Chapter 11 The Contemporary Church Faces the Issues

Chapter 11

The Contemporary Church Faces the Issues

Introduction

This history of women’s contributions to the church and its ministries has reached the present era. Not only what women did, but their relationships to the church and the world have been unfolded. Changing perspectives on women in the church have been observed, and sometimes (depending on one’s own perspective) these perspectives have improved, sometimes worsened; they have often undulated and have even returned in circular fashion to a previous stage.

As the contemporary church faces the issues, probably most of the attitudes that have existed over the centuries, excepting those extreme concepts of women as mindless consorts and lustful deceivers of mankind, still exist somewhere today. In some denominations and religious organizations the “women’s issue” has become a battleground and even (though few would say it out loud) a test of orthodoxy. Some people who are willing to tolerate others who hold opposing views on, say, Calvinism or baptism are not able to serve in an organization, teach in a seminary, or minister in a church alongside those differing on this matter.

To gain further historical perspective with a view to increasing mutual understanding in the contemporary church, it will be helpful to identify some of the recent currents of thought and to isolate some of the most troublesome issues and difficult questions.

Late Nineteenth- to Early-Twentieth-Century Writers

The avalanche of literature and a corresponding increase in activism can now be seen to have had their origin in the deep recesses of church history. But in the history of feminist ideas, certain significant contributions are worthy of note. The opinions of a few earlier observers, even if named already, are worth citing here in order to pick up the thread of ideas.

Antoinette Brown Blackwell

Antoinette Blackwell, a pioneer woman seminarian and cleric of the late nineteenth century, had expressed her convictions as follows:

I assert that every woman, in the present state of society, is bound to maintain her own independence and own integrity of character; to assert herself, earnestly and firmly, as the equal of man, who is only her peer. [If she consents to being subject to her husband because of civil law] I do insist that she consents to degradation; that this is sin and it is impossible to make it other than sin.¹

A. J. Gordon

The esteemed spiritual and missionary leader, A. J. Gordon (after whom Gordon-Conwell Divinity School is partially named) wrote an article that was originally published in 1894 and has recently been recirculated. Entitled “The Ministry of Women,” it begins with the promise in Acts 2 about the ministry of women as prophets under the new covenant. It continues with the discussion of 1 Timothy 2:8–11, offering the suggestion that such notable scholars as Chrysostom and Alford had previously made, namely, that Paul expected us to understand that when he said “in like manner,” the reader was to assume the repetition of the word “pray.” Therefore this passage does not exclude women from praying but assumes that they do. Gordon’s article continues with 1 Corinthians 11, where he follows Bengel’s terse comment: “Therefore women were not excluded from these duties.” As for 1 Corinthians 14:34–35, Gordon suggests that this is a particular circumstance, one of several instances in the chapter where those who are speaking need at certain times to to silent, and that it should be interpreted in the context of “the entire New Testament teaching.” He then refers to Romans 16 and Paul’s female associates, noting that the word diakonos, which is used of Phoebe,

is rendered “minister” when applied to Paul and Apollos (I Corinthians iii:5), and “deacon” when used of other male officers of the Church (I Timothy iii:10,12,13). Why discriminate against Phoebe simply because she is a woman?…“Phoebe, a servant” might suggest to an ordinary reader nothing more than the modern church drudge, who prepares sandwiches and coffee for an ecclesiastical sociable.

The rest of the article is in the same incisive style.²

Gordon’s article sounds remarkably up-to-date and surely should help lay to rest the idea that evangelical feminism is simply a modern reaction to “women’s lib.”

Katherine C. Bushnell

In the early years of this century a vigorous appeal was made by Dr. Katherine C. Bushnell in a book entitled God’s Word to Women. This was abridged and summarized by Jessie Penn-Lewis in The Magna Charta of Women in 1919 and was reprinted in 1923. Bushnell and Penn-Lewis have both been criticized at certain points, but Bushnell’s work was considered significant enough to warrant republication in 1976.³ Among the contributions that these authors have made is their suggestion regarding 1 Corinthians 14:

We are driven to believe the Apostle was not uttering his own views in verses 34 and 35 of 1 Cor. ch. 14,…we believe this is the language of Judaizers at Corinth, which has been reported to Paul, and which Paul quotes to answer back in the words: “What! Came the word of God out from you? or came it unto you only?”…⁴

This interpretation has been picked up by several recent scholars as the most likely explanation of the passage.

