ROLES OF MEN AND WOMEN IN CHURCH

I earlier wrote a post titled “The Role of Women in the Church” in which I attempted to comment on the key New Testament passages dealing with this issue, all in the writings of Paul. This is a sort of follow-up on that post, but this time summarizing the thoughts in three articles appearing in the April 2023 issue of CT magazine.

But first I should share my own church experiences spanning many years as a regular attender or member of a total of nine different congregations representing six different denominations or church traditions, all of which could be broadly labeled as evangelical and having a great deal of local autonomy. But the only commonality I could detect in regard to the accepted role of women within these various congregations was the fact that men and women had an equal vote when any important question was brought before the whole church.

Thus, it turns out that I have seen at first hand some churches which would be labeled as complementarian (defined by Hugenberger as “those who believe there are distinct, complementary roles for men and women in marriage, church, and sometimes society”) as well as those which were egalitarian (“those who deny there are distinct roles for men and women”). And my personal observation is that both extreme positions can sometimes result in a perfectly functional congregation and sometimes in a highly disfunctional one. It all depends on the good will or lack thereof exhibited by the parishioners and leadership.

The first article was by Gordon Hugenberger of Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminary, and it attempted to bridge the gap between the two positions by stressing their commonalities rather than their differences. He starts with reminding the readers that Genesis 1:27 states that men and women share equally in their reflecting the image of God. Then he turns to those pertinent passages in Paul's letters in which the apostle makes no distinction between the two genders:

    I Corinthians 12:7 – Both men and women are to exercise the spiritual gifts they have been given for the service of the church.

    Colossians 3:16 – This includes teaching and admonishing others and singing praises to God.

And in the book of Acts, he points to the following texts:

    Acts 2:17-21 – Both men and women on the Day of Pentecost received the outpoured Spirit and his gifts.

    Acts 18:26 – Priscilla with her husband, Aquila, corrected the theology of the prominent teacher Apollos.

Turning next to Paul's “problem passages,” Hugenberger feels that both sides would agree that at least in some settings there is nothing wrong with a woman teaching a man (I Timothy 2:12). The sticking point involves the exact meaning of having “authority over a man” since it may only apply to abusive authority.

Similarly, both sides should agree that a woman praying out loud in church or “prophesying” is not absolutely prohibited in Scripture (I Corinthians 11:5; 14:3). Women singing hymns and praises to God are certainly not condemned by Paul despite his admonition in I Timothy 2:12 for them to “be quiet.”

Other factors for complementarians to keep in mind when using this passage include:

    1. Paul's words only applied to church settings.

    2. The teaching may have been a temporary measure due to the limited education opportunities for women at the time.

    3. Although Paul bases his comments on the example of Adam and Eve and therefore would seem to make his teaching time- and culture-independent, the teachings in Genesis 2:24 explicitly refer to marriage roles, not roles within the church.

    4. As has been recognized and stressed by other scholars, the Greek terms for man and woman used by Paul can also mean “husband and wife,” and therefore apply to married couples only as in all other NT texts in which the terms appear. This was even the understanding of Martin Luther.

    5. Being “quiet” may mean a warning against any sort of “unwelcome, disruptive or negative speech (arguing, complaining, harping, nagging).”

Danielle Treweek, in the following CT article on this subject, bemoans the “increasing cancellation, co-option, and cannibalization of complementarianism.”

    1. Cancellation: The problem comes in when opponents of complementarianism adamently insist that there is no place in modern society for such a backward view of women. Treweek admits that there have been many abuses regarding how women are relegated to a second-class status in some churches, but that should be no excuse for egalitarians cutting off all discussion on the subject and just condemning those who disagree with them.

    2. Co-option: More repressive proponents of patriarchalism are attempting to force complementarians into their own mold, which may include banning women from higher education opportunities and urging husbands to have complete control over which books their wives are allowed to read. These fundamentalist groups actually consider all complementarians to be too liberal.

    3. Cannibalization: This is a danger that comes from within rather than from outside sources. “It occurs when no allowance is made for differing conclusions that are still grounded in and consistent with complementarianism's defining theological affirmations.” It happens when those within the same denomination or congregation begin carrying out witch hunts against their fellow congregants who do not agree 100% with their own personal interpretation of Scripture on the subject.

The third article in the series was written by Gaby Viesca from the egalitarian viewpoint. Her concern is with the process that some churches go through when they decide to transition to a truly gender-equal environment. She notes, as I have personally seen concerning other important congregational issues, church leaders often spend a great deal of time in internal discussion, prayer and soul-searching before announcing a major policy change. However, they seldom consider what sort of a negative impact it may have on the individual members in the congregation. And because of that, they often take little care in how they should actually roll out this new policy until it is too late and much damage has been done.

The sort of damage may come from two directions. By going against long-standing practices in the church, any sort of major change may make older conservative members feel that they are being totally disenfranchised. But at the same time, it may raise falsely high expectations among women in the congregation when they realize that this sort of full-fledged change is taking much longer than they felt necessary. Those women may then, perhaps rightly, suspect that the change was lip service only.