 |
 |
 |
 |
A Woman's Place in Church Leadership by Jack Hayford
In view of the way in which the Church was born, and in view of the personalities the Holy Spirit has used and does use in the ongoing life of the Church, it is amazing that the subject of a woman’s place in the leadership ministry of the Church is such a “sticky-wicket.” The present renewal is not far ahead of the limited view which has constricted the thinking of believers in recent history. Even one of the most widely accepted periodicals in the charismatic movement advanced the idea that the only reason women rise to a state of any prominence in the Church today, is because we are still working our way out from a period of lesser revelation among the people of God. The obvious conclusion is twofold:
(1) The presence of leading ministries carried by women in the Church today should be tolerated with patience and love, and
(2) We shall be perfected to the time when women hold no leadership of significance in the Church.
The New Testament scriptures report a phenomenon which, uncluttered by ecclesiaticism, points the way to a uniquely balanced view of women in ministry.
Summarized in simple propositions it is this:
(1) Men and women are virtually equal in ultimate leadership potential, but they are not equal in ultimate responsibility in God’s structure of authority.
(2) Man’s role as “primary in responsibility” carries with it a two-fold duty.
(a) To walk in such love and understanding as to produce the release of women into whatever office or ministry the Spirit of God brings them to; and
(b) To walk in such love and wisdom as to induce the submission of women to the oversight of their authority, (including direction, instruction and correction).
At first reading, this may sound no less quenching to a woman’s potential development in the Body of Christ than any former system, but the fact is that the New Testament scriptures give evidence for the possibility of a woman holding any office or exercising any ministry in the Church with the exception of the office of an apostle.
Qualifying Our Discussion
To begin, it should be made clear that we are not even dealing with the question, “Can a woman have a ministry?” The question is, “To what levels of matured ministry and leadership in the Body of Christ may a woman develop?” Nor are we dealing with the question, “Should every woman become a leader in the Body of Christ?” Obviously, as with the majority of believers in this present age, proportionately few will rise to prominence. But we challenge the humanly instituted restraints on a woman’s potential. We propose that those limitations have come about not on the basis of divine revelation, but as an attempt of man to deal with human failure.
Women in spiritual leadership have bred much confusion. But, brethren, so have men. Women straining against and finally breaking the boundaries of their spiritually assigned authority have been guilty of every doctrinal error, ignorant stumbling and moral violation. And so have men. To plead any case on the basis of female examples of foolishness proves nothing. In fact, the historical record of the Church’s reasoning on this subject is almost humorous for the incongruities which have been allowed. Within the society of multiplied groups of believers —denominations, missions organizations, independent fellowships — women have been allowed almost any area of responsible ministry leadership as long as it met two requirements:
(1) As long as the higher offices were being filled at a location outside the national boundaries of the sponsoring group, and
(2) As long as the titles or designations for office were not the same as those employed for men — particularly if the duties were similar to the Ephesians 4 offices.
Only the rapid shrinking of our world through the impact of communication and travel is responsible for forcing many to come to terms with the dualism which has prevailed. It is not a matter of responding to militant feminism, as some sects of liberal taint and in ignorance of the Word have done; but it becomes a matter of discovering what the New Testament Church did do.
It’s hard to make that discovery. There is a vast residue of dogmatism on the subject which forces many good men to maintain a stance which quenches ministry possibilities for women. And it should be understood that the discovery is not to be sought with an objective in mind that there be a sudden promotion of and placement of women in spiritual leadership. This is no plea for some new “equal opportunity clause” in the corporate policy of the Church of Jesus Christ. It is an expression of that equality the Bible does say women have in ministry possibilities. It is a search of the Word on this subject born of a desire to bring us past the place of “having to explain” why God raises some women to large ministry or significant leadership. Our explanations aren’t necessary. God has ordained this possibility to women, and within the limits proscribed by His Word, there are some who will be given large place in ministry by the hand of Jesus Christ — Lord of His Church.
At this point, one can almost hear the rumble of “Amens” rising from thousands of women whose emotions span the spectrum from “frustrated” to “indignant.” But it behooves each of them to ascertain what spirit prompts their enthusiasm; because rebellion wears many faces, and whatever opportunity New Testament life affords a woman, an un-submitted spirit will nullify.