Margaret Sanger

The early decades of this century witnessed much activism leading up to the ratification in 1920 of Amendment 19 on Woman Suffrage. Attention then turned increasingly from the woman’s role in society to that in her own home. A leading voice in this was Margaret Sanger. One memorable line expresses her concern. Declared Sanger, “Woman’s role has been that of an incubator and little more.”⁵

The Mid-Twentieth Century

Simone de Beauvoir

In her work The Second Sex,⁶ Simone de Beauvoir articulated ideas that have found expression in countless subsequent writings:

Woman herself recognizes that the world is masculine on the whole; those who fashioned it, ruled it, and still dominate it today are men…The lot of women is a respectful obedience…Many of the faults for which women are reproached—mediocrity, laziness, frivolity, servility—simply express the fact that their horizon is closed…Sexually unsatisfied, doomed to male crudeness,…she finds consolation in creamy sauces, heady wines, velvets…If she seems to man so “physical” a creature, it is because her situation leads her to attach extreme importance to her animal nature.⁷

The following two quotations from de Beauvoir show the beginnings of what was to become a strong link between the concerns of women and their perception of the role of religion in their dilemma.

Woman is asked in the name of God not so much to accept her inferiority as to believe that, thanks to Him, she is the equal of the lordly male; even the temptation to revolt is suppressed by the claim that the injustice is overcome…Although subordinated to the law of men by the will of God Himself, woman none the less finds in Him a mighty refuge from them…With the heavenly Father’s connivance, woman can boldly lay claim to the glory of her femininity in defiance of man.⁸

Religion sanctions women’s selflove…But, above all, it confirms the social order, it justifies her resignation, by giving her the hope of a better future in a sexless heaven.⁹

Others were shortly to bring judgment on religion in different and even more severe words.

The material presented thus far should help the Christian reader to penetrate behind what has seemed to many to be hostile activism among those they often call “radical feminists.” Modern feminism had its roots at least partly in the frustrations of women who felt that—whether in bed, business, society, or school—their lives were inordinately dominated by men. The frequent response of the church was to reaffirm male leadership rather than to give evidence of a desire to understand the perspective of women. Such a response could hardly have failed to fortify the impression that the church was a, if not the, major opponent of women.

A scientific issue lies behind much of the contemporary discussion: Are there demonstrable differences between males and females? A number of tests were conducted on this subject in the 1960s and 1970s. For a survey of these, see Eleanor Emmons Maccoby and Carol Nagy Jacklin, The Psychology of Sex Differences.¹⁰ Research continues, some of it connected with the lateralization of the brain, with inquiries centered on whether some of the apparent male-female differences are related not only to the dominance of either part, but also to the way they function together.¹¹ One influential work that offered an opinion of research up to the early 1950s was Montagu’s Natural Superiority of Women.¹² Montagu attempted to show that although men may have certain physical advantages over women, there are other ways, including intellectual ability, in which women are superior.

John R. Rice

It would be difficult to find a greater contrast between the foregoing works and the widely distributed book by a popular evangelist of that day, John R. Rice. Its title told the story: Bobbed Hair, Bossy Wives, and Women Preachers.¹³ Enhanced by pictures of the author’s daughters with their long hair, the book addressed what Rice thought were infractions of biblical practice. His opinion comes through loudly: “I have no doubt that millions will go to Hell because of the unscriptural practice of women preachers.”¹⁴

Rice did not even approve of women teaching men on the mission field. He especially decried deputation at home by women missionaries who so often “prattle about dress and customs and food.”¹⁵ All this is part of “modern sissified churches.”¹⁶ After all, “God is a masculine God…God is not effeminate.”¹⁷ One of John R. Rice’s daughters, Elizabeth Rice Handford, followed in the tradition with a book, Me Obey Him?¹⁸ The answer, she says, is yes. However difficult it may be, wives must obey their husbands.

But to stop there would leave a one-sided picture of a truly remarkable man and his family. Rice wanted his daughters to learn theology and Greek. He encouraged theological discussions in their home. In time he strongly encouraged more women to enter active ministries. To that end, Rice, his wife, and three of their daughters with their husbands founded the Joyful Woman Ministries. These ministries include conferences for the instruction and encouragement of women—“Jubilees.” A periodical, The Joyful Woman, begun in 1977, reached a circulation of 12,000–14,000 ten years later. Rice’s surviving daughters—Jessie Sandford, Elizabeth Handford, and Joy Martin—are all in active ministries, as are their husbands.

P. B. Fitzwater, Charles C. Ryrie

Two works by evangelical scholars appeared at about this time. The significance of the first is that the author was the esteemed professsor of systematic theology at Moody Bible Institute, P. B. Fitzwater. Fitzwater distinguished between teaching with authority and other ministries. The former is not permitted to women, but Fitzwater did not consider other ministries to be forbidden. “Paul does not exhort all women to aspire to be preachers for he well knew that according to their constitution and sphere as wives and mothers, women of proper endowment, leisure, and undivided consecration, would be always the exception, rather than the rule.”¹⁹ For Fitzwater the reason women were not to be preachers was not some biblical prohibition, but rather their circumstances. “She may, if the gifts be hers, and she observe due restrictions, pray and speak to edification, exhortation and comfort in all suitable places except at the Lord’s Table, where it is quite evident silence is her bound and duty.” Thus, he affirms, “she may be…instructor of men…in short, in whatever she has ability for, except a pastoral head.”²⁰ For Fitzwater the command to silence in 1 Corinthians 14 is not absolute: “He [Paul] is simply reproving abuses…”²¹

