to Egalitarians -
- Does equality preclude structure or order? Could it not be argued that the bible if not teaching “hierarchy” certainly teaches that there are some within the church who are given “greater responsibility” (eg. James 3:1), and so these positions or roles of responsibility within relationships between a husband and a wife may be prescribed whilst maintaining equality and mutual submission? The idea of first being last, leaders being a servant, not lording it over (etc.) is often given to argue against authority or structure, but what if these are the new rubric under which such responsibility is now to be defined? How is it that Christ submits himself to the need of the church for salvation and yet maintains his authority over the church? Is this not a valid comparison due to 1 Corinthians 11:3? I don’t think we’ve adequately explored the question of “head” in this discussion so far, so how would you define this?
- In particular regards to the egalitarian understanding of 1 Timothy 2:11-15 as presented in this conference, to what extent are these interpretations of the grammer of the original language so explicit withhin the text? Why is it that none of the major schollarly translations of the Bible so clearly reflect this reading, not even the TNIV with its gender-sensitive translation choices?
- To pastors of egalitarian churches: If church leadership roles are to emphasise equality, how do you handle issues of authority and responsibility well within your church, so that your members recognise and act upon the wisdom and care that your elders or leaders are hoping to speak into their lives? Within a church which emphasises equality over authority, have you fostered a ballanced environment in which individuals are still receptive to and still receive and benefit from loving correction and shepherding from the local church’s appointed elders?
- Some Questions to Complementarians -
- Why are the qualifications for elders in 1 Timothy 3:2 taken as excluding women from eldership, yet the same phrase later in the same passage (1 Tim 3:11-12) which refers to deacons is not considered to exclude women from deaconship? (eg. from Peter Barnes’ post: “They can become deacons, and help to look after people and so reflect something of Christ’s ministry in becoming a servant (Rom 16:1-2).”) Why are single men or married men without children often allowed to be elders?
- Deborah was given the position of Judge over Israel by God, which I don’t think we can deny was a position of authority. It has often been argued that this was allowed because the men had abducated their responsibility. But why would this mean that a woman holding this position was suddenly not a sin? God holds the final say in these matters of course, but he is also unchanging and consistant. His statutes hold. If women having a position of authority over men is a sin, then despite the suitableness of the men or not it would continue to be a sin would it not? Should not Deborah have continued to submit to the men God had called to be in authority over her rather than take the position of judge, and perhaps lend a valuable witness of Godly humility in her submission? Are there any other examples in scripture where some people are given special exemption from what God has labeled a sin for everyone else in their position, especially a sin grounded in the very created order?
- To pastors of complementarian churches: What are you doing to ensure that the authority your male elders and husbands have over the females in their charge is not abused but rather carried out under the rubric of love and servanthood? What provisions have you made for women to be involved in ministry to use their God-given gifts to their full potential for the building up of the body and the spreading of the Gospel? Is your church truly recognising and practicing the belief that men and women have gifts which “complement” each other in ministry, or have you fought so hard for male “headship” that you’ve merely established a hierarchy which does not involve women significantly in the ministry of the church? John McClean made what I thought was a valuable challenge to his fellow complementarians in his post, as to whether complementarian churches are taking their claimed “complementary roles in ministry” position seriously.
This Issue and the PCAus
By way of closing the conference posts, a few comments and observations.
It was our hope in organising this blog conference to be able to provide a venue for the friendly examination of this topic from different perspectives which would be of benefit to the discussion currently going on in our own denomination regarding the position of women elders within the local church. It can sometimes seem as though debates of a theological nature can easily fall into polarised camps with neither side properly listening to each other and thus being characterised unfairly. I think we’ve been able to see that those involved in the discussions here all desire to seek to follow God’s will on this issue as they understand it, and to try and accurately interpret the scriptures to discover this.
As the purpose has been to get both cases to clarify their position and engage with each other, there is of course no declaration of a winner of a “debate”; indeed, there would be little point to this as the intention here was not competition but rather respectful dialogue on an issue which does actually affect the lives of both men and women in our congregations. The discussion will also be ongoing in churches, presbyteries and the general assemblies.
