I thought I would start a discussion about women clergy in the church.
This is particularly relevant as our church is having it’s AGM this Thursday and the Vicar is quite strongly opposed to women in positions of authority above men.
Also recently at our church we had a meeting about third provenance in the Church of England. The crazy thing is the main reason for creating this provenance is so the Anglican church can split from the part that wants female bishops. I really struggle to find where in the Bible it says female can’t be in leadership positions in the church.
Some ideas from a theologically very sound friend:
Paul says in Timothy that he does not allow women leaders, but he also says in Galatians that “in Christ, there is neither male nor female, Jew nor Greek, but we are all one.”
Jesus never appointed any female apostles, but if he had his movement would probably have been discredited as people would have accused him of taking women with him on his missions for sex. When we think of the way God created, it was as a partnership and thoughts of superiority and lordship came after the fall, and one might think that the Christian goal was to try to get beyond the fall.
Coming from a country that actually had the first female bishop and was first to allow females to vote I have issues seeing past this just being a traditionalist view rather than one that comes from the biblical authority.
I know there have been some bad female bishops but male bishops can be equally terrible - incompetence is not bestowed by gender, more by the politics that often fuel these things.
Some general thoughts from another anonymous friend:
If a woman can be a priest then there is no logical argument again a woman becoming a bishop
I can see no strong Biblical reason why women shouldn’t become priests.
Depends on your interpretation of 1 Tim 3. Do you think Paul is speaking culturally or not?
8 Comments
Darrin and I lead a few studies on this a couple of years ago for our home group. We spent quite a bit of time finding arguments both for and against it, and ended up with about 10 on each side.
We both reached the conclusion that there was no problem with having women in church leadership (although some of the females in our group disagreed!), as the arguments for women in church leadership were more compelling that those against.
I can only partially remember them off the top of my head, so I’ll have a hunt around tonight to see if I can find them and will post them on my blog.
I think that the answer actually turns on how you interpret 1 Ti 2:9-14 and Ga 3:26-29, if either are eternal arguments, or culturally bound, and which should be given precedence.
1 Ti 3 gives the requirements for overseers and deacons, and while it definately uses the male pronoun, and says that the overseer must be “the husband of one but wife”, I don’t think that this passage is argument against (or for) women in leadership. Paul is contrasting “the husband of but one wife” with being the husband of many wives.
You asked me for some comment James, I’ve ended up writing an epistle!
3 months ago I would have made the following statement on the matter of women in leadership:
? Paul and Peter’s teachings, as recorded in The Bible, are clear that women are not to have positions of authority over men, and are not to teach and instruct men
? The teachings of the whole Bible are generally consistent with my personal convictions that result from my experience as a Christian
? If I dismiss these teachings of Paul and Peter then what’s to stop me dismissing other teachings in The Bible
? Why should I dismiss these teachings when the idea of men carrying the burden of authority and responsibility seems to make much more sense than a women having to do so, given that by nature and tradition masculinity is better suited to such stresses than the more soft, sweet and sensitive femininity - the “weaker vessel” as Peter puts it
However, I have been taking a raincheck in the last few months about the way I handle scripture and truth, and whether or not it is necessary to consider the entire bible as universally accurate. I have realised that those more fundamental aspects of my Chistian faith, such as grace, sin, atonment, salvation, sanctification, love, mercy, forgiveness, courage, fearlessness, honour, dignity, chastity, self-control, are real to me whether they are written in a book or not. They are real to me because they are the result of a relationship with a real Jesus, not just because I read a book. Sure, that book helps me discover who the real Jesus is, but Jesus uses The Bible, not vice versa.
So given I am open to idea that not all of the teachings of The Apostles may be universally accurate, this only leaves my personal convictions to deal with. Given I rely on my personal convictions with regards to knowing Christ, his love, redemption and sanctification (by God’s grace, of course), it is a challenge to call into question convictions on other matters. However, in the matter of women in leadership I have realised those convictions I have held are not necessarily grounded in the more fundamental convictions of the faith listed above.
I have instead become open to the possibility that these “convictions” may be the result of my own insecurities as much as anything, as they may have been for The Apostles and the communities with which they interacted. Rather than making sense in the light of the gospel, my ideas about masculinity and femininity, and women in leadership, make as much sense in the light of my own insecurities about the future, and my own selfish desires for power and identity.
But, let me be clear - I have not “given up” my aversion to women in leadership as a result of this consideration. I remain very uncomfortable with the thought of going against teachings recorded in The Bible, which have been interpreted fairly consistently ever since they were written. I am also uncomfortable endorsing something that seems more the result of a worldly humanist movement than being something that has come from within the church. As a person who recognises the ideals of duty, humility and servanthood, and despises the egotistical ideas of the “self-realisation” of humanism, I remain very skeptical of the way the current move to include women in leadership has arisen within the environment of the latter. I also think we still have little understanding of the way in which allowing women the burden of leadership can affect their femininity, their personality and their role as a mother. We have little understanding of the effect of this on children, or on husbands, and given the state of so many children and husbands in our communities today one can only wonder if there is a connection.
I ponder that if I was a woman I would probably quite happily resign myself to working within the male leadership that God has provided, despite its imperfections, in much the same way I do with my submission to parental and church authority. I would much rather tradition and The Bible decide for me my rights and calling than consider myself wiser than such a vast accumulation of wisdom.
So at this stage in my Christian journey I am in two minds. I recognise my convictions could actually be rooted as much in a selfish egotistical attitude as they are in a humble, spirit-led attitude. Nonetheless, in true eldest-child conservative spirit I still have too many reservations to endorse the inclusion of women in leadership. If I had to make a decision on the matter tomorrow I would have to take a precautionary approach and not endorse the inclusion of women in leadership. However, I would not separate myself from those who do, and I am concerned it seems your church’s desire is to do so.
