As a professor at Southwestern Seminary in Ft Worth, Texas, Calvin Miller, in his autobiography, Life is Mostly Edges (#ad), describes a class session that is worth a good read:

I once had a church leadership class with eighty students in it, four of whom were women. I know they were determined to get their degrees, but among that many men—some of whom were strongly opposed to women in ministry—they always looked a little scared to me. Women are often quiet in large sections of male students. And after several class sessions in which they had remained silent, I asked all four of the women to take chairs on the raised platform at the front of the classroom. They did this very reluctantly, but they did it. Then I gave them the whole class period to tell all the men in the class why they believed they were properly following God in a ministry career.

It was a quiet session. One by one the women told of their experiences of faith and how they had come to trust in Christ, and later felt that God had called them to serve him full-time in the church. When they said they had been “called,” a few of the men grew agitated and stirred in their seats. But as the women continued, even the most agitated of men seemed to settle back and grow easy. Then some of the women began to be emotional about how they often felt thwarted in the church and felt like their ministries were unwelcome in many churches. They all believed God had called them, but also felt that many men would never allow them to serve in any prominent positions of ministry in the church.

At the end of the class, I suggested that Southern Baptists—and most of us in the class were that—could profit from widening their hermeneutic on women. I suggested several biblical heroes who actually were women and led both men and women in some encounter with God. I encouraged the students to look at the coming of the Spirit on the Day of Pentecost, when both men and women prophesied. We looked at Galatians 3:28, where it clearly says that in Christ there are no men and women, only one undivided church. We examined Romans 16:1-4, where Saint Paul commends more women than men in the church, and all the women were cited for doing heroic sorts of service in the church and none were praised for being good, quiet homemakers who kept still in the church and fried whatever their husbands hunted.

It was one of my favorite of all classes I ever led. I did nothing but let the women talk and let the men listen, and listen they did. Several of the men came up to me after class. A few were mad that I would let a woman “usurp” authority over the men in the class, but most said they had never realized that women could feel the same sense of urgency and calling that they themselves did.

Of course, there are always gender warriors who go too far. [SMcK: gender warriors on both sides, one needs to add.]

 

What about those women at Corinth? What about the veils, or was it hair? What about subordination? Andrew Bartlett, in his new book Men and Women in Christ (MWiC), these questions and more with the following major conclusions.

(Before I say anything more, it’s a pity Bartlett does not interact with the fine work of Lucy Peppiatt, who herself shows that the rhetoric doesn’t work until we see quotations by Paul of his opponents in 1 Cor 11. Thus, it’s not all Paul in these verses.)

1. First Corinthians 11:3 is a framework statement which acts as a heading to Paul’s remarks about praying and prophesying. It undergirds his reasoning.

NIV for 11:3: “But I want you to realize that the head of every man is Christ, and the head of the woman is man, and the head of Christ is God.”

He responds to the peculiar American complementarian pet appeal to the Trinity to sanction their theories of female subordination and hierarchy and patriarchalism.

2. Paul’s meaning cannot be safely or convincingly settled by appeal to fine nuances of the doctrine of the Trinity.

3. Word studies show that ‘authority over’ and ‘source’ are possible metaphorical of kephale (head) in verse 3. Usage elsewhere cannot determine Paul’s intended meaning in this verse. This must be sought by examining the context.

4. The hierarchical interpretation which sees Paul’s concern as being about men’s authority over women cannot be right, because it conflicts with the text in eight respects. Of particular importance, the hierarchical interpretation makes it necessary to disregard the function of Paul’s framework statement, to mistranslate verse 10 and to accept that Paul wrote verse 11 the wrong way around.

Not veils, but hair. It was about the embodied message about hairstyles.

5. In the relevant cultural context, women’s hair was regularly on display rather than hidden by a veil (compare 1 Tim. 2:9; 1 Pet. 3:3). But pagan practices in Corinth encouraged dishonourable sexual behaviour, both heterosexual and homosexual, and this was an issue for the Corinthian church. Men’s long hair, and women’s long hair let down loose instead of fastened up on top of the head, both suggested a willingness to engage in such conduct.

6. There are multiple difficulties in reading the passage as concerned with veils. Paul is writing about how hair is worn, not about the veiling of women. Properly translated, verses 2-16 are about hairstyles throughout, not about veils.

7. The NIV is correct to translate aner and gune as respectively ‘man’ and ‘woman’ throughout the passage, and not as ‘husband’ and ‘wife’.

Kephale/head is about source.

8. Once we accept that Paul’s theological motif in i Corinthians 11:3 is sources, and that his subject matter is hairstyles worn by those who prophesy or pray aloud during assembled worship, we find that he is making a continuous, logical and connected argument. There are at least ten pointers to the substantial correctness of a sources and hairstyles interpretation of what Paul writes. The objections to a sources interpretation are unpersuasive.

The hair conveyed a message.

9. Paul’s concern is not about hair itself, but about the dishonourable message given by the Corinthians’ hairstyles. Their conduct should honour God’ purposes for men and women as taught in Genesis and should not appear dishonouring and contrary to those purposes. Relevantly, those purposes involve faithful, monogamous, heterosexual marriage. Paul also emphasizes redemption in Christ: though differentiated by their sexuality in creation, in redemption man and woman are united in the Lord. Men and women are interdependent and need each other’s contributions. Prayer and prophecy should be undertaken by men and women in a way that honours God, the source both of creation and of redemption.

