Down With the Patriarchy! (A Response)
I must admit, I chose the title of this post partially in jest, and partially for the shock factor.
This article is both in response and in partnership with Luke Copeland’s recent article: “Long Live the Patriarchy!”
Do you understand my title now?
In short, Luke and I have had recent conversations around this article of his, and the egalitarian/complementarian debate, conversations which have developed into an action plan of sorts. More will come through the pipeline from me and Luke, and possibly a few other people involved as well. So, keep your eyes peeled for more content surrounding this topic in particular.
Now, I’ll lay my cards on the table. I am egalitarian. More than that, I prefer to call myself a biblical egalitarian.
This means that I find biblical support for women in ministry, and more specifically, for the ordination and preaching ministry of women. Yes, I believe that women can be pastors, and I believe that this view is supported in Scripture. More so, I believe that spiritual authority within the church is not restricted only to men.
I recently read Luke’s article, and we had some dialogue about it through some google docs comments, and I decided that I wanted to write a response article.
However, my article is largely in response to the same article that Luke was responding to. Why? I also think it was a poor argument for egalitarianism. Additionally, I’ll also offer some responses to thoughts that Luke contributed in his own article.
This will be structured much in the same way that Luke’s response article was. The original “10 Reasons Christians Should Affirm Women Pastors” article will be quoted in its entirety. I will offer a response to each point that the author makes, as well as thoughts in response to comments that Luke made in his article (in these cases, I’ll quote or reference Luke as well).
Let’s do this.
I’ve heard a lot of arguments as to why women are prohibited from teaching and preaching.
Just kidding.
There aren’t a lot of arguments– there’s just a lot of people quoting a couple of passages from Paul’s epistles in a way they believe “proves” that ministry positions which involve leading men, or teaching or preaching to men, is a boys-only job.
The author sets his tone for the article from the first couple of sentences. It’s clear that this is a “popular level” (meant for a wide audience) article, with a specific intention behind it.
I understand the author’s sentiment here. I do. But, he neglects the fact that in reality and in the world of academia, the complementarian argument is in fact quite robust and complex. Very complex. Luke pointed out in his response that “much of complementarianism is rooted in dozens of Old Testament passages, including the creation narrative in Genesis.” There are many more Scripture passages that biblical complementarians will use to support their argument. It is not an argument based on only “a couple of passages from Paul’s epistles.”
But sometimes it sounds like that, depending on who is making the argument.
I’ve heard it before. Quite often, typically in the heat of the moment with these debates, someone whips out those couple of passages. Sometimes, a person’s entire argument is surrounding those couple of passages.
So, it does happen. But not all the time. Not in most academic circles that I’ve been involved with, at least.
The best debates I’ve heard around this topic are those that are respectful, humble, and full of robust points on both sides of the argument. I doubt the author of this article has heard many of those types of discussions or debates, and it shows.
Here’s 10 reasons why I think today’s Christians should be affirming and supporting women serving in church leadership, whether it’s leading, teaching, or preaching the Gospel:
Luke asked the question, “Preaching the Gospel to whom? And in what setting?” I think the author of the article indicates that he is indeed referring primarily to the local church setting, or preaching from the pulpit.
But, Luke’s questions and comments here speak less to the article he is responding to, and more to his own position as a strong biblical complementarian. Remember, he believes that spiritual authority is restricted only to men within the church. His questions and comments indicate that he may believe that women may have the authority to preach outside of the local church. Possibly? It appears that the location and setting in which the preaching is being done is significant here for Luke. As I don’t want to put words in his mouth, I’ll depart from this point of discussion here with only speculation.
10. The testimony of Scripture bears witness to female leadership in both the Old Testament and the early Church.
The Bible, as a whole, was written over a considerable span of time and from within various ancient cultures– most of which were patriarchal and viewed women as radically inferior at best.
And while the Bible has plenty of traces of those ancient mindsets about women, it is also true that we see God raise up strong female leaders both in the Old Testament and in the New Testament church.
The author begins well with his first point, but fails to articulate what he’s really talking about. Instead, he falls into the trenches by indicating and implying that the attitudes and cultural beliefs of the time are actually prevalent in Scripture itself. I agree with Luke’s point, and believe the author is neglecting the doctrine of inerrancy (Scripture is without error) and the divine inspiration of Scripture.
This is a dangerous can of worms to open, and the author has cracked the lid of that can of worms open with his statement “…while the Bible has plenty of traces of those ancient mindsets about women…”
However, again, I understand the sentiment and the intention behind what the author is trying to accomplish with his point. Kind of.
