Why did Paul say: “I do not permit a woman to teach or to assume authority over a man; she must be quiet.”(1 Tim. 2:12 NIV)
Let’s be honest, this is one of the least fun passages in the Bible, yet it is one that catches the most attention because it seems from an initial glance that Paul wants women to keep their mouths shut. He does not want to see a woman teaching.
And to be fair, at first glance, I believed this to be true. Paul seems pretty clear. He does not want women to teach or have authority over a man, yet he even goes so far as to say that the women “must be quiet.” They should have no voice according to Paul.
But what if we have minstepreted this famous passage?
What if we fail to remember the ancient first century world this text lives in?
Context Matters
The Bible was not written in the 21st century where we get into the discussion about how feminism has led to theological liberalism in the church.
The Bible was written in a context, a specific time and place in history and as the Bible scholar John Walton says (paraphrased version I believe) “The Bible was written for us but not written to us.” Meaning there was an original audience with an original intended message that we can glean truths from but only the truths intended by the author.
When Paul writes this we must take into account that women were largely uneducated, and in fact the area of expertise they were arguably the most uneducated in was rhetoric. They were not trained to teach with their words. They were not trained to study the Scriptures. That was all reserved for the males in their society. Now, there were exceptions to the rule, osscaionally a young lady might stand out and be trained up, but not to the point to where she would be teaching the Scriptures. That was unheard of. The society of the day was not structured in a way to where women were even able to lead a church congregation through the teaching of the Scriptures.
When Paul is writing “I do not permit women to teach” may I ask “would you not say the same thing?” Paul is aware that women are uneducated at this time in culture. They are not trained to read, study and teach the Scriptures so why would you permit someone who is untrained, to do a job you need to be trained for?
This is where discipleship matters.
Jesus Broke the Rules
Having female students was for the most part unheard of. It was taboo. Again, women were uneducated. Jesus though was a radical rabbi. You could call him a bit of a progressive in the area of who he taught, because he taught women even though the conservative nature of his culture largely did not permit this to take place.
Now, when you see this do you think “oh, Jesus, let the culture dictate his views on women’s abilities within the church?”
No. Jesus did not let “progressive/liberal views” dictate his actions, rather Jesus had a mission. His mission was to see all of creation reflect the goodness of God, including women. The very nature that women or slaves were made in the image of God was again a radical concept for ancient middle eastern theology. Yet, Genesis comes in that context and sweeps it right out from under its legs by proclaiming that women are made in the image of God. The only people made in the image of God according to the culture was the Pharoahs, the Kings; yet in Genesis, it is all of humanity, male and female, slave and free.
Jesus’ mission is much like the mission communicated in the early texts of the Bible. To redeem, restore and renew all that was lost.
Jesus trained women up as students for the same reason he trained zealots, tax collectors, liars and fishermen. He had a bigger mission than following the conservative views of the culture for the sake of following conservative views of the culture.(Let me note, Conservatism and Liberalism can mean different things to different peoples, times and places; for instance, Rome was liberal in its sexuality but conservative in its views on a woman’s value)
Jesus even calls women to break the societal standards and to come and sit at his feet and learn among the men.
The story goes:
While they were traveling, Jesus entered a village, and a woman named Martha welcomed him into her home. She had a sister named Mary, who also sat at the Lord’s feet and was listening to what he said. But Martha was distracted by her many tasks, and she came up and asked, “Lord, don’t you care that my sister has left me to serve alone? So tell her to give me a hand.” The Lord answered her, “Martha, Martha, you are worried and upset about many things but one thing is necessary. Mary has made the right choice, and it will not be taken away from her.”
Luke 10:38-42 (CSB)
Martha was doing exactly what the culture told her to do. She was serving and letting the men listen to the rabbi. Jesus though acknowledges that Mary made the right decision by joining the men and learning.
Learning was a male’s task, not a task for the female. And specifically why was learning the male task for a rabbi’s disciples(students)? Because those students would be trained up in the way of the Rabbi and expected to one day fill those rabbi’s shoes and to repeat the process with others. A disciples goal is to become the next rabbi. (It is important to remember discipleship in the context of Jesus world not in the context of ours. Discipleship did not look like Sunday School classes and Youth programs; discipleship was a life on life, following your rabbi everyday, doing everything they do as they would do it to the point of even learning how to walk like they walked.)
