WOMEN AS CHURCH ELDERS: WHAT DID JESUS DO?
Steve Behlke
August 09, 2008
Click here to read PT 1:Wonderful Women and Church Leadership and it's the comments.
The question is not what do you think but what does God think? What did Jesus do? And what does Holy Writ actually say about women as elders, primary pastors, bishops, or overseers?
After asking this question I've been reminded that it is easier:
To say what we think rather than what God actually says, whether we agree or not...
To believe we are right, no matter what our view, and everyone else is wrong...
To change the meaning of Scripture than to change our mind...
To believe there are no absolutes, nobody knows the answer, so I'll believe what I want and you believe what you want.
And this goes way beyond our beliefs about women and church leadership and biblical interpretation.
But let's get to our matter: What did Jesus do in this regard? And which women did He set over the church as leaders?
First, it must be stated that Jesus didn't appoint anyone to be an elder over the church. God used Paul and the early churches to appoint elders. However, Jesus did choose Twelve Apostles. So that's what we'll go with for today.
Now Jesus was no male chauvenist, that title does not stick, but He only chose men to be His Apostles. Each of the Twelve that Jesus Christ appointed to be Apostles were men.
And listen, it's not that He did not have some good and godly and gifted women to choose from. When you consider the twelve guys that Jesus chose, frankly, I don't think their goodness, godliness, or giftedness had anything to do with their selection! They weren't brainiacs or spiritual giants either. I think Martha could have ran circles around John in the area of busyness and service. Her sister Mary probably towered over Peter in terms of spirituality and listening to Jesus.
But the simple fact remains, Jesus Christ chose 12 men to be His apostles.
Again, Jesus was not lacking good women around Him, nor was He chauvenistic or biased or bound by His culture. He broke every other cultural rule, so He certainly could have broken this one! In fact, I'm almost surprised that He didn't. But He had His reasons.
As far as woman as humans, as Christians, as people of worth and value and love and friendship and honor are concerned, there is no doubt that Jesus loved and honored and gave value to women! We cannot fathom how scandalously cross-cultural Jesus' encounters and friendships with women were! Christ was a liberator of women — as well as other mistreated, marginalized, vulnerable, low-on-the-cultural-totem-pole, at-risk, persons.
Jesus was a liberator but not a woman's libber. That's pushing an agenda which slips right off of Him, that's airbrushing Jesus, that's reimaging Christ to our liking.
Here's some beautiful realities regarding Jesus and His esteem of women:
Two of His BFFs were women (Martha and Mary). There were others too, there was Mary (no, not his mother), and the other Mary, and the other Mary too.
Jesus taught women, Martha's sister Mary is an incredible example. Jesus' Mother is an example of obedience. Another woman would be mentioned for her extravagant worship of Christ for all time.
Jesus healed the woman who had been sick and bleeding for twelve years.
Jesus was the only one to defend a women who was busted in adultery, a pretty scandalous and substantial sin (at least, in her husband's and in her community's eyes).
He was questioned by his own followers for talking to the woman at the well.
He received support from Mary of Magdalene (whom He healed of evil spirits and sickness), Joanna, and Susanna.
The religious leaders mocked Jesus for letting a prostitute touch Him, weeping in gratitude at His feet.
Mary, His "mother" was blessed to carry "God the infant Jesus Christ" in her womb and to nurse Him at her breast.
The first people that Jesus showed Himself to after His resurrection were women!
The last person that Jesus spoke directly to before giving up His Spirit on the cross was a woman.
So Jesus' opinion of the fairest is not sexest or biased and those who care about this should rejoice...
But which women did Jesus choose to be His apostles? None, all twelve were men. This is not a slap in the face of women, Jesus didn't do rude things like that.
Did Jesus confer upon any woman rule and authority in the church? Not that I have been shown. Again, this is not a minimizing of women, Jesus didn't think that way.
And among the women stated above, there is no sense that they were anything but blessed and graced and honored by God! There is no way that what they did was small and insignificant or that they were second-class Christians or given the wrong end of the stick because they weren't chosen to be one of the Twelve. Even after Judas hung himself, the Eleven sought another Apostle who had to be "a man" who had accompanied them and seen Jesus Christ from first to last (Acts 1:21).
So Jesus taught women, ministered to women, received ministry from women, honored and protected and valued women. He went out of his way to speak to women and to heal women and to reconcile women to the Father.
But there is no passage that I am aware of by which Jesus sets up women to be apostles or primary leaders in the church.
There is much more to be addressed, looked at, interpreted, and understood on this matter. And we will address this together after I return from Lake Winnepa-Something.
But the question that arises at this point, and I think it's always significant, is does Jesus matter?!
Hopefully we all say yes (and mean it) but for now, how much weight should be given to what Jesus did or did not do? Then what about the New Testament? And what about the New Testament Church? And what about some of those other things, cultural things, like women wearing a veil and stuff? I'll await addressing some of these until next week.
