Women In Ministry

Written by Ed Allen

1 Timothy 2:9-15
Part Four Of The Series

Based on Ed Allen's sermon given on September 9, 2001.

What does oppression do to women? “It produces a tendency to small-mindedness, petty jealousy, irrational emotionality and random violence, dependency, competitive selfishness, and possessiveness, a lack of vision and conservatism. All these qualities are the result of male chauvinism and the woman’s oppressed condition in the family.” So speaks Juliet Mitchell in her controversial feminist manifesto, Woman’s Estate. This is but one of thousands of attacks written over the last 40 years growing out of the feminist movement.

Many of these works are highly politically motivated in ways beyond just sexual politics. For example, Jermaine Greer’s book, The Female Eunuch, espouses a position that is heavily anarchistic. Greer sees the complete abolition of the family as a necessary step toward the collapse of authority as a whole. The idea being that we cannot govern one another without oppression. All authority by nature is domineering, according to Greer, and must be eliminated. Juliet Mitchell, on the other hand, is a committed socialist. Maybe Marx got it wrong, Mitchell believes. Maybe it won’t be the workers who overthrow the chains of class-consciousness. Maybe it will be women.

Of course, most of the women who claim to have been influenced by feminism, perhaps most who claim to be feminists, are not radical anarchists. Most do not wish to overthrow or even radically refashion government or the family. They simply do not want to be pigeonholed. They do not want to be limited because of their sex. They do not want to be forced into their “rightful place” – which is code for, far beyond the seat of power and influence. … somewhere underneath some man’s thumb. Most women who have been influenced by feminism are simply responding to generations of oppression. And oppression has been the undeniable and reprehensible reality for women for generations. After all, there were no colleges that would admit women until the 19th Century at which point several women’s colleges were opened. And the best universities did not admit them until well into the 20th Century. And it was only in the 20th century that women were allowed to vote. We have the feminist movement to thank for eliminating these barriers and for opening stubborn male eyes to the pervasive influence of male chauvinism.

And those among us who allow ourselves any sensitivity to these issues recognize the job is not fully done. Although women “have come a long way, baby,” they still do not receive equal pay for equal work. And there are still a disproportionate number of men in upper managerial positions. But without question the feminist movement has won many major battles, and in terms of the overall cultural consciousness, they may have already won the war.

This is true everywhere, many feminists would say, except the church. And so over the last 15 years denomination after denomination has fought what many would call the battle of the sexes. Christian feminists, and there are many, see a woman’s right to be an elder - and even a lead elder or pastor - as one of the last institutional, male-dominated fortifications that must fall. In order to be truly equal, women must have access to this position of leadership, they suggest. And surely God wants all things equal – or so the argument goes.

So how are we to respond?

I want to let you know 3 things from the outset.

1. I feel somewhat defensive, so forgive me if some of what I say reflects that.
2. I do not believe we can pick and choose what we will and will not accept from the Bible.
3. I believe that the Bible does promote male eldership. But I do not believe this should mean any diminishment of women if we follow fully what the Bible is teaching.

Part of our heart burn with this overall issue revolves around how we read the Biblical text. I read 1 Timothy 2:9-15 to my 16 year-old son recently who right-on-script said, “Wow, Dad, he sounds like he’s dissing women!” When we read passages like this, and maybe this one in particular, we think, “Surely he can’t really mean what he’s saying.” Well, he does mean what he’s saying, but I don’t believe he means what we think he’s saying.

In this 1 Timothy passage, Paul is adressing overall church order in general, and order in corporate gathering in particular. He wants to make two points that, ironically, have often been the topic of feminist writers and thinkers. He is addressing women and fashion and women and authority. We must understand what he’s saying here if we are to fully get a Biblical view of womanhood. And we must understand this in light of selection of elders as well.

Women And Fashion: Propriety, Modesty, and Good Deeds

Concerning women and fashion, Paul’s point is that a Christian woman’s approach to fashion should be characterized by propriety, modesty, and good deeds. In other words, the clothes a woman wears, how she appoints her hair and whether and in what way she wears cosmetics says an awful lot about her.