Jesus, wanted Mary in the room to learn among his students because Jesus calls us all to make disciples, with the intention that those disciples grow up and repeat the process. Disciple making is not just the job of the pastor, it is for us all. Male and female.
Women Do More Than Learn
There is this beautiful story of Jesus after he has died and rose again, where the two Mary’s go to the tomb. As they approach, an earthquake ruptures and a messenger of Jesus comes down from the skies and rolls back the stone closing off the tomb of Jesus. The women are told “Don’t be afraid, because I know you are looking for Jesus who was crucified. He is not here. For he has risen, just as he said. Come and see the place where he lay. Then go quickly and tell his disciples, ‘He has risen from the dead and indeed he is going ahead of you to Galilee; you will see him there.”(Matthew 28:1-10 CSB)
What did this messenger of Jesus give these two women?
Authority to tell the disciples the news.
But women are not allowed to speak right? According to Paul “they must be quiet.”
Here though, the women are not told to be quiet, they have already been given permission to be students of Jesus and let’s be honest, they tend to be the most faithful ones. They show up while the 12(men) are hiding. They took care of Jesus’ body while the men were acting like they never knew Jesus. They remained faithful to visiting Jesus while the disciples lost faith.
These women were given the authority(the responsibility) to tell the news to the men.(Note that in John 20 we see Jesus telling Mary specifically to go tell the disciples the news)
What does that word “tell” mean?
Proclaim. Go preach to the men this good news, this gospel that Jesus has rose.
Women’s testimony was, under Roman and Jewish law considered to be of little value. Yet, it is those of whom we believe’s voice is of little value that Jesus gives ultimate value.
Church history(the history that goes farther back than the Protestant reformation) confirms that the early church viewed these women as the first Evangelists. The first preachers after Jesus’ resurection.
Why when Jesus went so out of his way to give women a seat at the table do we try to steal that seat from them?
What would be wrong with a woman proclaiming the Gospel from the pulpit?
The goal is for people to be saved right? Do we believe God cannot save anyone through a woman’s voice? In this story, if it were not for the woman’s voice, the disciples would not have rushed to the tomb to see if Jesus’ body were there.
What Was Paul Doing?
The more I dive into Biblical scholarship the more I have come to believe Paul had a mission bigger than teaching doctrine. I once believed Paul’s mission in Romans was to teach us the five points of Calvinism. To teach us the Roman’s road to Salvation.
Paul actually has a common theme throughout almost all of his letters. The theme being “unity.” Jesus came not to build walls up to divide us. Jesus came to save both the Jew and the Greek, which is why Romans is a book geared towards a a multiethnic churches’ struggle with coming together. In Romans, Paul starts off with telling both sides they were full of sin, “no one does good” and then reminds them of the good news that Jesus came to save both the Jew and the Gentiles and that this was plan from the beginning.
In Galatians we see a similar vision, with Paul calling Peter out for building up a wall between the Jews and Gentiles that Jesus Himself has torn down and fighting with false teachers who are putting the barrier of circumcision up between the two ethnic groups.
In Philemon, we see Paul tearing down that dividing wall between slave and master reminding the two they are brothers in Christ.
In Ephesians we see Paul write to bring children and parents, slaves and masters, husbands and wives into a new vision for their relationships with one another that transcends the relationship standards of the day.
For example, in Roman culture, there were “household codes.” These codes were the standard by which the man would lead his home. It was instruction on how a man ought to rule over his wife. Yet Paul takes those household codes and twists them with the love of Jesus.
Now thanks to Paul, the household code’s emphasis is not about authority or power or the reign of a man over his household. Instead it’s about how a husband ought to love his wife as Christ loved the church(Eph. 5:25). And whereas in Roman culture the wife would just simply have to submit, Paul instructs the women to submit but also for the men to submit to a kind of love that is willing to lay its life down for the people he’s leading.
In 1 Timothy, we see Paul giving instruction to a young Pastor on how to train up the women in his church who are largely uneducated. They like us all, need to be taught the Scriptures. In discipleship we all should go through a phase of keeping our mouth shut and just sitting at the feet of Jesus. Why?
