I'm a woman and I don't have any problems with Jesus's decisions. If I trust everything else about what He did and said then I trust Him on this issue too. Has anyone ever been in a room full of women? It's not always the greatest experience. Besides, I think having this resposnible of leading the church is one that I am happy not to have.
Yes and I agree, not the greatest experience haha. I'm not sure what that has to do with this question though. After all, there could have been 1 woman disciple (as opposed to a whole bunch of them).
I'm not disagreeing though. I actually haven't watched the video yet (forgot my headphones at home today).
There were women disciples for all the reasons Greg mentioned. Magdalene was one, for example.
There were also women apostles. Junia is mentioned in Romans 16, along with her husband Andronicus as "outstanding among the apostles". (There is some recent controversy about whether the passage is actually saying that A and J were merely highly esteemed by the Apostles. But all the early opinion goes the other way...that is, they were highly esteemed as apostles.)
Neither Junia nor Andronicus were of the original 12. Tradition has it that Andronicus was one of the 70. If this tradition is right, then Junia might also have been.
I'm not sure how important being one of the 12 or the 70 is. For one thing, Judas was one of the 12, and we know what happened there. And Paul wasn't even one of the 70, but he is an Apostle in the fullest sense: his writings are treated as God's Own Word.
It seems that the important thing is being an apostle, not what your 'apostle id number' is. And Junia, a woman, was an apostle.
Sort of sad to watch Tom Wright in the Malebranche video using the Bible as a sort of feminist fortune cookie. But when all is said and done the passages cites do not count for women's ordination. Women in ministry, yes, which the church has always allowed. Nicea, as you may recall, addresses the issue of deaconnesses and treats them as non-ordained ministers of a sort. The question is settled there.
You're right TA. The fact that Junia was an apostle, which Wright mentions, does not imply that women should be ordained. I agree with Wright about Junia's status as an apostle, but forgot to add in my post that it doesn't really bear on the issue of the ordination of female pastors. There's no reason to think that Junia was a pastor.
I think you're right as well. Though, I do not believe that Junia was an apostle because I hold that it states that they were known by the apostles, not as, but...again, that is a lesser issue, one of nearly no importance, but rather, even if she was...apostleship in no way implies that ordination should take place. I think that view is only held as assumption by saying, "If she was an apostle, then she has all the right to be ordained!" But this is only arguing from assumption, not Scripture.
So let me get the argument straight. It's okay for women to function as apostles, planting churches and training pastors, but that fact has no bearing on whether or not women can be pastors themselves?
BTW, not sure that it matters whether apostles do train pastors as part of their essential calling.
The fact that A trains B to do X does not imply that A can or should do X himself. A red-haired Irishman could train someone to infiltrate an Al-Quaeda training facility. It doesn't follow from that that the Irishman can or should infiltrate the facility himself. Or is it politically incorrect to say that?
There are plenty of people in this wide world, men and women, that would make great theology profs, but terrible pastors. But certainly, pastors should be trained in theology. Is there something paradoxical in that?
Greg, as much respect as I have for you (and trust me, it is a LOT), I disagree on this subject. First, I don't think the 'positive' evidence of a pattern in OT and elder description in the NT are strong enough to exclude women from a church leadership office (and I don't think I'd label that as 'theological'). Second, the 'negative' evidence are in verses which, either knowing the historical context makes the clear meaning a bit more tricky (and IMO, overturns the 'historical' reading), or, are so obscure that even the best exegetes are left scratching their heads or making good application (ex: 1 Tim 2:15).
Often, when reading Paul and Peter (and others) there is a HUGE pattern of asking Christians to set aside their freedoms in Christ for the sake of Gospel priority (cf. slavery in 1 Peter). Many of the supposed limitations placed on women fit this pattern very well. If so, they weren't meant as a normative for the church, but are asking women to put aside their freedom, due to the effects their not doing so would have on the Gospel's being advanced within the culture (which, if true, would mean the church should be doing EXACTLY OPPOSITE in the culture of today... in other words, not allowing women in pastoral office is the scandal impeding the Gospel today). Also, if one looks at the 'new woman' in Roman society, it lends even more credence to why this would have been such a concern for Paul (cf: Roman Wives, Roman Widows by Bruce Winter).
Third... and this IS theological... what exactly are we saying about women if they are excluded by some of the commonly referenced verses? I'm all for God's decision to save who he wants to save (I'm a Lutheran/Calvinist); I'm all for God's ability to, say, limit the OT Priesthood 'office' to Aron's line or the tabernacle care to the tribe of Levi. (ie: Office). The problem is that the most common arguments in opposition to female church leadership don't go there theologically, but elsewhere. It usually heads towards some inadequacy of women which is hard to square with Genesis 1&2, or the effects of the curse (shouldn't we then work to correct them? Should we smash all our tractors and combines? Get rid of any form of pain relief for women in labor? etc.).
As for male-headship, I agree that an argument can be made for a male headship responsibility within the family (though I'd probably argue that is also more an effect of the fall, than the original intention)... but does this follow to the church? I once had a pastor make the argument to me, 'The husband is the head of the family, as the man is the head of the church.' I said.... wouldn't that be Christ? The analogy just didn't hold, especially by using the marriage language so common in the Bible regarding the Church!
