THE ROLE OF WOMEN IN THE CHURCH:

I. The Culture Factor

Probably for most of those who oppose the ordination of women as eldersor pastors in the church, the debate is viewed as a struggle between conservatismand liberalism. Conservative forces are allegedly defending the primacyof Scripture against the rising tide of a liberal culture sweeping thechurch. In other words, the opponents of women's ordination tend to believethat those who advocate it have been influenced by the modern women's movementin Western (especially American) culture. Furthermore, this alleged liberalbias has led these supporters of women's ordination to the conclusion thatthe apostle Paul and other Bible writers were biased against a major rolefor women in the church because of their own culture's negative view ofwomen.

The viewpoint described above is appealing because our modern liberalsociety has indeed flooded the church with worldliness, often in the disguiseof "new and improved (enhanced)" styles of worship that seem to emphasizeentertainment rather than spiritual worship, a de-emphasis on dress, adornment,and health standards as allegedly being legalistic, and even a hermeneuticalapproach to the Bible that undermines inspiration and revelation. Addingto the appeal is the fact thatsome supporters of women's ordinationdo indeed sound more like militant feminists than Christians using "sanctifiedreason."

Nevertheless, a Christian's position on this, or any other, issue mustnot be based on a blanket categorizing of one side in the debate, for thattends to blind us to an objective study of the Scriptures by giving usa bias that prejudges the issue before we really examine it closely. Weshould also note that cultural bias works both ways on this issueof women's ordination. Some of the most strident opponents of women's ordinationare scholars of recent European or African descent, who might also be accusedof having been influenced by an old traditional cultural bias against anexpanded role for women in either society or the church. And in at leasta few cases, a good argument might be made that there are those whose familyroots run deep in the American South who seem to reflect the Old South'straditional view that women should be kept "barefoot and pregnant." Thepoint is not to escalate emotional appeals, but to make the reader awarethat cultural bias almost certainly affects the attitudes of some churchmembers on both sides of the women's ordination issue, not justwithin the pro-ordination camp. Furthermore, there are many (I hope most)on both sides of the issue who are sincerely attempting to base their viewson the Word of God rather than allowing their cultural heritage to determinethem. Thus, it behooves each of us to stop throwing mud at the other side.

There can be little doubt that the modern women's movement in Americansociety has played a prominent role in raising the issue of women's ordinationwithin the church; the timing itself suggests this. Likewise, the modernblack civil rights movement helped raise the issue of race relations, bothsocially and politically, within the church. Do these facts mean that thosechurch members who then studied and began to advocate certain changes inthe church are automatically to be dismissed as Fifth Columnists (or Jesuitpriests) working for a liberal political agenda rather than as sincerebelievers who just might be Biblically right? Regardless of some politicallyor culturally motivated members on both sides of the women's ordinationissue, the reality is that this is not about women's rights perse--pro or con--but about being right with the Word of God!

Being right with the Word of God means, among other things, that Christiansshould be careful how we use terms such as "conservative" and "liberal."As these terms are applied to the relationship between culture and theBible writers, the conservative interpreter correctly understands thatinspired writers were not biased by cultural factors in determiningthe truths they taught. Otherwise, inspiration by the Holy Spirit wouldmean nothing. At the same time, this does not mean that culture never hasa legitimate role in the application of a divine principle. Divine principlesare eternal, but standards--which are the applications of principles--mayvary with the culture. For example, modesty in dress is a Bible principle.Serious church members in most Western countries today would certainlyagree that it would be a violation of that principle for a mother to publiclyand openly breast feed her baby so that her breast is clearly exposed toothers. The reason is obvious: in Western culture, women's bodies, includingtheir breasts, are widely thought of primarily in sexual terms, even moreso with that culture's explicit sexual exploitation of women. Thus, inthese countries it would be a proper Christian dress standard that mothersshould not engage in that practice. However, in some cultures today, thispractice attracts no attention and has no sexual connotation; therefore,it would not be a violation of the principle of modesty. Although the standardis different, based on different cultures, the principle of modesty remainsthe same.

A liberal hermeneutical approach to the Bible, on the other hand, emphasizesthe humanness of the Bible writers, and allows for their personal biases(based on culture or other factors) to influence what they wrote and taughtin the Word of God. This approach is both wrong and dangerous because itmakes the inspiration of the Holy Spirit inadequate to protect the writer,and thus the reader, of the Bible from spiritual error, and it therebyundermines confidence in the Bible. It is certainly true that in someareas of the church, this approach is employed by supporters of women'sordination. However, it is equally true that most advocates of women'sordination do not adopt a liberal approach to the Bible. Therefore, itis both inaccurate and unfair to blanket label the supporters of women'sordination as liberals or militant feminists whose agenda is to spreadthe liberal culture of modern society. Those who do such labeling oftenappear to confuse that which is traditional and old-fashioned automaticallywith what is right. On that basis, Western society would still practiceblack African slavery, the so-called divine right of kings would allowthem to be as tyrannical as they wish, church and state would be unitedand religious dissenters burned at the stake, and there would be no suchthing as democracy, the U.S. Constitution, or the Bill of Rights. But thebottom line is that believers should determine their position on the issueonly after a careful study of the Scriptures, based on conservative principlesof interpretation. And if that study leads you to the conclusion that itis proper to ordain women as elders or pastors in the church, then so beit; or vice versa. It is far more important to be right with the Word ofGod than to be either conservative (as in traditional) or liberal (as innew) on a specific issue!
 

II. Creation and the Fall

At the heart of the debate over women's ordination is the issue of the"headship" principle. Both sides agree that the Scriptures teach the headshipof the husband over his wife. But nearly all opponents of women's ordinationmaintain two crucial positions concerning the "headship" principle: (1)that the husband's headship over the wife existed from Creation (ratherthan from the Fall into sin); and (2) that the husband's headship overthe wife also translates into male headship over all females in the church.This section deals with the first point, and the next section discussesthe second one.