I think the author is pointing to the fact that there were indeed such cultural beliefs and practices, and it would be ignorant of modern readers to not take into account these cultural backgrounds when reading Scripture. But there is a difference between stating that these cultural backgrounds influenced sacred Scripture; and stating that it is important to take such cultural backgrounds into account while interpreting the intended message to the original audience in Scripture.
Either way, the author of the article made a mistake here. Do not neglect the inerrancy and inspiration of Scripture. That is the foundation for any good biblically based argument.
The author continues with his statement that “we see God raise up strong female leaders both in the Old Testament and in the New Testament.”
This was his chance! And he didn’t take it.
Luke points this out by acknowledging the potential strength of this point in the author’s article. The biggest pitfall? There were no examples given! No mention of Miriam, Deborah, Phoebe, Mary, and so many others that could be noted. The author didn’t talk about those wonderful examples of strong female leaders in Scripture at all.
For me, personally, that was his biggest mistake.
I’d like to point out Luke’s point of discussion that he takes here. Luke mentions the same things I did above, namely that there was no explanation provided. He mentions the “obvious Old Testament example, Deborah,” and notes that she is difficult to explain away for complementarians.
But he also states that “New Testament examples are more difficult to determine.”
Luke, your complementarianism is showing.
Respectfully, I disagree. I believe there are several examples to show in the New Testament of women who held positions of spiritual authority in some manner of significance – but I will not do that here. Perhaps another time, friends.
The author of the “10 Reasons” article then makes a statement that honestly got to me more than the lack of explanation given prior to this.
If women are forbidden from teaching or leading men, God really messed up by letting those parts get included.
What gets me is the sarcastic “God really messed up by letting those parts get included.” Again, much could be said about the inerrancy of Scripture here, but that’s beside the point, I think. There is emotion and sarcastic bravado in the author’s statements, and that’s the main thing I want to focus on here.
However, I don’t think a sarcastic statement or argument should ever be centered around the character of God. Here, for the author, emotion is at the center; and that’s where he and his article fall flat in my opinion.
Luke makes an interesting comment: “Exceptions do not disprove the rule. The question is not whether God allowed female leaders, but whether he intended it as normative.” There is a lot to unpack in that statement, which I do not have the time or space at this moment to do so. I will say that I disagree with Luke, but I have not fully developed my answer as to why.
9. Jesus trained female disciples – and they were the most loyal ones.
The men?
They fell asleep when he begged them to keep him company. One betrayed him. His right-hand-man publicly denied him three times. The rest abandoned him in his most critical moment. In fact, one of them even ran away naked (Mark 14:51-52).
But his female disciples?
The last people at the cross? Women.
First people at the tomb? The women.
Luke asks a valid question here that emphasizes, for me, the main issue I have with this – how is this serving the author’s point? The author had a good start – Jesus trained female disciples. Were they the most loyal of his disciples? Possibly. But how does this speak to the spiritual authority? I think one could arrive there given the proper channels, but the author doesn’t provide them.
Yes, the women who were disciples of Jesus and identified as followers of Jesus held a significant place in Jesus’ ministry – both in the outcome of his ministry, and the purpose of his ministry. Jesus gave these women significance (both internally and externally) at a time when women were anything but significant.
That, my friends, is the significance of the author’s point here. Does it support his argument concerning spiritual authority?
Maybe. But it would take a stretch to get there.
8. God chose two women to become the first evangelists who proclaimed the Gospel– and they proclaimed it to men.
The Gospel, by definition, is the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus. This is the “Good News” we are called to preach to the ends of the earth.
And who were the first ones to preach it? You guessed it– the female disciples were the very first to proclaim the Good News, and they proclaimed it to the men.
I agree with much of what the author says here. He highlights the significance of what has happened at the tomb on the morning of Jesus’ resurrection – two women are the ones who are urged to “go and tell” of the Good News for the first time in history.
This is a big moment. We cannot diminish that.
What I disagree with, in fact, was Luke’s point here. He states that “proclaiming the Good News” is not equal to holding a position of authority in the church. I agree in part, as Luke follows up with stating that no believer is excluded from the privilege of preaching and proclaiming the good news. But I do believe that preaching the good news to those who have not heard holds some spiritual authority in itself.
In the Great Commission in Matthew 28, Jesus says “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. Go therefore and make disciples of all nations…” Jesus has given believers the spiritual authority to go and tell, to go and preach, to go and proclaim, to go and make disciples and teach and baptize. Those are authoritative actions listed.
