So the gender debate is being tabled at Synod. There are many facets to how this pans out. This post is not aimed at taking a position regarding the ordination of women to the priesthood, but at what we do with our position on certain aspects of the gender debate.We need to let our theology dictate our ministry not pragmatics. This is all areas of ministry, but here for this post I am thinking about women teaching to men and women.
If a biblical pattern of male headship is being held to and women are not to teach in a mixed setting then this needs to be held across the board. Here in Sydney we are so blessed to have an abundance of well theologically trained people to teach in our churches. Elsewhere it is not the case. Yet why do our churches which take a stand against women preaching in mixed settings so willingly support and allow women to go overseas and teach in mixed settings?
Some people say that this is because there is a great need, and if there are no men to teach and there are women willing and able to go then they should. But I question what this says about our doctrine of humanity.
Are the men in those places somehow less 'manly' and it is acceptable for them to sit under a woman's teaching? What are we really saying when we allow women to preach 'over there' and not here?
We cannot allow pragmatics to rule our theology. If we take a stand against women preaching to a mixed setting here in the abundance of Sydney, then we have to take the line that they cannot teach to mixed settings overseas as well.
20 comments:
Hi Bec, i have often wondered that very thing. I dont have any answers but it does seem that a person need to be uniform when applying theology to practice.
Bec, you are so right that theology not pragmatics must dictate our practice. And if it is right theologically here in downtown Sydney, then it is right on the mission field too.
I wonder if what someone is sent to do makes a difference ... Just as I'd be happy to share the gospel with a man I sat next to on the bus, maybe it is appropriate for a female evangelist to be sent overseas to share the good news about Jesus.
I often think of Elisabeth Elliott and the work that she did, building up indigenous leaders to pastor the fledgling indigneous church and am greatly encouraged by the way that God continues to build his church in ways that reflect his patterns of what is right and best.
and I have been thinking tonight about retrieval ethics. is it really so clear cut?
i just have so many questions!
Dear Bec,
I am happy you took my challenge regarding to think on "retrieval ethics". As I told you, a utilitarian way of deciding the on teaching and gender issue is wrong (which I think is the way you are looking at "pragmatism"). However, there is a positive side of "pragmatism", i.e. to be able to adjust to the dynamic contexts in which we live real life ... but without compromising!We live in a fallen world, we need to make the best of a "dodgy" situation ... that is where "retrievall ethics: kicks in.
May be we should include that women working o/s is not only a problem of taching or not teaching mixed congregations, but a question of where are the male missionaries?
Keep thinking Bec ... and keep encouraging us to think too!
Much love,
Pato
this issue should never become a 'gospel' issue. The greatest priority is that the gospel is preached. That is the greater good.
hmmmm, the greater good language. It doesn't always sit the best for me. But yes, something to keep pondering.
Perhaps 'higher priority' is a better way of putting it?
Another issue here is the place of female authors and scholars. If women are not meant to teach men, if they are indeed more easily decieved, then why are they lecturing in theological colleges, why are they publishing commentaries, why do they submit journal articles which countless male students will read, be influenced by, and learn from. The way this particular area of theology is worked out, especially in Sydney, leaves a lot to be desired as far as integrity goes. There is also a lot of dodgy translation work that is done - 1 Timothy 2, same word, same context and the word is translated both quiet and silent.... "quiet lives" but "silent women".....
A way in to the issue: look at the difference between authority and preaching in pastoral epistles, especially the letters to timothy. There is a large emphasis put on male leadership and authority but the question remains, does this extend to preaching? Also ask, what is prophecy... Large part of prophecy is the passing on of the word of God in a relevant and challenging way (not always by speaking... call it a "speach act" if you want to sound pretentious :P) which then equates prophecy to preaching... Under the new covenant are not sons and daughters meant to prophesy??
dan
Hi Dan,
I have at times questioned what it means for women to be authors and scholars teaching men in that way. I have heard it argued quite convincingly that in these situations the woman is not teaching with authority (ie from the pulpit type thing). I can understand that, but I still feel the tension becuase if someone is published in a journal or such, you would assume they are quite experienced in that field and therefore have some authority on the subject.