There are at least five specific elements of the Creation narrativein Genesis 1-2 which have relevance concerning the relationship betweenthe first man and woman. Two of these elements are present in Genesis 1:26-28.Verses 26-27 clearly state that mankind, both male and female, were createdin the image of God; in other words, it took both the man and the womanto fully reflect God's image. This might be called a "corporate singular"because two genders (corporate) are required to make one (singular) imageof God. This merging of two genders to make one image of God strongly suggestsan equality between the man and the woman; certainly there is no hint ofone being subordinate to the other. Closely linked with the "image of God"concept in the Creation account is the idea of dominion, or rulership,of the earth and its other living creatures (Genesis 1:26,28). Notice thatverses 26 and 28 both refer to "them" (nearly all English translations)--meaningthe male and female--as having this "dominion." The relationship betweenthese two themes of "image of God" and "dominion" can be seen more clearlyin the following diagram:

A "Let Us make man in Our image..." (v. 26a)

B "let them have dominion over..." (v. 26b)

A¹ "So God created man in His own image...male andfemale" (v. 27)

B¹ "fill the earth and subdue it; have dominion over..."(v. 28)

The interweaving of the "image of God" and the "dominion" themes inalternating references (as shown in the above diagram) indicates that thereason mankind was given dominion, or rulership, over the earth and itsliving creatures was that mankind was created in the image of God. In otherwords, because mankind was in the image of God, they could safely be appointedrulers of the earth as the Creator's fit representatives. Thus, the needfor both man and woman to jointly represent the image of God points toan equality of nature between the sexes, while the joint headship(dominion or rulership) over the earth points to an equality of function.

A third element in the Creation account which illuminates the relationshipbetween the first man and woman is the timing of Eve's creation. Opponentsof women's ordination generally view the significance of Eve's creationafterAdam's as implying that God intended for woman to be subordinate to manfrom the very beginning. Did the order in which things or persons werecreated suggest that what was created later was automatically subordinatein some way to that which was created earlier? If that were true, thenwouldn't all human beings be subordinate to all animals because Genesis1:24-28 clearly says that the land animals were all created earlier thanman on the sixth day of Creation? Of course, man could not be subordinateto animals because animals were not created in God's image. But the seriouspoint is that we must be careful about assuming a headship-subordinaterelationship just because of the order of creation.

The second account of mankind's creation, recorded in Genesis 2:4-25,does indeed tell us that Adam was created before Eve. However, the mannerin which this story unfolds does not lead to the conclusion that the womanwas therefore subordinate to the man. In verses 18 and 20b, the point ismade that Adam needed a "helper" (NKJV). Between those comments God isdescribed as bringing the various animals to Adam for him to name. Thisliterary relationship may be diagramed as follows:

A God said that Adam is alone and needs a helper (v. 18)

B God brought all the animals to Adam for him to name (vv. 19-20a)

A¹ "But for Adam there was not found a helper..." (v. 20b,NKJV)

This description (just outlined above) strongly suggests that God broughtthe animals to Adam for a naming session in order to get Adam to realizethat he did not have a mate like all the animals did. Therefore, by creatingEve immediately after Adam's realization of his need for a mate (vv. 21-23),God highlighted the creation of woman as a special creation. Like eachof the animal species, Adam was then made complete too. In fact, theologiansoften refer to the literary structure of the Creation account in Genesis2 as a "ring construction" because it connects and completes the circleof the development of the creation of mankind. In simpler language, theCreation account in Genesis 2 proceeds from the incomplete to the completeratherthan from the superior to the subordinate.

A fourth element in the Creation story which pertains to the relationshipbetween the first man and woman is the reference in Genesis 2:18, 20 toAdam's mate as a "help meet for him" (KJV). Opponents of women's ordinationargue that this means that woman was created to be subordinate to man becauseshe was made for his benefit--a type of servant (although they would addthat she was an honorable servant). But the Hebrew word translatedas "help meet" in the KJV does not imply a subordinate helper; it is derivedfrom another word which means "to surround" as for the purpose of protectingor coming to another's aid. Moses could have chosen other words to denotea servant-like subordinate person if that were the concept he wanted toexpress, but he didn't. Instead, the word he selected appears more than20 times in the Hebrew Old Testament, with the great majority of thosehaving reference to God in His capacity as bringing physical, military,and spiritualhelp to His people. And no one argues that He was a subordinate Helperto mankind! Indeed, this word emphasizes that the receiver of thishelp is dependent upon the giver for it. Furthermore, Adam's helperis also described in Genesis 2:18, 20 by another Hebrew word whose basicroot meaning contains the idea of prominence or conspicuousness; its formthere in Genesis essentially means "as that which [prominently/conspicuously]corresponds to" Adam.

Thus, the author's choice of words cannot be used to imply that Eveoccupied a subordinate position relative to Adam. Instead, they reinforcethe idea that Adam was dependent upon her for help; note that both referencesto her as Adam's "help meet" in Genesis 2:18, 20 form part of the diagram(see above) which emphasizes her creation as the special (longed-for) completionof both Adam and mankind generally. She was a helper prominently correspondingto Adam--his equal partner.

The fifth element in the Creation story which is relevant to the issueof woman's relationship to man is the account in Genesis 2:21-23 of Evebeing created from one of Adam's ribs. The opponents of women's ordinationusually cite this fact as evidence that woman is subordinate to man becauseshe originated from him, not him from her. Humorously (again), one couldask which symbolism better illustrates a subordinate origin--having beencreated from the dirt (ie., Adam, 2:7) or having been created fromanother human being (ie., Eve, 2:21-23)? Probably neitherside in this debate really wants to go in that direction. In a more seriousdirection, the fact that the first woman was created from the first mandoes suggest her dependence upon him. But that just makes them even becauseboth the timing and the designation of Eve as Adam's "helper" (NKJV) suggeststhat he was also dependent upon her. Thus, there is a mutual dependencebetween the first man and the first woman.

The fact that she came from one of Adam's ribs means that she originatedfrom his side. If the origin of woman had come from his head, no doubtsome would argue that she was to be his head. And if woman was createdfrom his feet, this would suggest that he was free to trample on her ashe wished. However, like all the other evidence examined in this section,Eve's origin from Adam's side is fully consistent with the premise thatshe was to be his equal partner, neither to be his head nor his subordinate.In fact, the evidence, especially when viewed cumulatively, points overwhelminglytoward that conclusion.