10. Paul says nothing in this passage about male authority over women. Nor does he say anything about reserving some governing and teaching roles within the church to men. If notions of male authority over women and restrictions on women’s ministry are to be supported, this needs to be done by reference to other passages of Scripture.

How can you be a Christian?

In my experience there are three big subtexts to this question these days, science, women, and sexuality. Other questions are important as well … but these are the showstoppers.

How can you be a Christian when it is antiscience, oppresses women, and is homophobic?

Rebecca McLaughlin addresses these as seven, eight, and nine in her book Confronting Christianity: 12 Hard Questions for the World’s Largest Religion. Last week we looked at the first of these – hasn’t science disproved Christianity?

The short answer to the second question doesn’t Christianity denigrate women? is a resounding no. Christianity might not go as far as some in our culture today would like, but it certainly does not denigrate women. Women play important roles in many places throughout Scripture. I’ve highlighted a wide selection of these in several posts – most recently A Look at Biblical Womanhood and Women of the New Testament.

Rebecca emphasizes the way women are portrayed in the Gospels to make the point.

The portrayal of women in the Gospels – particularly in Luke’s Gospel – is stunningly countercultural. Luke constantly pairs men with women, and when he compares the two, it is almost always in the woman’s favor. Before Jesus’ birth, two people are visited by the angel Gabriel and told they are going to become parents. One is Zechariah who becomes John the Baptist’s father. The other is Jesus’ mother Mary. Both ask Gabriel how this can be. But while Zechariah is punished with months of dumbness for his unbelief, Mary is only commended. (p. 136)

The pairings continue – with Simeon and Anna, the lost coin and the lost sheep, the parable of the persistent widow followed by the pharisee and the tax collector. The Twelve were all male – but for the most part the segregation stops there. Women were with Jesus and involved in his ministry from beginning to end, at the cross, the first at the empty tomb. And turning to Acts, they were with the apostles in Jerusalem where … They all joined together constantly in prayer, along with the women and Mary the mother of Jesus, and with his brothers. (1:14)

Many of the first converts in Acts or mentioned in Paul’s letters are women, important for the prominent roles they play … Junia, Lydia, Priscilla among them.

There is a reason why women are heavily represented in the church today and throughout history. For all the human failings that crop up from time to time, women acknowledged as equal before God. “Jesus’s valuing of women in unmistakable. In a culture in which women were devalues and often exploited, it underscores their equal status before God and his desire for personal relationship with them.” (p. 138)

Paul puts it succinctly in Gal. 3:26-29: So in Christ Jesus you are all children of God through faith, for all of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ. There is neither Jew nor Gentile, neither slave nor free, nor is there male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus. If you belong to Christ, then you are Abraham’s seed, and heirs according to the promise.

This is powerful stuff.

But then we come to marriage. Here Rebecca and I part ways, slightly. This isn’t surprising in a book published by Crossway and TGC. She looks at Ephesians 5:21-33 (below) and focuses on the metaphor. “Ultimately, my marriage isn’t about me and my husband any more than Romeo and Juliet is about the actors playing the title roles.” (p. 140) and later “Ephesians 5 grounds our roles in marriage not on gendered psychology but on Christ-centered theology.” (p. 141) Here is the point as I paraphrase it – when we play our proper roles in marriage we are enacting the metaphor and mirroring God to the world. Women submit as to God and husbands love as Christ.

But read the passage below. Is this really about enacting a metaphor? I would suggest that the first line interprets the whole. It is about mutual submission in a partnership before God that revolutionizes relationships. Paul uses a metaphor that illustrates the truly revolutionary nature of our relationships in Christ. Throughout history, husbands have generally been the ones with power and have often exercised it for their own benefit and women have often resorted to nagging and subterfuge (a kind of revolt) to assert and strengthen their own positions. I rather expect that this was as true in the first century Greek and Roman world as at any other time in history. But in the Christian message this should all go out the window along with many other human failings. Positions of power should be exercised on behalf of the others involved, and this includes the husband’s role toward the wife. The socially acceptable practice of women gossiping about and undermining their husbands is no better than practice of autocratic authority.

Submit to one another out of reverence for Christ.

Wives, submit yourselves to your own husbands as you do to the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church, his body, of which he is the Savior. Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit to their husbands in everything.

Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her …. In this same way, husbands ought to love their wives as their own bodies. He who loves his wife loves himself. … However, each one of you also must love his wife as he loves himself, and the wife must respect her husband.

No mere human truly stands in the place of Christ. But we are all called to follow his lead. Marriage isn’t about authority and submission. When the topper question is “who gets the last word?” the focus is entirely wrong.

But on this Rebecca and I both agree. The command to follow Christ does not denigrate women, in fact it empowers and promotes women in ways that are more often than not revolutionary in the surrounding culture.

Much more could be said. Rebecca has a discussion of abortion and sexual freedom, both issues where Christianity is said to denigrate women. And she does not really touch on the questions surrounding women in ministry. But this is a good start.

Does Christianity denigrate women?

What do you think of the marriage metaphor?

If you wish to contact me directly you may do so at rjs4mail[at]att.net.

If interested you can subscribe to a full text feed of my posts at Musings on Science and Theology.

