Ordination of Women as Elders

[BibleCyst]

Dear brothers and sisters,

The past month, I've been researching the issue of ordination of women as elders. I'm strongly considering writing an essay on it, to consolidate my findings. I have some specific questions that I haven't been able to find the answers to. First off, I'm curious - is there anybody on this board who agrees with ordination of women as elders? If so, I would like your best argument in favor of it; as I have yet to find a good defense with true Biblical inerrancy as a presupposition. Are there any good academic books on both sides of this subject, with Biblical inerrancy as a presupposition?

The two more specific questions I have are on 1 Corinthians 14:33-35 and 1 Timothy 2:11-14.

1 Corinthians 14:33-35 ESV: "33 For God is not a God of confusion but of peace. As in all the churches of the saints, 34 the women should keep silent in the churches. For they are not permitted to speak, but should be in submission, as the Law also says. 35 If there is anything they desire to learn, let them ask their husbands at home. For it is shameful for a woman to speak in church."

The argument I read about this set of verses is basically translator bias. Since there is no punctuation in Greek, it is (apparently) debatable where the phrase "as in all the churches of the saints" belongs. The KJV places the phrase in the preceding sentence, which reads like this: "33 For God is not the author of confusion, but of peace, as in all churches of the saints. 34 Let your women..." The argument I read is that if the phrase belongs in the previous sentence, the context would state that Paul was simply trying to quiet trouble makers in the church, which in this case would be the women. Does this view hold any weight?

1 Timothy 2:11-14 ESV: "11 Let a woman learn quietly with all submissiveness. 12 I do not permit a woman to teach or to exercise authority over a man; rather, she is to remain quiet. 13 For Adam was formed first, then Eve; 14 and Adam was not deceived, but the woman was deceived and became a transgressor."

The argument I read about this set of verses is about false teaching. According to verses 3-7, this was a problem in this area. According to verses 11-15, the women were "strayed[ing] after Satan." The argument I read rationalizes this to mean that the women were falling into the false teaching. Does this view hold any weight?

Basically, the rationalization for these two verses are that they're temporary commands for specific churches. Considering the fact that there are women in the New Testament who took leadership roles and even teaching roles, these arguments to a lay person such as myself seem reasonable. What do you guys think?

 

[lynnie]

Go to this link:

Amazon.com: Recovering Biblical Manhood and Womanhood: Reponse to Evangelical Feminism (9781856840453): John Piper, Wayne Grudem: Books

......and on the top left above the book, where it says "click to look inside", click on table of contents. You will see that there are entire chapters on some of the subjects you mention.

It has been a while since I read it but I am sure, given the outstanding qualifications of many of the authors, they will interact with various egalitarian theologians in presenting the complementarian view, and you'll find mention of all sorts of material from both sides for your research.

You ask an interesting question. I have just assumed all five point Covenantal type Calvinists who may not even be confessional hold to male leadership/elders. I know there are big debates about women deacons, but I didn't think women elders exist in the Calvinist camp. Curious to see if anybody knows otherwise.

 

[BibleCyst]

You ask an interesting question. I have just assumed all five point Covenantal type Calvinists who may not even be confessional hold to male leadership/elders. I know there are big debates about women deacons, but I didn't think women elders exist in the Calvinist camp. Curious to see if anybody knows otherwise.

Thank you for that book! I will definitely be ordering it!

If you consider those in the PCUSA and EPC to be in the Calvinistic camp, then the women elders controversy definitely exists. They're not a controversy in solid reformed bodies, such as the PCA and any NAPARC church.

 

[Marrow Man]

You can view Recovering Biblical Manhood and Womanhood here.

 

[Poimen]

1 Corinthians 14:33-35 ESV: "33 For God is not a God of confusion but of peace. As in all the churches of the saints, 34 the women should keep silent in the churches. For they are not permitted to speak, but should be in submission, as the Law also says. 35 If there is anything they desire to learn, let them ask their husbands at home. For it is shameful for a woman to speak in church."

The argument I read about this set of verses is basically translator bias. Since there is no punctuation in Greek, it is (apparently) debatable where the phrase "as in all the churches of the saints" belongs. The KJV places the phrase in the preceding sentence, which reads like this: "33 For God is not the author of confusion, but of peace, as in all churches of the saints. 34 Let your women..." The argument I read is that if the phrase belongs in the previous sentence, the context would state that Paul was simply trying to quiet trouble makers in the church, which in this case would be the women. Does this view hold any weight?

1 Timothy 2:11-14 ESV: "11 Let a woman learn quietly with all submissiveness. 12 I do not permit a woman to teach or to exercise authority over a man; rather, she is to remain quiet. 13 For Adam was formed first, then Eve; 14 and Adam was not deceived, but the woman was deceived and became a transgressor."