Our analysis is further supported by the fact that only after the Fall(into sin) is there a clear change in the husband-wife relationship. Sinbrought a series of curses from the Lord upon the serpent (Genesis 3:14-15),the woman (3:16), and the man (3:17-19). Part of the curse that fell uponEve was that "he [her husband] shall rule over you" (3:16c, NKJV). If Adamhad been the head of Eve from the beginning of creation, the Lord's statementafter the Fall would have been meaningless.

In addition to the post-Fall Divine pronouncement that the husband would"rule over" his wife, it was only after the Fall that Adam namedhis wife (Genesis 3:20). In the Hebrew Old Testament, one who names anotherperson or an animal thereby demonstrates the right to exercise authorityover that person or animal. In a sense, that is still true. Don't parents,who name their children, have authority over them? And doesn't a personwho gives a name to a pet generally have authority over that pet? A thoroughcheck of the Old Testament with a good concordance will confirm the factthat whenever a superior named a subordinate, the word for "name" is alwayspresent. Thus, we may speak of a naming formula.⁽¹⁾Notice that this naming formula is present in Genesis 3:20, where Adamnamed his wife Eve.

Many opponents of women's ordination argue that Adam showed his authorityover his wife when he called her "woman" in Genesis 2:23, before the Fall.However, the word "name" is absent from the entire section dealing withcalling (as opposed to naming) his helper "woman" (2:21-23). The argumentthat Adam "called" (v. 23) her "woman" means that he "named" her, or thefact that he had just been naming the animals implies that he named her,fails to take note that an official formula requires all the precise, specificelements in the immediate context. This element (ie., the word "name")is specifically missing in the account of Eve's creation before the Fall;therefore, the passage cannot be used to demonstrate a headship-subordinaterelationship at the time of creation. Furthermore, the word "woman" isreally a category rather than a name or a proper noun. It is only afterthe Fall, in Genesis 3:20, that Adam gives his wife an actual name (ie.,Eve).

Although Genesis 1-3 does teach that the wife became subordinateto her husband as a result of the Fall, the reason or reasons are not explicitlystated in those chapters. Nevertheless, the implication is clear that itwas largely because Eve was deceived by the serpent (3:13) and exerciseda "spiritual leadership" role of encouraging Adam to sin also (3:6,12).The point seems to be that since sin entered the world, the human familyunit was quite vulnerable to Satan's attacks because he could play onemarriage partner off against the other much easier than he had the firsttime in Eden. In other words, because of sin, if the husband and wife bothremained equally responsible for exercising the proper spiritual leadershiprole in the family, the new natural (ie., sinful) tendency would be forneither one of them to exercise it. Therefore, the Lord wisely recognizedthat He would have to appoint one of them to be the ultimate authorityfor exercising such spiritual leadership in the family unit. And at leastpartly because of Eve's behavior in the sordid affair of mankind's Fall,the Lord chose the husband for this leadership (headship) role.

Despite the overwhelming nature of the evidence in Genesis 1-3 thatthe husband-wife relationship was an absolutely equal partnership untilafterthe Fall, questions arise and arguments are made on the basis of the apostlePaul's references to the Creation-Fall account and its effect on humanrelationships. The apostle Paul gives four specific reasons for the headship-subordinationrelationship between husbands and wives.⁽²⁾They are as follows: (1) woman was created from man (I Corinthians11:8); (2) woman was created for man (I Corinthians 11:9); (3) manwas createdbefore woman (I Timothy 2:13); and (4) woman was deceivedand fell into sin (I Timothy 2:14).

As we seek a proper interpretation of Paul's inspired writings on thesubject, there are two fundamental principles of interpretation which mustbe kept in mind. First, although a later inspired writer may certainlyclarify and/or provide additional applications of earlier inspired writings,the earlier material must either demand or allow for such clarificationor applications. In other words, because true inspiration cannot contradictitself, a later inspired author must be guided by the original text andits context in his/her own comments about it; he/she is not at libertyto completely rewrite its meaning.

For example, in Acts 2:16-21, the apostle Peter quotes Joel 2:28-32as that which was then occurring on the Day of Pentecost. Part of Joel2:28-32 refers to blood, fire, smoke, and phenomena involving the sun andmoon, none of which either the Bible or history records on the Day of Pentecostat the time of Acts 2. However, the context in Joel 2:28-32 is the lastdays because it is associated with "the coming of the great and awesomeday of the Lord" (v. 31b). The Old Testament speaks only of a single comingof the Lord, and therefore only one period of the last days. However, therejection of the Messiah by the Jews as a whole meant that He would haveto come back again at a later time; thus there is a first and second comingof Jesus Christ. For this reason, the New Testament authors may, and do,speak of Christ's first coming as the last days (Hebrews 1:1-2, etc.),as well as the unspecified brief period just before His second coming too(II Timothy 3:1; James 5:3,7). Furthermore, the outpouring of the Lord(and gifts from Him) is compared to rain (Hosea 6:3; 10:12, etc.), andJoel 2:23 refers to an early, or former, rain and a latter rain. On thisbasis, then, Peter could properly assert that the prophecy of Joel 2 wasbeing fulfilled in their hearing--as the early, or former, rain, whichwould then not require that everything in the original prophecy (ie., blood,fire, smoke, etc.) be fulfilled on that occasion. Of course, this meansthat there must also be a second, or final, application (ie., the latterrain) sometime just before the second coming of Christ.

This first fundamental principle of interpretation means that even theapostle Paul could not contradict the Genesis account as to the headshipissue, which clearly relates that Adam did not occupy the headship positionover Eve until after the Fall. The second basic principle of interpretationthat should be remembered as we seek a proper understanding of the apostlePaul's comments on the subject is that the reader must carefully analyzewhat he does not say as well as what he does say. While hedoes say that the location, purpose, and timing of the first woman's creationare part of the reasons that Eve was subordinate to her husband, he doesnot specifically state that she was subordinate to him before the Fall.In fact, in I Timothy 2:14, Paul includes the fact that Eve was deceivedand fell into sin as part of the reasons for her assuming a subordinateposition. Well, if part of the reasons for her subordinate position wasthe fact that she was deceived and thus sinned, then her subjection toAdam could not have occurred until after she sinned.⁽³⁾Therefore, Paul's statements about the location, purpose, and timing ofEve's creation as being part of the reason for her subjection to Adam musthave applied only after the Fall. They were given as additional reasonssince the Lord had to appoint one of them to assume the headship role inthe family. Thus, Paul is entirely consistent with the account in Genesis1-3.

