Should our church ordain women? Yes

The question of the role and standing of women in the Christian church is almost as old as the church itself. Sporadic yet lively discussion has characterized the issue from the time of Paul, through the Middle Ages and the Protestant Reformation, on down through the past two decades. During the past fifteen years Seventh-day Adventists have been trying to discover some kind of unifying approach to the issue.

The hermeneutical question

In Adventist discussions of the legitimacy of women in the ministry, much of the disagreement over the Biblical data arises because of hermeneutical differences. This problem is not merely academic. It lies near the heart of our struggle to stand together. Complicating our hermeneutical differences is the fact that the Christian church in our century faces many issues that had not arisen during the Biblical period. For this reason we must be especially responsible in the way we apply Scripture to any social or ethical question.

We might characterize one of the two hermeneutical approaches Adventists tend to use in applying the Biblical data to contemporary issues as the literalistic approach. Its proponents tend to focus upon Biblical statements or specific scriptural cases. In contrast, proponents of the second hermeneutic tend to look for the general principles they find inherent in the flow of Scripture. They also take into account the historical and cultural dynamics within which the inspired writer worked.

One can readily see how two diver gent, even opposing positions may be taken upon a question if two different hermeneutics are employed. Those who follow the first hermeneutic tend to view the others as ignoring, rationalizing, or compromising undeniable scriptural evidence. They also tend to accentuate the demands of law in Scripture when settling ethical questions.

Conversely, those who adopt the scriptural approach that settles ethical questions by wholistically searching out Biblical principles tend to see their counterparts as unaware of the central thrust of the combined Biblical and historical evidence. They see them as dogmatic in their adherence to positions the Bible never intended to be of eternal import. Their view of ethical questions tends to be dominated by their view of God's grace.

Richard N. Longenecker states this hermeneutical divergence in another way. He says it involves "the question of how we correlate the theological categories of creation (which includes both Creation and the Fall) and redemption.

When the former is stressed, subordination and submission of women are usually emphasized;. . . where the latter is stressed, freedom, mutuality, and equality are usually emphasized."¹

Not only must we correlate the two foundational events of Scripture, allowing them unitedly to inform our ethical questions; we must also take into account the fact that the New Testament succeeds the Old. Re-creation and redemption come after and indeed because of the Fall. Therefore, God's redeeming act in Jesus and its ethical implications must be seen alongside of, and yet transcendent to, whatever has been true in the light of Creation and the Fall.

As we approach the question of women's roles in the formal ministry of the church we must be eclectic, adopting what is helpful in both hermeneutical approaches. We must honestly attempt to correlate the specific, didactic, law-oriented statements of the Bible (such as 1 Tim. 2:11-15) with the broad principles of Scripture (such as the one enunciated in Gal. 3:1-4, 7; specifically verse 28). Within this unified hermeneutic, we must recognize the transcendence of the redemptive act of God in Christ. And finally, we must give due weight to the social, cultural, geographic, and ecclesiastical concerns that inspired writers such as Paul took into consideration.

The implications of Genesis 1-3

Genesis 1:27, 28 describes God's creation of "man" in His own image. In God's crowning creative act, female, is included with male within the clearly generic Hebrew term 'adam, "man." Here male and female together constitute humanity in God's image. Only as male and female do Adam and Eve make up the image and likeness of God. Together they are told to subdue and rule the planet as it is populated through them. Thus Scripture leaves very little question about the pre-Fall equality of the sexes and their complementary nature.

Genesis 2:18-24 indicates that the male was created before the female and tells why and how Eve was created. In verses 18 and 20 the word helper (R.S.V., N.I.V.) or partner (N.E.B.) is used of Eve. Neither the Hebrew word for partner nor the context of these verses suggests any inequality between the sexes. Instead, the text states that Eve was created to assuage the man's loneliness, to provide someone like him, someone complementary to him.