And finally.... IMO, unless this issue can be resolved to crystal clarity (which, IMO, it can not).... do we really want to limit the pool of effective pastors by over half? I know women who have a FAR greater gifting for pastoral ministry than many men who are in the pulpit. I'd far prefer we tighten up the criteria and church discipline on EVERYONE in pastoral office, and pick the best and most faithful from both men and women. I know that is more an experiential argument... but I guess when I stand before God, I'd rather say I made a mistake in exegesis on a difficult subject than have to explain why I worked to exclude over half of God's best servants.
I guess I'd like to think I'm applying Greg's 'never read a Bible verse,' but in a really huge context way... not just a paragraph or two. IMO, opposition to female church leadership tends to get stuck in certain passages without enough context (and when they do, failing to divide prescriptive and descriptive).
As far as apologetics go, I think it is critical that people be able to explain both sides of this issue. People outside the church REALLY don't understand this one, and it tends to give the church a big black eye. Also, there are two positions on this that I think MANY hold which are quite bad (women must be able to because of modern equality movements or women can't because they are inferior... and unfortunately, these are the two views known outside the church)
Thanks for listening, -Steve
(BTW, can't wait to meet you in a few days in Vancouver Greg! I hope my challenging you on this will reflect positively, as I really do tend to agree with you on like 99.5% of everything else you teach.)
I have to say I agree with Steve, not having women in leadership will hurt the gospel.
Interesting to note that there were no gentiles in the 12 either. Does that mean that gentiles (which is practically the entire church nowadays) can't be leaders because the 12 weren't and neither were any of the priests in the old testament.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QaVVXleoAdU
Posted by: Malebranche | February 28, 2011 at 05:01 AM
I'm a woman and I don't have any problems with Jesus's decisions. If I trust everything else about what He did and said then I trust Him on this issue too. Has anyone ever been in a room full of women? It's not always the greatest experience. Besides, I think having this resposnible of leading the church is one that I am happy not to have.
Posted by: Maria | February 28, 2011 at 05:50 AM
Yes and I agree, not the greatest experience haha. I'm not sure what that has to do with this question though. After all, there could have been 1 woman disciple (as opposed to a whole bunch of them).
I'm not disagreeing though. I actually haven't watched the video yet (forgot my headphones at home today).
Posted by: Austin | February 28, 2011 at 06:35 AM
There were women disciples for all the reasons Greg mentioned. Magdalene was one, for example.
There were also women apostles. Junia is mentioned in Romans 16, along with her husband Andronicus as "outstanding among the apostles". (There is some recent controversy about whether the passage is actually saying that A and J were merely highly esteemed by the Apostles. But all the early opinion goes the other way...that is, they were highly esteemed as apostles.)
Neither Junia nor Andronicus were of the original 12. Tradition has it that Andronicus was one of the 70. If this tradition is right, then Junia might also have been.
I'm not sure how important being one of the 12 or the 70 is. For one thing, Judas was one of the 12, and we know what happened there. And Paul wasn't even one of the 70, but he is an Apostle in the fullest sense: his writings are treated as God's Own Word.
It seems that the important thing is being an apostle, not what your 'apostle id number' is. And Junia, a woman, was an apostle.
Posted by: WisdomLover | February 28, 2011 at 02:39 PM
Sort of sad to watch Tom Wright in the Malebranche video using the Bible as a sort of feminist fortune cookie. But when all is said and done the passages cites do not count for women's ordination. Women in ministry, yes, which the church has always allowed. Nicea, as you may recall, addresses the issue of deaconnesses and treats them as non-ordained ministers of a sort. The question is settled there.
Posted by: Thomas Aquinas | February 28, 2011 at 08:32 PM
You're right TA. The fact that Junia was an apostle, which Wright mentions, does not imply that women should be ordained. I agree with Wright about Junia's status as an apostle, but forgot to add in my post that it doesn't really bear on the issue of the ordination of female pastors. There's no reason to think that Junia was a pastor.
Posted by: WisdomLover | March 01, 2011 at 06:07 AM
WisdomLover,
I think you're right as well. Though, I do not believe that Junia was an apostle because I hold that it states that they were known by the apostles, not as, but...again, that is a lesser issue, one of nearly no importance, but rather, even if she was...apostleship in no way implies that ordination should take place. I think that view is only held as assumption by saying, "If she was an apostle, then she has all the right to be ordained!" But this is only arguing from assumption, not Scripture.
Posted by: Nicholas Potts | March 01, 2011 at 08:45 PM
So let me get the argument straight. It's okay for women to function as apostles, planting churches and training pastors, but that fact has no bearing on whether or not women can be pastors themselves?
I don't follow.
Posted by: brgulker | March 02, 2011 at 01:09 PM
I'm not sure that every apostle planted churches and trained pastors. Some, such as Paul, did. What makes you think they all did?
Posted by: WisdomLover | March 02, 2011 at 04:22 PM
BTW, not sure that it matters whether apostles do train pastors as part of their essential calling.