This begins a series on a book by one skilled in adjudication, Andrew Bartlett. He examines, in his new book Men and Women in Christ (MWiC), the relation between men and women in home and church on the basis of the Bible by adjudicating between competing claims.

One more time, the issue at hand:

Bible-based Christianity is threatened with a needless schism.

Some complementarians say that their rivals are disobeying God’s design, undermining both family and society, and giving encouragement to sexual confusion and immorality. Some egalitarians say that complementarians are opposing God’s purposes, damaging Christian witness, and pouring fuel on the fires of domestic abuse, pornography and the denigration of women.

These far-reaching claims may seem out of proportion with the actual points of divergence. The debate is over the place of men and women in marriage and . church leadership, as portrayed in the Bible. Complementarians say that men must be leaders of their wives and that church roles involving authoritative teaching are reserved for men. Egalitarians disagree on both points. The purpose of this book is to encourage progress towards reducing and resolving these disagreements.

He’s right on this one: “The loudest voices have been raised in the USA.” His books utilizes to the max the work of two representative scholars: Wayne Grudem and Phil Payne.

The discussion reached a turning point in 1986, after the winter meeting of the Evangelical Theological Society. Since that time the division has become more firmly entrenched. The Council on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood (CBMW) was set up in 1987 to promote the complementarian teachings of what became known as the Danvers Statement (because it was adopted in Danvers, Massachusetts). The CBMW soon published a book called Recovering Biblical Manhood and Womanhood: A Response to Evangelical Feminism (RBMW). In 1988 Christians for Biblical Equality (CBE) was begun (based in Minneapolis), in opposition to what it called ‘the shallow biblical premise used by churches, organizations, and mission groups to exclude the gifts of women’. It adopted its own, firmly egalitarian, statement in 1989.

A process of polarization has ensued. Organizations which had previously allowed liberty of opinion started drawing red lines. For example, the Southern Baptist Convention, which had previously allowed women pastors, revised its statement of faith in 2000 to add the words ‘While both men and women are gifted for service in the church, the office of pastor is limited to men as qualified by Scripture.’ When The Gospel Coalition was set up in 2005, it included an explicitly complementarian position in its Confessional Statement. In 2012 a team leader in a campus ministry refused to allow female staff to teach Bible studies to mixed-gender audiences, and was demoted as a result.

Bartlett’s point is that the NT teaches unity and that, while it is appropriate to divide over essentials, it is not appropriate to divide over non-essentials. (These are my terms but it seems he agrees.)

1. Christian unity is being damaged by a polarizing schism between egalitarians and complementarians.
2. The traditional interpretation of the Bible, to the effect that women are innately inferior to men, has rightly been rejected as being based more on patriarchal culture than on the actual text. Both egalitarians and complementarians now regard women and men as inherently equal and now affirm that women may be leaders in wider society. But complementarians insist on male leadership in the church and in marriage.
3. Faithful interpretation of the Bible gives Scripture priority over tradition, pays attention to culture, goes back to the source language in context, looks for coherence and takes a Christ-centred canonical approach; and it does this with spiritual openness and practical wisdom (appendix i).
4. Applying those methods will lead to the conclusions of this book, which will be that the complementarian and egalitarian positions are each partly correct and partly mistaken.
5. If Christian believers can move closer together on these issues, this will please the Lord and strengthen the church’s service as salt and light in a confused and hurting world.

Three books, three levels, each very good in its own way. One exegetical-theological, one analytical-logical, and one exegetical-motivational.

One by Lucy Peppiatt: Rediscovering Scripture’s Vision for Women: Fresh Perspectives on Disputed Texts. I have had two posts about Lucy’s very fine book. This will prove to be an influential book from a professor and theological college principal. It is full of wisdom: she knows the debates, what gets folks riled up, and she avoids creating controversy. Rather, she speaks words of peace, and does so with a firm voice.

One by Andrew Bartlett: Men and Women in Christ: Fresh Light from the Biblical Texts. This one came out of the blue to me; it’s rigorous, fair minded, exegetical, analytical, logical, and written like a text book for group discussions.

I predict this will become THE textbook used in colleges and seminaries that want to discuss women in ministry afresh. He provides both sides, cuts through nonsense, and works his way to reasonable, sound conclusions.

Andrew Bartlett, QC of Crown Office Chambers, London, is a highly-rated international arbitrator with a wide range of experience in disputes in various sectors, in numerous locations around the world. Head of Crown Office Chambers 2009-2012. Formerly Deputy High Court Judge (England) and Judge of the Upper Tribunal (Financial Services; Information Rights), he has a BA in Theology (University of Gloucestershire). Has served as an elder or churchwarden in various churches.

One by Kat Armstrong: No More Holding Back: Emboldening Women to Move Past Barriers, See Their Worth, and Serve God Everywhere. This is such an inspiring read and is based on solid exegesis (Dallas Theological Seminary students can read the texts in Greek). Kat’s book should be read by all women (especially) who need an advocate. Just listen to her chapter titles and you know she’s on the mark and in tune with the issues gifted women face:

ONE: Women Can’t Be Trusted to Learn and Lead
TWO: I Don’t Have a Lot to Offer
THREE: My Greatest Joy Is Marriage and Highest Calling Is Motherhood
FOUR: I Am Too Much to Handle
FIVE: Leading Ladies Don’t Fit in Supporting Roles
SIX: All Your Heart: Developing a Heart for God
SEVEN: All Your Soul: Praising God When Life Gets Real
EIGHT: All Your Mind: Staying Open to New Ideas
NINE: All Your Strength: Slaying the Forces of Darkness
TEN: Pouring Love Out ELEVEN: Letting Love In

KAT ARMSTRONG  is an innovative ministry leader, sought-after communicator, and the cofounder and executive director of Polished , a network that gathers young professional women to navigate career and explore faith together. Kat and her husband, Aaron, live in Dallas, Texas, with their son, Caleb, and attend Dallas Bible Church, where Aaron serves as the lead pastor.