Some opponents of women's ordination interpret Adam's role as the corporatehead of the human race, detailed in Romans 5:12-21 and I Corinthians 15:21-22,as meaning that he must have held this position since his creation. Thatis allegedly why Jesus Christ is called "the last Adam" (I Corinthians15:45) rather than the last Eve. Thus, if Adam was the corporate head ofthe human race from the time of his creation, then not only all husbands,but all men generally, must be the head of all women generally. However,Genesis 1-3 does not support any headship of Adam over Eve whatsoever untilafter the Fall, as we have demonstrated. So what made Adam the corporatehead of the human family? If it was not his creation, then what about hissin? Indeed, both Genesis 3 and the apostle Paul make a clear distinctionbetween the nature of Eve's sin and the nature of Adam's sin. Both indicatethat Eve was deceived into committing sin (see I Timothy 2:14), while Adamwas not. Therefore, his sin was even more grievous than hers because hecommitted it in full knowledge and with full mental capacity. His conscious,willful sin was like handing the rulership of the earth to Satan, who becameknown as "the prince of this world" (John 12:31; 14:30; 16:11, KJV) and"the god of this world" (II Corinthians 4:4, KJV). Because Jesus Christcame to reclaim the heavenly kingdom's dominion of the world from Satan,Jesus naturally is referred to as "the last Adam" rather than the lastEve. Thus, the nature of Adam's sin, as opposed to his wife's sin, is thereason that Adam can be called the corporate head of the human race whoseplace Jesus took during His first coming to the earth. And, therefore,Adam was not the corporate head of the human race until after he sinned;furthermore, it was not an honorable badge of headship when he "earned"that title, but rather a mark of humiliation that his particular sin wasresponsible for the earth being temporarily sold out to the devil! As such,it certainly has nothing to do with the headship of husbands over theirwives or any alleged headship of males over females.
 

III. The Headship Principle and the Church

As was stated in the first paragraph of the last section, an importantpremise of the opponents of women's ordination is that God establishedan order from the beginning in which He regarded Godly men, as opposedto women, as the spiritual leaders to occupy the headship positions amongHis people. For that reason, it is maintained, only men could become priestsin the Old Testament "church." Furthermore, this law of allowing only malepriests is alleged to have been based on the family structure, in whichthe husband/father was the priest of his home. Thus, the headship of thehusband in the home was the model for the headship positions in the church.These claims raise a number of questions: (1) Does the Bible in general,or the apostle Paul in particular, specifically teach the headship of menover women in the church?; (2) Does the Bible teach that the headship principlein the home is the model for the headship principle in the church?; (3)What is the nature of the headship principle in the family and in the church?;and (4) Is the male headship found in the Old Testament "church" necessarilyevidence of God's master plan for His people? The first three of thesequestions are the concern of this section; the last question is addressedin the following section.

Although the practice of the Old Testament "church" certainly reflectedan overwhelmingly male-dominated structure, there is no specific law orinstruction which declares that positions of spiritual headship must beoccupied by men as opposed to women. The only statement of headship, orrulership, involving the two genders among God's people is the Divine declarationto Eve that her "husband...shall rule over you" (Genesis 3:16, NKJV). Thecontext there confirms that "husband" is the correct translation of theHebrew. Thus, the only headship principle explicitly taught by way of aspecific instruction in the Old Testament is the headship of the husbandover his wife; the family unit is the clear focus of the passage.

In the New Testament, the following seven chapters clearly speak aboutsome kind of subordinate relationship between the genders among God's people:(1) I Corinthians 11; (2) I Corinthians 14; (3) Ephesians 5; (4) Colossians3; (5) I Timothy 2; (6) Titus 2; and (7) I Peter 3. The words variouslytranslated as "man," "woman," "husband(s)", and "wife(ves)" in those chaptersare swing nouns, which means that they may be translated as either"man" or "husband(s)," or as "woman" or "wife(ves)." The context shoulddetermine the translation. Remember that translators were and are not inspiredpersons in the Biblical sense of inspiration; thus, we should examine thepassages for ourselves to determine the correct meaning of those swingnouns.

The context is so obvious in Ephesians 5, Colossians 3, Titus 2, andI Peter 3 that the passages are speaking about the relationship of husbandsand wives that there is no controversy on that point. In addition, thosefour chapters do not provide any reasons for the headship of the husbandover the wife, but merely state that as fact, with most of them illustratingat least partiallyhow that principle should actually work. However,the other three chapters do offer some rationale for the headshipprinciple, and there is less unanimity among translators over how to translatethe swing nouns. Therefore, our focus must of necessity be placed on ICorinthians 11, I Corinthians 14, and I Timothy 2, to determine whetherthey are speaking about the relationship between husbands and their wivesor between men and women generally in the church.

In I Corinthians 11, the only specific command which the apostle Paulgives because of the headship principle is that women (or wives) shouldcover their heads. Historically, we know that in the 1^st-centuryJewish culture, the wearing of a veil was a symbol of the wife's subordinate,or submissive, relationship to her husband, and not to any subordinaterelationship to all men in general. This is strong evidence that the swingnouns in that chapter should be translated as "husband(s)" or "wife(ves)"rather than as "man (men)" or "woman (women)." This conclusion is reinforcedby evidence in chapter 14 of the same book that points clearly to the husband-wiferelationship. I Corinthians 14:34-35 obviously refers to that husband-wiferelationship for two reasons: (1) the reference to the "law" in verse 34as the basis for women (or wives) not speaking in church can only meanGenesis 3:16's statement to Eve that her husband would "rule over you"because, as we saw above, it is the only specific law or command in allof Scripture that mandates any subordinate relationship between the genders--andits context is specifically the husband-wife relationship; and (2) thekey clause of verse 35, "let them [women or wives] ask their own [husbands]at home," makes it obvious that the husband-wife relationship is intendedrather than a general man-woman relationship.

