Egalitarian In Essence, Purpose, & Relation To God... But Not Function

Recently there has been a movement within evangelicalism that has caused the traditional forms of church government to be reexamined. This specific new movement, known as egalitarianism, has questioned the traditionalist view that only men are able to hold positions of leadership within the church. Egalitarians see the hierarchal distinctions established in the world today as a result of the fall and not how God originally intended it to be. Since men and women were both equally created in the image of God, and both equally given the command to have dominion over creation (Gen. 1:26-27), it appears that God’s original intentions were to establish a unity in equality and roles. In Christ, the fall’s plague upon man in creating this patriartical society was finally abolished. There is no longer male and female in Christ (Gal. 3:28). For the egalitarian, this represents the social distinctions that are being renewed. From this basis, the possibility of a woman entering authoritative fields of leadership within the church is no longer something that should be shunned due to the work that Christ did to abolish such distinctions.This has lead to a new wave of exegesis of the applicable texts. With this growing influence it is important to understand what the bible is teaching on the subject systematically. The egalitarian movement jeopardizes both the inerrancy and the clarity of scripture because the clearest readings of the text are being challenged and because some egalitarians (not all), have even stated that Paul must have been wrong on the subject, or else he didn’t write it at all. Such a doctrinal position will have great consequences upon the Church, especially in a culture where the relativity of truth is so pervasive.

Key Biblical Evidence

1 Timothy 3:1-13 gives the biblical basis for the specific requirements of both the position of elders and of deacons. Paul gives a list of strong requirements for someone who is aspiring for the noble position of being an elder. He characterizes these requirements by saying that the elder must be above reproach (1 Tim. 3:2). Elders must be married to one wife, and must be able to manage their households well (1 Tim. 3:2, 4). Paul notices that the way in which the aspiring Elder controls his household will have a close tie with how they will control the church (1 Tim. 3:5). Elders are given the highest position within the local church and therefore must not be recent converts (1 Tim. 3:6). These requirements essentially make up the same characteristics for deacons, except Elders must be able to teach (1 Tim. 3:2).

1 Cor. 11:3-16 provides a cultural example within its historical context for a greater universal principle that God has established for his creation. In order to demonstrate the cultural need for head coverings within the Corinthian church, Paul tells them that the head of the wife is her husband just as the head of Christ is God (1 Cor. 11:3). From this absolute statement Paul demonstrates the woman’s need for head coverings. Notice that head coverings themselves are simply a cultural idea, since Paul allows for its dissuse upon contention (1 Cor. 13-16). However, the universal principle of man's headship in verse three still stands. He furthers ties the idea together by appealing to creation. He notes that women were made from man and for man (1 Cor. 11:8-9). God made Eve from pre-existing Adam and created her to be a helper fit for him (Gen. 2:18). By appealing to creation and saying that the head of the wife is her husband, Paul was not demonstrating that women are inferior to men, because that would mean that Christ is inferior to God by fulfilling the analogy, rather it is a reference to authority. Therefore the need for women to wear head coverings was in order to demonstrate the husband’s authority over his wife. In doing so, Paul was also demonstrating that the authority established on earth mirrors that of the Trinitarian authority of God the Father. The three persons of the Trinity are all equally God and one in essence, yet they have different roles. In this same way men and women are both equally created in the image of God (Gen. 1:27), yet they have different roles. The difference in roles does not designate inferiority either between man and woman, or in the Godhead. Some would seek to argue from here that the word "head" (kefale), means source, and would therefore remove any concept of male headship in the sense of roles. However, if the analogy in verse three is to demonstrate man being the source of woman, then God would be the source of Christ. This would compromise the eternality of the logos, and would have grave implications on the nature of God.