For Charles C. Ryrie, on the other hand, “the exception was permitting women to speak in any capacity in public worship.”²² As for the subject of women’s praying and prophesying in 1 Corinthians 11:5, “it appears that the fact the women prayed and prophesied at all was very extraordinary and probably limited to the Corinthian congregation. As has been pointed out, Corinth was a city of very loose standards.”²³

Thus we conclude…that the early church did not make a practice of permitting women to speak in their public meetings. That it may have been done in prayer and prophesying cannot be absolutely denied in every case, but it was decidedly the exception and not the general practice.”²⁴

Ryrie’s opinion became widely influential. Fitzwater’s moderate views seem to have been overshadowed by Ryrie’s opinions, perhaps even at Fitzwater’s own Moody Bible Institute.

The 1960s

Several significant contributions to the discussion on women were made during the 1960s. Germaine Greer’s book The Female Eunuch appeared in 1971. The following quotations express her concern that women had allowed themselves to be demeaned: “Women are reputed never to be disgusted. The sad fact is that they often are, but not with men; following the lead of men, they are most often disgusted with themselves.”²⁵ “The universal sway of the feminine stereotype is the single most important factor in male and female womenhatred.”²⁶ “Self-sacrifice is the leitmotif of most of the marital games played by women…”²⁷

Karl Barth

At the other end of the spectrum were the opinions of the great neoorthodox theologian Karl Barth. Although he had written his volume on the doctrine of creation more than ten years earlier, the English translation of this work did not appear until 1960. Barth’s views on women were traditional. He affirmed a distinction between men and women both “physiologically and biblically.” Barth’s concept of the “I-Thou” encounter is discernible here. Man has strength, woman has weakness, but she is not inferior. There is “super-and subordination.” God has established an order (taxis), with man having headship over woman, but woman must decide this freely on her own. Her subordination is primarily to the Lord.²⁸ Judging from a comment in Barth’s How I Changed My Mind, this is one subject on which he did not change his mind.²⁹

Betty Friedan

It was The Feminine Mystique by Betty Friedan,³⁰ however, that captured the widest attention. The “mystique” is an ideal of femininity that, Friedan felt, universally plagued women. It is a role that is defined by her relationship to her family and her service in the home. Friedan did what many others had not done: she listened. She heard the same things over and over again. “Sometimes a woman would say, ‘I feel empty somehow,…incomplete.’ Or she would say. ‘I feel as if I don’t exist.’…‘I call it the housewife’s blight,’ said a family doctor in Pennsylvania.”³¹ Friedan compared the plight of the woman in her home to that of prisoners in Nazi concentration camps. The solution was not to keep urging women to love their children more or to be more “feminine.” Women have “autonomous interests of their own” that need to be recognized and fulfilled.

Naturally this apparent attack on traditional values of the home and of motherhood infuriated many people, especially Christians. The reactions were, to a large degree, justified, and Friedan later modified her views. But once again the tendency of Evangelicals was to react rather than to listen. If Friedan was right in regard to women’s feelings about their traditional role as housewife, the mere restatement of that role by Christian teachers and preachers could hardly have been expected to win these disaffected women.

Krister Stendahl

Although specific interaction by Evangelicals was still to come, discussion was underway among biblical scholars. At about the time that Friedan’s work appeared, Krister Stendahl, Dean of Harvard Divinity School, became the first New Testament scholar of international reputation to address this issue positively in a full-length book. The Bible and the Role of Women appeared in 1966 in a popular series of seminal works.³²

Mary Daly

In the next several years the published flow of ideas increased dramatically. Shortly after the United Nations’ “Declaration of Women’s Rights,” Kate Millett’s turbulent book Sexual Politics was published. But this explosive work with its indictment of male use and abuse of women did not have as direct an effect on the church as did Mary Daly’s work The Church and the Second Sex, first published in 1968 and published in a new edition in 1975 with a “New Feminist Post Christian Introduction.”³³ Her work was directed to the situation in the Catholic Church, a situation that needed to “be purified of antifeminist notions and practices.”³⁴

Daly built on the ideological foundation of Simone de Beauvoir. She opened her first chapter with one of de Beauvoir’s succinct comments: “Christian ideology has contributed no little to the oppression of women.”³⁵ Daly noted that “those engaged in the struggle for the equality of the sexes have often seen the Catholic Church as an enemy. This view is to a large extent justified, for Catholic teaching has prolonged a tradition of woman which at the same time idealizes and humiliates her.”³⁶

A further statement by Daly ought to be heard because so much Christian literature on women attempts to affirm women simply by stressing positive words about their feminine qualities and their important role as wives and mothers. This can be patronizing and can miss the real feelings of women. Daly wrote:

