CRITIQUE OF WOMEN IN MINISTRY

    Women in Ministry

This is a Reflection and not an exegetical study of the subject matter at hand. The book is called, Women in Ministry Four Views, edited by Bonnidell and Robert Clouse. The four opinions were made from very scholarly individuals who covered the Traditional View by author Robert D. Culver, the Male Leadership View by author Susan Foh, the Plural Ministry View by Walter Liefeld and the Egalitarian View by author Alvera Mickelsen.

The book argued over whether or women should be in ministry and if so, to what extent could she serve. In order or propagate an argument, the meanings in Pauline literature with some references of Genesis were used.  The author of this paper has listed some of the debated scripture and snippets to give the reader some clarity on what was discussed. Paul referenced Gen.3:16, … in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children; and thy desire [shall be] to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee.) 1Cor. 11:2-16, 1 Tim 2:8-15 (Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection…) , 1Cor. 14:34 ( But every woman that pray or prophesy with [her] head uncovered dishonor her head: for that is even all one as if she were shaven…), Eph. 5:22-33 (Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord) 1Thes.5:12-13, Hebrews 13:17, Titus 2:3-5, (The aged women likewise, that [they be] in behavior as become holiness, not false accusers, not given to much wine, teachers of good things…). Gal. 3:28 was used for the side of both women and men can serve as leaders because there are no longer distinctions of male or female, free or slave according to the justified work of the cross. We were all crucified with Christ, died, and rose with Him to have a new life. One was now called a new creation complete in Him, he atoned for all sin, and restored man and woman to the pre-Fall state.

While reading this book, the author remembered what was taught of the culture of the Greeks. At the University of North Texas, professors taught that the Greek men feared the sexual power of the women. A married woman was in a special room in the house, virtually a prisoner. A woman was not allowed to look at a man in the eyes because the men were afraid to succumb and be enslaved into her powers. The professor commented that it was better to be a prostitute in those days because these women had more freedom and could be outside. During this time, the homosexuality of Greeks was extremely high and was considered Phileo love or brotherly love.  It was thought that if you could love another man sexually you were reaching the highest form of love possible. It was Plato who decided men should not do that anymore and thus was born the Platonic relationship. Paul was in this type of environment teaching pagans who had sex with Temple prostitutes who had never learned the Mosaic law or had been taught everyday what Jewish children learned about behavior and decorum (Eph. 2:2-4, 11-12). The apostle certainly had a huge lion to slay and one can tell from Paul’s writings that much of it is about behavior. It would take a lot of wisdom and patience to achieve redirection in a population whose national behavior had been practiced for centuries. This backdrop which, was partly explained by Alvera Mickelsen, was a filter of understanding used during the authors reading. There has been new research and discoveries regarding Paul’s writings that I have seen on a website called Patheos Euangelion and Biblical Archaeology Society. It has been questioned if Paul was a Pharisee at all due to his low opinion for the law. Jewish people do not feel chained to the law, it is a comfort to them. Christians see the law as a burden. It is in question why the Pharisees would send someone to murder other people when it is their law to practice acts of kindness. The Pharisees were the liberals of the day and were very forgiving of others even more forgiving than the Sanhedrin according to Josephus in his writings of (Ant. 13:220:199; 4 و. Cf. War 2:166. 6)[1].  Sending out a commissioned assassin to murderer innocent people more than slightly goes against the ten commandments (thou shall not kill). During that time, Christianity was considered a new branch of Judaism and they worshipped most often together in synagogues. Origen wrote how he saw Christian women dressed up for Shabbat in his day.[2] It could not have been the Sanhedrin because they were falling apart after Yeshua’s crucifixion. Some feel that the writings of Paul was to be treated as commentary of Yeshua’s life written much later. Some think that the Catholic Church modified the writings of Paul in the time of Constantine and therefore are skewed, which lost the original meaning created to control the masses. Others have stated that the writings of Paul are equal to the words of Christ. Scholars can agree on its accuracy much and can remain disputed.