As for prophecy, I find that it is one of those areas that people in Sydney Anglican circles tend to not really have a definite answer as to what it is. What does prophecy look like in practice?
I don't think the bible prohibits ministry of the word, or verbal ministry of women to men.
Thanks for your comment Dan. I continue to mull this over.
Hi - I got here via Mandy's blog and thought I'd throw in my two penn'orth as a woman, a bible teacher, and a strong believer that women shouldn't be teaching men.
I'm really unpersuaded by the pragmatic argument that says 'gospel teaching' is 'more' important than whether a man or a woman does it.
At one level this may be true - if the gospel is proclaimed it doesn't matter who does it. At least, it doesn't matter to the gospel. I think that's Paul's point in Philippians. The gospel is more powerful than the person preaching. 'Anyone' can teach the gospel and it will still be the gospel.
But of course it will make a difference to the people who are hearing the gospel if it is shown that the person from whom they are hearing it is not acting in a gospel way. So, to give a different kind of example, I know many people in the UK who were badly shaken when Roy Clements, a well-known and respected minister, left his family to live with another man and publicly renounced his evangelical faith. I don't doubt that many people were truly converted and built up through Roy, but nonetheless his disobedience had an effect on those he ministered to. Similarly, there will inevitably be long-term effects on a congregation who are ministered to by a woman , if (as I believe Scripture teaches) she is being disobedient in doing so.
And this is where I come to my main argument. It seems to me very clear in Scripture that what God demands of us is obedience. We can leave the church-building to him. Our role is simply to be faithful and obedient. I think this means that for women we should not take on tasks or roles that are properly male, even if there are no men to do them.
Consider the example of Abraham. God promised that he would build a great nation from his offspring. But when that offspring, in the shape of Isaac, eventually comes, what does God demand? That he be sacrificed.
Now the pragmatic Abraham would say, 'Well, I know God wants to build his church. And I know he needs Isaac to do that. So in this case, although I want to be obedient to God, I can see it would be better to do the more important thing and let Isaac live.'
But the faithful, obedient Abraham says, 'I don't understand how this is going to work out better but if you say to do it this way, God, then I trust you and I'll be obedient.'
And it's in that second way that I've always viewed my ministry as a woman. At times I've found the 'restrictions' incredibly frustrating. It's hard to hear men preaching badly and know that you could do better. It's hard to hear of student groups desperately in need of good speakers and not offer to help out. But that's the great blessing of Reformed theology: we know that God is in control and that he will build his church. And so I'll do my best to be faithful and obedient to scripture and let Him take care of the rest.
Oh and on women scholars, authors etc. The difference is clear: these women are not ministering in a church. They are not exercising pastoral oversight or church discipline. Of course, there are some ways in which teaching in a theological college resembles teaching in a church, but it seems to me that enough of the distinctives of a church are absent to avoid any confusion. When you read a book by a woman, there is almost no relationship established between you and the author, so it's hard to see how this can be an inappropriate relationship. The issue is NOT the competence of women to understand or teach the bible and it would seem very foolish to me for a male pastor to want to deny himself access to the wisdom of female bible scholarship.
If preaching does not contain the gospel then what is it? God does demand obediance, if you equate preaching and teaching to pastoral oversight then you should follow this through to the logical conclusion that men should not be taught by women at all.
forgot to sign off on that last one.. but another side point is why do women teach in sunday school? Isn't that normally a mixed group?
dan
But 'preaching and teaching' doesn't 'equate to pastoral oversight' in every sense or in every situation.