I’m teaching a NT cohort at Northern Seminary this week. The class has a majority of women, gifted and leader types, and they will love Lucy’s book and grab onto Kat’s book from the heart and soul, but keep Bartlett’s book on the shelf for when they need to be ready for the argument.

Last Tuesday we looked at women of the Old Testament. Not commands and laws, but stories about people, what they did and how they did it. It is quite an amazing variety. Today we will look at women of the New Testament (like last week’s post, this is an edited repost from a few years ago). Like the ancient Near East and ancient Israel, first century Galilee, Judea, and the Greek and Roman world were patriarchal cultures. This culture is reflected in the narrative. Still, in the New Testament, even more than the Old Testament, biblical women were not passive wives and mothers staying in the background. Nor were they condemned for their actions (except for the same kinds of failures that condemned men). If there are other specific New Testament examples that we should consider, add them in a comment.

People of Faith

Then Mary said, “Here am I, the servant of the Lord; let it be with me according to your word.” (Luke 1:38)

When the woman saw that she could not remain hidden, she came trembling; and falling down before him, she declared in the presence of all the people why she had touched him, and how she had been immediately healed. He said to her, “Daughter, your faith has made you well; go in peace.” (Luke 8:47-48, also Matthew 9:20-22, Mark 5:25-33)

Just then a Canaanite woman from that region came out and started shouting, “Have mercy on me, Lord, Son of David; my daughter is tormented by a demon.” … He answered, “It is not fair to take the children’s food and throw it to the dogs.” She said, “Yes, Lord, yet even the dogs eat the crumbs that fall from their masters’ table.” Then Jesus answered her, “Woman, great is your faith! Let it be done for you as you wish.” And her daughter was healed instantly. (Matthew 15:22-28, also Mark 7:24-30)

When the wine gave out, the mother of Jesus said to him, “They have no wine.” And Jesus said to her, “Woman, what concern is that to you and to me? My hour has not yet come.” His mother said to the servants, “Do whatever he tells you.” (John 2:3-5)

This is a group of references, but Mary (in a class of her own) and the two women who came to Jesus for healing were clearly women of faith. They had faith in God and faith in Jesus as God’s prophet … Mary may have known more, but the people who came and heard Jesus in his life probably had no other idea concerning him than that of prophet. She certainly didn’t seem to know more when she came with his brothers to “take charge” of him. (Mark 3:20-34)

Devout Prophet

There was also a prophet, Anna, the daughter of Penuel, of the tribe of Asher. She was very old; she had lived with her husband seven years after her marriage, and then was a widow until she was eighty-four. She never left the temple but worshiped night and day, fasting and praying. Coming up to them at that very moment, she gave thanks to God and spoke about the child to all who were looking forward to the redemption of Jerusalem. (Luke 2: 36-38)

It is significant that Luke includes two witnesses here – one male, one female – when Mary and Joseph bring Jesus to the temple for his presentation as first born son. Anna is a prophet. What is the role of a prophet? Isn’t it to speak the word of the Lord to the people? In both the Old and New Testament to prophesy (to speak as a mediator between God and humankind or in God’s stead) is an equal opportunity calling, not one limited to men. We read in Acts 21:8-9 that “Philip the evangelist, one of the Seven. He had four unmarried daughters who prophesied.“

Sincere Questioner and Witness

Many Samaritans from that city believed in him because of the woman’s testimony, “He told me everything I have ever done.” (John 4:39)

The entire story of the encounter at the well is worth considering (John 4:1-42). Jesus met the woman when she came for water. She had an openness that is a positive contrast to Nicodemus who came at night (John 3).

Connivers

Prompted by her mother, she said, “Give me the head of John the Baptist here on a platter.” (Matthew 14:8, also Mark 6:22-25)

As in the Old Testament, not all examples are laudatory. Mother and daughter are both involved in the execution of John.

Followers and Supporters of Jesus

The twelve were with him, as well as some women who had been cured of evil spirits and infirmities: Mary, called Magdalene, from whom seven demons had gone out, and Joanna, the wife of Herod’s steward Chuza, and Susanna, and many others, who provided for them out of their resources. (Luke 8:1-3)

The twelve and some women, three of whom are named, were in the closest circle of followers who were leaving all for Jesus. They traveled with the group, didn’t just support it from afar.

Avid Student of Jesus

As Jesus and his disciples were on their way, he came to a village where a woman named Martha opened her home to him. She had a sister named Mary, who sat at the Lord’s feet and listened to what he was saying. … “Mary has chosen the better part, which will not be taken away from her.” (Luke 10:38-42)

The women sat with the men to listen to Jesus. This passage is interesting because Jesus specifically commends this attitude and ordering of priorities. Nor should we neglect Martha who was also a devout follower.

