Considering the Role of Women in the Church

Someone recently sent me a link to R.C. Sproul’s lesson on The Role of Women in the Church. She had only a little info about the PCA study committee and was concerned. I allayed some fears, but since this is probably one of the few older Sproul lessons I haven’t heard I decided to listen to it with the officers of our congregation at a combined meeting.

This is so old that Bill Hybels made a guest appearance. I believe the context is that R.C. was asked to talk to a group of people at Willow Creek. In the intervening years, it would be safe to say that they have probably changed their position on this subject.

Here is something of a summary from the notes that I took.

Protest movements have real pain behind them at their roots despite their sometimes illegitimate actions. The Feminist movement is no different. It is a response to patronizing attitudes and exploitation. Women have not been treated well by men in society, and in the church.

On the other hand, the church has not missed the truth about women and ministry for 2,000 years. The question of who may be ordained is either determined by God, or my subjective evaluation of who is gifted to serve. The qualifications, particularly with regard to character, either matter or they don’t.

R.C. alluded to when he was in the United Presbyterian Church. The largely egalitarian denomination permitted men to hold the complementarian position. This changed after an ecclesiastical court case and officers like R.C. were told to change their views, leave for another denomination or face disciplinary action.

R.C. noted that he wrote a minority report for the PCA favoring the ordination of women deacons. This requires some explanation, obviously. He has no prejudice against women. He wants to be as liberal on this question as the Scriptures allow him to be. In this context he mentioned a debate at Gordon-Conwell (or perhaps he said Gordon College where he taught for a time) years earlier when he was the only faculty member willing to take up the complementarian position. For him, the question always traces back to 1 Timothy 2.

¹¹ Let a woman learn quietly with all submissiveness. ¹² I do not permit a woman to teach or to exercise authority over a man; rather, she is to remain quiet. ¹³ For Adam was formed first, then Eve; ¹⁴ and Adam was not deceived, but the woman was deceived and became a transgressor.

This passage, he believes and I concur, does not allow women in positions of authority in the church. Some kind of teaching and some kind of authority are prohibited. He noted there were different kinds of “authority”. There can the authority of expertise or influence. The type in question is judicial or governing authority.

Judicial authority is the right to command and demand the actions of others. Paul restricts judicial authority over men in the church. The context is ecclesiastical, so this is limited by that context. Women may have authority in the workplace or school and other contexts. He rejects patriarchy.

There is also the general vs. technical sense of teaching. He believes this refers to teaching with ecclesiastical authority.

The general term for office is diaconos- service. Church office is an office of service. We do not lord it over others like the Gentiles do.

Women are not allowed to sit in judicial power- to be on the session or an elder.

The PCA ties government to ministry in way he thinks is an unbiblical way. This is why he generally supports women deacons, but doesn’t in the PCA. The BCO indicates that though an office of service, it has power or authority (though not a court so it is fairly confusing and one of those things I’d love to see clarified in the BCO). Sproul thinks that preaching does not necessarily have governmental authority because the court is not in session during preaching. At this point R.C. and Bill discussed Elizabeth Elliot who refused to preach at Willow Creek on a Sunday morning. Bill invited her to come during the week. R.C. had her “speak” a few times at Ligonier c0nferences (that is not a local church and does not have an ecclesiastical governing body).

Our officers commented that perhaps this means a woman could be an assistant pastor since they don’t serve on the Session (this was largely sarcastic since we don’t like the assistant pastor position). But they do serve in the courts of presbytery and General Assembly so don’t take the joke seriously.

R.C. noted that he sometimes worries that his position is too liberal (and some PCA pastors would agree). But he needs to be faithful to the text, which his opponent in the aforementioned debate agreed supports the complementarian position. P.K. Jewett agreed that the complementarian interpretation of the text was correct. As a result, Jewett denied the authority of the text in his defense of women’s ordination.

Different denominations have different working definitions of ordination. All it means is to be consecrated to an purpose or office. Scripture nowhere explicitly says women are not to be ordained. We have to talk about the particular office in question, and build an implicit argument regarding ordination in general.

He main principle was that the parameter are to be those set forth in Scripture, not culture or the “light of nature.”

Read Full Post »

Considering 1 Corinthians 11:7-12

In moving thru 1 Corinthians we’ve affirmed the reality of covenant relationships, and therefore covenant heads. This reality needs to be reflected in our worship. Paul addresses this when women pray and prophesy.