In I Timothy 2:11-12, Paul admonishes a "woman" (or "wife") to "learnin silence with all submission....[and] not...to teach or to have authorityover a man [or "husband"]." The same swing nouns are employed, with thecontext determining the translation. In this case, I Peter 3:1-6 representsa substantially parallel passage to it. In I Peter 3, the passage discussesthe wearing of jewelry and other adornment by women/wives in an undisputedcontext which refers to the submission of wives to their husbands. Thefact that I Timothy 2:9-12 also discusses the wearing of jewelry and otheradornment by women/wives, and then immediately follows with Paul's statementsabout the same gender learning in silence and not exercising authorityover a man, means that here too the husband-wife relationship is in viewrather than the more general man-woman relationship.

Therefore, it is our conclusion that in all seven New Testament chapterswhich explicitly refer to the subordination of one gender to another, thecommon sense rules of conservative Biblical interpretation mean that, ineach case, the subordination of the wife to her husband is the context.Thus, the answer to our question above, "Does the Bible in general, orthe apostle Paul in particular, specifically teach the headship of menover women in the church?", is no, they do not.

Now for our second question, "Does the Bible teach that the headshipprinciple in the home is the model for the headship principle in the church?"That is a question which the opponents of women's ordination answer inthe affirmative. But does it really? The only passage in the entire Biblewhich explicitly compares the headship principle in the church and in thehome is found in Ephesians 5. That chapter strongly implies that Christ,as head of the church, is the husband of it (or her). And because verses22-24 state that wives should submit to their husbands "just as the churchis subject to Christ" (verse 24), some argue that thereby the apostle Paulplaced men as the head of all women in the church. However, let us notget lost in Paul's analogy. He clearly declares that "Christ is the headof the church" (verse 23), not men. When he refers to the duties of Christianhusbands, notice that they are to follow the model of Christ: "Husbands,love your wives, just as Christ also loved the church..." (verse 25). Afterexplaining all that Christ did and does for the church (verses 26-27),then he admonishes that "So husbands ought to love their own wives..."(verse 28). Plainly, Christ's headship over the church is the model forthe husband's headship over his wife, not the other way around. To makethe husband's headship over the wife in the home the model for headshipin the church is to violate the teaching of Paul's analogy. It cannot bedone without wresting the Scriptures!

By necessary implication, Ephesians 5 teaches something positive aboutthe relationship of men and women in the church. Since Christ is the husband(or head) of His bride (ie., the church), and she (ie., the church) consistsof both men and women, then both men and women equally make up His bride(ie., the church). Therefore, both men and women in the church are equallysubordinate to Christ. How, then, could this passage of Scripture meanthat men are to exercise all headship positions in the church over allwomen? Obviously, it could not--unless, of course, one taught that, whileall are equal in the church, some are more equal than others!⁽⁴⁾

Not only does the Bible not use the husband-wife relationshipas a model for the headship principle in the church (in either the OldTestament or the New Testament), but the existence of several women inScripture chosen by God Himself to exercise authority in the Old Testament"church" proves that no follower of God should use it in that way either.Miriam (Exodus 15:20), Deborah (Judges 4:4), and Huldah (II Kings 22:14)were all prophets (or prophetesses) of the Lord in Israel. This means thatthey all possessed the authority to teach spiritual matters. Deborah, inparticular, stands out because she was also a judge in Israel, which meansthat the people--both men and women--came to her for judicial rulings inlegal and other matters (Judges 4:5). Thus, she exercised a judicial, oradministrative, authority over men also.⁽⁵⁾This is especially pertinent when we note that this was during the periodof the judges, when there was no king in Israel; the judges were the highesthuman authorities in the nation-church. Certainly, these facts add proofto our earlier conclusion that the apostle Paul's statement in I Timothy2:11-12 (about not teaching or otherwise exercising authority over men)is not a statement of Divine eternal principle, but a specific standardwhich fit the culture of that time and place.⁽⁶⁾

The opponents of women's ordination, however, generally counter thatthe women who exercised leadership roles in the Old Testament "church"did not occupy any headship positions within the spiritual organizationof God's people. They insist that a prophet, or prophetess, was never appointedto an official decision-making position in Israel or the New Testamentchurch. They were merely God's spokespersons who sometimes counseled thespiritual and political authorities to do certain things, but that it wasup to those appointed authorities to heed the Divine counsel or not. Asfor Deborah, again the opponents stress that she never exercised her authoritywithin the spiritual dimension of Israel; that was left to the priests,who were all men.

These objections raised by the opponents of women's ordination deserveserious attention. Could there be merit in them? The serious question whichthey raise is, "What is the nature of the headship principle in the familyand in the church?" Again, the only passage in the entire Bible which explicitly,and most thoroughly, discusses how the headship principle shouldwork in the family and in the church is Ephesians 5. If the critics ofwomen's ordination are correct, we should find evidence that headship primarilyinvolves authority, and that in the church, the emphasis is on submissionto that authority through obedience to an official head.

When one reads and carefully examines Ephesians 5, one is struck bythe absence of what human beings usually think of as authority andobedience to it. Instead, the basis for headship--both Christ's over thechurch and the husband's over his wife--is love and servant-hood. Thereare the initial statements about wives submitting to their husbands andbeing subject to them in everything, but when the headship-submissive relationshipis defined, the focus is on the husband loving his wife just as Christloved the church and "gave Himself for her" (verse 25, NKJV). This is acall for humility, not the exercise of kingly authority--the same kindof humility which Christ demonstrated in emptying Himself of the gloriesof heaven in order to bring salvation to a lost planet. (See Philippians2:5-11.) In other words, Christ put Himself beneath and before His bride(ie., the church) to serve her in order that she might be beautiful andsaved. Likewise, the husband's headship is to be exercised in the sameself-sacrificing manner. If exercising headship in the church meant occupyingan official decision-making position within it, one would have expectedPaul to call for obedience to Christ as King of Kings and Lord of Lords--Onewho ruled from His heavenly throne with the Father. Instead, He exercisesHis headship over the church by loving it in humility as a servant in orderto draw it ever closer to Himself and His character. That is Bible headship!

