Are male only ministry teams, whether a house of bishops at a denominational level or the board of a mission society or the clergy of a local church, pastorally defective?
If they are to be so regarded, then one must logically argue that the New Testament epistles to the Philippians, the Colossians and the Thessalonians are also pastorally defective.
For these epistles are the fruit of a men only team of pioneer missionaries and church planters. The letters to the churches at Philippi and Colossae open with a greeting from Paul and Timothy; the two letters to the church in Thessalonica cite Paul, Silvanus and Timothy.
The Apostle Paul, as should be clear to any unprejudiced reader of the New Testament, was no misogynist. He warmly affirmed women's ministry, for example that of Phoebe, servant (translated by the RSV as 'deaconess') of the church at Cenchreae (see Romans 16v1-2) and the contribution to the cause of the gospel from Euodia and Syntyche, who had sadly fallen out (see Philippians 4v2-3).
So the issue here is not the value of women's ministry. According to the New Testament, women's ministry is invaluable.
Nor is this to argue for men only churches. Local churches should reflect the fact that the gospel of God's grace is for all people who put their trust in the Lord Jesus Christ for eternal salvation, so a church that excluded women would demonstrate a profoundly defective understanding of the gospel. That would indeed be true of any strictly homogeneous church, whether socio-economically, ethnically or culturally.
This is about whether male only ministry teams are spiritually, pastorally or relationally deficient.
A canonical New Testament epistle is more much more than an act of ministry to a local church in the 1st century. But it is not less than that.
Was Paul, Silvanus and Timothy's ministry to these congregations pastorally defective because they were a team of men?
One would have to say yes to that proposition if male only ministry teams must of ecclesiastical necessity be regarded as pastorally defective.
But, given that these four wonderful letters are included in the Canon of the Holy Spirit-inspired Holy Scriptures, a claim on whatever ideological or philosophical ground that that they are defective for not being co-authored by a woman should be abhorrent to any person claiming the name of Christian.
Though written by men only, they are the Word of God.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Absolutely correct, and something that needs to be said, I'm sure. But unfortunately I doubt what CC says will convince those who take an attitude to the word of God that it needs to be completed or reinterpreted, i.e. overridden, by current fashionable worldly trends.
ReplyDeleteComing at this from a slightly different angle one might argue that it could be defective (or at the very least not following Paul/Scripture) for a male minister not to be able to refer warmly to female colleagues in the work of the gospel in various other locations.
ReplyDeleteA warm response the Apostle Paul models for us whilst clearly forbidding the appointment of women presbyters.
ReplyDeleteI can see Paul instructing and organising for the appointment of male presbyters (i.e. Titus 1); but I can't see where he clearly forbids the appointment of women presbyters.
ReplyDeleteThe relevant material in the Pastoral Epistles.
ReplyDeleteThe relevant material is in the Pastoral Epistles.
ReplyDeletesomewhere ... ?
ReplyDeleteYou don't need an Oxbridge PhD to be able to work out that Paul's teaching in 1 Timothy 2 leads into his teaching about the qualifications for presbyters into chpt 3.
ReplyDeleteThanks Julian. No, but I can't find "presbyters" anywhere in 1 Tim 3 and I still can't find where Paul clearly forbids the appointment of women presbyters.
ReplyDeleteI would merely suggest that it may be worth distinguishing between what Paul actually says and our deductions made on the basis of what he says. Otherwise "clearly" means no more than "I think".
That's because you are now switching the argument as to whether the episcopoi of 1 Tim 3 have a distinctive role and function from the presbuteroi of 5v1 & 17. Clearly both teach, so the prohibition in 2v11-12 clearly must apply.
ReplyDeleteOr Holy Scripture is opaque and of no practical use in the ordering of God's Church.
PS Dr Head, whatever semantic force you put on 'malista' in 1 Tim 5v17, it's clear that apostolically authorised presbyters did preach and teach.
ReplyDeleteThanks Julian, that is now clear. Paul never did forbid the appointment of women presbyters (as you originally claimed). But, of course, he did say plenty that applies to the topic (on which I am sure we both agree). That is precisely what I meant by "distinguishing between what Paul actually says and our deductions made on the basis of what he says".
