Women in Leadership Positions in the Church

[zippy2006]

This might be true, if it were not that we have also to contend with the Scriptures where Paul commends a woman apostle, a woman deacon, women who presided over house churches, and so on.

Paul cannot have it both ways; if he commends women in these roles, he cannot elsewhere be utterly forbidding them. Some people deal with this by explaining away the clear evidence that Paul worked with, supported and commended women in these roles, but that does too much violence to Scripture to be a workable answer.

Okay. Do you have a link to a post with a collection of the counter-texts you have in mind? Or else a website?

 

[Paidiske]

Okay. Do you have a link to a post with a collection of the counter-texts you have in mind? Or else a website?

This one is a starting point: There are Women Pastors in the New Testament | Marg Mowczko .

 

[zippy2006]

This one is a starting point: There are Women Pastors in the New Testament | Marg Mowczko .

Glancing at this, the basic problem that I can see is that there is not parity between 1 Cor 14 and Rom 16, or non-Pauline texts such as Acts 18. That is, the supposed contradiction is easily addressed due to the fact that there is nothing which directly contradicts 1 Cor 14:34-38. That Phoebe serves/deacons a church or that a married couple privately instructs Apollos does not directly bear on the question of women formally teaching in church. It seems easy to reconcile these texts while upholding the straightforward meaning of 1 Cor 14 or 1 Tim 2. It's not as though we have a Pauline or non-Pauline text where a woman is commended for teaching in the assembly.

 

[Clare73]

It's an interpolation. Read 1 Cor. 14: 26-40. Then read it again, skipping vss. 33b-36. It reads, flows smoothly w/o the interpolation. He is speaking about prophecy, then he says this completely random thing about women, and then right back to prophecy? It is so random and out of place. No, someone took advantage of the command statement in vs. 37, and interpolated a statement on women. It is so obvious and has been noticed for a long time now.

In my Bible, 33b-36 are in the context of orderly worship, where those with the gift of prophecy were all speaking at once, and Paul instructs them in the orderly way to proceed when "everyone has a hymn, or a word of instruction, a revelation, a tongue or an intepretation."
In vv. 27-30, he gives the order in which they are to proceed "in turn so that everyone may be instructed and encouraged," reminding them that "the spirits of prophets (as distinct from unclean spirits) are subject to the control of prophets (as distinct from unclean spirits who are not under any control, indicating that anyone who could not control themselves was of an unclean spirit), for God is not a God of confusion but of order." Things were pretty out of control there.
Then follows the instructions to the women on speaking out in the assembly, followed by Paul's reminder of his apostolic authority and insistence that any person genuinely hearing from the Holy Spirit will recognize his apostolic God-given authority.

It's all of a piece to me.
And even if what you think is true, the "interpolation" is in perfect agreement with all of Paul's teaching, so what is the problem?

 

[Paidiske]

In response to Zippy:

That's reading into these texts through the lenses of later developments. We have later defined "formally teaching" as separate from other kinds of speech; we have later defined "in church" in ways foreign to the first communities who gathered in homes, where the social norm was for the host or hostess to preside over the worship offered.

The idea that Junia was an apostle, and yet that somehow sets no precedent for later leadership by women, is frankly ridiculous.

 

[Clare73]

I made a point years ago that is still perfectly relevant:
A good question to ask when there is a conflict of interest is, "What would you have expected Paul to say in the event that he really did want to exclude women from leadership positions?" If references to the creation account, the law, and commands of the Lord are insufficient to demonstrate that what is being referring to is more than surface-level, then what would have sufficed?

My favorite test!


The sad truth is that there is nothing any inspired author could have written to convince some people that women do not belong in a leadership role in a church. If Paul gives argumentation from the most central Biblical texts it will be claimed that his argumentation is faulty. If Paul literally states the position and immediately says that it is a command from the Lord and cannot be denied it will be claimed that it is an "interpolation" and doesn't actually apply. It is logically impossible for God to convey this truth to certain people through the Scriptures. The prophecy continues: "They have ears, but they do not hear. They have eyes, but they do not see."[/QUOTE]

 

[zippy2006]

In response to Zippy:

That's reading into these texts through the lenses of later developments. We have later defined "formally teaching" as separate from other kinds of speech; we have later defined "in church" in ways foreign to the first communities who gathered in homes, where the social norm was for the host or hostess to preside over the worship offered.

Nah. While it is true that these categories have developed into more precise forms over time, it would be a strawman to say that my argument depends on this development. The categories still existed in the first century. Christians then knew the difference between the assembled community and a private household. It doesn't matter that the community sometimes assembled in a private household. This is why Paul says that wives can ask their husbands questions at home but not at church (1 Cor 14:35).

