Gender and Leadership
Introduction
One of the hottest issues in many churches today is the role of men and women within the church. For much of church history, male leadership was assumed, not only in the church, but also within government, society, and the family. After the sexual revolution of the last century, gender roles have shifted in society and in many churches. As a result, churches are being challenged to re-evaluate their historic positions.
Richview is looking at this issue for a few reasons:
Many within our church have asked why we have traditionally allowed only males to become pastors or deacons (board members).
We face decisions about gender roles in implementing Richview 2005 plans, especially relating to staffing and leadership.
The Fellowship is proposing a motion which would restrict the office of pastor/elder/overseer to men.
It is healthy to evaluate our faith and practice in light of Scripture.
Core Assumption: The Authority of Scripture
Our primary assumption in approaching this issue is the authority of the Bible to determine our faith and practice. This primary assumption has a number of implications.
First, it is important to note that the gender issue debate isn't over the authority of the Bible but its interpretation. Intelligent and godly people have agreed on the Bible's authority, but disagree on how to interpret some very challenging passages. It is not enough to state, "I believe the Bible, and therefore my position is true." One must also grapple with the interpretation of key passages.
Second, because the Bible is authoritative, it must always take precedence over our historical position. The authority of the Bible is higher than the authority of church tradition. All sides to this debate admit that the church has often acted wrongly toward women in the past (Johnson 40-48). Both sides of the debate are radically deviating from church tradition. For instance, few would argue today, as Thomas Aquinas did, that women are dominated by sexual appetite and that men are ruled by reason (Johnson 44).
Third, there are no problem passages. There may be challenging passages, but all Scripture is inspired by God and is useful (2 Timothy 3:16-17).
Two Other Assumptions
The two sides of the debate, often called complementarians (those who believe the Bible teaches that men and women have different and complementary roles) and egalitarians (those who believe that leadership positions are open to both men and women), disagree on many issues. However, both agree on two other assumptions, which are important to state.
First, the debate is not over the equality of women. Both sides of the debate are clear that both men and women are equal in value, and both were created in the image of God. While complementarians would suggest that men and women have different roles, they do not mean to say that men and women are not equal, just as the member of the Godhead differ in their roles but are fully equal.
Second, the debate is not about rights or power. Within God's Kingdom, there is no place for anyone to demand their rights or to cling to power (Matthew 20:25-28; Philippians 2:1-11). The debate is therefore not about feminism or women's rights.
Terminology
The key question we will examine is the relationship of gender and church leadership. Many churches, including Richview, function with different leadership titles, which can make the discussion confusing.
This paper will discuss the leadership position of "pastor/elder/overseer." This is because we believe that the leadership of the church is entrusted to a group (not an individual) of pastors/elders/overseers, who are responsible for its teaching and oversight before God.
At Richview, that group would include the pastoral staff and what we currently call deacons. We plan, in the future, to adopt language for our leadership roles that are more in line with the New Testament pattern.
The Challenge of Interpretation
The Bible was not written in a vacuum. It was written within a historical context, with a specific audience in mind, often to address specific issues. Somebody has compared it to listening to one side of a telephone conversation. We know, for instance, what Paul says through his writings, but we are not always sure what situation he was addressing.
Some Scriptures are clearly timeless in their application: "Love the LORD your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your strength" (Deuteronomy 6:5). Many others don't seem to be: "Do not wear clothing woven of two kinds of material" (Leviticus 19:19). "Do not cut the hair at the sides of your head or clip off the edges of your beard" (Leviticus 19:27).
It can be difficult to understand which Scriptures give principles relating to a specific time and situation, and which ones are timeless. "Moving from the ancient text into our modern world is not a simple matter" (Webb 15).
We will examine this question later as we look at specific texts. It is not enough to say, for instance, "Paul says in 1 Corinthians 14:35 that it's disgraceful for a woman to speak in church." One needs to ask if Paul was addressing a specific situation or culture, or expressing a timeless principle.
One scholar, Bill Webb, suggests that we not only examine each text in isolation, but that we also examine something he calls the redemptive-movement hermeneutic (hermeneutics is the art of interpreting the meaning of the Bible). In other words, he suggests that we not only look at the text itself, but how that text would have appeared from the original culture, and whether the pattern of texts point to an ultimate ethic (the direction in which the Scriptures are moving).
For instance, while Paul did not write that slavery should be abolished, he did provide ethical guidelines on how to treat slaves, and arguably established a direction that later culminated in the abolition of slavery (Webb 30-66). A static hermeneutic would argue that slavery today is permissible; a redemptive-movement hermeneutic sees that Scripture pointed toward the end of slavery.
Under this hermeneutic, it is possible to argue the following:
That many Scriptures on women seem regressive in light of today's culture
In the culture in which they were given, many of these same teachings were redemptive rather than regressive within the patriarchal society of the day.
The Scripture establishes a movement under redemption away from patriarchy to what Webb calls a "'complementary egalitarian' approach or an 'ultra-soft patriarchy' approach" (Webb 250).
While Webb's book has been well received in many quarters, it is far from universally accepted. Some question whether the New Testament talks about slavery, for instance, in quite the same way as it talks about gender.
Regardless of whether or not they accept Webb's thesis, all scholars would agree that the texts should not be interpreted apart from their context. John Stott puts it this way: "Although biblical truth is eternal and normative in its substance, it is often expressed in changeable cultural terms."
So this is our challenge. Some of the passages we're about to examine are among the most challenging in the Bible. We're not only being asked to understand them and their meaning for the original readers, but also to understand how they apply to our culture and situation. It is a challenging task that requires a good dose of humility.