Women in the Pastorate: An Appeal to Scripture as a Consistent Authority

The discussions about the roles of women in ministry have amassed great attention. A few scrolls down my Twitter feed and other social media platforms (at least in my circles), I almost always come across some comment or post about women in the pastorate, the push for equality of outcome, and other buzz words surrounding this topic. The recent rift in the Southern Baptist Convention over this issue has brought division among pastors, leaders, and the denomination (and other denominations). The Beth Moore fall-out from the SBC gained attention from the secular world because the situation had great appeal to the liberal narrative, thus it was an easy win for its cause, in that it afforded another opportunity to expose Christianity as a “fundamentalist patriarchal oppressive” religion. However, while there are always bad apples in the bunch, such notions couldn’t be further from the truth.

More and more denominations are ordaining women to the pastorate, and the cultural demand of equality of outcome has placed intense pressure on churches and denominations that hold to the traditional view to follow suit. I do not care about the cultural status quo; neither should those who hold to the Word of God as authoritative on such matters. With that said, many who have sided with the narrative claim to do so based on the authority of the Word of God. Many Jesus-loving Christians are proponents of women in the pastorate because they are persuaded by arguments from the Bible.

While I think those who have made the shift believe they have done so based on a strong conviction that the Bible supports it, we have to ask the question: Why has this issue become such a hot topic now? The historic Christian faith has always affirmed that Scripture teaches only men can be qualified for the pastoral office. But in the last 50–70 years, apparently such a reading of Scripture is mistaken. The current milieu is rife with cancel-culture antics, which seek to silence anyone who doesn’t affirm not just equality (because we are all created equal) but equality of outcome. And unfortunately, this has pressure-cooked many denominations and church leaders, causing them to buckle under the pressure.

Now, my point isn’t to get into the politics and the other seemingly complex issues behind it. I just wanted to offer a broad-brush stroke of the context surrounding the topic. Because while arguments come forth positing that Scripture allows the ordination of women, the conclusions of such arguments appear to be grounded in a cultural ideology. With that said, I understand there have been scholarly monographs and essays written on the topic, so I do not presume that I can reduce the entire debate to a short blog post. Rather, my aim is to shed light on an inconsistency of interpretation by looking at one common argument from the Bible in favor of women in the pastorate and another biblical argument supporting the view of monogamous marriage, between one man and one woman. Both arguments have the same methodological starting point; but both arrive at their conclusions in completely different ways. However, what is telling is that many Christians who advance this particular argument allowing for women in the pastorate also affirm the particular argument for the biblical view of marriage.

Jesus on Marriage

To defend the biblical view of marriage Christians will cite Jesus’ reference to the Garden (Matt 19:1-10), “. . . have you not read . . . He made them male and female . . . let not man separate what God has joined together.” Jesus goes to the beginning, setting his anchor point in creation and the first couple, Adam and Eve, to establish a precedent that stands over any later context or situation that might challenge it, which is what we have in Matthew 19. Let’s listen to a common objection and response to this argument.

Objection: What about David and his wives? God didn’t show disapproval or expressly state David was sinning in having them.

Response: Well, God doesn’t express his disapproval every time his will and purposes are violated by man. God extended grace to fallen humanity and though such acts are sinful, God, in his wisdom, providentially worked through such sins.

Objector: That makes sense. Jesus’ argument pointing back to the Garden and God’s purpose in marriage as written by Moses was a corrective to the Jews who had come up with their own “laws” to support their own needs. That is why Jesus says, “have you not read?” The objector acknowledged the authoritative nature of Jesus’ words. Scripture determined the conclusion, providing correction when a cultural view rises against it.

Paul on Women in the Pastorate

But . . . the same Christians who accept that argument, when it comes to the discussion about women in the pastorate, will reject Paul’s inspired response, who also—like Jesus—refers back to the beginning, in the Garden, to support his argument that women are not permitted to teach or to have authority over a man, based on God’s order of creation and Eve having been deceived (1 Tim 2:12–14). His argument, like Jesus’ argument, establishes a precedent that supersedes any future situation or context that might challenge it, which is what we have in Paul’s context.

