Women Preachers: "The Tenth Mark of a Healthy Church"

“Expositional preaching is preaching in service to the Word. It presumes a belief in the authority of Scripture---that the Bible is actually God’s Word; but it is something much more than that. A commitment to expositional preaching is a commitment to hear God’s Word---not just to affirm that it is God’s Word but to actually submit yourself to it. The Old Testament prophets and the New Testament apostles were given, not a personal commission to go and speak, but a particular message to deliver. Likewise Christian preachers today have authority to speak from God only so long as they speak His message and unfold His words” (Mark Dever, “Nine Marks of a Healthy Church, New Expanded Edition.” Wheaton: Crossway Books, 2004, pages 40-41).

Recently I had the pleasure of reading Mark Dever’s “Nine Marks of a Healthy Church.” My seminary recently had a conference titled “Nine Marks,” and Dever actually came to Southeastern to be a part of the hype. His book has done remarkably well in the evangelical world and I highly recommend it to all believers. Dever’s got one of the finest books I’ve seen on the subject...

I was particularly struck by his words on expositional preaching. Dever made expositional preaching the first of 9 marks of a healthy church. In order for the church to get the other eight marks correct, Dever writes, it is important that expositional preaching be priority number one:

“The first mark of a healthy church is expositional preaching. It is not only the first mark; it is far and away the most important of them all, because if you get this one right, all the others should follow” (Dever, “Nine Marks,” 39).

But his remarks above on modern-day preachers I found to be most fascinating. Let’s read his remarks once more:

“Expositional preaching is preaching in service to the Word. It presumes a belief in the authority of Scripture---that the Bible is actually God’s Word; but it is something much more than that. A commitment to expositional preaching is a commitment to hear God’s Word---not just to affirm that it is God’s Word but to actually submit yourself to it. The Old Testament prophets and the New Testament apostles were given, not a personal commission to go and speak, but a particular message to deliver. Likewise Christian preachers today have authority to speak from God only so long as they speak His message and unfold His words” (Mark Dever, “Nine Marks of a Healthy Church, New Expanded Edition.” Wheaton: Crossway Books, 2004, pages 40-41).

Today’s preachers are labeled (according to Dever) the “functional descendants” of the OT prophets and NT apostles. It seems that, like the Old Testament prophets of old (Isaiah, Jeremiah, Hosea, Ezekiel, Amos, Jonah, etc.) and the NT apostles (Matthew, John, Peter, Andrew, James, etc.), today’s preachers have been given a message by God that they are to deliver. But if today’s preachers function like an “Isaiah” or a “Peter,” then wouldn’t women also be viewed as preachers also?

Think about it: In the Old Testament, it is true that there were male prophets such as the ones above; however there were also female prophets (prophetesses) such as Miriam (Exodus 15:20), Deborah (Judges 4:4), Huldah (2 Kings 22:14, 2 Chronicles 34:22). The prophet Joel himself even went on to claim that in the last days, daughters alongside of sons would prophesy (Joel 2:28), not to mention the maidservants alongside of the menservants (Joel 2:29). In the New Testament, women are allowed to pray and prophesy before the congregations (1 Cor. 11:5). This indeed tells us that women had leadership roles before God’s people (Deborah as judge and prophetess), and women did not lose the capacity to lead God’s people even in the New Testament (as prophetesses praying and prophesying in front of male and female congregants).

We can set up the argument in the following syllogism:

Premise One: The modern-day preacher stands in the line of the OT prophets.

Premise Two: Some women (Deborah, Miriam, Huldah) were OT prophets.

Conclusion: Therefore, some women can be modern-day preachers.

It seems then, that leaving women out of the discussion of modern-day preachers has less to do with Scripture than it does tradition and personal bias. But, sadly, enough, I think this is one mark of the healthy church that Mark Dever himself forgot about.

Women are vital to the success of the church, as much as men are. When one-half of the body of Christ is being shut out of leadership positions, and the other half is more than encouraged (but fails in its work), what is supposed to be done? I applaud Mark Dever for telling the world what makes healthy churches; at the same time, however, his work is not infallible...and when women are being abandoned from leadership positions, treated as though they cannot possess the spiritual gifts needed for such positions, what good does it do to write a book on marks of healthy churches? What good does it do to tell the churches, “You need more of this and that,” while pushing the female gender aside and forgetting that, they too, make up the body of Christ?

