The issue of what is theologically acceptable in women’s ministry is not simply a choice between two options but from amongst a significant number of positions forming a theological near continuum. The following outlines the main separation points and the reasoning behind and a brief assessment of each.
Women's ministry is a particular aspect of general Biblical teaching on gender, from God's created order (Genesis 2) and fallen order (Genesis 3), through to God's renewed creation order expressed in the Christian community and church (1 Timothy 2, Colossians 3, Ephesians 5, 1 Corinthians 11 & 14, 1 Peter 3, & Galatians 3 amongst others). Within this, and for women's ministry issues in particular, much of the debate revolves around how 1 Timothy 2v11-15 is to be understood. This analysis focuses, therefore, on the various ways 1 Timothy 2 is understood in itself and in relation to other relevant passages, especially Genesis 1-3 and Galatians 3v28. The pertinent material in 1 Corinthians 11 & 14, Ephesians 5 and 1 Peter 3 also requires attention.
Three broad categories may be used to distinguish the various positions; no restriction, some restriction and complete restriction. Each of these are held from a range of different reasons that need to be distinguished.
1. No Restriction
i.The Bible and Paul are wrong at those points which (apparently) restrict women’s ministry. This is sometimes put as Paul not yet having properly grasped the gospel or its implications.
This critically contradicts the Biblical doctrine of Scripture as the Word of God authoritative for faith and practice and so incompatible with any evangelical theology.
ii. Paul’s restrictions in 1Tim.2 address particular problems and excesses at Ephesus, such as excesses overflowing from the fertility cult to Artemis. Examples of this approach include Carey, the Kroegers, Giles (in Women in the Church) and the articles in EDT and DOPAH.
There is, however, no reference to this in the text. The proponents speculatively introduce qualifying conditions into the passage. Negation of such specific problems would naturally involve some explicit indicators in the text. Paul speaks instead in universal terms reasoning generally from Adam and Eve. The Kroeger’s supposed church situation has been convincingly repudiated, for instance, by Baugh ('A Foreign World: Ephesus in the First Century' in Women in the Church - A Fresh Analysis of 1 Timothy 2:9-15).
iii. Restrictions on women’s ministry are only cultural, conforming to the prevalent patriarchal culture. This is perhaps the commonest and simplest argument against restrictions.
Paul reasons, however, pan-culturally from the situation of Adam and Eve before various cultures divided and developed. Contrary to simplistic assessments of complete male dominance women did at times play significant and lead roles in families, societies and churches (See Baugh). Furthermore, at other points the Lord and Apostles were prepared to be counter-cultural. Why not on this issue? Why be determined by culture on this issue? The rise of the women’s ordination push can sociologically be related, instead, to the rise of feminism in wider western culture.
iv. Restrictions on women’s ministry belong to the sinful post-fall condition undone and reversed in Christ. Male leadership is asserted as only arising after the Fall, not part of the initial created conditions and so to be undone with the coming of redemption in Christ. Galatians 3v28, which states that there is neither male or female in Christ, is proposed as the correct gospel starting point or breakthrough point, which supposedly Paul only slowly allowed to affect his fuller theological thinking and ministry practices. Examples of this approach include Wilson (in The Bible & Women’s Ministry), Carey and articles in EDT and DOPAHL.
The hierarchical ordering of male-female relationships is, however, presented by Genesis 2-3 as a pre-fall created condition. This is seen in the woman being the ‘helper’, the created order of man then woman, the man as the source of the woman and the man naming the woman. The balanced (chiastic) structure (see Wenham) presents the act of sin as an upturning of God's created order and the post-fall male rule as God’s reassertion of his created order but now with disharmony because of the fall into sin. Furthermore, the context of Gal.3v28 relates to non-differentiation in salvation not in relationships, role and functions.
v. Words and phrases seemingly restricting women’s ministry mean something different from what is commonly assumed in translations and interpretations. For instance, it has been asserted that 'teach' and/or 'exercise authority' in 1Tim.2 refer to negative practices and ‘head’ in 1 Corinthians 11 refers to source not authority. Paul is, accordingly, in 1 Timothy only instructing against such negative practices and in 1 Corinthians not asserting male leadership. Examples of this approach include Holmes and Morris (in The Bible & Women’s Ministry).
