It's a growing trend and yet few seem to notice. Some have
been lulled to sleep by the ever present 'hum' of our frenetic culture. Others
are changed even transformed by their failure to reflect on society and their
place in it.
Others (I think) are tired of the fight or perhaps think that
there are such 'bigger' issues and battles to be fought that this one is not
worth the required energy or the possible divisions such an examination is
bound to create.
What am I referring to? Over the past several years I have
noticed a growing presence of women teaching theology in conservative circles.
All conservatives will agree that women shouldn't be 'pastoring' churches or
that they shouldn't be speaking 'from the pulpit' ... and right away we start
getting into difficulties because we're talking about 'pastors' and 'pulpits'
terms and concepts that are (at least in part) extra-scriptural.
As a qualification I'm not suggesting there aren't duly and
Biblically constituted Church officers. By no means, but I do find the modern
professional pastor-for-hire system to be something less than the model
suggested by the New Testament.
Pulpits have been made into sacred spaces by the Protestant
tradition and with this comes a host of misunderstandings and errors concerning
everything from 'non-pulpit' areas, to liturgy, to the meaning and purposes of
buildings as well as false and unbiblical notions regarding so-called sacred
architecture and the like.
So does this matter? It does because the conversation and
debate are often sidetracked by the many problems, inconsistencies and even contradictions
found in various conservative traditions. Distinctions are made and loopholes
created, mostly the fruits of the Reformation's failures, in particular its
failure to consistently and thoroughly apply its core principle... or what
should be understood as its core, namely that of Sola Scriptura.
There's the Sunday School angle to this debate over women and
I mention it because this is the common argument utilised to defend the idea of
women teaching theology. Since Sunday School isn't officially 'worship' or 'the
pulpit' and thus it isn't officially 'regulated' in a Reformed 'Regulative
Principle' sense... therefore it follows that there are outside of worship opportunities for women to teach.
In other words since we have Sunday Schools and their formats
aren't explicitly governed by Scripture and we allow women to speak and teach in
that context, then clearly as long as women aren't 'in the pulpit' they can
teach authoritative doctrine (and to men at that) as long as they're outside
the official auspices of the Church meeting.
Now there are only small numbers of conservatives that would
balk at the idea of women teaching a children's class in Sunday School and yet
there are larger numbers that would be upset over a woman teaching the 'adult'
class in which men are present. But increasingly this is not the case. I've
attended several Evangelical Churches over the past 10-15 years in which women
are teaching the main class. I don't attend but I see it happening.
There's a great deal of confusion here as the presence of
Sunday School... itself of dubious origin.... has generated a cloud in which
the Church creates other categories of 'public gathering' in which Scriptural
ecclesiology doesn't seem to apply. This is the first sign of a problem and
thus the question needs to be re-examined. Sunday School either needs to be
scrapped (as some have suggested) or re-thought. The principle problem isn't
age segregation as some have argued but the fact that the model isn't
Scriptural to begin with.
Can the Church meet and have a more explicitly didactic
session in which dialog takes place, in which questions are asked and answered?
Certainly this is the case and the Book of Acts can actually be appealed to in
order to justify this. The New Testament gathering was not a High Church
ritualistic affair. And yet in such 'Low Church' and even seemingly 'informal' contexts,
women are commanded to be silent and to ask questions at home. While
conventional Sunday morning liturgies do not suffer 'questions' from the pews,
clearly the New Testament model was different and in reality much of the
gathering probably looked more like a Sunday School meeting (with hymns and
sacraments) as opposed to the ritualistic affair that it turned into by the 3rd
and 4th centuries and which still dominates (in some form) today.
Again there was dialog and
questioning and thus Paul made a point to say... women are to keep silent.
I will grant that many Fundamentalist and Evangelical
Churches have sought to escape this trend toward ritualism. In their zeal to
escape stuffy formalism (as they see it) they have instead turned to what
amounts to a kind of pep rally/ business meeting model (as is often the case in
Fundamentalist gatherings) or a music performance/dramatic presentation (as is
often the case in modern Evangelical meetings). The New Testament (I would
argue) presents neither the liturgicalism of the High Church nor the
Anti-Liturgicalism of 20th century Protestantism but instead a
simple reverent gathering in which praise and prayer take place but all the
activities are centered around the Word. Despite their protests to the contrary
this is not the case in any of the aforementioned examples and though High
Church gatherings are often reverent and employ a host of readings that are somewhat
Biblical in orientation they too lose their way in that the service becomes not
about the Word but about the ritual itself and a plethora of other
extra-Biblical concepts... from the building and vestments to the so-called
Church Calendar and a desire to emulate certain traditions.