We went back to this in terms of prayer and prophecy. Does this refer to women covering their heads when the pastor prays, or the congregation recites a prayer; or is the issue (as most Knight and others thought) a wife or woman praying extemporaneously? The question of ancient liturgies like St. James’ and St. Mark’s emerged. They had many prayers recited. While closer in time to the worship of the early church than ours, it might look more like their worship. Maybe.

Since it is connected to prophesying, the issue seems to be when a woman stands out among the congregation and therefore wearing a symbol of their submission to their covenant head or the created order. Those ancient liturgies didn’t offer room for these practices. The worship in Corinth seems to be different than that reflected in ancient liturgies, and our own worship today.

The question arose about prayer meetings. When women pray (pray aloud, differentiated from everyone else) she should continue to honor the created order and her covenant head.

Here in the U.S. the wearing of head coverings was throughout the whole service. That might be easier than putting it on and taking it off, but doesn’t seem to be required by the text. This practice seems to have declined with the rise of evangelical feminism and liberal theology.

Personally, I still lean toward these coverings being applications of the principle of honoring your covenant head. I struggle with trying to merely mimic what we think the practice was. This could be a remnant of my own cultural captivity. I don’t know. But I don’t want to major on a minor (this is only found once and seems far less significant as a result).

Now we move along in 1 Corinthians.

ESV	NASB	NIV
7 For a man ought not to cover his head, since he is the image and glory of God, but woman is the glory of man. 8 For man was not made from woman, but woman from man. 9 Neither was man created for woman, but woman for man. 10 That is why a wife ought to have a symbol of authority on her head, because of the angels. 11 Nevertheless, in the Lord woman is not independent of man nor man of woman; 12 for as woman was made from man, so man is now born of woman. And all things are from God.	7 For a man ought not to have his head covered, since he is the image and glory of God; but the woman is the glory of man. 8 For man does not originate from woman, but woman from man; 9 for indeed man was not created for the woman’s sake, but woman for the man’s sake. 10 Therefore the woman ought to have a symbol of authority on her head, because of the angels. 11 However, in the Lord, neither is woman independent of man, nor is man independent of woman. 12 For as the woman originates from the man, so also the man has his birth through the woman; and all things originate from God.	7 A man ought not to cover his head, since he is the image and glory of God; but woman is the glory of man. 8 For man did not come from woman, but woman from man; 9 neither was man created for woman, but woman for man. 10 It is for this reason that a woman ought to have authority over her own head, because of the angels. 11 Nevertheless, in the Lord woman is not independent of man, nor is man independent of woman. 12 For as woman came from man, so also man is born of woman. But everything comes from God.

Barnett believes Paul brings them back to the marriage of Adam and Eve here to establish the created order. At the very least vv. 12 is about Adam and Eve based on context.  It is odd that Paul doesn’t use their names which would have made this easier for them and use to understand exactly what is going in here.

Some questions quickly come to mind.

1. Why does the ESV use “wife” instead of “woman” in verse 10? Why no consistency in usage based on the context?
2. Why do most translations add phrases (see the words in italics in the NASB)? Clarity matters, yes.  Adding “a symbol of” can change the meaning as we’ll see below.
3. How do the angels fit in?

vv. 7

For a man/husband ought not to cover (infinitive) the head, for he is the image and glory of God but the woman/wife is the glory of man

This includes some incomplete parallelism. She’s also in the image of God (Gen. 1). But Paul wouldn’t deny this. What is he getting at? This is still in the context of honoring and dishonoring your covenant head. Or better, the created order. Earlier Paul said Christ was the head of man. But in the created order we see Adam was created for God’s glory. We also see that Eve was created for Adam’s glory. The concept of “helpmate corresponding to him” matters. Men bring glory or dishonor to God by their actions. Women not only bring glory or dishonor to God but also their husbands by their actions. We see a glimpse of this in Proverbs 31 where her husband and children rise up and call the valiant woman blessed in the city gate.

“… for it is a great honor that God has appointed her to the man as the partner of his life, and a helper to him, and has made her subject to him as the body is to the head.” John Calvin

“She is related to man as his glory, a relationship that somehow appears to be jeopardized by her present actions.” Gordon Fee

“She is his ‘glory’ since she fulfills him at his deepest wellsprings of companionship, sexual fellowship and shared procreation.” Paul Barnett

vv. 8-9

For a man/husband is not out of a woman, but woman out of man, and man was not created through the woman, but woman through the man

Paul is obviously addressing creation here! The submission of a wife to a husband is rooted in creation, not the fall. The fall makes it a contentious and often abusive matter so headship is marked by sin and misery. The problem is the people involved, not the fact of headship. Eve was created ‘out of’ Adam, from his rib (Gen. 2). She was created for Adam, so he could fulfill God’s mandate. He could not fulfill God’s mandate alone.

