Related Studies:
~~~~~
Headship: Paul's Opinion. or God's
Ordinance in the Church?
In 1990, the CRC
Synod voted to have women in all church offices. Delegates at this Synod voted
99 to 84 in favor of this drastic change. When I was told of Synod's decision I
felt physically ill; I was devastated. For years I have been involved in the women
in office debate through articles in Calvinist Contact and Christian
Renewal. Why my sorrow? We
have lost our unity. Our church will never be the same again. We now have
different interpretations of the same crucial texts. The Holy Spirit is
apparently speaking out of both sides of His mouth. And this thought disturbs
me. I don't believe that the Holy Spirit has two different interpretations of
the same Bible passages. When we say that there are different interpretations
of pertinent texts dealing with the position of women in the church, we are
left with the impression that the Bible cannot draw a straight line, and it can
mean anything one wants it to mean. No wonder that many churchgoers are
confused. Over the past 20 years, dozens of feminist articles, books and
seminars have challenged the plain meaning of the Scripture. We have been told
that "submit" does not mean submit, that "head" does not
mean leader or authority, that "teach" does not mean teach, and so
forth. What is right? What is wrong?
In 1984 the synod
believed that the Holy Spirit led them to say "No" to women elders
and pastors. Six years later the decision was reversed. Did the Holy Spirit
change His mind? I don't believe so. What has changed in our denomination is
its position on Scripture. The agenda of the world has set the agenda for the
church. In seeking for a Biblical answer to the question of women's ordination,
many church leaders and writers, whether they are aware of it or not, have been
influenced by the feminist agenda. There has been a definite tendency to reinterpret the Bible in a way consistent with the current feminist
views of the role of women in our society. A clear example is the change in the
position of Swedish New Testament scholars. In 1951, all but one of the New
Testament scholars holding academic positions in Swedish universities signed
the following, in response to the efforts of the Swedish government to
introduce the ordination of women into the Church of Sweden:
We, the undersigned professors and
lecturers in the field of New Testament exegesis at two universities, hereby
declare as our definite opinion, based on careful investigation, that
ordination of women would be incompatible with New Testament thought and would
constitute disobedience to the Holy Scripture. Both Jesus' choice of apostles
and Paul's words concerning the position of women in the congregation have significance of principle,
and are independent of circumstances and opinions conditioned by any particular
time in history. The current proposal that women should be admitted to
priesthood in the Church of Sweden must therefore be said to meet with grave
exegetical obstacles.
This was said in 1951. Thirty nine
years later it would be difficult to find one New Testament professor in Sweden
who would endorse this statement. The reason for this change is not the
discovery of new exciting Biblical evidence. There has not been any. Nor has
the Bible changed, as Stephen Clark points out: "The climate of opinion
has changed, influencing exegetes to come up with opinions that are acceptable
nowadays." In other words, the Bible is made to fit the thinking of this
age. Rev. Derk Pierik, university chaplain in Toronto said, "I have made a
180 degree turn (on the issue of women in office) which has been very difficult
for me. The Scriptures haven't changed but the glasses which I used to read
them changed." And this is exactly where we are at in the CRC. Many have
changed their view of Scripture.
You may say: The women in office issue
is not serious. It is a storm in a teapot. I disagree. I don't like
controversy. I am concerned about the multitudes of men and women who don't
know Christ as Lord, Savior and King. The issue is serious. What is at
– stake is this – Will the church have its agenda set by the world or by
the Word? Does the Holy Spirit teach the ordination of women and no ordination
of women in the same breath? These are the questions; and they are fundamental. So the question is
not, Should women be ordained or not? The question is: How do we interpret
Scripture? What are the implications of the new approach? Let me share with you
just one example of where the whole discussion can lead. Annelies Knoppers of
the Committee for Women in the Christian Reformed Church wrote an article
entitled, "Is the Bible a Hindrance to Women?" (Partnership, Summer 1990). Listen to what she says,
and I am quoting just a few of her radical statements:
It wasn't until I encountered a woman
minister in the pulpit that my image of God as male began to change. For some,
the maleness of the Trinity is also a problem: a male God, a son, and a male or
'neutered' spirit? Even when it is suggested that the Spirit is
female/feminine, that still leaves the trinity gender ratio two to one! How can
a woman who has suffered because of her devalued status as a woman believe in a
male Trinity? I try to see the humor in a lot of the gender patterns and
language we use e.g., when we sing or read in exclusive male language about
sin, I usually keep the language as it is. Overall then, these are some of my
strategies for trying to stay in the church and to stay a liberationist,
something I feel called to be. The overriding theme and belief that keeps me
going is: God is the God of liberation, not oppression. Trust in God. SHE will
provide.