Women preachers are indeed the “tenth mark of a healthy church.” And even if there is expositional preaching, church discipline, strong church membership, strong evangelistic programs, strong discipleship, etc., we will still have an unhealthy church---until we recognize the spiritual giftedness of women and include them amongst the godly leadership in our churches. Whatever diagnosis the church of Jesus Christ has, she has given it to herself...and only she can make it better.

                

"A Deeper Theological Issue"

“Why this concern to separate the roles of men and women and to silence women teachers in the church’s worship? At the practical level, SILENCING WOMEN TEACHERS CUT THE FALSE TEACHING OFF AT ITS SOURCE---wealthy women, as we have seen, were probably financing the false teachers and spreading the false teachers’ heresy themselves, and younger widows, happily released from any obligation to marry and care for children, were going about from house to house teaching the heresy” (Frank Thielman, “Theology of the New Testament: A Canonical and Synthetic Approach.” Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2005, page 419).

Reading the above quote from Frank Thielman’s New Testament Theology encouraged my heart somewhat. I stayed up late this morning to see what he had to say about the Pastoral Epistles. I’ve read a great deal of his theology textbook this semester and I like the things he has to say. His work has been impeccable, in all of the letters of the NT he traces. So I wanted to know his thoughts. Immediately, I began to think of the site here, “Men and Women,” and it became clear to me that I would have a blog post---whether it would be a positive or negative one, I would have something new to add to the work done here.

I sat down and read attentively. And in his section titled “The Church Gathered For Worship,” I read the above quote. All along, Thielman implicated women in the false teaching at Ephesus:

“...false teachers are ‘ruining whole households’ (Titus 1:11). They apparently do this by insinuating themselves into homes and CONVINCING ALREADY CORRUPT WOMEN OF THEIR FALSE TEACHING (2 TIM. 3:6). PERHAPS WE CAN ALSO LINK TOGETHER PAUL’S claim that a desire for wealth motivated the false teachers (1 Tim. 6:5; cf. 6:6-10, 17-19), his concern that women not make ostentatious displays of their wealth (2:9), and HIS CONCERN THAT WOMEN NOT TEACH IN THE CHURCH (2:11-14). WEALTHY WOMEN IN EPHESUS MAY HAVE BEEN PAYING THE FALSE TEACHERS TO TUTOR THEM AND THEN CONVEYING THE FALSE TEACHING THEY LEARNED TO THE CHURCHES THAT MET IN THEIR HOUSES” (Thielman, 412).

“If men in the church are involved in angry disputes, they cannot lift holy hands in prayer, and if their behavior hinders their prayers, then it also hinders the advancement of the gospel (2:1-8). If WOMEN IN THE CHURCH ARE abandoning modesty and like Eve, succumbing to Satan’s offer of sinful knowledge, AND THEN TEACHING THIS ERROR TO OTHERS (2:9-14; 5:15), then their very salvation is threatened (2:15)” (414).

“WOMEN---particularly the wealthy women who may have paid the false teachers to tutor them, and the younger widows whom the church has supported from its common funds---ARE APPARENTLY AMONG THE CHIEF ADVOCATES OF THE HERESY THAT HAS LED TO THIS BEHAVIOR. WEALTHY WOMEN ARE PERHAPS TEACHING THE HERESY IN THEIR HOUSES while the men spend church meetings not in prayer but in angry disputes about the heresy. THE YOUNGER WIDOWS, freed by the largesse of the church from the responsibilities of marriage and child-rearing, which they do not believe in anyway, CAN SPEND THEIR TIME MAKING THE ROUNDS OF BELIEVERS’ HOUSEHOLDS ADVOCATING THE FALSE TEACHING” (417).

In these four references (the beginning quote plus the three quotes above), Thielman seems to link women with the false teaching: not only were they listening to it and entertaining it, they were also teaching it themselves. In the first quote above, Thielman states that to prohibit women from teaching would stop the spread of heresy. Since women were the ones propagating and clinging to the heresy, prohibiting the women teaching would stop the false teachers’ influence in the church at Ephesus. In turn, the false teachers would have to find some other way to stir up trouble (aside from the women).

But this is where Thielman then takes a turn for the worse:

“As is already apparent from Paul’s willingness to separate the roles of the sexes in worship in 2:8-9 and to silence all women teachers in 2:12, however, a deeper theological issue is at stake in this gender-specific ordering of worship. Paul states this issue explicitly in 2:13-15. God fashioned human beings in two genders, male and female, and the order in which he created them implies distinct roles in the church for each gender...women should submit to the authority of the church’s male leadership because ‘Adam was formed first, then Eve’ (2:13). Men, rather than women, should teach BECAUSE EVE RATHER THAN ADAM WAS SATAN’S FIRST VICTIM IN THE DECEPTION THAT LED TO THE DISOBEDIENCE DESCRIBED IN GENESIS 3:6. THE IMPLICATION IS CLEAR: Adam and Eve violated the divine ordering of the genders when Eve led Adam to disobey God’s command” (419).