Now it should be clear that Bible headship in the church does not necessarilyinvolve the occupation of a particular office, in which decision-makingis a key component. So now let us go back to Miriam, Deborah, and Huldah.As prophetesses, their spiritual counsels to men and women did indeed constitutespiritual headship in the Old Testament "church" because such counselswere given to either keep God's people close to Him or to woo them backinto a closer relationship with Him. Just as Christ, acting in His roleas the Head of the church, woos His people by His loving appeals and actsof humility, so did true prophets and prophetesses. And Deborah, the judge,also exercised spiritual headship in the same "church" because her rulings,as well as her military leadership against Jabin (the Canaanite king),were spiritually led by the Holy Spirit through her gift of prophecy. Itshould be obvious, then, that it is an artificial, man-made distinctionto maintain that only those who occupy actual decision-making offices withinthe church are exercising spiritual headship in the church. To believethat is to misunderstand the nature of spiritual headship as taught inthe Word of God, for headship is not necessarily the occupation of a particularchurch office, but a spiritual leadership role in calling people to loveand obey the Lord.
 

IV. Literalistic Versus Holistic Hermeneutics

Opponents of women's ordination point to the male-dominant structureamong both the Old Testament and New Testament people of God as evidencethat such male dominance is God's will. For example, the Old Testamentpriesthood was reserved only for men; only men served as elders or deaconsin the New Testament Church; and only men assumed the visible leadershiprole in evangelism and establishing new churches (Paul, Silas, Barnabas,etc.).

There is no dispute about the obvious fact that men held a virtual monopolyof the leadership (headship) roles and positions among God's people inboth testamental periods. However, the real issue here is whether thishistorical fact represented God's express will or merely a reflection ofthe culture in which they lived. In other words, should we make the assumptionthat what God allowed is what He willed for His people? Manysincere believers have made this assumption in dealing with other issues.For example, nowhere in Scripture is human slavery condemned or prohibitedamong God's people. On the contrary, the Old Testament even provided forcertain regulations of slavery in the Hebrew nation. And in the New Testament,the apostle Paul instructed a runaway slave to return to his master inthe book of Philemon. These facts were viewed by most white Southernersduring the pre-Civil War period as positive proof that God emphaticallyapproved of slavery. It cannot be denied that such an interpretation wasthe result of a literalistic approach to the Bible, one in which it wasassumed that what God permitted and gave instructions about He approvedof in a positive sense. Historically, what many anti-slavery American Christianscountered this view with is the same holistic hermeneutical approach tothe Bible which answers our question about the role of men and women inthe church.

Clearly, the Bible does not teach us that everything which Godpermits He also commands. The history of this earth is full of murder,mayhem, disease, natural disasters, and other sordid tragedies. But thesecannot rightfully be charged to God. Sin has contaminated the populationof the earth, and Satan has been exercising the principles of hiskingdom to the universe. And while God has permitted Satan and hishuman followers to do much wickedness, it is certainly not His willthat these practices exist!

As far as the practices among His own professed people are concerned,Scripture indicates that the Lord must sometimes take His people wherethey are and move them slowly toward His ideal for them. For example, inI Corinthians 10:13, the apostle Paul encourages Christian believers bytelling us that God never allows us to experience a temptation which isbeyond our ability to bear. The Greek word translated "temptation" in thatpassage is much broader than merely being tempted to sin; it also meansto experience troubles or adversity in general. This principle was perfectlyillustrated much earlier in Biblical history, when God led the Israelitesout of Egypt via a longer route in order to avoid warfare (Exodus 13:17-18);He did not wish to discourage them because they were not ready for warfareso soon after their experience as slaves. In John 16:12, Jesus told Hisdisciples that He had many things to say to them, but they could not bearthem at that time; the same thought is implied in Mark 4:33. Thus, it isclear that God did not correct every misunderstanding among His peoplein the past. But He took them where they were, and when He knew they wereready, He showed them His ideal so that they would eventually reach it.

Anti-slavery American Christians reminded their countrymen during thedays of slavery that the character of God certainly makes human slaverycontrary to His will, and that in their ignorance, He toleratedit in Biblical times. Now that Christian history had advanced their understandingof God's ideal, slavery could not be justified on the basis of a literalisticreading of certain Bible passages. Few today would challenge the truthfulnessof the anti-slavery response to those believers who attempted to use theBible to defend slavery in early American history. This, in fact, may havea parallel to the issue being addressed in this study. Therefore, it isappropriate for us to inquire as to whether or not the Lord has given anyevidence of His fundamental will concerning the relationship of men andwomen to each other in the church. If He has, and if it is contrary tothe idea of excluding a believer from any role or position in the churchon the basis of gender, then there can be no theological justificationfor prohibiting the ordination of women.

Although volumes could be written on this subject, there are at leasttwo outstanding, clear statements of God's will concerning the relationshipof men and women, generally speaking, in the Bible. First, Genesis 1:26-28uses the unambiguous terms "male" and "female"--words which cannotbe translated as "husband" and "wife"--to tell us that both genders werecreated in God's image. Furthermore, the literary positioning in theseverses (see Section II) points to the conclusion that the fact that bothare created in God's image is the very reason they are both given"dominion" (or headship) of the earth and its creatures.⁽⁷⁾It is true that sin resulted in this dominion being given to Satan temporarily,but the Divine ideal was clearly stated there, and it (the ideal) doesnot change because of sin. Indeed, although sin has marred the image ofGod in humanity, and their dominion is not as complete as was originallyintended, human beings are still obligated to rule the earth as God's stewardsaccording to the capacity they still have.⁽⁸⁾Thus, outside the marriage relationship, Scripture regards men and womenas equally responsible for what might be called diminished dominion. Inother words, Genesis 1:26-28 fundamentally points to the equality of headship,an equality which was not altered by sin, as was the case of headship inthe home.

