Can Women Be Pastors? Part Two.

Question:

How can a woman be a pastor if women are explicitly forbidden to speak in church in 1 Corinthians 14:34-35?

Answer:

As with the 1 Timothy passage, the translation on this one is usually flawed just enough to make it seem absolute, when Paul had no intention of making it as extreme as our translations often imply. Again, I will bold the translation problems. For the sake of context, I have includee verse 33 as well.

For God is not a God of disorder but of peace--as in all the congregations of the Lord's people. As in all the congregations of the saints, women should remain silent in the churches. They are not allowed to speak, but must be in submission, as the Law says. If they want to inquire about something, they should ask their own husbands at home; for it is disgraceful for a woman to speak in the church. (1 Corinthians 14:33-35)

This passage has very similar translational issues as the 1 Timothy passage, so some of this has already been addressed.

The first thing we should note is that this passage is set in the context of verse 33, which shows that the issue facing the churches was of disorder and chaos during the meetings. Apparently, some of the women were causing some disruption in the service, and the issue had to be addressed.

As with “teaching” in the 1 Timothy passage above, "speaking" here means “continuously speaking.” It is not a prohibition against ever speaking, but against disruptive, continuous speaking. Further, the Greek word translated “speak” (λαλεω – laleo) is more accurately “converse, discuss, extended conversation.” What is disgraceful is for the wives to be disrupting the services by constantly asking their husbands questions, and engaging in ongoing conversations when they should be paying attention to the service. Again, the construction here indicates that women did speak in church, but they were not supposed to abuse that to the point of becoming a disruption. 

I have already addressed the translation issue with "submission," and the context here is the same. Women need to be respectful and reverent in a church service, which is a fairly obvious issue. 

Further, no denomination in any century has ever taught that women must literally remain silent in Church, as that would prohibit them from singing, prophesying or praying, which is something they clearly did. In fact, Paul gives instructions, in this very same letter, that in a Greek culture, the married women needed to cover their heads when they spoke out in a church service (Jewish culture was the exact opposite, with the men covering their heads during religious ceremonies, and the women leaving their heads uncovered, showing that the whole "head covering" issue is cultural). 

Every man who prays or prophesies with something on his head dishonors his head, and every woman who prays or prophesies with her head uncovered dishonors her head, which is the same as having her head shaved. (1Co 11:4-5)

Now clearly, if women were not allowed to pray or prophesy in church, there would be no need for a rule about keeping their heads covered while they spoke out in a church service. No such instructions would be necessary if women literally kept silent in church. 

Further, if we take this literally, it also means it only applies to married women, as single women had no husbands to ask questions of at home.

Occasionally paraphrase translations, because they can be freer in their phraseology, manage to capture the force of the Greek passage even better than word for word translations. This is one of those verses where a popular paraphrase, The Message, catches the force of this paragraph in 1 Corinthians 14 as concisely as I have seen anywhere.

Wives must not disrupt worship, talking when they should be listening, asking questions that could more appropriately be asked of their husbands at home. God's Book of the law guides our manners and customs here. Wives have no license to use the time of worship for unwarranted speaking.

All difficult passages in scripture should always be interpreted in light of clearer verses elsewhere in the Bible. It is my contention that we should likewise do the same with the these passages, particularly since so much of the New Testament indicates that women were NOT silent in Church, and that they did hold positions of authority (I will address this in Part Three).

These passages should not be taken as absolute warnings about how women are prone to abuse their authority, but should be understood as what they are: isolated circumstances addressing unique problems within a specific cultural setting. The real principle at work here is that, just as Priscila and Aquila operated as a team in ministry (and jointly taught Apollos about Christianity, Acts chapter 18), so husbands and wives should work together in harmony within the body of Christ.

When judging how God views the issue of women in ministry, or in positions of authority within the church, we should always keep this verse in mind: “There is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus.” (Galatians 3:28). 

When Paul wrote these words to the Galatians, this was the very first time any person in human history made this statement, in ANY context, claiming all people were equal, regardless of ethnicity, status or sex. Paul, and Christianity, were on the cutting edge of human rights in the first century, and unfortunately, the church lost most of that momentum in later centuries.

