I chose the title “Betty Crocker vs. Hillary Clinton” because they symbolize the two stereotypes people have in the fight conversation on gender roles. Complementarians (those who believe in specific gender roles) fear that if we give women an inch, they’ll all be running for president in 2012. On the other hand, Egalitarians (those who believe in no gender roles but mutual submission) worry that if women submit they will turn into inferior, useless cooks whose ultimate worth are found in casseroles. Well, both stereotypes are wrong (a little funny) but wrong.
So what is a woman’s role in the church? I believe the Bible clearly teaches there are specific gender roles in both the family and the church. The man is to take the lead role, while the woman is to submit to his leading (cf. 1 Timothy 2:11-14; 3:1-2; Ephesians 5:22-33; and 1 Corinthians 11:3). Whoa! Now, before I lose my readers let’s clear up some common misconceptions about gender roles.
Listen to Sharon James, a woman author in the HCSB Apologetics Study Bible, who has accepted gender roles as biblical truth:
Misconception 1: Equality means sameness. Talk of different roles is discriminatory.
Response: Equality does not mean sameness. The three persons of the Trinity are equal in deity but different in role.
Misconception 2: Difference in role relates directly to personal worth.
Response: Submission does not mean being of lesser worth. The Son submits to the Father, while being equal in deity, and His submission is His glory.
Misconception 3: Women will be empowered only when they have become the same as men (meaning given the same opportunities).
Response: Women do not have to fill the same jobs as men in order to be empowered. This idea insults the large number of women who regard relational success as of greater importance than career success. The Bible honors those women who were wives, mothers, and homemakers (Pr 31; 1 Timothy 5:9-10,14) as well as women who ministered and worked in other ways (like Esther).
I want to call your attention to the fact that Sharon James’s source of identity comes from the Trinity. She points out (which I love) the fact that Jesus’ GLORY came from submitting to the Father. Gender roles are not a doctrine of worth or value rather a doctrine of function.
The best resource I have read on the Trinity is Bruce Ware’s “Father, Son, and Holy Spirit: Relationships, Roles, and Relevance.” In the book, Ware shows the Glory of the functional roles the Trinity exhibits. The Father as authoritative, the Son submitting to the Father, and the Spirit submitting to both the Father and Son while each are equal in personhood and deity sharing a love relationship that goes far beyond our understanding. This understanding of the Trinity paves the way for understanding gender roles and practically living out those roles in humility not pride, whether leading or submitting.
Paul’s teaching in 1 Timothy most succinctly describes the role of men and women in church.
1 Timothy 2:11-12 (HCSB) 11 A woman should learn in silence with full submission. 12 I do not allow a woman to teach or to have authority over a man; instead, she is to be silent.
Here, we see that Paul says that a woman should not have inappropriate authority over a man. Bruce Ware, in his book on the Trinity, calls our attention to the fact that Paul could have easily said that he does not permit a woman to be an elder or pastor because he is currently transitioning into those qualifications. However, he reaches his scope to general ideas rather than offices. So, where there is teaching or authority in the church or in the family over a mixed crowd, a woman is to not hold that position.
Frank Thielman, in his New Testament Theology, explains two facets Paul argues from: one positive reason and one negative reason. First, Paul positively says God created man first and then the woman. It would go against God’s created order otherwise to have women lead men. Secondly, Paul negatively says the woman was deceived first and sinned in the Garden (cf 1 Timothy 2:13-14). It is when we deny our functional roles that we deny God’s order of work, and Paul ties this in with redemption as a woman is to be saved through accepting her gender role as a mother unlike Eve did (1 Timothy 2:15).
So, there’s Paul’s argument. Certain qualified men should lead, and women should not. He does not degrade women; rather he is recognizing God’s order in creation. In these roles, we find the context of redemption and the nature of the Trinity. I’m ok with accepting gender roles if it leads me to that end.
What do you think? Do you think gender roles come from creation or the fall? I’d love to hear some examples of how you see this doctrine worked out in the local church! Share your experience and thoughts in the comment section.
April 8, 2010 at 9:33 pm
Question: What about Beth Moore? She teaches men all the time… I don’t if she teaches them in the local church setting but I know she teaches at events like Passion. Also, what about women who teach in Seminaries? Should women be allowed to teach theology or the Bible in seminaries?
April 8, 2010 at 9:53 pm
When taking speech at Boyce College, I had to give a bible lesson on a scripture reference. I had my concerns about it. But one I was a woman and two I would be teaching to men in the classroom. The teacher told me that it was not in a church setting so that I should feel comfortable with it. (something on the lines of that) I did have issues but I did it because it was part of the class.
