Women in the Pulpit?

            The are few buttons hotter to the touch in the church today than the question of women pastors and elders.  Passions run high on both sides of the debate and disagreeing viewpoints are often met with indignation and acrimony.  This should not be the case among bible believing Christians who affirm the authority of Scripture, because while it can be a vexing question, it is not a difficult one.  An honest, systematic reading of Scripture yields a clear answer to the question “Can women be pastors and elders?”  And the answer is no.  I know that may seem like a shockingly blunt statement, but it is true, let me explain why.

            Putting aside the unbiblical arguments that seek to strip certain books of the bible of their inspiration, inerrancy and authority, the wild notions of "trajectory hermeneutics" and straw men like whether it should be Junia or Junias in Romans 16:7 (Paul really wasn’t saying that Andronicus and Junia were Apostles, and everybody, if they are honest, understands that), the case for allowing women pastors/elders boils down to two arguments, women were mightily used by God in the Old Testament and Galatians 3:28 says there is neither male or female in Christ.   But when these arguments are honestly examined, with the mindset that Scripture can’t mean what it never meant, not only do these arguments fail to prove women are biblically qualified for eldership, the passages they hang on are shown to have nothing at all to do with the debate.

            While it is indisputable that there have always been women mightily used by God, and that there were several in the Old Testament, as an argument for women in the pulpit Miriam, Deborah and Huldah (the troika of Old Testament egalitarianism) fall flat.  First, two of the three are best known for singing victory songs, a decidedly feminine occupation in the Ancient Near East, and the third, Huldah, is mentioned in two, let me repeat that, two verses.  This is hardly a case for smashing gender roles, and you must remember that the Levitical priesthood was the exclusive province of men, even in this era of “women’s leadership” there were particular religious roles reserved for men.  Also it is wrong to make Israel, under the Mosaic Covenant, normative for the church under the New Covenant.  To push another hot button, we are living in a different dispensation.  It should also be noted that none of the texts mentioning any of these women is teaching anything about gender roles, other than the indictment of the lack of male leadership in Israel found in Judges 4:8-9 in the story of Barak and Deborah.  Lastly it is a profound hermeneutical error to make Old Testament narrative into didactic texts that teach doctrine.  Narrative illustrates and reveals the working of God in redemptive history, but it doesn’t teach propositional truth.  Making the leap from women being used by God in the Old Testament to women should be pastors makes about as much sense as reading 2 Kings 2:23-4 and deciding that she bears should be used to discipline disrespectful teenagers.

            The second argument put forward for women in the pulpit is that Galatians 3:28 (There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is no male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus.) obliterates any distinctions between men and women.  And it does, but only with regard to salvation not with regard to gender roles.  The context of Galatians 3 is key to understanding the text.  Galatians3:15 through the end of the chapter is speaking of the inclusion of all believers in the blessings of the Abrahamic covenant, and verse 28 is extolling the marvelous truth that nobody who has placed his or her faith in Jesus Christ will be left out.  This verse teaches the full inclusions of believers, and has absolutely nothing to say about gender roles.  Remember, Scripture can’t mean what it never meant. And while this text teaches total equality of person and worth before God, it is absolutely silent on gender roles.  What’s more Paul writing to the church at Rome (post Galatians) continues to see a distinction between Jew and gentile (see chapters 10, 11) so the notion that this verse teaches a complete abolition of all distinctive roles for the opposing pairs named clearly is not what Paul had in mind. 

            So where can we turn for guidance in this matter?  To the section of scripture that was written to set the pattern for leadership and pastoral ministry in the post-Apostolic Church, the Pastoral Epistles, where Paul directly addresses genders roles in the church and the qualifications for eldership.

            1 Timothy 2:12, is absolutely clear.  Paul writes “I do not allow a woman to teach or to exercise authority over a man, rather she is to remain quiet.”  The immediate context of the passage is a larger discussion of gender roles in the church, and immediately following are the qualification for an overseer (elder).  In the midst of a discussion of what men and women should do in the church, Paul clearly, plainly and definitively writes under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, that women are not to teach or exercise authority over men, the very things that elders and pastors do.  And more than that he says why in verses 13 -14, “For Adam was formed first, then Eve;  and Adam was not deceived, but the woman was deceived and became a transgressor.”   Paul grounds the prohibition against women teaching in the creation narrative, making it universal and timeless.  This use of the creation story would make no sense if Paul were addressing, as some claim, a specific unknown problem with unruly women in Ephesus.  This is a clear command for all churches in all times. 

 

            Paul moves from the ban on women teaching and leading immediately into the qualifications for overseers.  After saying that aspiring to the office of overseer is a noble thing, and that an overseer must be above reproach, Paul begins listing the qualifications for the office, and he begins with “the husband of one wife” in 3:2. Literally he says that an overseer must be a one woman man, not a faithful spouse, not one who takes his or her wedding vows seriously, but a one woman man, and the language and the grammar he uses stress gender.  Although there is some debate over what it means to be a one woman man, all honest commentators, and every single commentator writing in the first 1900 years of church history agree that it starts with being a man.  Given that Paul had just written that a women is not to teach or exercise authority, it is inconceivable that he would have used the phrase “a one woman man” to describe the first qualification for the office that exercises authority in the church, unless he had an actual Y chromosome having man in mind.  

          Furthermore Paul includes as a qualification “able to teach” and certainly given the ban on women teaching just a few sentences ago, he would not have mentioned this as a qualification that women could meet, without clarifying his thoughts.  And the parallel passage in Titus, where the office is called elder, also makes being a one woman man (1:6) and being able to give instruction (1:9) qualifications for the office of leadership in the church.  It is absolutely clear from the Epistles Paul wrote to set the pattern for the transition from the post Apostolic church to the elder led church, that church leaders were to be men, and that women were forbidden from exercising authority over men and teaching in the corporate gathering, it couldn’t be more clear.

            Why then the controversy?  Because it just doesn’t seem fair to us, it doesn’t seem fair to me either.  But then again it wasn’t fair for God to send Jesus to be punished for our sins so that Sinners could be reconciled to Him.  It cannot be a question of what seems fair to us, rather it must be a question of are we going to be obedient to God’s Word.  If the answer is yes, then woman cannot be elders or pastors.  If the answer is no you are not in agreement with the will of God, but with the sentiment of Mark Twain who famously quipped “It is not the things I don’t understand in the bible that bother me, it is the ones I do.”