Second, and probably the most magnificent statement on human relationsin all the Bible, is the clear statement in Galatians 3:28:

There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, thereis neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus. (NKJV)

Obviously, this text does not abolish the actual distinctions amongpeople. There are still different nationalities, different social classes,and the two different genders. However, the church is not to use thesedifferences to determine how members should be treated. Supporters of women'sordination view this passage as sweeping aside all theological justificationsfor denying ordination to qualified women on the same grounds that ethnic,racial, and social class differences should not be used to deny spirituallyqualified persons ordination. Opponents of women's ordination, however,tend to interpret Paul's declaration in the more restricted sense thatevery genuine Christian believer is equally saved in Christ, regardlessof the national origin, race, social class, or gender of the person. Whichview of Galatians 3:28 is correct? Is the passage a broad statement ofequality among believers, or is it merely emphasizing the reality thatall persons, regardless of other differences among them, are eligible forsalvation in Jesus Christ?

To answer that question honestly, first we must ask ourselves if itis really possible for an equal status in Christ to exist without a correspondingequal status among all believers. In other words, can the vertical relationship(with Christ) exist without having any meaningful effect on the horizontalrelationships (with humanity)? Hardly. If Christianity means anything,it means that Christ changes the heart so that a person becomes a new personin his/her relationships with others. Note that in John 17:11, 21-23, Jesusprayed that His followers would be "one" among themselves just as He andHis Father were "one" with each other. The gospel always makes this difference!

Second, this very principle is illustrated in the same book. In Galatians2:11-13, the apostle Paul relayed a previous incident concerning the apostlePeter, in which Paul scolded Peter for refusing to eat with Gentiles inthe company of other Jews. So Paul is trying to say that we should nottreat other believers differently because of their ethnic background. Therelationship with Christ translates into an equality of standing with others,especially within the church.

Third, there is a fascinating relationship between Paul's statementin Galatians 3:28 and the prayer of Pharisees in his day. Pharisees typicallythanked God in prayer that they had "not been born a Gentile, a slave,or a woman." As a former Pharisee, the apostle Paul must certainly haveprayed that Pharisees' prayer himself. Notice that the three classificationsof people in that prayer---Gentiles, slaves, and women--appear in the sameorder in Galatians 3:28. The difference, however, is that in the Scripture,all barriers between people are obliterated in Christ. Is this a mere coincidence?No. Here Paul is specifically repudiating his former belief that free Jewishmen were superior to Gentiles, slaves, and women.

Does this fact have relevance for the subject of our study? At thispoint, critics of women's ordination usually argue that, of course, everychild of God should be treated with dignity and respect. However, it isalleged that this does not mean that God did not give men and women differentroles and positions in the church. But a conclusion that Christians shouldtreat all people with dignity and respect as children of God falls farshort of the impact of Paul's statement. With each human category, theapostle uses the phrase, "there is neither...nor...." The most obviouspoint of this phraseology is that believers should not take into accountthe fact that another believer is a Gentile, a slave, or a woman, becauseas far as God is concerned, these distinctions do not matter. This impliesthat no one should be denied a role or position in the church simply onthe basis of nationality, social class, or gender. In other words, thepassage strongly appears to be a sweeping statement of the equality ofall believers in the church.⁽⁹⁾

This conclusion is emphatically confirmed by the careful way in whichthe apostle Paul wrote the last clause of the verse: "for [because] youare all one in Christ Jesus." Please notice that he didnot saythat the reason for the "neither...nor..." statements is because "you areall in Christ Jesus." Nor did he say that it is because "you are all onewithChrist Jesus." Either alternate wording would have made it very clear thatPaul was simply stating that each individual believer is equally in a savingrelationship with Christ. In other words, the passage would then clearlypoint to the vertical relationship between each believer and Christ withoutspecifying a corresponding equality among themselves--respect, yes, butequality, no. But Paul did not write it that way. Instead, he declaredthat "you are all one in Christ Jesus." This is the same thing assaying that they are all one with eachother because of theirposition in Christ Jesus! Therefore, the evidence overwhelmingly testifiesthat Christ's ideal for His church is that it should reflect the equalityof all believers by refusing to use ethnic, racial, social class, or genderdifferences as a basis for anything--including the selection of officersor pastors.

Thus far in this section of our study we have established the principlethat God does not always desire what He sometimes permitsHis people to do. Rather, in His own infinite wisdom, He sometimes allowsthem to practice less than the ideal because they are not ready to facethe full impact of a particular Divine truth yet. But sooner or later,His actions and statements provide glimpses of the ideal for His people.And when the time is right, they move in the direction of the Divine ideal.These facts, therefore, make it dangerous to assume that the virtual malemonopoly of "headship" roles among God's people in the Old and New Testamenttimes actually reflects God's express will. Indeed, when we examined evidenceof His ideal regarding the relationship between men and women outside thefamily unit, we discovered that it reveals a complete equality in whichgender should play no factor in determining activity, office, or positionwithin the church. We also noted that, at times, women assumed roles ofspiritual headship as prophetesses and/or judges in Biblical times. Althoughsuch times were rare, the fact that God Himself called them to serve inthose capacities at all proves that there is no Divine, eternal principlemandating that only men may exercise the role of spiritual headship inthe church.

These same facts also argue that Christians must view the entire Biblein a holistic way rather than interpreting specific texts in a literalisticmanner which ignores God's ideal. This does not mean that we should notinterpret the Bible literally in most places. If we didn't interpret theBible literally except where it is obviously using poetic or figurativelanguage, then we could make the Bible say anything we want it to. At thesame time, we must not lose sight of the forest for the trees either, forthis is how pro-slavery Americans once used the Bible to defend slavery.When we do that, then we are guilty of using the Bible against itself!And we certainly do not want to find ourselves in that untenable situation.Thus, when we speak of a literalistic interpretation, we do notthereby open the proverbial "can of worms" for us to make up our own truth;the Bible itself must be our guide--but it must be all of the Bible(including statements of His ideal), not an isolated part.

