Able to Teach and Complementarian?

"Kim, I have seen you blossom just a little bit more and more. I trust that you will take the opportunity to do some more speaking over the summer. God's blessings on you and your ministry!"

So said my Biblical Communications professor as I completed my final "sermon" for his class as a graduate student at Moody Bible Institute. Wow! Here was a man who was a dynamic preacher in his own right and who had several years of pastoral experience behind him encouraging me to continue to develop and use a gift God had given me—that of being able to teach God's Word in a public speaking format. Others had also affirmed that they saw a gift of being able to provide biblical counsel to individuals. So with such God-given abilities and gifts, surely I was called to be a pastor, right?

Some in the evangelical world would answer yes to that question. After all, they would say, Galatians 3:28 tells us there is no such thing as male or female in God's eyes but that all of us are one in Christ Jesus. Therefore it doesn't matter if a pastor is a woman or a man. Secondly, some would argue, admonitions in Scripture for wives to submit to their husbands (Ephesians 5:22) and for women to not teach or exercise authority over men (1 Timothy 2:12) were written by the Apostle Paul and merely reflected the influence of the patriarchal culture in which he lived. Since America is no longer a patriarchal culture and women have moved into other professions previously populated only by men, such as medicine and law, surely there is no problem with women breaking the "glass ceiling" in the church and becoming ordained ministers.

This all sounds fine and good on the surface, but it is my strongly held belief (and was of the above-mentioned professor) that God has laid down certain guidelines in His Word that govern the use of gifts and talents and the roles of men and women in the church and home. After all, the Author and Giver of the gifts certainly should know the best way those gifts should be used and be able to order the way in which they are to be used. Many of the boundaries given for exercising gifts are given to both sexes. Others are specifically given to men or specifically to women. I believe Scripture clearly teaches that God has given men and women equally valuable but differing roles in which to operate to accomplish His work here on earth. That means that certain roles in ministry are off limits to me simply because I am a woman. To disregard the pattern He has set forth in Scripture is to disregard the Designer of life Himself and to assume that we somehow know better than he how to accomplish His work here on earth.

You might be wondering how an educated 1990s woman has come to hold such "old-fashioned" views about the roles of men and women. The answer to that is simply because of what I see as a pattern of male leadership from cover to cover in the Word of God, which transcends time and culture and thus is in effect today.

In the Beginning

God's original plan for woman was to be a "helper" to man. In Genesis 2:18 God said, "It is not good for the man to be alone; I will make him a helper suitable for him." Two verses later in verse 20 we are told that of all God's creatures up to that point, "there was not found a helper suitable" for Adam." The rest of chapter 2 goes on to describe the creating and naming of Eve, Adam's helper.

It is significant that in the pre-fall state of existence, God's perfect plan was to create man and give him a job to do (Genesis 2:15, 19-20) and then to create a helper in woman to assist him in his tasks. Old Testament scholar Dr. Raymond C. Ortlund, Jr. states,

"The paradox of Genesis 2 is also seen in the fact that the woman was made from the man (her equality) and for the man (her inequality). God did not make Adam and Eve from the ground at the same time and for one another without distinction. Neither did God make the woman first, and then the man from the woman for the woman. He could have created them in either of these ways so easily, but He didn't. Why? Because, presumably, that would have obscured the very nature of manhood and womanhood that He intended to make clear" (Recovering Biblical Manhood and Womanhood, p. 102).

Ortlund explains the nature of this relationship as, "In the partnership of two spiritually equal human beings, man and woman, the man bears the primary responsibility to lead the partnership in a God-glorifying direction" (Recovering Biblical Manhood and Womanhood, p. 95). 

Old Testament

Romans 12:2 tells us that the will of God is "good, acceptable, and perfect." This "helper" relationship of woman to man was God's idea, which He put into motion before sin entered the world. This was His good, acceptable, and perfect plan from the beginning, and I think that it is safe to assume that had mankind never fallen into sin, this "leader-helper" relationship between men and women would have continued on unchallenged. Just as God originally created all people for the sole purpose of living in fellowship with Him (and apart from that relationship with Him we are missing our reason for existing), so He created a plan for men and women to live in relationship to each other. It is not until these relationships are restored to God's original plan do we find fulfillment and satisfaction in our lives and ministries.