The bottom-line is that in Christianity, all sincere believers are given equal access to the gospel, to ministry, and to any position of authority. Many believers in the 1850's used Galatians 3:28, among others, in stating that all believers, of all races, whether black or white, slave or free, are equal in the eyes of God. Just as so many of them had the courage to stand up to slavery when it was the law of the land, many of them eventually embraced the whole verse when they granted women the right to be ordained as pastors. Despite how controversial this issue seems to be, the vast majority of protestant denominations now ordain women, as illustrated in this Wikipedia article (it's a long list, but not complete, as the Free Methodist Church, which is where I serve as pastor, ordains women and is not listed):

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ordination_of_women_in_Protestant_churches

In America, the average person no longer has a problem with a woman holding a position of authority in the government, yet many believers would forbid a sincere, Christian woman who had just proven her leadership ability as the President of the United States or the Governor of a state from serving as the pastor of a church. This disconnect should not be. Long before any society granted full and complete equal rights to all people, regardless of race, economic status or sex, Christianity was on the cutting edge of civilization by doing exactly that. Our Lord and Savior makes no distinction between races, economic status or sexes, and neither should we.

How Do I Choose a Church?

Question:

They [denominations] all believe something different. Baptists, Catholics, Lutherans, Methodists . . . How do I know which one is right?

Answer:

Well, for one thing, I think you might be asking the wrong question. You seem to be focusing exclusively on "Truth," which is very important, but it is not even remotely the only issue, nor is it one that you and I can most effectively employ (at least not with completely certainty) when evaluating various churches. In fact, once we get past a few central doctrines, it is not even the best means of evaluating a church.

Within Christianity, as you have noted, there are quite a few "doctrinal" divisions. Most notable is the Catholic/Protestant split. Then there is the Calvinist/Arminian split. The orthodox/liberal split. The traditional/contemporary split. The immersion/sprinkling split. And on and on and on.

And when it comes to the question of who has "The Truth," the answer is . . . all of them. And none of them.

Let me explain.

Not all doctrine is of equal importance. Paul was by far the most theologically complex writer in the New Testament, yet even he broke it all down to one central, critical Truth:

This is what I mean: Each of you is saying, "I belong to Paul," or "I belong to Apollos," or "I belong to Cephas," or "I belong to Christ." Is Christ divided? Paul wasn't crucified for you, was he? You weren't baptized in Paul's name, were you? . . . For Christ did not send me to baptize but to preach the gospel, not with eloquent wisdom, so the cross of Christ won't be emptied of its power. For the message about the cross is nonsense to those who are being destroyed, but it is God's power to us who are being saved. . . . Jews ask for signs, and Greeks look for wisdom, but we preach Christ crucified. He is a stumbling block to Jews and nonsense to gentiles, but to those who are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ is God's power and God's wisdom. . . . For while I was with you I resolved to know nothing except Jesus Christ, and him crucified. (1Corinthians 1:12-13; 17-18; 22-24; 2:2)

You see, despite all those splits, there is one set of central doctrines, in fact, THE central doctrines, upon which all of Christianity agrees: Jesus' identity as the Son of God, His death on the cross, and His resurrection. If we confess openly that He is our Lord, and believe with all our heart that He died on the cross to pay for our sins, and rose from the grave to secure our salvation, we will be saved.

Upon these core doctrines of the faith virtually all of Christianity is in agreement. As for the rest, I have very strong views on what is or is not correct. On baptism, I hold to believer baptism and immersion. On worship, I am very contemporary. On basic theology, I am very orthodox. On soteriology, I am very Arminian. On the church and the Bible, I am very Protestant.

But these positions are mitigated by three critical observations.

First, I have a strong and abiding confidence in man's inability to be perfect, either spiritually, physically, morally, doctrinally, or any other way. And that includes myself. I simply do not believe that ANY of us can claim perfection in our doctrine or theology. What this means is that once we get past the core doctrinal issues of Jesus, His death and resurrection that are critical to even BEING a Christian, I will not say that other believers are "wrong," but rather, that I DISAGREE with them. And this is NOT a semantics issue for me.

Second, it is absolutely undeniable that God uses believers who have strong disagreements with me on doctrinal and theologcial issues to further the kingdom of God and bring people to salvation. I am a staunch Arminian, yet some of the teachers and pastors I admire most, whose ministries are undeniably producing massive fruit for God, are Calvinist. I strongly disagree with many Catholic doctrines, yet I am deeply moved and inspired by Pope Francis, and will freely admit that I have much to learn from him about showing God's grace on a day to day basis. God does not require that our theology be perfect in order to use us in His kingdom. All He really requires is that we know His Son, and follow Him with all our heart.

