by
Roger Smalling, D.Min
The question of womenŐs ordination boils down to the difference between creation and culture.
Those who hold to the ordination of women to ecclesiastical office, point out that women are equal to men. From this they assume that excluding them from ministerial office is based on outmoded cultural norms of the past. This view is called egalitarianism.
Since women today have competed successfully with men in such domains as business and politics, egalitarians see no reason for excluding them from leadership within the church. Refusing them, it is argued, is simply discrimination, based on bygone prejudice.
Those who reserve ordination solely for men, base their thinking on GodŐs purposes in creation before cultures existed. This view is called complimentarianism because they say the woman was created to compliment man in his created purpose, that of caretaker of the earth for GodŐs glory.
To overthrow 3500 years of Jewish and Christian practice, egalitarians must show from the biblical text itself that the reason for excluding women from authority in the church was cultural. Merely affirming it was cultural, is not proof. Accusing complimentarians of chauvinism or prejudice is not proof either.
If even one scripture places the exclusion of women from ecclesiastic office on other grounds than culture, then egalitarianism stands refuted. Though one text would suffice, there are many.
In the study below, we will see the apostles were well aware of cultural considerations but ignored them in favor of issues going back to creation before cultures existed.
Male headship in the household is clearly established in Genesis before the existence of cultures. Both complimentarians and egalitarians recognize this.
Then the LORD God said, ŇIt is not good
that the man should be alone; I will make him a helper fit for him.Ó Gen. 2:18
From this, we see that woman was created for two purposes: As a companion to the man and as his helper. This establishes the question of authority.
Though egalitarians agree with this point, they argue that the home and the church are separate institutions.
Are they separate? Or, does the male headship in the household carry over to the church? LetŐs see what Paul says:
Let a woman learn quietly with all
submissiveness. 11
I do not
permit a woman to teach or to exercise authority over a man; rather, she is to
remain quiet. 12 For Adam was formed first, then Eve; 13 and Adam was
not deceived, but the woman was deceived and became a transgressor 14 Yet
she will be saved through childbearing—if they continue in faith and love
and holiness, with self-control. 1Tim.2:11-15
Paul immediately resorts to an
argument from creation to justify two prohibitions: Women may not teach men in
the church nor exercise authority over them.
The reason given is that Adam was
created first. This allowed Adam the right to exercise authority. Does Paul claim this referred only to the
household? He is using the creation of Adam to justify a policy in the church. This
predates cultures.
Moreover, Paul implies that
putting women in a place of authority may open them to demonic deception. The
church may be exposing them to the same kind of temptation that Eve faced. PaulŐs
intent, therefore, is not to be discriminatory but protective.
The last verse puzzled me until I
saw the protective element in it. The clause saved through childbearing does not mean childbearing has saving
value nor is this a moral obligation on all women to have children. He simply
means the primary role of women is husbands and children. If we put them into
roles for which they were not created, we subject them to pressures they were
not intended to handle. It is the manŐs job to deal with snakes in the garden.
Again, the context shows the
ordination question is a creation issue, not cultural. Times may change, but
GodŐs purposes in creation do not.
Another key text is 1Cor.11:3-16.
In this chapter, Paul answers a question about the local Corinthian custom of
head covering for women. Though he clarifies that the other churches have no
such custom, nevertheless he approves of the practice insofar as the Corinthians
intend to express the submission of the women to church authority, which in
turn is based on creation purposes.
It is difficult to see how
egalitarians can find any other intent in this text than the establishment of male
authority in the church.
Egalitarians sometimes argue that
both men and women are the image of God and therefore must have the same value.
From that, they assume women must be entitled to the same functions and offices
in the church. The illogic of this is plain enough without scripture but Paul uses
the image of God idea to make his
point. This in turn refutes the egalitarian position.
But I want you to understand that the head of every man is Christ, the head of a wife is her husband, and the head of Christ is God. 1Cor.11:3
Paul starts his argument from a
simple hierarchy that incorporates the whole of creation. God, Christ, husband,
wife. He implies it would be just as absurd for the wife to take authority over
her husband as for the husband to have authority over Christ or Christ over God
the Father.
More importantly, he uses the home
as groundwork for authority in the church. In the apostolic tradition, the home
and the church are different institutions but by no means separate. This explains why Paul moves his
argument smoothly from the home and applies it to the church. This puts the
egalitarian in an uncomfortable position for he must show that the two institutions
are entirely separate, contrary to the text.
For a man ought not to cover his head, since he is the image and glory of God, but woman is the glory of man. V.7
Man is the image of God. Woman is the image of the man. That is why she is the image of God. His image was derived directly from God; hers indirectly, via the man.
For man was not made
from woman, but woman from man. 1Cor.11:8
Paul implies that God intends the man to be in authority on the grounds that he made him first.
Neither was man created for woman, but woman for man. 1Cor. 11:9
God created the man as caretaker of creation and the woman as his helper. This establishes authority by the difference of purpose in the creation of the two genders.
Paul shows he understands that authority is established by
this creation purpose with the words, ŇThat
is why a wife ought to have a symbol of authority on her headÉÓ
Does this mean women today should have a veil on their head, as in some eastern cultures? No. Paul commends the Corinthians for applying a local custom to express a biblical truth, although that particular form of cultural expression is not applicable universally. A womanŐs hair suffices for covering, if someone is concerned about that question.
Paul shows he was keenly aware of cultural issues but allows no grounds for the authority of women in the church, even on the basis of culture, image of God, giftedness nor anything else.
Nevertheless, in the Lord woman is not independent of man nor man of woman; 11 for as woman was made from man, so man is now born of woman. And all things are from God. 1Cor.11:11-12
It is a grave mistake for a man to assume that because he is in authority in the home or the church, that he has a right to an independent attitude toward women. That attitude is a product of pride, not logic and certainly not justified by any creation purpose. A Christian leader who disregards the women in the church or home is headed for trouble, not only with them but also with God.
Woman was created to compliment man. Though she is not to lead him, he may not walk all over her either.
Egalitarians sometimes argue on the grounds that women may have any spiritual gift and therefore are entitled to equal authority. Children can have spiritual gifts too. What does this have to do with creation purposes?
What about competence? The issue in ordination is not competence but call.
And no one takes this honor for himself, but only when called by God, Heb.5:4
It does not necessarily follow
that God calls individuals because they are the most competent people around. His
call is based on his own sovereign will and grace. This has nothing to do with
creation purposes regarding genders.
á Egalitarians base their view on three considerations: Culture, image of God and equality of competence. The apostolic teaching as to GodŐs purposes in creating the two genders, slices through all three egalitarian arguments and exposes them as irrelevant.
á The two texts we discussed, 1Cor.11 and 1Tim.2, are adequate for addressing all egalitarian arguments, although other scriptures exist as well.
á Woman was made to compliment man and be his helper. This establishes the headship of man in the home. The question is whether this extends to the church. The Bible answers this with a resounding yes.
á Though
women are also the image of God, equally valuable as his children, they may not
exercise authority in the church over men, nor teach them. This is not intended
to be discriminatory but protective.