Preaching to a congregation is an exercise of pastoral oversight (in conjunction with a whole lot of other things, including church discipline). But giving a lecture in a seminary (though it may be authoritative in the sense of academically sound) does not bear the same pastoral weight. You are not obliged to submit to your lecturer in the way that you are to your pastor (though in a general submit-to-the-authorities sense you may be obliged to submit in some respects). A lecturer does not stand in the position of under-shepherd of Christ's flock and does not bear this kind of authority and responsibility.
And on sunday school - the point there is that women are teaching children. Which is an entirely appropriate thing to do within the church family, just as it is within the family.
Hi Ros,
welcome to my blog. I'm glad you stumbled over and feel free to comment away (that's the main reason for this blog is to put ideas out there and then to refine away). Lynne says to say "hi". We've been flatting together this year.
I agree with what you are saying about sunday school, that this is an appropriate thing. I do wonder though about the pragmatics of how this line extends out. As someone who is keen to go into youth ministry for the long haul, I often hear mixed messages about where the cut off line is (to use language that is less than adequate). ie, When is a boy a man?
I have been told that this is not the right question to be asking, but I do feel that it is an important one.
As for your description of a lecturer in a seminary. I do think that they convey the same (or similar) pastoral oversight as a rector. I am not entirely sure of the setup at Oak Hill, but I do know that MTC functions very much as a community of God's people and the lecturers have pastoral oversight of the students.
Yes, at seminary there is always the place to question lecturer's teaching, and maybe not always agree with it, but I would expect that you should be able to question your rector's teaching in parish also. It being a given that both of these questions are done in a respectful manner.
great discussion and I love seeing my friends 'meet' over the internet.
One point from Dan's early post that Ros picked up on but I think need to be made explicit is what the prohibition on women teaching in 1 Tim 2 says. Paul points to two reasons:
a) For Adam was formed first, then eve
b) Adam was not decived, but the woman was.
This takes us back to Genesis 3, where we read that the serpent talked to Eve, using 'half-truths' that Eve did not correct. Eve was decieved by the serpent into thinking that God was holding out on them. In a disasterous act of 'helping', Eve lead Adam into sin.
Now, it is clear that Paul knows that Adam had a leadership role in the garden - in Romans 5:12-21 he shows that all humanity have sinned 'in Adam'.
Paul's argument in 1 Timothy 2 is not 'women are stupid and therefore should never teach'. It is:
a) God's created order (which is very good) appointed Adam as leader, and Eve disasterously acted independently of that leadership. Therefore, as man was formed first, then woman, teaching and authority roles over the congregation (which is the focus of 1 Tim 2) belong to men.
b) what happened in the garden was that eve was deceived by the serpent. I have heard it argued that this means that all women are more susceptible to deception, but I don't think that is a conclusion that the text makes us draw.
Women who are educated and able to teach should write articles and books for the benefit of the Kingdom. But to take a role of pastor-teacher over the congregation is to disobey the teaching of scripture. There is a vastly different pastoral relationship between a pastor-teacher who oversees the congregation and the author of an article. We must remember that the scriptures never prevent learning from a woman. Priscilla and Aquilla together taught and instructed Barnabus - and were commended by Paul.
Men and women are both created in the image of God. An ordering of relationship between men and women and appropriate restrictions on womens roles does not undermine the full humanity of women.
Sorry this is a bit long. Project finished so now allowed to interact with the real world!
Thanks for your welcome - and do say hi to Lynne from me too! Ask her how her Greek's going?
I'm interested that you think being a lecturer is similar to being a pastor-teacher. I think this highlights one of my big concerns about the whole issue of women's ministry which is that, almost invariably, it proceeds only from an investigation of gender. One of the things I think that is lacking in the evangelical world I live in in the UK (though not so much here in the States) is a proper ecclesiology and a thought-out understanding of ministry. So it's really my ecclesiology that drives my view about women lecturing, rather than anything specific about gender, if that makes sense.