Proponents of equality charge that there is inexcusable hypocrisy in a species of ecclesiastical propaganda which pretends to put woman on a pedestal but which in reality prevents her from self-fulfillment and from active, adult-size participation in society. They point out that symbolic idealization tends to dupe women into satisfaction with the narrow role imposed upon them. Made to feel guilty or “unnatural” if they rebel, many have been condemned to a restricted or mutilated existence in the name of religion…so effective has the conservative pressure and propaganda been, that this idealizing ideology is accepted and perpetuated not only by countless members of the clergy, but indeed by many women. Fascinated by an exalted symbol of “Woman,” they are not disposed to understand the distress imposed upon countless real, existing women.³⁷

Daly had originally intended to develop a restatement of essential Christian theology in feminist form. However, between the writing of The Church and the Second Sex and Beyond God the Father: Toward a Philosophy of Women’s Liberation,³⁸ she became convinced that the male symbolism of God and Christ is impossible to separate from ontology. Revision of the language itself is insufficient. In a review, Carol P. Christ says:

Daly views the characteristics of absolute transcendence and absolute power as reflections of a hierarchal and ultimately imperialistic patriarchal mentality. The Father, Son, and Spirit legitimate an “Unholy Trinity” of Rape, Genocide, and War in which unrestrained power forces the submission of “the other.”³⁹

Even to think of God as feminine is unsatisfactory because doing so maintains a sexual distinction that ought to be abrogated.

In her book Beyond God the Father, Daly included a chapter entitled, “Beyond Christolatry: A World Without Models.” She claimed that it would “become less plausible to think of Jesus as ‘the Second Person of the Trinity’ who ‘assumed’ a human nature in unique ‘hypostatic union.’ Indeed, it is logical that the prevalent emphasis upon the total uniqueness and super-eminence of Jesus will become less meaningful.”⁴⁰ She then referred to the “Christian idolatry concerning the person of Jesus” and said that it was “not likely to be overcome except through revolution that is going on in women’s consciousness.”⁴¹

Such a statement can lead an Evangelical who may hear of it to assume that all feminism is theologically heretical. Yet there are devout Evangelical thinkers today who do believe that some modification of sexist language is possible even as applied to God, but without destroying Christian orthodoxy. They would, however, reject the radical surgery that Mary Daly desires to perform on the doctrine of God and of Christology.

Naomi R. Goldenberg

Goldenberg wrote on the same issues that provoked Mary Daly. Her challenging book is called Changing of the Gods: Feminism and the End of Traditional Religions.⁴² In a section entitled “What will happen to God?” she says:

I saw a problem. How could women represent a male God? Everything I knew about Judaism and Christianity involved accepting God as the ultimate in male authority figures…“and what would these women priests, ministers, and rabbis read to their communities?” I wondered. They could certainly not use the Bible…“God is going to change,” I thought. “We women are going to bring an end to God…we will change the world so much that he won’t fit in anymore.”⁴³

In this incisive, cleverly written analysis Goldenberg continues with a section entitled “Feminists are cooking up Götterdämmerung.”⁴⁴ She begins, “The feminist movement in Western culture is engaged in the slow execution of Christ and Yahweh. Yet very few of the women and men now working for sexual equality within Christianity and Judaism realize the extent of their heresy.” Further, she says, “As a psychologist of religion, I do not agree that improving the position of women is a minor alteration in Judaeo-Christian doctrine…The psychology of the Jewish and Christian religions depends on the masculine image that these religions have of their God. Under the heading “New Gods are coming,” she says:

There will of course be nothing to prevent people who practice new religions from calling themselves Christians or Jews. Undoubtedly many followers of new faiths will still cling to old labels. But a merely semantic veneer of tradition ought not to hide the fact that very nontraditional faiths will be practiced.⁴⁵

Something of the flavor of Goldenberg’s book can be gained by reading her comments on the Virgin Mary. She tells of seeing a statue of the Virgin Mary in Zurich on which someone had painted genitals. The artist, she muses,

probably did not realize the political statement he or she was making. Mary has certainly been desexed in Christian tradition. The painter was restoring her sexuality. Obsession with purifying Mary of any taint of womanhood has occupied Christian scholars for centuries. Treatises on the Holy Mother’s hymen abound in every Catholic research library. Theologians have insisted that Mary remained “intact” before, during [!] and after the birth of Jesus…Mary is certainly the good girl of Christianity…because of her absolute purity and obedience, she is the only pinup girl who has been permitted in monks’ cells throughout the ages…Mary has been castrated by popes, cardinals, priests and theologians, by all who feel the sexual and emotional power of natural womanhood. We must be suspicious of all modern efforts to tout Mary as the “liberated woman of Christianity” as Pope Paul suggested in 1974.⁴⁶

Goldenberg’s racy language brings the point home. Whatever one may conclude about the varying viewpoints (they are certainly not uniform), they accomplish their avowed goal of “consciousness raising.”