The following comments are some things I believe we need to take into consideration as we and our denomination move forward with this issue. I still personally maintain that I have not come down on either side of the discussion as I have not had the opportunity to examine all the evidence for myself and am personally concerned with other issues at the moment, and so these following questions I hope are given in the spirit of concern for the gospel and the unity of the church. I know that I fall far short on these points myself so I hope that you will forgive any bad phrasing of my thoughts.
My concern with this whole discussion within the Presbyterian Church of Australia is this: what are the implications for the Gospel and for fellowship? More specifically, it is always good to continue to search the scriptures and challenge each other to uphold them in the practice of the church, but are we doing so in such a way as to focus our attention and energy on an issue which is not at the heart of the gospel, and as a result neglect our calling to effectively live out and share the gospel in our local contexts?
I phrase the question this way because I see within scripture a lot of verses which speak to God’s vision for the church, and yet we don’t always pursue them all with equal vigour. I have read the verses mentioned in the discussion regarding women and ministry, and even if the complementarians perspective is correct I nevertheless have read far more verses regarding the call of the church to reach out to the world and each other with God’s grace, mercy, love, justice, and forgiveness.
I see countless local churches and individuals working to understand and live out God’s call on our lives in these things in our different contexts, there are even training programs designed to foster this, but unfortunately I do not see such grand motions and passionate pleas for these essential works of the Gospel on a denominational level anywhere near as much as for this issue of gender and eldership in recent times. A friend of mine who attended the afternoon where the issue was discussed at the General Assembly of NSW commented that the hall was packed with people during the debate on women elders, but that when the next item on the agenda was reached – our social services programs – the hall had significantly emptied. I think this is quite telling about our priorities.
I have heard it said that some view this issue of currently having women elders within our denomination one of the reasons for the decline in church attendance – that some complementarians claim that because of our admission of women elders, in defiance of what they see in scripture, that God is withholding his blessing from our churches and thus we should make a law within our denomination prohibiting women from the eldership. I would ask the question, regardless of the correct stance on this issue, does God have to bless denominations collectively, or will he work through local churches who humbly and obediently reach out to the world with his love and Gospel? Could it be that a reason for the decline in church attendance is more likely because of our failure to engage our culture with the truth of the gospel in grace and mercy rather than because of the structure of our church leadership bodies?
I would further ask whether an approach which seeks to force other local churches to conform to a male-eldership model against their consciences is a productive or wise way to go about it. Would it not be more useful to engage fellow ministers and elders in discussion, going through the relevant passages, and attempting to get them to honestly consider changing or maintaining their views and practices in light of scripture? My understanding of the will of God is that it is not by merely by conforming to outward actions that we are following God but when those actions are a mirror of what is in our hearts. Furthermore, will a minister who is convinced upon his study of the scriptures of the egalitarian perspective really implement a complementarian model of eldership against his conscience, and if so is this even wise? When one has honestly studied and prayed over the issue, would it not be wrong for the individual to conform to a statute that they believe is wrong? Surely Luther’s comment after his own wrestling in prayer at the Diet of Worms bears relevance here: “…to go against conscience is neither right nor safe…”
A final consideration I would like to put forward is the question of where we draw the line: Is this an issue which is worth breaking fellowship over? Is this of a level of importance that if the motion to not let women become elders is passed then egalitarians or egalitarian churches should leave the denomination, or alternatively if the motion is not passed then should complementarians do likewise?
I am unsure as to whether it has reached this stage in our denomination, but mention it because of a concern I have had recently with movements I’ve seen in the USA, where I have heard male eldership spoken of in a list of non-negotionable stances or “closed-fisted” issues alongside truths such as the saving act of Christ on the cross and the regenerating work of the Holy Spirit. I can understand movements who have come to decide that male eldership is correct then in transparency making it clear that they are a movement for like-minded churches. However to put the issue of male eldership alongside the central truths of the Gospel as somehow being on the same level seems wrong to me and dangerous of distracting from what the Church is about.
