The Female of the Species
By Charles Wellborn
Professor of Religion Emeritus, Florida State University
One Sunday morning several months ago I visited a small church located near where I live. The church met in a simple building, and less than a hundred people were present for the service.
I felt comfortable and much at home. The hymns were familiar, and the congregation sang enthusiastically. After the offering was collected, we stood and sang the Doxology. The minister preached a clear, concise sermon dealing with a basic facet of the Christian gospel, the meaning of the Cross. At the conclusion of the sermon we sang a hymn of invitation. Two people responded to the call for commitment. A woman, already a Christian, came forward to place her membership in the church. A mature man made his profession of faith in Christ as his Savior.
I went away that morning satisfied. I had found what I needed and wanted-a genuine experience of worship and an encounter with the Spirit of God. But I also knew that there had been something strikingly different about the service, something that after years of church going I was largely unaccustomed to. The preacher (and pastor) that morning was a gray-haired, sprightly woman. With fire in her bones and conviction in her voice, she had preached the Gospel-but, still, she was a female. And, for me, that was different.
I left that service, musing, somewhat sadly, on the undeniable fact that many of our contemporary Christian denominations are violently divided on the issue of women in the pulpit. My own denomination, Southern Baptists, has adopted a statement of faith that bars such women as I heard that day from the pastorate. She, and her congregation, would be anathema.
The issue of women in the pulpit is not a new one. It has bedeviled the Christian community for centuries. I have been involved in discussions about this question with Christian friends over many years. I have been present with fellow pastors where there have been condescending remarks about the abilities of women in the pulpit. I have been reminded of the tongue-in-cheek comment of the 18th century polymath, Dr. Samuel Johnson, who is reported to have said, " A woman`s preaching is like a dog`s walking on his hinder legs. It is not done well, but you are surprised to find it done at all." I dare say that Dr. Johnson, who was not a stupid man, might well have altered his opinions if he had attended with me the service to which I alluded earlier in this article.
Inevitably, when I discuss this matter with my fundamentalist Christian friends, they will point to biblical passages, which they believe support their point of view. I deeply respect that approach. Like them, I am a Bible-believing Christian. I accept the teachings of the Bible as an authoritative guide in matters of Christian faith and practice. But there is a basic difference between us.
While I understand and accept the Bible to be the written revelation of God`s character and will, I do not give final or infallible authority to any human or organizational interpretation of the meaning of those Scriptures, whether that interpretation be the idea of any individual or the pronouncements adopted by a majority show of hands in any assemble or convention. Christians do not, or should not, worship a particular method of biblical interpretation; they worship the God who is revealed in the Bible-and the difference is important. The Scriptures are the written word, but the meaning of words must always be understood and interpreted, and, in this task, there is a more important Word. The Apostle John declares at the beginning of his Gospel, "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God" (1:1). John is not speaking here, obviously, of the written word, but of the Logos, the living Word, the Christ. It is that Living Word which is our final authority when it comes to matters of meaning and interpretation. Jesus said, "He who has seen me has seen the Father" (Jn. 14:9). All of our scriptural exegesis must be undertaken in the shadow of the Logos, and we are not entitled to interpret particular passages of Scripture in ways that are inconsonant with the character and message of the Christ. Every passage of Scripture must be viewed through a singular prism. That prism is the Christ, as revealed to us in the Scripture.
In the recent Southern Baptist gathering, which adopted a resolution excluding women from the pulpit and the pastorate, one of its leaders is reported to have said, "If a woman claims she has been called to the pastorate, she is simply wrong. She has not been called. God does not contradict Himself." While I disagree profoundly with the first part of that statement, I give my hearty "Amen" to the second part. God does not contradict Himself. It is precisely for that reason that I find the exclusion of women from pastoral ministry impossible to accept.
When I was a young student in a conservative Baptist seminary, many years ago, I was taught certain basic principles of exegesis-the discipline of scripture interpretation. Men like Ray Summers, Robert Daniel, Stewart Newman, and T.B. Maston-names that will ring a bell with some of my readers-instructed me in ways of understanding Scripture that have served me well for over fifty years. I see no reason to desert those principles now.