Before we rush to judgment about Paul’s sexism here, let’s stop for a moment and recognize that this is universally true, universally known and universally agreed upon. Fashion specifies our group identity. The shoes we wear, the brand of shirt, the pocket book, etc. They all say something about the people and the sub-culture or group we identify with. We know something about a guy when he shows up to our party in a ten-gallon hat and cowboy boots. The church where everyone wears jeans is probably very different from the church where everyone wears a suit.

That’s why feminists have so often made the clothes women wear an issue. In particular, they have objected to the typical pattern of women dressing with men in mind. If you were alive in the 60’s, you may remember bra burnings. The feminists have asked why, for example, don’t women’s fashions have more to do with comfort than with titillation. Paul would agree!

Of course, Paul is probably arguing against extravagance. But I believe he’s doing much more. He’s also arguing for moral respectability in fashion. A Christian woman is more than a sex object – much more. And braided hair, gold, pearls and expensive clothes made women of the Ancient Near East sex objects. They were the low cut top, tight fitting jeans and high heels of their day.

It is fascinating to recognize that Paul agrees with feminists that women are much more than sex objects and their fashion should reflect this reality. But Paul is arguing this with a completely different motivation than the feminists. Feminists want to eliminate any distinctions. Most would argue for unisexuality in the way we approach sexual issues. How else can we have equality?

But Paul would see this as unrealistic and unhelpful. He argues for a particular Christian femininity. And what are the characteristics of this Christian femininity?

• Propriety: The word translated “propriety” means “to have good sense.” That means, in her clothing, a Christian woman exhibits dress sense. She dresses in a way that reflects her character and not just the way her culture expects her to dress. She dresses in a way that makes sense to her. It is within her bounds, respecting her person, and conforms to her character.
• Modesty: The word means “respectable, well-behaved.” In a woman’s overall manner she is respectable. The word does not mean demur and retiring. This is absolutely not a call for Christian women to be “in their place, in the background.” In fact, the same word is used of elders in 1 Timothy 3:2.
• Good deeds: In her actions, a Christian woman honors God. It is part of her femininity to exhibit good deeds. Think about that! Could it be that there is something attractive about good deeds? I think so.

So Christian femininity is about propriety, modesty and good deeds. This is how she dresses; this is how she carries herself.

Women And Authority

Concerning women and authority, Paul says the spiritual growth of a Christian woman should be characterized by submissiveness. This is where Paul really gets in trouble with modern readers. Isn’t this just the sexism of his Pharisaical training? That’s certainly the way it sounded to my 16 year-old son on first hearing. This is the way it sounds to modern feminists, for sure. But this is absolutely not the case!

First of all, notice he says women are to “learn in quietness and full submission.” Learning was not a typical activity for the women of Paul’s day. Women were not allowed to study! Paul’s pharisaical training would have forbid him to allow a woman to learn under any circumstances. His old Pharisee buddies would have been aghast at Paul’s teaching here. But, because of Christ’s influence on his life, Paul now sees women as equal partners in the “learning under Christ” process. So what does he mean?

By “quietness,” he may have in mind “not in a busybody way.” This seems to be the way he used the same word in 2 Thessalonians 3:12. Or he may have in mind “not in a boastful way.” This is indicated by the usage of this word in Acts 22:2. In other words, women are pictured as bragging: “We get to learn. Look at us!” Again, the call here is for propriety of behavior, and respectability. This does not mean, “You must be quiet and let the men speak while you are learning.” This, again, is not putting women in their proper place. By inviting them into learning he has dramatically elevated the place of women and made them equal partners. But they must be there in quietness.

When we read “submissive” we must remember that God wants all of us to be submissive. However, without question God seems to keep this constantly before women. It appears that submissiveness is a critical part of Christian femininity. This causes some of us to bristle, no doubt. But it may be that those who bristle at the thought of submissiveness can never be all that God intends them to be. By being submissive, Christian women are actually taking the lead in a central feature of what it means to be a Christian. Remember? Jesus came not to be served but to serve. Our lives are to be characterized by submissiveness. It appears that God has placed women should be at the forefront of the display of this character trait. This is not a punishment or a diminishment, but a privilege and a high calling.