And so in our Australian context I would ask both sides to consider whether they are in danger of placing this issue within their sine qua non, (a fancy theological term for the “without which not”, the idea of a central core of gospel truths which if someone does not believe them then they would not be considered Christian).
Is it worth leaving a church or denomination over an issue which is not central to the Gospel rather than staying and engaging with each other and learning to work together for the extension of the kingdom? If we feel sinned against by others in our church or denomination, can we wrestle with God in prayer and learn to forgive? If our view is not upheld, will we bear with each other for the sake Christ, our unity and love bearing witness to the world that we are indeed His disciples?
As I said in the introduction to this Blog Conference, I hope we can continue to keep sight of Christ as our Lord and the one with the ultimate authority in the church. Again, I pray that wherever we stand on the issue we might come to kneel together under his love, mercy and grace.
And finally…
We’d really like to thank Peter Barnes, John McClean, Cheryl Schatz and Doug Haley for joining us here on the blog, contributing their posts and interacting with the comments. I found the discussion all the more helpful because the authors of the posts were gracious and willing to engage in the conversation!
Special thanks to all you who got involved by commenting, asking questions, contributing thoughts and challenging all of us to justify why we hold to different beliefs. I’ve really enjoyed following your conversations and your personalities!
And thanks to all of you who read and followed along, we hope this has been useful for you in helping understand the issue more and develop your own informed thoughts from the information presented.
The blog will stay up after the conference closes so feel free to continue the discussion in those posts. We’ll also be continuing to post new articles and links on this and other topics, and hopefully it will be a good chance for us to continue to work through our identity as Christians and the call God has for us as the Church!
And stay tuned for the next Blog Conference!
Related posts:
” have heard it said that some view this issue of currently having women elders within our denomination one of the reasons for the decline in church attendance – that some complementarians claim that because of our admission of women elders, in defiance of what they see in scripture, that God is withholding his blessing from our churches and thus we should make a law within our denomination prohibiting women from the eldership.”
Does that mean the converse is true? The largest church in the US is Joel Osteen’s Lakewood. Would they argue that God is blessing Lakewood because it boasts 30,000 members?
Lakewood does not even teach the true Gospel but a prospertiy motivational approach to the good life?
In response to #1:
There are clues about this in the entire scope of the New Covenant. Most of the Epistles were written to the ‘church’ and not to any specific elders that are the authorities to handle most things and make all the decisions.
In 1 Corin 5 when Paul was advising them on what to do with the adulterer in their midst, he was telling the entire church to deal with it. That is not easy to do when 500-10,000 people go to one church. It could be our need to grow large churches (instead of planting new ones) is hurting our ability to function as a TRUE Body of Christ.
Another clue is what would a spiritually mature (elder) person look like? Is it always the person with the most theological education? Then you can scrap the Apostles except the educated Pharisee, Paul (Who, ironically, was sent to the Gentiles!) Think of 1 Corin 1.
Would the spiritually mature look most like the salt elements in Matthew 5? That is not so glamorous as having a title and perceived authority with that title and the snare of having followers. Would the spiritually mature be the ones who are most humble, loving and serve others?
Can anyone imagine attending a church that is structured like we see advised in 1 Corin 14:20-33? Most there would be involved instead of spectators watching paid workers lead the worship.
The eye cannot say to the hand, I have no need of you. What do we do with 1 Corin 12:22-27?
Hi Ken, and thank you for keeping a lid on a volatile topic.
A watched pot may never boil, but an unwatched pot boils over!
Let me try and briefly touch on the points you raise to egalitarians.
1. I believe it is a false dilemma to say that the only alternative to hierarchy would be chaos, so I would answer the first question ‘no’. The Holy Spirit seems to be forgotten in such discussions, as if He can no longer guide or empower us. Jesus is our Shepherd, if we will but follow Him. Of course there are areas of responsibility, but not to “lord over” or domineer. They are to lead by example, not to push by threat or claim to a “position”. Even Jesus did not bark orders to His followers, but enjoined them to choose wisely, to serve as He did, to lay privilege aside as He did. The Christian leader is no boss or king but a servant without self-centered ambition, building others up and seeing to their needs. The teacher is not an authoritarians but a guide.