Women rise to significant leadership, but they are always related to male authority even in their high office. Miriam prophesies, but under Moses’ (her baby brother) authority; Deborah serves as a judge-deliverer to Israel, but in direct relationship to Barak; Esther becomes an instrument of national preservation for God’s people, but even as Queen of Persia, she manifests a submissive attitude toward her “subject” , Mordecai, who under God is her spiritual authority.
With this, the nature of the historical record of women who held leadership and who abused it (ex. Athaliah, II Kings 11 and II Chronicles 22) is clearly disapproving if not condemning. The Proverbs repeatedly reprove and disqualify the stubborn, the brawlish and the rebellious woman (ex. Proverbs 9:13; 21:9, 19; 23:27; 25:24; 27:15; 30:21—23). The Word of God clearly maintains:
(1) There is no excuse for indulging the desire to seize man’s role, and
(2) There is no emancipation from man’s ultimate authority with reference to the woman.
Both Old and New Testaments are unsurprisingly consistent on these points. However, both testaments are also consistent to the point that a woman who is in proper order with reference to man’s authority is not denied exercising what gifts of leadership or ministry God has given her.
The New Testament, in fact, seems to be launched with a kind of statement on the proposition that women are to find a rich place in the system of things being opened up through the Lord Jesus Christ. The genealogy of Matthew 1 is uncharacteristic to the sparse reference to women traditional in most Old Testament genealogies. Four women (Tamar, Rahab, Ruth and Bathsheba) are mentioned; and this is doubly striking in its redemptive announcement in view of the fact that three of the four had been tragically tainted by moral failure. But, compounding the significance of their mention, it is evident from study of each of their cases that they were also women who honored the processes of God’s authority and rule through men.
And whatever may be deduced from the way the New Testament record begins, it is profoundly underscored by the report we are given of the way the New Testament Church began. The Pentecostal outpouring fell upon about 120 people which included an indefinite number of women disciples (Acts 1:14, 15; 2:1-4).
And the proclamation which Peter delivered by the dynamic of the Holy Spirit, authorized the divinely indiscriminate filling of men and women on the basis of Joel’s prophecy. “All flesh,” we are told, includes the feminine as well as the masculine: of six nouns used marking gender, two are feminine. An astounding number of different — and often inconsistent — interpretations abound as to what “prophesying” entails. But by any criteria, it cannot be argued that women are granted less potential than men for ministry development.
How Far Can She Go?
To affirm that the “daughters shall prophesy,” is one thing, but to move from that toward the prospect of a woman leading in the life of the Church is another. How far in the divinely ordained structure of the Body of Christ can a woman go?
We have already made clear that our examination of scripture is not to discover if a woman may have some kind of ministry. Virtually no one contests that. But the question bears on degree of influence and prominence. Phenomenal duplicity and confusion, if not a certain degree of hypocrisy, are present because of either ignorance or rejection of some rather candid facts in the New Testament.
Some male church leaders compromise their own man-taught convictions when confronted by an obviously God-ordained leader in the form of a woman. They cannot deny her significance, but they fear to acknowledge her office. Other men who would never allow a woman in their pulpit, preach the truths which have been unfolded to their hearts by a woman’s writings and study.
A recognition of what place God does allow can release multitudes from confusion, and allow those women with leadership ministries to cease being freaks of a spiritual sideshow. It will also remove some women from a sensed necessity to somehow justify their ministry in the eyes of critics; an unfortunate awkwardness which results from the attitude prevailing in most quarters of Church life.
Since our study has already established the fact that deaconship is declared on the basis of the of that a woman may be a deacon — or, more properly, a deaconess. verse 16 begins with Paul’s commendation of “Phoebe, our sister, which is a servant of the church which is at Cenchrea.”
The noun translated “servant” is “diakonos.” Phoebe was a deacon. We need not labor this point, since most Church groups and circles of believing witness readily make place for this office as a ministry for a woman.
But it is here asserted that the designation of a woman as a deacon, in the light of our study, means the acknowledgement of person’s ministry which is anticipated to rise in its effect and influence on the whole assembly wherein that one moves.
