Red or Blue Christmas? Women in Ministry?

Ever since I have grown up and been out of my parents house I have had red and gold Christmas trees. I don’t know why but that has always been my thing. This year however Kim said she wanted to switch to blue and white and silver. What? After nine years of marriage we are going to change. Inconceivable! Yet we did and I love it!
Growing up as a Southern Baptist the topic of women as pastors was one that I became very opinionated on and never really questioned. Recently while going through my masters it was a subject that I had to address yet again. About a year and a half ago now while taking an exegesis class we had to do a paper per week. About half way through the class one of the topics that came up was women in ministry amongst others and naturally I jumped on the topic. I had decided to attend a Wesleyan-Armenian based school because I new what I believed for the most part and really wanted to be challenged to defend my beliefs rather than attend a seminary to learn what I believe and here was a great opportunity to do just that. I have to admit that for most of my other classes, while being some what of a head ache for my profs, attending such a school had just confirmed what I already believed. So I was ready to bat on this particular issue. What I discovered however was that when one does proper exegesis of the word one can not really justify a belief that opposes women being in ministry or as pastors. WHAT? On this one God radically changed my perspective and understanding of Who He is and what His word says. Interestingly enough here a year and a half later our churched was appointed a female associate pastor and God in His wisdom was preparing me for that. So while my exegesis paper for that week was about 15 pages long I will try and summarize as best as follows and take from a sermon my pastor preached to our congregation the week before Keva came to address the topic.
And here is the dilemma: Bible-believing Christians differ in their understanding. Some Christians believe that women should not be ordained to any kind of ministry. Indeed, the largest Protestant denomination in America, the Southern Baptist Church, officially opposes women pastors (though not necessarily other kinds of ministry by women). Some claim that the historic view of the Church forbids women’s ordination, which is certainly true for much of church history. Two things: first, the church’s “historic” view isn’t always right; remember, prior to Luther, the Church was sorely out of step with Scripture on an even more fundamental teaching: justification by faith. Likewise, much of church history adopted pagan anti-Semitism. In addition, second, the Waldensiens, a pre-Luther group that advocated justification by faith and returning to Scripture, did ordain women. Now, the reason given for rejecting women’s ministry was that supposedly women are ontologically inferior to men (that is, the very nature of a female is inferior to the male). Some Medieval theologians even questioned whether women had souls. Incidentally, many of those same folks taught similar things about blacks, Asians and others.
But again, the only thing we ought to base our understanding on is not history, but Scripture. But honestly, part of the problem is that different texts in the Bible seem to point in different directions, especially in the writings of Paul. Thus, we need to go through each of these very, very carefully. Bible-believing Christians on either side of the issue often read only certain texts while ignoring others. We must ask, however, where does all the Biblical evidence point?
For women’s ministry:

• Women prophets
• Miriam
• Huldah
• Deborah
• Isaiah’s wife
• Anna
• Philip’s daughters
• Acts 2;
• 1 Corinthians 11
• A woman judge (Deborah)
• A woman apostle (Junia)
• Women as Paul’s fellow-workers and “ministers”
Against women’s ministry:
• 1 Corinthians 14:34-35: women keep silent
• 1 Timothy 2:11-12: women keep silent
If the issue is decided simply by percentage of texts, it is those who oppose women’s ministry who deny the Bible. How do we account for the different views within Paul’s own writings?
There are essentially four possible ways to relate the two sides:
(1) Paul and the Bible contradict themselves (e.g., Paul was in a bad mood sometimes or grew inflexible with age) – not a good option for Bible-believing Christians.
(2) Paul was against women’s ministry in general, but allowed exceptions (in which case exceptions should be allowed today as well).
(3) Paul was for women’s ministry in general, but limited it for exceptional situations (cultural setting).
(4) Paul allowed some kinds of ministry, but forbade others.
Now, I want to take these final three options in reverse order, dismissing the first as untenable for a Bible-believing Christians.