Christ, we must remember, is the only God-Man in existence. We cannot always see what things apply to Him as God, and what apply to Him as man. Certainly we would not think any mere human can save, sanctify, cleanse, or many other divine-only abilities. So what He modeled for us, He did as a human. He showed us all how to relate to God and each other, how to be humble and treat others as better than ourselves. This very basic and central “golden rule” was never aimed only at women, and men were never told to play “Father” to women’s “Son”.
As noted in many egal documents, kephale was not the first century Greek metaphor for “boss” or “authority”, but for “source” as in the head of a river. The belief at the time was that the body grew out of the head (ref. Col. 2:19), and that through the head (spec. mouth) the body was nourished. When Paul introduced his discussion on the Corinthians’ question about head coverings, he began with the metaphor, in one of his typical plays on words. Now of course some will cite Eph. 1:22, but not only is the word for “over” missing in many ancient ms., would anyone deny that Jesus is the source of the church? Of course, in saying this, no one is denying Jesus’ authority as God, which is clear from many other passages. But this passage is all about sources, about life, and not just authority. The verse comes between the two concepts and thus cannot be dogmatically put with either, but we cannot presume the conclusion (“boss”) in the premise of the argument (“what does ‘head’ mean here?”).
2. Tradition is a heavy weight to push against, and if the motives of egals can be continually called into question, so also can the motives of those who fund translation work. Did not God pronounce “enmity” between the serpent and the woman? I can cite cases of blatant bias in meetings of the committees that oversee the Greek text, showing that contrary to what we would want to believe, people are willing to actually alter scripture out of bias against women. This bias crosses denominational lines, and even relgious lines, such that it has been the cultural norm for most of human history. While some might pejoritavely label this a “conspiracy theory” (as if there are no such things), this kind of bias is openly promoted by organizations such as CBMW.
The mention of the TNIV is a good one, because the fact that it retains the language of authority should be all the evidence we need to dispel the wicked rumors that were spread about it. Gender accuracy is not to be discarded in translation just because some fear they will lose ground for their interpretation. And I am convinced that most of the rhetoric against the TNIV was about money, because this compted with versions such as the HCS.
3. As I see no authority in the church, but only leadership by example and protection against falsehood, there is no conflict between egal and the proper and healthy functioning of the community of believers. The guards on the walls are not magistrates, and teachers are not slave owners. Our only authority comes from God through His written Word, and it is on that basis alone that any assembly can administer discipline.
Thanks again for this venue.
This was a wonderful endeavor. I still haven’t caught up on all the posts, though I did print one out for future reference. When you complete the pdf of all the input I will be anxious to download it. May God bless you abundantly for your faithfulness and considerations to the body of Christ in doing this.
Regarding your questions to Egalitarians, let me pose a few thoughts:
1. Honoring equality of all humans before God in all of life, does not exclude structure or order in our relationships. Marriage relationships and church relationships do not give us the right to exclude the concepts of equality.
In order to properly follow Christ’s examples for us, we must acknowledge that leadership responsibilities must have certain foundations of being ministry and service oriented rather than authority oriented. It’s not about what the congregation should do for us who teach and lead. It is about what we are called to minister, provide for, protect from, and serve for the benefit of the congregation. We are to persuade and strongly encourage them to good works for they are our brethren carrying the same Holy Spirit in their being. This does not mean we cannot exhort with power (authority and unction of the Holy Spirit), but that we should do so with godly love which honors. There should only be Christian leaders of various ministries because God has called and equipped them to guide the body of Christ closer to God. Whether they are male or female, ugly or beautiful, young or old, rich or poor, Jew or non-Jew is not of importance.
King James had the Bible translated in such a way that it was ‘bent’ to support obedience to authority structures specifically so that people would bend to his rule without questioning it. That is not God’s way. No human should have that kind of power over another and specifically it should not be mirrored in churches and homes and we should not be preaching or teaching that but rather the above.