It is telling that Thomas Aquinas called Mary Magdalene “the apostle to the apostles.” The word “apostle” may not be used in the narrative, but the women were indeed sent with a task, and given the spiritual authority to proclaim the greatest news to a group of 12 men who left everything to follow Jesus.
Spiritual authority can be seen in this passage, in my opinion.
7. Paul was not writing a manifesto to every church in every time, but wrote to specific churches facing specific issues that are not completely known to us.
The argument against women teaching, preaching, or leading in church, is often centered around a few passages from Paul. But here’s the problem: Paul wasn’t writing a general manifesto on how all churches should be run in all times and all cultures, and I think he’d be aghast that we often treat it that way.
“Epistles” mean “letters”. Paul was writing specific letters to specific people and specific house churches. He addressed their specific questions and their specific challenges– and we don’t always know for sure what those were, or what situations he intended specific advice/instructions to be applied in. Since we are not the people Paul was writing to, and our church context is not the same as theirs, it would be dangerous at best to approach his letters as being blanket prescriptions for all times and circumstances.
I actually largely agree with the author here. He makes a valid point, but his delivery is lacking. Regarding the specific verses that many complementarians reference in their arguments, I am of the opinion that they are not prescriptive. Meaning, they were not written with that same intention for all people for all time. I believe they are anchored to specific circumstances within a certain body of believers who were located in a specific city at a very interesting time in history with peculiar practices and beliefs regarding the role of women in society at the time. However, there are principles that may be applied for all time to come.
But Luke highlights my issue with this point as well – the authority of Scripture is at risk within this author’s flow of logic here.
6. If Paul was issuing a decree for all churches in all times, he completely contradicts himself in the same letter and elsewhere.
Paul says that women should be “silent” in church, you say? Well, in his letters he references female church leaders and references women prophesying in church. If his other statements were intended to be blanket prescriptions for all circumstances, even he missed the memo.
The author made a mistake here by saying that if Paul was indeed writing a letter for all churches in all times, then he contradicts himself in the same letter. Again – inerrancy and authority of Scripture, anyone?
This point had potential by bringing up a contentious point in the broader argument, and one of my favorites to discuss – Paul’s directive that women should be silent in church.
So much potential wasted.
5. The cultural context of Paul’s letters must be considered—some instructions were clearly meant to be applied within a specific cultural context.
Try this: the next time some guy says that women can’t preach and “God’s word never changes” and that we’re supposed to just “read and obey what’s written”, ask him if he kisses other men when he says hello to them at church– because Paul says to do that in 2 Corinthians 12:12.
You’ll demonstrate the point on how we all– even fundamentalists– seem to innately realize that the context of a passage matters.
This point makes another attempt at showing how Paul’s letters may not necessarily be prescriptive for all churches at all times, and the author makes a great opening statement with this point concerning cultural context. But I find that his follow up doesn’t really help the point.
Why? Luke hits the nail on the head.
The author argues an (albeit poor) explanation for what Paul’s words don’t mean today, but he doesn’t offer an explanation for what they do mean today.
The author argues for how not to interpret these passages, but he doesn’t finish his argument by offering an alternative that supports his position.
This, again, highlights the lack of regard for the authority of Scripture.
4. Jesus said the Holy Spirit is free to go where it wills.
Teaching is a gift that is ultimately given to believers by the Holy Spirit, and Jesus describes the Spirit as one who is free to go where the spirit goes (John 3:8). Who are we to limit the authority of the Holy Spirit by claiming that the Spirit is only allowed to gift men to preach and lead the Church?
The author makes a valid point, but in effect contradicts himself in his own article. Luke points this out by showing that, yet again, the author denies the authority of the Scriptures inspired by the very same Holy Spirit who is “free to go where it wills.”
One other point to note - the Holy Spirit is a person of the Trinity. Not an object or a thing. Don’t refer to Him as “it.”
I do take some issue with Luke’s statement in his response article, “We don’t have the right to place limits on the use of spiritual gifts. But do you know who does? The One Who gives them.”
I agree in part, only God can have the right to determine all the intricacies around spiritual gifts. But, I also think Scripture is fairly clear in regard to spiritual gifts. There is not a separate list for men and for women. There are no separate “tests” for men and women. The Bible does not indicate, in my interpretation, that men and women are instructed to use their gifts differently in modality.
The Bible says that the spiritual gifts are to be used for the good of the congregation. They are meant to edify, exhort, and comfort.
Luke implies that the Holy Spirit restricts the use of certain spiritual gifts from women, and not from men, and that this is supported in Scripture.
Why? That doesn’t seem logical in my mind. I just don’t see that. Perhaps I simply interpret it differently.