One basic exegetical principle is that for a particular interpretation of a passage of Scripture, one must look at the whole of Scripture and its portrait of the character of God. In applying this principle we must take account of the fact that there is nothing in the Gospels, recounting the ministry of Jesus that supports the idea that females are second-class participants in the Kingdom of God. Indeed, in his treatment of the women, Jesus never discriminated in any way. It is quite clear that women were then, as they always have been, key figures in the Jesus movement. This is especially true in Luke`s Gospel where the female followers of Jesus receive particular mention-Joanna, Susanna, and Mary Magdalene, women who traveled with Jesus and the male disciples, fully incorporated in the group.
Of course, Mary Magdalene is the most important of the female disciples, and in John`s Gospel she is presented as a model for discipleship. She is, in a real sense, the apostle to the apostles for she is the first to witness the resurrected Jesus at the tomb on Easter morning, and she is commissioned by the risen Lord to tell the other male disciples that she has seen him (Jn. 20). Long into the Middle Ages, Mary Magdalene was revered as "apostolorum apostola," apostle to the apostles. Jesus accepted and treated males and females equally, and in this respect He clearly reflects the character of the Father God.
The Apostle Paul reinforced this understanding of the character of God in one of his most forthright declarations, a passage of Scripture not often cited by those who wish to exclude females from the pulpit. In the Epistle to the Galatian church, Paul emphatically avers that, "There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female, for ye are all one in Jesus Christ"(Gal.3: 28). What the Apostle says here is absolutely consistent with the nature of God as revealed through Jesus Christ.
The God revealed to us through the Living Word is one who makes no distinctions on the basis of gender. We often address God as "Our Father," and I have no objection to that, because it rightly emphasizes the caring concern of God. But that address implies in no way that God is a male sexual being. God transcends any sexual differentiation. In the same way that God is not white, black, yellow or red, nor American, Russian, Chinese, or African, God is neither male nor female. Medieval (male) artists pictured God as an old man with a long white beard, but that is a totally inadequate presentation. By tradition, we use the male pronoun for Him, but in the fundamental sense God wipes away all gender discrimination.
In the basic matter of salvation God certainly does not make such distinctions. Without regard to gender, or any other human difference, we are all equally invited to come to Him. Indeed, it is this refusal on the part of God to make such distinctions, reinforced by the identical characteristics in the teaching of Jesus that has enabled the Christian faith to make such a significant contribution to the ongoing struggle in the secular society about us, against unfair discrimination on the basis of such factors as race and gender.
It is ironic that some Christians should uphold, within the church, a dictum that in effect makes females second-class citizens of the Kingdom of God. The Christian affirmation that there can be no gender distinction has been a prime factor in the advance of our secular culture to the position the majority of that culture holds today: males and females alike are entitled to equal treatment in every part of our society. I do not believe, though I cannot know for sure, that my Christian friends who disagree with me on this issue would support unfair discrimination against women in the market place. I do not think they would countenance unequal pay for equal work on the basis of gender, or the exclusion of women from positions of leadership in government or business simply because they are female. Yet, do they not realize that when the Christian church endorses this kind of gender discrimination within its own ranks it unwittingly, perhaps, under girds those in the secular society who would carry on such practices?
My teachers taught me a second basic principle of exegesis. This was the principle of consistency. If one is to interpret Scripture correctly, one must at the very least be consistent. If, for instance, one approaches Scripture with the conviction that every admonition of the Apostle Paul in the Epistles establishes a permanent and unchanging pattern for church practice, one is not entitled to pick and choose, selecting those parts of Scripture which are seen to be lasting definitions of Christian practice and those which are not. I cannot make this principle of exegesis fit the kind of interpretation that seems to be ordinary among my disagreeing Christian brethren. One of the most frequently cited Scripture passages by my friends to support their position is l Corinthians 14:34. In that passage Paul says, "Let your women keep silent in the churches, for it is not permitted unto them to speak." That seems to settle the matter for my friends. But if we are to be consistent, do we not have to remember that in that same letter Paul instructs his hearers, just as clearly, that "every woman that prayeth or prophesieth with her head uncovered dishonoureth her head?" (1 Cor. 11:5).
Can we ignore the fact that the Apostle in his first letter to Timothy instructs the people to whom he was writing, that the "women adorn themselves in modest apparel, with shamefacedness and sobriety; not with braided hair, or gold, or costly array" (2:9)? In my long life in the church I have heard numerous sermons in which the preacher declared that women were not fit to be pastors or preachers, but I have never heard a sermon in which the preacher ordered his female listeners, on the basis of the Bible, to wear hats when they came to church, or to throw away the gold wedding rings their husbands had given them, or to discard the pearl necklaces given to them in love by their children, or not commit the sin of coming to church with braided hair. Where is the consistency here? Why pick out one admonition and ignore the rest?
