Scripture and the Ministry of Women by Roberta Hestenes

As evangelical Christians deeply committed to the authority of Scripture, it is to Scripture that we first turn when questions arise about new roles for women in the Christian community. While the behavioral and social sciences offer insight, Scripture occupies a unique and central position of authority for those of us in the Reformed tradition. (2 Timothy 3:16,17)

When examining the question of women in significant, publicly acknowledged leadership roles within the body of Christ, we want to search the Scriptures, examine our situation and our practice so that we may be taught, reproved, corrected and trained to be wholly prepared for every good work. Only as we submit to Scripture in this way does Scripture become profitable for us. It is not so much that we use Scripture to criticize others, but that we must bring our own beliefs and practices under its scrutiny. Difficulties abound, however, when we do this.

People tend to see different things in the same materials. There lurks always the tendency and danger of seeing only what we expect and want to see. The situation today for biblical students examining the Bible for its teaching on the role of women is what I have called “the problem of paradigms.” Borrowing from the work of Thomas Kuhn in the philosophy of science, a paradigm is a vision of reality, a way of seeing, a self-consistent pattern of explanation into which many disparate pieces of information are fitted. A paradigm is a model of how some aspect of reality functions. A paradigm shift occurs at those times in history when a long-prevailing paradigm begins to break up under the weight of new data and new perceptions. This new data cannot be comfortably fit into the older thought structures.

The church has always been uncomfortable at times of shifting paradigms. As conservators of tradition her tendency is to stay with the old explanations as long as humanly possible. Today the church is involved with a paradigm problem regarding the role of women in its midst.

The prevailing paradigm has for centuries been the hierarchical one. In reading Scripture, the church has been, from Genesis to Revelation, woman as “from” and “for” man. She has importance and worth yet always and clearly she is to be subordinate to man. This is God’s design and purpose for all time and eternity. If woman’s status is affected by the cross and resurrection of Jesus Christ, this is to enable her salvation from sin and to restore her to her rightful place of subordination, undistorted now by sin and fallen-ness.

Genesis 2; I Corinthians 11:1-10; I Corinthians 14:34-35; I Timothy 2:8-15
These have been the controlling passages of Scripture.

This traditional pattern of interpreting Scripture is now being challenged at a number of points. Beyond the biblical data, however, the hierarchical paradigm includes much more material. Ancient views of feminine psychology and incapacity, economic theories of work and consumption, folk humor about witches, mothers-in-law and farmers’ daughters, school lines and Little League teams, pink and blue ribbons on newborn infants and many other varied pieces of experience and values make up the traditional paradigm.

These cohere to reinforce for many the idea that the traditional hierarchical view reflects reality — “this is the way things have been, are now, and ever will be.” Breaking into the paradigm at any point often violates the traditionalist’s sense of “oughtness” and other parts of the paradigm beyond Scripture will be invoked to support its maintenance.

Another way of viewing reality has arisen alongside the hierarchical Paradigm — the "egalitarian” paradigm. The outlines of this view can be seen as early as the 17th century in Quaker and Enlightenment writers, and more clearly in the first feminist movement springing out of the abolition movement in the 19th century. Biblical commentaries and essays written over a hundred years ago reveal aspects of this different way of understanding the biblical material. This view sees woman as a complementary partner to man in creation, both ontologically and functionally equal to him.

With the Fall the relationship between man and woman is corrupted. Sinful man now dominates and rules over woman in marriage, cult, and culture. In the life, death and resurrection of Christ, God’s original intention becomes newly possible. With the outpouring of the Holy Spirit and the recreation in Christ of the people of God, the church, transformed relationships between women and men become the new reality.

Within the late 19th and 20th century missionary Pentecostal and holiness movements, the centering of interest on the work of the Holy Spirit — (Acts 2:1-21) — as over against formalized office and churchly structures, women moved to a new place of leadership and responsibility. From the 1950’s to the 1970’s most of the large mainline Protestant denominations (with the notable exceptions of the Southern Baptist and the Lutheran Church, Missouri Synod) have increasingly adopted some form of this ‘egalitarian” paradigm as the under-girding of the opening of new doors to women as ordained pastors and church leaders.