Devout

… “Truly I tell you, this poor widow has put in more than all of them; for all of them have contributed out of their abundance, but she out of her poverty has put in all she had to live on.” (Luke 21:1-4)

Not Quite Getting It (But then neither did the twelve, Mark 9)

Then the mother of the sons of Zebedee came to him with her sons, and kneeling before him, she asked a favor of him. And he said to her, “What do you want?” She said to him, “Declare that these two sons of mine will sit, one at your right hand and one at your left, in your kingdom.” (Matthew 20:20-21)

A worldly understanding of power and prestige afflicts both men and women.

Anointing Jesus

Now while Jesus was at Bethany in the house of Simon the leper, a woman came to him with an alabaster jar of very costly ointment, and she poured it on his head as he sat at the table. (Matthew 26:6-13, also Mark 14:3-9)

And a woman in the city, who was a sinner, having learned that he was eating in the Pharisee’s house, brought an alabaster jar of ointment. … And he said to the woman, “Your faith has saved you; go in peace.” (Luke 7:37-50)

Martha served, while Lazarus was among those reclining at the table with him. Then Mary took about a pint of pure nard, an expensive perfume; she poured it on Jesus’ feet and wiped his feet with her hair. And the house was filled with the fragrance of the perfume. (John 12:1-8)

Each of the gospels has some variation of this incident or these incidents. The versions in Matthew, Mark, and John seem to refer to the same incident, but Luke’s story is quite different, making a different point, and doesn’t seem to mesh with the others completely.

Present at the Cross

But all his acquaintances, including the women who had followed him from Galilee, stood at a distance, watching these things. (Luke 23:49)

Many women were also there, looking on from a distance; they had followed Jesus from Galilee and had provided for him. Among them were Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James and Joseph, and the mother of the sons of Zebedee. (Matthew 27:55-56)

There were also women looking on from a distance; among them were Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James the younger and of Joses, and Salome. These used to follow him and provided for him when he was in Galilee; and there were many other women who had come up with him to Jerusalem. (Mark 15:40-41)

Meanwhile, standing near the cross of Jesus were his mother, and his mother’s sister, Mary the wife of Clopas, and Mary Magdalene. (John 19:25)

The women who traveled with Jesus, the twelve, and the other disciples, were witnesses at the cross to the crucifixion.

The First Witnesses to the Resurrection

On the first day of the week, very early in the morning, the women took the spices they had prepared and went to the tomb. They found the stone rolled away from the tomb, but when they entered, they did not find the body of the Lord Jesus. … Now it was Mary Magdalene, Joanna, Mary the mother of James, and the other women with them who told this to the apostles. (Luke 24:10)

Mary Magdalene and the other Mary went to see the tomb. … But the angel said to the women, “Do not be afraid; I know that you are looking for Jesus who was crucified. He is not here; for he has been raised, as he said. … So they left the tomb quickly with fear and great joy, and ran to tell his disciples. Suddenly Jesus met them and said, “Greetings!” And they came to him, took hold of his feet, and worshiped him. (Matthew 28:1-10)

When the Sabbath was over, Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James, and Salome bought spices, so that they might go and anoint him. … But he said to them, “Do not be alarmed; you are looking for Jesus of Nazareth, who was crucified. He has been raised; (Mark 16:1-8)

Early on the first day of the week, while it was still dark, Mary Magdalene came to the tomb and saw that the stone had been removed from the tomb. … When she had said this, she turned around and saw Jesus standing there, but she did not know that it was Jesus. Jesus said to her, “Woman, why are you weeping? Whom are you looking for?” … Jesus said to her, “Mary!” She turned and said to him in Hebrew, “Rabbouni!” (John 20)

All of the Gospels agree on this point. It was the women, Mary Magdalene and others, who traveled with Jesus who were the first to find the empty tomb, to learn that he was risen, and to spread the news.

In a Central Circle with the Disciples

When they had entered the city, they went to the room upstairs where they were staying, Peter, and John, and James, and Andrew, Philip and Thomas, Bartholomew and Matthew, James son of Alphaeus, and Simon the Zealot, and Judas son of James. All these were constantly devoting themselves to prayer, together with certain women, including Mary the mother of Jesus, as well as his brothers. (Acts 1:13-14)

The remaining 11 and certain women comprised the core circle here. They who traveled with Jesus in his ministry.

Independently Responsible for Deceit

About three hours later his wife came in, not knowing what had happened. Peter asked her, “Tell me, is this the price you and Ananias got for the land?” “Yes,” she said, “that is the price.” Peter said to her, “How could you conspire to test the Spirit of the Lord? Listen! The feet of the men who buried your husband are at the door, and they will carry you out also.” (Acts 5:7-9)

Sapphira was a co-conspirator with her husband. She wasn’t condemned for his misdeed, but for hers.

Devoted to Good Works and Charity

Now in Joppa there was a disciple whose name was Tabitha, which in Greek is Dorcas. She was devoted to good works and acts of charity. (Acts 9:36)

Business Woman, Head of Household

A certain woman named Lydia, a worshiper of God, was listening to us; she was from the city of Thyatira and a dealer in purple cloth. The Lord opened her heart to listen eagerly to what was said by Paul. When she and her household were baptized, she urged us, saying, “If you have judged me to be faithful to the Lord, come and stay at my home.” And she prevailed upon us. (Acts 16:14-15)

Note in particular that she and her household were baptized, the same phrase used when men are the lead in the story (Cornelius and the head of the prison guard for example.)