“Man by himself is not complete; he is alone, without a companion or helper suitable to him.” Gordon Fee

vv. 10

Therefore the woman/wife ought to have authority upon/on/over her head on account of the angels/messengers.

This is one of the more difficult sentences that we come across. As we noted above, “symbol” is typically added.

“It is possible, however, that the major translations have erred by inserting the words ‘a sign/symbol of.’ It is more in keeping with the Greek original to translate the verse ‘the woman ought to have authority over her head,’ meaning that women ought to exercise authority over their physical heads. This understanding indicates that Paul wanted women to act responsibly and on their own in the matter of head coverings. This more literal reading is confirmed by the next statement, ‘However, woman is not independent of man’. This clause appears to qualify an assertion of the women’s authority encouraged in 11:10.” Richard Pratt

As a result, it can be taken more literally as taking authority over her physical head, or being responsible. The idea is she should take responsibility for her actions, not that the husband should “make” her do this. This would be similar to Ephesians 5. The husband is not told to make his wife submit. He is told to love her like Christ loves the Church.

“But finally we must beg ignorance. Paul seems to be affirming the ‘freedom’ of women over their own heads; but what that means in this context remains a mystery.” Gordon Fee

Calvin seems to affirm that the token of her submission is at best unclear. He may also seem to be noting some level of contextualization for that token. This makes me feel better about not being certain what exactly the wives of Corinth were expected to do, and therefore what my wife might be expected to do.

“… for he means a token by which she declares herself to be under the power of her husband; and it is a covering, whether it be a robe, or a veil, or any other kind of covering.” John Calvin

Unfortunately Calvin does affirm a form of partriarchy in his comments on this passage. Sometimes I disagree with Calvin, and this is one of them. I reject that notion that women are subject to men. In the Bible I see the command to be in submission direct to wives toward their husbands, not men. That is a very important distinction. For instance, as an American I submit to the government of the United States including our President. I don’t care what Castro and Cuba say. I obey their laws while I may travel there since I don’t want to dishonor God and end up on a Cuban prison. But I don’t submit to all governments at all times.

“It is however a mistake (to limit this to wives), for Paul looks beyond this- to God’s eternal law, which has made the female sex subject to the authority of men. On this account all women are born, that they may acknowledge themselves inferior in consequences of the superiority of the male sex.” John Calvin

Angels can refer to supernatural beings or human messengers. In 1 Peter 2:9, for instance, the word commonly translated “proclaim” is a verbal form of angel.  Pratt for instance thinks this might refer to earthly visitors from other churches. These messengers, like those who bore this letter, could be scandalized by the women’s behavior. This could break the peace of the churches. Our they could wrong import the wrong practice of Corinth back to their home church or other churches and corrupt them.

Calvin notes that priests are called “angels” in Mal. 2:7. He thinks pastors were not referred to in this way, but this may be what is happening in Revelation 2-3. The angels of the churches could refer to their pastors, not angelic beings.

Another option  is presented by Fee: that this reflects the argument of the “liberated” women in Corinth who think they are now like the angels and need no such sign. This brings us back to the over-realized eschatology but doesn’t quite fit the grammar. He also notes it may also include the idea that they already speak in the tongues of angels. That reference in 1 Cor. 13 is probably rhetorical. The tongues in Corinth would be the same as the tongues in Acts 2- known languages understood by others.

“The apostles do not argue just for some authority in marriage, but explicitly and particularly for man’s authority and headship over woman and woman’s submission to man.” George Knight

vv. 11-12

however neither is (the) woman/wife apart/separate from (the) man/husband, nor is (the) man/husband apart/separate from (the) woman/wife in the Lord. For as the woman/wife (is) out of/from the man/husband, so also the man/husband through the woman/wife and all things out of/from God.

In union with Christ, spouses are not independent or separated from one another. Independent is probably not the best sense of the word. In the marriage union we are ‘one flesh’. We can wrongly act independently of our spouse, as if we aren’t married but this seems to go deeper.