Up to this point, Thielman has shown us in context that women were involved in teaching heresy; that women were not only soaking up the teaching but spreading that to others, presumably other women in the congregation. In addition there is evidence that these women may very well have been told to “learn in silence with full submission” (2:11) because they had been disrupting the learning process during worship services. But how then, does his last statement connect to the four quotes he made prior to this last one?

What I’m asking is, “How can Thielman connect women to false teaching in the context of 1 Timothy 2 and then “broaden” the scope of teaching to all teaching in general in his application of the text? Yes, hermeneutics (the study of biblical interpretation) teaches us that context-specific principles can be generalized and applied to everyday life; but why can this text not refer to anyone teaching falsely, whether it be man or woman? And why can’t it be the case that women are not to teach heresy, not that they are prohibited from teaching sound doctrine?

For Thielman, the answer is found in Paul’s usage of Genesis. I have stated here at the site, however, that Paul writes “And Adam was not deceived” for a reason: if Genesis does not provide these words, why does Paul use them? He does so to defend the Law as it was being attacked in the book of Genesis. Thielman notes this as well (page 410), but does not make the connection. He even goes on to talk about the Nag Hammadi document “On the Origin of the World,” which states that “the goddess Pistis Sophia created the god of Genesis (‘the ruler’) and then withdrew to her region of light, leaving ‘the ruler’ with the impression that ‘[he] alone existed’” (Thielman, 410; quoting “On the Origin of the World”). However, Thielman still does not put two and two together that, if the Gnostic document claimed that the woman “created the god of Genesis,” that she must have been seen as having been created first---before the man. Paul’s words in 1 Timothy 2:13 make sense in light of this document. Paul then, was trying to refute the false (Gnostic) teaching that Eve was created before Adam, by affirming what the Bible teaches--- that Adam was created before Eve.

Thielman goes to such lengths to argue women as propagators of the false heresy (and students of the false teachers), not to mention that “proto-Gnostic teaching” (Thielman, 422) comprised the nature of the false teaching prevalent via women in the church at Ephesus. Why then, when he comes to his application, does he divorce the issue of false teaching from the application? Does God not want us to stomp out false teaching today? Does the Lord no longer care when falsehood is being taught in our pulpits, classrooms, and churches? Is it okay for Sunday School lessons to be plagued with gross statements about God that detract from (rather than reflect) His character? If God is still committed to this, then why is this theme of “anti-false teaching” not provided in Thielman’s analysis? Why is it that the point of Paul’s prohibition to the women is to keep them from teaching or holding offices of leadership in the churches?

In the end, all we receive of Thielman’s response to my questions above is “a deeper theological issue is at stake in this gender-specific ordering of worship” (419). But how do we know this “deeper theological issue” is really present in the text? In fact, Thielman’s words about women and the creation order are only mentioned for the first time in his modern-day application. All throughout his exegesis, he has focused on the false teaching and its impact. He has failed to do his homework and show us why Paul was so concerned with “putting women in their place” in the epistle.

Wanna know what my analysis is? I think Paul was concerned with the women neglecting duties of childbearing and homecare because to focus on such duties would prevent women from being prey to the false teachers and their heresy. Paul wanted women to do what was godly so that, by their example, they could serve as leaders in the church. After all, “if a man does not know how to rule his own house, how will he take care of the church of God?” (1 Tim. 3:5, NKJV).

The God Who Hides Himself?

I find myself constantly returning to Andreas Kostenberger and Thomas Schreiner’s book titled “Women in the Church: An Analysis and Application of 1 Timothy 2:9-15.” Each time I return to the book, I get fresh thoughts to blog about on the site.

Returning to the book, I once again found myself in the last chapter of the book—a chapter written by Dorothy Patterson (a woman’s reflections on the material in the book). For the last day or two on the blog, I have been discussing the similarities of theological belief between the Calvinist and Complementarian—both are determinist and believe that God has ordained EVERYTHING that humans do in the entire course of their existence. If God operated according to the Calvinist mindset, no one would work because he or she would have to sit in a car in the yard and wait for God to tell them “go” so they could go to work (and by then, their job would be no more).