Fellow Traveler, Witness with Paul

Paul said farewell to the believers and sailed for Syria, accompanied by Priscilla and Aquila. (Acts 18:18)

He began to speak boldly in the synagogue; but when Priscilla and Aquila heard him, they took him aside and explained the Way of God to him more accurately. (Acts 18:26)

Greet Priscilla and Aquila, my co-workers in Christ Jesus. They risked their lives for me. Not only I but all the churches of the Gentiles are grateful to them. (Romans 16:3-4)

Aquila and Priscilla greet you warmly in the Lord, and so does the church that meets at their house. (1 Corinthians 16:19)

Greet Priscilla and Aquila and the household of Oneisiphorus. (2 Timothy 4)

This couple clearly had a role in the early church. Both of them were involved and both are emphasized in every story.

The letters of Paul could be quite personal, especially in the final greetings at the end. Priscilla and Aquila figured here, but so did many others. These personal greetings include an interesting array of both men and women. Here we are concerned with the women.

Deacon and Benefactor

I commend to you our sister Phoebe, a deacon of the church in Cenchreae. I ask you to receive her in the Lord in a way worthy of his people and to give her any help she may need from you, for she has been the benefactor of many people, including me. (Romans 16:1-2)

A deacon and a benefactor. Quite the reference from Paul! This recommendation probably means that Phoebe delivered Paul’s letter to the church in Rome. N.T. Wright in his Commentary on Romans notes:

The implication is that Phoebe is a businesswoman who is able to travel independently, and for Paul to trust her with a letter like this speaks volumes for the respect in which she was held, so it is no surprise that she is a deacon in the church. … She was in a position of leadership, and Paul respected here as such and expected the Roman church to do so as well. … The word “benefactor” means much more, in Paul’s world, than simply “she has been a great help” (NIV): benefaction and patronage were a vital part of the culture, and this makes Phoebe someone to be reckoned with socially and financially and a leader – of whatever sort – in her local church. (p. 761-762)

In this section, Wright’s complaints with the NIV on the word “deacon” (the material bypassed by the first ellipse in the quote) and “benefactor” relate to NIV1984. The 2011 update uses deacon and benefactor.

Hard Workers in the Lord

Greet Mary, who worked very hard for you. (Romans 16:6)

Greet Tryphena and Tryphosa, those women who work hard in the Lord. Greet my dear friend Persis, another woman who has worked very hard in the Lord. (Romans 16:12)

Outstanding Among the Apostles

Greet Andronicus and Junia, my fellow Jews who have been in prison with me. They are outstanding among the apostles, and they were in Christ before I was. (Romans 16:7)

Here Wright comments that, for Paul, an apostle was one who witnessed the risen Christ. “Junia is thus one of the female “apostles,” the only one so called; though presumably others, such as Mary Magdalene, were known as such as well.” (p. 762)

A Woman of Standing

My brothers and sisters, some from Chloe’s household have informed me that there are quarrels among you. (1 Corinthians 1:11)

Presumably another woman of standing. Members of her household traveled abroad.

Contending for the Gospel (and at odds)

I plead with Euodia and I plead with Syntyche to be of the same mind in the Lord. Yes, and I ask you, my true companion, help these women since they have contended at my side in the cause of the gospel, along with Clement and the rest of my co-workers, whose names are in the book of life. (Philippians 4:2-3)

Hostess (perhaps more)

Give my greetings to the brothers and sisters at Laodicea, and to Nympha and the church in her house. (Colossians 4:15)

Recipient of 2 John

To the lady chosen by God and to her children, whom I love in the truth—and not I only, but also all who know the truth (2 John 1)

Several things are apparent from this list.

• Anna, the prophet, was one of the two to welcome the Messiah in the temple.

• Jesus preached to and taught both men and women. Mary was welcome to learn with the others.

• Women played a prominent role in band of people who traveled with Jesus during his earthly ministry. The twelve were all men, and there is important symbolism in the selection of twelve. But it is not clear that inner circle of followers were all male. Women were provided support, traveled along, were at the cross, witnessed the resurrection, and were with the 12 in the upper room before Pentecost, received the Holy Spirit.

• Women, including women of substance, played an important role in the early church.

As with the women we recounted from the Old Testament, these women are multidimensional people capable of almost anything, good or bad. All of the images were taken from Wikipedia and again convey as much or more about the artist and his culture as they do about the subjects.

Is there any example you would add to the list?

If you wish to contact me directly you may do so at rjs4mail[at]att.net.

If interested you can subscribe to a full text feed of my posts at Musings on Science and Theology.

What Christian Women Want, By Leslie Leyland Fields, editor of the recently released The Wonder Years.

How did Beth Moore stay silent for so long? Humility, perhaps? Grace? By now, many have read the popular Bible teacher’s “Letter to my brothers,” posted on her Living Proof Ministries Blog on May 4. Sadly, her account of the treatment she’s received over the last three decades at the hands of evangelical pastors and leaders is all too familiar. Women like me, who attend, speak and teach in conservative evangelical churches, are accustomed to the excesses of complementarianism, the teaching that men and women are equal but have distinct roles in the home and in church.