And you're quite right about youth work - it's a grey area. My general feeling is that if your relationship to the teenager is most like parent/child or teacher/pupil then probably that's appropriate, but if it starts to become more like contemporaries, or equals, then not. But how you draw the line in each situation will probably be different.
Nice to hear from Mandy on this - those long hours have obviously paid off, and obviously I agree with you completely!!
I've been thinking about this some more (in between cramming my brain full of hebrew).
some random thoughts:
I think there is a distinction between teaching and authority. It has been picked up in some of the earlier comments. The bible is not saying that women cannot teach. It is talking about authority.
On authority, is it better to describe it as a responsiblity placed upon men rather than authority over? These may be one and the same, but I was thinking the language might be more user friendly.
Ros, I'd really like to hear a little bit more about how your ecclesiology shapes your position on women lecturing.
Lynne said to say: "Passed final greek exam, however it is now disguised as New Testament Studies!"
And now perhaps I should read my doctrine of church notes before class tomorrow!
I think assignments are a great source of inspiration to do anything else apart from assignment work, such as following obscure links in friends blogs to other blogs and posting half backed comments :P So having another 1000 words to write tonight on Malachi it seems a perfect time to write another half backed comment...
Scripture is God's authority and to be obeyed, teaching from the bible therefore comes with authority (if it is correct...). So any teaching from women from scripture is authoratative and if correct, needs to be obeyed no matter the setting.
That the authority of a church is meant to be masculine is given. However, this does not deny women the right to teach and preach. Preaching does not need to be limited to an excercies of pastoral authority. The male leader of a church will still be excercising pastoral authority by encouraging gifted women to teach the congregation as part of the mutual encouraging, teaching, rebuking that we are all to be involved in. However, preaching and pastoral authority are very tightly bound in many mainstream churches, and so in this situation it may well become wrong for women to be preaching or teaching. But it may be that churches as a whole can realise that there is a place for women teaching while still maintaining the pastoral authority vested in the minister.
Now again, these are half baked ideas, I havn't had to do any work on the topic yet, too busy working on other topics, but I do like to see where other people take the ideas. I would like to see someone take up the idea about prophecy. Prophecy is an act where the word of God is given through people. It is promised that with the gifting of the Holy Spirit to all believers that all would be able to prophecy and that women are allowed to prophecy in church with (with no limitations set). Now given that preaching is the passing on of God's word (great article by wodehouse in the book writen to dick lucas, can't remember what it is, about preaching being the word of God.) where does that leave women and preaching in churches. Does this mean that we need to reasses what prophecy is? Do we need to re-examine preaching? Or can we pull apart (only slightly, not a total sundering here...) pastoral authority and preaching?
dan
Hey Dan, interesting thoughts. Here are my instinctive responses. I too am meant to be working on another assignment!
I think we need to distinguish between teaching and having authority in a church context (which is what 1 tim 2 addresses) and prophesy (which Paul addresses in 1 Cor 11).
Now, on the one hand Paul prohibits women from teaching and/or having authority over men in the context of overall church leadership. This is grounded in the creation priority of men. On the other hand, in 1 Cor 11 he permits women to prophesy, provided they are clearly distinguished from men when they do it, again grounded in the creation order (see particularly verses 7-10). While men are to prophesy without their heads covered, women must have their heads covered while prophesying. Thus while they can both do this task, there is to be a clear differentiation between them, grounded in the creation order and the purpose of the woman's creation (for the man). In 1 Cor 14, Paul goes on to prohibit the women from weighing the prophesies. Note that in 1 Cor 14 he prohibits speaking in tounges if there is no one to interpret, he prohibits more than 3 prophesying, and he prohibits women from weighing the prophesies (so 'silent' doesn't mean never speak in context, hence why quiet is often preferred in the translations).
What's the point of this? Clearly more work needs to be done to work out what prophesy is, because it is a task that both men and women can do, although they are to do it in a way clearly differentiates themselves as either men or women. But I suspect that given that all prophesy is to be weighed and tested, that what we regulalry go about doing in church on a Sunday night in the sermon is not 'prophesy'.