The manner in which God creates Eve is consistent with this interpretation. She is created from Adam's side, and there she is to stand "as an equal." ² Adam's exclamation as God brings Eve to him (verse 23) confirms this interpretation. Adams sees Eve as of his very substance. In her he recognizes companionship and oneness: " 'This is now bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh' " (N.I.V.). There is no hint of Adam's viewing Eve in any other way than as an equal--and they are the prototype of all later male-female unions in becoming "one flesh" (verse 24).

It is true that in explaining the reason for his practice of not allowing women to teach or "to usurp authority* over the man" (1 Tim. 2:12), Paul refers to the fact that Adam was created before Eve (verse 13). And he seems, to advocate a hierarchical system that places women below men (1 Cor. 11:3). Yet we must note that the primary thrust of the Genesis account itself has to do with the husband-wife relationship and not directly with the overall cultural or ecclesiastical relationships of all males with all females. (Haul's position is discussed later.)

Genesis 3 describes the effects of the entry of sin. We are particularly interested in the impact that sin had upon the standing of the sexes in relation to each other. Although many inferences have been drawn from the Genesis 3 account, only those meanings drawn by an inspired writer such as Paul should be viewed as authoritative.

It must be emphasized that Genesis 3 gives an objective, blow-by-blow account of the Fall and includes Adam's part in the act. It does not assign Eve any more blame than Adam.³ Both simultaneously discover their nakedness (verse 7), both sew fig leaves for coverings (verse 7), and both hide from God (verse 8). Both are held accountable by God (verses 9-13), who expresses a curse on each (verses 16-19).

The curse of Eve (verse 16) is viewed by some as conclusive evidence for the subordinate role of women generally and in the church particularly. Paul seems to adopt this view in 1 Corinthians 14:34, where his appeal to "the law" seems to refer to Genesis 3. The statement in the curse over which disagreement arises is " 'Your desire wilt be for your husband, and he will rule over you' " (N.I.V.). While Paul probably used this passage to enjoin silence on women in the church, it should be noted that in its own context this statement does not imply the general rule of all men over all women in all circumstances. A change in the relative standing of the sexes did take place, but Genesis limits it to the marriage relationship. "The multiplying of travail in pregnancy is an experience that takes place in marriage. ... Pain in childbirth is likewise an experience which takes place within the sphere of marriage [as is] the wife's desire for her husband. Then, after this threefold reference to changes which are associated with the marriage institution, comes the sentence '"He [your husband] shall rule over you."' [R.S.V.]. . . . The ruling of man over woman is restricted to the sphere of marriage." ⁴

Although the Genesis account itself limits this change to the marriage relationship, Paul's use of the account in passages such as 1 Corinthians 14:34, 35 and 1 Timothy 2:11-14 is not so limited. At this point some (especially those using the first hermeneutic mentioned earlier) would see the whole matter to be settled. Others agree that due weight should be given to these Pauline statements. They, however, opt for the more wholistic understanding of Scripture and its setting, allowing the collected evidence to decide the question of whether or not the doors of formal Adventist ministry should be completely opened to women.

For these reasons we must turn to the New Testament and the heart of Paul's theology--God's redemptive act in Christ. We will deal with its impact on the curse of Genesis 3 and thus on the status of women. True to our hermeneutic, we will also look directly at the relevant Pauline statements concerning women in the church and the social and cultural setting of the churches to which Paul wrote. We will attempt to relate all of these elements responsibly and in such a way as to produce some definitive answers for our situation.

Women In the New Testament churches

In Galatians 3:10-29 Paul summarizes the gospel, placing it in the flow of sacred history. The ultimate effect of this gospel on human relationships is summed up in the pivotal statement "There is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus" (verse 28, N.I. V.).

Paul begins this passage by declaring that a curse rests upon anyone whose confidence before God depends upon his or her success in doing what the law says. No one has always done all the law says, and therefore everyone is subject to a curse. (It is by faith, not by the law, that the righteous live.) When Christ came, He "redeemed us from the curse of the law" (verse 13) and thus opened for all people the free flow of God's promises (particularly that of the Spirit). Paul shows that the promise to bring redemption was not interrupted by the law; instead, the law was meant to lead us to the fulfillment of the promise. Although "we were held prisoners by the law" (verse 23, N.I.V.), this was only to be until faith or the Seed (Christ) came, when we would no longer be supervised by the law in the way we had been.