I heard a great sermon on the role of the woman @ cornerstone church of knoxville.
you can find the sermon by copying and pasting this link
http://my.ekklesia360.com/Clients/sermonaudioplayer.php?CMSCODE=EKK&siteid=3138&sermonid=116173&useSkin=skin_plain.xml&CMS_LINK=http:
//my.ekklesia360.com&width=350&height=140
As far as Beth Moore goes I always wondered about that. She is a great speaker but I don’t just don’t know.
April 8, 2010 at 11:36 pm
Marry, thank you for your comment.
I understand the aspect of a ‘seminary’ classroom not being the same setting as the church gathered, though I do want to draw out the correlations here. If the seminary is training men to be pastors and to preach then should a woman teach these men the bible and theology? What about the biblical languages? If I’m not mistaken, I believe a Baptist Seminary not to long ago let a woman go for this very reason. She is now teaching Hebrew at Taylor University.
These are interesting questions that I’m sure inhabit very different yet very staunch opinions from those in Evangelical world.
Any takers?
April 9, 2010 at 10:04 am
Thanks for the comments guys.
When you are thinking through this, gray areas (in our minds) pop up and we just don’t know what to think. Here are some more of my thoughts on the issue:
1) 1 Timothy’s main theme is the church. How to conduct the church and structure and function without Paul’s apostleship. Because of this focus on the church then I feel comfortable allowing women to have roles of teaching outside the church. Places that cannot practice church discipline, that do not hold the guarding of the gospel, are not the pillar and support of truth (1 tim 3:15), and do not administer the ordinances are ok (at least in my mind) to have a woman in lead because they are not authoritative in faith and practice.
2) Seminaries are an even fuzzier issue because they deal directly with faith and practice and the church without directly being authoritative. My advice: if it’s a more pastoral seminary (especially connected with a church) then stick with male leadership; if it’s a more academic seminary than I would assume there would be more freedom of thought.
3) I’ve always wondered what the response of God will be to a woman pastor in new creation? She ‘did the will’ of God, yet (if gender roles are correct) didn’t obey God’s created order. Just a thought that shows the weirdness of my brain
Thanks again for the comments guys.
April 9, 2010 at 5:09 pm
I love reading about this from both of you all
As a woman, I feel as though I COULD NOT teach bible at a seminary. I am the type of person that I don’t want my brothers in Christ stumble. It kinda goes along with women being deacons, while I know some people think it is ok. I am not one of those, because I don’t want to cause division with in the church. I understand that there is a difference with the church and a seminary. But as I would not teach because I don’t want to cause division with any of my brothers.
April 9, 2010 at 6:28 pm
Ben, I am more viable to concur with your comments above concerning the differences between an ‘academic’ seminary and a more ‘pastoral’ seminary, though I do have my reserves. Granted, Timothy is primarily speaking of the church but we must keep in context the church gathered here (i.e., local bodies of believers practicing the ordinances, church discipline, and preaching the gospel). Seminary classrooms are not the church gathered. Bible colleges are not the church gathered. Passion conferences are not the church gathered… as it would be in the local church context.
Though in making this point, I do want to note that I think we should model a Titus 2 approach when training men and women for ministry. Older men should train younger men and older women should train younger women. We must conclude that if this was done in the local church context then there would be no need for Seminaries. Churches would properly train men and women for ministry and they would be sent out according to their calling. Though, in a world that falls short of perfect ideals, we must champion seminaries that train and equip men and women for gospel ministry! Because seminaries exist, questions like these exist. Should women teach men in seminaries? My answer: I don’t know, but these are helpful discussions!
April 12, 2010 at 4:14 pm
Good discussion here! I agree that Paul’s instructions to Timothy were to help Timothy with the roles within the church, but when reading Ephesians 5 we get the the gender roles within the home. The roles within the church and the home mirror one another. Men are to lead their homes in the same manner Jesus leads the church, and women are to submit to their husband’s leadership in the same manner the church submits to Jesus. Within the church pastors are to be the husband of one wife and are to bring up their children in the ways of the Lord. That is in accordance to 2 Timothy. This is because if a pastor can not lead his family and practice biblical discipline with his children, how can he lead the church and practice biblical church discipline? I would apply this to the seminaries as well. Who is better to teach a student how to become a pastor? A fellow pastor, or someone that is not a pastor? If women are not to be pastors then they can not gain the experience of being a pastor. If they do not have the experience of being a pastor how can they teach a man to be a pastor? That would be my logical way of thinking. We also have the biblical standard that women are not to be in a teaching role of biblical doctrine over men. If the teaching role is a general subject such as math, history, or science then women can be in those positions. If the position put the instructor in charge of teaching the bible to men then that role should be given to men in accordance with scripture.