Genesis I, the life of Jesus, Galatians 3:27-28, and Ephesians 5-21 have become the controlling Scripture passages. Within this paradigm, as within the hierarchical model, commentators and theologians interact with specific problems in several different ways. Still, the outlines of this view seem clear and widely accepted by many. Beyond support from Scripture, the egalitarian paradigm comes from the shifting role of women in western culture with the social, psychological, educational and legal changes in women’s role in society.

Both paradigms have difficulties. The traditional model seems to minimize or ignore the vital and unusual ministries of women in the first century church as well as the strong leadership and prophetic roles of such women as Miriam, Deborah, and Huldah in the Old Testament. Paul’s recognition and commendation of women as co-workers and ministers of the Gospel (Romans 16:1-2, Philippians 4:2-3) is seldom taken seriously by the traditionalists. Jesus’ teaching and practice challenging the low view of women in Palestinian culture and religion and encouraging women to active discipleship surely demand more attention than the hierarchical views of women give it.

The egalitarian paradigm usually struggles most with the Apostle Paul. Commentators range from those who deny Pauline authority or authorship to those who reinterpret bothersome passages to make Paul indistinguishable from a contemporary Christian feminist. Recent exegetical studies like those by Markus Barth on Ephesians and by
Leon Morris on I Timothy have given some support to those seeking to re-examine the relevant passages to determine anew their historical/ grammatical/contextual meaning.

Old assumptions do not necessarily hold when challenged by fresh study. Others have accepted traditionalist interpretations of the Pauline material but sought to assign the more “traditionalist” passages to Paul’s rabbinic background or to the limited cultural context which is then held to be non-applicable today. To those accustomed to the traditional paradigm, such attempts often lack persuasiveness. Many Christians wait for a simple, clear explanation of all pertinent biblical materials with a complete explanation of all doubtful or unsure questions so as to compel commitment to one or the other paradigm or to some yet-to-be-determined alternative. They are liable to have a long wait.

It is the nature of the biblical material and of paradigms to be incomplete. The information we wish we had to help us decide a particular textual or exegetical question is often not available. The questions which we ask of the text are not always the same questions which the original readers asked of the text. Our questions may remain unanswered. And yet decisions need to be made. Actions have to be taken. Persons living at a given moment in history, however vexing and inconclusive a particular question may appear, must live out their obedience of faith” in the midst of ambiguity, uncertainty and risk.

The difficulty of living “between paradigms” saying on the one hand. . . but on the other hand...” is the risk of personal paralysis. Honesty to the text demands a willingness to wrestle with even the most difficult material until more light comes. Yet questions about careers and life-style, marriage and ministry require answers. This requires coming to some conclusion, however, subject to reappraisal and future insights about Scripture and the role of women.

The issue then becomes: how do you choose between paradigms? Following the Reformation principle that Scripture interprets Scripture, which pattern of interpretation more adequately expresses the whole of the biblical teaching about women? It is very tempting for the lay Christian, at this point, when faced with the necessity of choice between alternative interpretations and applications of Scripture, to be frustrated or angered. If the scholars cannot agree, how will the “ordinary” Christian know how to read the Bible?

And, the issue of women’s proper functioning is not one of those esoteric issues safely left to academicians like “how many angels can dance on the head of a pin?" This issue touches every aspect of human life—sexuality, personal identity, relationships and tasks within marriage and the family, church and culture. The temptation becomes to look either to an infallible interpreter or to human experience to settle our confusion.

The Protestants, for all of their heritage, often canonize their own “popes”—whether famous author, pastor, or seminar leader. Having heard the infallible interpreter, we may cease to struggle with the text ourselves.

