This is a response to an article written by Mark Powell in the Australian Presbyterian that can be found here.
It is not clear from Mark’s article, but I think it is fair to say that Mark uses the following logical progression to make the case for women in ministry being a Gospel issue:
1 – The Gospel is that we are saved by faith, not works.
2 – We show our gratitude to God for this Gospel through obeying commands.
3 – God has commanded male only leadership and to do otherwise is to disobey God.
4 – To disobey God is not showing the gratitude/love we should.
5 – As we have failed to obey, we are no longer saved by faith? (Mark does not say this, but it seems to be the unspoken implication if this is a Gospel issue).
Mark assumes that ordaining women is disobeying God and provides his reasoning for his conclusion. We will examine the argument he supplies to support this.
Mark states, “This complementarian role of man and woman in marriage is deep, historical, biblical, beautiful, satisfying, and in harmony with our true nature. Therefore, it will not go away. It is too profound, too integral with both nature and grace, both creation and salvation. That’s reason number one that it won’t fade away.”
Research has shown that the best complementarian marriage outcomes occur when complementarians do not live out their complementarian beliefs. This is to say that complementarian marriages where the husband does not live out the role he subscribes to as the ‘leader’ and ‘authority’ do better than the marriages where they do.[i] Partnership is always more biblical, beautiful, satisfying and in harmony with God’s created intention than inserting hierarchy where there is none. A part of our fallen nature though, is that the woman will desire the man and he will rule over her – a curse that came because of sin (Genesis 3:16). Complementarianism appeals to our fallen, cursed, sinful selves. This is why it will not fade away (before Jesus returns)!
“But did God really say…?”
Mark states, “When it comes to the teaching of the NT epistles regarding the roles of men and women, the apostles treat it as a subject of the utmost importance. Indeed, the relationship between a husband and wife is reflective of the relationship Jesus Christ Himself has with His church (Eph. 5:32).”
The marriage relationship and the relationship between God and His church are similar. Although Mark does not say it explicitly, he sees a hierarchy between God and the church (as do I), and between the husband and the wife (which I do not). This hierarchy seems to be the main thing Mark wants to take from the reflective nature of marriage and relationships in the church. Yet, Ephesians 5 does not talk about hierarchy. The context of the letter to Ephesians is that all are to submit to one another (Ephesians 5:21) and all are to act like Christ to one another (Ephesians 5:1).
Paul is highlighting unity, not hierarchy, in these two relationships. In a head/body metaphor as Paul uses in Ephesians 5 is a picture of one-ness. This is also the predominant theme in Genesis 2:23-25 where we see no indication of hierarchy only one-ness.
The marriage relationship and the relationship between Jesus and the church have similarities, but Mark seems to suggest that this means men and women will act in the church as they do in marriage. This only works if elders are the ‘heads’ of the church. Although we are called to be like Christ to one another, no one is called to be Christ to the church, except Jesus. To consider the body metaphor in 1 Corinthians 12:12-30, elders are a part of the body. They are not heads of her.
Mark turns to 1 Corinthians 11 saying, “Paul concludes his argument of women having a physical sign of authority on their heads as being reflective of submission to their husbands, and of their husband’s submission to Christ, and of Christ’s submission to God, by saying, “If anyone is inclined to be contentious, we have no such practice, nor do the churches of God.” (1 Cor. 11:16)”
Paul does not state in 1 Corinthians 11 that wives are in submission to their husbands and the only authority on the wife/woman’s head Paul clearly states in verse 10 is her own. Mark seems to have misunderstood Paul’s intention and so in quoting verse 16 applies it incorrectly. Indeed, as we read the whole text we cannot help but understand Paul’s words as unifying us under God (1 Corinthians 11:12) rather than setting up a hierarchy. Paul seems to be actively trying to dismantle the idea of a hierarchy.
Mark moves to 1 Corinthains 14 saying, “the apostle’s exhortation is even stronger. Immediately after prohibiting women from independently speaking in the church, Paul writes:
“Did the word of God originate with you? Or are you the only people it has reached? If anybody thinks he is a prophet or spiritually gifted, let him acknowledge that what I am writing to you is the LORD’s command. If he ignores this, he himself will be ignored.” (1 Cor. 14:36-38)””
I see the strength of Paul’s language, but, again, has Mark understood Paul correctly in what he does not ‘permit’? Has Paul prohibited women from speaking independently in the church? I am not convinced that he does. I note that once again, Paul has not prohibited ordination of women. Obviously, if they cannot speak, it is hard to be an elder, so let’s clarify what Paul is prohibiting.
We need to look at the passage in context. Paul made it clear that he expects women to pray and prophesy in church (1 Cor 11:5) and says in 1 Cor 14:26, “What then shall we say, brothers and sisters? When you come together, each of you has a hymn, or a word of instruction, a revelation, a tongue or an interpretation. Everything must be done so that the church may be built up.” Paul seems to encourage everyone to bring something, with the purpose that others be built up.