April 12, 2010 at 6:52 pm
Great comment steve! Here’s a question; would you go to a seminary that had a woman teaching bible? Are your convictions that strong or do you see liberty in the discussions of seminary?
April 13, 2010 at 6:16 am
Hi, I just read through this discussion. For many years I have wondered about the fine points of women’s roles as taught in the Word. Lately I have realized that perhaps we are too often focusing on ways to allow women to teach in situations where we are unclear if it is endorsed by the Bible, and neglecting the clearly taught duty of older women to teach the younger. Surely there is enough responsibility there to keep us all busy!
April 13, 2010 at 7:58 am
Fantastic comment… amen!
April 13, 2010 at 5:47 pm
While, love Dr. Ware I do think he is wrong on one key point he makes. I hold to Mark Driscoll’s view that Pauls pairing of “authority and teaching” IS a reference to the office of elder. Those two functions are not given to any other office, therefore, it is a direct reference to the office of elder.
I think when we go beyond that we get into legalism: forbidding something that the Bible does not. For instance, if a man and wife lead a small group together it is not wrong for the wife to chime in, she doesnt have to sit in silence as her husband does all the talking.
Ben, you say it would deny Gods order to have women lead men. I agree, but leading and teaching are not synonyms. They are two different things, but when coupled together they begin functioning as an elder, which is what is wrong.
Dr. Chad Brand also pointed out to me once that in 1 Timothy, Paul is not just talking about the local church context, but it is also the context of the church “gathered.” Therefore, Brand argues, that Paul is not necessarily forbidding women to teach with men present in any situation, but Paul is forbidding to teach men when the “whole church is gathered” aka.a normal Sunday morning worship service.
Thoughts?
April 13, 2010 at 10:29 pm
“Leading and teaching are not synonyms. They are two different things, but when coupled together they begin functioning as an elder, which is what is wrong.”
I think I’m with you on this Matt. Your comment that I pasted above is excellent, and I think when explained this way it gives light to the ‘function’ of an elder – teaching and leading (as well as shepherding, etc) – rather than taking this and applying to situations in which the local church is not gathered. From my comment above, I also made the point of the “Seminary classroom” not being the same thing as the “local church gathered.”
The seminary classroom should be a place where the Bible is taught… Churches should be ‘the’ place that pastors are trained!
April 13, 2010 at 10:38 pm
Yeah, I think it is key to make sure when we talk about elder we are not just talking about office, but function as well!
Great distinction at the end.
June 23, 2010 at 11:26 am
I realize I’m jumping into this conversation way late, but I’ve had several questions about this over the years.
Ben references 1 Corinthians 11, which says that a woman must not prophesy with her head uncovered, because covering her head is a sign of relinquishing authority. In verse 14, it says that a man prophesying with long hair is a disgrace to him because long hair is meant for women.
Moving on to chapter 14, we find that women must remain silent in the church and wait to ask their husbands about the worship when they get home. That seems to render the conversation about teaching vs. leading in the church moot. If we take this literally, women must not speak in the church – period. That means they cannot be children’s ministers, worship leaders, greeters, nothing.
My question is this. I take the Bible as a whole truth, but I think in situations like this, you have to look at context. Thinking about when and where this book was written, having a woman in any kind of leadership role would be like making a chicken governor of Kentucky. It just didn’t make sense, and that translated into the early church. Since the western world has been founded and established, women in leadership positions – like our president at Asbury University and my mother in the superintendent position of the Jessamine County School System – is not a foreign concept anymore. Doesn’t Paul’s worldview and lack of knowledge of what the 21st century would be like account for a discrepancy in passages like that? Just like in Deutoronomy when the Israelites are ordered to defecate outside the camp walls and bury it.
It seems to me that the passages in 1 Corinthians outline how to keep order in the church, because having a woman pastor or teacher in that era would have been as radical an idea as any you could come up with today. I believe that the command is order, not the definition of gender roles.
June 23, 2010 at 1:56 pm
Tyler here are my responses to your questions in bullet fashion. Thanks for thinking this through and I’m looking forward to what you think of my suggestions.
1) Yes, you’re right, the covered hair of women and long hair is a Cultural understanding of ways men act like men and women act like women. Paul, himself, declares this in verse 14 when he says “does not nature itself teach you…” Now, he can’t mean Earth or the natural realm of the universe because then that would be applicable today, and I can’t tell a woman’s feminine nature by the covering of her head (it’s not a natural repsonse). What he does mean is what we naturally perceive from our culture. Culture defined how men and women should act and we should submit to these manifestations. BUT God’s revelation is what informed them that the head of a woman is man. That same verse (11:3) says that Christ is the head of man, can that change? So, if the relationship between God and Christ and Christ and man never change, why is the relationship between man and woman subject to generations?