Are there women elders? According to I Timothy 5:2, unquestionably “yes.” The feminine form of the noun presbuteros (presbutera) is employed, and it is clear that the mere matter of age is not in view. If that were the case, the Holy Spirit would have employed the noun used in Titus 2:3 (presbutis--elderly woman).
But an honest investigation of the terminology used in the early church broadens the base of the case. Local assemblies were often referred to as “houses,” and the possessive expression “of” someone indicated not so much who owned the building as who was overseer of that segment of the Church universal. Among such examples as, “the house of Stephanas” (I Cor. 16:15) and the “church in his (Nymphas) house.” (Col. 4:15), is direct reference to those which are “of Chloe” (I Cor. 1:11).
Translators have supplied “of the house of,” and so preserved the spirit of the Word here. Of course, there are those who would snatch at this opportunity to assert it was probably just a group of friends this woman had. But more likely is another proposition.
It is worthy of note that it was this woman who advised Paul of the problems among the believers in Corinth. Isn’t it possible that this very fact is indicative of one of the reasons she had been entrusted with the oversight of a house? Because she knew how to respond to God ordained authority, as evidenced by her appealing to Paul’s apostolic office when the stress of the local situation developed, we see at least one trait which qualified her to oversee a house.
Whatever irritation it may cause those who have fortified themselves in the position of its supposed impossibility, we affirm that Chloe was a pastor — an under-shepherd. And that her office was evidence not only to her maturity in the faith and proper order in God’s requirements for that office, but that she held that office under apostolic appointment and in submission to a man’s authority.
Further evidence of women with shepherding ministry can be given on the basis of John’s second epistle. John addresses the “elect lady and her children,” and gives clear-cut instruction as to who is permitted to teach in her “house.” Interpretive attempts to make the “elect lady” the Bride of Christ, or Mary, the mother of Jesus, do not stand firm before a simple and open approach to the text. Leading elders, as presented in scripture, have children in the faith. John’s addressee does too (v.1,4). “Houses” (v.10) are what we today call churches.
And moreover, this “elect lady” is extended greeting from her “elect sister” (v.13), another woman with leadership assignment. Under God—honoring submission to the Apostle John’s authority, she had the oversight of her own family of “children” (v.13).
In Revelation 2:20, Christ rebukes the church at Thyatira for permitting a deceiving spirit to rule that congregation through a woman in error. But the practice of a woman in leadership isn’t condemned; permitting error to prevail is. In short, it is evident that the New Testament Church did have some women who answered to the Ephesians 4 office of “pastors.” That a conclusive case cannot be made is only the judgment of those who presuppose its impossibility.
The fact is that there are women today--whether recognized by title or not — who serve in a shepherding capacity to many. The size of their congregation or the recognition of their ordination is immaterial to the fact: they do have office. Many circumstances have given rise to a woman’s becoming apparent as the vessel assigned oversight of a group for a time.
Such an appointment, a woman carrying whatever type of shepherding pastoral oversight, should meet those Biblical requirements that are discernible in the Word. We can deduce from scripture these things:
(1) Her appointment is based on her acknowledgement of that apostolic authority overseeing .her. Her ministry as an “elder “ is “under authority” to a man at another level of leadership in the Body of Christ.
(2) Her role of leading/feeding the flock she has been given to will be confirmed in its correctness by the fact that men in that flock mutually recognize and accept the grace of God upon her for this office.
Their acceptance is what removes her possible disqualification for ministry office; were she seizing authority, rather than receiving a gift of ministry. Any woman given ministry office will have already learned the grace of acknowledging God’s order. Men hold ultimate responsibility. And as regards the manifest gift and grace becoming apparent in a worn life, men of authority are responsible to God as well as the woman to acknowledge it. Grace and wisdom are no more essential to the granting of ministry office to a woman than to a man. It is simply that we haven’t had as much practice.
A thousand questions may now rise as readers create “case study possibilities.” “What if this...How about that?” But the intent of this point is not to decide details of marital status, past life, etc.