From what I see, no gift is restricted in essence from anyone. Spiritual gifts can be given to men or women. It depends on the person, not the gender. Personally, I see this as a question of practical application of the gifts of the spirit, not of whether or not God restricts some gifts from women, and not from men because of their gender.
3. The Bible never commands us to abandon evidence and reason, but commands us to consider them.
On my own journey out of fundamentalist Christianity, it was being confronted with the clear and undeniable evidence that women can be equally gifted as men to teach and preach the Gospel that became the sticking point I couldn’t ignore. Seriously, listen to a few sermons by Brenda Salter McNeil and tell me women can’t preach.
The Bible invites us to reason. It commands us to test everything and then look at the evidence. One cannot survey the evidence honestly and walk away with any conclusion other than women– especially Brenda Salter McNeil– have *clearly* been gifted by the Holy Spirit to teach and preach to the body of believers.
I agree with the author’s main point here, and I think he’s correct: The Bible does not command us to abandon evidence and reason – it asks that we consider them.
However, the author is taking into account more experiential evidence from his personal story, rather than rational and logical evidence not based entirely on personal experience. There must be some level of objectivity. Here, the author of the article lets his emotion and personal hurt and disappointment with a particular sect of believers and church community – the fundamentalists.
And that’s ok. But, this is not the place to make his argument on the shoulders of personal hurt and emotional experiences.
In his response article, Luke narrows in on the explanation of the author’s perspective on spiritual gifts – why would God gift a woman with the gift of preaching and teaching if she were not to use it? That makes sense to me.
Luke's point is this: He sees no problem with acknowledging such spiritual gifts (note, he only names the gift to teach – does God not give women the gift of preaching, Luke?), but that does not justify putting them in positions of spiritual authority over men.
I don’t know, Luke.
In Joel 2, there is a prophecy concerning the arrival of the Holy Spirit, and it says that “your sons and daughters will prophesy.” This happened in Acts 2, in the upper room. Where there were indeed men and women, prophesying and proclaiming the Good News, which they have been given the authority to do so.
At the very least, that seems pretty inclusive to me, rather than restrictive.
2. God gives people gifts with the intent they be used– not squelched.
What would be the point of God gifting and equipping someone with a clear gift, and then prohibit them from using it? (Oh, and don’t tell me they can be gifted but can only preach at women’s conferences).
The entire point of a gift is to remove it from the bushel that we or others use to obscure and hide it, and to then use that gift to grow God’s kingdom as far and as wide as we can.
I spoke to much of this point above, but a few things to add to Luke’s comments here…
Regarding the challenge from the author about women preaching only to women, as restricted by the Holy Spirit, Luke says this: “Why not? Doesn’t Paul basically do that when he instructs the older women to teach younger women in the book of Titus?”
No, I don’t think that’s the point. In Titus, Paul is instructing his protégé pastor on how to lead in his particular church setting. There appears to be a large group of young women, who need some instruction particularly from older women.
I think that is primarily situational, not restrictive in purpose.
I do agree with Luke’s next response concerning the point of spiritual gifts – to edify and build up the body of Christ, not to “remove it from the bushel.”
I mean, you probably don’t want to hide it under the bushel, but that’s not the point of the spiritual gifts.
However, as previously noted and partially explained, I respectfully disagree with Luke on what the confines of Scripture indicate regarding this topic.
1. Our mission is far too critical to exclude gifted teachers and leaders.
As Christians, we need to ask ourselves an honest question: Do we believe our mission to the world is urgent and critical, or not?
Do we really believe all that jazz when we talk about making Christ known among the nations, and when we say there’s no time to waste?
If we do– if we *really* believe in the calling to spread the Good News of the Gospel of Jesus Christ, and if we *really* believe our mission is critical and time sensitive, why in the world would we want (or think God wants) to silence half of the people who are best gifted and equipped to actually do it?
I agree with the author here. And, historically, so did Advent Christians. The mission of Christians is far too critical to exclude or restrict those who are gifted, as long as we are in the bounds of Scripture.
Of course, as we’ve demonstrated, I have issues with the author’s view of the authority of Scripture, and how he articulates his argument (or doesn’t).
I also differ with Luke on what the Scriptures say when it comes to women exercising authority over men. This, my friends, will soon be further explored.
To close, I echo Luke’s closing statement: “I know not all egalitarians are…as shallow and dismissive as the one who wrote this article. There are robust discussions to be had…with egalitarians who do in fact stand on the reliability and authority of God’s written word.”
I agree, Luke.
I agree.