As I see it, the big issue in the debate over women in church leadership (whether as pastors or local elders) is God’s Sovereignty.
A fundamental question that nobody seems to ask is whether God has asked us to regulate who leads his church. I believe the answer is “no”. God never ordained a prophet choosing committee in ancient Israel. Nor did he ordain a nominating committee in the New Testament church. Instead, Paul makes quite a point of the Holy Spirit’s sovereignty over the selection of church leaders (see 1 Corinthians 12). I suggest that our job is simply to recognize the individuals God has gifted with leadership. The biblical qualifications for leadership office are simply keys to recognize the character and qualities of godliness.
Arguments are made from Paul’s words that women should never lead God’s people in the capacity of elder or pastor. And arguments are made from both Old Testament and New Testament examples that God has used women in every role contained in the office of elder or pastor.
Here is the key issue for me: If the exclusion of women from these leadership roles had been made a matter of policy in ancient Israel, God’s people would have never accepted his chosen female leaders. In the same way, in Adventist history, if such restrictions had been in place, God’s people would have been forced to reject God’s leadership through Ellen White.
The problem is that we are trying to regulate something God never intended us to rule. The Spirit is sovereign over who he chooses. It is our part to follow where we see evidence of his leading.
Perhaps the fact that he retains sovereignty over this is why the Bible does not make it clear (why a case can be made for either side of the issue from the same Bible).
Am I arguing for permission? Yes, but only as we see the Spirit lead. If God never chooses another woman as primary leader of his church, our prayerful perception will tell us so. If God does choose women to lead, prayerful recognition of the Spirit’s work in their lives will reveal that as well.
Question #3: Is it God’s purpose that we try to live under the curse or that we try to rise above it?
Whatever answer we choose we must apply to all the stipulations of the curse. It’s not consistent to argue that God wants us to live under some and rise above others. So, we must be willing to accept the broad implications of whatever answer we give.
The stipulations of the curse as they relate to humans are as follows (see Genesis 3):
Pain in childbirth
Husband ruling the wife
Painful work to eat
Death
To be consistent in how we apply the curse, we must either accept all stipulations as binding or view all of them as pains to rise above. This means that, if we argue it’s God’s will for men to rule over their women, we must also argue against pain medication for childbirth, methods that make food gathering easier (like tractors and supermarkets), and efforts to save sick patients from death.
Question #2: Does the statement of the curse that Adam would rule over Eve apply outside the marriage relationship?
Answers to this question often lack consistency and biblical evidence. They tend to be selective and speculative. Whatever answer we choose must be both biblical and consistently applied.
First, consistency: If all women are to be ruled by all men, we must be willing to accept the implications of this in every situation. We should not interpret this rulership to mean that all men have authority over all women in a church setting while still claiming all men do not have authority over all women in other areas. The implications of accepting the broad male headship required to apply the Genesis 3 order to the church are dizzying. If we are to broaden it far enough beyond the marriage context to reach the church setting, we must do the same in other aspects of society. If a person can’t serve two masters, then what about…?
Second, biblical evidence: God tells the woman, “Your desire will be for your husband, and he will rule over you” (Genesis 3:16 NIV). The word translated “husband” always means “husband” (not the generic “man”) when a wife is present in the text. Furthermore, God states it in the possessive (”your husband”), leaving no textual reason to extend the rulership outside marriage. Adding force to the inappropriateness of applying this male rulership outside marriage are the sexual overtones of the passage. The word used for “desire,” as in “your desire will be for your husband, and he will rule over you,” suggests sexual longing. See Song of Solomon 7:11 for another example of this word.
In summary, if the Bible does present justification for universal male rulership, it does not appear at the time of the curse.
Question #1: Was Eve subordinate to Adam before sin?
Some suggest that Adam being created first made him more important. This does not hold up to scrutiny because the progression of created things (throughout the six days of Creation) goes from simple to complex and from good to best (with humanity at the apex; Genesis 1-2). So, to argue on the basis of Creation order, you would have to conclude that woman was more important than man. (This might hint at a different than normal understanding of 1 Timothy 2:12-15.)
Others point to the fact that Adam was taken from the ground and Eve from Adam to suggest that Eve was a lesser or subordinate copy of Adam. But the comparison of Adam going from dirt to human vs. Eve going from human to human does not render her inferiority or subordination obvious (unless, of course, one wants to argue that dirt was superior to Adam).
The one explicit description of their relationship, on the other hand, is to call Eve a “helper”. Careful examination of the original Hebrew term shows that this term carried no idea of subordination. Instead, it is used to describe God in his relationship to humanity (see Genesis 49:25; Exodus 18:4).
The issue of sexuality is larger than sex. I have been listening to a series of lectures on the question of women in ministry. This particular presenter is against the ordination of women to pastoral ministry but I have studied both sides of the debate. Both sides agree that a starting point for understanding the issue is the relationship between man and woman at Creation and the Fall.
I have already noted that it took both male and female to complete God’s image (see Genesis 1:27; 5:1-2), which would imply that God’s representatives are both male and female. But, the debate centers on how that representation should or should not be carried out–especially by women. The questions that swirl around Creation and the Fall are three: Was Eve subordinate to Adam before sin? Does the statement of the curse that Adam would rule over Eve apply outside the marriage relationship? Is it God’s purpose that we try to live under the curse (making it an issue of obedience) or that we try to rise above it (making it an issue of redemption)?
I prefer to give perspective on the questions rather than answer them definitively. I think it is more helpful to clarify the issues and encourage each person to sort it out honestly than it is to draw lines in the sand.
I’ll address these questions in subsequent posts.