ReplyDeleteSure there is an issue as to the ways in which ecclesiastical terms in general usage correspond to the NT terminology. But if 'presbyter' means a person with biblical teaching responsibility over God's church, then Paul clearly did forbid the appointment of women in that role.
ReplyDeleteI'm inclined to draw this to a close. If you wish, learned sir, to continue, you may do so.
But the biblical rightness of the traditional integrity on the ordination of women does not depend on having the last word on a blog post!
Peter. You wrote: "I can see Paul instructing and organising for the appointment of male presbyters (i.e. Titus 1); but I can't see where he clearly forbids the appointment of women presbyters."
ReplyDeleteIndeed so. Neither can I ! In fact the wider context of the NT suggests very strongly otherwise. "The NT gives many examples of women teaching men (Luke 2:25-28; Acts 21:9;
John 4:28,29) We are told that women served as 'deaconia' in the early church (Rom. 16:1-2) and were co-labourers with men in the kingdom of Christ (Rom.16:3). At least one of the apostles was female (Rom.16:7).
Its clear that Jesus' entire ministry on earth included gifted, ministering women (John 20:1-2; Luke 24:1-11; Acts 1:14,15; Acts 2:17-18.)
The Apostle Paul encouraged both men and women to teach, pray, and participate fully in the assembly (1.Cor.11:4-5;
1 Cor.14:23-24).
Jesus' view of women and their place in the kingdom, echoed by the Apostles, was a radical departure from the ancient Jewish understanding of female involvement, or lack thereof, in temple worship"
For those who maintain the traditional interpretation of 1 Tim.2:10,11, in the AV that "let the woman learn in silence with all subjection (&v.11) as prohibiting the ministry of women, should perhaps note that the word rendered "silence" (AV) is not correct. (hesuchia) should be rendered "quietness". But of course that "quietness" applies to ALL when listening to the teaching of others when gathered, including sister's male counterparts!
For a fuller exposition of the cultural and exegetical context of 1 Timothy, and incidentally the parallel passage in 1 Cor. 14:31-40, the new, and ground-breaking work by theologically conservative writer Dr Jon Zens will reveal much needed light on these passages, which have been mis-interpreted for far too long as justification for silencing women's ministry.
( See: What's With Paul & Women? Unlocking The Cultural background to 1 Timothy 2'. Ekklesia Press. Lincoln. Nebraska).
Readble, short, excellent.
Graham
DeleteI have looked up all the verses you mention and none of them say anything to support your viewpoint!
Are they in a Bible of wishful thinking?
Phil
"Jesus' view of women and their place in the kingdom, echoed by the Apostles, was a radical departure from the ancient Jewish understanding of female involvement, or lack thereof, in temple worship."
ReplyDeleteWhich makes it most notable that the apostles did not appoint women episcopoi/presbuteroi nor did those church overseers/elders appointed by the apostles. The fact is that Trinitarian Protestant denominations, or at least those officially Trinitarian, only started ordaining women after the advent of the social disaster that was the 1960s.
I trust you are aware, cc, that not everyone who respects scriptural authority as much as you do takes the same view of this matter. Two examples are Tom Wright's talk "Women's Service in the Church: the Biblical Basis" (available on the web at http://www.ntwrightpage.com/Wright_Women_Service_Church.htm), or Dick France in his Grove booklet "A Slippery Slope?" (where he tackles head-on the question of whether those who take a "liberal" view of women's ministry and a "conservative" view of practising homosexuality are being biblically inconsistent).
ReplyDeleteI have to admit that I do get a bit annoyed with those evangelicals who seem to be simply ignoring the existence of other evangelicals who differ from them on this, or worse, saying that if they disagree they're not evangelicals; still, praise where praise is due, I gether that Reform are at least talking to AWESOME about it. (Forward in Faith don't seem to talk to Affirming Catholicism; but then FiF take their view because of what Rome says, not because of what the Bible says.)
Hi Phil. Re your comment above. We must be reading different Bibles!
ReplyDeleteJulian states an important premise above -
"so a church that excluded women would demonstrate a profoundly defective understanding of the gospel." I agree.