First up, does Paul allow women to perform some types of ministry, but deny them others? Most advocates of this approach allow women to: preach and teach, counsel, do everything except be senior pastor. This is the easiest one to deal with because 1 Timothy 2 doesn’t say she can’t be senior pastor; it says she has to be quiet in church and not teach. Besides: she can be an apostle or prophet, but not pastor?!! The Bible has many prophetesses, some very prominent. Miriam was a prophetess, who led Israel in worship (Ex 15), all Israel waited for her, and mourned when she died. Huldah was the most prominent prophetic figure in Josiah’s reign. Josiah went to her for advice rather than to Jeremiah, her contemporary. Deborah, was a judge who exercised both prophetic and leadership roles, just like Samuel did later. Deborah communicated God’s Word with authority. Many other female prophets are found in Luke and Acts: Anna (Luke 2). Philip’s 4 daughters (Acts 21). Your sons and daughters will prophesy (Acts 2, quoting Joel). And many others.
Romans 16:7 says, “Greet Andronicus and Junia, my relatives who have been in prison with me. They are outstanding among the apostles, and they were in Christ before I was.” Junia is a woman’s name. In an act of blind prejudice, some translations actually insert “Junias” here, which would be a masculine form of the name Junia. The problem is that there is no such name. It would be like trying to make a masculine name out of Dorothy because you couldn’t stand a girl making the trip to Oz. The only way to understand this text in the original Greek is to see Junia as an “apostle” alongside Andronicus. Some commentators try to reduce the meaning of the term apostle, but the only reason for changing its meaning here is the assumption that a woman cannot be an apostle – assuming what one is trying to prove!
Can women be apostles and prophets, but not pastor-teachers? In his lists of offices in the church, Paul places prophets and apostles higher than pastor-teachers: “And in the church God has appointed first of all apostles, second prophets, third teachers, then workers of miracles, also those having gifts of healing” (1 Corinthians 12:28). The evidence is overwhelming. Paul did not allow women to do every other ministry except pastor the church. So we have to look for another understanding of women in ministry.
That brings us back to the other two options we listed before: Paul was against women ministers generally, but allowed exceptions – in which case we should also allow exceptions. Or Paul was for women ministers generally, but limited it for cultural reasons. Either way, women in ministry is okay. But I want to show you why I believe that it is all about cultural limitations rather than any sort of bias against women in ministry.
The two most common terms Paul uses for his fellow ministers are:
(1) Diakonos, servant, or “deacon.” Paul uses the term for his own ministry and that of his colleagues (usually his traveling compan¬ions, naturally male). But he applies the term deacon to Phoebe in Romans 16:1 because she bears the letter and Paul commends her. (2) “Fellow worker”: Paul applies this to Prisca and Aquila in Romans 16:3-4; he commends their ministry; they were house-church leaders. (Acts 18 says they team-taught Apollos: seminary profes¬sors with a young minister). Romans 16 greets twice as many men as women, but commends twice as many women as men. 16:1: “I commend to you our sister Phoebe, a deacon of the church…” 16:3: “Priscilla and Aquila, my fellow workers…” 16:6: “Mary, who worked very hard for you” (usually a ministry phrase in Paul), 16:7: Junia the apostle, 16:12: “Tryphena and Tryphosa, those women who work hard in the Lord... my dear friend Persis, another woman who has worked very hard in the Lord.”
Likewise in Philippians 4:2-3 we notice Paul referring to women as fellow-workers: “I plead with Euodia and I plead with Syntyche ... these women who have contended at my side in the cause of the gospel, along with Clement and the rest of my fellow workers, whose names are in the book of life.” Notice that we find women involved in such ministries especially in Rome and Philippi. Why there? Because these two cities were the most gender-progressive locations in the Empire. Is it possible that women were more apt to pursue ministry where it was more open for them? Is it possible that more women would pursue ministry where their ministries would be more affirmed? We have more work to do for the kingdom and we need as many laborers for the harvest as we can get?