Certainly, women are not called to the forefront in the display of submission because they cannot care for themselves. Nor is this a part of Christian femininity because men are the boss. This calling has nothing to do with power or position. Submissiveness is a way in which all Christians represent Christ to the world. Women get to do this in a special way!

A symbol of Christian feminine submissiveness is male eldership. That’s what Paul means by verse 12. I think the right translation of this phrase would be: “I do not allow a woman to hold the position of teaching elder.” When we read “teach” in this verse, we must note that Paul used this word several times in what we could call an official way equating it with his own apostolic office and ministry (see Colossians 1:28; 1 Corinthians 4:17; and Ephesians 4:21). He also used this word to refer to Timothy’s position as church planter and elder in 1 Timothy 4:11 and in 2 Timothy 2:2. Additionally, “teach” is the one giftedness mentioned for elders in 1 Timothy 3. All of these suggest something official about Paul’s use of this word. So, when he says: “I do not permit a woman to teach or have authority over a man” I believe Paul is saying I do not permit a woman to be in the “teaching role” in the church. In other words, “I do not permit a woman to be a teaching elder.”

This is certainly not a prohibition against a woman leading a small group or class if a man happens to be there. Paul himself received instruction from a couple and when they are cited the woman is cited first. This is also not a prohibition against women preaching! This is a prohibition against a woman being an elder (in Paul’s mind equated with teacher) in the church.

Then Paul gives his justification for his view. He offers two reasons. Reason # 1 for male eldership is the order of creation. The clear implication is that Adam was made to be the first among equals; he was made to be the leader. This is not because Adam is better. It has been said, “The first specimen produced of a series is not always the most perfect.”

This is also not because Adam is more important. Adam as a solo act was insufficient. It simply means that Adam was designed to be the point person.

My problem in accepting this was solved when I remembered what biblical leadership is. In our minds leadership is about power and privilege. But if we look back to the first article in this series, we will see that in God’s mind leadership about humble service. In our minds leadership is about hubris. In God’s mind it is about passion and purpose. Theologians like to talk about the economy of God by which they mean that within the Godhead there is an order. The Father plans, the Son executes and the Holy Spirit applies. But no theologian would think to suggest that one is more important than the other. It would be heresy to suggest this. Similarly, male leadership does not mean men are preeminent or more important. Certainly, not in general, and not in the particular case of elders!

The idea of male leadership does not even mean that men “make all the important decisions.” In fact, if we read Ephesians 5 about marriage, we learn that leadership means simply dying for those who follow you. Male eldership is simply about identifying the right group of men who will lay down their lives for the church.

The second reason Paul gives for male eldership involves the details of the fall. Eve was deceived he reminds us. Perhaps he is suggesting that in this one instance when Eve refused to place herself under Adam’s authority she was deceived. Or perhaps this is more of a positive suggestion. Perhaps he is saying that Eve was designed to exercise wisdom – and she failed. Similarly, Adam was designed to exercised strength – and he failed. So in the curse, Eve ends up having her wisdom ruled over by man. And Adam ends up using his strength to toil over the land.

So then we find that in Christ the curse of the fall is being undone. Now, Christian men should not rule over women, they should lead women.

A second symbol of female submissiveness is future shaping. “But women will be saved through childbearing – if they continue in faith, love and holiness with propriety.” This is a difficult sentence to understand. Some have suggested that it is a general reference to the mother of Jesus giving birth to the Savior. If this is so, it is also much more.

This is a specific counter to the denigration of woman and a call to a vision for Biblical womanhood. If men are the point-persons in our present, then women shape the future. That is, if men lead the way and lay down their lives by giving to the needs of others, then women give their bodies by offering some of the best parts of it to the generations to come. The future, then, is at their breast and is molded under her tutelage.

It has been said that “women are only good for childbearing.” This is not Paul’s point, and this thinking cannot be allowed by the body of Christ. But, for the sake of argument, let’s realize that this may not be the insult it was intended to be. Saying “women are only good for childbearing” is like saying “a freight train can only run over you.” Childbearing is arguably the most important function of the current generation. How could this be an insult?

