|
|
|
| |
Women in Leadership
Bruce Norquist Ph.D.
We would like to preface this brief discussion
of women in ministry with an overview of two crucial phrases that may shed
light on the subject: 1. “the image of God in humanity” – especially as it may
pertain to women – and - 2. “Ordination
as the prior choice of God”. Beyond that, later on we will be adding a
survey of women who served as leaders in the Bible. Further, there will follow a thorough exegesis
of those verses that seem to argue against women occupying leadership positions
in the church - viz. I Cor. 11:1-16, 14:33-35 and I Tim. 2:11-15. This article will touch briefly on the first
two issues and leave the other two to a subsequent article. 1. The Image of God
In psychology it is sometimes said
that “The proper study of man is man” (sic).
Because humanity has been created in the image of God, however, we might
rather say that the proper study of humanity is God. Any discussion of the role of women in God’s
economy would do well therefore to begin by commenting on the idea of how God’s
image is reflected equally in both men and women in the original creation
account: “Then God said, Let us make man
in our image, in our likeness … and so God created man in his own image, in the
image of God he created him; male and female he created them.” (Gen 1:26-27) Clearly it took both a man and a woman to
reflect the image of God. There is
nothing in this account that indicates that either gender reveals God more
perfectly than the other. If Christian ministry
can be summed up as the calling to know God and to make Him known, the creation
of humanity in God’s image establishes the fact that women no less than men
have been commissioned to reflect God’s Glory.
But just because the human race has
been fashioned in God’s image does not mean that we are meant to return the favor. Naïve interpretations of Biblical metaphors (where
human characteristics are attributed to God) have led some theologians to
refashion God in their image –
defining God as male and/or
female. Let us be clear: God is not a man
- or a woman; God does not possess
sexuality; God is a Spirit. In other
words, the differentiation we observe between the sexes does not reflect gender
identity in God. It is therefore
decidedly unhelpful to think of the Holy Spirit, for example, as the female
counterpart of the guy side of God.
Think of it like this: although an
artist’s painting truly reflects who she is, the finished canvas is at the same
time substantially different than the artist herself. Similarly, there is both continuity and
discontinuity between God and the image of God in creation. In other words, the Creator differs from the
image of himself in the creation. While
humanity is a highly reflective lens, the image of God invested in creation
does not correspond on a one to one basis with God himself. He forever remains the Creator – we eternally
remain created beings. There are,
however, at least three things about humanity
- as male and female - that do reflect the image of God.
First:
maleness and femaleness in creation may be thought of as reflecting the diversity we see in God himself. We believe that human gender distinction can
be taken as a reflection of the differentiation we see in God as Father, Son and
Holy Spirit. Even in their profound union,
the Father, Son and Holy Spirit are differentiated. The Father is not the Son, nor is the Son the
Father – nor was the Son at any time past - nor will he ever be - the
Father. Yet the Father could not be the
Father apart from the Son nor could the Son be the Son apart from the
Father. The Father, Son and Holy Spirit
are equally God; but they remain distinct as persons. While feminists have rightly spoken out for
gender equality in terms of value, their arguments have at times wrongly hinged
on statements that attempt to eliminate the idea of differentiation between the
sexes. (In a highly publicized event on May
6, 1970
Gloria Steinem testified before Congress that the differences from man to man
or woman to woman are greater than the differences between male and
female. She went on to say that the
societal problems facing our nation all stemmed from gender based myths and
stereotypes that highlight the differences between the sexes. Little has changed in her rhetoric in the
intervening years)
Scores of recent articles both
popular and scholarly are now arguing for (what we have always known) that the
differences between male and female are substantial. See, for example, the article, “Understanding
and Accepting Your Mates Differences” by Dr. James Dobson. In the human brain, where our ideas of
maleness and femaleness originate, the basic differences between the sexes have
increasingly been shown to be neurological in origin, not just psychological. The difference is hard-wired. In other words, the difference between men
and women is not determined merely by sexual stereotypes and gender-based
myths. Males and females differ anatomically,
sexually, emotionally, psychologically and bio-chemically. We differ in literally every cell of our
bodies.