I have actually rejoined the Anglican church this year after checking out every church in my home town. I felt this church was most relevant to my spiritual needs and to the needs of my peers, yet it is presided over by a female priest. Her teaching is excellent, as is her leadership, and I respect her for that. I respect that, while I have certain views, I am not entrusted to leadership thus my views are largely irrelevant. She will be held accountable for her decision to act as a priest, as will those leaders who elected her there, and as will the authorities she has in her own personal life. But as far as I’m concerned the issue does not compromise the fundamental message that is the good news of Jesus Christ, and I count the priest and the congregation as my mother, brothers and sisters in Christ.
So that is my position, as a Christian in submission to church authority. It would be more complicated if I had ecclesial authority to make that decision, as I would then have to take the rap and face the consequences of that decision. It is very easy to understand the matter from a feminist perspective, to see the current situation as merely sexist oppression, and to resolve it by appropriating the love, grace and freedom of Christ, liberating women from perceived political oppression, and giving them the opportunity to contribute equally in the field of leadership. It is also clear that the contribution of women to the theory of leadership over the last 50 years has in fact been very valuable. These factors would put huge pressures on the so-called “convictions” I have, and it would take a lot of prayer for me to reach a conclusion. I would have to ponder how much responsibility would be on my shoulders for that decision, and how much on the shoulders of those who pressure me. The answer to that prayer would determine the outcome of such a decision.
The difficult thing about making the call from a position of authority is the matter of how responsible a man is for the behaviour of a woman when she is theoretically under his authority. If she desires to and successfully usurps a man’s authority, how accountable is her leader to God for that behaviour? Does he simply allow her to usurp that authority and, in a way, submit to her? Would this not be absolving himself of his responsibility for his behaviour? What other option does he have? Should he separate himself from her?
The contemporary understanding of male headship (Ephesians 5), in marriage, is that while a man is responsible before God for the family, this doesn’t mean he is THE AUTHORITY. But does this mean a man is responsible for a woman’s behaviour whether she submits to him or not? The language of Ephesians actually seems to imply this is so - that if a man nourishes his wife, as his body, he will not be confronted with such problems. As long as he loves her, then, whether or not she submits to his “authority” should not be an issue, as his love will “sanctify her and make her whole, as Christ’s love sanctifies the church” (Ephesians 5). It is therefore because of the power of his love that a man is held responsible by God for the marriage, and for the family.
Thus, what is more important than whether or not women are given the burden of leadership, is whether or not we offer them our love. If we are satisfied we are fulfilling Ephesians 5 and loving our wives as Christ loves the church, and loving female Christians as sisters, then we can be assured their desire for power is actually coming from a sanctified spiritual condition. If we are unsure whether or not we are loving our wives, we are not in a position to assume the responsibility of leadership ourselves. Perhaps, as was the case with the Prophet Deborah, God is calling such women to ministry because they actually have more capability and more courage to offer than the men of today.
Wow thanks Dave and Chez,
The interpretation of 1 Ti 2:9-14 and Ga 3:26-29 is obviously very important.
Chez you’ve written a essay mate.
I agree with you view that man has been given spiritual authority over the household.
I guess I struggle slightly with a potential split over this issue. Especially because a couple of centuries ago when Wesley was preaching that it’s wrong to have black slaves people probably said he was a heretic.
Now it’s biblical to have slaves but we now accept that this no longer appropriate.
Is it no longer appropriate for females to just do what males tell them in church?
Our Vicar emphasise that it’s men’s fault that females are in positions of leadership. He thinks the same is really on the men. When Deborah has been raised previously he suggested that it was because there were just no decent men around.
I also need to bring in the issue of the testimony this debate has for non Christians. A homeless guy that was at church sat in on the third province meeting at church. His view was the Vicar and much of the congregation and male chauvinist pigs. And during a soup run asked me my opinions worried that I was just like them.
I guess what I am saying is:
Should the church be counter cultural on this issue? It seems to be causing yet another riff which just makes people outside the church think Christians are religious bigots.
It is important to note that apostolic teaching on slavery is very different to teaching on women in leadership. There is no such teaching that requires Christians to have slaves. Paul does say that if one is a slave it is good to remain so and serve his master as he serves The Lord. But he also encourages Philemon to consider releasing his slave Onisemus and rather receive him as a brother (Philemon 1:16).
The abolition of slavery did not challenge apostolic teaching in the way the issue of women in leadership does today. There is no scripture that says “A slave should not be freed”, but there is scripture saying “A woman should not be allowed to have authority over a man” (1 Tim 2:12).
It is not a matter of “females just doing what males tell them in church”. If that is what male headship looks like in your church then perhaps you need women clergy. Christian male headship is not command-and-control dictatorship, it is self-sacrificial love a la Ephesians 5.
What we need to do is not just quit having the debate because we’re scared of looking like chauvenist pigs. If we did that the homeless guy might criticise us for not being honest and not taking the Bible seriously, and being a pack of hypocrites. What we need to do is learn how to have this discussion without appearing like chauvenist pigs, but rather in a spirit of love, truth and humility.
I’ve just posted further thoughts on this on my website. Basically its the notes from the study I was involved with leading a few years ago, with a little elaboration, which I managed to dig up last night. You can find it at http://www.cloudsofheaven.org/2006/03/women-in-church-leadership.html.
AJ, I think you’ve written really insightful posts here. Good stuff.
I see there is some excellent debate on this subject on Dave’s page.