The fact that A trains B to do X does not imply that A can or should do X himself. A red-haired Irishman could train someone to infiltrate an Al-Quaeda training facility. It doesn't follow from that that the Irishman can or should infiltrate the facility himself. Or is it politically incorrect to say that?
There are plenty of people in this wide world, men and women, that would make great theology profs, but terrible pastors. But certainly, pastors should be trained in theology. Is there something paradoxical in that?
Posted by: WisdomLover | March 02, 2011 at 04:30 PM
Here's another good article by N.T. Wright on the full participation of women in the offices of the church:
http://www.ntwrightpage.com/Wright_Women_Service_Church.htm
Posted by: Malebranche | March 03, 2011 at 05:06 AM
Greg,
Jesus was male in part to fulfill the type/antitype of the 2nd Adam.
Jesus was male in part to fulfill explicit prophecies that pointed to a male figure.
Jesus was male in part to be the Messiah -- prophet, priest, and king which all had male expectation in historic judaism.
Posted by: Johnny D. Hinton | March 03, 2011 at 07:38 AM
Greg, as much respect as I have for you (and trust me, it is a LOT), I disagree on this subject. First, I don't think the 'positive' evidence of a pattern in OT and elder description in the NT are strong enough to exclude women from a church leadership office (and I don't think I'd label that as 'theological'). Second, the 'negative' evidence are in verses which, either knowing the historical context makes the clear meaning a bit more tricky (and IMO, overturns the 'historical' reading), or, are so obscure that even the best exegetes are left scratching their heads or making good application (ex: 1 Tim 2:15).
Often, when reading Paul and Peter (and others) there is a HUGE pattern of asking Christians to set aside their freedoms in Christ for the sake of Gospel priority (cf. slavery in 1 Peter). Many of the supposed limitations placed on women fit this pattern very well. If so, they weren't meant as a normative for the church, but are asking women to put aside their freedom, due to the effects their not doing so would have on the Gospel's being advanced within the culture (which, if true, would mean the church should be doing EXACTLY OPPOSITE in the culture of today... in other words, not allowing women in pastoral office is the scandal impeding the Gospel today). Also, if one looks at the 'new woman' in Roman society, it lends even more credence to why this would have been such a concern for Paul (cf: Roman Wives, Roman Widows by Bruce Winter).
Third... and this IS theological... what exactly are we saying about women if they are excluded by some of the commonly referenced verses? I'm all for God's decision to save who he wants to save (I'm a Lutheran/Calvinist); I'm all for God's ability to, say, limit the OT Priesthood 'office' to Aron's line or the tabernacle care to the tribe of Levi. (ie: Office). The problem is that the most common arguments in opposition to female church leadership don't go there theologically, but elsewhere. It usually heads towards some inadequacy of women which is hard to square with Genesis 1&2, or the effects of the curse (shouldn't we then work to correct them? Should we smash all our tractors and combines? Get rid of any form of pain relief for women in labor? etc.).
As for male-headship, I agree that an argument can be made for a male headship responsibility within the family (though I'd probably argue that is also more an effect of the fall, than the original intention)... but does this follow to the church? I once had a pastor make the argument to me, 'The husband is the head of the family, as the man is the head of the church.' I said.... wouldn't that be Christ? The analogy just didn't hold, especially by using the marriage language so common in the Bible regarding the Church!
And finally.... IMO, unless this issue can be resolved to crystal clarity (which, IMO, it can not).... do we really want to limit the pool of effective pastors by over half? I know women who have a FAR greater gifting for pastoral ministry than many men who are in the pulpit. I'd far prefer we tighten up the criteria and church discipline on EVERYONE in pastoral office, and pick the best and most faithful from both men and women. I know that is more an experiential argument... but I guess when I stand before God, I'd rather say I made a mistake in exegesis on a difficult subject than have to explain why I worked to exclude over half of God's best servants.
I guess I'd like to think I'm applying Greg's 'never read a Bible verse,' but in a really huge context way... not just a paragraph or two. IMO, opposition to female church leadership tends to get stuck in certain passages without enough context (and when they do, failing to divide prescriptive and descriptive).
As far as apologetics go, I think it is critical that people be able to explain both sides of this issue. People outside the church REALLY don't understand this one, and it tends to give the church a big black eye. Also, there are two positions on this that I think MANY hold which are quite bad (women must be able to because of modern equality movements or women can't because they are inferior... and unfortunately, these are the two views known outside the church)
Thanks for listening, -Steve
(BTW, can't wait to meet you in a few days in Vancouver Greg! I hope my challenging you on this will reflect positively, as I really do tend to agree with you on like 99.5% of everything else you teach.)
Posted by: Steve Wilkinson | March 03, 2011 at 09:41 AM
I have to say I agree with Steve, not having women in leadership will hurt the gospel.
Interesting to note that there were no gentiles in the 12 either. Does that mean that gentiles (which is practically the entire church nowadays) can't be leaders because the 12 weren't and neither were any of the priests in the old testament.
Posted by: Marie | March 04, 2011 at 12:48 PM