2. Regarding 1 Tim. 2:11-15, there are many major scholars who see the problems of using 2:12 as a new law for women that was never used before and which is not supported anywhere else in Scripture. Verses 14-15 have always been troublesome. I believe that we are finally learning to read these passages with a better eye to context and historical application then we have in the past. In the past, it was basically ignored.
3. It is my belief that we should never emphasize authority other than God’s. But I do understand what you mean. Because of the imbalanced emphasis on authority in many churches we have elders who are bad examples, leaders who do not lead (thus are not really followed but endured nicely), and teachers who don’t know how to teach (thus people are bored easily or everyone is also trying to teach). It is no wonder that church attendance has declined. Even if people cannot specify exactly what bothers them, they know something isn’t right. When a man or woman has a gift for speaking forth the Word of God with the authority of the Holy Spirit, people want to listen. That is the kind of authority that is supposed to happen in the church. When an older man or woman has many years of maturity in the Lord and lives it well with the strengths of humility, kindness, longsuffering and wisdom, fellow Christians will go to them for help and advice and support. That is God’s authority in action and those are the ‘elders’ that should be guarding and protecting the body of Christ.
That is my 02. Cents. And thank you for the opportunity to speak.
When I was what I thought was benignly non-egal (because that is what I had always been taught) I went to a Christian counselor. I was absolutely 100% sure what he would say about the subject, since that was all I had ever been taught and the Bible seemed so blazingly obvious, but he did not say what I expected and suggested I read a book with an alternate viewpoint.
I thought the book had many flaws, but there were a FEW things I could not answer and I put them on the shelf, as it were. And I kept reading and studying and praying over several days.
Eventually I realized I had put a number of things on the shelf. One of the things that math teaches you is one way to disprove something is to assume it and see if it leads to a contradiction or other nonsense. So I put on the egal hat, in a purely speculative way. It was then I realized there were egal answers to all the things I had put on the shelf.
However, this whole process was VERY uncomfortable for me. But at the end of it I repented of my previous non-egal position, esp. as I saw how it affected many in half the church. But I also realize that God gave me the grace to stew for a while in being uncomfortable. I want to extend that same grace to others.
“But I also realize that God gave me the grace to stew for a while in being uncomfortable. I want to extend that same grace to others.”
Now there is excellent wisdom and graciousness.
Well put Don.
I’m coming to this discussion late, and so apologize for only having skimmed through the past several days worth of posts and comments. I’ve found myself on both sides of this issue at various times in my life. As an American, my context is obviously different than that of the PCA, but for what it’s worth, here’s my context:
While growing up, my family went to church in the American PC(USA), which taught me that women ministers, although comparatively uncommon, were an accepted fact of life.
It wasn’t really until I was in college that I was informed that there were passages in the bible that taught against women in ministry. Desiring to put God’s will above any human authority, I took this seriously, and I was decidedly biased against the idea of women as ministers for several years.
I later entered seminary (Fuller Theological Seminary in Pasadena, CA) where a wide variety of students (from all sides on this issue in particular) come to study, but where the seminary itself has a stance in support of women in ministry. A particularly influential course was one taught by David M. Scholer called “Women, the Bible, and the Church”. I knew that Scholer was an egalitarian, and wanted to see how such a scholar handled the biblical texts. Would he dismiss them too quickly, or would he find faithful ways of interpreting them that nonetheless allowed for women in pastoral roles? Suffice it to say, I determined that Dr. Scholer fell into the later category.
I have also been surprised to learn that the debate about women in ministry isn’t simply a new phenomenon, as some complemenatrians have sometimes argued. Indeed, it has popped up from time to time, if perhaps the arguments for women have not survived as readily as the more traditional pattern. However, one can actually make a case that this issue was debated very early in the history of Christianity, if only by the vehemence with which “traditionalists” on this issue made their arguments! Why argue so readily against something that only a few are fighting for?