At this point my friends argue that, because God has assigned individuals differing roles in the church because of basic gender differences, his instructions concerning women must be understood in a different way from this other pronouncement. I can understand that argument up to a point. There are obvious physical and genetic differences between males and females, as God has created us. Males sire children; females bear children. That is undeniable. But, for the life of me, I have been unable to find any genetic or biological difference between males and females, which supports the idea that men are, by virtue of their maleness, better preachers or pastors than women.
In my life I have known good male preachers and poor ones. I am sure there are good female preachers and poor ones, but the difference is not genetic or sexual. Our individual calling from God to vocation is a matter of our individual talents and the degree of our surrender to the will of God. Some (both male and female) are called to preach, others are called to be missionaries, and others are called to be lay witnesses. The call of God extends to all human beings. It seems to me the height of spiritual arrogance for some male preacher to say that, if a pious, dedicated woman understands the call of God to her to be that of the ministry, he, in his male role, has the right to say that she is mistaken and wrong.
The third basic principle of exegesis I learned was one must always look at a particular passage of Scripture within its context. It is important to know when the passage was written and to whom it was written. It is important to understand its purpose. Paul wrote his epistles to particular Christian communities, operating within their own cultural context. Much of the body of the Epistles deals with fundamental issues in the understanding of Christian doctrine, but also much of Paul`s writing is pastoral and practical advice on the special problems which each of these communities faced. In approaching the exegesis of these passages we must always keep in mind Paul`s primary purpose-the effective witness to the central truths of the Gospel.
Perhaps the most instructive passage in this regard is Paul`s advice to the Corinthian church regarding the eating of meats that had been offered to idols. Clearly, this was a problem peculiar to the Corinthians. Paul first makes it clear that there is no sin in eating such meat (1 Cor. 8:8), then he gives his practical advice, "But take heed lest by any means this liberty of yours becomes a stumbling block to them that are weak" (8:9). His final counsel is, "If meat make my brother to offend, I will eat no meat." (8:13)
If we apply our understanding of this passage to the interpretation of other such passages in the Epistles, certain things are clear. First, in dealing with secondary matters of practice within the church, Paul`s governing concern is what will further the cause of Gospel witness. Second, in dealing with such matters Paul was willing, in his own day and time and in consideration of the pagan culture around him, to advise that the church adopt certain practices, not because there was any sin involved nor, I think, to lay down patterns for the future church, but to avoid offending unnecessarily that particular culture.
It is from this standpoint that I think we can better understand many of Paul`s other admonitions to particular churches. Writing to another church in a somewhat different cultural situation, as I have previously mentioned, Paul advised the women in the Corinthian church not to appear in church with their heads uncovered, not wear gold ornaments or jewelry, and not to braid their hair. Clearly, these practices, though morally neutral in themselves, would, in Corinth, have been hindrances to their witness. It must be remembered that it is in that same letter that Paul advises that women should keep silent in church.
When we seek to understand the cultural situation of the New Testament church, we must realize that the radical beliefs and practices of the church created a tremendous tension in its relation with the pagan-predominantly Roman-culture in which it operated. The deeply egalitarian teachings of Jesus (the promise of salvation for all) totally contradicted the values of a hierarchical society, economically based on the labor of slaves. A vital part of that pagan society`s structure was the subjugated and inferior position of women.
Christianity decisively challenged those pagan values. The Christian church not only allowed, but also positively encouraged all human beings-slave and free, Jew and Gentile, educated and uneducated, men and women-to worship, live and love together. It was especially this facet of the new faith that drew the scorn of Celsus, a prominent second-century pagan critic, who poured vitriolic scorn on Christians for such practices.
Dr. Jane Shaw, a widely respected church historian, in her McCandless Lecture in March 2000, at Georgetown College (Baptist) in Kentucky, pointed out:
"Roman society had very distinct ideas about how a virtuous woman should behave: submissively, and certainly not speaking in public. Roman law held that women were by nature the weaker sex, they lacked seriousness, and they therefore required the authority of men (husbands and fathers) over them.