Similarly, 1 Cor 34-36 is not an arbitrary interpolation. Paul is talking about proper behavior during the assembly ("When you come together..." [26]). He is talking about speech at the assembly, tongues, prophecy, interpretation, etc. The point about women speaking at church dovetails perfectly with this topic. There is no artificial interpolation, and the more-formal-than-a-mere-household context is certainly in evidence.

The idea that Junia was an apostle, and yet that somehow sets no precedent for later leadership by women, is frankly ridiculous.

Oh? The article you gave me does not mention such an argument at all. On the contrary she claims that, "Prisca is arguably as clear an example of an NT church leader or pastor as you can get..." But all of this is grasping as straws. There is no direct evidence that Priscilla (or Phoebe or Junia) was speaking, or teaching, or prophesying, or interpreting at Christian assemblies. The non-Pauline text of Acts 18 merely says that Priscilla instructed Apollos at the Jewish synagogue, privately, alongside her husband. The reader would assume that she was being subordinate to her husband in such a role, and this is nothing like a contradiction of what we find in 1 Cor 14 or 1 Tim 2.

Objectively speaking, Prisca, Junia, and Phoebe cannot counterweight 1 Cor 14 and 1 Tim 2. In fact they don't even contradict the command that God delivered to the community through Paul.

 

[Paidiske]

Nah. While it is true that these categories have developed into more precise forms over time, it would be a strawman to say that my argument depends on this development.

I disagree. I think it's a grave mistake to read contemporary understandings anachronistically into first-century experience.

Oh? The article you gave me does not mention such an argument at all.

Perhaps not, but it is a key point which needs addressing. If Paul accepts and commends a woman apostle, what then for women in leadership?

There is no direct evidence that Priscilla (or Phoebe or Junia) was speaking, or teaching, or prophesying, or interpreting at public assemblies.

There's no evidence that they weren't, and it would be in keeping with the roles they're described as holding.

Objectively speaking, Prisca, Junia, and Phoebe cannot counterweight 1 Cor 14 and 1 Tim 2.

That's one view. But it's not the only view that takes the whole of the Scriptural witness seriously.

 

[zippy2006]

I disagree. I think it's a grave mistake to read contemporary understandings anachronistically into first-century experience.

And I just explained to you why I am not doing that. You ignored it. But perhaps you know my mind better than I do?

There's no evidence that they weren't...

Sure there is. 1 Cor 14 and 1 Tim 2. We have evidence that they weren't, and no evidence that they were.

Perhaps not, but it is a key point which needs addressing. If Paul accepts and commends a woman apostle, what then for women in leadership?

This is a key point? Why wouldn't your source mention it? It seems like more grasping at straws. Translators aren't sure whether Paul is calling the two of them apostles or is saying that they are well-known among the apostles, much less whether Junia is a man or woman.

 

[Paidiske]

And I just explained to you why I am not doing that. You ignored it. But perhaps you know my mind better than I do?

I think you are doing that, whether you realise it or not. It's something we're all prone to doing.

Sure there is. 1 Cor 14 and 1 Tim 2. We have evidence that they weren't, and no evidence that they were.

And here's the thing. Some of us read the evidence that we had women as apostles, deacons, teachers, etc, and see that that means the injunctions to female silence etc. cannot have been absolute. Others read the injunctions to silence etc. and see that that means women cannot have functioned as they are described in Scripture.

Both aspects are attested to in the Scriptural texts, but we differ in how we read them. The question, then, from my point of view, is which hermeneutical approach results in sounder fruit? In which situation do we see the fulness of life that Christ came to bring?

I cannot see an argument which diminishes and excludes women from the full use of their gifts, which denies their vocations and holds them back from full participation in the Missio Dei, as being the hermeneutic with a stronger claim.

 

[topher694]

The question, then, from my point of view, is which hermeneutical approach results in sounder fruit?

Exacrly. This is what people always miss in debates such as this. Jesus gave us the way to discern in these seemingly diametrically opposed situations when both sides are convinced they have scriptural backing.... follow the fruit. One simple example of that: can more or less people be reached with the Gospel if we train and embrace women leaders?

 

[zippy2006]

And here's the thing. Some of us read the evidence that we had women as apostles, deacons, teachers, etc, and see that that means the injunctions to female silence etc. cannot have been absolute. Others read the injunctions to silence etc. and see that that means women cannot have functioned as they are described in Scripture.