The Decade of the 1970s

The 1970s witnessed an increasing flow of substantial contributions to the subject of women in ministry. Rosemary Radford Ruether published her Liberation Theology⁴⁷ in 1972 and New Woman, New Earth⁴⁸ in 1975. In Liberation Theology Ruether presented a sequence of essays on various aspects of that subject. For Ruether, women’s liberation was not to be isolated from other liberation concerns. Over the next decade, Ruether and others developed a hermeneutic (to be discussed in appendix A) that approaches the biblical texts in a way that we are now familiar with from liberation theology—i.e., from the standpoint of a disadvantaged people. One theological charge Ruether made in this earlier work was against Augustine for holding that woman possesses the image of God only together with man. This is an idea Ruether attributed to an underlying misogyny that characterizes Christianity in general.⁴⁹ Ruether’s work will be discussed below in connection with her further writings.

The contrast between the different concepts of the issues and their solutions that marked the emerging literature of that period is seen in a comparison of Ruether’s work with two others. In the same year that Liberation Theology appeared, Gladys Hunt published Ms Means Myself.⁵⁰ This was one of the first Evangelical Christian books intended to foster self-esteem among women. Her work was noncontroversial and personal, rather than confrontational and social. But in the next year an extreme work was published, the sort that provoked the ire of both traditionalists and Christian feminists. This was Jill Johnston’s Lesbian Nation. Her statement that “the lesbian is the revolutionary feminist”⁵¹ is the kind of language that has fostered the idea that lesbianism is a natural by-product of feminism.

C. S. Lewis

Hidden away in a book called God in the Dock, C. S. Lewis’ essay “Priestesses in the Church” did not draw the attention it might have in another format.⁵² Lewis, writing as an Anglican who believed in the ministry of the priest to represent not only people before God but God before people, could not conceive of a woman priest. Masculine imagery is appropriate for God. He is not like a woman and, therefore, a woman cannot represent him. Lewis did not enter into exegetical arguments on the nature and ministry of women. His extraordinary gift of imagination and his commitment to an Anglican view of priesthood dominated his thinking. That marvelous imagination also took over in his perceptions of sexuality in Perelandra and That Hideous Strength. One feels rather than discerns the image of melody and rhythm for sexual differences.⁵³

Gloria Steinem

One of the best-known names in the feminist movement is that of Gloria Steinem. One of her observations on women’s employment parallels what has long been acknowledged with respect to the struggle of blacks for equal opportunity:

We hear a lot about the first jockey or the first television anchorwoman, the first coal miner or Episcopal priest. What we don’t hear is that these exceptions mean almost nothing to the lives of most women because they are still confined to female job ghettos. And so we get a false sense of progress from hearing only about the few exceptions allowed to enter almost totally male worlds.⁵⁴

Since that article was written (in 1977) women have been able to attain to increasingly higher levels of business and professional life, but feminists see much more that needs to be accomplished. This situation has been paralleled in some, but far from all, religious hierarchies. During the period when Steinem and others were pressing for egalitarianism throughout society, evangelical works urging egalitarianism in church and home relationships began appearing with some frequency.

The Boldreys

In 1972 Richard and Joyce Boldrey wrote an article entitled “Women in Paul’s Life,”⁵⁵ which was published as a book in 1976.⁵⁶ The Boldreys argued that although Paul’s teaching is somewhat ambiguous, it is clear that the attitude of submission is intended to be mutual, an attitude all Christians should have to each other. The Boldreys believed in a totally egalitarian marriage and equality in ministry. In their opinion the prohibitions Paul placed on women’s teaching were for the specific circumstances of women who had not yet matured in their doctrinal understanding. The quietness enjoined on them was the same as that commanded of the ignorant teachers in Titus 1:10–16 (who surely included males). In fact, the Boldreys pointed out, the verb Paul uses for silence in the Titus passage is stronger than the verbs he used for the silence he enjoins on women.⁵⁷ For the Boldreys, Paul was a radical, but his radicalism goes beyond not only traditionalism but feminism as well.

Robin Scroggs

Dialogues concerning women and the church, like those on other controversial issues, have been carried on in many different circumstances and media, such as books, articles, seminars, unpublished papers, and scholarly conventions. While the general public has often been aware only of well-advertised books, progress toward the understanding, if not the resolution, of issues continues unseen in quiet discussion. An example of this was the scholarly interaction with Robin Scroggs, whose significant article “Paul and the Eschatological Woman” appeared in 1972.⁵⁸ This was followed two years later by “Paul and the Eschatological Woman Revisited.”⁵⁹

Scroggs’ second article was originally presented as a paper delivered at a panel discussion in the 1973 meeting of the American Academy of Religion. Elaine Pagels gave a paper at the same discussion in which she interacted with Scroggs’ earlier work. The panel included several notable New Testament scholars. Both the AAR and the Society of Biblical Literature have for some years now had regular sectional meetings devoted to the study of women. The field was thus no longer confined to secularist writers and only a few biblical specialists. Biblical and theological scholars were recognizing increasingly the importance of this field of study.

