Women in Leadership

All Souls Church

June, 2008

The Study Team proposes that All Souls Church adopt a policy that no person be excluded from any position, office, or role, including pastor, on the basis of gender. June 10, 2008.

In a position paper approved in June of 1984, the Evangelical Presbyterian Church affirmed that “while some churches may ordain women and some may decline to do so, neither position is essential to the existence of the church. Since people of good faith who equally love the Lord and hold to the infallibility of Scripture differ on this issue… the EPC has chosen to leave this decision to the Spirit-guided consciences of particular congregations concerning the ordination of women as elders and deacons, and to the presbyteries concerning the ordination of women as ministers.”[1]

The EPC wisely points out that the question of women in leadership is a secondary issue for evangelicals.  Good Christians clearly see this question differently.  Local churches, however, must clarify their own beliefs about women in leadership.  The Study Team has served us well by articulating a position on women in leadership that is both faithful to scripture and consistent with the founding beliefs and vision of All Souls Church. I propose, therefore, that we adopt the Study Team’s recommendation.

The first reason why I propose adopting the Study Team’s recommendation is because it is based upon a reasonable interpretation of the relevant biblical texts and is situated within an interpretive tradition that is embraced by many evangelicals. While it is true that several New Testament texts limit women’s leadership in the local church (for example, 1 Timothy 2:11-12) many New Testament scholars see these prohibitions as culturally relative and not normative for all times.  Gordon Fee makes this point in How to Read the Bible for All It’s Worth.

…that 1 Timothy 2:11-12 might be culturally relative can be supported…by exegesis of all three of the Pastoral Epistles. Certain women were troublesome in the church at Ephesus (1 Tim. 5:11-15; 2 Tim. 3:6-9) and they appear to have been a major part of the false teachers’ making headway there. Since women are found teaching (Acts 18:26) and prophesying (Acts 21:8; 1 Cor. 11:5) elsewhere in the New Testament, it is altogether likely that 1 Timothy 2:11-12 speaks to a local problem.  In any case, the guidelines above (the principles for interpreting scripture) support the possibility that the prohibition in 1 Timothy 2:11-12 is culturally relative.[2]

In a similar vein, Gilbert Bilezikian, in his book Beyond Sex Roles, argues that texts like 1 Timothy 2:11-12 should be interpreted in light of the “inaugural statements” of the new community. These inaugural statements are sweeping, manifesto-like pronouncements given at great turning points in redemptive history. They are, therefore, more normative than texts that are situated in a particular local context. Bilezikian explains the function of these kinds of texts as follows:

At the moments of the church’s reception of the Holy Spirit (Pentecost) and of the reception of the believes into the church (baptism), constitutional declarations are articulated about the nature of relations within the church, thus defining the distinctive nature of the new community as a body where equality and unity prevail…These two inaugural statements celebrate the newness of life in that one body, the recovery of the ideal of mutuality in equality.[3]

The first inaugural statement is found in Acts 2:15-21. Peter, interpreting the events of Pentecost, cites the Prophet Joel: “And on the last days it shall be, God declares, that I will pour out my Spirit on all flesh, and your sons and your daughters shall prophesy.” Bilizekian observes that “the change brought about in the time of the Spirit is that male and female receive the prophetic call without any discrimination.”  Furthermore, Joel is envisioning a day when “the disparities between male and female will be abolished to the extent that both will model the energizing impact of the Holy Spirit as symbolized in prophetic ministry.”[4] One of the marks of new covenant ministry, then, is the full partnership of men in women in prophetic ministry.

The second inaugural text is Galatians 3:28: The main theme of the passage concerns the new identity believers enjoy because of Christ. Some scholars believe this text was a creed early Christians recited at their baptism. In this pivotal text, Paul rejoices that “there is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is neither male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus.”

In the new community, the hierarchy introduced into sexual relationships as a result of the fall is replaced by mutuality.  In Christ, a new social order is introduced into the church.  Yet does this passage support women in leadership in the church? F.F. Bruce, in his commentary on Galatians, acknowledges that “it has been argued that these words relate only to the common access of men and women to baptism.” This argument, he concludes, is unfounded. “No more restriction is implied in Paul’s equalizing the status of male and female in Christ” Bruce writes, “than in his equalizing the status of Jew and Gentile…if a Gentile may exercise spiritual leadership in church as freely as a Jew…why not a woman as freely as a man?”  Bruce concludes by agreeing with Bilezikian’s contention that the Galatians text ought to be the one churches begin with when thinking about women in leadership. “Paul states the basic principle here” Bruce writes. “If restrictions on it are found elsewhere in the Pauline corpus…they are to be understood in relation to Galatians 3:28 and not vice versa.”[5]

These inaugural texts envision a new community in which both men and women are free to serve in every capacity according to their gifts. The Study Team’s recommendation that women not be excluded from leadership on the basis of their gender reflects the plain sense of these inaugural texts.

The second reason why I propose adopting the Study Team recommendation is because it is consistent with the founding beliefs and vision of All Souls Church.  I asked John Wood to clarify that vision for me. Here is his response: 

In envisioning and initially organizing All Souls, we talked of a congregation where men and women could use their gifts of ministry and pursue their calling unhindered by traditional interpretations of ordination that prevented women from full partnership in ministry. It was my understanding and hope from those discussions that - whatever language might eventually be chosen to recognize and set apart those called to lead and teach - there would be no bar hindering biblically qualified women from serving along side biblically qualified men. I believe that Paul prohibited women from holding office for the same reason he insisted that women cover their heads, avoid braided hair and the wearing of jewelry: so as not to cause cultural scandal that would hinder the message of the gospel. In our age it would seem that demanding head coverings for women, handing down dress codes and prohibiting women from office would be sources of comparable cultural scandal and hindrance to the message of the gospel.[6]

            John and I frequently discussed this vision of an evangelical, urban church in which women share full partnership with men in ministry as we prepared for the launch of All Souls.  This vision is one of the primary reasons I was drawn to All Souls.  This is the vision I have taught the new members in the Pilgrimage classes from the beginning, until our retreat in April of 2007, when some expressed concerning about women preaching or being called elders.  After this, I reluctantly refrained, unsure of what to say.

            The Study Team recommendation does not break new ground.  It simply articulates the vision for women in leadership that our church began with.  I do not wish to infer that John and my beliefs on these matters weigh more than the beliefs of others on the board.  But I do think that the current leaders of a church ought to take seriously the doctrinal vision upon which the church was founded, and depart from that vision only after the greatest deliberation.

            The Study Team’s recommendation can be supported biblically and is consistent with the original vision of our church.  Most members of our church assume that this is what we already believe and practice; many have come to All Souls because we affirm full partnership of women in ministry. The question at hand is a secondary issue and affirming the recommendation does not require anyone to violate a belief central to orthodoxy. I urge us therefore to accept the Study Team’s recommendation.