The discussions about the roles of women in ministry have amassed great attention. A few scrolls down my Twitter feed and other social media platforms (at least in my circles), I almost always come across some comment or post about women in the pastorate, the push for equality of outcome, and other buzz words surrounding this topic. The recent rift in the Southern Baptist Convention over this issue has brought division among pastors, leaders, and the denomination (and other denominations). The Beth Moore fall-out from the SBC gained attention from the secular world because the situation had great appeal to the liberal narrative, thus it was an easy win for its cause, in that it afforded another opportunity to expose Christianity as a “fundamentalist patriarchal oppressive” religion. However, while there are always bad apples in the bunch, such notions couldn’t be further from the truth.
More and more denominations are ordaining women to the pastorate, and the cultural demand of equality of outcome has placed intense pressure on churches and denominations that hold to the traditional view to follow suit. I do not care about the cultural status quo; neither should those who hold to the Word of God as authoritative on such matters. With that said, many who have sided with the narrative claim to do so based on the authority of the Word of God. Many Jesus-loving Christians are proponents of women in the pastorate because they are persuaded by arguments from the Bible.
While I think those who have made the shift believe they have done so based on a strong conviction that the Bible supports it, we have to ask the question: Why has this issue become such a hot topic now? The historic Christian faith has always affirmed that Scripture teaches only men can be qualified for the pastoral office. But in the last 50–70 years, apparently such a reading of Scripture is mistaken. The current milieu is rife with cancel-culture antics, which seek to silence anyone who doesn’t affirm not just equality (because we are all created equal) but equality of outcome. And unfortunately, this has pressure-cooked many denominations and church leaders, causing them to buckle under the pressure.
Now, my point isn’t to get into the politics and the other seemingly complex issues behind it. I just wanted to offer a broad-brush stroke of the context surrounding the topic. Because while arguments come forth positing that Scripture allows the ordination of women, the conclusions of such arguments appear to be grounded in a cultural ideology. With that said, I understand there have been scholarly monographs and essays written on the topic, so I do not presume that I can reduce the entire debate to a short blog post. Rather, my aim is to shed light on an inconsistency of interpretation by looking at one common argument from the Bible in favor of women in the pastorate and another biblical argument supporting the view of monogamous marriage, between one man and one woman. Both arguments have the same methodological starting point; but both arrive at their conclusions in completely different ways. However, what is telling is that many Christians who advance this particular argument allowing for women in the pastorate also affirm the particular argument for the biblical view of marriage.
Jesus on Marriage
To defend the biblical view of marriage Christians will cite Jesus’ reference to the Garden (Matt 19:1-10), “. . . have you not read . . . He made them male and female . . . let not man separate what God has joined together.” Jesus goes to the beginning, setting his anchor point in creation and the first couple, Adam and Eve, to establish a precedent that stands over any later context or situation that might challenge it, which is what we have in Matthew 19. Let’s listen to a common objection and response to this argument.
Objection: What about David and his wives? God didn’t show disapproval or expressly state David was sinning in having them.
Response: Well, God doesn’t express his disapproval every time his will and purposes are violated by man. God extended grace to fallen humanity and though such acts are sinful, God, in his wisdom, providentially worked through such sins.
Objector: That makes sense. Jesus’ argument pointing back to the Garden and God’s purpose in marriage as written by Moses was a corrective to the Jews who had come up with their own “laws” to support their own needs. That is why Jesus says, “have you not read?” The objector acknowledged the authoritative nature of Jesus’ words. Scripture determined the conclusion, providing correction when a cultural view rises against it.
Paul on Women in the Pastorate
But . . . the same Christians who accept that argument, when it comes to the discussion about women in the pastorate, will reject Paul’s inspired response, who also—like Jesus—refers back to the beginning, in the Garden, to support his argument that women are not permitted to teach or to have authority over a man, based on God’s order of creation and Eve having been deceived (1 Tim 2:12–14). His argument, like Jesus’ argument, establishes a precedent that supersedes any future situation or context that might challenge it, which is what we have in Paul’s context.
Objection: What about Deborah? She was in a role of authority and leadership over the Jews. Doesn’t that demonstrate God’s approval of women in such roles, thus an allowance for a woman to be a pastor?
Response: Well, God doesn’t express his disapproval every time his will and purposes are violated by man. Israel was in a moral downward spiral, and Deborah’s installation as a judge of Israel was only to Israel’s shame, in that no men were competent to step up and lead and judge Israel as their fathers had done before. God extended grace to them in raising up Deborah to judge Israel and lead them out of their moral demise. It’s not an exception for women to be pastors; it’s a reminder to the men that they need to lead as the Lord has ordained them. Regardless of that context, Paul, inspired by God, based his argument on God’s design and order in the forming of Adam and Eve and because of the moral collapse of humanity through Eve’s deception.
Objector: I don’t agree. Women and men are created equal, and the Bible says we are all one in Christ. If women have the desire or feel called to be pastors, then they should be allowed to. The objector did not acknowledge the authoritative nature of Paul’s words. Even though Scripture determined the conclusion, the objector sided with the cultural norms. See the inconsistency in the responses to the parallel arguments on these issues? If we followed the Objector’s line of reasoning that since Deborah was in a role of authority over men, then God approves the ordination of women, then we could also affirm that because David had multiple wives, God approves of polygamy. I don’t know any other Christian who holds to the authority of Scripture would agree that God affirms polygamy.
Conclusion
In this brief look at one of the common arguments used in this debate, it is clear that those who attempt to make a biblically sound argument based on the example of Deborah (I think we could say the same with Phoebe from Romans), their conclusion that Scripture affirms the ordination of women is not derived through consistent interpretation of the text; rather, preconceived notions (i.e., cultural influences) are guiding the interpretive process. With that said, we all carry bias and presuppositions. But the consistent interpreter of Scripture has to follow the line of the text, even when it cuts across his or her presuppositions, which would derail the meaning of the text.
The goal of interpretation is to derive meaning from the biblical text that is consistent with the corpus of Scripture. Scripture interprets Scripture. St. Augustine provides a helpful approach in handling the biblical text and is relevant to the interpretive issues above. He writes, “one should proceed to explore and analyze the obscure passages, by taking examples from the more obvious parts to illuminate obscure expressions and by using the evidence of indisputable passages to remove the uncertainty of ambiguous ones” (De doctr. christ. 2.9.14). His last clause is noteworthy. In the examples above, Jesus’ argument about marriage is indisputable (though modernity has pushed hard against it). Paul’s argument, until recently, likewise, was indisputable. Adopting Augustine’s long-standing rule (not a command) when interpreting Scripture helps to maintain a consistent interpretation of the Bible. We do not defer to cultural wisdom when facing biblical interpretive entanglements. We utilize Scripture to interpret itself because we need the Scripture to speak to us; it doesn’t need us to speak to it.
One final note. How should we take Paul’s command regarding women in the pastorate? Paul surely isn’t trying to hold women back from using their gifts; rather, his exhortation is a protective measure. Men are weak vessels; women are weaker vessels (1 Pet 3:7), which is part of God’s good design. Following Eve’s deception, the curse upon women is that they would desire to rule over their husbands. So, why would the Lord permit a woman to have authority over a man (which the pastoral office entails) if such “rule” was inherent of the curse? With that said, the church will only flourish if its pastors enable and guide the women to use their gifts, even teaching (just not in a pastoral role). But we (especially us pastors) must protect our precious women from stumbling into a role that puts them into the grips of the devil.
~Romans 11:36
Comments