1 Cor. 14: 33-40 teaches another cultural issue that demonstrates the male authority in the church. Paul says that women must keep silent in the church (1 Cor. 14:34). He tells us that if they desire to learn, they must ask their husbands at home, because it is shameful for a woman to speak in church (1 Cor. 14:35). After Paul makes all these statements about women in the church he provides the ultimate basis for his teachings. He says that the things that he is writing are a command of the Lord (1 Cor. 14:37). Paul was not wrong on the subject. God’s very commands are recorded here by Paul. The point was not to usurp women of their rights or equality with men, Rather Paul was demonstrating that authority within the church belongs to men. All forms of speech are not being prohibited as women are allowed to pray and prophecy (1 Cor. 11:5). In context, Paul is discussing disruptive behavior within church that ought to be done away with as much as possible. He first mentions those that speak in tongues. Those that speak in tongues are to do so in order and with an interpreter (1 Cor. 14:27). Likewise Paul says that those who prophesy are to do so one by one (1 Cor. 14:31). Clearly Paul is looking for order within the church and is attempting to avoid disruptions. After establishing this basis Paul adds that women are not to speak in church, but should ask their husbands at home if they desire to learn something. The type of speaking associated here, most likely asking questions with the intent to teach or demonstrate authority on the issue, would be considered disruptive along with the other things mentioned. This is not because women are undeserving or of less value, but because God has ordained man and woman to function differently.

The Complimentarian Case

In Paul’s first pastoral letter to Timothy he said that he did not permit a woman to teach or to exercise authority over a man (1 Tim. 2:12). Being that teaching is specifically mentioned as something that women should not do in the church, it follows that since an elder must be able to teach in order to be qualified (1 Tim. 3:2), women are not permitted to be elders. Another point given within the qualifications for elders is that they must be the husband of one wife, which implies more then just the singularity of spouses. It specifically refers to them as husbands. This point is not mere semantics, as the qualifications for widows to be enrolled requires that they have been the wife of one husband (1 Tim. 5:9). Just as widows are clearly women, and therefore once wives, so also elders are men and are therefore husbands. Paul could have easily have said that elders must have one spouse, but yet he uses a masculine reference here in the same way the widow requires a feminine reference. Most egalitarians, though, like to point out Galatians 3:28 as demonstrating the social barriers that Christ has done away with, however the major point that Paul is trying to demonstrate to the church at Galatia is that there is no more difference in how we relate to God. We all have access to Christ. This includes the once exclusive nature of salvation as pertaining to the Jews. Through Christ gentiles now have access to salvation (Acts 15:8-9). The distinction that is being abolished is in how we relate to God, not to each other. Just as the functional differences between man and woman have been demonstrated through Paul’s command that women are not to teach, so also are the social distinctions between Jews and Gentiles still maintained even though they received the same Spirit and have the same access to the God. At the Jerusalem council Paul doesn’t require the Gentiles to partake of Jewish rituals and live as Jews, instead he merely gives them a short list of things to abstain from out of respect for the Jewish culture (Acts 15:19-21). Although we are all unified in salvation and redemption, there are still social distinctions. This however, does not mean that women cannot hold any position in leadership. Just as the body functions as a whole with different distinct parts, so also does the church (1 Cor. 12:12-31). Since the qualifications of the position of deacons do not require that one have the ability to teach, it seems that women are not excluded from this role. Being that the deacon position mainly entails service and maintaining the physical aspects of the church, it seems all the more possible that women could fulfill such a role. When Paul was concluding his letter to the Romans he mentioned Phoebe who was a servant of the church at Cenchreae (Romans 16:1). Since the Greek word for deacon and servant are the same (διάκονος), this verse could demonstrate that Phoebe was in fact a deaconess at her church. Although this could be speculation, it is entirely possible given that women are only excluded from teaching and positions of authority over man, not from service (1 Tim. 2:12).

Final Thoughts

Ultimately God's word is absolute truth. His requirements for the church are not arbitrary and they are not to be altered based on culture or context. If we made the Bible relative in one area of teaching, would that stop us from continuing to make scripture relative in other areas as well? We as Christians cannot redefine scripture simply because our culture has changed and become more egalitarian with women’s suffrage and women’s rights. Scriptural principles are universal and are to be held as such.

For Further Reading

"Women & Men In Ministry" by Robert Saucy & Judith Tenelshof
"Evangelical Feminism & Biblical Truth" by Wayne Grudem
"Recovering Biblical Manhood & Womanhood" by John Piper & Wayne Grudem