The implications of this are clear to Paul. All who live by this faith in Christ are God's children (verses 26 and 27). For this reason--a great pivotal reason--Paul declares the old distinctions between people to be void. Since Christ (or faith) has arrived, the old ways of defining interpersonal relationships are removed. Redemption restores them to their original pre-Fall configuration, as though they had never been disturbed by the entry of sin and the curse.

The connection between "the curse of the law" (verse 13) and the curse of Eve (Gen. 3:16) is unequivocal. Eve's curse came on the heels of her fall into sin (sin being a breach of God's command, that is, His law). It was against the results of sin--all sin, but especially the original sin--that Christ came as the second Adam to reverse the effects of the Fall. In Eden the curse of the broken law fell upon Eve. ,In Gethsemane Christ submitted to the curse of that broken law so that Eve and all humanity might be freed from it (Gal. 3:13).

Further, Eve's curse comes in the immediate context of the promise of the "seed" in Genesis 3:15. In Galatians 3:16 Paul prominently mentions the promised "seed," who came to redeem us from "the curse of the law" (verse 13), that is, from the results of the serpent's delusion. Thus the coming of Christ at least must remove Eve's curse from within the life of the believing community. In terms of our discussion, it therefore becomes imperative that we, by acting in tune with Christ's redeeming act, do all that it is possible for us to do as a believing community to remove the effects of the curse of Eve from our marriages, our communities, and our church.

We find that Galatians 3:28 expresses a universal principle, a new-creation mandate, that is founded upon the bedrock of the Christian gospel. This principle is stated in the King James Version in seven words: "Ye are all one in Christ Jesus." Those who believe the gospel--and are God's new creation in Christ--view cultural-national (Jew versus Gentile), social (slave versus free), and sexual (male versus female) issues in a different light from those who do not. The impact of this principle on each of these categories possesses intensely practical implications and highly tangible effects as it is lived out in the life of the community.

Galatians 3:28 In practice

At the heart of the Jew-Gentile question lay a concern relevant to our discussion. Many Jewish Christians felt that the Jewish sign of the covenant, circumcision, should be required of Gentile Christians (Acts 15:1, 5; Gal. 6:12, 13). Paul disagreed. And his discussion of the issue surfaces frequently in the New Testament (see Acts 15; Gal. 2:11-14, for example).

It is entirely understandable that a religious community whose sign of identity was exclusively male also made the male dominant. More significantly, it can be readily seen that the removal of this rite would inevitably tend to reverse the way men and women viewed each other's status. And the sign of the new covenant--baptism and reception of the Holy Spirit--emphasized this reversal, since it was universal and sexually indifferent by nature (in keeping with the universality and equality basic to the new creation). No doubt, God's hand was prominent not only in removing circumcision from Christianity but also in the effects that this had upon the relative standing of men and women in the church.

Of the three relationships mentioned in Galatians 3:28, Paul concentrated most upon the breaking down of the wall of partition that stood between Jew and Gentile. By the time of his death the church had become relatively clear in its collective mind about the proper relationship between these cultural/national groups.

Early Christianity progressed much more slowly on the slave-free question. With the exception of the Philemon letter, Paul said little about it. The fact is that although he felt slave and free to be equal in Christ, Paul did not call for the abolition of slavery. He appealed to the Christian community to remove only the worst of the conditions prevalent in the master-slave relationship.

The same kind of situation existed in Paul's day when it came to the male-female question, and therefore Paul, for his own reasons and for reasons within the community, was not able to insist on the sort of changes he did in the case of the Jew-Gentile issue. In fact, for these reasons he employed arguments from Genesis 1, 2, and 3 against women leading, teaching, or even speaking in the churches. 1 Timothy 3:10-13, 1 Corinthians 11:2-16, and 1 Corinthians 14:34, 35 give the most outstanding evidence of this. We will turn briefly to these statements, attempting to give them their full weight in our discussion.

