Women’s Role in the Church Today
As one examines the biblical account of the province of women both in the religious affairs of ancient Israel and in the early Christian church, it becomes evident that certain limitations were imposed. Clear differences emerge in the responsibilities assigned to the sexes, with the man consistently given a leading role and the woman a subordinate place. How are we to account for these differences?
HUMAN TRADITION OR DIVINE INTENTION?
The long held conservative view accepts all of this as part of God’s arrangement and specific intention. But another explanation that has grown rapidly in acceptance in more recent years seems to better fit the modern concept of equality of the sexes. It is that these differences in religious roles are due merely to cultural traditions of the period, based largely upon Jewish values which themselves have fluctuated and been subject to varied interpretation by their own authorities. Hence, according to this view, today’s practice in the church should not be limited by such traditions, and fully equal privileges of service should be accorded to all so disposed, regardless of gender.
However, if the biblical pattern of a lesser share in religious service is attributed merely to a cultural context, then a number of provocative questions present themselves, which need to be addressed. For example, how are we to explain:
(1) That under the Mosaic Law Covenant, given directly by God more than 16 centuries preceding the New Testament, women were ineligible from becoming priests or underpriests and could not take part in the Levitical services? (Paul alludes directly to this in defending his own strong teaching on this subject – 1 Corinthians 14:34)
The High Priest Aaron and his sons were selected directly by God to minister to Him in the priestly office. (Exodus 28:1,2,40,41) Under the Law arrangement, only male Levites could actively serve in the Tabernacle and Temple ritual sacrifices. (Later synagogue worship was based on this pattern and could be led only by adult male rabbis.) The Law on which these provisions were based did not derive from Jewish custom, but was received by Moses directly from God (Exodus 24:4-8; Deuteronomy 5:3; 16:3) . That the Law stemmed directly from God’s commands is repeatedly emphasized in the Old Testament accounts. (Deuteronomy 6:20-25, Deuteronomy 10:12,13) Every matter of consequence, particularly that pertaining to worship, was covered by the Law and not left to individual judgment or practice.
(2) That Jesus, despite direct statements that he loved the honorable women who ministered to him (such as Mary and Martha – John 11:5) and the high regard evidenced towards women in his teachings and relationships, did not select any from among them in choosing his twelve apostles or evidently the seventy evangelists who were sent out later? (These latter were “publicly appointed” by Christ – Luke 10:1)
(3) That in the early church, almost without exception, we do not hear of women serving as “apostles, prophets, evangelists, pastors and teachers;’ specially given by the Lord “for the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ”? (Ephesians 4:11,12, 1Corinthians 12:28)
(4) Also in the early church, that the elders or pastors, elected by a church assembly (or “appointed” by raising hands in the congregation) were always limited to men? Why were women excluded from being such active servants in leadership and formal teaching responsibilities?. (Thus Titus 1:5-9, 1Timothy 3:1-7)
(5) That the Apostle Paul could maintain that his teaching on this subject (that women be “silent” in the churches and assume a subordinate role to qualified men) was not based on his own personal opinion (or customs of the time), but on the commandment he had received from the Lord? (1 Corinthians 14:34-37, 1 Timothy 2:11,12)
A SEEMING PARADOX
Our understanding is that these limitations to the service of women go beyond mere cultural traditions and were specifically commanded of God. However, they were designed to apply only in the formal teaching atmosphere of the church and public religious services. In every other way, the sisters are privileged to participate in worship and praise, and in “labor in the Lord” to the full extent of their capability. They are to be “helpers” and “church servants” in varied aspects of the ministry. (Romans 16:1-3) This includes assisting in various witnessing activities, comforting those with special needs, entertaining brethren at convention gatherings, and the like. The sisters may be active participants in Bible studies and in testimony meetings. And of course, they are especially gifted in working with children.
It is also evident that God is not a respecter of persons in His calling and He makes no distinction as to race, color, sex or nationality. (Galatians 3:28) All have the “one hope;” the “one Lord” and the “one faith”. (Ephesians 4:4,5) Both men and women alike are baptized into the “one body” of which Jesus is the head. They both share in the “glory, honor and immortality” (Romans 2:7) to be awarded to the faithful in the “First Resurrection.” Both will be “priests of God and of Christ, and shall reign with him a thousand years”. (Revelation 20:6) And there will be no differences at all in the eternal ages to come.
Why, then, it may be asked, should God have placed any restrictions whatever on the present services of sisters in the Gospel church and upon the women of ancient Israel? If this is not due to any discrimination on God’s part, and yet He has clearly set forth limitations on the role of women, how are we to understand this seeming paradox? The answer is provided by the Apostle Paul, who clearly shows that any differences along the line of gender in church responsibilities are due merely to the symbology represented by the respective sexes.
THE SCRIPTURAL ANSWER
In Ephesians 5:22-32, Paul outlines the beautiful relationship between Christ and the church, revealing the biblical pattern wherein the man symbolizes Christ as the head and the woman symbolizes the church as his body. (See also 1 Corinthians 11:3) By divine appointment and order, the church is always to be subservient to her Lord and respectful of his headship. It would simply not be appropriate for the church ever to attempt to teach her Lord and Master. Even so, the woman, who symbolizes the church, is not to assume teaching authority over the man, as it would violate this higher relationship instituted of God. In carrying out this picture, only the man is permitted formally to preach and teach along spiritual lines in the services of the congregation.
When this principle is understood, it illuminates the seeming discrepancy in the divine commandment of distinguishing unique roles of the sexes in the church. The man and the woman are being used to portray higher and deeper truths in God’s arrangement, reflecting the special relationship existing between Christ and the church. From this standpoint, it has well been said that “no sister need feel slighted and no brother may feel puffed up by this Scripture regulation – rather, all will have in mind that the Lord is the only teacher and that the brethren dare not utter wisdom of their own, but merely present to others that which their Head sets forth as the Truth” (Scripture Studies Volume 6, page 270).
FINAL THOUGHTS
Whereas the foregoing represents the normal practice and understanding within the Bible Student fellowship, we should note that special circumstances may warrant modifications for the general spiritual welfare of the group. In the makeup of a local congregation, there simply may not be any qualified brothers available to lead the meetings. The male gender in itself should not be used as the sole criterion, if such person is not fully consecrated, spiritually knowledgeable and suited for the task. In such a situation, it would be entirely proper for a capable sister, mature and grounded in the faith, to accept the leadership role for however long required. Specific counsel covering such eventuality has been provided by our Pastor (see Reprints page 1902).
Finally, returning to the Apostle Paul’s inspired explanation of this whole subject, we see how it removes the seeming paradox, demonstrates God’s purpose in the arrangement, and thus to that extent sheds light on the “great mystery… concerning Christ and the Church”. (Ephesians 5:32) In this we may find satisfaction and contentment, to the glory of our God.
– Charles Redeker