The rest of the Old Testament also shows a pattern of male leadership for the nation of Israel. The Abrahamic Covenant was given to Abraham, not Sarah (Genesis 12-21), and the foundation of Israel is always named in Scripture as Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob (Genesis 50:24, Exodus 3:6, Matthew 22:32), not as Sarah, Rebekah, Leah, and Rachel (the wives of these men). God chose men in Moses and his brother Aaron to lead the Israelites out of captivity in Egypt and on to the Promised Land (Exodus 4:14-17). Priests and kings were all men, and the Mosaic law was written in such a way that male leadership of families and society was assumed (see Deuteronomy 22, for example). 

Also, in proclaiming His displeasure with the nation of Israel, God said in Isaiah 3:12, "Oh My people! Their oppressors are children, and women rule over them." The implication here is that there is something wrong with this picture. This oppression by children and ruling by women unnatural and grievous to God. Again, God could have done things differently. He could have ordained a matriarchal society with female leaders, but that is not what occurred. This is not to say that all aspects of a patriarchal society were directly ordained by God and pleasing to Him, but it is significant that this is what developed. This does not mean that God did not use and bless women in the Old Testament. Obviously the women mentioned above as well as numerous other women such as Hannah, the prophet Samuel's mother (1 Samuel 1), had tremendous ministries and impact on the nation and on men. Furthermore, women are listed and honored in the "Faith Hall of Fame" in Hebrews 11. However, never once do we see God raising up a woman in the Old Testament with a public or leadership ministry on the level of Moses, Samuel, David, Isaiah, Daniel, and so forth.

What about Deborah?

"But what about Deborah in Judges 4?" some would ask. Thomas R. Schreiner in his chapter, "The Ministries of Women in the Context of Male Leadership," points out that Deborah's prophetic and judging ministry was different from that of her male counterparts:

"Note that Deborah did not go out and publicly proclaim the word of the Lord. Instead, individuals came to her in private for a word from the Lord. The difference between Deborah's prophetic ministry and that of male Old Testament prophets is clear. She did not exercise her ministry in a public forum as they did. Note that even when she speaks to Barak she calls him and speaks to him individually (Judges 4:6, 14)" (Recovering Biblical Manhood and Womanhood, p. 216).

Schreiner also points out that the prophetic ministry of Moses' sister Miriam was to other women (Exodus 15:20) and that 1 Corinthians 11 teaches that women in the early church who exercised the gift of prophecy were to do so in such a way that still affirmed male authority and headship (1 Corinthians 11:5, 10).

The Example of Christ

Third, this pattern of male leadership in the church and home carries through to the New Testament, starting with Christ Himself. The Gospels clearly teach us that both men and women followed Christ during His time here on earth, and Jesus had personal interaction with both men and women: the Samaritan woman at the well (John 4), the woman suffering from a hemorrhage (Matthew 9), Mary and Martha of Bethany (Luke 10, John 11), and Mary Magdalene (Luke 8:2), just to name a few. He also welcomed the worship of women such as when Mary of Bethany anointed Jesus' feet with oil and wiped them with her hair (John 12:1-8). So it cannot be said that Jesus in any way disregarded or devalued women. However, when He chose twelve leaders to be specially trained to be the foundation of the church, He chose only men (Luke 6:12-16). His choosing of these men to be the foundation of the church will be proclaimed throughout all eternity. In his description of the New Jerusalem or eternal state, the Apostle John wrote in Revelation 21:14, "And the wall of the city had twelve foundation stones, and on them were the twelve names of the twelve apostles of the Lamb." Jesus also told these twelve men in Luke 22:30 that their leadership would continue when they would "sit on thrones judging the twelve tribes of Israel."