Requirements here are no less than for any man; and it would seem clear that a married woman would not hold this office apart from her husband’s equal involvement. A re-examination of the chapter on the requirements of an elder in presiding office should satisfy most fears which would become manifest on this point. And it is unfortunately true that in tens of thousands of cases, men have been appointed to pastoral office without meeting Biblical requirements for their leadership role— and only were exempt from more exacting demands and dubious questions because they were men.
The standard for ministry leadership office is not being lowered by our coming into line with the New Testament Church on this point. Rather, the acceptance of a woman’s place might just turn out to be an instrument which restores a more careful meeting of the directives of the Word concerning those placed in pastoral charge.
There are two passages which are generally used to attempt a case against women holding significant ministry role in the Church. Let’s examine them, since they are quoted so glibly and with such frequency. They are as follows:
(1) Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection. But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence. (I Timothy 2:11, 12)
(2) Let your women keep silence in the churches for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience, as also saith the law. And if they will learn anything, let them ask their husbands at home, for it is a shame for women to speak in the church. (I Corinthians 14:34,35)
To begin, an examination of the verbs employed do argue for a submissive woman and for one with a quiet and restful spirit. But the word “hesuchia” which occurs twice in I Timothy 2:11,12 simply does not mean “silent.” The same word occurs in another form in verse 2 of the same passage. Believers are urged to intercede for civil authorities, to the end “that we might lead a quiet and peaceable life” (I Tim. 2:2).
The idea is clearly one of contented stillness of spirit, undisturbed by strife and discord. In this spirit, the woman is not to “usurp authority,” i.e., not to be domineering (authenteu). This verb occurs but this one time in the entire New Testament. The intent of instruction here is against an overbearing, demeaning control of her spouse. If the idea intended had to do with authority in the divine structure of the church, other terms more consistent with New Testament usage would have been employed.
Now, in the Corinthian passage, the same concept is being conveyed. A different verb (sigao) is used for “be silent.” However, a fact worthy of note since inasmuch as another term is employed at this time it might signal a final word on the matter.
Had the verb “phimao” been used (to silence, to muzzle; in effect, to produce muteness), a case for speechless-women-in-the Church might be attempted. But again, the idea of “sigao” like “hesuchia” is one of quietness, of tongue control. It is not an absolute issued to forbid speech, but a directive to control it. The same term occurs in verse 28 and 30 of I Corinthians 14, and in this context clearly means not to speak at an inappropriate time.
Women Do Need Instruction
There is no question that the intent of these passages is to curb women who are too ready to talk. The force of the scripture is unquestionably geared to create an atmosphere in which men will rise to manhood, and in which women will learn to trust God to develop that spiritual manliness.
Too many congregations suffer from well-intended women talking too soon and too much. This is not even a backhanded or facetious commentary in the spirit of the world’s mocking stereotype image of a gabby, garrulous, babbling woman, rattling on endlessly with pointless chatter. That could be included in the case where it might apply. But observation of the circumstance in most churches would suggest it is more intended to teach women to control themselves, even when they have something good to add.
Let her make room first for one of the men in the group to speak; and then should her turn come by invitation, let her exercise the grace to see that her answer or contribution — perhaps even better than his — is offered in a spirit that makes it a lovely addition and not an embarrassing correction.
But as necessary as this instruction is for the woman, and as thorough-going as its application ought to be in the life of the Church, it doesn’t bear on women with an intent to stifle possibilities which true maturity may bring about in her. If women were disallowed a voice in the early church.
How would we know the evangelist Philip had four daughters that prophesied? (Acts 21:9)
How shall we correct Priscilla at this late date for her Holy-Spirit-recorded share in Apollos’ introduction to a more complete understanding of God’s way? (Acts 18:26)
What shall we do after the corrective teaching of I Corinthians11:1-12 has been applied to women who prophesy or pray? Having set them in Biblical order shall we then tell them it was only a technicality anyway, since they aren’t allowed to speak?
Some reply, “Oh, they can speak alright. But women are only to speak to women. Women are only to teach women, and then they aren’t to teach doctrine, but only how to be good wives and to keep their houses well.” Of course, there is enough correct in this proposition that one cannot make a categorical rejection of it. Women are to teach women to be stable believers and to be good wives and mothers (Titus 2:3-5).
But there is no directive which closes the door against any additional ministering of the things of God.