Because teaching is a high calling.
“Keep a close watch on how you live and on your teaching. Stay true to what is right for the sake of your own salvation and the salvation of those who hear you.”
1 Timothy 4:16 NLT
“Dear brothers and sisters, not many of you should become teachers in the church, for we who teach will be judged more strictly.”
James 3:1 NLT
It is very dangerous to teach when you are untrained, that is why Jesus calls all of us to be a disciple first.
Who are we to say “you cannot be a disciple?”
What Examples Do We Have in Church History?
It is rather interesting how for fundamentalists the claim is that all Scripture must be taken literal yet it is often not even within their own framework.
Where a fundamentalist may take Paul’s words in 1 Timothy at face value, ignoring the cultural context that helps inform us on how to understand the text the way Paul intended; a fundamentalist might not take Paul’s others words at the end of his letter in Romans at face value.
Let’s take a look at Romans 16:6-7
“Give my greetings to Mary, who has worked so hard for your benefit. Greet Andronicus and Junia, my fellow Jews, who were in prison with me. They are highly respected among the apostles and became followers of Christ before I did.”
Romans 16:6-7 NLT
Junia is a feminine Latin name. Now in more modern translations specifically the ESV which was pushed forward by the likes of Wayne Grudem, the name Junia has been translated to be a more masculine name: Junias; but the ancients did not believe this Junia was a man. Junia according to church history is a woman and the only real reason Wayne Grudem along with other conservative pastors/theologian’s change the gender is because of the presuppositions they have about how apostles cannot be females, they must be males. The goal of the ESV translation was to counteract the gender neutral language of previous translations of which those translations were pulling from the original text.
There is no evidence other than their presumptions that warrant Junia to be changed to Junias. This is a clear example of why as followers of Jesus and honest readers of the Bible, we must lay all of our presuppositions down and approach the Bible on its own terms. Even those presuppositions that we learned within a Christian context. God’s word might be without errors but our understanding and teachings of it are not. They are capable of being flawed because we are human.
Now back to Junia. Junia was an apostle, she suffered along with Paul in prison and had been following Jesus longer than Paul had. He gives her the respect she deserves.
The church father Origen believed that Junia’s discipleship actually went back to the time of Jesus implying she herself walked with Jesus.(This quote comes from J. Patout Burns, Romans: Interpreted by Early Christian Commentators)
He might have called them prominent among the apostles who preceded him because they were among the seventy-two who were also called apostles(Luke 10:1).
Junia was not the only female church leader we must deal with in Paul’s writings because just a few verses above the mention of Junia was the mention of Phoebe.
I commend to you our sister Phoebe, a deacon of the church in Cenchreae.(Romans 16:1 NIV)
In the same churches today that would not allow a woman to be a pastor, they also would not allow a woman to be a deacon.
Now a deacon is someone who is a servant. That’s it. They lead by serving the church, setting an example of servant leadership specifically. Paul here identifies Phoebe(a feminine name) as a deacon in the early church. Heres another problem we come up against.
Our modern conceptions of deacons and elders do not match ancient conceptions. We elevate deacons to these higher authority structures within the church who in many Baptist contexts have sometimes more power than the Pastors. That framework itself is in rebellion to the Elder-deacon relationship. The Elders are a group of people in the church who look over the church. They are the overseers. Deacons are servants. Still to be respected as leaders but in a different way. Here we see Phoebe playing out that ancient/biblical conception of a deacon as she is a servant leader in the early church.
Why is it that so many churches do not have female deacons? It is contradictory to claim a church is not taking Paul’s words in 1 Timothy serious if the church making the accusation is not taking Paul’s words serious in Romans.
Is Paul a coward if he believes women should not be deacons or elders in 1 Timothy but applauds them in Romans?
Questions like these are often not asked but should be.
The reason we do not ask these type of questions is because our framework for claiming the Bible is inerrant largely is used to shame people into a fear from asking questions.
If the Bible is truly the Word of God then it can handle our questions. The Bible does not need protecting, it needs honest evaluation and study.
