The debate has been running for centuries: what is and is not acceptable for women in terms of church ministry? Can we teach? Prophesy? Serve communion? Be ordained? No two denominations answer these questions in exactly the same way, but beliefs generally fall into one of two categories: Some say women must take a subordinate role with limited participation (complementarianism); others say Scripture teaches full gender equality (egalitarianism).
The problem with these two terms is they confuse the issue. Definitions of the terms are unclear and open to endless tweaking of minutae; but more importantly, all but the most backward of people would agree genders are equal in the wider world outside of church. With this in mind, New Creation blog has proposed new terminology: “restrictive” and “non-restrictive“. I agree with the author – these terms are far more accurate and much clearer not only for churchgoers but for outside observers as well.
Color me pleased to have useful words to work with.
Getting Started 
Uh-oh. Don’t get me started, Peg.
You’re right about definitions becoming unclear. WARNING: the term “complementarianism” has been hijacked, and as far as I can tell now means “patriarchy”.
You are too generous in your categorization of women’s roles (you left out the obvious third category). In many churches, the answer to the question of whether women can teach/prophesy/serve communion/be ordained is No/No/No/No.
To complicate matters, the Battle for the Bible is at stake and, according to some, if we don’t follow to the letter 1Timothy 2:9-15 then we don’t believe any of the Bible, and are therefore apostate. I’m still licking my wounds over that one.
This is something like “intelligent design”, which I thought was a step in the right direction until that term got hijacked and now means “creationism”. Back to 1925 and the Monkey Trial.
I shouldn’t comment on “egalitarianism” because it hasn’t come up in our church, but that too may have shifted. I’m afraid that in some churches it amounts to feminism, which is no big improvement over patriarchy.
I have my own blogsurfing find about restrictive gender roles but will leave that for later if you’re interested. It has to do with independent fundamental baptist churches, not your own episcopal/anglican, and it can get ugly.
Yes! I’d be interested in seeing your article. Every denomination seems to have its own bugaboo about women participating in leadership. For many it’s the Timothy passage, but for the more Catholic-leaning it’s the issue of who can actually represent God as priest during communion. And so on. That’s part of why I think it’s actually more helpful to say “restrictive” and “non-restrictive”. Plus the reasons you mention (quite rightly) – the devaluation and shifting of terms. BTW – obvious third category? What did I miss?
On the I Timothy passage – any thoughts on why it’s so difficult for people to see that this passage conflicts with what both Paul and Jesus teach elsewhere?
BTW speaking of the evolution/intelligent design debate: have you ever read any Owen Gingerich? He’s a Mennonite and a former professor of astronomy at Harvard who believes in “theistic evolution”. His arguments are pretty convincing imo. (Required reading in Bill Witt’s class.)
Good morning, Peg.
The obvious 3rd category: NO participation by women. Your two categories were 1) “limited participation” and 2) “full gender equality”.
The fact that both Jesus and Paul include women elsewhere in prominent roles should be a clue that the 1Timothy passage shouldn’t be legalistic. We read about Phoebe, Anna, Priscilla, the various Marys, Martha, etc. and they certainly spoke up and got things done.
But legalism seems to be the problem, and it’s a crutch that keeps some people (perhaps all of us) from walking on two feet in the faith. It’s easier to spout a stock verse than to think for one’s self in the faith and to compare those difficult verses with other parts of scripture and get the larger meaning.
First Corinthians 11 gives ammo to another legalistic restriction, where Paul talks about hair length on women and men, and whether to cover the head. These appear to be styles of the time, and ordering men not to cover their heads here in Maine in the winter would not be a godly thing. He does qualify his directive at the end though, in verse 16: “If anyone wants to be contentious about this, we have no other practice—nor do the churches of God.” That’s NIV, but the Good News version says, “But if anyone wants to argue about it, all I have to say is that neither we nor the churches of God have any other custom in worship.” So it may well be custom and not a doctrinal thing.
The “command” not to let women speak (or teach, or serve communion, or be ordained) in church has come up in my church recently and also a number of years ago. It’s always a tiny minority (this time one person, and he not an official member). Somehow the complainant also ties this with abortion, and accuses some of our diaconate of voting for Obama and the Democrats, therefore making us complicit in murder and therefore apostate. The battle for the bible is at stake, whether we follow these “clear directives”; and in a follow-up letter he also brought in the question of creation/evolution, which really has to do with the inspiration and authority of the bible. To some, if we don’t believe literally in 6-days, we don’t believe in inspiration/authority at all and are therefore apostate. It’s all very simple: Quote these verses and don’t think for yourself.
