You may have noticed t he publicity recently received by The Place of Women in the Bible, a Bible Study Series by Rev. Verlyn Verbrugge. This pamphlet deals with the place of women in the church, and more particularly women in ecclesiastical office. Surrounded by the intense discussion concerning women in church office, you may have wondered whether there is any trustworthy guide through the Bible’s teaching on this subject. If you are looking for such a sound guide, this is not one of them.
An Unbiased Approach?
Although the six brief series of Bible studies contained in this 40 page pamphlet are, according to the foreword, “not first of a ll intended to convince anyone of a particular position,” and claim “to let the Scriptures speak for themselves,” they present a very prejudicial approach in favor of women in church office. By a series of introductions, discussion questions, and concluding suggestions, the author covers the following topics: God and the Creation of Human Beings, The Fall and Redemption, The Marriage Relationship, Women in God‘s Service, Jesus and Women, and Those Texts That Deal More Specifically with Women in Office. However, in most of the studies the questions and conclusions are so leading and loaded one cannot miss them. For example, on page 36 the author is suggesting that I Corinthians 11 and 14, and I Timothy 2 may be interpreted as no longer in force because of cultural relativism going on in the Bible. He suggests, “suppose that we discover places where God explicitly takes a cultural situation into account and gives certain regulations with that in mind, whereas his ideal is something quite different. Then we may legitimately question whether the same thing is happening here, namely whether God allowed the instruction for women to keep silent to be given in that culture, whereas his ideal is something different.” Nowhere, however, does the author mention specifically the reasons put forward in I Timothy 2:13–14 for the exclusion of women in office, namely the creation order and the nature of the fall. Why does the author not openly bring these matters to bear on the question? This biased approach is apparent throughout.
I am not surprised, therefore, that this pamphlet, printed in 1979, has been published, distributed, and promoted by the Committee for Women in the Christian Reformed Church. This group, organized in June of 1975, has a distinct purpose. I quote the June, 1978 Newsletter of the Committee: “The basis for organizing the committee is our belief that the ordination of women to ecclesiastical office is the spirit-directed outcome of the teachings of Scripture.”
A Biblical Study?
We must appreciate the author’s concluding statement in t he foreword: “If the issue is faced squarely with the Word, rather than letting the discussion develop with a host of emotional and extraneous (often secular) arguments or even degenerate into an attack on personalities, the church will be strengthened and God’s truth will prevail.” I too am convinced that our study of this issue facing the church must be thoroughly Biblical. In fact the church must oppose man’s changing culture if and when it tries to overturn the standards of God’s Word. But what disturbs me is that some, even in our circles, who claim to submit to God ‘s Word on t his subject, seem quite willing to quote passages which seem to support their position, while minimizing, overlooking, and declaring culturally relative and therefore not normative, other texts that claim t o be normative and not culturally relative. In an excellent article called “Male and Female Related He Them” (Christianity Today, Vol. XX, No. 14, April 9, 1976, pp. 13–17), George W. Knight III shows how such authors as Scanzoni, Hardesty, and Paul Jewett, who claim to write from an evangelical perspective, have come “to disavow any role of submission by women to men in the marriage relationship or in the ruling/teaching functions in the church.” The study material before us by Rev. Verbrugge seeks in many ways to promote some of the ideas regarding the role of women presented by such so–called evangelical writers. However, the question we must face is, “Are these presentations Biblical?”
Some Arguments Examined
1. Slavery and Women. It is frequently argued by advocates of women in church office that since the Bible talks about slavery in the same context as the women’s issue, we ought to oppose the restriction against women in office just as strongly as we oppose slavery. The author of this Bible Study Series would like us “to draw a parallel between the issue of slavery as seen a century ago and t he women’s issue today” (p. 38). He argues that “some of the obvious commands of Scrip ture have been set aside because of a change in cultural situation” (p. 38). In that context he asks, “Is it possible that God’s ideal for his people is quite different from what the words of Scripture expressly say (a literal interpretation)” (p. 38)?
Dr. Knight, in the above mentioned article deals with this argument in a fine manner. He acknowledges the obvious fact that both Paul and Peter deal with slaves in close proximity to husbands and wives, and therefore with the issue of women and their ruling/teaching functions in the church. But unlike the slave relationship, the marriage relationship and the ruling/teaching functions of women in the church are regulated by explicit reference to the creation order and God’s moral law. Knight concludes, “Not once does Paul appeal to either God’s creation order or God’s moral law as the grounds for the institution of slavery. This radically distinguishes the treatment of slavery from that of marriage and the family.” The parallel, therefore, between the two issues cannot be justly drawn, for Paul does argue that the roles of husbands and wives and the ruling/teaching function are God-ordained roles established by God Himself.
2. Equality and Inferiority. Another popular argument proposed today is that since both males and females are equally created in God’s image there is to be no subordination on the part of women. And conversely, it is argued, if there is subordination of women, then to that extent one holds to the inferiority of females. Question 7 of chapter 1 (p. 6) in our series of studies attempts to deal with this facet of the issue when it asks, “There are t hose who insist that because Eve was created from Adam, she was, therefore, subordinate to him, and, to that extent, inferior. How do you react to this?”