The Reformers, rightly in my view, rejected all such tendencies, calling the church to a careful study of the text while trusting the work of the Holy Spirit to authenticate and confirm the teaching and truth of Scripture sufficiently to guide the individual believer.

Other contemporary Christians, unsure about the meaning and authority of the text, turn to human experience to settle difficult questions. Is a certain practice right or wrong? What do people do?

Description becomes prescription. Should women be leaders? Traditionalists look around and see very few women serving as presidents, generals or corporate executives. They conclude, “Women Are Not Leaders” and, therefore, should not be.” Non-traditionalists look around and see women pioneers, publishers, administrators and teachers and conclude “Women are Leaders” — therefore, they should be.

To the Christian convinced of the inspiration and authority of Scripture, experience alone or with a few Scripture quotations added for flavoring is not a sufficient guide to faith and practice. Because Scripture is given to teach, reprove, correct and train we must continue the discipline of study and application. Sufficient clarity can be found to enable responsible Christian obedience.

This affirmation brings me back to my original problem—which paradigm? Traditional hierarchical or non-traditional egalitarian?

The unity of the Bible which results from the Divine inspiration implies that a consistent teaching can be ascertained even with the great diversity in the biblical materials spanning as they do centuries of human culture and pilgrimage.

I began my Christian journey as part of a group which believed that women should not teach men or serve in any leadership role where men were involved. Early in my Christian life I was asked to relinquish leadership of a small evangelistic Bible study which I had begun through which several persons had come to faith. I did so willingly even though the group dissolved soon afterwards due to the inexperience of the man assigned to replace me.

For a while I accepted the traditional paradigm without question or even any problems. My personal perceptions began to shift when I first noticed in Acts 21:9 that Philip had four daughters who prophesied. I had been taught that prophecy was the highest gift, the equivalent of today’s preaching, and was totally a male prerogative. Yet here were these women who prophesied. This small verse of Scripture challenged my preconceptions and started me on a new course of study which continues until today.

Through the years I have become convinced that the egalitarian paradigm is more faithful to the totality of the biblical material and the central thrust of the Christian Gospel than is the hierarchical model. The problems in the egalitarian view seem to be less difficult of solution without doing violence to the text than the problems in the traditional view.

The major ingredients in establishing the egalitarian paradigm are:

(1) The creation accounts in Genesis I and 2 with the shifting relationship between man and woman as a result of the Fall in Genesis 3;
(2) The female prophetic tradition in Israel and the church;
(3) The relationship of Jesus to women;
(4) The reality of the church—its foundation, Spirit endowment, early practice and modes of existence living “between the times” in eschatological tension; and
(5) The example of Paul and Peter — seeking to proclaim the eternal Gospel and to guide young congregations in a particular time and culture.

The following is a brief description of some summary conclusions in
each of these five areas.

In Genesis I and 2 it seems clear that God’s intention for man and woman is that of complementary partnership as beings equally created in the image of God and jointly given the charge to be fruitful, subdue the earth and have dominion. The use of the term translated “helper” is used so often of God in the Old Testament that no secondary position for woman as man’s helper seems required by the text. The climax and focus of the passage seems to be the similarity and unity of the man and the woman. “This at last is bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh,” exults the man. The goodness of God’s creation in giving to man one like himself when nothing else in creation shares that similarity seems to stress their complementary rather than some sharp distinction between man and woman.

In the judgment pronounced upon the man and the woman as a result of their sin, the note of subordination is introduced: “Your desire shall be for your husband, and he shall rule over thee” (Genesis 3:16). Not part of God’s design, but a result of disobedience, the relationship between man and woman is shattered and reshaped.

The patriarchal nature of Israel’s life demonstrates the reality of that fallen order. Even within that culture, however, “grace notes” are introduced by the strong leadership of women in every major stage of Israel’s history —

Sarah — Genesis 17:15-21; 21:12
Miriam — Exodus 15:20
Deborah — Judges 4,5
Huldah — 2 Kings 22:14-20
Esther, Anna — Luke 2:36-38

The apparently long tradition of women prophets in Israel points ahead to the coming new age when the Spirit is poured out on all of God’s people, female and male alike, not just upon the few anointed ones.