On the other hand, 1 Tim 2 does not say 'I do not permit a woman to teach or have authority over a man unless she does so with the pastor/rector's permission or authority'. I'm not convinced that this authority can be delegated, or that it can be shown that in the church setting that the a woman with regular responsibility for teaching the congregation is doing so with the authority of the pastor/rector. There does seem to be a difference in scripture between the general call for all christians to build one another up and encourage each other (especially as we see the day approaching) and the formal pastor-teacher responsibility of our overshepards. So while I am happy and keen to encourage my sisters to use the gifts that God has given them to build the church, I don't believe that means we have to allow them to preach to a mixed group to let that happen.
God's good creation is such that he has made men and women differently, and while I want to be careful before we say things like 'all men are to be like this ..' and vice versa for women, I think that the testimony of scripture towards male leadership in the family and within church as the household of God leads me to be wary of too quickly pushing to minimise the differences between men and women and claiming that women should be able to do everything that men can do.
Women, church and teaching.
Well. It seems to me that the bible gives us models for men and women fulfilling complementary roles in two spheres: church and family. (And yes, the overlap between nation and covenant community in the OT does make that a little confusing at times, but I think we can still make the distinction between church and, for example, workplace).
In the family, the wife is to submit to her husband. In the church the congregation are to submit to their pastor. Which means not only that he should exercise authority by teaching the word, but also that he should exercise authority over admission to the table and other forms of church discipline. Our attitude should not be of blind agreement with everything but of genuine submission. Recognising that as the pastor he has the right to make decisions and to call for obedience even when we disagree.
For example, in the church where I go, we don't have paedo-communion. I think we should. When the minister explained to the congregation why we had paedo-baptism but not communion I went to talk to him afterwards. Not to try to persuade him but merely to let him know that although I disagree, I want to support his decision as my pastor. So that means I won't be actively encouraging others to become paedo-communionists or starting a campaign for it in the church. He's the pastor, it's his decision and I submit to it, recognising his authority.
This is where I think the difference is clearest with lecturers. I can disagree with my lecturer, engage in debate, still disagree, go on behaving in the way that I choose and it doesn't affect our relationship as lecturer and student, and it doesn't involve any disobedience on my part. My lecturer doesn't have the authority to require any kind of intellectual or ethical conformity. [This is quite different from being 'authoritative' in an academic sense of being a reliable source of information.]
But when I disagree with my pastor, I am still required to obey him. And he has the right to discipline me if I don't - he has the right to challenge my beliefs and my behaviour and ultimately, if I refuse to conform, he can excommunicate me from the church. That's quite a different kind of relationship from that which I have with my lecturers.
So when Paul talks about women 'teaching and having authority over men' I do think that he means the act of preaching to a church is an exercise of authority BUT I don't think that therefore every act of teaching the bible is authoritative in the way that I've tried to explain. Of course the bible always has authority, but its teacher does not always have authority to require obedience of its hearers.
So where I stand at the moment is that I think it's fine for women to teach in universities and even in seminaries and theological colleges, even in biblical studies. They are not taking on the role of a pastor and it would be quite wrong of them to attempt to do so. College students should be members of churches where they receive pastoral oversight appropriately.
Where the grey area comes, to my mind, is in college chapel. I don't know what it's like at Moore but at Oak Hill we had communion every week. At Westminster we never do (as far as I'm aware) and chapel makes no pretence of being a church. But at Oak Hill there were a lot of ways in which chapel was like church, not least in celebrating the sacrament. So I never preached in chapel and I wouldn't even if I were a lecturer. Because although I don't think it's quite a church, it's more like a church than anything else.
Sorry it's a bit long and rambling but I hope you see why I think that the church setting (and indeed our view of church and ministry) matters in making these kind of decisions about women's ministry.
Post a Comment