This confusion has been further exacerbated by the seminary
system, the emulation of mainstream academia, the issuing of degrees, theological
journals, conferences and all the rest. This is but another aspect of the
pastoral system and the ecclesiastical apparatus it has spawned. Seminaries
aren't in the Bible and despite the lip-service, the Bible is not being
utilised in how they are structured. It can't be – because the notion is
actually alien to the New Testament.
Is the New Testament opposed to men gathering and learning
doctrine from elder and more learned teachers? Of course not but this is a far
cry from the academic ethos and bureaucracy that governs the modern seminary.
There are a few exceptions but they are exceptions in degree not in actual
principle. We could say a lot more about the money involved and the social
status. I reflected on this somewhat in a piece I wrote about Princeton in
2017. (See below)
Since the seminary system largely reflects the models of
cultural academia and women continue to play an ever more prominent role in the
culture it's hardly a surprise that women teachers have crept into Evangelical
and Christian academic circles. One would expect it. But in Confessional
circles? That's perhaps a little more surprising but there are numerous points
in which Confessionalist distinctions from Evangelicalism grow blurry,
exhibited in the many controversies and internecine battles and hence the
opportunity has arisen for soft-feminism to enter even the once seemingly
unassailable bastions of Confessional orthodoxy.
Am I against women learning doctrine? By no means but I do
question Christian women who seek careers... and especially careers in
Christian academia (for what it's worth).
If a teacher came along and suggested Paul's words to women
in Titus 2 ...that they should be discreet and chaste and that they should love
their husbands no longer applied.... there would be a protest. A cry of
'heresy' would issue forth and rightly so.
And yet when the other imperatives on the same list about 'keeping the home' and being 'obedient to
their husbands, that the word of God be
not blasphemed' (emphasis mine), is ignored or dispensed with – no one
seems to bat an eye.
In the Pastoral Epistles Paul is explicit. Christian women
are supposed to remain in the domestic sphere. As I've suggested elsewhere the
ending phrase about the Word of God being blasphemed is being wed to the notion
of them staying home or at least within the domestic sphere... which may or may
not involve a physical presence in the home. Older generations would have
understood this. Our contemporary culture does not.
I know there are numerous attempts at hermeneutical
gymnastics (appealing to Lydia and Proverbs 31 as examples) in order to find
various 'loopholes' and indeed I will freely admit the 'rule' is not so
absolute as to not allow for some practical wisdom in its application. There
are certainly occasions when women can work and yet these are necessarily
limited. Nowhere is the idea of a Christian career woman on the spectrum.
When it comes to women teaching in seminaries we have
multiple problems. One is with regard to Christian women having careers.
Another is with regard to Christian women teaching authoritative doctrine to
men.
Again, the seminary model is problematic but if that wasn't
enough we live in the technological era which has created new loopholes and
consequently we have conservative Christian women hosting doctrinal radio
shows, appearing on podcasts, running doctrinal websites etc.
Feminism is creeping in as indeed many of these
'conservative' women are (despite their lip service to tradition) quite hostile
to Biblical New Testament femininity and it's inevitable that they will in both
present and future end up occasionally teaching in Sunday Schools and then
teaching full time. Its full implementation has by no means arrived but in a
generation (or so) Confessional Churches are going to be wrestling with women
in the pulpit.
It has already happened some will say... in the 1970's and
1980's. True enough.
But it's going to come back and this time it's going to
present a more viable challenge and conservatives have left themselves with almost
no leg to stand on. But even if women don't formally ascend to conservative
pulpits, in some ways it doesn't matter as they are nevertheless growing in the
exercise of authority and are having a significant impact in conservative
circles. Some would say they're even waxing bold. They've achieved this through
various parachurch means... means which (for good or ill) now compete with the
authority of the Church itself.
Am I some sort of misogynist? By no means but I do want to
obey the Scriptures and I guess I'm old enough or perhaps observant enough to
notice the 'creep'... and also to notice that few seem to be paying attention.
As I have told my daughters we all have blessings and burdens
in our roles. To many women the fact that their husbands step out into the
larger world on a daily basis is an occasion for envy and jealously and leaves
them feeling isolated and empty as if their lives have no purpose. Aside from
being wrongheaded and unbiblical I must admit some husbands certainly make this
worse for their wives.
And yet that seeming blessing for the husband is actually all
too often a burden as it is the husband who is called to deal with the stress
of putting food on the table, of answering to others and dealing with the
doubts and burdens of trying to live with integrity in a fallen world. There's
a reason why the man is called to this role. It's not always pleasant but I
would never wish the burdens on my wife... just as I am ill-equipped to fulfill
her role.
I will grant that many men do not feel these struggles (in
any sense) but that's another issue and another problem.
How often do I wish I could stay home? How often on a day off
do I want to just sit quietly at home and rest? And yet I have a wife and I
must also think of her and her needs and wants as much as (if not more than) my
own.