Paul on the role of women

In 1 Timothy 2:11 Paul calls for women to "learn in quietness and full submission" (N.I.V.). This injunction coincides with 1 Corinthians 14:34, in which he says, "It is disgraceful for a woman to speak in the church" (N.I.V.). The same basic stance is also strongly emphasized in 1 Corinthians 11:3, 7-10, and 12, which verses call for the submission of women not only in the realm of marriage but particularly in the church. Paul also says, "I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man" (1 Tim. 2:12, N.I.V.).

Paul's rationale is rooted in the Creation-Fall account of Genesis 1-3. In 1 Corinthians 11:7-9 Paul states that only the man is in God's image and that woman came from man and not vice versa. In 1 Timothy 2:13, 14 he says, "Adam was formed first, then Eve. And Adam was not the one deceived; it was the woman" (N.I.V.). Then, as I have stated, in 1 Corinthians 14:34 Paul calls for women's silence in church on the basis of what "the Law says" (N.I.V.; "Law" almost certainly referring to Gen. 3:16).

A question must now be faced squarely: If Paul's position on the standing of women in the church is that they be silent, submissive, and subservient to men, and if his reasons for this position are as fundamental as they seem to be, how can any Christian adopt a view that allows women to stand equally with men in the formal ministry of the church?

First, we will note certain points arising directly out of the scriptural statements to which we have just referred. The King James Version's rendition of 1 Timothy 2:12 reads, "But I suffer not a woman... to usurp authority over the man." This translation is borne out by the primary meaning of the Greek word authentein, which is "one who acts in his own (or, to act in one's own) authority, an autocrat." ⁵ Moffatt translates it thus: "I allow no woman to . . . dictate to men." Apparently there were women in some of the churches who in their newfound Christian liberty tended to grasp aggressively at the prestige of teaching and leading in the congregations. This, understandably, could not be allowed, especially because of the attitude prevalent toward women in the surrounding culture (see the next section). First Corinthians 11:16 gives further evidence of this attitude: "If anyone wants to be contentious about this [the man-woman relationship Paul prescribes], we have no other practice" (N.I.V.).

This problem seems to have been especially pronounced in Corinth. When Paul wrote to the Corinthian Christians he spoke only of the equality in Christ of Jew and Greek, slave and free (chap. 12:13). When the Galatian letter is compared with it (Gal. 3:28), the absence of any mention in this Corinthian letter of male-female equal ity is conspicuous. It is hard to avoid the conclusion that Paul purposely made no reference to the male-female relation ship when he wrote his Corinthian letters because he knew of the special problems there.

Undoubtedly these contentious, dictatorial, usurping women concerned Paul, causing him to take a more culturally conservative stand as he sought to articulate the role of women in the church. Paul's task was particularly delicate because of the cultural, social, and religious dynamics surrounding first-century congregations.

Paul in his culture

In the Jewish culture, out of which Christianity had barely come, the strict rabbi was not to talk to a woman in public, not even his wife, daughter, or sister. Some Pharisees closed their eyes when they saw a woman approaching. ⁶ Such Jewish attitudes and practices throw significant light on Paul's statements in 1 Corinthians and 1 Timothy. What Paul enjoins in these passages correlates remarkably with what was prevalent in the surrounding culture. Please compare carefully the customs noted below with the passages cited.

William Barclay points out: "Women had no part in the Synagogue service; they were shut apart in a section of the Synagogue where they could not be seen (see 1 Tim. 2:12 and 1 Cor. 14:34). . . . A man came to the Synagogue to learn; but, at the most, a woman came to hear. In the Synagogue the lesson from Scripture was read by members of the congregations; but not by women (see 1 Cor. 14:35). ... It was absolutely forbidden for a woman to teach in a school; she might not even teach the youngest children [see 1 Tim. 2:12: "I do not permit a woman to teach" (N.I.V.