While the priesthood was confined to males, the priesthood finds its fulfillment in the great High Priest, Jesus Christ, and ceases in the new covenant.

One of the few ministries of continuity from the old to the new covenant is the prophetic ministry in which women shared from very ancient days. The church is built, according to Ephesians 2:20 upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets. Women are a part of that foundation.

In the life of Jesus, as indicated by the inclusion of women in the Matthew genealogy, something radically new for women is beginning. Every mother in Israel through the long centuries of waiting was honored because through a woman the Messiah was one day to come. This expectation gave maternity in Israel a special dignity. In a real way biology was destiny—not simply the destiny of the woman as mother, but the salvation destiny of all Israel and the nations depended on woman. With the birth of Jesus, this changes.

The New Testament records no genealogies beyond those of Jesus. In Mary’s obedient response to the angelic visitor, Israel’s salvation approaches. The woman who praises Mary for her womb and breasts calling her blessed must have been surprised at the response of Jesus: “Blessed rather are those who hear the word of God and keep it!” (Luke 11:27-28). Those related to Jesus as mother, brother and sister are those who do the will of God (Mark 3:31-35).

Women are called to discipleship, to hearing and doing the will of God just as men are. When Martha seeks to use Jesus to rebuke Mary for her neglect of her housewifely duties. Jesus instead commends Mary for the discipleship role she has chosen and tells Martha that she is the one who is lacking (Luke 10:38-42). “Mary has chosen the good portion, which shall not be taken away from her.”

How many times the church seeks to send Mary back into the kitchen when she wants to follow Jesus and learn from Him! Women itinerated with Jesus (Luke 8:13) on his preaching journeys, were forgiven, healed, taught and commended by Jesus and were last at the cross and first appeared to by the risen Christ. They were commissioned by Him to tell the good news of the resurrection to the disciples who did not believe them (Luke 24:1-11).

The double sexual standard for men and women was firmly rejected by Jesus (Matthew 5:27-28; 19:3-9; John 8:1-11).

Not a trace of hierarchical behavior or teaching appears in any of the Gospel accounts, If the choosing of the Twelve can be seen as the fulfillment of the old order, as Matthew 19:28 seems to indicate, with Pentecost as the decisive determinate event inaugurating the new ministries of the people of God, woman’s place in that new order is firmly established. (Romans 16; Philippians 4:3; Acts 18:26; 21:9)

The mark of entrance into the old community was sexually distinctive—i.e., circumcision. The mark of entrance into the new community is non-sexually distinctive — i.e., baptism. Paul’s battles against the circumcisors in Galatia not only maintained the Gospel of God’s grace in Christ, it also maintained an equal place for women as members of the Gospel community as symbolically and really demonstrated in each and every Christian baptism.

In choosing paradigms, the central determinative materials are not only the normative example of Jesus, but also the entire New Testament teaching about the relationship of the people of God, the church, to the present age and the age to come. What really changes in human historical existence because of death, resurrection, and pouring out of the Spirit of Jesus?

Traditionalists have a tendency to say that while spiritual realities change (e.g. a new order in baptism or conversion) yet on earth in human relationships the old order remains. Kings and princes, masters and slaves, Jews and Gentiles, male and female may be transformed inwardly by the power of the Gospel but remain outwardly the same. Only in the final consummation, with the coming of Christ in power, will human society take the shape which God intends for it. I believe that this view too easily resolves the inescapable eschatological tension within which the church is called to live her earthly existence.

In the tension between the “already” and the “not yet” of life lived between the time of God’s intervention in the Incarnation and Resurrection and the coming of final victory, the Traditionalist tends to put the burden of emphasis on the “not yet.” The radical newness of the Gospel is confined to interior life and privatized existence. Even in the church the reign of sin, death and judgment remains determinative. In the world, such pessimism and continuing conformity to traditional patterns seem understandable.