Such negative connotations are, however, not apparent in the text and context and if a negative practice is the problem why would Paul only address his prohibition only to women? Baldwin (‘A Difficult Word: auqentein in 1 Timothy 2:12’ in Women in the Church) has, however, convincingly repudiated such connotations for ‘exercise authority’. Woodhouse, (in The Bible & Women’s Ministry), similarly, clearly demonstrates the authority connotations of headship, particularly by reference to Paul’s use with Christ and the church in Ephesians 5.
2. Some Restriction
i. Paul’s concern is with husband-wife relationships, not male-female relationships generally. (This is a particular case related to 1.v. above.) It is asserted that gunaiki and andros in 1Tim.2 should be translated as ‘wife’ and ‘husband’ not ‘woman’ and ‘man’. Examples of this approach include Chiswell (in The Bible & Women’s Ministry) and Barnett. The concern is, then, not to undermine the husband’s domestic headship by the wife teaching in church. Women may, accordingly, teach and exercise authority over men, just not their own husband.
The context of 1Tim.2 is, however, not domestic or marital affairs but universal Christian life and church order. If Paul intended to use the words in their restricted domestic sense it is natural to expect him to make this clear, as he does elsewhere, especially since the context does not, as he does in Ephesians 5v22 by inserting ‘ idion ’ (own) before husband.
ii. Paul’s restrictions in 1 Tim.2 on women’s ministry regarding men concern only the head minister or only to the class of head ministers, as in priests/presbyters in the Anglican system. Women may, accordingly, teach and exercise authority over men but only under such overseeing headship, as in the case of women deacons or lay-preachers.
The text does not, however, present such qualifications but are general statements. Although the following 1 Tim.3 deals with qualifications for certain church offices, the passage under questions is not part of that but an associated pre-emptive wider generalisation. Its concern is function in practice not institutional arrangement. Furthermore, authority is not vested simply in or by institutional office but ultimately assumed de facto by the exercise of the function of teaching regardless of office. This flows from Christ’s rule ultimately through his Word.
iii. The1Tim.2 restrictions concern church (the open public assembly) not wider fellowship activities. Women may not, accordingly, present the church sermon but may lead in Bible studies and home groups.
Although the passage is does apply to church order, it is, however, dealing primarily with relationships, roles and function generally which do extend wider than the public church setting. (Work needs to be done on understanding what, if any, distinction exists between what are commonly referred to as church and home groups or Bible studies. The Knox-Robinson insights and emphasis on church as an actual assembly over and against traditional institutional understandings probably needs further modification to recognise the duly constituted public political assembly of the Greek city-state.)
iv. The 1Tim.2 restrictions concern ongoing leadership roles, whether assumed de facto by function or by office, not absolute prohibitions against any such occasional or one-off practice. The issue is one of a woman assuming an ongoing leadership relationship over a man, whether as pastor-teacher or inverting husband-wife headship. Women may, accordingly, teach men on occasions but not so frequently as to assume the ongoing pastor-teacher role in relationship.
This distinction is arises from a recognition that teaching-authority does not reside merely in the practice of teaching but in ongoing relationship function. It gives some recognition of the following church order and office context without reducing matters simply to institutional office. It also accounts for the use of the present (or continuous) tense for the infinitives (i.e. 'to teach' and 'to exercise authority over' in the prohibition (see Holmes). That is, it is a prohibition against continuous practice rather than each and every instance as an aorist (or general or punctilliar ) tense would demand. Furthermore, this seeks to recognise that to prohibit such occasional practice, given the context not only in church but across every situation, seems ultimately to bring unreasonable implications that would prohibit women ever giving men their opinion in discussion.
The arguments against this include: Doesn’t even any occasional activity assume and begin some pastor-teacher role and relationship? Doesn’t this remove the authority from the teaching of the Word back to some vested office? Can this implication rightly be drawn from the present infinitives? Would Paul’s original audience have perceived this distinction?
3. Complete Restriction
i. The 1Tim.2 restrictions concern any teaching activity on any occasion, whether in church or some other group. Women may not, accordingly, present the church sermon on any occasion but may assume other up front roles as in lead the service, share testimonies, read the Bible, lead the singing etc.
Is some element of teaching inevitable in these other roles? Is teaching limited to formal instruction as in sermons and Bible studies? Is exercise of authority limited to teaching?
ii. Women are prohibited from any leadership office. Authority is understood not simply in terms of the teaching role but as applying to any leadership or decision making office. Women are, accordingly, prohibited from parish councils etc.