But Paul Uses Masculine Titles Implying These Roles Are For Men
Let’s take a look back at Romans 16:1
“I commend to you our sister Phoebe, who is a deacon in the church in Cenchrea.” Romans 16:1 NLT
That word deacon there is the word “diakonos.” It is a masculine title. Yet Paul uses it here in reference to a female. It’s best to understand this predicament by thinking back to how we use titles even today. When we ask the question: “who is your favorite actor in that movie?” Actor is a masculine word. The female counterpart is “actress.” But when we use it in that line of questioning we are referring to all the actors in the movie both male and female. (Note: I got this example from Nijay Gupta’s book ‘Tell Her Story’)
It is best to understand Paul using this masculine word like we would use the word “actor” in reference to anyone in the movie who is acting, not specified to gender. Could Paul have used the word “deaconess”? Yes, and some translations might would go that route but its not true to the original “diakonos.”
Take Another Look At 1 Timothy Now
Remember when I said context matters. Well, we have discussed the context of Paul’s teaching in the context of his overall writings and mission as well as of the New Testament but what about specifically that letter to Pastor Timothy?
Let’s quickly set that letter up. It is a pastoral epistle from Paul to his mentee Timothy. Paul and Timothy have spent a ton of time together, they know each other very well and here we see Timothy as the Pastor of the church in Ephesus. There seems to be specific issues arising within this faith community that Timothy needs advice from Paul on. So before we dive into the content of this letter, let’s first acknowledge that part of reading your Bible well is reading the books of the Bible the way they were intended to be read. In this case, Paul is writing to Timothy the pastor as the church in Ephesus. He is not writing to you or to me or to the church in Corinth. Paul has an intended audience in Timothy and he is addressing specific issues within this community. This means we do not take Paul’s words as universal truths that we should implement in our own church contexts. Proof that we already do not implement every word Paul says in this letter to our modern church contexts is the fact that Paul says in 1 Timothy 2:8 “Therefore, I want the men in every place to pray, lifting up holy hands without anger or resentment.”(CSB)
I do not know what church context you come from, but what I do know is my Reformed brothers are some of the most anti-emotional/expressive worshippers in the global church. Paul “wants the men in every place to pray lifting up holy hands” but do we pray lifting up holy hands? I’ll be honest I do not. Let’s acknowledge the fact that we have not taken this verse that comes right before out main text to be a universal truth that we implement in our church contexts in regards to men, so maybe we should not implement the rest of the section as universal truths in regards to women. But that should not convince you entirely that women should be able to preach or teach so let’s dive in a little deeper into the context of this passage.
“Also, the women are to dress themselves in modest clothing, with decency and good sense, not with elaborate hairstyles, gold, pearls, or expensive apparel.” 1Timothy 2:9 (CSB)
Again may we acknowledge the fact that the majority of churches in the West, specifically I am thinking of our modern church context in America the land of Capitalism and consumerism, have not applied this text because not only are wives wearing expensive wedding rings, but there is the idea of dressing in your “Sunday best.” Now not all churches in the west still buy into the “Sunday best” attire plan. I wear a plain black t-shirt every Sunday with jeans and sometimes a hat. But we live in a culture that is consumed with buying more stuff that we do not need, and not just stuff but expensive stuff. I do not believe this text has also been applied to our modern church contexts as a universal truth. Instead we turn it into a metaphorical play by saying “oh well Paul is warning about being lavish, being more focused on outward appearance than the inward appearance.” May we acknowledge that we live in the 21st century in one of the wealthiest nations in the world if not the wealthiest, and if Paul was talking to anyone about “elaborate hairstyles, gold, pearls, or expensive apparel” it would be us the American church. And not just the mega churches who get published on the famous “preachers and Sneakers” instagram account but also the pastor and his wife in the small town baptist church of 50 people who has an expensive suit for every day of the week. It seems in just these two verses that we make exceptions to the rule and we do not acknowledge our own church context in the West and how far off the mark we really are with the values of Jesus’ simple life.
Now to get into that main text:
A woman is the learn quietly with full submission. I do not allow a woman to teach or to have authority over a man; instead she is to remain quiet. For Adam was formed first, then Eve. And Adam was not deceived, but the woman was deceived and transgressed. 1 Timothy 2:11-14 (CSB)
Let’s take a look at another translation of this text specifically the line: “I do not allow a woman to teach or to have authority over a man.”