Some have said that this is insignificant, that Jesus only chose men so as not to upset the religious culture of the day. However, Jesus in other ways greatly upset the religious culture of the day. He was looked down upon for associating with "sinners" (Matthew 11:19). In two of Christ's visits to the temple, He overturned tables and chased out those working at the tables (John 2:12-25; Luke 20:45-48) and in many instances called the religious leaders of the day "hypocrites, blind guides, and whitewashed tombs" (Matthew 23). To borrow a phrase from a popular 20th Century book, this type of behavior is not exactly the way to "win friends and influence people." Jesus was only committed to obeying the will of God (John 6:38). Had the will of God included female apostles, Jesus certainly would have selected some, but He did not. Since He perfectly obeyed the will of His Father, we can only conclude that it was not God's will to put women in that type of spiritual leadership in the early church. Apparently the apostles believed the same thing because in Acts 1:23-25 where a replacement was chosen for Judas Iscariot, only men were candidates for this position. Later, God again chose a male apostle in Paul to carry on foundational teaching ministries of the young church (Acts 9). He could have chosen a woman, but he did not.

Apostolic Teaching

Finally, the thread of male leadership in the home and the church is carried on through the Bible in the writings of the apostles. In Ephesians 5:22 (and in Colossians 3:18) wives are told to submit to their husbands as to the Lord. Paul, inspired by the Holy Spirit, gives his reason for this in verse 23: "But as the church is subject to Christ, so also the wives ought to be to their husbands in everything." Paul gives a theological reason, not a cultural reason for this command. The marriage relationship is a picture for us of the relationship between Christ and the church. I realize that it is easy for me, a single female, to sit back and say this command should be followed today. But the command is a part of the Word of God and therefore cannot be ignored, especially the reason for it. Just because we live in the 1990s, the relationship between Christ and the church has not and will not change. Is the church ever called to lead Christ and He to follow our direction? Hardly not! And what a disastrous situation we would be in if that ever were the case! To upset the male head/female helper dynamic in marriage is to upset one of the purposes of marriage: to illustrate here on earth the relationship between Christ and the church.

This particular command is also not just the bias of one former Jewish rabbi from a patriarchal culture, as some have argued, for it is echoed again by Paul's contemporary, the Apostle Peter in 1 Peter 1:3. No doubt this submission that God commands from wives is not an easy task. God never promises ease. But as with any other command in Scripture that God expects us to follow, He does give us the power to do so through His Holy Spirit. 1 Corinthians 11 and 1 Timothy 2 also give clear instruction for conduct in formal church gatherings. This conduct again shows a pattern of male leadership and female support of and submission to that leadership. Not one time in any of these passages is cultural stigma ever referred to as a reason for the commands. 1 Corinthians 11:3, 8, 12 all refer back to creation as reasons for the conduct just as 1 Timothy 2 does.

1 Timothy 2:12

In 1 Timothy 2:12, Paul clearly states that women are not to teach men or to exercise authority over men in a church setting. Why not? Because of the leader/helper relationship God originally designed. Paul says in verse 13, "For it was Adam who was first created, and then Eve." Secondly, he says, it was Eve who was deceived and fell into transgression, not Adam, thus indicating again the damage that can be done by upsetting the male headship balance in the marriage relationship.

All kinds of circles have been danced around this verse, so to speak, to say that it does not apply to us today. For example, Gilbert Bilezikian in his book Beyond Sex Roles states that this only applied to uneducated women so that they would not teach heresy. In explaining Paul's reference to Eve in verses 13-14, Bilezikian says:

"In the fateful story of the fall, it was Eve, the lesser-informed person, who initiated a mistaken course of action and who led herself into error. Eve was not created first or at the same time as Adam. She was the late-comer on the scene. Of the two, she was the one bereft of the firsthand experience of God's giving the prohibition relative to the tree. She should have deferred the matter to Adam, who was better prepared to deal with it since he had received the command directly from God. Regarding God's word, Adam had been teacher to Eve, and Eve the learner. Yet, when the crisis arrived, she acted as the teacher and fell into the devil's trap. Her mistake was to exercise an authoritative function for which she was not prepared" (p. 180).

Bilezikian then applies his theory to 1 Timothy 2 by saying that there were "ignorant but assertive women in Ephesus who had created considerable trouble because of their unenlightened exuberance" (Beyond Sex Roles, p. 180). First of all, it's a pretty big leap to impose this theory on the 1 Timothy 2 text. A straight reading of 1 Timothy 2 says nothing about education. The creation order and Eve's deception are mentioned, but not their level of education or knowledge. What Bilezikian has done is to impose on the 1 Timothy 2 passage his own theory about level of knowledge. A straight reading of the 1 Timothy 2 passage itself mentions nothing about knowledge in and of itself and one would not come up with the above theory from a straight reading of the text.