Objection: What about Deborah? She was in a role of authority and leadership over the Jews. Doesn’t that demonstrate God’s approval of women in such roles, thus an allowance for a woman to be a pastor?

Response: Well, God doesn’t express his disapproval every time his will and purposes are violated by man. Israel was in a moral downward spiral, and Deborah’s installation as a judge of Israel was only to Israel’s shame, in that no men were competent to step up and lead and judge Israel as their fathers had done before. God extended grace to them in raising up Deborah to judge Israel and lead them out of their moral demise. It’s not an exception for women to be pastors; it’s a reminder to the men that they need to lead as the Lord has ordained them. Regardless of that context, Paul, inspired by God, based his argument on God’s design and order in the forming of Adam and Eve and because of the moral collapse of humanity through Eve’s deception.

Objector: I don’t agree. Women and men are created equal, and the Bible says we are all one in Christ. If women have the desire or feel called to be pastors, then they should be allowed to. The objector did not acknowledge the authoritative nature of Paul’s words. Even though Scripture determined the conclusion, the objector sided with the cultural norms. See the inconsistency in the responses to the parallel arguments on these issues? If we followed the Objector’s line of reasoning that since Deborah was in a role of authority over men, then God approves the ordination of women, then we could also affirm that because David had multiple wives, God approves of polygamy. I don’t know any other Christian who holds to the authority of Scripture would agree that God affirms polygamy.

Conclusion

In this brief look at one of the common arguments used in this debate, it is clear that those who attempt to make a biblically sound argument based on the example of Deborah (I think we could say the same with Phoebe from Romans), their conclusion that Scripture affirms the ordination of women is not derived through consistent interpretation of the text; rather, preconceived notions (i.e., cultural influences) are guiding the interpretive process. With that said, we all carry bias and presuppositions. But the consistent interpreter of Scripture has to follow the line of the text, even when it cuts across his or her presuppositions, which would derail the meaning of the text.

The goal of interpretation is to derive meaning from the biblical text that is consistent with the corpus of Scripture. Scripture interprets Scripture. St. Augustine provides a helpful approach in handling the biblical text and is relevant to the interpretive issues above. He writes, “one should proceed to explore and analyze the obscure passages, by taking examples from the more obvious parts to illuminate obscure expressions and by using the evidence of indisputable passages to remove the uncertainty of ambiguous ones” (De doctr. christ. 2.9.14). His last clause is noteworthy. In the examples above, Jesus’ argument about marriage is indisputable (though modernity has pushed hard against it). Paul’s argument, until recently, likewise, was indisputable. Adopting Augustine’s long-standing rule (not a command) when interpreting Scripture helps to maintain a consistent interpretation of the Bible. We do not defer to cultural wisdom when facing biblical interpretive entanglements. We utilize Scripture to interpret itself because we need the Scripture to speak to us; it doesn’t need us to speak to it.

One final note. How should we take Paul’s command regarding women in the pastorate? Paul surely isn’t trying to hold women back from using their gifts; rather, his exhortation is a protective measure. Men are weak vessels; women are weaker vessels (1 Pet 3:7), which is part of God’s good design. Following Eve’s deception, the curse upon women is that they would desire to rule over their husbands. So, why would the Lord permit a woman to have authority over a man (which the pastoral office entails) if such “rule” was inherent of the curse? With that said, the church will only flourish if its pastors enable and guide the women to use their gifts, even teaching (just not in a pastoral role). But we (especially us pastors) must protect our precious women from stumbling into a role that puts them into the grips of the devil.