12 But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence. (KJV)
The KJV uses this word “usurp” conveying this idea that Paul forbids women from taking control, rising up over men. Implying that there may be an issue of women taking control over men in a way that is domineering or aggressive, maybe belittling the men. It seems there may be a bit of superiority complex going on here.
This is interesting in light of how Paul finishes off mentioning Eve being deceived because it is reminiscing of Paul in Romans. In Romans in dealing with the Jews and Gentile believers having conflicts about whose way is better to worship. The Jews are coming with their cultural backgrounds on how to worship Jesus and the Gentiles as well. So what does Paul do? Where one group believes they are better than the others because they(the Jews in this instance) were chosen by God, Paul goes on a long tirade about how sin affects us all. And how the Jews constantly rebelled against God’s authority throughout the narrative of Scripture. They have no right to act in a way superior to the Gentiles just because they were chosen by God. Rather Paul’s makes it clear that God did not choose the Jews because they were good or better than the other nations, rather he chose them in spite of who they were. He chose them as a means to bring salvation to the Gentiles.
I believe Paul is doing a little bit of that exercise here by reminding these women who are rising up over the men that women are not superior to men(which does not imply that men are superior to women). He reminds these believers that Eve came second, and she was deceived. This does not make women “weak-minded” rather any honest look at Genesis account on the fall of Adam and Eve would recognize at least Eve had to be deceived by the serpent, Adam just blindly followed. He heard no compelling argument according to the text he comes off as the weaker more susceptible player in this game. Point being here though is that Paul is using that same tacitic as he does in Romans to flip the script on the people who are acting superior in a way to humble them in God’s new kingdom.
Now that specific word ‘usurp” or “have authority” is the Greek word “authenteo”. How complimentarians have largely used this word here is in a positive sense. As in “to lead.” They believe Paul is saying: “women should not lead men.” But this is not exactly what that word “authenteo” means. “Authenteo” is more accurately connected to the negative connatation of “overpowering.” Paul is instructing Timothy that these women in his Ephesians church should not “overpower the men.” Again this does not imply that the men should “overpower” the women. Rather there is something more going on here in the context of this passage that needs explaining.
Here is where the cultural context of the city of Ephesus matters. Ephesus was a city dedicated to the worship of Artemis as well as on the ground level there was this movement among the women to be independent of the man and flaunt more of their sexuality.
This is backed up by the fact that even Caesar Augustus made laws cracking down on adultery within the marriage covenant broken by women of whom Augustus’ daughter was one of those penalized.
This movement would affect how the women are dressing and acting which would explain why Paul instructs Timothy to instruct the women to not dress like the culture would. He is calling the women to not buy into this false teaching that is wreaking havoc on society.
Now in terms of how Artemis worship connects to this broader issue Paul is addressing, Artemis was a goddess promoting female empowerment. She had a special connection to the city of Ephesus in that she was born not too far away and watched closely over the city. Add on to the worship of this female empowering goddess the fact the worship to her involved these ritual killings that were pretty grotesque in nature and the fact that legends claim Ephesus was founded by Amazonian women as well; female empowerment, or female overpowering was part of the cultural landscape in this city that naturally would overflow into spaces like Christian communities. The problem is not necessarily that woman had rights or independence, its again that point that there was a superiority complex rising among the women that was causing a disruption to the Kingdom ethos of Jesus.
Authenteo[domineer, 1 Tim 2:12] might very well allude to the traditional destructive pagan feminine principle at Ephesus…[Paul] was using authenteo…to describe destructive attitudes of the women toward the men, modeling themselves on Artemis, the ‘slaughterer.’”
Aida Basancon Spencer(Note: I got this quote from ‘Tell Her Story’ by Nijay Gupta
This understanding of why Paul says the things he says about women needing to be quiet and learn when placed in its proper context can really speak to us in a profound way. It challenges not just the women in this cultural context but any of us who because of the culture, find a bit of a superiority complex rising within us; to check ourselves.