One thing a person can learn studying is that presupposition is in most writings. It is sure found in this book. Whereby brilliant people take down other brilliant people by simply saying you cannot prove it. Through the course of intense biblical study one has learned that nothing in the Bible can be proven. Victory goes to loudest and/or most brilliant mind whether it is correct or not. Then the lesser scholars form a pool of popular consensus and thus “It is written!”  The true question being is if that view matches the main message of the Bible. Does is make sense in the entirety?  The theme of Good conquering Evil and the love of God is the Bible’s premise. A loving and righteous God stepped off his throne from eternity to finite time in order to teach us just that. Keeping others down and preventing them from growth is seen in the stories, yet God is victorious setting the captives free.  Something came out of the debate of the issue in the book, that throughout history we have treated the Bible as an Ala Carte menu and adhering to the laws of behavior as they are convenient to the current culture. For example, Jewish men and women covered their heads out of reverence for God. Cloth was made of one kind of material and they did not eat blood from an animal [3]. A juicy steak, one author thought, was not eating blood however what did they think the steak “juice” came from?  Men and women were separate in the synagogue because they knew what of their labeled as “evil inclinations” of sexual sin and immorality. An orthodox man was not allowed to touch a woman other than his wife, not even to shake a woman’s hand in agreement of a business transaction. This was done not to demean the woman but to protect the man from the slightest or remotest opportunity to commit sexual immorality. Jewish people built fences around “Thou Shall Not Commit Adultery” to protect themselves and to not lose fellowship with God. Their relationship with God being the most important thing they will every do in their lives. Reflecting on these thoughts, it seemed that everyone picked and chose what they pleased. Apparently, the subordination and objectification of women just never goes out of style. As is common knowledge, the root of all prejudice is fear. Fear is not from God. It was learned when a man sees a woman he sees her and had gone to bed with her in his own mind. When woman sees a man and thinks nothing whatsoever. Should a woman be penalized for the way men are wired?  How should this responsibility be worked out?

Robert D. Culver seemed like a fearful man in what was previously mentioned. He is speaking of (1Cor.14:34-37) as it states in verse 36 “Obviously, Paul is addressing impudent and recalcitrant female readers” he believes that Paul is saying that there is no basis for any kind of female leadership.  He states that Paul is saying there is no other leadership other than male leadership. Culver states that Paul is showing the people of Corinth and for all churches that “they have no basis for claiming any special or peculiar right to make any changes in ‘the ordinances’ or ‘the tradition’.”[4] Well, one hopes he spoke with the proper attire on if he is truly a man of tradition. A man of tradition wears a tallit and tefillin (phylacteries). He prays he respectfully by covering his eyes and his is covered underneath with his prayer shawl. His attire is a suit that it is not a poly-cotton, or wool and linen blend because that is an abhorrent to God. (Deut. 22:11). In addition to that, they are all considered disrespectful to God including the publisher for not using “G-D” in the book. Jewish people hold the name of God so sacred that they will not even spell it out on the page because it is divine and holy. Have we all become too casual before the Holiness of God?

A pastor once preached that the 10 commandments were liken to a pane of glass, if a person breaks one then all have been broken in the sight of God. Culver states in (1Tim. 2:14) that women are easily deceived as another reason that women should be silent in church. The Bible tells that Adam knew that the tree was bad and ate of it anyway. One was thinking that if a mother of two children had one child who made a mistake, out of ignorance and the other knowingly with deliberation made the mistake guess which kid would get the spanking? Not the first one. The first one would be taught right from the wrong and the second one needs discipline. In thinking of this thought, it was a weak point as to why women should not be in ministry.  Susan Foh who agreed with Culver, perhaps should not have written anything because she was just a woman and needed to be silent. She tried to navigate the waters and say it was okay for women to do Sunday School, trying to prove it was a subordinate type of teaching. Logically a teacher is an influence in one’s class to bring about understanding of a subject matter.  She thought it was okay for a woman to prophesy because the words were not hers but God’s. That seems to imply that women are stupid and not able to have a logical and interesting conversation regarding God. In that case, again according to herself, she should not be writing about God because she was formulating thoughts and ideas that she is not capable of. In (Lk.19:40) it states that the rocks will cry out and praise God. May Foh find her importance above the rocks.

 Walter Liefeld seemed like a normal person who respected the inerrancy of the bible plus seeing that Paul’s statements in Titus and other scripture were in reaction to the culture of Paul’s day[5]. He believed that in Ephesians the word kephalé, which was a hotly debated word, could mean “head” and “source”. It is perfectly okay for a man to guide and be a leader in a marriage and in all areas of life. A man in our culture today still leads and is a source for all family members. Who would not want to have one’s best friend and husband share in the burdens of life, being a great sounding board and tackling problems together?  Hopefully one has chosen wisely. The author thinks and agrees with the marriage order, however did not see how marriage order and being a Pastor is the same in topic. Paul used this example in the studied scripture for this discussion. The writers are interpreting being a wife, her life with her family as the same as being a Pastor. One does not remember reading that when a woman decides to be a pastor she automatically turns into a Catholic nun and is therefore married to God and the church. Likewise, the covering of one’s head in Jewish terminology was only when the woman was married. Single, widowed and divorced women do not cover their heads. For example, the unmarried author worships at a Messianic Synagogue and one cover’s the head with a scarf when the Torah Scroll was brought out. It is out of reverence for God, not a mandate and the men’s heads are covered also in reverence to God. It is our pleasure to revere and honor God. That kind of communication is not received in the writings of Culver or Foh. If the author reads a portion for service one covers their head as respect to the word of God is holy. It is as if the Torah is representing “the word made flesh,” Yeshua. One uses an outward symbol to show one’s absolute respect to God it is not a burden to be respectful to God (Matt. 5:8). One liked the balance he offered by saying the importance of scripture that it should be properly exegeted according to its time, and place and its value communicated across present day circumstances. He suggested caution against using our personal agenda into the meanings of the word of God [6].

