Women and Men in Leadership-- A Postion Paper

Issue
The church is divided about what the Biblical command is concerning the leadership of women in the church. Many churches throughout the history of the church have indicated certain Pauline passages as being normative for women and men in leadership, including, “Women must remain silent in the churches” (I Corinthians 14:34), “I do not allow a woman to teach or to have authority over a man…” (I Timothy 2:12). Other churches have focused on the passages in the New Testament that show the leadership of women in the church, such as Mary (the first preacher of Jesus’ resurrection), Priscilla, Chloe and Junias (Matthew 27:1-10; Romans 16:3, 7; Acts 18:24-27; I Corinthians 1:11). The one side seems to indicate that women should never be in leadership in the church, while the other indicates that women should always be accepted in leadership. Is biblical counsel on this divided? Below is how I understand the biblical passages.

Biblical Themes
The Practice of Women in Leadership:
At the very least, it must be admitted that women were leaders in the early church. Junias (a female name, although sometimes mistranslated) was called an apostle by Paul (Romans 16:7). Women were always accepted as prophets in the early church, which was a position in which someone spoke for God and sometimes acted with God’s authority (Acts 21:9; I Corinthians 11:5; Luke 2:36-38). While these positions weren’t as frequently filled by women, it allowed the possibility of women being in church leadership.

Sexual interdependence:
Biblically, men and women are equal in the church community, one not greater than the other, although in society it may be different (Galatians 3:28). The sexes are interdependent, each having their place of leadership and each having their place of submission to each other (I Corinthians 11:11-12).

Male headship:
However, it seems clear from a cursory reading of Scripture that men were authorities over women (I Timothy 2:12; I Corinthians 11:2-3; Ephesians 5:22-23; Colossians 3:18; I Peter 3:7). It must be noted, though, that every one of these passages are not speaking of male dominance over females, but of a husband being head over his wife. Even passages that are often translated “men” and “women” instead of “husband” and “wife” are better understood in the second manner, dealing with relationships in marriage, not about male and female relationships in general.

Yet even this “headship” is marginalized in Scripture. Yes, the husband has the responsibility of being head of the family, but this also means that he has the responsibility of being sacrificial (Ephesians 5:25-33; I Peter 3:7; Colossians 3:9). This means allowing the wife to take leadership as it is necessary, even as Aquila allowed his wife Pricilla to take leadership in most church matters (Acts 18:24-27; I Corinthians 16:19).

General position statement on Women in leadership
Women need to have positions of leadership in the congregation, in order to provide a voice and an authority that has been oppressed by both church and state for millennia. A man is not qualified to be a leader over any woman because of his maleness, even as a woman is not especially qualified to be submissive because of her femaleness. Rather, the church should celebrate the lesser, and give them a higher position, if they are qualified otherwise (I Corinthians 12:22-23). The church is supposed to be an example of the kingdom of God, in which men and women, poor and rich, slave and free, educated and uneducated are treated with equal respect and honor, even as will be the case when the Lord comes to earth. At the same time, the church will respect the God-given, but this-worldly authorities. Thus, should a wife desire to be in leadership in the church, then the church should look to the husband for permission. Should such permission be granted, then the wife is to have equal authority of anyone else in her position—including the authority of equal respect, obedience and salary as one would give anyone else in the position.

Seemingly contrary passages
Some would say that my position is in opposition to some Scriptural passages. Quickly, I will present my understanding of the original intent of these passages:

a. “Man was not created for woman’s sake, but woman for man’s” I Corinthians 11:2-16. This is a complex passage, but my understanding is this: Paul was answering a teaching that was taking place in Corinth, a summary of which he received in his letter from them (I Cor. 7:1). He offers an introductory commendation of how closely they listened to his teaching (I Cor. 11:2-3), then he quotes a passage from their letter to him, which describes their argument of why women should have their head covered when praying and prophesying and why men ought not to. (I Cor. 11:4-10) They say it is because of the inferiority of women to men. Paul, however, immediately counters their reasoning by saying that men and women are interdependent, neither one inferior to the other (11:11-12). He then speaks against the practice of head covering, saying first that it is unnecessary (11:13-15), and then offering the final argument that “we have no such practice, nor do the churches of God”—claiming that their special revelation is not shared by the church in general. (Some translations translate this “no other practice”, but this is a mistranslation of the Greek—see Zerwick, An Analysis of the Greek New Testament, as well as the New Revised Standard Version, the King James Version and the New King James Version).

b. “Women must remain silent in the churches.” I Corinthians 14:32-38. Paul here is using an example of a clearly false prophecy to make his point about chaotic prophecy in the church. A prophet should not be carried away by his spirit, but the spirit should be under his control, which means the prophet shouldn’t speak whatever and whenever a spirit encourages him or her to speak. Paul gives an example of a prophecy stated in Corinth that states that women should no longer be prophets in any of the churches throughout the world. Paul’s response to this is basically, “Who gave you the right to say this?” Paul already confirmed that women are allowed to be prophets (as the Corinthians already knew, or else why put coverings on their heads when prophesying?), and he sees this prophecy as not undermining women’s authority in the church so much as his own. Paul then affirms his own authority, which affirms the right of women to speak in the churches.

c. “I do not allow a woman to teach or have authority over a man.” I Timothy 2. This passage is in the context of a household command list. “Men” in this passage is better translated “husbands” and “woman” is better translated “wives”. Thus, this passage is only affirming the headship of a husband over his wife. A husband’s headship responsibility, Paul says, includes praying daily for authorities—in that way they affirm those who are in authority over them (2:8). In the same way, wives show their submission to authority by being modest in clothing and demeanor. This does not mean that women cannot be teachers in the church, with their husband’s permission. It rather means that the husband should give permission, and the wife should not demand the authoritative position over her husband.

In Summary:
I hold that the seemingly contrary positions of male headship, but the practice of women leaders is the difference between the old system of practice in the world—patriarchy—and the new kingdom system—sexual and social equality. The church should allow the superficial practice of the one in the world, although that practice is marginalized by the radical, sacrificial love of the leader to those under him. But within the church, patriarchy is already overthrown, and women, slaves, the poor and the outcast are given greater honor, including positions of leadership.

To affirm patriarchy in the church, and to leave it unmarginalized in Christian marriage, is doing harm to the gospel of Jesus, who allows every person equal access to God the Father. Should we force any person because of one’s social standing to not do the work of the Spirit, to not speak the word of God given to them, or to not love as God has commanded them to love is to do irreparable harm to the ability of the whole church to follow Jesus. To force some men into a leadership role they are not equipped to handle is to harm him and everyone under him. To not allow a woman the leadership abilities granted to her by the Spirit is to take away the Spirit’s gift to her family and to the church. I pray that the church cease practicing the very teachings Paul was opposed to in the first century: the patriarchal stranglehold of leadership, which is choking the life out of the church.