~Romans 11:36

Comments

Gregory of Nyssa: Trinity–Not Tri-deity

Gregory, a bishop of Nyssa in 371, was part of the Cappadocian trio, and was instrumental in the development of Trinitarian orthodoxy. His theological prowess proved vital in response to the Arian and Sabellian heresies. Key to Gregory’s theology we find “an emergence of a pro-Nicene ‘grammar’ of divinity through his developed account of divine power,” [1] conceived through a nature-power-activity formulation revealed in the created order and articulated in Scripture. Understanding the Triune God in this manner afforded a conception of the Trinity that was logical and thoroughly biblical. And this letter is paradigmatic on Gregory’s account of the divine nature. (* This article was later published with Credo Magazine, titled, “ The Grammar of Divinity (On Theology). ” See link below) To Ablabius, though short, is a polemical address whereby Gregory lays out a complex argument in response to the claim that three Divine Persons equal three gods. Basically put, Ablabius (his opponent,

St. John Chrysostom — for God is simple

Below is part of the introductory section to my exposition of John Chrysostom’s doctrine of God. I posted it because I thought it was fascinating to find such an important theologian known for avoiding (even having a disdain of) speculative theology refer to the classical doctrine of divine simplicity as common place in his thoroughly biblical doctrine of God. Toward the end I include a link to my full exposition. John Chrysostom (ca. 347–407) was the archbishop of Constantinople. Being the most prolific of all the Eastern fathers, he fought against the ecclesiastical and political leaders for their abuse of authority. He was called Chrysostom (meaning “golden-mouthed”) for his eloquent sermons. [1] This most distinguished of Greek patristic preachers excelled in spiritual and moral application in the Antiochene tradition of literal exegesis, largely disinterested, even untutored in speculative and controversial theology. [2] On the Incomprehensible Nature of G

John 17:3 – Eternal Life is Knowing God and Christ–the One, True God

John 17:1–5. “ Jesus spoke these things, looked up to heaven, and said, “Father, the hour has come. Glorify your Son so that the Son may glorify you, since you gave him authority over all people, so that he may give eternal life to everyone you have given him. This is eternal life: that they may know you, the only true God, and the one you have sent—Jesus Christ. I have glorified you on the earth by completing the work you gave me to do. Now, Father, glorify me in your presence with that glory I had with you before the world existed .”

A Brief Exposition of Augustine's Doctrine of Divine Immutability

To much of the Western world, Augustine has no rival. He is the preeminent—uninspired—theologian of the Christian faith. When reading the titans of the church—i.e., Aquinas, Luther, and Calvin—Augustine’s theology and ideas are voluminously parroted all throughout their writings. His influence is unparalleled. Even the secular world sees Augustine as a mammoth figure in the shaping of human history. And its Augustine’s doctrine of God we will divert our attention to, looking specifically at his articulation of divine immutability Augustine’s doctrine of God is classical, through and through. He writes, “There is One invisible, from whom, as the Creator and First Cause, all things seen by us derive their being: He is supreme, eternal, unchangeable, and comprehensible by none save Himself alone” ( Ep . 232.5).[1] When reading his works, the doctrine of immutability is paramount, coming forth repeatedly. For Augustine, immutability, or God’s unchangeableness, is consequential

Gregory of Nazianzus: The Trinity - Not a Collection of Elements

Gregory of Nazianzus One of the Cappadocian fathers, Gregory of Nazianzus (c.330–389), given the title, “The Theologian,” was instrumental in the development of the doctrine of the Trinity, specifically the distinct terms to describe the Persons of the Godhead (Unbegotten, eternally begotten, and procession). Gregory’s main contribution to the development of Christology was in his opposition to Apollinarius. He argued that when Adam fell, all of humanity fell in him; therefore, that fallen nature must be fully united to the Son—body, soul, and mind; ‘for the unassumed is the unhealed’. Gregory’s Doctrine of the Trinity His clearest statement on the Trinity is found in his Oration 25.15–18. Oration 25 is part of a series of sermons delivered in 380. As a gesture of gratitude, Gregory dedicates Oration 25 to Christian philosopher Maximus the Cynic, as a sort of ‘charge’ for him to push forward and remain strong in the orthodox teachings of the faith. And these sections are that or

First Timothy 2:12 - On Women in the Pastorate - A Critical Response to Nijay Gupta