I would say that those who are desperately trying to confirm a pre-conceived thesis have managed to find evidence. For example, you claim that Junia is a key piece of evidence. In reality translators aren't sure whether Paul is calling Andronicus and Junia apostles or is saying that they are well-known to the apostles, much less whether Junia is a man or woman. This hardly counts as evidence, much less evidence that could outweigh the clear texts against women teaching in the assembly.

Both aspects are attested to in the Scriptural texts, but we differ in how we read them. The question, then, from my point of view, is which hermeneutical approach results in sounder fruit? In which situation do we see the fulness of life that Christ came to bring?

I cannot see an argument which diminishes and excludes women from the full use of their gifts, which denies their vocations and holds them back from full participation in the Missio Dei, as being the hermeneutic with a stronger claim.

I understand why the modern world has moved to the unprecedented position of ordaining women. I actually appreciate those who take the more straightforward approach of denying Paul's inspiration, or inclusion in the canon, etc.

 

[Paidiske]

I would say that those who are desperately trying to confirm a pre-conceived thesis have managed to find evidence. For example, you claim that Junia is a key piece of evidence. In reality translators aren't sure whether Paul is calling Andronicus and Junia apostles or is saying that they are well-known to the apostles, much less whether Junia is a man or woman. This hardly counts as evidence, much less evidence that could outweigh the clear texts against women teaching in the assembly.

And yet, even the Orthodox have, since the earliest time, commemorated St. Junia the apostle. Seems they were clear about what Paul meant. The idea that Junia was really a man comes about due to later textual emendation (Junia => Junias), apparently by someone who thought an apostle couldn't really have been a woman. But the better manuscripts give us plenty of evidence alongside the tradition.

I actually appreciate those who take the more straightforward approach of denying Paul's inspiration, or inclusion in the canon, etc.

I'm sure, since their position is more easily dismissed. But the matter is not so easily resolved.

 

[a-lily-of-peace]

Exacrly. This is what people always miss in debates such as this. Jesus gave us the way to discern in these seemingly diametrically opposed situations when both sides are convinced they have scriptural backing.... follow the fruit. One simple example of that: can more or less people be reached with the Gospel if we train and embrace women leaders?

I think one thing that absolutely has to be considered in this is what happens in the background space, what role a woman is unable to fill if she is filling the role of a pastor.

For example, a woman pastoring a church can’t fill the role of a pastor’s wife. And women who might be intimidated by speaking to a pastor, who feels like they wouldn’t want to bother the pastor, might feel safer talking to the pastor’s wife, casually, over a cup of tea.

The pastoral role can be very formal, the pastor is expected to fill the office. It comes with many responsibilities that often leave little time for the casual small things.

I remember once talking to a woman at a church I used to go to, very casually, as friends and equals in a women’s group, and somehow knowing that God’s hand was clearly on that interaction. Not a single “elder” in that church was able to minister to a humble person in the humble things in that situation because quite simply they weren’t there. Not that it’s their fault, but they weren’t able to be in that space simultaneously as the space of a pastor.

There’s a danger I believe in Protestantism especially where the pastor becomes a focal point but so many times it’s the simple humble women who act as the glue of the church. It’s God’s blessing, to me, if a talented and capable woman was placed in that “background” role because God help the church if all of the talented and capable women leave that space to become pastors instead.

 

[zippy2006]

Exacrly. This is what people always miss in debates such as this. Jesus gave us the way to discern in these seemingly diametrically opposed situations when both sides are convinced they have scriptural backing.... follow the fruit. One simple example of that: can more or less people be reached with the Gospel if we train and embrace women leaders?

Jesus did give us a way to discern: Apostolic Succession. "Inspiration" is just a form of textual authority, and the authority of the NT letters is based on the authority of their authors. When people in 60 AD wanted women preachers, Paul just said, "This is a command of the Lord. If any one does not recognize this, he is not recognized." He exercised his authority to prevent such an abuse.

Authority is the only thing that settles these disputes, and it is no coincidence that the ancient Churches are the ones that uphold Paul's divinely-inspired words. The Catholic and Orthodox Churches give the same answer that Paul did, and they do so with an authority that is descended from the Apostles.

 

[zippy2006]

And yet, even the Orthodox have, since the earliest time, commemorated St. Junia the apostle.

But they do not consider her to be on the level of the ordained, or on the level of the 12. They basically see her as a missionary. You are equivocating.

 

[zippy2006]

I'm sure, since their position is more easily dismissed.

That is a particularly cynical thing to say.

No, I prefer them insofar as their position strikes me as being significantly more intellectually honest. They do not engage in excessive mental gymnastics.