The argument I read about this set of verses is about false teaching. According to verses 3-7, this was a problem in this area. According to verses 11-15, the women were "strayed[ing] after Satan." The argument I read rationalizes this to mean that the women were falling into the false teaching. Does this view hold any weight?

Richard:

Re: 1 Corinthians 14- I don't think it matters where the statement "as in all the churches" is placed. The issue for Paul is that woman are not permitted to speak in church. He does not indicate the fact that they are contributing to the lack of peace but rather that "the Law also says." It is not only a matter of what is being addressed, which admittedly is sometimes situational, but normative since his argument is based upon an unchanging authority. This is indicated by Paul's statement in vs. 36 about "the word of God" and is backed up by Peter's argument in 1 Peter 3:1-5. So even if Paul is addressing a controversy in the church (which has not been established) it does not demonstrate that his words should or must be taken to be limited to the time in which they were written.

Re: 1 Timothy 2-I think it is interesting and perhaps instructive that a similar argument is made here which also, turns on the situation while ignoring Paul's own words (or the basis for his argument). The apostle does not merely say 'woman should be submissive' but gives the reason: a) Adam was formed first, then Eve - in other words, the distinct role of men and women in the home and in the church is based upon creation and not merely any given circumstance that presented itself to Paul or Timothy. Just as a man and a woman are brought together in union does not depend on the Mosaic law and statute, so also the relationship between a man and woman does not solely depend upon the time in which the argument is made. It is universal for the reason that God has established it even before the fall. And Paul further notes that b) the woman was deceived and became a transgressor before Adam. Also, not particular or limited to the time and place in which Paul lived and wrote.

Considering the fact that there are women in the New Testament who took leadership roles and even teaching roles, these arguments to a lay person such as myself seem reasonable.

Where do women take leadership roles in the church over and above men and where are they teaching men against the apostle's command in 1 Timothy 2?

 

[arapahoepark]

If you want some of the arguments from evangelicalism refuted go to read Evangelical Feminism: the new path to liberalism by Wayne Grudem. He uses absolutely no straw men at all and still completely tears down feminism's arguments.

 

[Scott1]

the rationalization for these two verses are that they're temporary commands for specific churches.

So the admonition to guard against false teaching is a temporary command?

Considering the fact that there are women in the New Testament who took leadership roles and even teaching roles,

The Lord chose 12 men as apostles, and by His Spirit, seven men to be the first Deacons, Paul instructs Timothy to appoint elders (men) in every city, instructions are given that officers are to be husbands of one wife (no vice verse).
You don't see women being given ecclesiastical authority over men... from the time of creation (because women was taken from man).

 

[jogri17]

I believe the NT teaches women may be Ministers, even exercise leadership and influence within the life of the Church (both congregationally and at a larger level), however it clearly establishes restrictions. A woman is not to rule over a man, thus while a woman may be set aside and paid and called as a minister of the Gospel, but it would be inappropriate for her to preach or sit on consistory (or council). SHe would exercise her ministry under their authority with and amoung women and children.

So I can see the texts where you are looking at and still come down with a complementarian position that acknowledges both Biblical roles and spiritual gifting. JI Packer wrote an excellent article about this and advocating this position back in the 70s on women priests. I will scan it and put it up here when I return back to Québec.

 

[Edward]

If you are doing an academic study, you probably should access the relevant Position Papers of the PCUSA (which I couldn't locate online).

See also the Agenda from the CRC's 2000 assemby, starting at page 352, but more relevantly at 357 et seq.
http://www.crcna.org/site_uploads/uploads/2000_agenda.pdf

If you are looking for the best arguments in favor, you'd probably best look to those who hold to recently adopted un-Biblical positions.

 

[Poimen]

I believe the NT teaches women may be Ministers, even exercise leadership and influence within the life of the Church (both congregationally and at a larger level), however it clearly establishes restrictions. A woman is not to rule over a man, thus while a woman may be set aside and paid and called as a minister of the Gospel, but it would be inappropriate for her to preach or sit on consistory (or council). SHe would exercise her ministry under their authority with and amoung women and children.

So I can see the texts where you are looking at and still come down with a complementarian position that acknowledges both Biblical roles and spiritual gifting. JI Packer wrote an excellent article about this and advocating this position back in the 70s on women priests. I will scan it and put it up here when I return back to Québec.

That article is here for those who care to read it.

 

[CalvinandHodges]

Hi:

The best book that I know of is this: Women in the Church: An Analysis and Application of 1 Timothy 2:9-15

Blessings,

Rob

 

[BibleCyst]

I've been without power for the past day and a half, so I'm just now reading all of these excellent responses! Thanks, everybody! I have some books to order.