Because of these first two observations, I harbor very little hostility toward most denominations, even those with whom I have my strongest theological disagreements. For example, I am thoroughly Protestant, but I also understand the foundational disagreement between the Protestants and Catholics (is the Church equal to or subordinate to the Bible?). This central difference means that the Catholic Church only requires that a particular doctrine not be contrary to scripture, where most protestants, particularly those of a more fundamentalist persuation, require that each doctrine be explicitly supported in scripture. While I simply cannot bring myself to embrace a doctrine that is not supported in scripture, because I understand why the Catholics can and do, it allows me to treat them with much more grace, and much less judgment. Even more than that, it allows me to embrace them without reservation as my brothers and sisters.

The third observation is that, while Jesus was the complete embodiment of Truth, beyond the central doctrines relating to salvation (mentioned above), He did not present Truth as the ultimate arbitrator of who was or was not a true believer.

Even the most cursory reading of the gospels will reveal that Jesus was highly critical of the Pharisees, and as clash after clash reveals, they might have been His stuanches opponents, if not out right enemies. Yet, did you know that Jesus had almost zero doctrinal disagreements with the Pharisees? In fact, not only is He never recorded explicitly refuting a Pharisitical doctrine, on several occasions He thoroughly confirmed first century Pharisee doctrine. For example, Jesus parable of Lazarus and the rich man confirms the Pharisee doctrine that (at that time) both the righteous and the wicked descended into the earth at death, where the righteous were comforted, the wicked punished, and the two could see each other across an impassable gulf.

So what was the basis for the hostility between Jesus and the Pharisees? Not what they believed, but how they lived. Despite their doctrinal accuracy, they were corrupt, hypocritical, judgmental, harsh, power hungry, impure, intollerant, self-righteous phoneys. They elevated their traditions for the express purpose of avoiding the command of God, specifically, "love your neighbor as yourself." They did not actually CARE about their fellow men. They had no qualms whatsoever about destroying lives to elevate their social, political or religious standing. Jesus had MUCH stronger condemnations for them than He ever did for those with whom He had clear doctrinal differences (such as the Samaritans) . . . and let's be clear here; if you have a doctrinal disagreement with Jesus, YOU'RE WRONG!

So how do you choose the best church?

First, make sure they really do hold to the central tenets of Christianity (Jesus is God, died on a cross, rose from the grave, is the sole source of salvation). Beyond this, make sure that you will feel doctrinally comfortable there (which probably will NOT mean you agree with 100% of what they teach). I am a pastor in the Free Methodist Church, and while I am very comfortable here theologically, I do have a few very minor doctrinal disagreements with official Free Methodist theology. Find a church where you have no major disagreements, but do NOT use doctrinal perfection as your ultimate measuring rod.

Second, make sure they are unwavering in their belief that the Bible is the Word of God. Undermining this critical foundation will open the flood gates to any and all ideas that happen to float by, and will give you no measuring stick against which to judge anything anyone ever teaches, preaches or endorses. It has been my experience that undermining this foundation almost always eventually leads to watering down the central, critical doctrines of Christianity, that being Jesus and salvation.

Third, make sure they LIVE what they believe! Specifically, that they are motivated to get out of their pews (or chairs, or homes) and go LOVE people. Despite what some seem to preach, we believers are not supposed to be known by what we are against, nor even really by how accurate our doctrine may be, but by how effectively we LOVE OTHERS!

Our command is to go tell people about Jesus, and love them.

Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you.  (Matthew 28:19-20)

I am giving you a new commandment to love one another. Just as I have loved you, you also should love one another. This is how everyone will know that you are my disciples, if you have love for one another. (John 13:34-35)

And this is his commandment: to believe in the name of his Son, Jesus the Messiah, and to love one another as he commanded us. (1John 3:23)

Do not owe anyone anything—except to love one another. For the one who loves another has fulfilled the Law. For the commandments, "You must not commit adultery; you must not murder; you must not steal; you must not covet," and every other commandment are summed up in this statement: "You must love your neighbor as yourself." Love never does anything that is harmful to its neighbor. Therefore, love is the fulfillment of the Law. (Romans 13:8-10)