Paul has also silenced others, men and women, because of the chaos that is happening in Corinth (vv. 28 & 30). He ends saying, “Therefore, my brothers and sisters, be eager to prophesy, and do not forbid speaking in tongues. But everything should be done in a fitting and orderly way.” (vv. 39-40) Paul is not forbidding all women from speaking for all time as this is contrary to what he previously stated. He is asking them not to ask their husbands questions in church. It was adding to the chaos and coming in the way of building others up.
It is worth noting that the word Paul uses to express his lack of permission is the Greek word (epitrepo) that is always used to reference local and temporary realities. It is not the word Paul would have used to express a timeless command for all places and situations.[ii] We will meet this word again before we finish but it seems as though Mark has once again misunderstood Paul’s words and so misapplied 1 Corinthians 14:36-38).
Mark now moves to the passage that is central to discussions around the ordination of women, 1 Timothy 2. Mark continues, “after declaring that a woman should not teach or have authority over a man, Paul concludes by stating, “But women will be saved through childbearing – if they continue in faith, love and holiness with propriety” (1 Tim. 2:15). While this verse has been interpreted in a number of various ways, Andreas Kostenberger persuasively argues that it means:
“…women will be spiritually preserved (from Satan) by adhering to their God-ordained role related to family and the home. This is contrasted with Eve, who transgressed those boundaries and fell into temptation (v. 14).”
Mark is correct, this verse has been interpreted in several ways. I am not convinced that Kostenberger is more persuasive than others in his argument which seems to work against the Gospel foundation that Mark outlined for us at the beginning of his article. Perhaps I am missing some of the detail in Kostenberger’s quote, but I understood from Mark that I was spiritually preserved (from Satan) by God’s grace. I access this through faith, not childbirth (works). It also brings into question how Paul views women who are unable to conceive.
Perhaps the reality is that the context of this verse is not meant to be applied to all women for all time as Mark and Kostenberger have done. To discern this, we should look at the context leading up to this verse. I have dealt with this in other places on this blog, so I will simply state that there are several reasons for taking Paul’s words in 1 Timothy 2:11-15 as aimed at a specific woman who is domineering or teaching in a domineering way a specific man. For example, Paul has moved to the singular and references a singular woman and a singular man in verses 11-12. Also, Paul does not permit her to do this (domineering/teaching) and once again uses the time and location specific Greek term (epitrepo) suggesting this is not an all time for all women reality. Also, the ‘domineering’ word is a negative type of authority. Paul never suggests that anyone should do this. This helps enormously when it comes to verse 15 which applies to a specific un-named couple whose situation we do not fully know or understand, but Timothy does. It is not saying that childbirth is required for salvation, because that would make childbirth a Gospel issue!
Mark says, “While no one is saved by believing what the Bible teaches about the roles of men and women, the LORD is glorified through our obedience to His Word. The Gospel of the Lord Jesus Christ has saved us for that very purpose.”
I understand these words from Mark as his link to the ordination of women being a Gospel issue. If we fail to fulfil the purpose for which we are saved, it appears that perhaps we are not saved. That is the logical conclusion that Mark has not spelt out but seems to want to suggest. He has not said it, because the implications of saying it are huge. They usher in a work-based gospel, which is no Good News at all. Mark stops short, and fails to make a case that this is a Gospel issue.
I do not believe complementarianism lived out is beautiful or glorifies God. Not because I believe there is no difference between men and women, but because it inserts hierarchy where there is none.
I would encourage Mark to reconcile how his view of gendered hierarchy sits with Jesus’ words:
“Jesus called them together and said, “You know that the rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them, and their high officials exercise authority over them. Not so with you. Instead, whoever wants to become great among you must be your servant, and whoever wants to be first must be your slave— just as the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many.” Matthew 20:25-28
Did Jesus really say that there would be some in His Church with authority over others? (Matthew 5:3-10)
Did Jesus really say that ordination was the path into serving (ministry), not the calling and gifting of the Spirit? (1 John 2:27)
Did Jesus not choose women as the first apostles to the apostles? (Matthew 28:5-20)
Did Jesus really say that he would have women disciples, but not to become what disciples become, teachers? (Luke 10:38-42)
Did Jesus really pray that all of us, “may be one, Father, just as you are in me and I am in you”? (John 17:21)
The Gospel is all about unity and nothing to do with hierarchy except for the truth that the one who was highest made himself lowest, and he calls me friend. That is beautiful. (Philippians 2:1-11 & John 15:15)
[i] See the following for references to studies and some of the discussion around this topic https://empowerinternational.org/wp-content/uploads/Egalitarian-Marriages-Prove-Happier-than-Hierarchical-Marriages.pdf https://intentionaltoday.com/absurdity-of-complementarian-marriages/ https://therapevo.com/podcasts/power-struggles-in-marriage-your-styles-may-be-the-problem/ https://baremarriage.com/2023/10/egalitarianism-changed-christian-marriage/
[ii] Epitrepo is used in places where there is a local, specific permission given or denied, such as Matthew 19:8, Mark 5:13, Luke 9:59, John 19:38, Acts 26:1, Acts 27:3, 1 Corinthians 16:7, Hebrews 6:3.