The highlight of the book though was Walter Liefeld and Alvera Mickelsen especially, and was received as an incredible gift was the exaltation of women. Even in the lectures of Professor Harden I took details notes of all the wonderful things that women in the Bible did [7]. The reaction of the fellow students on the discussion board was also encouraging and uplifting. One thought it was very interesting about Junia in the Bible, and that it was originally thought to be the name of a woman. This remained in the first printing of the King James of the Bible until about the 1200’s when the church changed it to the masculine version Junias. Unfortunately, when women are controlled to such an extent the men are out of fellowship with God. God designed us to work in a team, man and woman together as stated in Genesis that God made us a helper.  God made us in His image. When you run a business, it is doomed to fail if you are not utilizing all your assets. It can be seen in church as well. Great people come every week with extraordinary talents untapped by a preacher because of his need to control every aspect of the church. Not realizing its God’s church, not his “baby.”  In my environment growing up, women were not valued.  After salvation one kept learning and growing on the premise that women are devalued. One is planning to rewrite the scriptures mentioned on the lectures and post them on Facebook as encouragement to other women. There are so many women who do not feel good enough. What a great impact on our children if woman were held in high regard! Alvera Mickelsen was the most compelling writing, however it was a bit too liberal for in some cases.  Mickelsen’s description of man being “life” or “source” was a beautiful picture of a man. One could see the beauty of what a man is. The benefit of treating a man like the King who comes to dinner as “life and source”. Who wouldn’t want to shower a person they love with all the good things you can offer them? In her attempt to equalize men, she even proposed that women are superior what was spoken was the value of man. Finally, a loving picture of a man that was separated from the viewpoint of a sex crazed, fearful, domineering control freak. One can see this portrayal on all kinds of media and T.V. It would be nice to see more positive messages regarding men.  

In conclusion, to continue to treat women no better than slaves would be considered today control and abuse. A reader does not know for sure that was not Paul’s original intentions. It is believed that in Paul’s culture corralling people of paganism and making them conform to a holy nature was quite a task. Paul’s commands and writings are being re-evaluated in scholarly circles currently. It is believed that a person saved is called to Holiness. In that respect, how is that achieved from denomination to denomination? There are many denominations that do not adhere to “tradition” written in the Bible. It begs the question what should we do then? Who would tell another denomination that, “Well all your members are going to hell for the way they believe?” It is a concern in these last days. Will God hold us to a different standard that is an unknown? Will we be punished for that? Will it mean hell for those who were disobedient? It is obvious that the adherents of traditionalism are just as much adherents of convenience as everyone else. Their reverence for God is no greater than another denomination. One is not saying this in disrespect, these are great scholars with hearts toward honoring God the best way they know how. Through their own writings they exposed the infallibility of man which we are all tried and convicted. Until we see the face of God, let us do the what Yeshua commands us to as he said (n. 13:34-35) “A new command I give you: Love one another. As I have loved you, so you must love one another. By this everyone will know that you are my disciples, if you love one another.”

[1] Whiston, William. The Works of Josephus. Vol. Book 13. Peabody: Hendrickson Publishers, Inc., 1987.

[2] Everett Ferguson, Recent Studies in Early Christianity: Christianity in Relation to Jews, Greeks, and Romans, Garland Publishing, Inc. (New York: 1999 )9-11.

[3] Women in Ministry; Four Views; Ed. Bonnidell Clouse and Robert Clouse, (Intervarsity Press, Downers Grove, IL, 1989), 118.

[4] Women in Ministry; Four Views; Ed. Bonnidell Clouse and Robert Clouse, (Intervarsity Press, Downers Grove, IL, 1989).

[5] Women in Ministry; Four Views; Ed. Bonnidell Clouse and Robert Clouse, (Intervarsity Press, Downers Grove, IL, 1989), 133.

[6] Women in Ministry; Four Views; Ed. Bonnidell Clouse and Robert Clouse, (Intervarsity Press, Downers Grove, IL, 1989), 154.

[7] Harden, Robert, Issues in Contemporary Theology, Panoto play Lecture Video: Feminist Theology, http://tegrity.sagu.edu/TegrityUtils/InstructorCourseView.aspx?coursePKID=4245 (Southwestern Assemblies of God University, Waxahachie, TX. 1/12/2011)