At this point the author could have led his readers to understand that the Bible indicates that “subordination does not imply inferiority or make any one inferior . . .”, as Knight again writes in the same article. Jesus Christ was not inferior to God, the Father, and yet He submits as the Son and the Incarnate One who is obedient even unto death. “Likewise,” says Dr. Knight, “that the woman submits as woman does not mean therefore she is inferior or that her humanity as an image–bearer is in doubt or threatened.”
3. Women, the Fall and Galatians 3:28. In chapter II the author of this pamphlet covers the topic of “The Fall and Redemption of Mankind.” Like many today, he would have his readers believe that “God allowed the effects of the curse to be felt during Old ·Testament times. Women were not regarded as equal, nor did they receive ‘equal rights’ with men. But what resounds through the New Testament so clearly is that Christ has come to remove the curse of God against sin and restore things to their original, pre-fall situation” (p. 11). Galatians 3:28 is then sometimes quoted, as it is in this study series, to bolster the argument that now, on this side of the cross, sexual differences must go, particularly differences in teaching and authoritative offices in the church. This study series then quotes the 1973 Synodical Study Committee on Women in Ecclesiastical Office which identified four areas of equality implied by Galatians 3:28, one of which is, that both men and women are called to “leadership.” “In this new relationship in which Christ has placed us, sex is something totally irrelevant (cf. Gal. 3:28 . . .).” (Acts of Synod, 1973, pp. 546–551).
It is important to notice, however, that the Bible never indicates that the removal of the effects of sin on the husband-wife relationship or the ruling/teaching functions in the church includes the removal of those relationships and functions. In fact, the Bible appeals to the pre-fall creation order precisely in those places where it speaks of these relationships and functions. See Ephesians 5, I Corinthians 11 and 14, and I Timothy 2. The removal of the effects of the curse does not imply the removal of the distinctive roles God has given husbands and wives in marriage, and men and women in their ruling/teaching functions in the church. In the discussions regarding church office, Galatians 3:28 has been so abused, I fear, that almost any proof for freedom from any structure can be attempted by quoting it. That is not God’s purpose for including it in Scripture.
4. Those “Sticky” Texts. What about those texts, particularly I Corinthians 11:2–16, 14:33–36, and I Timothy 2:8–15, which deal especially with women in church office? Chapter VI of this study series attempts to examine these passages. This is perhaps the most disappointing chapter presented. I find a double emphasis here, as well as in other writings on this subject, first that these texts are most unclear, and at the same time surely these are not binding rules for the church today. However, an in-depth attempt to understand the reasons why the Bible gives these rules is often avoided. These reasons cannot be easily dismissed.
In I Timothy 2:13 Paul clearly asserts that the issue of women in the ruling/teaching function of the church is founded on the creation order. In I Corinthians 11:16 and 14:33 the Apostle affirms that this is to be the uniform practice of all the churches. I Corinthians 14:34 tells us that this is what “the law says.” Verse 37 of that same chapter informs us that what Paul has written “are the Lord’s commandments.” The full weight of these parts of the text must also be part of our considerations on this issue.
I think a great deal more work needs to be done on I Timothy 2. The context clearly has the church situation in view. There is good reason, and I feel convincing reason, to see verses 11–14 as prohibiting women from the ruling/teaching function in the church, or what we may call the special offices. In verses 11 and 12 “silence” or “quietness” occurs both at the beginning of verse 11 and at the end of verse 12. In both cases it is connected to one or the other kind of authority and teaching. We are told in verse 11 that the woman is to quietly receive instruction with entire submissiveness, while in verse 12 she is not to teach or exercise authority, but to remain quiet. Both verses seem to be saying the same thing from a different angle. We may say these verses have the same message, but come to us from different perspectives. The woman is to receive instruction quietly (vs. 11), not being permitted to be a teacher, but to remain quiet (vs. 12). She is to receive instruction with entire submissiveness (vs. 11) and not exercise authority over the man (vs. 12). Paul is covering the subject from both sides of the argument, both positively and negatively. He is concerned with both her receiving and her giving.
When we examine this word for “silence” in the original, it is clear that this word has to do with something verbal, something I do with my mouth. It is used here as the opposite of “teaching.” There is good reason to conclude that this does not mean she may never teach a man anything, (for Priscilla instructed Apollos, a preacher of the gospel in Acts 18), but that she may not hold the office of one who teaches or bears authority. The original verbs used here provide a probable and good case to indicate that a woman may not hold or perform the particular duties of the one who holds the office of a teacher, or of an authority–bearer. This restriction of women in the ruling/teaching function of the church is based on the creation order. Now unless we are prepared to say Paul’s teaching is a reflection of an erroneous rabbinical view, or some other error, we do well to take these considerations seriously in our discussion on the subject of women in church office. The study series under consideration deals with these concerns most inadequately.
A Wider Question
In conclusion, these studies have been promoted as “excellent material for group study and discussion.” You will be the ultimate judge. But in the final sense our conclusions on this matter must be thoroughly, honestly, and completely Biblical. I am becoming more and more convinced that this is not so much a question of women in office as it is a question of Biblical authority. Even some who promote women in ecclesiastical office readily admit that Paul prohibited such action. The question is, do we take the Bible to be authoritative at that point. I believe we must.
Ronald Scheuers, pastor of the Christian Reformed Church of Baldwin, Wisconsin was asked to provide us with the review of this widely publicized piece of propaganda for women in church office.