Can you understand why I am disturbed?
The Committee for Women is celebrating their victory. But I am saying,
"Annelies, you are dishonoring God's Word. What you write goes directly
against what the church has taught, not only the CRC, but the true church
universal."
How do we read the Bible? A young lady
told me, "The apostle Paul seems to hate women." Many feminists see
the apostle Paul as one who teaches the inferiority of the female and thus
excludes them from leadership positions in the church. His teaching on headship
has led to the entrenchment of male chauvinism in the institutional church.
Sometimes we read or hear these remarks: "Oh, this is the opinion of Paul,
a crusty old bachelor; a man reflecting his own rabbinical training. His head was
stuffed with ideas about women, which were current in his time. His society
treated a woman as an ignoramous, a plaything and a slave. Paul was obviously
an antifeminist, a man who held the view that was so commonly taken at that
time. It is emphasized that at that time, woman was in a very debased position.
Everybody throughout the world then held that view; a woman was 'good' as it
were, a slave. And as this was true even of the Jews, the Apostle was just a
rabbinical Jew." So runs the argument.
Does the Bible teach as true, outmoded
and incorrect views of life, history, the origin of the world, the role of men
and women in marriage and in the church? Does what the Bible commands
first-century Christians, also apply to us? What if we accept the view that the
Bible is time-bound, culturally conditioned? And here is my concern: If the
Biblical texts and teachings on the role of women in the church are culturally
conditioned, male centered in nature, rabbinic in origin, the same could be
true of those Bible texts and teachings regarding Adam and Eve, the incarnation
of our Lord, the teachings of the second coming, moral standards, and so forth.
Why should I accept that I am a sinner? Paul says, "All have sinned and
come short of the glory of God" (Rom. 3:23). Why should I accept this as
true? Let me say this. Those who claim that Paul was bound by the customs of
his time have no convincing argument. In Paul's time, women had a prominent
role in pagan religions. In the Roman-Hellenistic culture of Paul's time, women
played leading priestly roles in the religious life. For example, if Jesus
Himself had been conditioned by the culture of His time, as many today claim,
he could have appointed some women among the apostles, in the view of the fact
that they would have been readily accepted in the Gentile world where the
Gospel was to be preached.
PAUL AND
REVELATION
Paul's message was
not just for his time. What he said about the role of women in church is for
all time. As soon as we accept time-boundness as a valid principle, we put God
at the mercy of human culture. We manipulate His message. Biblical standards
and statements are either permanently true or permanently false. There is no in
between. Who decides what is time bound? On what basis? From which cultural perspective?
Historic Christianity has honored the Bible as normative-for all time and for
every culture. The Holy Spirit used the language and the vocabulary of the
social environment of the times in which the human writers of the sacred
Scriptures lived and worked. It is high time that we listen anew to what God
has once-for-all said in Scripture and once-for-all revealed in Jesus Christ.
For the church today there is nothing more vital than the recovery of the
authority and the truthfulness of Scripture and its application to all
dimensions of life. If Paul's teaching is considered time-bound and even
contradictory to the Spirit of Christ, then the Scriptures are no longer
considered as fully inspired. Paul did not give his own opinions. God
communicated His will to Paul. Revelation provides information to later
generations. God's Word is conveyed in intelligible human speech, and its truth
is valid for any culture in any age. Paul regarded himself as nothing more or
less than the mouthpiece of God. Paul said, "We received not the spirit of
the world, but the spirit which is from God that we may understand what God has
freely given us. This is what we speak, not in words taught by human wisdom but
in words taught by the Spirit, expressing spiritual truths in spiritual
words" (I Cor. 2:12,13). And again, "For we are not as the many,
corrupting the Word of God; but as of sincerity, but as of God, in the sight of
God, speak we of Christ" (1I Cor. 2:17). Paul is certain that his
knowledge of God is not of human origin. His apostleship, he declares, is
"not from man, neither through man" (Gal. 1:1). The apostle presents
his commands as bearing divine authority: "For you know what instructions
we gave you by the authority of the Lord Jesus" (I Thess. 4:2). If we
believe that the Bible is the inspired Word of God then we must accept its
teaching as valid for today.
Our Lord does not
change (Heb. 13:8); God is a God "who cannot lie" (Titus 1:2); whose
Word abides forever (Isa. 40:8). If we believe this then we must accept the
Bible as trustworthy, as the indicator of God's will for mankind. With respect
to historical facts, we must accept the Bible as accurate and consistent at all
times.