Dorothy Patterson serves today as another piece of evidence for the link between Calvinism and Complementarianism. In her section on “The Ministries of Women,” Patterson writes:

“Preaching to and ruling over men are not the only frontline ministries in the kingdom. Women are called just as men are and sometimes to the same tasks, but these tasks are often set within different venues. THE BOUNDARIES ARE NOT DETERMINED BY GIFTEDNESS OR EVEN OPPORTUNITY BUT BY DIVINE ASSIGNMENT. Women, as men, are equally called, but as women they are not NECESSARILY ASSIGNED the same tasks as men. In 1 Timothy, THE BOUNDARIES HAPPEN TO BE BASED ON GENDER” (Patterson, “What Should a Woman Do in the Church?” from “Women in the Church: An Analysis and Application of 1 Timothy 2:9-15,” page 169).

Notice an apparent contradiction: first, Patterson says that the “divine assignment” is what determines the place of each believer in the church. Next, Patterson then goes and contradicts her first statement: “the boundaries happen to be based on gender.” Which is it? Are the gifts based on divine assignment or gender? In addition, look at how Patterson AUTOMATICALLY DISCREDITS giftedness—while she includes “giftedness” in the first statement, she prizes “gender” so much that IF there is something other than divine assignment that determines who gets what gift, it WOULD HAVE TO BE GENDER!!

However, I want the reader to stop and analyze this for themselves. Go through the Scriptures (Romans 12, 1 Corinthians 12, and Ephesians 4) and tell me, WHERE DOES IT SAY THAT THE GIFTS ARE GIVEN ACCORDING TO GENDER? Nowhere in Scripture do we find the words, “the gifts are given according to gender: And to men He gave pastors, apostles, prophets, and teachers. And to women He gave choir singers, musicians, women’s Bible study teachers, women’s conference speakers, and nursery workers.”

But Patterson shows us something else in her assessment of the issue of women in ministry: she DISCONNECTS giftedness from divine assignment. In her eyes, no matter how gifted a woman may be in something, she can only do that which she is gifted for as long as she doesn’t contradict Patterson’s 1 Timothy 2 interpretation. So now, Patterson is contradicting 1 Corinthians 12, which tells us that the Spirit gives gifts “As He wills.” Evidently, Patterson hasn’t read 1 Corinthians 12…

How can a person know what gift he or she has? It is physically manifested in their lives and in the presence of God’s people. It is there for all to see, so everyone will know where God has placed that person in the Body of Christ. But, if Complementarians (and, therefore, Calvinists) have it right, God now becomes (to state the inverse of a chapter in Udo Middleman’s book “The Innocence of God”) “the God who hides Himself,” the God who doesn’t care whether or not humanity knows anything about Him. God now becomes a masochist who gets sick, twisted pleasure out of making life miserable for His creation. Man can no longer know what God has given him because giftedness is no longer a sign.

How can a person know what to do in the Body of Christ IF there are no signs to tell them what they should be doing? How will a person know whether or not they are doing God’s will in their lives? They don’t. According to the complementarian (and Calvinist), God now has a will that He hasn’t revealed—and humans can’t know Him. Now God is UNKNOWABLE! Great—this is the reverse of THE ENTIRE CANON OF SCRIPTURE! And they say this is not heresy…

In the days to come, I will be posting on Scripture regarding giftedness and skill among the Lord’s people. For now, let me just say that the implications of Patterson’s claim are enormous: if there are no signs of giftedness, then there is no giftedness; and if there is no giftedness, then no gift was given; and if no gift was given, then the Lord has lied to us…and I tremble at the thought that Dorothy Patterson could be right and my Lord could be wrong…

Calvinists and Complementarians

I know that for some readers, the subject of women in ministry is a boring one, or one that is not as important as others (it may seem). However, the issue of women is linked to other things—in particular, theology. If women are not allowed to serve in the church, what does that say about their God-given image? And, if women are “less-made” in God’s image than men are, what does this say about the character and nature of God? It’s frightening to think of all the issues surrounding this debate. In any case, the issue of women involves so many other discussions than just whether or not women should serve in leadership positions in the church.

