Girls Just Wanna Have Fun | Women in Leadership – Part 2

Despite all the women who were actively and positively involved in biblical and church history, it always comes back to Eve, and the fact that she was responsible for the fall of humanity. Even if you read the story of Adam and Eve as fiction, by analogy, the story still shows that it was Eve’s fault that original sin happened, that she was a weak woman who gave in to sin, and persuaded Adam to sin with her. Adam is complicit though, this is clear if you read the story, but many Christians see Eve's actions as being responsible for the fall of mankind, and the consequences of her sin, run through the whole Bible.

 

Many Christians see this culminated in Paul's instructions in 1 Timothy 2.

 

I desire therefore that the men in every place pray, lifting up holy hands without anger and doubting. In the same way, that women also adorn themselves in decent clothing, with modesty and propriety, not just with braided hair, gold, pearls, or expensive clothing, but with good works, which is appropriate for women professing godliness. Let a woman learn in quietness with full submission. But I don’t permit a woman to teach, nor to exercise authority over a man, but to be in quietness. For Adam was formed first, then Eve. Adam wasn’t deceived, but the woman, being deceived, has fallen into disobedience; but she will be saved through her childbearing, if they continue in faith, love, and sanctification with sobriety.

 

 

This verse certainly puts women in their place. When it comes to church, the Bible is absolutely unambiguous, because of Eve, women should be quiet and are to be dutiful baby makers. Whilst some conservative churches today, might allow women to talk, wear expensive clothes and jewelry, and go to the salon to have their hair braided, there are many churches which don't allow women these things, because they aren’t biblical. My childhood church was one of them. Women had to cover their heads, dress modestly, and they weren't allowed to speak in church.

 

When you take this passage that literally, what does it do to a woman in a church like this? What does it feel like for a woman to be part of a church, knowing that she is inherently disobedient, knowing that she can’t speak because anything she might want to say could be deception, and that her only hope of salvation is through having children? What does that do to a woman if she is unable to have children? Not only does she have to deal with the heartache of being unable to have her own child, but she has to hold that with the added knowledge that she isn't saved, and is of no value within her church community. This is admittedly an extreme reading of this passage, but there are Christians who teach it and who believe it. 

 

Most serious Bible scholars read this as Paul addressing a situation at a certain moment in time. They point out that despite this letter, Paul was surprisingly progressive when it came to women, and that he sent women like Phoebe to deliver his letters, and in doing so she likely taught people his message and added her own thoughts and interpretations of that message. The same scholars might also point to the important women in the Bible, and how these matriarchs of the faith were counter cultural heroines of the church, but the fact is that from the word go, the church has followed this teaching about Eve, and it has become biblical tradition for thousands of years. Not only that, but the church has also followed the secular attitudes towards women, which have existed alongside the Jewish and Christian faiths, from the beginning.

It’s no wonder that people are up in arms about women leading churches, because it goes against a millennia of biblical teaching and tradition. The people who maintain this view almost always say, that those who read a progressive biblical view of women, are buckling under the pressures of modern society and culture, and they are probably right. Modern society and culture have probably led people, consciously or not, to take a different reading of women in the Bible. 

 

It's hard to argue with this view if you want to take the Bible seriously, and so what do we do with it? 

 

Perhaps we accept modern interpretations of the Bible, which say that the views of people like Paul might seem outdated now, but they were counter cultural and progressive at that time, and the church just got it wrong until recently. This probably seems like a stretch to some people, but the same was true of slavery. Throughout history, Christians have used the Bible to support slavery, but on the whole, I think that most Christians today would agree that it’s wrong. Like it or not though, this is a similarly progressive view to the modern views towards women. Slavery goes back thousands of years, it is part of the earliest human civilisations, and it’s in the Bible right from the beginning. The slave trade was only abolished in the British empire, just over 200 years ago, which is very recent history. The Church of England ordained its first female minister 30 years ago, and people may well be kicking off about that now, but in 200 years, I expect people will look back and see this as a similar turning point, and that current attitudes towards women in the church, will appear outdated and wrong.

 

Unfortunately, we can't fast forward progress though, we can't force people to see things differently, and so my feeling is that these attitudes will only change when they change, and that might take a while. However, change does begin to happen when people stand up and speak out against these kinds of inequalities and injustices, and the small victories do help bring about change sooner.

 

Perhaps people like me, people who are basically ignorant on the matter, can still make a small difference by speaking up when discussions are taking place, or simply by being open to change. Which I suppose brings me back to my friend, and the arguments he has sometimes tried to drag me into.

 

Part of the reason why I have avoided getting into discussions with him about women in leadership, is that I know he will win any argument we have, because of the biblical evidence he has in support of his view. None of the things I have laid out here would make any difference, because the Bible will always win out for him. There is one question that I have sometimes been tempted to ask him, which is, what would actually happen if he was part of a church where there was a female pastor, what would be the consequences of having a woman leading that church? We’ve skirted this question before and he has always maintained that he couldn't be in that church, because it was unbiblical, that he would be forced to leave because it is non-negotiable for him, but I’m curious to know what he thinks would happen if he had to be part of a church which was led by a woman. A woman leading a church might not be biblical, but we both know that women do lead churches and ministries which are good, which help people, and which bring people to God. We also know that when a woman is ordained or becomes a church leader, that they aren’t struck by holy lightning bolts or consumed with divine fire. So, what’s the problem? 

 

When I have heard theological discussions and debates on less contentious issues, I’ve noticed people using the phrase, "it isn't the biblical ideal". This is a similar comment to arguing for biblical truth, but it seems to come into play when this kind of scenario comes up. There are plenty of things which Christians do, decisions they make, lifestyle choices they follow, which don't have any real consequences, but which aren't biblical ideals. I read this a certain way, particularly regarding women in leadership, and what I think they are really saying is, "this is what the Bible teaches and whilst there might be readings of the texts which support the idea of women in leadership, I don't like those interpretations and the idea doesn't sit well with me, and so I don’t feel that it can be true”. 

 

There is no reason why my friend couldn't be happy in a church led by a female pastor, there is only the feeling he has in himself, that it isn't right. His experience is that things work best in church, and in life, when men are in charge. He believes this to be true because this is what he has experienced, the most positive experiences he has had of church, have been with male leaders, rather than female leaders, and he has accepted this experience as a true biblical ideal.

 

This brings us back around to most of the topics that we have covered so far. So much of what we believe to be true is based on our experiences and perceptions. We experience the things which work well for us and accept that they must be true, however they are only true because of our experiences and what we understand from them.

 

 

Text taken from “Unanswerable: Exploring the Complexities of the Christian Faith and Biblical Truth”, which is available from Amazon, and from all good book shops. An audiobook is also available at https://mindmole.bandcamp.com/music