Paul received an
"abundance of revelation" (II Cor. 12:7). The "abundance"
shows that Paul was competent to speak as God's prophet on subjects other than
our salvation. The apostolic authority which speaks forth in the New Testament
is never detached from the authority of our Lord Himself. Wherever the apostle
speaks with authority, he does so as exercising the Lord's authority.
PAUL The APOSTLE
Paul didn't write
as an ordinary citizen; he was not a private individual, writing private
letters to some people he is interested in. No! He is writing in a very special
way; he is as a matter of fact, a servant of Jesus Christ, and he has a
particular task alloted to him, and he is anxious that the believers should
know this. He writes as an apostle. Where Paul defends his authority as an
apostle, he bases his claim solely and directly upon his commission by the Lord
(Gal. 1,2); when he gives direction for the church, he claims for his Word the
Lord's authority, even when no direct word of the Lord has been handed down (I
Cor. 14:37; I Cor. 7:10). Paul is always careful to assert that he is an
apostle. He provides certain definite proofs of that fact. The supreme proof
was this, that he had seen the risen Lord (I Cor. 9:1). To be an apostle,
however, was to be one who not only had seen the risen Lord, but who must be
able to claim, and substantiate his claim, that he had been called and
appointed especially to be an apostle by the Lord Himself directly. Paul and
Peter and John claim that very thing, and the whole basis of their authority is
founded upon that. So that when they spoke; they did not speak as men only.
Just listen to what Paul says in I Thess. 2:13: "For this cause also thank
we God without ceasing, because, when you received the Word of God which you
heard of us, you received it not as the word of men, but as it is in truth, the
Word of God, which effectually worketh also in that you believe." So the
early church received the apostle's writings alongside the Old Testament as no
less authoritative. We may not like this; it may not be our modern view,
conditioned by 20th century secularism and positivism. But if Paul's epistles
are God's infallible Word, we have no choice but to submit ourselves to them.
Paul never considered his teachings as optional. The modern day feminists are
wrong in their attempt to distinguish between the teachings of Paul the apostle
and the teachings of Paul the rabbi. If Paul spoke with divine authority, how then
can we claim freedom of choice as far as the role of women in the church is
concerned? Either Paul was right or mistaken. If Paul spoke with divine
authority, how then can I accept women as pastors or elders? If Paul forbids
women to teach in the church, do we have the right to overrule him? In I Tim.
2:11-15, and the parallel passages I Cor. 11:3-16 and 14:34-35, Paul says that
women should not teach or exercise authority over men, period. There are no
conditions attached which would allow exceptions to Paul's command. What is
this nature of teaching Paul speaks about? Those who favor women in office say,
"If this is so, why do you allow women to teach catechism or Sunday
school, or have them speak in a gathering?" Such accusations are not valid
because the epistles of Paul show that in Paul's ministry women prayed,
prophesied, and exercised a teaching ministry (I Cor. 11:5; Phil. 4:2,3; Rom.
16:12). What Paul does forbid women to do is to
exercise positions of authority. The authoritative teaching in the church
is restricted to the pastor or elder ofthe
congregation. Paul forbids women to teach as the leaders of the church
because this would place them in a headship role of authority of men. This role
is inappropriate for women, says Paul, not because they are less capable or
competent than men, but because of the creational order for men and women
established by God (I Tim.
2:13).
HEADSHIP
What does Paul mean
by headship? He bases his teaching on the order of creation (I Tim. 2:13,14).
God first made Adam; afterward Eve. Not only that, but he made Eve for the sake
of Adam, to be his helper (Gen. 2:18-25). Neither is complete without the other
(I Cor. 11:11). In His sovereign wisdom, God made our first parents in such a
manner that it is natural for him to lead, for her to follow. The Reformed New
Testament scholar, William Hendriksen, comments on I Tim. 2:13,14: "The
tendency to follow was embedded in Eve's very soul as she came forth from the
hand of her Creator. Hence, it would not be right to reverse this order in
connection with public worship. Why should a woman be encouraged to do things
that are contrary to her nature? Her very body, far from preceding that of Adam
in the order of creation, was taken out of Adam's body. Her very name-
Ish-sha-was derived from his name-Ish (Gen.2:23). If is when the woman
recognizes this basic distinction and acts accordingly, that she can be a
blessing to the man, can exert a gracious yet very powerful and beneficent
influence upon him, and can promote her own happiness, unto God's glory. Not
only Paul, but the Lord Himself appealed to the account of creation to explain
God's original intent for human relationships (Matt. 19:3)."