But in the church a new order of existence has already begun. The Holy Spirit has already been given as a down payment, an earnest of our inheritance (Ephesians 1:13,14).

Resurrection power is a present possibility (Ephesians 1:19-20). While God’s victory is not complete, nor will be this side of Christ’s coming, the decisive battles have already been won in the cross and resurrection.

We in the church may rightly look to the liberating power of the Gospel to be present here and now in all areas of Human life. This means that the church can live as those with the mind of Christ. (Philippians 2:1-11), not lording it over one another as the Gentiles do (Matthew 20:20-28), but as servants of one another (John 13:12-17).

In the radical newness of the Christian community, Christians filled with the Spirit (Ephesians 5:18) can enter into Christian marriage as those subject to one another out of reverence for Christ (Ephesians 5:21-33).

Christian marriage is not the world’s marriage with Christian frosting. It reflects a radically new reality of man and woman fulfilling God’s original purpose in creation as they serve and love one another in mutual submission. This new relationship belongs to the new order which is already present in the power of the Spirit.

To emphasize the “already” of the eschatological tension is not to deny that all is not yet as it should and will be. We still live in a fallen world with temptation and sin threatening us. Human orders challenge and disturb life in the church as she continually capitulates to culture instead of following the Lordship of Christ. The Gospel must be preached to a world lost and blind to the light shining in Christ Jesus. The church moves from Gospel to world always in peril of losing her way, yet needing to make the pilgrimage if she is to be faithful to her calling.

How to live faithfully and yet sensitively with the needs and patterns of a lost world around us is never an easy task. Paul’s language in I Corinthians 11,14 and I Timothy 2, as well as Peter’s in I Peter 3, reflect the reality of this eschatological tension. Rather than a “sub-Christian” deviation from the Gospel, Paul instructs and demonstrates a serious attempt to understand how the church is to live “between the times.”

Even new wine needs time to age before it is ready for drinking. How is the new wine of the Gospel to fit into the old wineskins of patriarchal culture and the hierarchical marriages? Converts newly won from paganism need instruction so that the Gospel will not come into unnecessary disrepute. Christian freedom, which threatens to turn into chaos, needs to be ordered. Ignorance needs to be taught (I Timothy 2:11) lest the error of the First Temptation be repeated with similar disastrous results. Yet, even in the midst of the strongest language upholding present practice until the proper teaching can be obtained, Paul expresses his hope and faith in the dynamic newness of the Gospel changing the old realities. (I Timothy 2:15)

All of the passages about women in Acts and the Epistles need to be read not only from the center of Jesus Christ but also in the light of the New Testament teaching about the “new creation” (2 Corinthians 5:14-21) which is both individual and corporate.

The presence of Jesus through the Spirit transforms human existence for His People, including the existence of man as male and female. Questions about the ministry of women today must be seen as part of the church’s continual pilgrimage as the people of God already called, chosen and gifted yet still flawed, sinful and disobedient.

The choice we today are faced with seems to be whether or not to move forward toward God’s ultimate purpose or to remain mired in the past and fearful of change. There is no way to avoid the tension altogether. With all the questions still remaining, those who must live life will decide best when decisions are made in faithful response to the promises of God, with hope for the transforming power of the Holy Spirit and practicing love for all those who are on the pilgrimage with us.

Whichever paradigm we adopt — hierarchical, egalitarian or some combination of both—it is important that all of the biblical material be taken seriously both in the way we think about the ministries of women and in our practice of life together.

It would be a major advance in most of our Christian churches and institutions if even modified traditional paradigm were adopted — one that more adequately reflected the practice of Jesus and the first century church and eliminated the ancient and contemporary prejudices against women.

Even better, in my view, would be for the whole church, male and female, to encourage and support all women in their active commitment to Christ and in their various ministries.

More Women in Leadership...