Second, the
image of God in humanity reveals the unity
of the Godhead. While we affirm belief
in the Trinity, it is our confession that God is one. The union that is possible between male and
female therefore has the potential of reflecting the glorious personal union of
God the Father, Son and Holy Spirit. Ironically,
it is differentiation that creates the possibility of true union. In such a case, moreover, the union of
persons reinforces rather than diminishes personal uniqueness. The ancient Greek theologians spoke of the
union of Father, Son and Holy Spirit as being a mutual indwelling. The very being of God was thus conceived of
as having existence by virtue of the union of persons. In other words, God’s existence is rooted in
love. Similarly, we who have been
created in his image have our very being as humans in relation – both to God
and one another.
Third,
maleness and femaleness reflect God’s capacity for fruitfulness. Differentiated union brings forth fruit - offspring. God’s power to create is shared with his
creation and humanity is empowered to fulfill the cultural mandate - to “be
fruitful and multiply” - first in the natural, then in the spiritual.
What theologians refer to as “the fall
of man” is explained in the Genesis account of Adam and Eve rebelling from God. Rather than reflect the image of unity,
diversity and fruitfulness that they saw in their Creator, they (and
subsequently we as a race) fell into the abyss of isolation, absorption, and
barrenness. From unity we drifted into
isolation (isolated from God and one another).
From diversity we were drawn into a “Borg” like existence (losing
ourselves in the plans and purposes of others - or - stripping others of their uniqueness,
we take pride in absorbing them into our agenda). It follows quite naturally therefore, that
from fruitfulness humanity wandered away into the wasteland of (physical,
mental, and spiritual) barrenness.
That’s the bad news; the good news
is that salvation in Christ has arrested our headlong plunge into darkness. By the faith of Christ the curse has been
reversed and we are now in the process of being restored to relationship with
both God and our fellow companions. Moreover,
in our union with Christ we find that we are becoming differentiated and
correspondingly made fruitful in both love and good works – unity, diversity, and
fecundity are thus all being restored.
Now, if the subservience of women is
declared to be one of the products of the fall (Genesis 3:15-16), what would we expect to see when
the curse is reversed - when the Spirit of God is poured out on all flesh? While we do not know for certain, Paul may have
been referring to this very passage when he notes that women “will be saved (or
redeemed from the curse) through childbirth” (1 Tim 2:15).
Since it was promised that “the seed of women” was meant to “crush the
serpent’s head”, it stands to reason that the curse of gender discrimination would
be lifted at the advent of the promised seed.
Some commentators believe that in this very passage Paul may be rehearsing
God’s first promise to women (Genesis 3:15) - that he is reiterating the fact that
humanity’s only hope is (to be found not in keeping women “barefoot and
pregnant” - but) through a distinguished daughter of Eve bringing forth the
Messiah.
Prior to the fall, humanity (as male
and female) was given a cultural mandate – to be fruitful and take
dominion. In the New Covenant, the
Church has been given the evangelistic mandate – to go and make disciples. If, before the fall, women were included in the
first commission, we should not be surprising to see that they are now included
in the call to answer the Great Commission as well. (See Acts 1:7-14, 2:16-18.)
As God reflected on Adam’s need for
a suitable counterpart (Gen. 2:18), the term that is used for “helpmeet” does
not imply an inferior status. The term (ezer)
is predominantly used throughout the rest of scripture to describe God and his
role as Israel’s mighty warrior and ever present
help in time of need. We can conclude
therefore that women were not called as helpmates - or playmates - but as
suitable counterparts to men in equally reflecting God’s image.
2. Ordination as the Prior Choice of God
In today’s world it is not uncommon to see dialog about
ordination swirl into the eddy of human rights.
