Long Live the Patriarchy!
Strap in, ladies and germs, this one is gonna be a doozy . . .
First, allow me to lay my cards on the table: I am a complementarian.
If you’re unfamiliar with the complementarian/egalitarian controversy, I can sum it up rather simply. It is a question of value vs. role. Complementarians believe that men and women are equal in value, but disparate in role or function. Egalitarians also affirm equal value (and some even accept certain differences in roles), but reject the notion that roles of spiritual authority within the church are restricted to men.
There are two kinds of complementarians- narrow and broad. Narrow complementarians are concerned solely with the role of women within the Church; their application of complementarianism is narrow. Broad complementarians take a (shocker) broader view of complementarianism and apply it both inside and outside the Church. I am the latter. All that to say, I do not feign objectivity when it comes to this issue.
With that disclaimer out of the way, I would like to spend the next several thousand words eviscerating, as charitably as I can, one of the worst egalitarian (believing men and women have identical roles within the church) arguments I have ever read.
To be clear, this article is not a rebuttal to egalitarianism, per se. Despite my personal views on the matter, I concede that there are fairly compelling Biblical arguments for that view of men and women. Perhaps down the road I will engage with the egalitarian steel man. But today, my sights are on straw.
Here is the article on trial:
"10 Reason Christians Affirm Women Pastors"
I will be quoting the article in its entirety, and responding point by point. Here we go!
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.
Right from the get go, this should be setting off alarms. Dismissing “a couple passages from Paul’s epistles” sets the tone that will continue throughout the article. In truth, each passage from Paul stands as an argument in and of itself, if (and this is the big if of the article) you believe in the inspiration of Scripture. Also, much of complementarianism is rooted in dozens of Old Testament passages, including the creation narrative in Genesis.
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:
Preaching the Gospel to whom? And in what setting? I can already tell this article is going to be too vague to be of any real value to the actual discussion.
10. The testimony of Scripture bears witness to female leadership in both the Old Testament and the early Church.
Okay, this first point has potential . . .
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.
Already, we are on the edge of a wholesale denial of Scriptural inspiration. Even if we accept the premise that the attitude of these ancient cultures toward women was bad, should we then automatically accept that such attitudes pervaded the purview of sacred Scripture?
And while the Bible has plenty of traces of those ancient mindsets about women,
Ding, ding, ding. There it is. This argument seems okay on the surface. The Bible was written in a patriarchal culture, so it’s understandable that bits of that culture crept into the Bible, right? Well, if you deny the role of the Holy Spirit in the writing of Scripture, then sure. The trouble is that the Bible contains so many statements about the perfection of God’s written Word. If “traces of those ancient mindsets about women” slipped in, how are we to be certain that traces of ancient mindsets about God, faith, sin, humanity, etc. didn’t also slip in? And if they did, what shall we use as the standard to judge which parts of Scripture are from God and which are not?
it is also true that we see God raise up strong female leaders both in the Old Testament and in the New Testament church.
This could be one of the strongest points of the article, if only the author had bothered to explain further. The obvious Old Testament example, Deborah, is not an easy one with which to contend from a complementarian perspective.
The New Testament examples are more difficult to determine. Perhaps Phoebe? And what is the evidence that Phoebe held a role of spiritual authority within the church? There are, in fact, complementarians who believe she was a deacon. But the roles of deacon and elder are distinct from one another. There is so much in this example that would need to be unpacked in order to add anything of value to the discussion. I understand that the author is writing briefly on purpose, but it’s totally undermining the force of his argument.
If women are forbidden from teaching or leading men, God really messed up by letting those parts get included.
Exceptions do not disprove the rule. The question is not whether God allowed female leaders, but whether he intended it as normative. There are interesting discussions to be had about Deborah and Phoebe, but for the sake of brevity (it’s easier to dunk on your ideological opponents when you don’t offer substance) the author does not even attempt to have them.
9. Jesus trained female disciples
Yes. Good. This could be interesting.
– and they were the most loyal ones.
Huh?
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.
I mean, he’s not wrong. But how is this serving his point? None of those female disciples took roles of leadership in the early church. Not one. The question at hand is not whether men or women are deserving or worthy of authority. This is where I believe many egalitarians greatly misunderstand the Biblical foundation of complementarianism. The God-given hierarchy is not based on merit. I don’t believe women should be excluded from positions of spiritual authority over men because they are incompetent or inferior. It is simply a matter of obedience to God’s commands and submission to his design. There plenty of examples of steadfast, strong, faithful women, and weak, spineless men. None of these examples actually touch the heart of this issue.
8. God chose two women to become the first evangelists who proclaimed the Gospel– and they proclaimed it to men.
Again, there is real potential for this point.
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.
Yes! Finally, the author and I can agree on something. There’s just one little, teeny-tiny-itsy-bitsy problem: proclaiming the Good News =/= position of authority in the church. Complementarians do not believe that women shouldn’t preach the gospel. No believer is excluded from that privilege. But the women bringing the wonderful news of the Resurrection were not speaking from positions of authority over those men.
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.
Okay, this is where the article could get either really good or really bad. The basic spirit of his point is true. Paul wrote to particular people in a particular time at a particular place. Understanding this is key to applying his letters today.
Well, if that’s true, how could it get bad? Here’s how:
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.