It is surely with an awareness of these pagan surroundings that a sensible exegesis of Paul`s strictures against women must be seen. Remembering always the Apostle`s primary concern with effective Gospel witness, it is not surprising that, as with eating of meat offered to idols, he would advise particular church congregations not to offend unnecessarily the overwhelmingly male-dominated society in which they operated.
The biblical, historical, and archeological evidence suggests that women held the principal leadership offices, alongside men, for the first three centuries, at least, of Christianity. In many early Christian communities, women as well as men were deacons, presbyters (priests), bishops (episkopi-overseers), apostles (missionaries), teachers and prophets. Throughout the New Testament, we get tantalizing glimpses of this reality. When Paul wrote to the Christians in Rome, it is deacon Phoebe who carried his letter to them and thereby introduced Paul to them. She was his patron. He concluded his letter to the Romans by greeting the leaders in the Christian community there, amongst whom there were many women. Ten out of the twenty-eight whom he greets are women: Prisca, Mary, Tryphena, Persis, Julia, Olympas, the mother of Rufus, the sister of Nercus, and Junia. Especially prominent amongst these women was Junia, `prominent among the Apostles,` with her husband Andronicus, whom Paul had known when he was in prison."
Dr. Shaw continues, "Paul says . . . in his first letter to Timothy in which he describes a bishop or overseer as being like a householder-he must manage his household well . . . for if someone does not know how to manage his household, how can he take care of God`s church? In this letter, Paul assumes that the householder is male, but his own travels and missionary activities had in fact shown him otherwise. For example, when he arrived in Philippi, as recounted in Acts 16, he preached to a woman named Lydia, a dealer in purple cloth, a woman of reasonably substantial means and a householder. When she converted to Christianity, so the rest of her household was baptized too (Acts 16:15). And when Paul was released from prison, recounted at the end of chapter 16 (verse 40) it was to Lydia`s house that he went, so that he could meet and worship with other Christians before he left the city."
Actually, this pattern of essential female involvement in the church has continued through the centuries, despite great pressure from the male-dominated society in which it has existed. I know from my own experiences as pastor that no modern church could function without the efforts of dedicated Christian women. We have traditionally trusted them to teach our children in Sunday School the fundamentals of the Christian faith. They have been the bulwarks of Baptist missionary effort through the Women`s Missionary Union. They have volunteered by the thousands to be missionaries on the home and foreign fields. True, Paul advises the Corinthian church, not only that women should keep silent in churches, but that, if women want to learn anything, they should "ask their husbands at home" (1 Cor. 14:35)-incidentally, in fifty years, I have never heard a sermon on that text. In actual fact, several of the finest Bible teachers and expositors I have heard in my years have been women, including a marvelous woman who taught for many years a mixed Bible class of men and women in the church I pastored. The arbitrary exclusion of females from the offices of preacher and pastor does not, for all these reasons and many more, make any sense to me.
I think the final, and perhaps most decisive point to be made in this argument is to go back to the Apostle Paul himself. As I have repeatedly pointed out, Paul was governed in all his actions by one decisive consideration: the effective witness to the Gospel. Paul lived and wrote in the midst of a male-dominated society. He was willing, for the sake of the Gospel, to make certain concessions to that culture.
We live today in a totally different cultural surrounding. The secular culture, with which we have to deal as Christians, is one that is, at least in its majority opinion, committed to sexual and gender equality. Christians have helped greatly to bring that situation about. Now, if we apply Paul`s guiding principle, we must decide what will most effectively serve the cause of Gospel witness. To maintain the stance of gender discrimination within the church, it seems to me, seriously harms our witness. On this basis, I dare say that the counsel of Paul to the Corinthian church would be very different from the counsel he would give to the church at Nashville or Atlanta or Dallas.
I cannot close without another reference to the worship experience I described in the opening paragraphs of this article. When the Gospel is preached and when the Holy Spirit evidently blesses that proclamation with the salvation of a soul, who is it that will label that experience "unchristian" simply because the preacher was a woman?
Baptists do not, unlike their Catholic brethren, pick out particular individuals in their history and designate them as "saints." But if Baptists did have saints, I think the list would certainly include Lottie Moon and Annie Armstrong, for whom annual mission offerings are named. I should imagine that, if by some miracle, Annie Armstrong and Lottie Moon were to return to us in the flesh, it would be a brave and, I think, foolish pastor who would deny them his pulpit to tell their stories and give their witness, even though they are, quite clearly, "females of the species."