That brings me to the blogsurfing find: legalism takes other nasty forms, and the blog that addresses this is Jeri Massi’s “Blog on the Way.”
http://jeriwho.net/lillypad2/
She deals with abuses in Independent Fundamental Baptist (IFB) churches and among other things there’s a discussion of the sentencing this week of Jack Schaap, former pastor of the mega Hammond Baptist in Indiana, for molesting a 16-year old girl.
Jeri Massi has authored several books too, some of them for children, but the one I’ve just finished is called Schizophrenic Christianity: How Christian Fundamentalism Attracts and Protects Sociopaths, Abusive Pastors, and Child Molesters.
I asked her a few weeks ago about painting with a broad brush, generalizing and hyperbolizing, and she answered,
Not to frighten you (you don’t belong to an independent church that is hyper-genderized) but you might keep you eye on this. Her book has answered a lot of things that I’ve noticed about people I’ve known, convicted or investigated for child molesting or child pornography. I finished the book the day that Schaap was sentenced (she mentions him peripherally in the book, as he hadn’t been charged at the time) and the news item bears her out very well.
I haven’t blogged about these things myself (and then there’s the pastor in a church near me who wore a loaded handgun during a “Second Amendment Sunday” a few weeks ago. That too.) but I’ve sounded off a few times on iMonk, Blog on the Way, and now here. It’s a little too close to home to write on my own blog, and could hurt some close friends. But the handgun incident made front page around here and I may tackle that one.
No, I haven’t heard of Owen Gingerich, but “theistic evolution” is what I used to think was included in “intelligent design”. No longer. That term has been hijacked and now means “creationism” all over again.
Wow Ted – you’ve said a mouthful! I’m tempted to say “keep preachin’, I’ll turn the pages”. 😉 Yes of course… I’d completely missed “no participation” which tells you how far off my radar that option is. I can see I need to be getting out of the academy and into real life more…!
I think an increase in legalism may be, in part, an indicator of the uncertain times we live in. When people feel secure they’re more likely to tolerate variety and experimentation. Combine uncertainty and fear with what you say about it being easier to trot out stock verses and it’s a recipe for double trouble.
Re: the dude who tied women speaking in churches to abortion rights and then to voting for Obama and then to being Democrats etc etc — did it help any to tell him to stick to one subject at a time?!? Holy cats! The really sad thing is when someone like this gets the upper hand in a church by claiming to have the authority of scripture… and it takes a lot of courage on the part of the leadership to look a dude like this in the eye and say “YOU do not speak for GOD, now sit down and listen up, sunshine.” How did your board of elders/deacons deal with the situation?
Thanks very much for the link to Jeri’s blog… I’ll have to add her to the blogroll. You know, the more I read (and see) of fundamentalist Christianity the more I think they’re the people group that most needs evangelizing. They’re so mired in fear and anger and control issues, they’ve completely lost sight of any “good news” at all. BTW based on experiences and observations the pull-quote you included is 100% spot-on. Sadly I could add a few (non-Baptist) names to her “Roll of Shame”…
Speaking of fundamentalism, I had an e-conversation with my mother-in-law earlier today that’s very apropos to our conversation here. Will blog about it shortly.
And I’m going to look up Jeri’s book on Amazon… I think it will be a great resource. Many thanks!
Im new in my faith HOWEVER how can you say you are rethinking or redefining shouldnt we just go by what the Bible teaches? It seems to me we are adjusting the Bible to fit todays needs
Hi Lynda and welcome to the blog!
Yes by all means we should go by what the Bible teaches. The thing is there can be legitimate disagreement over the meaning and/or interpretation of a number of scripture passages on a number of different subjects. What is being re-defined in the above post is the terminology being used in an ongoing debate — a debate where both sides claim to be standing on scripture. Do you have any specific questions on the issue?
Here we go again. 1Timothy 2:9-15 I’m not a theologian or bible scholar of any kind, so this is the only bible verse I have ever heard on this subject. But, you know, for all Paul did for Christianity, it is Christ’s church, not Paul’s. So, what is recorded that Jesus said on the subject? What did His actions show about his attitudes?