2) The defense Paul gives is the ultimate reason the roles of men and women are timeless rather than cultural. Paul defends male headship from the order of creation (cf. 1 Corinthians 11:8 and 1 Timothy 2:18). Surely people in Paul’s day could say Adam and Eve were a different culture but that would be irrelevant because God created man and woman in a certain fashion before sin entered the world- man first, woman second. What is true of the first culture on earth will be true until the very last culture until new creation.
3) I think attributing the passages in 1 Corinthians to outlining order is over simplifying the structure of the letter. Paul is writing to teach and correct on multiple topics: Division in the church (Ch. 3) Sexual Immorality (Ch 5-6) Marriage (Ch. 7) Conscience issues (Ch.8) Authority (Ch. 11) the Lord’s Supper (Ch. 11) Spiritual Gifts and Chaos (Ch. 12-14) and the Resurrection (Ch. 15). A church filled with chaos is only one of 8 specific problems that Paul is correcting. Therefore, a pragmatic argument of order to define roles for that specific culture or church doesn’t work because he’s not talking about order yet in chapter 11.
4) I believe women can lead men outside the church. Esther was a leader. It’s inside the church that Paul clearly denies woman leadership. P.S. to Matt and Greg- while I agree in principle that teaching and leading are different. I think that they are often flip sides of the same coin in the western style church. So while I agree I think we need to be careful and you were very helpful when you said that we must look at function and not just office.
June 23, 2010 at 2:22 pm
So would you agree with Paul that women should remain silent in the church?
June 23, 2010 at 2:48 pm
Yes. Now before I lose you allow me to clarify. Paul tells Timothy that in the context of the church and its worship. This would be the equivalent of our Sunday morning services. But elsewher in Titus 2 Paul tells women to teach the younger women. Furthermore, we have additional breakout groups, small groups, sunday schools, etc that I don’t believe is in Paul’s direct context here because it doesn’t influence the churches direction or understanding of the Word. So silent – Yes, but with a nuance of understanding.
Notice also, this doesn’t speak of words of encouragement, singing, or testimony. It’s teaching.
June 23, 2010 at 3:45 pm
I think this may be one of those ‘agree to disagree’ situations for me. I read the scripture in the context of the problems plaguing the church at Corinth where the gatherings were basically running amok, and Paul is giving them ways to restore order based on what was acceptable in the time period. Nothing in today’s society would suggest that women speaking or teaching in the church would bring about the chaos and disorder that Corinth was experiencing.
However, some churches (little ‘c’) would experience problems with women in leadership, and if that is the case, I think it would be wrong to cause the members to stumble by placing a woman in that position. That is along the lines of what Paul is talking to the Corinthians about. But nowhere in the Bible to I read that God commands the Church (big ‘C’) to keep women silent.
June 23, 2010 at 3:47 pm
By the way, I absolutely love this site, and I have extraordinary respect for the writers and commenters for encouraging logical and intelligent conversation without resorting to anger or name-calling. Very nice work, guys.
June 23, 2010 at 3:54 pm
We must remember the context that Paul is speaking of is not necessarily New Testament in and of itself. The context is the ‘church gathered’ past, present, and future. The cultural implications, such as head coverings are in and of themselves 1st Century, though the prescriptive qualification for elders/pastors (function/office) are timeless and should continued to be practiced until Jesus returns. There are only 2 institutions that exist where a man is to lead: 1) the family and 2) the church. Paul always speaks theologically concerning the order of creation.
One of the qualifications for an elder is to ‘teach/preach’ (1 Timothy 3/Titus 2). We must ask is Paul’s statement about women teaching in church and having authority over men ‘prescriptive’ or simply descriptive, thereby rendering it only cultural. Taking Scripture as a whole points to it being prescriptive for the church universal as it gather together in corporate worship.
That is why I would allow women to teach the Bible in schools and seminaries. It is not the church ‘gathered.’
June 23, 2010 at 3:59 pm
Thought I might add this even though it looks as if the discussion is over… for now.
June 23, 2010 at 4:01 pm
ha! i think we posted almost simultaneously. no worries, i read it and thougt it was clear.
June 23, 2010 at 3:54 pm
Thanks so much for the kind words! its people that comment like you and think through the issues with it that make it worth it for us.
I guess we indeed will have to agree to disagree for now but there are so many nuances to this topic, we’ll probably pick it up again sometime. The respect is mutual.