Udo Middleman hits on the aftereffects of Calvinism:

“Recent generations have abandoned the ‘God is in control’ of Calvinism, because of God’s implied complicity in or absence from the horrors of the twentieth century. They also rightly reject the immorality of some Christians who claim to have Jesus in their heart. But they have fallen into two new forms of determinism. The first kind of determinism leads to a fatalistic acceptance of whatever is. Here people submit to a larger whole, a UNITY of being. That determining unity may be GENDER, RACE, COLOR, or SOCIAL CONTEXT. These give a NEW CONSTRAINT to people who thought they had been newly emancipated from God…GENDER, COLOR, and SOCIAL BACKGROUND TELL HIM OR HER WHAT BEHAVIOR CONFORMS TO HIS GENDER, COLOR, AND SOCIAL DESTINY. We have seen this before in the propositions of fascism, nationalism, and forms of biological control” (Middleman, “The Innocence of God,” 212).

According to Middleman, determinism is not just a theological issue—it is connected, for Calvinists, to EVERY AREA OF LIFE! Notice that I made certain words bold in the quote. The reason for so doing is to allow you, the reader, to see the emphasis Middleman places on these things. It is his belief, as is mine, that determinism under the Calvinist agenda spreads to ALL LEVELS of society. In the blog here on women in ministry, Calvinism rears its ugly head in the issue of gender.

Complementarians believe that God has given the woman the role of marriage, raising children, and keeping house, while the man was made to lead the marriage, work in the public sphere, and protect his family. When it comes to church life, the woman is supposed to submit to the men in the church—for the men are the only ones who are “called” to lead church life. And why can complementarians get away with these ideas? Because of Calvinism. Most of evangelicalism is Calvinist, which means that, in some indirect way or another, most believers affirm determinism in everything. Because of this nice neat system, where everything “seems” to work itself out, women can grow up Baptist, for example, and believe that God has ORDAINED their place of submission in everything (whether married or not). Such women can easily believe that God has PREDETERMINED their every move to be wife, mother, and babymaker, while the husband’s role is fixed to work and lead. The woman, in their eyes, is supposed to cook the meals and take care of the home. But what about if the husband is better at cooking than his wife? Do you mean to tell me that God would will for the woman to cook and “burn water” while the husband (the best chef) is supposed to sit and eat “burned water”? Surely no! But, if you listen to the complementarians, this is what they’ll tell you. Why is it wrong for the husband to cook? Because it’s the wife’s job. Why is it wrong for the husband to take care of the kids at home while the wife goes to work? Because it’s against societal expectations (and of course, they’ll include the Bible as psychological comfort to ease their guilt over the issue).

The fact that a woman is made a woman (according to the Calvinist) is enough to MAKE her a homemaker. God has ordained this role for every woman, and this is what they should live up to. No wonder 1 Timothy 2 is taken OUT OF CONTEXT! Complementarians (Calvinists at heart) really do believe the woman’s greatest work is in the home. If a woman is married, she should be faithful to her household duties. If the woman is single, she should pray that God send her a mate so she can get married, have children, and take care of the home (in addition to cooking her husband’s meals and ironing his shirts). This determinism is what drives complementarians (such as Thomas Schreiner) to affirm that “When Paul says that a woman will be saved by childbearing, he means therefore, that THEY WILL BE SAVED BY ADHERING TO THEIR ORDAINED ROLE” (“Women in the Church: An Analysis and Application of 1 Timothy 2:9-15,” page 118).

Schreiner’s (and all other complementarians) argument is determinism when it comes to how to apply this passage to everyday life. But what about the single woman, or the woman who will never have a family? What is the single woman supposed to do? How does the single woman obey and apply Paul’s words in 1 Timothy 2? According to complementarians, her role is to be married, have children, and keep house. But, if God wills this for EVERY WOMAN (as complementarians claim), then what about Paul’s commendation of the single woman in 1 Corinthians 7?

32I want you to be(AM) free from anxieties.(AN) The unmarried man is anxious about the things of the Lord, how to please the Lord. 33But the married man is anxious about worldly things, how to please his wife, 34and his interests are divided. And the unmarried or betrothed woman is anxious about the things of the Lord, how to be holy in body and spirit. But the married woman is anxious about worldly things, how to please her husband. 35I say this for your own benefit,(AO) not to lay any restraint upon you, but to promote good order and to secure your undivided devotion to the Lord. (1 Corinthians 7:32-25, ESV).

The unmarried woman has a greater amount of time and opportunity to pursue the things of the Lord—why then, should she NOT preach and teach and pastor?

Middleman shows us a link between Calvinists and Complementarians—both are DETERMINISTIC in their own right: the Calvinist in the salvation of God, the complementarian in the giftedness God gives to His people. Nevertheless, a deterministic worldview will lead to blaming the Almighty for everything—and constraining Him into a sort of domineering parent. Calvinists and Complementarians must learn that, as Richard Weaver’s book title tells us, “Ideas Have Consequences.”