"This shows
the foundational importance the Bible attaches to the creation account for
understanding the subject of the role relationship of women in the church, not
on the consequences of the fall into sin described in Gen. 3, but on the
pre-fall order of creation presented in Genesis 1 and 2. The foundation of
Paul's teaching is not the use of the fall, but God's original purpose of
creation. Remember, what Paul writes is Scripture, so the critics are not
arguing with Paul, they are arguing with God; they are arguing with the Holy
Spirit. Those who oppose headship as taught by Paul put themselves into the
position of saying that they believe the Bible as long as it does not
contradict what they happen to believe as 20th century modern people. If we
accept Paul's teaching on headship, we can understand why he forbids the
ordination of women. Let me quote Samuel Bacchiocchi:
To blur or
eliminate the role distinctions God assigned to men and women in the home and
in the church, means not only to act contrary to His creation design, but also
to accelerate the breakdown of the family and church structure. The pastor
fulfills a unique symbolic role in the church as representative of the heavenly
Father, Shepherd, High Priest, and Head of the church. A woman pastor cannot
appropriately fulfill such a symbolic role because her Scriptural role is not
that of a father, shepherd, priest or head of the church. Thus, to ordain women
to serve as pastors/elders means not only to violate a divine design, but also
to adulterate the pastor's symbolic representation of God.
Paul is not a male
chauvinist. He simply recognizes the creation order. A man is a man; a woman is
a woman. He does not abolish the distinctions between male and female. Contrary
to what we are led to believe, Paul had a high view of women. He employed women
in the service of the Gospel (Rom. 16:13, Phil. 4:3). In the church, women were
given an honorable status. He emphasizes that in Christ there is neither male
nor female (Gal. 3:28). In relationship to Christ, there is perfect equality.
Anyone who maintains that Paul holds women in low esteem should re-examine the
epistles. If these epistles are honestly interpreted, one will have to admit
that in many ways, man is able to bestow upon a woman the full honor which
according to Paul's teachings, should be bestowed upon her (I Cor. 7:14; 11:7;
11:11; Eph. 5:25-33). Carl F. Henry points out:
Paul . . . stressed
the dignity of women and their equality with men, and emphasized reciprocal
responsibilities of husbands and wives. At a time when women were condemned to
menial tasks, and intellectual pursuits were reserved for upper class males
alone, it is remarkable that the apostle-in the very passage in which he
excludes women from teaching in public church assemblies, stipulates that they
are to "learn in silence," that is, they are to be taught (I Tim.
2:11; 1 Cor. 14:35). In a society in which women were not learners, Paul's
emphasis on the education of Gentile female believers is noteworthy.
When we let
feminism, or any other "ism" determine the nature and content of
Scriptural teaching, the authority of the Christian faith is undermined. As
soon as reason is on the throne, God's Word takes second place or even
less.
Women in church
offices? No! I am convinced that this is unbiblical. Synod 1961 said that we
may not pass judgment upon what Scriptures should be or do or say, but rather
Scripture passes judgment upon what we should be, do and say. These are wise
words. We may not sit in judgment upon the Bible. We may not let the agenda of
the world dictate to us how we should interpret Scripture. We may not interpret
Scripture in the light of contemporary thinking. David Martin Lloyd Jones wrote
these telling words:
The choice for us
today is really as simple as it was for those first Christians in the early
days. We either accept this authority or else we accept the authority of modern
knowledge, modern science, human understanding, human ability. It is one or the
other. Let us not be confused by the modern argument about a changed position.
On the one hand, trusting to human ability and understanding, everything is
flux and change, uncertain and insecure, ever liable to collapse. On the other,
there is not only "the impregnable Rock of Holy Scripture," but there
is the Light of the world, the Word of God, the Truth itself.
What is your
choice? I choose for God's Word as it is, as the Reformed church has believed
it throughout the centuries, as professed in the creeds and confessions. Synod
of 1990 has said "yes" to women in office. For the two years we study
the gender changes in the Church Order. In 1992, if Synod ratifies these
changes, we will have women functioning in the offices of the church. My
position goes directly against the decision of Synod. I grieve for the church I
love. My position is that the conservative churches should align themselves
with the Alliance of the Christian Reformed Church (CRA). There is historical
precedence for this in both Europe and North America. And we must continue to
pray for the church, speak the truth in love, and treat each other with dignity
and respect. Above all we should not be motivated and driven by fears. The Word
of God shall not pass away.
"Lord, Thy
Word abideth,
And our footstep
guideth;
Who its truth
believeth
Light and joy
receiveth."
Rev. Tangelder
No comments:
Post a Comment