Does 1 Timothy 2:12 prohibit women from leading and preaching over men in the church? I recently posted an article examining an approach to this question, specifically evaluating interpretive consistency. In the article, I looked at two passages that appealed to the Old Testament to support the claim being made in the text. The point of the blog post was to shed light on an inconsistency of interpretation by looking at one common argument from the Bible in favor of women in the pastorate and another biblical argument supporting the view of monogamous marriage, between one man and one woman. My general observation is that many Christians who advance this particular argument, allowing for women in the pastorate, also affirm the particular argument for the biblical view of marriage. They both have the same methodological starting point; however, both arrive at their conclusions in completely different ways, demonstrating interpretive inconsistency, which I conclude ste

Ambrose: A Nicene Defense of Jesus Not Knowing the Day or the Hour ~ Mark 13:32

Ambrose (c. 339–397), was Bishop of Milan (northern Italy). His name is familiar to many because of Augustine, in that it was through Ambrose’s preaching that Augustine was saved by the gospel. Ambrose was a rigorous exponent of Nicene orthodoxy, and as with his other contemporaries, he was an ardent opponent against Arianism. His works, therefore, were aimed at refuting Arian heresy, paying special attention to the exposition and defense of the divinity of Christ and the Trinity. In his most prominent work, The Exposition of the Christian Faith (abbr. De fide ), Ambrose makes a lucid, scripturally saturated articulation of the Christian faith couched in Nicene orthodoxy. De fide is devoted to proving the full divinity of Christ, co-equal in substance, wisdom, power, and glory as God the Father, derived through elucidating the plain sense of the text. Ambrose’s aim is polemical and apologetic, addressing and refuting objections from the Arians. This post will ex

Isaiah 45:7 - “ . . . I make peace, and create evil.” — Does God create evil?

My daughter watched a video this morning where a deconstructionist, an ex vangelical, was attempting to profane the goodness of God, by pointing out that Isaiah 45:7 says God creates evil. She was referring to the KJV version of this passage which says, “I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things.” So, what do we do with that? Below is a brief response. Proper biblical interpretation considers context when seeking the meaning of a passage. Furthermore, when it comes to difficult or obscure passages, a helpful rule of interpretation is to look to the plainer passages of the Bible and draw examples from them to shed light on the more obscure passages ( thanks Augustine ). We let Scripture interpret Scripture. The point is to remove all hesitation on doubtful passages. So, in this passage, on the face it seems to imply that God creates evil, thus making God evil. But is that what the Bible teaches about God? The plainer passages te

Boethius: The Logic of Unity and Plurality in One God

In the “Introduction” to a standard English translation of Boethius’ Theological Tractates and the Consolation of Philosophy , it is stated that “Boethius was the last of the Roman philosophers, and the first of the scholastic theologians” (X). Philosophy is aimed at explaining the nature of the world ( the natural ). Theology’s aim is to understand and explain doctrines delivered by divine revelation ( the supernatural ). Boethius was the seminal figure in preparing the way for the synthesis of these two disciplines, with philosophy serving the task of theology (i.e., the handmaiden to the King of sciences) .

Piper vs. Calvin: The Role of Good Works in Salvation

In his book Future Grace , John Piper writes, “Faith alone is the instrument that unites us to Christ who is our righteousness and the ground of our justification. But the purity of life that confirms faith’s reality is also essential for final salvation , not as the ground of our right standing, but as the fruit and evidence that we are vitally united by faith to Christ who alone is the ground of our acceptance with God.” [1] His purpose in writing that statement is to “explode the great error that says . . . [y]ou get your justification by faith, and you get your sanctification by works. You start the Christian life in the power of the Spirit, you press on in the efforts of the flesh.” [2] The emphasized portion above (and other such statements) has raised critical concerns over Piper’s Reformed theology in that his words seem to veer away from orthodox Reformed teaching. These critics contend Piper teaches a two-stage justification where one is “ initially justified by grace alon

Read. Reflect. Write.

Search This Blog