Have Fun. Turn your eyes upon Jesus. Be filled with love. Be angry (if you must) but do not sin. 
Someone else is also having the same discussion : )
I enjoyed the reasoning of both sides- it defineately is a point for a thesis for someone. (Maybe a woman in theology school : ) Ahhh is she wasting her money if she can't get a job ; )
http://www.carm.org/questions/womenpastors2.htm
It has heaps of info, and scriptural references in there. A discussion back and forth
of the arguments for and for not the ordination or women elders.
Some churches out there always have a male "head" Pastor and subordinate pastors that are women are obviously subject to them. But not all churches have what is called elders- we had a "vestry" in our old church which was more like a "congress" or elected term of 2-4 years as representatives. Women and men were chosen, their roles were certainly not the same as what we know to be elders at CC. It was a entirely different demomination, I think the role was more vision, finance and maybe accountablity. Not primary teaching. I think in that we are not affiliated with
any denomination, and are made up of many backgrounds we should align ourselves strictly with the scriptures because that is what we are accountable to.
I am sure you agree.
Of course I sprout at the mouth with what I think (and fail to beef my point with scripture)- my apologies. My thing is that everyone reads the scripture differently. And I am no PHD in scripture- so I will trust that since you are we should trust your lead.
And for this is why I went into art....there are no mistakes in art!
Yours truly, cheeky parishonette.
Reply to this
I wish my old art teacher in high school believed there is no mistake in art
Hey cheeky, you're right, those vestry roles are different than elder roles of shepherding, overseeing, and authority.
Doctorate or not, Scripture guides us. Yes, we can interpret it differently, especially if we come at Scripture with preset ideas. We all do. A huge part of biblical interpretation is losing these things and learning from the text, from the Teacher, humbly, honestly, submitting to the text and the Spirit, looking through the text to God.
Pre-fixed beliefs have more to do with variants of interpretation than the unclarity of the text.
Good words, trust Christ, submit to Scripture, and so long as I do both, walk with me and I'll walk with you, as long as we're following Jesus and nothing else.
Reply to this
An answer from my past church's view on women in leadership- take it or leave it, but this is how I see it and view it.
Now to try to answer your question. Often the issue of women in leadership is posed as a problem based on Paul's take in his letters. Some people would equate the women's issue with the issue of homosexuality. If we now allow women in leadership then why can't we accept gay people as living a perfectly acceptable alternative lifestyle.
Well, the issue goes further. If you look at all of scripture and not at just Paul's writings, we actually see a significant position for women to play. Eve was made from Adam's side-not his head to dominate him, not from his feet so that he could dominate her. The fact that Eve was made from Adam's side is a Hebraic way of saying that they were equals--complementary but equal. If you look the book of Judges, you find that Deborah was one of the early judges over Israel. A woman in leadership. Rahab plays an important role in enabling Joshua to conquer Jericho. Esther and Ruth are helf up as models for faithful Jewish behavior and life choices. The geneaology of Jesus articulates the importance of Mary in her role in being the "Theotokos", the God-bearer. In the gospels, especially in Luke, we see a picture emerge in which Jesus invests in women in a significant manner. Mary Magdalene, the woman at the well in John 17, the woman caught in adultery, Mary and Martha. Luke's gos pel also tells us that as Jesus went preaching with the disciples, a band of women accompanied them.
When Paul writes about women needing to hold their tongues in church, he is clearly talking from the perspective of his culture-which was deeply patriarchal. He operated completely within the confines of his times. A narrow reading of Paul alone can lead us to the conclusion that women should be in leadersip. I believe a wider look at all of scripture leads us to the understanding that we can see women as faithful observant and Christ-filled and Christ-reflecting presences, fully capable of leading God's people.
So how is this different from homosexuality. Well, in the case of women, we see that when we look at all of scripture women do have a place for leadership. It is only when we constrict our understanding of women to a few verses by Paul that we see that as a limiting factor.
ON the other hand NOWHERE in scripture is a homosexual lifestyle understood as good. Nowhere, Not in the Old or New Testament.
Con't due to 3000 limit! See next submission.
Reply to this
Part 2 of email from Rector.
Also, some scholars divide he "law" of God into two separate blocks. God's moral law, and ceremonial law. God's moral law is unchangeable. The 10 commandments can not be seen as anything but God's certain expectation of his people. On the other hand the ceremonial law of Israel is seen as changeable. WE are allowed to eat pork today, something the Old Testament prohibits. Because Jesus has fulfilled the law. And the issue of women in leadership is not a moral law, it is a ceremonial law. It has to do with how Israel worships. And in this sesne it is that part of the law which is open to newere interpretations in our times.
So moral law never changes. Ceremonial law on the other hand may change.