Over the last four decades, I’ve been involved in churches where women were not allowed to pray from the pulpit, to serve communion, even to take the offering. Young boys could pass the collection plate, but not women. Though these churches were more than 50% women, only one woman was allowed on the board—as a secretary. In one church, someone asked me one year to run for that position. I wondered how that would work. With three graduate degrees and some formal theological training, I would have been the most educated person on the board, but I would be relegated to recording the decisions of the men rather than participating in them.

Another board member conceded to me that a woman’s voice could be helpful when making important decisions because we were “emotional,” and possessed female intuition, which helped balance men’s reason. This narrative continues. Ann Voskamp writes recently of her son returning home from a meeting at church where these very words were spoken. And no one challenged them.

For decades, I sat under the Bible teaching of men in church who knew little about the basics of hermeneutics. I sat under a pastor who took off with his secretary one winter, leaving the church in shambles. I sat under a pastor who was arrogant and dismissive of women. I recently spoke at a Bible college on discipleship from a book I had authored. Despite the fact that the book had won a respected award, because I was a woman, male students could not attend my session.

All of this is routine for women in conservative churches. But I have not been called a heretic, as Moore has. I have not been routinely undermined by pastors. I have not generated the kind of vituperative spirit directed against Moore. In some ways we could shrug it off as the price of fame. But it’s far more.

Even as her letter circulated online, a seminary student who runs a website dedicated to theology and “discernment” chastises Christian leaders for giving her the “silent treatment.” Instead, “you should have been roundly and loudly rebuked by every one of them.” This student goes on to say, “You are utterly unqualified to do what you do.” He concludes his rant with these gracious words:

“God isn’t talking to you. Stop saying He is. You sound crazy. If he is, you’d likely not be such a horrible Bible teacher. Be Gone.”

There are arrogant nutters in every field, and theology has never been exempt, but what is particularly striking is the meanness and the personalness of the attack. How is it that some men with such a high view of scripture have such a low view of women? His response validates and illustrates the heart of Moore’s plea:

“I came face to face with one of the most demoralizing realizations of my adult life: Scripture was not the reason for the colossal disregard and disrespect of women among many of these men. It was only the excuse. Sin was the reason. Ungodliness.”

A number of pastors and leaders responded positively, even apologetically. Pastor J.D. Greer, who is expected to be the next Southern Baptist president, expressed gratitude for her words and reiterated “misogyny must have no place in our churches.” Pastor Thabiti Anyabwile, issued a public apology to Moore, confessing his failure to defend her when others questioned her credentials and reputation.

“I’ve been in rooms where your name was mentioned with disparaging tone. And rather than ask a few basic questions…I said and did nothing. I wasn’t any different from Saul standing by holding clothes while Stephen was stoned,” he said.

Perhaps the most striking response came from Andrew Walker, the director of policy studies for the Southern Baptist’s Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission: “What amazes me about our failure toward our sisters is that the expectation for us is not even extraordinary. It’s simple decency, kindness, and respect.”

But as hopeful as these responses are, this is not simply a matter of male leaders cleaning up their courtesy. There’s more at stake than good manners. There’s a darker shadow, I believe, behind the “colossal disrespect” accorded to Beth Moore. The larger issue concerns male leadership in the church. But it’s complicated, of course.

I believe there’s an assumption that theology belongs to the professionals, which is another way of saying that theology belongs to men. The great majority of seminary professors and seminary students are men. In 2013, women comprised just 20% of students in evangelical seminaries. Fewer women attend seminary for obvious reasons: Pastoral and ministry positions are less available to women in evangelical churches. How do you bear the cost of a seminary education when full time employment upon graduation is unlikely?

A seminary education is expected, even required for most pastoral and leadership positions. This is reasonable and good. I want my leaders and pastors to be educated in Hebrew and Greek. I want them to be knowledgeable in Church History. I want them to study textual criticism, all that they may “rightly divide the word of truth.” A few years ago I was one of a few who voted unequivocally against a pastoral candidate because he lacked seminary training and exhibited an ignorance of hermeneutics. But in professionalizing the pastorate and leadership positions, I wonder if we have prioritized education and theology over character. I wonder if we have privileged knowledge over humility and the fruits of the spirit. And I wonder if we have unfairly disadvantaged women, to our collective harm.

Enter the outliers. When women like Beth Moore, Ann Voskamp, Rachel Held Evans, Jen Hatmaker, and others outside of the academy gain international prominence for their Christian books and teachings, they’re suspect. Their theology and their character are ruthlessly scrutinized, particularly since, gasp! they don’t possess a seminary degree or hold an office within a church. Rachel Held Evans writes about her encounters with patronizing seminary students:

I am not criticized; I am “lovingly corrected.”  We do not discuss where we agree or disagree; I am informed of what I got right and what I got wrong.  It’s not a peer-to-peer conversation; it’s a session of “pastoral counseling,” initiated by a man who is not, in fact, my pastor. 

Often and unfortunately these successful women are seen as rivals rather than as co-laborers. Yet when they began writing and teaching, they labored in obscurity, hoping not for fame and influence, but simply to be faithful to the gifts and calling they’d received from God. I count myself among them.

So here is what Christian women want: We want to partner with our brothers in Christ to follow Jesus as faithfully and as fully as we can. We want to fulfill the Great Commission given to all of us, “To go into all the world preaching the gospel, making disciples of all nations.”