This, however, neglects the pastor-teacher context of authority through the Word and overemphasises institutional structures and decision making. Much may depend on what responsibilities are actually undertaken by the office bearers and over whom.
iii. Women are prohibited from any up front church leading. Paul’s instructions for women to ‘learn quietly’ and ‘remain silent (quiet?)’ in 1Tim.2 and 1Cor.14 are understood to apply more widely than just to the teaching role. Women are, accordingly, excluded from a wider range of public activities. Sometimes this is adopted lest a woman incidentally teaches a man.
Paul instructions are, however, given the contexts and other passages that allow women to prophesy, probably best understood as applying to the teaching role. Concern for incidental teaching transgressions seems somewhat obsessive.
iv. The 1Tim.2 restrictions concern any teaching or leadership in any relationship, including wider social settings. Accordingly, women are not accepted as bosses in secular workplaces etc.
Reading
Main Bible Passages:
Genesis 2-3 1 Corinthians 11v2-16; 14v34-36 Galatians 3v28 Ephesians 5v22-33
Colossians 3v18-19 1 Timothy 2v8-15 1 Peter 3v1-7
Some Modern Analyses
G.Carey, I Believe in Man, (ed. M.Green; Hodder & Stoughton: London, 1977)
W.A.Elwell, ed. Evangelical Dictionary of Theology (Baker: Grand Rapids, Mich. 1984)
J.M.Holmes, Text in a Whirlwind: A Critique of Four Exegetical Devices at 1 Timothy 2.9-15, (ed. S.E.Porter, JSNT Supplement Series 196; Sheffield Academic Press: Sheffield, 2000)
M.Kassian, Women, Creation and the Fall (Crossway Books: Westchester, Ill. 1990)
G.F.Hawthorne, R.P.Martin & D.G.Reid, eds, Dictionary of Paul and His Letters: A Compendium of Contemporary Biblical Scholarship, (IVP: Leicester, 1993)
A.J.Kostenberger, T.R.Schreiner & H.S.Baldwin eds, Women in the Church: A Fresh Analysis of 1 Timothy 2:9-15 (Baker: Grand Rapids, Mich. 1987)
R.C. & C.C.Kroeger, I Suffer Not a Woman (???)
W.D.Mounce, Pastoral Epistles, (B.M.Metzger, R.P.Martin, L.A.Losie; Word Biblical Commentary 46; Word: Waco, Tex. 2000)
A.Nichols, ed., The Bible & Women's Ministry: An Australian Dialogue, (Acorn Press: Canberra, 1990)
G.J.Wenham, Genesis 1-15, (eds D.A.Hubbard, G.W.Barker, J.D.W.Watts; Word Biblical Commentary 1; Word: Waco, Tex. 1987)
B.G.Webb, ed., Personhood, Sexuality and Christian Ministry, (Explorations 1; Lancer: Homebush, NSW, 1987)
Who is where?
1.i. reflects an extreme liberal position sometimes explicitly adopted by the Uniting Church and the liberal-catholic wings of the Anglican Church.
1.ii.-2.iii. reflect those positions commonly adopted by some liberal theologians, more progressive evangelicals, Melbourne Diocese and a number of clergy within Armidale Diocese (perhaps a minority for no restriction and perhaps becoming a majority if up to 2.ii are included.
2.i. reflects the position adopted by the previous Bishop of Armidale.
2.ii & iii. reflect the current legal position and licensing practice of Armidale Diocese.
2.iv. reflects the current practice at St Marks Chapel and my own thinking (although I fluctuate between 2.iii. 3.i.)
3.i-ii. reflect the range of positions commonly adopted by the conservative evangelicals within Sydney Diocese and the Presbyterian Church, and arguably, traditional conservative evangelical practice.
3.iii & iv. reflect a final more extreme position.
The Kroegers provide an example of a detailed proposal under positons 1.ii.-iv.
Kostenberger et al and Mounce provide excellent detailed critiques of positions 1.ii.-2.iii.
Holmes also provides an excellent detailed critique of all positions but then opts (with poorer argument) for negative connotations for 'teach' and 'exercise authority'.
Kassian provides a simple easily readable (but perhaps extreme in ultimate practice) exposition of positions 3.i-iii.