But what do we do with the two texts that seem to prohibit women’s ministries? 1 Corinthians 14:34-35: “Women should remain silent in the churches. They are not allowed to speak, but must be in submission, as the Law says. If they want to inquire about something, they should ask their own husbands at home; for it is disgraceful for a woman to speak in the church.” And 1 Timothy 2:11-12: “A woman should learn in quietness and full submission. I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she must be silent.”
Keep in mind that almost no one today actually practices them fully. Even those most adamantly opposed to women’s ministry usually allow them to sing, in the choir and/or in their seat. But Paul requires silence. One cannot simply quote these two texts, without explanation, to prohibit women from pastoring. They might prohibit a whole lot more than that!
The real question is this: Do these two verses, on which so much of our history as the church rests – do these verses contradict what Paul says elsewhere? Or is it more likely that Paul would hold a consistent view and we are misunderstanding one group of texts?
Let’s begin with 1 Corinthians 14. One approach to it is to say Paul couldn’t have written both kinds of texts. Therefore, these “less pro¬gres¬sive” texts were added later. Others say that 1 Corinthians 14 addressed women yelling questions from the church balcony. This was based on the view that ancient synagogues (like Medieval orthodox ones) had women’s balconies. But the archaeological evidence doesn’t support this; besides, by this period the church met in homes. Anther view: Some say Paul was prohibiting women from praying publicly in tongues or prophesying. But earlier in the very same letter he allowed women to pray and prophesy (11:4-5) Some say it means women can’t teach the Bible from the pulpit, but this may be the least defensible position. Teaching is not part of the context, and the Corinthians couldn’t “flip over” to 1 Timothy 2 – which hadn’t been written yet. But let’s look directly at the verses themselves. Paul cannot be mandating every possible kind of silence (e.g., no singing) because he earlier allows women to pray and prophesy – which can’t be done silently. But this is a letter to Corinth: Paul and the Corinthians know what issue he is addressing, but how can we tell?
He gives us a clue: ... They are not allowed to speak... If they want to inquire about something, they should ask their own husbands at home; for it is disgraceful for a woman to speak in the church. Notice the one kind of speech Paul specifically addresses: asking questions. How was this relevant in church? It was customary for people to interrupt public lectures with questions. This was true in Greek and Roman lectures (Plutarch, Aulus Gellius). Jewish rabbis’ lectures were also fair game for interrup¬tions. Presumably likewise in church discussions. (House churches generally couldn’t seat more than 50 people anyway, so the setting would be conducive to such interaction.) But the one kind of question that was considered rude was an unlearned question. It would be like a student asking a question that showed he hadn’t done his homework. This would cause the person utter humiliation and embarrassment. So maybe they were interrupting with unlearned questions.
But why was it the women who were asking unlearned questions? Do women have lower IQ’s than men? Is this a genetic problem? Or were women less educated than men? You can probably guess the answer. Even in upper-class homes, women were rarely educated beyond 14 years of age. There were some very educated women, but they were exceptions. Women could attend synagogue, but not study Torah in depth. The Rabbis refused to train women in Torah. Boys were taught to recite Torah, girls were not. So Paul gives two solutions, one short- and the other long-range.
SHORT-RANGE SOLUTION: Stop asking disruptive questions in church, because you are unlearned.
LONG-RANGE SOLUTION: Get some private tutoring to catch you up, so your questions won’t be unlearned any more. “If they want to inquire about something, they should ask their own husbands at home” (14:35). The vast majority of women over 18 were married, so it’s only natural that Paul would tell the women to get their husbands to give them private tutoring. This may not sound very progressive in our culture, but it certainly was in Paul’s culture. Greek men on average were some 12 years older than their wives and viewed them as children. Plutarch is progressive by ancient standards: “Take an interest in your wife’s learning, even though most men think wives can’t learn.” But then Plutarch ruins it: “For if left to themselves women produce only base passions and folly.” Paul doesn’t ruin it. The problem in Corinth is not that women are teaching. Rather, it’s that they’re learning. Or, more accurately, they’re learning too loudly.