Redemption does not undo creation. Redemption does not undo the marriage union until glorification. Yet men cannot preserve themselves (as a race) apart from women. We should not throw off the various yokes God has placed on us. We should also affirm our interdependence in the state of marriage. We may have different roles, but we very much need the role fulfilled by the spouse. This is not suspended while you are in public worship. You remain married, and need to continue honoring that marriage, your spouse and God’s order while in worship.

independent (cwris) adv. Separate, apart, without any, besides

 

“To be sure, a woman is that glory of a man, being created from him and for him, and therefore bearing the make of his authority on her.” Paul Barnett

“Husbands must not think that their headship implies independence from or superiority over their wives. Their dependence on their wives qualified their roles as heads. … To be sure, husbands have a headship role, but this role does not eliminate the need for wives to cultivate their own relationships with Christ.” Richard Pratt

Take Aways:

• We can’t reject the possibility that feminism has infected/influenced many conservative churches in this matter. Perhaps the lack of coverings in our churches comes from this.
• There may be worship practices that make a woman stand out. If she does, her goal should be to honor God and her head rather than herself.
• Married women who serve in the church are not independent of their husbands but should continue to honor them in how they serve. This means involving him in decisions rather than willfully making decisions since they may affect family life in unintended or unanticipated ways.

Read Full Post »

Considering For a Continuing Church

In recent years the decades leading up to the formation of the PCA have been the focus on some discussion within the denomination. This is for a few reasons. One reason is the recent Overture on Race that passed at General Assembly this year. It has been a lengthy discussion, and a frustrating discussion for all involved. Another reason is the seemingly annual cries around the time of General Assembly that the PCA is “going liberal”.  Comparisons are often made to the struggle between progressives and conservatives in the PCUS that led to many of the conservatives leaving in 1973 to form the PCA, and another wave that left in 1982 to form the EPC.

For a Continuing Church: The Roots of the Presbyterian Church in America by Sean Michael Lucas is a timely book in light of these and other concerns. He looks at the issues that took place in the PCUS and how the disagreements played out. In this way, the reader can see the culpability of many conservatives in segregation and putting up barriers many minorities feel when they think of the PCA. In other words, he shows the need for Overture 43 (and the others) in the hopes that we will be more inclusive of our brothers and sisters of other ethnic backgrounds having been made sensitive to how conservative Presbyterians have treated this issue in the past.

This is not a blanket condemnation. He notes how many, including Nelson Bell who is Billy Graham’s father-in-law, softened their stance over the years. Around the time of the conservatives’ departure, many of the younger conservative leaders wanted an integrated church. Many leaders did not want a racially segregated church. Others did. In other words, the PCA started with differences of opinion on this issue, and continues to have differences of opinion on this issue. There have been painful discipline issues in recent years, involving people I know, to address racism in our congregations. The “Concerned Presbyterians” Facebook page spouts kinism anonymously. We still have a ways to go, but many of us want to see the changes happen.

Lucas could have been more exhaustive in this regard. But he said enough. His goal was not to expose and humiliate people but to be honest about our past. He made his point without going for the jugular.

He spent far more time addressing the doctrinal declension of the PCUS, and the resulting problems with church discipline, as well as the disagreement over the spirituality of the church and how it should be applied in social issues.

The key issue in the doctrinal declension was the doctrine of Scripture. This lay at the root of things. Their version of system subscription was being flexible on issues like inspiration and inerrancy. The strict subscriptionists today try to compare current “declension” in the PCA to liberalism and progressivism. But no presbyteries are giving exemptions for low views of Scripture. The exemptions have to do with how to interpret particular passages (like Genesis 1-3) with some interpretations ruled out of bounds (like theistic evolution). As I look at the PCA today, though I am a theological conservative, and a confessional Presbyterian, I don’t see the “big tent” as a huge problem because I don’t expect everyone to think like me.

They had their issues with “discernment bloggers” so to speak. Some conservatives took to journals to attack the progressives. We see similar verbiage today from those bemoaning the decline of the PCA: Marxist is one I’ve seen quite a bit lately.

The conservatives were scared of the world around them, just as we can be today. They were afraid of liberalism, Marxism/communism, integration. We see similar concerns today. Toss in feminism.

