Gender in the Church

Since the beginning of time humans have fought for power and position.  The news often speaks of people doing unethical things in hopes to gain better position or power in a job or institution.  Also there are books written about the “glass ceiling”, and gender discrimination. Unfortunately, these issues are not absent in the church, only most recently have women been given the opportunity to assume positions of leadership in the church such as senior pastor. However, there is still people, some very influential that believe women should not be allowed to be in leadership in the church, and for the most part men occupy a good majority of the leadership positions in the church.  The issue is does the Bible say that women cannot lead in the church?  And if this is the case why is this so? There are two main views on whether or not women can be leaders in the church; the complementarian view, and the egalitarian view.

The complementarian affirms that men and women are made in the image of God, but that “[d]istinctions in masculine and feminine roles are ordained by God as part of the created order, and should find an echo in every human heart.”  John Piper and Wayne Grudem in their book Recovering Biblical Manhood and Womanhood define what these roles are in terms of what is manhood and what is womanhood?  Manhood is “…a sense of benevolent responsibility to lead, provide for and protect woman in ways appropriate to a man’s differing relationships.”  Womanhood is defined as “a freeing disposition to affirm, receive, and nurture strength and leadership from worthy men in ways appropriate to a woman’s differing relationships.” Piper and Grudem argue that based on these definitions, women being in authority over men is out of the question and goes against their definition of womanhood.  Piper suggests that a good way to figure out what is an appropriate role for a woman in the church is one that is “non personal” and “non-directive”.  For example a good role for a woman would be in the nursery because the woman does not have authority over men and the woman is not interacting directly with men on a regular basis.  Other roles Piper suggests are an instrumentalist on the worship team, being part of a prayer ministry and teaching Sunday school.

People who hold the Complementarian view find support in verses such as I Corinthians 14:34-35 and I Timothy 2:11-15 arguing that these verses are relevant today in the message that woman should not teach in the church.  They also use Genesis 2:18 to show that Eve was made to “help” Adam, and based on this verse some theologians argue that this should be the attitude that is applied to how women are viewed in marriage and leadership.

One of the views of leadership in the church is called the Egalitarian View.  Egalitarianism is defined as “a belief in human equality especially with respect to social, political, and economic rights and privileges.” People with the Egalitarian feel that leadership should not be determined by gender but by spiritual gifts.  The Egalitarian view should not be confused with the Feminism movement.   Rebecca Merrill Groothuis states in her book that “The idea of gender equality came not from society, but from the gospel of Jesus Christ…all are ‘sons’ of God and Christ.”  Groothuis confirms the fact that all are created equal is found in the Bible.

People that hold the view of equality in the church have to provide an explanation for several verses in the Bible that seems to say otherwise.  One passage that is often brought up against the Egalitarian View is I Corinthians 14: 34-35 which goes as follows: “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.”  This passage seems pretty clear that women should be silent in the churches.  If women are silent in the church, leadership is certainly out of the question. However this passage must be looked at keeping in mind the cultural aspect on the time.  Paul was addressing an issue going on in the Corinthian Church.  At the time that this letter was written, most women were uneducated, and only men were allowed to study the law.  Boyd and Eddy in their book Across the Spectrum stated that in the Corinthian church “women would disrupt services by asking their more educated husbands what the teacher meant.”

People who hold the Egalitarian View feel that this passage should not be taken as the collective standard for all churches and all time periods.  This is supported by the fact that Paul had women that were apart of his ministry.  In Philippians 4:2-3 Paul mentions two women by name that had served with him.  If Paul’s message to the Corinthians was meant to be a universal doctrine Paul would be contradicting his own words.  However, if one accepts the fact that Paul is writing to a specific group of people on a specific situation giving a solution to a problem, there is no contradiction.

            People who hold the Complementarian view find support in verses such as I Corinthians 14:34-35 and I Timothy 2:8-15 arguing that these verses are relevant today in the message that woman should not teach in the church.  They also use Genesis 2:18 to show that Eve was made to “help” Adam, and based on this verse some theologians argue that this should be the attitude that is applied to how women are viewed in marriage and leadership.

I have personally seen the havoc that this issue has created in the church and writing this paper gave me a good opportunity to reinforce my opinion on this subject.  Both sides of this view have very influential people supporting this issue, but after researching this topic I agree with the Egalitarian view of leadership in the church.

In other classes that I have taken the instructor has stressed the point that when reading the Bible one must first look at the context of the passage.  In the research that I did on the Complementarian view the cultural and historical context was, for the most part, disregarded in the interpretation of the passages used to support this view.  In response to all the examples of women having leadership roles in the Bible the only response is that God made an exception to the rule and a couple exceptions should not mean anything.  However, this seems flawed because God would not make a rule or guideline and on a few occasions call people to go against that rule.

One thing that was not fully explained is what evidence in the Bible is there that women are not able to be in authority over men.  In John Piper’s book he defined what manhood and womanhood was, but that those two definitions were his opinion and had no biblical basis whatsoever. Piper claims the Evangelical Feminism is confusing Christians about what manhood and womanhood is, but what is really confusing is that woman that feels that God calling her to leadership and being told that her gender will not allow it.

    Reading through various arguments in support of the Complementarian view all the authors put forth argument why women cannot have authority over men, but all of them failed to provide any biblical basis and their arguments were purely opinion and theory.  One tactic that I noticed that was quite prevalent in the literature in support of the Complementarian view was that the author often attacked specific people and institution that held or accepted the Egalitarian view.  In fact, Bethel Seminary came up twice in two separate articles as being wrong for accepting “evangelical feminism” as a plausible view.  There is a big difference between criticism and condemnation, and I feel that several authors condemned other people for not sharing their view on this subject.  The issue is that whether or not women should be able to lead in the church is not tied up in dogmas of Christianity.  It seems that needless time and energy is being put into condemning others for not take the “right” side of an issue.  Looking at how the author reflect God in the way they present their point, I feel that the some of the people that argue for the Complementarian view are to quick to condemn on a issue that has strong support on both sides.

The Egalitarian view of leadership in the church emphasizes the fact that all are made in the image of God and are equipped with spiritual gifts.  Some of these spiritual gifts can be used in leadership in the church.  The view focuses on gifts not on gender, which is no indication of being equipped to lead or be in authority.

I firmly agree with the Egalitarian view of leadership in the church because I do not think that woman and men should be given specific characteristics that fit all men and women.  I for one am gifted in leadership and feel called in enter into ministry in the church.  Those with the Complementarian view describe woman in a specific way and I can honestly say that I do not fit the definition that they assign to women.  The Egalitarian view gives everyone the chance to fulfill what God wants for them, the Complementarian view has limited opportunities that woman can fulfill in the church.  This issue is highly debated, but one thing to remember is that we all worship the same God and this division is hindering the community believer that God call us to be to each.  So while I have a strong opinion on this subject, I will not allow this to get in the way of loving and treating others as God would.