Second, even though Eve had spent less time with God than Adam had, she was still aware of right and wrong for she repeated God's command back to the serpent (Genesis 3:2-3). Although she misquoted what God had said, she nevertheless knew that it was from that very tree from which Satan was tempting her to eat that God had said, "Don't eat!" She was not "uneducated" in this instance. She knew right from wrong, still made a willful choice to disobey, and was held accountable by God for it (Genesis 3:13, 16). To carry Bilezikian's theory a step further, are we any less accountable or responsible for our actions if we hear God's Word second-hand? Are we any less responsible to obey God's commands if we hear them from preachers or missionaries before we see them in print in God's Word? Does this then mean that areas of the world that do not yet have copies of the Word of God in their own language but who have missionaries present among them are not responsible for their actions until they actually receive a "direct command" from God? It is obvious that Eve had enough "knowledge" on which to make her decision and therefore, there is no "lack of knowledge" on Eve's part that would make Bilezikian's interpretation and application of Genesis 3 to 1 Timothy 2 valid.

Further, if education and knowledge are the issues in 1 Timothy 2:12ff, why didn't Paul say that only "uneducated women" could not teach? Why are they only forbidden to teach men? Would Paul want untrained or uneducated women teaching women and children? God obviously would not want heresy to be taught to other women or to children and yet Paul commands older women to teach younger women (Titus 2). Furthermore, Paul was writing a letter. Unlike parables in which meanings are sometimes hidden or illustrated, letters are straightforward statements meant to be taken at face value by the readers. If Paul said women are not to teach men because of the order of creation, then that's what he meant. God does not hide the meaning of His word, and it's a dangerous step not to take it at face value but rather to impose theories on the text that the author never intended.

Contradictory Teaching?

There's another interesting fact about the writings of the Apostle Paul, which cannot be ignored in gender role discussions. Those who would disagree with the complementarian view often refer to Galatians 3:28 as the basis for their view, "There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free man, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus." They argue that since there is neither male nor female in God's eyes, then God does not have specific roles for either sex, and on that basis say Ephesians 5:22 and 1 Timothy 2:12 do not apply to us today.  What is hardly ever mentioned, however, is that the same person, the Apostle Paul, wrote all three verses! Was he contradicting himself? Was he schizophrenic? I doubt it! Furthermore, evangelical Christians claim that all of Scripture was inspired by the Holy Spirit. Since that is the case, then God himself moved Paul to write all three of these statements down. In Galatians 3:28 Paul was telling his readers that the purpose of the Old Testament Law was to lead people to Christ, not to exclude Gentiles from the blessings of God. His point with this verse is that no matter what background, whether one was a Jew who grew up knowing the Old Testament Law or a Gentile without that background, in Christ all were one family, equally valuable to God. But nowhere does Paul ever indicate that because of this, equality roles specific to each gender were to be ignored. In his mind all his statements were a unified whole.

Simply on a human level, too, the timing of his statements is interesting. Today, in general, we say that the longer a person has been a Christian the more mature his viewpoints should be--that the latter material should reflect a greater Christ-likeness and understanding of God than the earlier material. Of course this is ignoring for a moment the inspiration of all Scripture by the Holy Spirit, but if the above alone were the case, Paul wrote his statements about male leadership in the home and the church after he wrote his statement about equality in Christ in Galatians. Galatians was written in approximately 50 A.D., Ephesians in 61 A.D., and 1 Timothy in 63 A.D. Does this mean that Paul's views grew more sexist as time went on? Not at all! The point is all three letters were written by Paul through the inspiration of the Holy Spirit and are a unified whole, not contradictory statements to be set up against each other. In Paul's mind male leadership in the home and church, if carried out in a godly manner, is not in any way a threat to the dignity and value, equality, or gifts and talents of women.

Conclusion

So we clearly see that from Genesis to Revelation God has established a pattern of male headship in the home and the church and as that pattern was transcendent through the various historical periods and cultures in which the books of the Bible were written, so I believe it transcends all of human history here on earth and is therefore a pattern for conduct that God still expects us to follow today.

Following this pattern for life and ministry is the only way to find true fulfillment.