I hope this proved helpful- probably not, but thanks for your openess!
Oh, and Pastor Steve, any art done that to you might seem like "a mistake" really if critiqued in a loving and open way is just an expression of the artist. That's why there's no mistakes in art. Sorry your art teacher couldn't appreciate your expressive art!
Parishonette
Reply to this
"First, it must be stated that Jesus didn't appoint anyone to be an elder over the church. God used Paul and the early churches to appoint elders."
This is an excellent and significant point. Jesus was light on bureaucracy. We do know that while he appointed 12 Jewish males to be Apostles, he had many followers -- at least 70 of whom (with unspecified gender) were appointed to missionary/preaching work in Luke 10, under no authority but Christ's.
Jesus moved ahead of the culture. Mary, Martha's sister, took the posture of a disciple in sitting at Jesus' feet (also in Lk 10). He chose women to be the first messengers of his resurrection (Mt 28, Jn 20, etc).
Paul's writings can be difficult to apply without interpretation, as they were originally written to specific situations. I will throw out there, however, that Junias is called "outstanding among the apostles" (a female name; Rm 16:7). Similarly, it can be difficult to dismiss Tryphena and Tryphosa, as Paul often describes himself as "working hard for the Lord".
I find Dr William J Webb's work on the redemptive-movement hermeneutic to be helpful ("Slaves, Women and Homosexuals" is the title of his book.) I'll also say that while I disagree with many, I do appreciate the commitment to love that shines through this discussion (even though I missed the window for replying on the earlier post).
Reply to this
KT, great comments!
But regarding Junias, it is difficult to say that it is a female or that he/she is an apostle. The name Junias is, I believe, masculine. I've seen it both ways.
Hey, I'm at home now, with a not-so-familiar NKJV open next to me. But it mentions that Andronicus and Junia are his fellow "countrymen." And it says they are "of note among the apostles," which, I guess, could mean they were great apostles, which doesn't make sense since we've never heard of them before, or that they were really well known by the apostles. There are a lot of variables on this name and phrase...
See this brief article from Next Bible, footnote 1 on Junia(s): ... (Epiphanius mentions Junias in his Index discipulorum 125). Further, since there are apparently other husband-wife teams mentioned in this salutation (Prisca and Aquila [v. 3], Philologus and Julia [v. 15]), it might be natural to think of Junia as a feminine name. (This ought not be pressed too far, however, for in v. 12 all three individuals are women [though the first two are linked together], and in vv. 9-11 all the individuals are men.) In Greek only a difference of accent distinguishes between Junias (male) and Junia (female). If it refers to a woman, it is possible (1) that she had the gift of apostleship (not the office), or (2) that she was not an apostle but along with Andronicus was esteemed by (or among) the apostles. As well, the term “prominent” probably means “well known,” suggesting that Andronicus and Junia(s) were well known to the apostles (see note on the phrase “well known” which follows).
Reply to this
Those are great points about Junias (I have read them before, and they add to the current discussion). What stands out to me from the note you quoted is that basically, we can't know for certain who Junias was or how she ministered within the church. It comes down to interpretation. I am comfortable believing there are multiple plausible interpretations (even your source mentions multiple).
Here's another way to go at the question: Paul lists spiritual gifts and ministry goals in 1 Cor 12. He says "in the church God has appointed first of all apostles, second prophets, third teachers, then workers of miracles, also those having gifts of healing, those able to help others, those with gifts of administration, and those speaking in different kinds of tongues." When I read this chapter, it seems that his point is that our roles, calling, and gifts come from God, and that these are distributed all throughout the body. He makes no distinction between those that are for all and those that are just for men. Indeed he goes out of his way to say "whether Jews or Greeks, slave or free" (13) we are all equipped for any role God should give.
I know many Christ-centered women (and men) who feel clearly compelled by a calling from God to step into a position of church leadership. Their callings have been affirmed by others around them and by the fruits of their labor; their lives and work are infused with the Holy Spirit. They have gifts that they use to preach, teach, guide and lead. I think we have to be completely certain of a different interpretation before we suggest that they are deceived in what they have heard from God. Perhaps it's helpful to model ourselves upon Peter's response to the anointing of God where he would never have expected it. He says "Can anyone keep these people from being baptized with water? They have received the Holy Spirit just as we have." (Acts 10:47) Perhaps similarly we might need to say "can anyone keep these people from leading and serving in any position within the church and community? For they have received the Holy Spirit just as we have."
Reply to this
Paul vs. Jesus:
Paul's qualifications for deacons make no allowance anywhere for females. Yet his other letters talk about female deacons. His proscriptions are at odds with the reality he himself describes.
What does this mean? That he and/or the church realized he was unnecessarily restrictive? It means something, but what?
Don't gloss over this dichotomy because it doesn't fit with a certain view.