This I think is an implied comment upon Galatians 3:28 perhaps. That is, "in Christ" distinctions like male and female are no longer norms of judgment in Christian gatherings. Paul mentions this abolition of distinction in the same breath as that for Jew and Gentile - a massive cultural and spiritual bombshell for the 'traditionalists'of the day!
I think the onus of proof lies with those who deny the NT evidence.
You do not believe the Bible verses I quoted support an equality for women in the Christian church? In reply I would say that is is assumed throughout the NT.
Perhaps consider that the pouring our of the Holy Spirit at Pentecost was upon women as well as the Apostles and early church .... i.e. "Sons and daughters shall prophesy"
What about Priscilla (Rom.16:3) a "co-worker", like Timothy and Titus?
What about the open meeting of 1 Cor. 14 where all present, that is, men and women "the whole assembly", "each one of you",
"you may all prophecy" functioned in mutual ministries?
Women's homes in the early church are frequently mentioned as meeting places or 'church gatherings' - Rom.16:5; 1 Cor. 1:11;
16:19; and Col. 4:15. Are we to conclude that these sisters remained utterly silent about the Gospel in such meetings in their own homes?
What about Acts 21:9 and Philips daughters who 'prophesied'? Were these to be considered exceptional or rare?
From my understanding, obviously limited compared to the learned folk who comment on this blog, surely none of the verses you quote are about, nor imply the role of elders/pastors/incumbents, which is the role of authority and responsibility for teaching and doctrine for a local church CC says Paul did not open to women. Rather the verses you quote seem to apply more to spontaneous contributions ('prophecy' in 'charismatic' churches) from any member of a congregation in gatherings or anyone sharing from the Bible to edify e.g. in home groups. Your bringing ‘equality’ and Gal 3:28 into the argument might point to where you’re coming from. I thought the point of Biblical equality (as opposed to the world’s concepts) and teaching on the Body of Christ is that we’re all equal in value and status in Christ, whatever our role.
ReplyDeletePhilip. Re your comment on Gal:3:28..
ReplyDeleteYou say:
!Your bringing ‘equality’ and Gal 3:28 into the argument might point to where you’re coming from. I thought the point of Biblical equality (as opposed to the world’s concepts) and teaching on the Body of Christ is that we’re all equal in value and status in Christ, whatever our role."
I could not agree more!
Indeed it makes the fundamental point that gender distinctions in the church of Christ have now been abolished.
Where such distinctions applied, like the priesthood under the Old Covenant, then the New Covenant abolishes them. All are now free to minister - male - female - Jew - Gentile in the congegations of Christ without distinction. Otherwise I think Gal. 3:28 would have little point. This is consistent with many other NT texts which validate the ministry of women.
I'm not sure you do agree. My point is that I understand Biblical "equality" and teaching on the Body of Christ (1 Cor 12 etc) to mean we have equal importance, which isn’t affected by roles and gifting. The context of Gal 3:28 is not about roles and gifts, so surely that verse cannot be used to override the prohibition in 1 Tim 2:12. I’m not convinced that the Bible applies equality of status in Christ to commanding equal access to all roles. You say gender distinctions were abolished, but doesn’t that go further than the Bible which seems to have a more ‘equal but different’ stance?
DeleteThe Gospel certainly raised the status of women and CC said Paul "warmly affirmed women's ministry". But Jesus didn’t appoint women apostles. And again, there is a difference between the ministries in the texts you referred to and the 1 Tim 2:12-type elder/pastor/incumbent role of authoritative Bible and doctrinal teaching responsibility, which Paul didn’t open to women.
Philip. Thanks for your further response in which you quote three separate scriptures - each one of which has a bearing on this discussion. The question is: to what end?
ReplyDeleteLets take each separately because they have entirely different contexts which affirm different objectives and arguments by Paul.
Gal 3:28 in my view is the overarching principle which really determines ALL of Paul's subsequent teaching in the epistles about gender, and it is one which is basic and fundamental. In this verse he simply extends his argument about the distinctions between Jew & Gentile (under the Old Covenant) no longer applying under the New.