Great questions, thank you! Jesus never said anything about who should or should not work in the synagogues or temples (and what He had to say about the religious leadership of his day was never very nice). What His actions said about His attitudes towards women turned conventional wisdom upside down to the point of being scandalous.
It’s sad that the I Timothy passage is just about all people hear these days, but since you mention it (and Lynda (above) seems to have heard it too) let me take a look at it for a moment:
“… in like manner also, that the women adorn themselves in modest apparel, with propriety and moderation, not with braided hair or gold or pearls or costly clothing, but, which is proper for women professing godliness, with good works. Let a woman learn in silence with all submission. And I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man, but to be in silence. For Adam was formed first, then Eve. And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived, fell into transgression. Nevertheless she will be saved in childbearing if they continue in faith, love, and holiness, with self-control.” (I Timothy 2:9-15)
• “women adorn themselves in modest apparel…” – Do we actually do this in the churches? Or teach it? Do we tell women not to wear jewelry? Not to braid their hair? Not to dress up for church? To say nothing of the women I see on “Christian” TV, who seem to be having contests to see who can have the biggest hair and flashiest bling.
• What this verse is actually saying is “ladies, adorn yourselves with good works” rather than showing off your wealth. That sounds like excellent theology to me.
• Notice the first line of the passage: “in like manner also” – in like manner to what? To verse 8, which tells men to “pray everywhere, lifting up holy hands, without wrath and doubting”. In other words, the women are to do what the men are doing.
• “Let a woman learn in silence with all submission” – Is Paul having problems with a noisy and opinionated student here? The context is unclear, as is the Greek. The word “woman” in the Greek (in this verse and the next) is singular, not plural, and could be translated “wife”. Many scholars believe this is a context-sensitive passage directed at a church in a city where goddess-worship was the order of the day, and where wives were getting away with bossing their husbands around. Whatever the interpretation, verses 11 & 12 contradict what Paul says elsewhere, where he applauds the efforts of Priscilla as a teacher and Junia as an apostle. Bottom line, nobody is really sure what provoked Paul to write these lines but they clash with scriptural teaching elsewhere.
• “For Adam was formed first… nevertheless she will be saved in childbearing…” (vss 13-15) – this passage is problematic on a number of levels. For now I’ll just address one major problem: are women really saved through childbirth? Or are we saved by grace through faith in Jesus Christ like everyone else? Clearly the “plain meaning” of this verse *cannot* be true, because it contradicts the Gospel message of salvation. Paul must be speaking metaphorically. The best interpretation I’ve heard is that while Eve sinned first, she is also the foremother of Jesus, who is our salvation… therefore ‘saved by the child’ so to speak.
All of this is by no means exhaustive. Piles of books have been written on this passage and no two authors agree completely. I think you’re right in pointing the question to “what did Jesus do?” – and His actions seem to run completely counter to the modern-day interpretation of the Timothy passage. A deeper study of Jesus & women seems to be in order! 😉
OlDave,
To comment on your statement, “it is Christ’s church, not Paul’s.” Let’s be careful of that one. If we believe the bible to be the word of God, inspired and authoritative, then in effect the words of Paul are indeed the words of Christ. There was a woman in our church a while back that used to get indignant with some of these verses and she’d say, “I console myself knowing that these are the words of Paul and not the words of Jesus!”
I don’t mean to contradict what I said in my long-winded rant above. We do need to listen to Paul, but the question becomes, “What did he mean, and is it a universal doctrine for all time, or simply a cultural directive for that time in particular?” It’s not always easy to decide.
I thought I might be in trouble on that, but not for the reason you say, but because some people believe that Paul interpreted and codified and organized the teachings of Jesus and is responsible for the shape of the church.
In another direction, the wording of 1Timothy 2:12 is a statement of what Paul did and I consider it more suggestive than legalistic. Notice that he does not say “I do not do this and you MUST not do it, either.”
And while I’m rolling along, Peg says “… but for the more Catholic-leaning it’s the issue of who can actually represent God as priest during communion.” The first time I heard her say this a while ago was the first time I ever heard it, and I was astonished. My answer remains, He’s God – he can have anybody He wants represent Him. Or my beautiful German Shepherd, if He wants – He’s God. I really love it when PEOPLE decide to circumscribe the power of God.
Thank you to you both for your thoughts here… which really need no further comment from me! 😉