Reply to this
Hi Steve,
I could go to Bible Gateway and cut and paste a number of Bible verses that have already been pasted or written in, but I am more than satisfied with what I believe you entered. That is that Abba is over Jesus, Jesus is over the Man(male) and the Man is over the Woman. Some women might argue that it leaves us women at the bottom of the pecking order. I would never argue for that point of view! For one thing, there is no pecking order in Christ. I venture to guess(I can't prove it with my limited recall and of NT scripture) that there is no concept of pecking order in the NT.
Colossians 3:3 For you have died and your life is hidden with Christ in God. One of my favorite verses (yes I know I wasn't going to cut and paste)has all of us who have died to self carefully and beautifully positioned in God because we are in His son Jesus. That is all of us. No spiritual gifts are mentioned in this passage. It is just very pointed and objective and factual. We are all hidden in GOD because we are in Christ.
If I can trust Jesus Christ enough to die to myself and keep on dying to myself everytime I start to resurrect my old self again, then I can go further and believe that Jesus Christ knew what He was doing when he gathered his twelve men to himself and taught them about the living God and about Heaven and Eternity.
So my point is that we are all one body made up of many parts and that body is hidden with Christ in God. Women don't need to be pastors they have enough to do with being just women. The "just" is not to be demeaning, because just being a woman is an incredible and huge assignment. We women are a beautiful and priceless part of the body of Christ. Marriage and pregnancy isn't for everyone. Sometimes it just can't happen. I don't think that passage I quoted earlier about bearing children and no outward adornment is expressing the whole of womanhood. I think it was about an important cultural thing. But God has made us different from our men and only part of that difference is that we have babies. That alone is awesome. But we women have different hearts then our men. This is why our men need us as JUST WOMEN. We minister differently, we pray differently, we are apt to be far more intuitive and tender. We are still tough and need to be. I think we need a discussion on, "What is a Godly Woman?!
Matthew 5:5 "Blessed are the meek, for they will inherit the earth."--the new one.
God Bless us EVERYONE. Love you all dearly, Edwina
Reply to this
Uh-oh, I feel the fun slipping away . . .
I'm kind of surprised you didn't anticipate the types of reasoning you list at the beginning of this post, and prepare for how to respond, or did you? It's common for seekers and new believers to reason this way.
For instance, most of us are familiar with the "Jesus is Lord, Liar, or Lunatic" presentation. It can take awhile for people to realize those are the only three choices available to them, and we have to be patient as we demonstrate that truth.
The same goes for our choices concerning the view of Scripture. I hope that Teacher and others haven't been alienated--faulty reasoning is something that needs to be pointed out, but in a careful way.
Steve says it's important to him what the word of God says. What Scripture says about these things can't be important only to Steve. It has to be important to all of us, because it IS the word of God. Jesus is the Living Word. We need to keep that in mind.
Steve is soon going to tell us his educated opinion about the proper interpretation of 1 Cor 11, 1 Cor 12, and 1 Tim 2. We can look for God's love in the explanation, because God is love. We should always be deeply suspicious that God's reasons for his designs are rooted in love.
If it seems the reasons are not, we can talk about that.
Reply to this
It is interesting that the CC by-laws do not state that an Elder must be male. "The Board of Elders shall consist of at least seven (7) members of the church, one of whom shall be the Senior Pastor; the exact number being sufficient to fulfill the functions of the board." Is this because we are a cooperation under Mass law and cannot discriminate in our by-laws? The scriptures which follow the Office of Elder do refer to the position as being held by men. I think the Greek work for Elder is masculine.
A reading of scriptures related to "Deacons" also seems to suggest the position should be held by men. Some translations have used the word "Deaconess". The confusion comes in with the meaning of the word as "servant", which is not always an appointed or elected position in the Church. I think the Greek word for Deacon is neither masculine nor feminine. CC elects Elders and Deacons, how was it done in the early church?
Reply to this
Sometimes we imagine that Jesus
"commissioned" the original (eleven) disciples to go out and make disciples teaching them to obey everything Jesus taught. It is most likely that the "500" which Paul speaks of in 1Cor 15 is when Jesus gives the "Great Commission." This means that the last thing Jesus did on earth was commission his followers -- men and women -- to make disciples by teaching them to obey his teachings. I admit that this doesn't *prove* anything, but it's odd that Jesus didn't limit the commission, in the case of women, to make disciples of other women and little children -- like so many churches do.
Reply to this
No doubt, godly women can disciple as well as any man.
Priscilla was a great discipler of Apollos.
Timothy's mom and grandmother were instrumental in his discipleship to Christ.
I'd love to have been discipled under Mary (Martha's sister); in fact, to a degree I have been.
ALL "Christians" are given the Holy Spirit and the Great Commission, not just Christian men!
Reply to this