Moses permitted Miriam’s prophesying before the hosts of all Israel. (Exodus 15).
In Josiah’s day, Hilkiah, the high priest, sought out the prophetess Huldah, and he with other leading men of Israel received her words of exhortation (II Kings 22).
Joseph and Mary are not considered undiscerning for receiving the word of the Lord by the prophetess Hannah (Luke 2).
And these three ministries were given by God and received by men before “the glory that excelleth” (II Cor. 3:10) was revealed.
The Lord Jesus Christ has brought “life and immortality to light through the Gospel” (II Tim. 1:10).
He who came that all might have “life, and life more abundantly” (John 10:10) has not called half of his creation to a stunted potential of fruitfulness.
The fact is that thousands of women are ministering to believers of both genders, and their ministries are received openly.
Men of every theological persuasion are willing, at the very least, to grant occasional acknowledgement to some woman whose public ministry is undeniably God-ordained. In these cases, the bias of history and the tradition of man forces such reluctant responses as:
“She’s the exception that proves the rule.”
“I can’t explain it — It’s just a sovereign work of God.”
“I would rather it was a man, but I have to thank God for her ministry.”
In the light of the Word of God, wouldn’t it appear acceptable to simply say of a woman:
. . . with the gift of an evangelist,
. . . with the voice of a prophetess,
. . . with the ministry of a teacher,
. . . with the loving patience to exercise pastoral care,
“Praise God for her ministry. Jesus gave her to His Church.”
What Controls Are Proper?
As one could anticipate the improperly motivated “Amens” of troubled women earlier, it is not difficult to discern that at this point there will be men shuddering with doubt as to what lengths such a concession might bring us. “They’ll take over now. Give them an inch and. . .well, it’s just not God’s ways.”
What is, then? What is God’s way of placing ministry?
The answer is firmly established in the recorded life of the early Church. All ministry is ordained and/or appointed by apostles. The ultimate oversight of the Church’s life is their domain and responsibility. Further, the requirements of maturity for ministry leadership as incumbent upon a woman as a man. The multiplied graces expected of elders preclude the sudden swelling of public ministry rolls with women clamoring for a place of prominence.
The truth is, most women neither want such ministry or are called to it. Where churches exercise New Testament order in congregational and family life and teaching, the disturbing scene of domineering women controlling the life, thought and destiny of a congregation is impossible. The abounding possibilities for personal ministry which are open to a believing woman will be fulfilling for the vast majority of them. But should Christ the Lord, personnel manager of His Church, summon a redeemed woman to a place of gift — office, there are three things we must acknowledge:
(1) New Testament precedents makes room for such a ministry a possibility;
(2) She shall be expected to fulfill the requirements of New Testament ministry leadership, as well as be in perfect order with reference to her husband (in those cases where she is married); and
(3) She shall be submitted to the oversight of a male leader in the Body of Christ.
It is undoubtedly this last principle that explains the fact that there are no cases in the New Testament of a woman apostle. God’s plan, since the curse came upon the race, is that a woman shall be responsible to a man, and a man shall be responsible for a woman. The intent is clearly for protection and preservation of her life and fulfillment of her potential. When this “covering” ministry of the man becomes a preventative to possibilities, or exempts the woman from becoming all that Jesus might wish to cause her to be, we have missed the spirit of the Word and become bound by the letter of a man-ordained law.
“Neither male nor female... in Christ,” does not deny gender. Nor does it deny the danger of either sex falling short of what spiritual fruitfulness they might attain unto.
It doesn’t reverse man’s ultimate authority over the woman, nor does it neutralize the woman’s required submissiveness toward those men whose authority relates to her life — husband, pastor, or leader in the Body of Christ.
It does not remove the possibility of women being susceptible to deception, or the possibility of men failing to correct her error in love and with wisdom.
It does not urge the substitution of female for male leadership, nor does it promote a crusade for women to launch forward with a carnal zeal for Church offices.
It does indicate that God is dealing with redeemed human spirits, and that He isn’t disqualifying any of them for ministry roles on the basis of what shape their body is.
© Jack W. Hayford
14344 Sherman Way
Van Nuys, Calif. 91405
|
 |
 |
 |
 |
|