The other possibility is that Paul is dealing with the congregation’s respectability in society. Women normally didn’t speak in public. Paul says it is “shameful” for a woman to speak in public (14:35). The Greek term he uses could be used of culturally shameful behavior. He may be concerned about the witness to unbelieving Corinthians, as he was in 14:23-24 when he gave instructions on speaking in tongues. The applica¬tion today would be different, however. In our society, restrain¬ing women would be a far worse witness than women speaking. So even keeping to Paul’s intention, the application today should not be to silence women.
The other problem text is 1 Timothy 2:11-12 (in context 2:8-15). Did you know this is the only text in the Bible that prohibits women from teaching? This is the only text in the Bible that prohibits women from teaching. It doesn’t just say they can’t pastor. It says they can’t teach the Bible, period. It also says that women shouldn’t “have authority over men.” A literal and grammatically correct reading says women shouldn’t teach Sunday School, seminary or anywhere else; they shouldn’t teach men, but neither should they be allowed to teach other women or children.
So what gives? What is really interesting is that the only passage in the Bible that prohibits women from teaching the Bible happens to be in the only series of letters where we specifically know that false teachers were targeting women with their teachings. Paul warns younger widows not to go from house to house as “gossips and ‘busybodies’” (1 Timothy 5:13). The term translated “busybodies” normally means speakers of nonsense, spreaders of false ideas or false doctrines. Paul speaks of false teachers who “worm their way into homes and gain control over weak-willed women, who are loaded down with sins and are swayed by all kinds of evil desires” (2 Timothy 3:6). Do you think it’s just a coincidence that the one place Paul restricts women’s ministry is the one place where false teachers were targeting women? Of course not. So why start with this text and ignore innumerable others where Paul affirms women’s ministry?
If the matter stopped here there would be little debate today. Everyone acknowledges the importance of cultural background in understanding the New Testament. No one wants Paul to contradict what he said earlier. BUT: Paul goes on to cite two biblical reasons why women shouldn’t teach:
(1) For Adam was formed first, then Eve.
(2) And Adam was not the one deceived; it was the woman who was deceived and became a sinner.
Let’s consider these two in turn. First, Paul says that women cannot teach the Bible because Eve, hence all women, are, by the order of their creation, more susceptible to deception. But is this really what Paul means? The issue here is that Paul uses Scriptural teaching about the order of creation and the deception of Eve to make his point. But is he making a universal application to be applied for all time or is he making an essentially ad hoc argument as? So what is an ad hoc argument, you ask. Ad hoc is a Latin phrase which means “for this purpose.” It’s a solution designed for a specific problem or task, non-generalizable, which cannot be adapted to other purposes. In other words, Paul uses universal Scripture principles to make a local point that is not meant to cover all circumstances. He does this in Galatians 3:16. But more to our issue for us, Paul uses the exact same point – that Adam was created before Eve – as one of his arguments in 1 Corinthians 11:2-16 for why women should wear head coverings. But no one today believes that godly women must universally, always wear head-coverings, or that a woman who prays without her head covered is dishonoring her husband. So if we take the teaching of 1 Corinthians 11 as cultural, why not take it as cultural here?
If we look back at Genesis itself, creation order simply does not require women not to teach. Man and Woman together are to exercise dominion over creation, as God’s image (Genesis 1:26-27). God makes Eve to be “a helper suitable for [Adam]” (2:18). “Helper” is a term of strength – most often used of GOD. “Suitable” means “corresponding to” – not greater, like God, nor lesser, like the animals. Some protest, Adam is supposed to rule over his wife. But that was only after the Fall. Marital power-conflict is part of the judgment (3:16), “...Your desire will be for your husband, and he will rule over you.” Should we promote the effects of the Fall? If so, then we should get men to sweat at work (turn off all fans, air conditioners), increase pain at childbirth (Ob Gyn’s should stomp on pregnant women’s bellies), and we should get people to sin and die as much as possible because these were also part of the curse. So the fact that Eve was created second doesn’t seem to be a factor in whether or not women should be pastors.