The problem with this is that ordination should never be considered an
entitlement that one can claim on the basis of training or experience. No woman has the right to be ordained on account of any amount of preparation, much
less on the basis of her gender or ethnicity.
Similarly, a man has no right to be ordained on account of the fact he is
a man. No one has a right to be
ordained. Ordination is established by
the Lord. All of our ministry must be
seen primarily as a sharing or a participation in Christ’s ministry. (1 Cor.
3:9) A theology of ordination must therefore
begin with God and the choice he has made to share his mission with
humanity.
Prior to a public ordination
ceremony, candidates for ordination generally proceed through a fivefold
process whereby their calling is confirmed: 1. To begin with, at the
foundational level, candidates must be morally pure, doctrinally sound,
ethically above reproach, well spoken of in the community, domestically
well-adjusted, and, able to teach (I Tim 3:2-7); 2. Second, they are to have an inner,
subjective sense of call and desire to fill the office of: apostle, prophet, pastor,
teacher or evangelist (sometimes called elders, overseers or bishops) which
they in turn have answered in the affirmative (I Tim 3:1); 3. Next it is
crucial that other reliable witnesses subsequently recognize and confirm the
candidates fitness to answer this particular call from God (II Cor. 13:1); 4. Fourth,
it is necessary that candidates for ordination show forth fruit or visible evidence
that serves to validate both their inner subjective call and the outward
confirmation of the same; 5. Lastly, the candidate must have an actual call to
an actual position of actual service to an actual church. Ordination is not just a mystical experience;
it is meant to be manifested concretely in reality. (Note: practically speaking, because
licensing is typically a precursor to ordination, there should be no functional
difference between the qualifications for either.)
If a person has met all of these
criteria, we believe that there may be good reason to believe that they are already
ordained by God and thus could well be considered candidates for public recognition
of the same. This being so, may we not
ask with Peter (as he encountered what was to him the highly unexpected event
of Gentiles being called and confirmed
as members of the Church), “If God gave them
the same gift as he gave us, who was I to oppose God?” (Acts 11:17).
If God has ordained a person (be s/he male or female, bond or free, Jew
or Gentile) who are we to refuse to lay hands on her as a public confirmation
of the same? Who are we to oppose God? When candidates for ordination receive the laying
on of hands accompanied at times by prophetic utterance, (Acts 13:1-3; I Tim. 4:14; 5:22; II Tim 1:6) it is the sign of the
churches’ affirmation of God’s prior decision.
Others will undertake a survey of women who occupied
leadership roles in the Bible. We would be
remiss however if we failed to observe that in the New Testament it is clear
that the traditional roles of men and women need to be re-interpreted in the
light of our association with Christ. If
we see women like Deborah and Esther and Miriam exercising key leadership roles
in the Old Testament, should we not expect to witness even more freedom for
women in leadership in the New Testament?
And surely, if women in the New Testament were already filling
leadership roles such as prophetesses (Acts 21:9), teachers (Acts 18:24-28) deacons (Romans 16:1) leaders
of house churches (2 Jn. 1), and apostles (Romans 16:7) should not women today
whom God has already manifestly
chosen to fill such positions be publicly recognized?
We conclude by saying that there is
no compelling reason in our discussion of either the image of God or the
theology of ordination that would lead us to oppose the public ordination of
women (or men) as long as they have already been ordained by the prior choice
of God as evidenced by the fact that they have fulfilled the criteria outlined
above. It is time for us to say a hearty
“Amen” to what God has already done and to ordain whom He has ordained.[1]
[1]
This being so, let us no longer
employ the patronizing cliché that says women may be ordained when God is
unable to find a man who is capable.
This is an insult both: a.) to women in general – implying that they are
lesser than men, b.) men in particular (as incapable) and c.) the Creator
overall as lacking the ability to create, redeem, call and empower both male
and female, Jew or Greek, barbarian, Scythian, slave or free to labor together
with him in the work of the ministry.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