Marabel Morgan

On the popular side, Marabel Morgan aired her ideas on husband-and-wife relationships in the now famous handbook The Total Woman. Reviewers enjoyed citing such passages as “For an experiment [greeting her husband at the door] I put on pink baby-doll pajamas and white boots after my bubble bath…[He] chased me around the dining room table.”⁶⁰ More telling than such descriptions, however, is the book’s approach to wife-husband relationships. “I do believe it is possible,” claimed Morgan, “for almost any wife to have her husband absolutely adore her in just a few weeks’ time…It really is up to her. She has the power.”⁶¹ Morgan has produced another book, Total Joy, but it has not gained the attention The Total Woman did.

Letha Scanzoni and Nancy Hardesty

In 1974 Scanzoni and Hardesty published their often cited work, All We’re Meant to Be.⁶² The title page describes this as “A Biblical Approach to Women’s Liberation.” Rather than being an academic study of the biblical texts or merely an Evangelical reaction to women’s liberation, it was a persuasive presentation of the authors’ understanding of Christian women in many dimensions. Topics such as singleness, menstruation, and masturbation found their way into the text. It boldly called for egalitarianism in marriage and in ministry. The arguments were not confined to a biblical or logical structure; a good deal of the material was drawn from life itself. For more traditional Christians, it posed a threat to what they considered biblical values. It still remains one of the most controversial books on the subject, but it has had considerable influence.

Ten years after the publication of this work, Scanzoni was interviewed by Radix. Asked about developments during this period, one troubling observation she offered was that “even the single woman is not to make any decision without a male head.”⁶³ Scanzoni urged a balance between autonomy and attachment in relationships and a closer relationship between men and women without thoughts of subordination or dominance. Along with other observations she spoke of the strong opposition she and co-author Hardesty received on the publication of their book ten years previously.

Within a year after All We’re Meant to Be appeared, Scanzoni’s husband, John, a sociologist, published a book entitled Sex Roles, Life Styles, and Childbearing: Changing Patterns in Marriage and the Family.⁶⁴ This scholarly, technical work suggested, among other things, that sex roles were largely formed before marriage but in some cases could be modified thereafter.

A growing phenomenon in the early 1970s was the proliferation of seminars on various topics, notably the “Institute in Basic Youth Conflicts,” a creation of Bill Gothard. Gothard had realized that young people who were experiencing conflicts, particularly with their parents, needed help. He had considerable success in counseling young people and their parents, and his ministry developed into a continuing series of seminars across the country. At the very time when biblical scholars were questioning the traditional hierarchal view of the dominance of the husband over the wife, Gothard was teaching the “chain-of-command.” His manual showed a symbol of God with two arms, one holding a hammer and the other holding a chisel under the hammer. The hammer was labeled “father,” and the chisel, “mother.” At the bottom was a diamond labeled “teen-ager.” Gothard’s teachings were sometimes radical; he taught, for example, that a twenty-one-year-old girl who was supporting herself and living away from home should follow the wishes of her nonchurchgoing parents about marriage rather than her own judgment and that of her Christian boyfriend.⁶⁵

Larry Christenson

The strong hierarchical views that characterized Gothard were also set forth in a book by Larry Christenson called The Christian Family.⁶⁶ His aim was to determine the biblical teachings about the family and to apply them appropriately. He began with a chapter on “God’s Order for the Family,” the first page of which incorporated a chart showing Christ as the head of the husband; the husband as head of the wife and authority over the children; the wife as the “helpmeet” to the husband and “secondary authority” over the children; and then the children, who are obedient to their parents.

For Christenson the wife is “vulnerable” physically, emotionally, psychologically, and spiritually (although he later says that women’s “stamina and emotional endurance are often greater” than men’s). Because of this vulnerability, she “needs a husband’s authority and protection.”⁶⁷ “The wife is subject to spiritual attack.” Her submissiveness to her husband is part of a “shield of protection against Satan’s devices.”⁶⁸ Women should not be “burdened with the authority and responsibility of decision.”⁶⁹

But suppose a woman has a husband who is not a believer. Rather than preaching to him, a wife might follow the suggestion of C. S. Lovett, says Christenson, to use “light” and “works” like the jaws of a nutcracker to “crack” his resistance. Above all, although a wife might take her husband to “hear the preaching of the Gospel,” he warns that she should “not attempt to teach him herself. SUCH AN ATTEMPT WILL AND SHOULD FAIL.”⁷⁰ (capital letters his).