The PCUS, due to their low view of Scripture, went all the way with female ordination. There was no slippery slope, they instituted women deacons and elders at the same time. Some today look at the study committee on women in the church as see that all over again. I’m not sure how they arrive at that position. What Scripture said didn’t matter to much of the PCUS. It does matter to most in the PCA. Many have some questions and want to better understand what Scripture says. It is possible that we have as many cultural blinders on as the progressives. In our own history, the RPCES joined with the PCA in the 80’s. They had women deacons. This was not a huge obstacle for joining and receiving then. But now it would be, at least for some. They see this as feminism, not a different understanding of a very confusing text (1 Tim. 3:11). Principled people have different views of women worship leaders, SS teachers, etc. It would be good to better understand all of this, but some see even asking questions as evidence of liberalism.

The conservatives in the PCUS were frustrated by the church discipline process. It seemed as if it was extremely difficult to discipline men who were teaching false doctrine. Often conservatives faced road blocks to ministry. It seemed just to block conservative candidates but not liberal ones.

There is some frustration today about church discipline. I don’t think it is quite the same as the problem back then. It has been difficult to discipline people teaching the Federal Vision. What I don’t see is conservatives being blocked from positions. The people I have seen blocked have been people with low views of Scripture and those open to continuationalism.

The spirituality of the church continues to be a struggle. Conservatives wanted to be involved in social issues, just different ones. They weren’t concerned about racism and civil rights (generally) but sure were about communism. In their eyes, one was not a gospel issue but the other clearly was. Conservatives, therefore, weren’t just about evangelism and prayer. They were politically involved too. But they complained about the social agenda of the progressives, as if they shouldn’t have one.

Today many attack any idea of social engagement as liberalism, a social gospel or cultural marxism. But they are often engaged politically themselves. Rather than see things as if we have different opinions on social issues, there is a polarization that continues today.

The PCA that the perpetually disgruntled want was not the intention of the founders, or at least the majority. They wanted a mainline Reformed evangelical denomination that affirmed the inspiration and authority of the Scriptures, fulfilled the Great Commission and held to the historic doctrines of the Westminster Confession. That is the PCA today. It wanted to become a national church, and it has become one. It wanted to be a culturally engaged church, and it has become one. This is part of what sets it apart from the OPC which has more of a fundamentalist or isolationist bent to it. I get the sense that the people who are groaning after every General Assembly have a similar isolationist bent and want the PCA to bend to their will rather than embrace it for what it was intended to be and is.

Sean Michael Lucas’ book is very important, and helpful, to help us see where we’ve come from and what the founders wanted the PCA to be, for better and worse. Perhaps we can gain greater perspective on where we need repentance, and where we need to be more reasonable. Maybe we’ll be more understanding of those we disagree with, less likely to jump to unfair characterizations, and discern where we can disagree in a principled fashion. I would strongly recommend this book for pastors and elders (and deacons?). Most of us now weren’t alive then. Many of us weren’t part of the PCUS or PCA when it was founded. This will help us to understand the tensions that pull various groups in the PCA apart.

Read Full Post »

Considering the Secret Thoughts of an Unlikely Convert

The time was ripe for Rosaria Butterfield’s recent book The Secret Thoughts of an Unlikely Convert: an English Professor’s Journey into Christian Faith. The time is ripe because everyone seems to be talking about homosexuality and same sex marriage. The church, or at least some of it, is struggling to be faithful to both the call to mission and a biblical morality. Some parts of the church focus on only one and lose sight of the other.

“I often wonder: God, why pick me? I didn’t ask to be a Christian convert. I didn’t ‘seek the Lord.’ Instead, I ran like the wind when I suspected someone would start peddling the gospel to me.”

While the subtitle focuses on Rosaria’s work as an English Professor, the first chapter makes clear that as an English professor she was a gay activist and lesbian who taught Queer Theory. Hers is an interesting story in many regards. It seems difficult to try and squeeze the first 36 years of a life into a chapter, albeit a long one, but that is what she does.

She was not looking to become a Christian. She felt no spiritual need. She was actually out to get Christianity or at least the Religious Right as part of her need to publish for her job. As she began to read the Bible things slowly changed. Just as important was a new friendship with one of those conservative Christians who happened to be the pastor of a local church.  It is an engaging journey as she is confronted with the truth of Christianity.

Read Full Post »

Considering Gender-Inclusive Language

With the upcoming release of a updated NIV (already available online), the whole gender-inclusive language issue rears its ugly head again.  This morning I was reading my NLT and was curious about their inconsistent use of Messiah in the New Testament, so I looked up their principles of translation in the Introduction.