 

[Paidiske]

For example, a woman pastoring a church can’t fill the role of a pastor’s wife. And women who might be intimidated by speaking to a pastor, who feels like they wouldn’t want to bother the pastor, might feel safer talking to the pastor’s wife, casually, over a cup of tea.

See, I have a huge problem with this. Sure, it's true that I can't be the priest and the priest's wife (and I've occasionally had to remind people of that). But "pastor's wife" is not a ministry role. The church should have absolutely no expectations of her availability, skill or training to take on any particular task in church life, much less informal pastoral care or counselling.

Clergy spouses are wonderful - mine does many things for the church, according to his particular gifts and interests - but the idea that there has to be a "pastor's wife" who does certain things is unrealistic, and unfair to the spouses who don't fit that mould, or to single clergy.

It is absolutely true that any one person can't be equally adequate pastorally for a whole congregation, and ideally you'll have a team of mature, capable people who are willing to mentor and care for others, but you don't need to be wedded to the minister to do that.

 

[topher694]

I think one thing that absolutely has to be considered in this is what happens in the background space, what role a woman is unable to fill if she is filling the role of a pastor.

For example, a woman pastoring a church can’t fill the role of a pastor’s wife. And women who might be intimidated by speaking to a pastor, who feels like they wouldn’t want to bother the pastor, might feel safer talking to the pastor’s wife, casually, over a cup of tea.

The pastoral role can be very formal, the pastor is expected to fill the office. It comes with many responsibilities that often leave little time for the casual small things.

I remember once talking to a woman at a church I used to go to, very casually, as friends and equals in a women’s group, and somehow knowing that God’s hand was clearly on that interaction. Not a single “elder” in that church was able to minister to a humble person in the humble things because quite simply they weren’t there. Not that it’s their fault, but they weren’t able to be in that space simultaneously as the space of a pastor.

There’s a danger I believe in Protestantism especially where the pastor becomes a focal point but so many times it’s the simple humble women who act as the glue of the church. It’s God’s blessing, to me, if a talented and capable woman was placed in that “background” role because God help the church if all of the talented and capable women leave that space to become pastors instead.

I'm not trying to be rude here, truly I'm not. But this entire post just illustrates a profound misunderstanding of what pastoral leadership truly is.

And, btw, there is no biblical office nor precedent for "pastor’s wife"

 

[Paidiske]

But they do not consider her to be on the level of the ordained, or on the level of the 12. They basically see her as a missionary. You are equivocating.

I'm not equivocating. You said it wasn't clear if Junia was an apostle. I said she's got a pretty good historical claim, considering the Orthodox recognition of her as such. We might then quibble about what exactly her apostolic work consisted of, but we would do so on the agreed basis that she was an apostle.

That is a particularly cynical thing to say.

True. I'll own up to being somewhat cynical and jaded in these discussions.

 

[a-lily-of-peace]

See, I have a huge problem with this. Sure, it's true that I can't be the priest and the priest's wife (and I've occasionally had to remind people of that). But "pastor's wife" is not a ministry role. The church should have absolutely no expectations of her availability, skill or training to take on any particular task in church life, much less informal pastoral care or counselling.

Clergy spouses are wonderful - mine does many things for the church, according to his particular gifts and interests - but the idea that there has to be a "pastor's wife" who does certain things is unrealistic, and unfair to the spouses who don't fit that mould, or to single clergy.

It is absolutely true that any one person can't be equally adequate pastorally for a whole congregation, and ideally you'll have a team of mature, capable people who are willing to mentor and care for others, but you don't need to be wedded to the minister to do that.

Pastor’s wife is as much of a ministry role as “Christian” is. Can you be a Christian without ministering to others? Can you love your neighbour as yourself without ministering to their needs?

More to the point scripture disagrees with you as there are specific qualifications listed to be a deacon’s wife (1 Timothy 3:11) so if St Paul thought that we should all pursue this sort of individualism you seem to advocate he wouldn’t bother telling women in leadership positions (and yes throughout history the wife of a church leader was given honour and respect due to “the man shall cleave to his wife and become one flesh”) - she is seen as held to the same level of expectation as her husband.

Your husband can’t fill the role of “wife” and I don’t think it would be sound for women to express their troubles to a man who isn’t a pastor, especially if some of those things they would only want to discuss with another woman. So your congregation doesn’t have anyone to fill that role.

You can determine for yourself whether that role is valid or invalid, or whether it is a valuable trade to make, but it does demonstrate the core of my point that a church role which would have been possible with a male pastor becomes impossible with a female pastor.