I cannot claim that every woman’s motive is pure, nor can that be said of men, but even when men were preaching Christ “out of envy or selfish ambition” as others were doing while the apostle Paul was imprisoned, he rejoiced, because “The important thing is that in every way, whether from false motives or true, Christ is preached.”  Are we rejoicing that “Christ is preached” by both men and women? Or are we wrestling jealously over gender and territory?

As I struggle to understand misogyny in the church, I have one more flickering light to shine on that shadow. I have argued before, in the context of transgenderism and LBGT rights, that the Church makes too much of gender. That we obsess over gender differences, gender roles and definitions of masculinity and femininity rather than moving together toward Christ-likeness. I make this argument again, but for different reasons. We’re living in the midst of unprecedented social shifts in men’s and women’s roles in the culture at large. Higher education and the work force were primarily the realm of men for centuries. Now women and men are equally represented in the work force, and women significantly outnumber men in higher education. In the recent Great Depression, women fared much better than men in both the workplace and education. Is it possible that these disorienting gender shifts outside the church are fueling the grip on gender roles inside the church?

And there’s part of the rub. Most of the popular authors and Bible teachers are functioning outside the church. They’re not operating under the authority of pastors and an ecclesial structure. Nor are these women observed in submissive roles to their husbands. Though their audiences and followers are almost exclusively women, I believe this makes some men dismissive, critical and anxious.

These days, I understand feelings of anxiety. Beth Moore’s candid account of decades of misogyny joins a discouraging lineup of news and headlines. Evangelicals are written off as a political lobby group rather than as a people committed to living out and sharing the good news of Jesus. Bill Hybels, one of the founders of Willow Creek and the godfather of the evangelical mega church movement, is deposed after a thirty year career of sexual allegations was brought to light. Paige Patterson, the president of Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary is under fire for allegedly advising wives to remain submissive to abusive husbands. The #MeToo movement is joined by #ChurchToo, where we read distressingly of sexual abuse that has happened within our churches in recent decades.

I don’t always know how to respond to these issues. But I suspect they are not unrelated. I suspect that at their heart they are bound up in the dark desires of ambition, pride, and power. How easily we forget that the power of the gospel is the power to love, to relinquish, to serve, to lay down our lives for one another, men and women both.

My own story of sexism and struggle ends happily and more definitively. My family and I joined another church. A conservative church where men and women pray from the pulpit. Where men and women collect the offering together. Where men and women serve the elements of communion.

I cried often that first year. Not because I was a woman. Not because I was more emotional than men. Not because I was the “weaker vessel.” I cried because for the first time, I felt fully included in the body of Christ. I felt fully human. Whole. That’s all Christian women want.

From Desiring God:

When a student with the pastoral call arrives at the level of seminary preparation, something is different from what was happening in college education and high school education (at least, usually it is). Not only has he moved beyond the adolescent years of transition from boyhood to manhood, but he is now submitting himself to a community of teachers who, by their precept and example, are called to shape his mind and his heart for vocational pastoral ministry.

One difference between the former influences that shaped the youth and the influence of the seminary is that seminary education is woven throughout with the vocational pastoral viewpoint. Everything is studied, or I think should be studied, with a view to how it may edify the church and advance the gospel through the pastor’s role in the ministry of the church.

Samuel Miller, one of the founders of Princeton Seminary, said, “A professor’s example as a devoted, laborious, faithful minister, was above all else a record of requisite for his successful training of ministers.” Now, this implies that seminary teachers be more than competent historians, competent linguists, competent exegetes, educators, or theologians. The proper demand on the seminary teacher is to be an example, a mentor, a guide, an embodiment of the pastoral office in preparing men to fill the pastoral office.

Therefore, the attempt — this happens, and I’ve documented this; in fact, I’m drawing a lot of what I’m saying from a paper that I wrote back in 1995 about women teaching in our own seminary in my denomination — the attempt to distinguish the seminary teaching role from the pastoral teaching role in such a way that the biblical restriction to men does not apply to the seminary teaching results in a serious inconsistency. That’s my argument.

The inconsistency is this: the more one succeeds in distinguishing the seminary teacher from the pastor teacher, the more one fails to provide the kind of seminary education enriched by the modeling of experienced pastor-mentors. In other words, in seeking to justify women teacher-mentors for aspiring pastors, one will be hard put to stress that they’re not in the same category as pastors, and thus, as we believe, out of step with the Scriptures.

His prose is not crystal clear until we get this one:

Let me put it another way in the form of a question. If it is unbiblical to have women as pastors, how can it be biblical to have women who function in formal teaching and mentoring capacities to train and fit pastors for the very calling from which the mentors themselves are excluded? I don’t think that works. The issue is always that inconsistency. If you strive to carve up teaching in such a way that it’s suitable for women, it ceases to be suitable as seminary teaching.

So a closing word. The issue, as always, is not the competence of women teachers or intelligence or knowledge or pedagogical skill. It’s never competence! That’s not the issue in the home or in leadership. It’s not the issue in church leadership. It’s not the issue in seminary leadership.

The issue here at the seminary level is largely the nature of the seminary teaching office. What do we aim for it to be? Is it conceived as an example and model and embodiment of pastoral vision, or not? That will lead us in how we staff our seminary faculty.