For the wife, the burden of domesticity can be transformed
into a blessing if understood correctly. In addition to being obedient to God's
order the woman is liberated from the stresses of outside employment, answering
to others (other men at that) and additionally she is blessed with something I
crave... time. And yet as my wife would testify, her domestic life is quite
busy and time is almost as precious a commodity for her as it is for me. As our
kids reach adulthood we can see the horizon in which we won't have children at
home and there are real blessings to that scenario... accompanied by a certain
sadness to be sure. And yet I am eager for my children to 'launch' into life and
begin to live as adults and seek their own paths. Not because I want to be rid
of them but because I want to see them grow and become what they're meant to
be.
Will we suffer from an 'empty nest'? No, because it's a new
phase in life and it affords new opportunities. Will my wife still stay at home?
Yes. Will my wife be bored at home? Not at all. The projects she has desired to
engage in that have eluded her for years will now be possible and in all
likelihood as grandchildren enter the scene she will find that her time is just
as occupied as before.
This brings us to Priscilla. This is the 'ace in the hole'
for many who would defend women teaching men in the context of the seminary and
in the wider context of our media culture.
Priscilla taught Apollos and therefore women can teach.
To this I would say, not
so fast. There's more to consider.
First, Priscilla taught alongside of Aquila. Now, were there
occasions when Priscilla and Apollos might have been alone and she continued to
'instruct' him. Sure, that's certainly possible. I don't get the impression
this was 'formal' teaching and that distinction is important.
Second, this was not only informal but private. This was not
public teaching. This was not a case of Priscilla standing up to speak 'for the
Church' in the capacity of a Church leader. This is forbidden to women in the
New Testament. We could engage in a larger discussion as to why, but the fact
that it is, delineated as such by the Apostles should be enough for us. The
reasons given are not cultural and thus they remain universal and binding.
The office of prophetess is effectively defunct and Paul more
or less teaches this in 1 Corinthians, acknowledging that the extraordinary
signs are temporary. And thus in the very same epistle he can establish
post-Apostolic norms for conduct in which women are to be silent. This is
reiterated in 1 Timothy and Titus, epistles that both establish norms for
Church order. Women are not to teach.
Ah, but seminary isn't the Church. It's parachurch and here's
where the confusion rears its head once again. Of course some seminaries are
not wholly parachurch. Some are independent, some are wed to denominations...
which merely adds another layer of confusion, bureaucracy etc. Many
Confessionalists are highly critical of parachurch organisations and yet many
of their arguments fall flat as their remedy is control via the presbytery or
classis, and once again we've strayed into extra-Biblical territory. Much to
the ire of Presbyterians I am always keen to point out to them that the
Presbytery itself (their version, not the way it's used in Scripture) is
actually a para-church organisation. The same is true of the so-called denomination. Many good men in these
groups know there are potential (and actual) problems with para-church
ministries and yet all too often they resort to using the wrong tools for the
task, implements that cannot properly address the error.
We can argue over the propriety of independent seminaries or
perhaps even seminaries at all. Nevertheless if we will grant their validity,
then certainly as schools for aspiring elders (we'll leave the pastor issue
aside for the sake of argument), it would follow that if women cannot teach authoritative
doctrine to the Church at large then they shouldn't be instructing future
elders in questions of doctrine and theology... the very teaching (and
teachers) that will then be given to the Church. Why? Because it's forbidden
and (I'll risk offending here,) they're not qualified to do so.
But what about Priscilla? Again, if an elder or aspiring
elder, or for that matter any Christian man were visiting a home and another
man's learned wife was to teach him something, that's one thing. I have been
blessed by the testimony of many women, including my own wife.
For all we know Priscilla was helping Apollos to understand
the empirical facts of the Gospel and the history of the Church to that moment.
I'm not denigrating Priscilla who I am certain was a godly woman. But she
wasn't teaching Apollos academically, grading his papers, correcting him and
determining whether or not he was qualified to lead within the Church.
For a woman to stand at a lectern (with authority) and teach
men... how is that any different than her teaching the congregation at large? She's
teaching by proxy, via a loophole. I am not convinced by arguments from
academic specialty or even the notion that certain topics are okay... but systematic
theology isn't. Do Confessionalists (of all people) really want to parse and
divide theological education in such a way?
These principles used to be understood. Well do I remember
attending seminary over 20 years ago and fellow students were upset because
there was a woman in one of our classes. They felt she shouldn't be there but
the school allowed it because she wasn't pursuing a 'divinity' degree.
We've gone from that to women openly teaching in conservative
seminaries and being welcomed as contributors and guests on radio shows,
collaborative book projects, theological conferences, podcasts etc...
As I've said before I'm not an adherent of the Patriarchy
position but I have long found the Complimentarian position to be wanting and
it's no surprise that it's slipping and I think before long it will look more
and more like the egalitarian position that seems to be waxing bold in
Evangelical circles.
Continue reading part 2
Continue reading part 2