So let’s turn now to Paul’s second argument in 1 Timothy that women are easily deceived: “And Adam was not the one deceived; it was the woman who was deceived and became a sinner” (1 Timothy 2:14). Is this a universal principle or another local application?
Universal principle: Eve = All Women. Eve was deceived; Therefore, women are deceived. Therefore, no woman should ever teach. Except for teaching other women (in Titus 2:4), whom they may deceive especially thoroughly, since women are easily deceived.
Or is this a Local Application? In which case, Eve = anyone who is easily deceived. The women in Ephesus are easily deceived. Therefore, these women shouldn’t teach (in this case, this passage wouldn’t contradict all the other passages about women’s ministry, making it easier to recognize the Bible’s trustworthiness).
In deciding the matter, let’s ask some questions: ARE WOMEN more easily deceived than men? If Paul is making a universal argument, it must be objectively true that women are more easily deceived than men. If it is universal rather than local, then it is genetic rather than cultural. It would have to apply to all women or else we could not exclude all women from teaching the Bible. This should be easy enough to test empirically. So what do intelligence tests show? On average women prove better on verbal skills, men on math skills: which are better for preaching? Beyond aver¬ages, both genders do equally well in seminary classes. So no, empirically we know that not all women are more easily deceived than all men.
Finally in this regard, Paul uses this same analogy of Eve being the one deceived in another passage, and it is obviously not intended to apply only to women. In 2 Corinthians 11:3, he says that he doesn’t want the Corin¬thians to be deceived like Eve was by the serpent. Clearly, Paul applies the Genesis account of Eve’s deception not as a universal analogy for women only – but for anyone who can be deceived?
As we’ve seen, Paul does make ad hoc arguments for local situations, so why do we insist that only this one single text in 1 Timothy must be applied universally, and not all the others? Why don’t we press all texts and make them mandatory without taking into account their cultural situation? For example: 1 Corinthians 16:1-3, “Now about the collection for God’s people: Do what I told the Galatian churches to do. On the first day of every week, each one of you should set aside a sum of money in keeping with his income, saving it up, so that when I come no collections will have to be made. Then, when I arrive, I will give letters of introduction to the men you approve and send them with your gift to Jerusalem.” Or what about 2 Timothy 4:13? “When you come, bring the cloak that I left with Carpus at Troas, and my scrolls, especially the parchments.” How many of you have ever tried to obey this direct commandment of Scripture? To obey this you would have to: Go to Troas; Excavate Troas; Find the right first-century cloak (assuming it survived, assuming Timothy didn’t already fetch it, assuming you could tell it was Paul’s). Only one person at most can fulfill this command! Once you’ve got the cloak – how do you get it to Paul? He’s DEAD!
Friends, the Bible clearly shows us that women throughout the ages have prayed, prophesied, served and taught the people of God, faithfully and fruitfully. They have been limited in their ability to do so by society as a result of the fall, but it is not God’s intention to keep half of the human race on the sidelines when it comes to ministry. There is really only one single passage in all the Bible that would seem to prohibit women from serving as pastors and teachers, and as we have shown, it can certainly be understood in a completely different way. Given the overwhelming evidence for women in ministry, it would appear that the only thing that would keep them out today is what kept them out through the centuries: discriminatory social custom. It is apparent that Paul not only allowed women to serve in ministry alongside himself, but he deeply cherished their service as God’s gift.
As I stated at the outset, our only guide in these matters must be Scripture. Well, I believe that the Scriptural evidence is overwhelming: God gifts women just as He does men for service in His name. And who am I to stand against what God has done? “There is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus” (Galatians 3:28).