So, my own bias is clear by now. What about the call for Christian unity? That’s a good question. I’m definitely one for “live and let live” in most circumstances. However, if someone is arguing against allowing my faithful sister in Christ to use her God-given talents, I have to say that I feel it is they who are working against unity, not the sister who is simply trying to do what she feels she has been called by God to do. I can allow for the possibility that she is mistaken, but feel that any argument that she is mistaken in her interpretation of her own vocation will have to do better than “you’re wrong because God simply doesn’t do that”!
Welcome to the blog Nicodemus Legend! Thanks for an outline of your perspective, especially your thoughts on unity.
Pro 18:17 The man who first puts his cause before the judge seems to be in the right; but then his neighbour comes and puts his cause in its true light.
Following the advice of this verse, I recommend all study both sides of this issue, in each sides own words.
Thanks Ken for this post.
You said:
I think that Paula brought up some of concerns regarding translations and translators. However with 1 Timothy 2:15 I think that this verse has brought out all of our biases against women. On top of that the translators admittedly didn’t know what Paul was getting at so many practiced interpretation instead of translation on some of the words. For example:
The Analytical Literal Translation renders this:
Here “she” and “they” has been faithfully retained as in the original but “childbearing” has changed from the singular to the plural and from a noun to a verb.
The English Standard Version also does a partially good job:
The ESV also retains the “she” and “they” of the original, “child” is kept as singular but the definite childbearing is missing.
The International Standard Version takes different liberties:
The ISV replaces the singular feminine with “women” and replaces the definite noun childbearing with plural children and as a verb.
The NET translates the opposite to the ISV:
Here the NET Bible keeps the singular feminine but removes the third person plural replacing it with another singular feminine. The definite noun is also replaced.
The Good News Bible is also similar:
In the GNB the third person plural is removed and the definite childbearing is clearly replaced with salvation through giving birth (a verb).
In the God’s Word Bible the translators chose to add a clause to the singular:
Here the GW apparently seeing that “she” cannot equal “they” has added the plural on top of the singular. “They” is now “she + all women” although this is clearly an addition to the Scriptures. It is certainly a clever way to make the “she” equal to “they” but at the expense of the inspired words.
The New American Standard Bible renders it this way:
The NASB also keeps the plural but changes the word “saved” to “preserved”. This weakens the link to salvation. Childbearing is also changed to a plural and from a noun to a verb.
The Revised Version comes up on top with the best translation of all:
The RV faithfully keeps the “she” and “they” as well as it does not water down “saved” and it faithfully renders the definite “the” noun “childbearing”.
So while some remove parts of the inspired grammar there is at least one that renders all the important pieces of grammar intact. Hats off to a job well done in the work of translating 1 Timothy 2:15 by the RV translators.
You ask, “Is it worth leaving a church or denomination over an issue which is not central to the Gospel rather than staying and engaging with each other and learning to work together for the extension of the kingdom?”
Under many circumstances, No. However, this issue has morphed and grown into something that has changed the Gospel message for many. Much recent hierarchial teaching promotes that Christian women remain in an “easily deceived” state – as though they are not fully redeemed and led by the Holy Spirit as are men, and that the husband is another mediator between the wife and God. Their new “gospel” is based on marriage, having children and building your own little mini-kingdom.
I think this may be the biggest ruse the Enemy has pulled off – effectively stopping the mouths and gifts of half the Body of Christ.
It is a big deal.
Thanks so much for hosting this blog conference. I have enjoyed reading, although I happened on it belatedly.
I have a great interest in the “Women and Ministry” topic. Much that was said during your blog conference echos my own discoveries in Scripture.
In the interest of continuing discussion I offer…
http://simplyput-kestegall.blogspot.com/2009/08/full-rights-done.html
http://www.scribd.com/doc/18007363/Full-Rights-of-Sons-Opening-Pages
http://www.scribd.com/doc/21614072/Essays-on-the-Biblical-Equality-of-Women-and-Men
HI Kathryn and welcome to the blog!
Thanks for the links…I am about to check then out!