Maybe Paul in certain contexts today would challenge the men to be quiet. As someone who was raised in very complimentarian settings, I found out later in life I had a bit of a superiority complex in regard to the women in my life. Being raised in a church environment where the purity movement had made its impact, I viewed women as dangerous to my purity. Women were the problem for how they dressed. I was not taught that I was responsible for my self control when it came to lust, I was taught that the women needed to learn how too dress in a way that did not lead their brothers to stumble. I was taught not to have friends that were female because there would be too much temptation.
Why were women so dangerous to me even in church contexts?
Because in our cultural christianity of the day we have failed to recognize that many churches do not view women as made in the image of God we view them as made in the image of a seductress. We do not value the woman’s voice because we look down on them. When they cry out for help in abusive relationships, we have John Macarthur instructing victims of abuse to go back and submit. Why is John not instructing the men in his church to love their wives with gentleness and respect? Why when women like Rachel Denhollander speak out about being molested, abused, or raped do we immediately shame these women for putting themselves in “compromising situations” or blame them for “dressing in a way that was asking for it”? Why do we not call these men out for abusing their power? Why are we so quick to assume guilt on the victims part?
Rachel asks this question that truly rocked me years ago reading her memoir titled the same way: “What Is a Girl Worth?”
Are women really the problem in our churches? When we have pastors like Mark Driscoll abusing his power in a church, not repenting but fleeing responsibility and running to plant a new church that gives him more power than before; I believe we must ask ourselves: “Is there a problem with the men in our pulpits today?”
Men outnumber the women in leadership in churches, may our problem within the church be more accredited to those in the majority? Are we honest about our own blindspots as men in leadership? Or is it easier to shift the blame like Adam did to the woman?
We must ask what subconscious biases do I have and how does it influence my own way of approaching theology and biblical studies?
Now, all complementarians do not, I believe, have this deep seated prejudice against women in their hearts. There are many I believe who are just trying to follow what the text says and to them I applaud them but I also still challenge them to ask “does the text really say what you think it says?”
My Position Has Changed
When I became a christian I told Jesus I would follow Him no matter where it took me. Anyone who has sat and watched me studied knows I take diving into the Scriptures seriously and I do not come to conclusions lightly. I ask questions, and I am willing to ask questions that at the end may cause me to lose faith. My process of study is a continual “stepping out of the boat” moment.
But it has been in asking those tough questions that my faith has largely grown and strengthened.
I know the arguements for why women should not be Pastors. I’ve read the John MacArthurs, Mark Dever’s and Timothy Kellers. The problem has not been that I am ignorant to the arguments. It is that I believe John MacArthur and the like have been honestly ignorant of the counter argument.
I grew up in a theologically conservative Southern Baptist environment, and grew more into the dogmatically Refromed section of that camp. I will say from my personal experience, I always heard why women should not be Pastors, but I never heard these men articulate in good faith why women should.
Part of making a good compelling argument is understanding the other side so well, that you could make their arugement for them in a way that they would acknowledge and accept. I do not find that churches in mass who believe women cannot be in leadership are able to make the counter argument because they have refused to listen.
Part of being human is acknowledging how sinful and broken we are. The reason as a Christian you should listen to the other side is to keep yourself in check from errors that may reside within you without you even noticing it.
I, overtime, started to notice it. I argued and debated with people that women should not be in church leadership. I said if there is a woman in your pulpit then you are not a real church. Yet I could not articulate the counter arguement without immediately making a caveat into my own argument.
So after a season of theological arrogance, I started inspecting flaws in my own theology. I started to realize the early church did not use Romans to explain Calvinism. I started to learn that being a Pastor to the early church did not mean working on staff at a million dollar facility where part of the job is planning VBS once a year and debating on traditional or contemporary worship. I started to realize “the Bible was not written to us, but it was written for us.”
I am not asking you to buy into my stance that women should be allowed to preach and pastor. I believe in the unity Jesus prayed in the high priestly prayer. I live my life partnering with churches I disagree with on a multitude of issues. The reason why is because I live my life knowing I could be in error. I live my life first as a student. What I am asking for you to do if you disagree is to stop assuming the counterargument is made in bad faith.