The same principle applies to all other distinctions (originally important and necessary under the OT economy) but no longer uner the New. I cannot express it better than as follows - drawn initially from a comment on Luke's Gospel:
"The word "all" occurs 17 times in Acts 2. This suggests that Luke is earnestly trying to emphasise the universal nature of the New Covenant. No longer will there be Jew or Gentile (ethnic division), male or female (sexual division), bond or free (socioeconomic division). All of them will now be equal and part of one body, the church of Jesus Christ who breaks down all alienation produced by the Fall (see Gal. 3:28. Eph.2:11-22.") (All Things New. Carl Hoch)
So when you say " we have equal importance, which isn’t affected by roles and gifting." I believe you may be misunderstanding Paul. It is precisely beacuse of the principle of Gal3:28 that Pauls logically and consistently argues in 1 Cor 12 that the same principle applies in the body of Christ - including women, and their equal role in gifts and monistry.
His opening words in that passage about spiritual gifts are not confined to men but to "all". Notice that he had already assumed full participation of women in the gathering in term of prophecying (11:4,5).
Indeed, the whole of chap 12 with his numerous references to "all" in that chapter include sisters in the Body of Christ, and his argument is extended through to chap.14, which is indeed all about the exercise of spiritual gifts to the ENTIRE body. There is no hint anywhere that the sisters are somehow excluded is there? Likewise 1 Cor.14:23,24 - "all" again, and "the whole church".
The passage is emphasising the importance of EVERY part of the Body of Christ - without exception, and therefore must be inclusive of women.
I believe the context of 1 Timothy 2 is again entirely different to those texts referred to above and requires exegesis within its own context. Opportunity to return to that critical passage later.
Graham
We are just not going to agree, and there may be no point in continuing this! Your points may be correct in the contexts of Acts 2 and 1 Cor, but I refer to my previous comments, including about Gal 3:28 and 1 Tim 2. Implying that 1 Tim 2:12 - type roles not being open to women means they’re excluded or less important in the Body of Christ might indicate a career-development/hierarchical perspective determining our importance/value, which 1 Cor 12 surely speaks against! Obviously we need to ensure (I hope I do for myself) we don’t read God’s word through the lenses of one’s own prejudices, nor a worldly agenda on “equality”!
DeleteWell Phil. Indeed we probably will not agree - but such disagreemtnt will do little to positively explain the texts concerned.
ReplyDeleteMy view of Gal3:28 I have explained above. On this I can only repeat - if the verse is not to be taken at face value - and including the direct reference to 'female', then I ask: what is it saying? What does it actually mean?
Is Paul simply making some vague generality about #equality# which nonetheless is actually meaningless in the nitty gritty life of the church and inter-relationships?
If so, it would be very uncharacteristic of Paul!
Secondly, if as you seem to concede an understanding of Acts 2, and 1 Cor 12 would include sisters in Christ, then Paul would not contradict himself and his doctrine of ministry in the church elsewhere - nothwithstanding the 1 Tim. 2 passage which I believe (with others) has been both seriously mistranslated and therefore misinterpreted.
Re your tentative suggestion: "Implying that 1 Tim 2:12 - type roles not being open to women means they’re excluded or less important in the Body of Christ might indicate a career-development/hierarchical perspective."
I find this concept very difficult to justify from the NT. Please explain where there is any NT justification for "career development", or indeed a 'hierachical perspective' ? Surely the words of Christ, exclude such a pattern or structure of leadership within his church, namely the warning to his disciples: "not so among you" (Matt. 20:20-28). Some commentators on this verse express the view that this passage excludes a male hierarchy pattern, including the modern 'clergy/laity' divide, and indeed all artificial and institutional models for the church. I agree.
Matt.23: 1-12 I think brings out the same message and conclusion "you are all brethren"
I agree there is no NT justification for hierarchical/career development attitude - I did say this was against 1 Cor 12, which speaks of our equality of value in the Body of Christ whatever our roles (so it is unbiblical to think women, or anyone, aren’t equal etc if they’re not in some roles). No doubt Gal 3:28 applies to nitty-gritty of relationships and unity in local churches. I commented previously on the context of Gal 3:28 and the specific roles 1 Tim 2:12 is referring to compared to those in the other texts mentioned.
Delete