A literalistic approach to Scripture results in another problem, whichis illustrated concerning our present subject. I Timothy 3:1-13 and Titus1:5-9 lay out the qualifications for a bishop (or elder or pastor) anda deacon in the church. These passages refer to men as holders of bothchurch offices, and as such, they are often used by opponents of women'sordination as alleged proof that women are forever prohibited from spiritualheadship roles in the church. Once again, however, we need to ask ourselveswhether this is God's express will for His church, or whether the apostleis simply assuming, in the context of his culture, that only men will begiven serious consideration for those positions (or that the husband-wifeheadship principle would appear to be violated in that culture if womenwere sometimes placed in those positions). Given the evidence from Scriptureabout God's ideal for His church, and our belief that all Scripture isconsistent with itself, it seems clear that this is a presumption ratherthan a command of God, as far as eternal principle is concerned. This conclusionis considerably enhanced when one reads in the same two passages that menwho serve in these positions must be the husband of one wife and must haveobedient children. Now does that mean that an elder or deacon--and a pastor,for an elder is the equivalent to a pastor--must be a married man withmore than one child? If so, then what are the theological reasons for thesecircumstances? You may search the Scriptures forever, and you will notfind any theological rationale, by command or otherwise, that a leaderamong God's people must be married, let alone have children (in the pluralor the singular). Indeed, if that were true, then the apostle Paul himselfwould be disqualified because he was not married at the time of his apostleship(I Corinthians 7:7-8)! Furthermore, in I Corinthians 7, Paul actually recommendsthe unmarried lifestyle for believers. Was he thereby prohibiting an entireclass of church members--even unmarried men--from serving in those positions?What if everyone in the church took his advice and remained single? Then,from a literalistic viewpoint of Scripture, no one could serve in thesechurch offices. How ridiculous! The apostle was simply assuming, in thecontext of his culture, that only men would be chosen to serve in thosecapacities. He further assumed that a man of maturity would (despite Paul'spersonal convictions on the matter) be a married man, and that as such,he would probably have children. The focus on the husband of one wife isan obvious reference to a moral issue; and the focus on children beingobedient is on the behavior of any children. In other words, if the manhas a family, which is most likely, then his entire family should representChrist as well as his own life.

A related issue is the matter of consistency of practice in the church.IfChristians are supposed to ignore God's ideal for men and women in thechurch and interpret the apostle Paul's statements about women's behaviorin the church recorded in I Corinthians 11, 14, and I Timothy 2 as expressionsof God's eternal will (which they shouldn't), then consistency demandsthe following practices be strictly obeyed: (1) women (or at least wives)should cover their heads with a veil whenever they are in church; (2) women(or at least wives) should remain absolutely silent, never speaking a singleword, in the church; and (3) women (or at least wives) should never teachin the church, at least not if men are present. If interpreted literallyas binding upon all Christians in all ages, then women (at least marriedwomen) could not lead out in one single activity in the church. Presumably,this would include leading out in children's ministries too if one tookthe command to remain silent as an absolute command. Yet the great majorityof churches today do allow women the right to lead out and teach in allparts of the church, including when men are in their Bible classes. Nowwe're not using the current practice of the church to define what truthis. However, the fact is that I do not know a single opponent of women'sordination who actually believes that the above prohibitions should beapplied in the church today. Yet those same believers vehemently opposethe ordination of women. What does that tell us? It tells us that theytoo recognize that culture played the determining factor in Paul's specificcounsels about women in the church. And although the critics admit thatthe veil, silence, and prohibition of teaching are not valid or necessaryin the church today (at least in the Western part of the world), they stillcling to the view that women are to be subordinate to men with regard tocertain offices in the church. But as we have seen in this section, theevidence is not there to support that belief.
 

V. Applying the Headship Principle in the 1^stCentury A.D.

In Section III we learned that the New Testament in general, and theapostle Paul's writings in particular, strongly support the concept ofthe headship of the husband over his wife. We also learned that in thecontroversial passages about women in the church--I Corinthians 11, 14,and I Timothy 2--the apostle Paul was speaking about the husband-wife relationship,not the more general male-female relationship. And concerning the admonitionthat wives wear a veil in the church, we noted that this was a sign ofa wife's subordination to her husband in the culture of Paul's day.

In a time and place when women, both married and unmarried, were tobe seen (partially) but not heard publicly, it is perfectly understandablethat the apostle would prohibit wives from speaking or teaching in thechurch.⁽¹⁰⁾ If they had done so on a regularbasis, surely this would have sent a message to the people of that culturethat Christian wives did not respect their husbands as the heads of theirhomes. Wouldn't this have unnecessarily hampered the spread of the gospel?The same apostle Paul showed great concern for the principle that believersshould, within the limits of God's specific requirements, act in a waythat promotes acceptance of the gospel rather than on insisting upon one'sown rights. In I Corinthians 9:19-23, he makes this principle unmistakablyclear. Thus, whatever hinders the work of saving souls should be avoidedamong God's people even if it is legitimate in its own right.

At the same time, however, wherever a culture permits it, the churchshould move toward the Divine ideal as enunciated in Scripture. Regardingthis issue, then, the church has an obligation to seriously consider spirituallyqualified women for positions of spiritual leadership at all levelsof the church if a particular culture permits this practice--inother words, if by doing so, the church does not cut off its influenceon behalf of the gospel.
 

VI. The Meaning of Ordination

An integral part of the entire issue of the role of women in the churchis the issue of ordination. The church ordains--or publicly and formallysets apart--certain members to serve as elders and full-time pastors. Butwhat is ordination anyway? It should come as no surprise to anyone thatthe two different perspectives on the role of women in the church alsodiffer about the meaning, or at least the emphasis, of ordination. Opponentsof women's ordination generally emphasize that, in ordination, the churchexercises its authority to bestow certain functional authority upon a personwho assumes that particular office. On the other hand, supporters of women'sordination generally emphasize that, in ordination, the church exercisesits authority by officially recognizing a person's spiritual gifts as evidencethat the Holy Spirit has called that person to a special office of ministry.Most advocates of the first view will acknowledge the second view to bea correct statement, but the difference in emphasis is what makes the differencebetween these two perspectives. In the first view, the emphasis is on theauthority of the church and the prestige of the office to which a personis ordained, while in the second view, the emphasis is on the yieldingby the church to what the Holy Spirit has already done in the life of theperson to be ordained.

Which of these two perspectives does the Bible endorse? First, we mustnote that the modern use of ordination in the church is based on the New Testament practice of the laying on of hands to consecrate persons to certainministries, which in turn, had its origins in the Old Testament. Thus,a brief exploration of this Biblical usage should enable us to answer thisquestion about the ess