Paul, in effect, counters this sentiment. “No! Childbearing is a high and holy calling. In fact, women will be saved through childbearing.” If only men can be elders, a symbol of their leadership, then only women can be mothers, a symbol of their position as future shapers.

Of course, this does not mean that all women must have children any more than all men must be elders. It does not mean that a woman’s place is somehow diminished if she is not a mother. This is an acknowledgement that there is a character and function with which and for which women were created. Motherhood is a symbol of that character and function.

Women are different from men in ways that have to do with much more than mere physiological function. It would be a danger to get too specific. Paul does not get specific. The differences look different on each individual woman. But, according to John Piper in his wonderful book Biblical Manhood and Womanhood, womanhood has to do with calling out and receiving leadership from men. Men that means that women nurture in us our oversight and humble service.

Please understand that Paul was no male chauvinist. This is the man who preached to women when he went to Philippi. He started a church there with a group of women. This is the man who accepted hospitality from Lydia, a wealthy business woman. He wrote back to that church with warmth and commendation for Euodia and Synteche, two women whom he says, “contended at my side in the cause of the Gospel.” This is the man who said, “There is neither Jew nor Greek, neither slave nor free, neither male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus.”

And the early church lived in defiance of the culture in exactly the opposite direction as most of us imagine. Women occupied prominent places within the early church, even official places of leadership as deaconnesses. So we should not bend our practice to what is currently culturally acceptable, but instead should build our practice around the timeless testimony of the Apostles.

While feminism has been right and good and necessary in much of what it has espoused, it has been wrong in its suggestion that men and women are the same. In support of that suggestion they explain the differences between men and women as purely physiological. “Men have dominated for centuries simply because they were physiologically stronger. But physiological strength is no longer an issue of survival for human beings. It is time now for the roles to be reversed.”

But you see this philosophy is based on the presupposition of humanism. According to humanism, all human culture is the result of accidental causes driven by natural evolution. There is no intentionality or design. But Paul is a creationist. He believes in a created order that has purpose and meaning. And if he’s right, then the presuppositions of the feminists are wrong. If he’s right then there may be meaning and purpose behind what we see.

If Paul is right, then men have not dominated women simply because they were physically stronger. Men have dominated women because they have perverted their God-given function of leadership. They have opted for self- gratification instead of humble service. And women, in weakness , have allowed it. About this the feminists are right. Women have not called out in men and received from them the leadership for which they were created. They have allowed men to wrongly dominate them and make them subservient. They have allowed themselves to be slaves instead of offering themselves in submission.

I like what John Piper said in summary. “The tendency today is to stress the equality of men and women by minimizing the unique significance of our maleness and femaleness. But this depreciation of male and female personhood is a great loss. It is taking a tremendous toll on generations of young men and women who do not know what it means to be a man or a woman. Confusion over the meaning of sexual personhood is epidemic. The consequence of this confusion is not a free and happy harmony among gender-free persons relating on the basis of abstract competencies. The consequence rather is more divorce, more homosexuality, more sexual abuse, more promiscuity, more social awkwardness, and more emotional distress and suicide that come with the loss of God-given identity.”

I was raised by a single woman. It never occurred to me that there was anything she couldn’t do. I never thought of her as weak or needing someone to exercise power over her. And yet at some point she began to call something out in me. She called me to be the leader that I am. She massaged it into my life and received it from me. She prepared me to be a husband, a father and a pastor by expecting me to be all that God wanted me to be!

I never once thought of her as small-minded, jealous, emotionally irrational, selfish, possessive, passive, without vision or conservative. I never once thought of her as weak. I thought of her as resilient and beautiful. This is God’s design for all women. In fashion, Christian femininity is characterized by modesty, dress sense and good deeds. In terms of leadership, Christian women are to shape the future by calling out and receiving humble servant-leadership from the men in their lives. They are to come under the men in their lives and train those men to come under them!

For this reason, we do not have women elders at Gateway.

Influenced by a sermon delivered by Roy Clements at Eden Baptist Church in Cambridge, England.