In the New Testament, the Greek Work Christos has been translated as “Messiah” when the context assumes a Jewish audience.  When a Gentile audience can be assumed, Christos has been translated as “Christ.”

Yet, in James 1 which is written to Jewish Christians, they used Christ.  Hmmm.  Why do translations inconsistently transliterate rather than translate names & titles?  Aside from that interesting bit of curiosity, I spotted the section on Gender-Inclusive Language.  Here’s some of what they say:

“The English language changes constantly.  An obvious recent change is in the area of gender-inclusive language.  This creates problems for modern translations of the ancient biblical text, which was originally written in a male-oriented culture.  The translator must respect the nature of the ancient context while also accounting for the concerns of the modern audience.  Often the original language itself allows a rendering that is gender inclusive.  For example, the Greek word anthropos, traditionally rendered “man,” really means “human being” or “person.”   A different Greek word, aner, specifically means a male.

I guess the question is “to what degree is the Scripture reflecting culture and to what degree is culture a reflection of creation principles?”  Their example is a good one.  The language has the capability to be clear, and we must honor that.  We must also remember when women are included/assumed in a general statement like “brothers.”  Most people have no problem with recognizing that and saying “brothers & sisters”, though their use of “Christian friends” is problematic.  It takes the text out of the context of the Church as God’s household and it’s members as adopted sons (and therefore heirs).  This is an example of the danger that happens with some attempts of gender-inclusive language.  It can strip the text of its context and lose meaning (as well as impart unintended meaning).

Overall, I think the NLT does a good job.  There are places a wince a tad.  But the translation is very readable (which I really can’t say for the ESV though I am using it more often these days).  I like it for a devotional Bible, but I’m not comfortable using it to teach or preach.  Yes- there is a significant difference in my mind.

Last week I began to read The Doctrine of the Knowledge of God.  In his preface, John Frame acknowledges that some women (and men) may be unhappy with his book and why he did not use gender-inclusive language (in the mid-80’s).  I find some of his arguments important for today with a much more important text- the Scriptures.

He starts with a caveat of sorts:

My practice does not reflect a belief that women cannot be theologians.  Quite the contrary.  For according to this book, everyone is a theologian!  I do believe that only men are called to the teaching eldership of the church, but the interest of this book is wider than that.

This distinction is important, and often lost on the “all or nothing” egalitarian crowd.  Women are also theologians.  All Christians are theologians (the question is whether they are good or bad theologians).  Theological study is not beyond the capacities of women.  They are fully capable of learning theology.  In 1 Timothy 2, where Paul famously forbids women to teach or have authority over a man he also says they should learn!  Learning, and teaching others (aside from men) is both encouraged and necessary.  Complementarians are often falsely accused of thinking that women are dense or incapable of ‘doing theology’.  Patently untrue.

Read Full Post »

Considering Tom Schreiner and Women Deacons

I was reading Tom Schreiner’s review of Scot McKnight’s book The Blue Parakeet tonight. In his attempt to develop a hermeneutic he uses women in ministry as a case study.  This review is found on The Council on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood’s Gender Blog.  Schreiner is a complementarian.  He does a good job of pointing out some weaknesses in his friend’s arguments.  But I found his comments on women deacons to be interesting.

 Similarly, Phoebe, in my judgment, served as a deacon (Romans 16:1-2; cf. 1 Timothy 3:11), but the office of deacon must be distinguished from the office of elder. Elders are distinguished from deacons in that they must be able to teach (1 Timothy 3:2; 5:17; Titus 1:9) and are required to rule (1 Timothy 3:4-5; 5:17). Significantly, Paul insists that women should not engage in teaching men or ruling the church in 1 Timothy 2:12. Hence, women serving as deacons does not mean that they should occupy the pastoral office. Certainly women served in a variety of ministries in the NT: Romans 16 almost serves as a roll call for such noble women. And we must not forget the evangelistic ministry of Euodia and Syntyche (Philippians 4:2). Still, the example of Priscilla does not mean that women can teach men publicly since she and Aquila instructed Apollos in a private setting (Acts 18:26). The pattern of the NT is more complex than the “all or nothing” approach of McKnight. Yes, women may serve in ministry as deacons, prophets, and missionaries, but they are not to serve as pastors/elders/overseers. 

What surprised me was that this stalwart complementarian, on Gender Blog no less, states that he believes women may be deacons.  I don’t think people can accuse him of being a closet feminist.  Or capitulating to culture.  This is an area where honest complementarians disagree.

Read Full Post »