We need to stop applauding the “Beth Moore Go Home” comments made by the likes of John MacArthur. We need to stop acting as if when R.C. Sproul said N.T. Wright was a heretic that R.C. Sproul was even acting in good christian faith.
These viral moments of conservative pastors making offhand comments used to shame other believers is something I believe Jesus would be disgusted by. Jesus in the early parts of Matthew is taking the views and teachings of his day and offering his own teaching on them.
This is why Jesus says “you have heard that it was said” and then follows it up with “but I say to you.” Jesus is engaging with the other teachings of his day. I believe the things that we have allowed to divide us are not necessarily orthodoxy. We say that we should be united on first tier issues and able to disagree on second tier issues yet we do not act within that mindset. Quickly we get so trapped in our own echo chambers that we start making “female pastors” an issue of whether a church is an actual church or not. What makes us a follower of Jesus is not our belief about whether a woman can be a teacher or not. What makes us a follower of Jesus is not whether we hold to the five points of calvinism(of whom Jesus probably would have a strong critique of Calvin’s character and how he treated the people in his life). If we really believe that it is by grace that we have been saved, and not works then we must come to an understanding that our works to gain “perfect theology” is not what saves us either. People are on different journeys in their understanding of the texts. Not everyone starts off in Jerry Falwell’s conservative church environment.
I believe that we should fight for what Paul fought for. Unity among the brethren. Unity is not sameness. Unity is not only partnering with churches who also are Calvinists, Reformed Baptists who hold to 1689 London Baptist Confession of faith. Unity is linking arms with people who follow Jesus and yet who also would give you some pushback on some of the second tier issues. That’s unity because it actually rubs up against our own ego’s and tribalism that our flesh so desperately wants to cling to.
I believe women can be pastors, I also believe Calvinists can be good Christians. I believe there’s a partnership than can happen because I have surrendered my need to control in order to follow in the footsteps of my rabbi Jesus. Jesus was a man willing to have a conversation. Why as his followers are we not?
What Are Some Resources That Have Helped Me
To be clear, these books did not sway my opinion over night. In fact, one of these books is full of notes of my critiques and mockery. I did not come to my new position lightly and it is unfair for anyone to look at someone who has opposing views to theirs and claim that it is because of the weakness of their mind. I was staunchly reformed, foot almost over the line to embrace the “regulative principle” and in love with R.J. Rushdooney’s Christian Reconstructionist movement. I was raised complementarian and grew to defend vehemently that position as my faith became my own.
Books open upon your world to a plethora of other voices that you may not have been aware even existed.
In a hyper complementarian world I was not aware of a single book that argued for women in church leadership. I knew all of the best complementarian arguments but did not really have a grasp on the opposing side.
The first book I really came across that is full of my critiques is Beth Allison Barr’s book “The Making of Biblical Womanhood.” In this book Beth, as a mid-evil historian traces the development of women’s role in church life and the family. She really paints a picture at the moving goal posts on what a “godly” woman is throughout church history and for me opened up my world to understand just how narrow my former views were when it came to church history.
Ninjay Gupta is a Bible scholar that I have more recently fell in love with through listening to his “Slow Theology” podcast. I first came across his work in an interview he did with Preston Sprinkle on “Theology in the Raw” discussing his book “Tell Her Story.” This book really highlights specific female characters in the Bible who were in leadership positions such as: Deborah in the book of Judges being a prophet and a judge, Phoebe being a deacon, Junia being an apostle. Ninjay takes his time to break down what these terms mean in their specific cultural context giving us a better understanding of words like: pastor, deacon and apostle being highjacked by modern evangelicalism.
The last resource I will point to is my favorite go-to study Bible. The NIV Cultural backgrounds Study Bible. John Walton and Craig Keener spearheaded this study Bible as scholars in each Testament and really help explain the cultural nuances of the day that get lost in time as we approach these ancients texts today.
Let’s Wrap This Up
I love Jesus, I love His church and I love God’s word. Anyone who knows me knows those three things about me. Whether you agree or disagree with my stance, remember who Jesus’ disciples were. They did not always get it right, neither do you, and neither do I. The goal is for us all to be conformed into His image and likeness. That is all I am trying to do.
Leave a comment