Paul would be aghast? You mean like in 1 Corinthians 11:16? “If anyone wants to be contentious about this, we have no other practice—nor do the churches of God.”
“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.
Whoa, whoa, whoa. Hold your horses. This is where I must start getting a bit cantankerous.
Certainly, thoughtlessly and carelessly treating Paul’s letters as “blanket prescriptions” without consideration of our own cultural context is ill-advised. BUT . . .
Do we believe Paul’s epistles are Scripture? I’ll ask that again for the people in the back. Do we believe Paul’s epistles are (God-breathed, Spirit-inspired, ever-relevant) SCRIPTURE? If no, then it doesn’t really matter what Paul, Moses, or even Jesus himself said. If yes, then this author is playing a very dangerous game. But it’s still early, perhaps he will redeem himself.
6. If Paul was issuing a decree for all churches in all times, he completely contradicts himself in the same letter and elsewhere.
Or perhaps he’ll just keep digging himself deeper into rejection of the authority of God’s written word.
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.
It’s difficult to analyze this particular section, because the author identifies a genuinely challenging argument against complementarianism, only to undermine his own point. Paul does indeed mention female church leaders and women prophesying. This would serve his argument well, except that he’s in the middle of making the point that Paul’s instructions are not authoritative for today. So wait, which is it?
5. The cultural context of Paul’s letters must be considered—some instructions were clearly meant to be applied within a specific cultural context.
Yes, go on.
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.
Once again, false equivalency. Applying the BIble within our own cultural context should not mean the erasing of the portions of Scripture with which we might be uncomfortable.
Paul commanded the Corinthian church to greet one another with a holy kiss. Perhaps, there is an argument to be made that a handshake or a hug would suffice. But what if this author were to quote that passage and then suggest that no greeting whatsoever was necessary? What if he then supported his argument by insisting that Paul was writing to a different culture?
The author wants his readers to believe that the complementarian passages in Paul don’t mean that we can’t appoint female church leaders today, but he offers no explanation of what they DO mean today! If the answer is “nothing” then he needs to offer some kind of interpretive rule for dismissing swaths of Scripture as purely cultural and out of date, and accepting other portions (like the gospels) as true and reliable revelation from God.
You’ll demonstrate the point on how we all– even fundamentalists– seem to innately realize that the context of a passage matters.
There are actually some fundamentalists that actually DO greet one another with a holy kiss. Pointing out someone else’s potential unfaithfulness to Scripture does not excuse your own.
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?
I can see a theme emerging. And that theme is either a total denial or a total ignorance of the doctrine of inspiration. It’s true that we have absolutely no right to limit the authority of the Holy Spirit, which is exactly what the author does by denying the authority of the Scriptures inspired by (wait for it) the Holy Spirit! His answer begs the question. 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.
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.
And there it is, folks. Here, I will credit the author for his honesty and transparency. He speaks of evidence, and proceeds to cite his personal life experience. In so doing, he also misses the crux of the whole argument. It is not a question of whether women can be gifted, but whether it is appropriate for them to hold authority over men within the church.
He also mentions his experience with fundamentalism. Clearly, it was the kind of fundamentalism that boasts a shallow and superficial view of Scripture and its authority. “The Bible says it, I believe it, that settles it,” they say, but they show no interest in a thorough and robust investigation of what the Scriptures actually teach. It’s no wonder that the author’s own argument is so shallow. He has only ever encountered a caricature of Biblically grounded complementarianism.
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.
This paragraph is great right up until the last 5 words. I have no problem with acknowledging the spiritual gifts of women, even gifts to teach. But that does NOT justify putting them in positions of spiritual authority over men.
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).
Why not? Doesn’t Paul basically do that when he instructs older women to teach younger women in the book of Titus? Why not? Because it’s uncomfortable? Inconvenient? Incompatible with and offensive to our modern sensibilities?
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.
No. The whole point of a gift is the edification of the body of Christ (see 1 Corinthians 12 & Ephesians 4:11-12) and we do that within the confines given to us by God through Scripture. Not everyone in a local church body is given an identical platform. There are plenty of gifted Christians who do not qualify for positions of authority within the church for any number of reasons. Our gifts are for the building up of the church, and we can not build up the church whilst ignoring Biblical boundaries.
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?
We don’t want that. Complementarians (at least the ones who don’t synthesize Scripture with their own conservative cultural values) don’t want to silence women, especially when it comes to spreading the gospel. What we do want is fidelity to Scripture.
To say that all those who believe in appropriate roles for men and women in the Church don’t really believe in the urgency of the Church’s mission betrays a fundamental misunderstanding of a whole slew of issues. Foremost of these is the inspiration and authority of Scripture.
To close, allow me to ask you, the reader, a few prying questions:
Do you really believe the gospel? If so, then why? How can you be certain? And if it’s because of the testimony of the four gospels, how then shall we treat the other 62 books? Did the same Holy Spirit Who inspired John also inspire Paul? Are we to believe 1 Corinthians 12 but not 1 Corinthians 14?
Scripture places all kinds of limits on the use of spiritual gifts. By honoring those limits, we are not being oppressive or authoritarian. We are honoring one another by honoring Christ, and honoring His written Word.
I know not all egalitarians are not as shallow and dismissive as the one who wrote this article. There are robust discussions to be had (and I for one look forward to them!) with egalitarians who do in fact stand on the reliability and authority of God’s written word. And that’s what’s really at stake here.