Thus Christenson made a consistent application of his principle of women’s subordination. The chapter concluded with this advice, “Wives, rejoice in your husband’s authority over you! Be subject to him in all things. It is your special privilege to move under the protection of his authority.”⁷¹

In a later chapter, “God’s Order for Husbands,” Christenson describes his views on the husband’s authority: “It is a divine and spiritual authority which is rooted in the sacrifice of one’s self.”⁷² Also “a husband who falls to lecturing his wife on her duty to be submissive to his authority has already yielded the ground of his authority.”⁷³

Paul K. Jewett

Thus far, the evangelical contributions assumed the integrity and complete authority of the Scriptures. A new dimension entered, however, when Paul K. Jewett published his work Man as Male and Female.⁷⁴ For Jewett the Pauline arguments for the restriction of women were inconsistent with the larger views expressed elsewhere in his epistles. The solution for him was that Paul’s vision was at times limited by his own rabbinic training. He followed the insights of Karl Barth, that to be male and female is not merely an aspect of marriage but is especially what it means to be created in the image of God.

The implications that Jewett’s appraisal of Paul’s rabbinic viewpoint had for biblical infallibility were unacceptable to many Evangelicals, and this tended to blunt the effectiveness of his strong arguments. Nevertheless, Jewett made an important contribution to the discussion from the perspective of theology.

Jewett’s related work, The Ordination of Women, published in 1980, contains mainly theological arguments rather than biblical exegesis on the subject. Jewett argues from the nature of women, the nature of the ministerial office, and the nature of God himself. Harvie M. Conn suggests that Jewett may have made a “tactical mistake” in trying to address both Protestants and Catholics in this book. “I personally suspect,” says Conn, “that the understanding of ordination may be more central than Jewett has made it.”⁷⁵ This point needs to be emphasized and will be taken up in appendix C. With the increasing discussion on the nature of ordination itself, the issue of women’s ordination cannot be solved without a clear understanding of what that means and entails.

Dorothy Pape

In a totally different vein, Dorothy Pape wrote the fascinating book In Search of God’s Ideal Woman.⁷⁶ The subtitle, A Personal Examination of the New Testament, accurately describes her approach. Drawing on her experience in a third-world country, Pape used common-sense arguments for the dignity and ministry of Christian women. She wrote in a first-person style, allowing the reader to follow her thoughts as she interacted with various scholars. One example: “With the exception of James Hurley’s recent article, no commentator I have read has attempted to explain how exactly woman is the glory of man, though one suggested ‘she is as moonlight to his sunlight’ which does not sound very glorious.”⁷⁷

Pape pitted one scholar against another, a device that, despite her own acknowledged lack of skills to provide detailed exegetical analysis herself, does help the reader to understand the issues. Thus she quoted the Boldreys on the equality of Adam and Eve and set against their opinion that of Calvin in his declaration that women are “born to obey.”⁷⁸ A good example of her approach is chapter 14, “Woman: The Weaker and More Sinful Sex?” She cited the Scriptures that are often mentioned in this connection and surrounded these with an array of opinions from commentaries, books, and a newspaper article and of insights from the values expressed in various contemporary cultures.

Elisabeth Elliot

Let Me Be a Woman, by Elisabeth Elliot was cast in the format of a series of essays addressed to her daughter, Valerie, in view of Valerie’s approaching marriage.⁷⁹ The popularity of this author, along with the way the book enshrines traditional values in her superb literary style, gained for it a large readership. Among a variety of practical and devotional thoughts, Elliot offered some observations on differences between men and women: “Doesn’t it seem strange that male dominance has been universal if it’s purely social conditioning?”⁸⁰ There is no reference here to the statement that it is a consequence of the Fall that the husband would rule over his wife (Gen. 3:16). She dealt again, and more specifically, with the matter of hierarchy in a subsequent chapter: “The notion of hierarchy comes from the Bible. The words superior and inferior refer originally to position, not to intrinsic worth. A person sitting in the top of the stadium would be superior to—higher up than—a person on the front row.”⁸¹ She then showed that throughout the created universe there is orderliness and harmony.

Equality, in Elliot’s opinion, is not a Christian ideal. She considered the idea that “all men are created equal” to be a “political one” but “marriage is one place where it doesn’t belong at all. Marriage is not a political arena.”⁸² Quoting Aristotle on justice and “graded shares of honor, power, liberty, and the like,” she illustrated the application of this in her own home where her father had the best chair in the living room. She concluded that “household justice was based on household authority.”⁸³

Elliot claimed that “submission for the Lord’s sake does not amount to servility. It does not lead to selfdestruction, the stifling of gifts, personhood, intelligence and spirit…God is not asking anybody to become a zero.”⁸⁴ Yet more recently she has said, “I believe all women are called to be spiritual mothers. By that, I mean prepared to give their lives for the life of the world, to be available to do the so-called dirty jobs, the menial jobs, the jobs nobody else wants to do.”⁸⁵

Virginia Ramey Mollenkott

On the other side, Virginia Ramey Mollenkott brought her analytical and literary mind to bear on feminist problems. She faces the question of sex language with regard to God. Her conclusion on this subject is moderate:

It might serve to remind us of the metaphoric nature of God-language if we follow the biblical practice of picturing God in feminine terms every once in a while. But it would serve no real purpose to switch completely to feminine pronouns and feminine references, because not only would we have to rewrite the Bible, but after a while we might forget all over again and begin to think of God as literally female.⁸⁶

But Mollenkott alienated many Evangelicals by her contention that “some of the apostle Paul’s arguments reflect his personal struggles over female subordination and show vestiges of both Greek philosophy (particularly Stoicism) and the rabbinical training he received from his own socialization and especially from Rabbi Gamaliel.”⁸⁷ She restates this later in another context, suggesting that “according to his rabbinical training Paul believed in female subordination but according to his Christian vision he believed that the gospel conferred equality on all believers.”⁸⁸

Mollenkott is open in her recognition that such a view is a problem to many Evangelicals, who fear that “the admission will undercut the authority of Scripture and the doctrine of divine inspiration.”⁸⁹ She specifically refers to the problems Jewett faced after the publication of his first book, but she was willing to put her own views on the line.

Patricia Gundry

The challenge launched by Patricia Gundry in Woman, Be Free!⁹⁰ concisely set forth both the concerns of contemporary Christian women and the issues churchmen tend to raise on the basis of various biblical texts. After discussing what woman is and what she is not, Gundry listed three “threats” to hold women down: “If you step outside your sphere (or role), (1) you will lose your femininity”; (2) “you will disrupt and destroy society”; and (3) “you are denying the inspiration of the Bible.”⁹¹

Gundry sought to show how certain Scriptures have been used to deny women participation in church meetings and ministries. One example is 1 Timothy 2:11–15, which she calls the “single most effective weapon to keep women from active and equal participation in the church.”⁹² She pointed out that even those who are sure of the meaning of the first part and use it “as a proof text to prove woman’s unsuitability for the public ministry” are uncertain as to verse 15. “Such snatch and chop prooftexting violates sound interpretive principles.”⁹³ She proceeded to survey various interpretations offered, purposefully trying to show why one should not automatically accept the traditional understanding. Two works followed this—Heirs Together, The Complete Woman (based on Proverbs 31), and Neither Slave nor Free.⁹⁴

Kevin Giles

In the same year a lesser-known but carefully thought-out study was published in Australia, under the title, Women and Their Ministry: A Case for Equal Ministries in the Church Today.⁹⁵ The author, Kevin Giles, writes lucidly in defense of women’s ministry in the church. It is clear that his overriding concern is a proper interpretation of Scripture and a proper understanding of ministry. He is abreast of modern scholarship and is clearly Evangelical. His conclusion is that ministry is servanthood, the clergy-laity distinction is invalid, and the present rethinking of these issues should lead to a clearer picture of the place of women in ministry.

Don Williams

Yet another contribution to this theme appeared in 1977, The Apostle Paul and Women in the Church, by Don Williams.⁹⁶ Taking a plunge into the stream of thought that was current at the time of his writing, Williams started with a summary of several other books. His brief survey is worth paralleling here as a means of further summarizing some of the options that were available to writers in the 1960s and 70s and then hearing his response as one of the observers of the scene. He began with the “celestial love” that Helen Andelin says women should have for their husbands.⁹⁷ “The message is simple,” says Williams: “Find out what a man wants and needs, give it to him and he will worship you forever.” He notes that this book was in its twenty-second printing by 1973. Williams also offered Marabel Morgan’s book Total Woman as an exhibit. This book, noted above, had appeared some eight years after Andelin’s. Another popular Evangelical work touching on the relationship of a woman to her husband that Williams reviewed was Larry Christenson’s Christian Family. By this time it had sold over 800,000 copies. Williams also reviewed Friedan, Scanzoni, and Hardesty, and Jewett’s book Man as Male and Female, all of which have been discussed above.

Williams asked several penetrating questions: If woman’s role is “God-ordained to be that of wife and mother (Andelin, Morgan, Christenson),…what of the increasing number of single and professional women?”⁹⁸ If the wife derives all authority from the husband (Christenson), “how can there be spiritual equality and authority for the wife directly from Christ Himself: ‘There is neither male nor female for you are all one in Christ Jesus’ (Gal. 3:28)?”⁹⁹ Williams challenged Friedan’s idea that women must be “liberated from wife/mother roles today to find their own identity” with this question: “If so, does this mean that personhood is found in new roles, rather than in the self and especially in the self related to God?”¹⁰⁰ To Scanzoni and Hardesty he directed this question: “Is the Biblical ideal the transcendence of our sexuality…? If so, why did God create us male and female to begin with?”¹⁰¹ The question he asked of Jewett was: “Does Paul’s understanding of ‘hierarchy’ stand in conflict with the idea of ‘partnership’…If so, on what ground may we choose one over the other?”¹⁰²

Williams’s work shows the kind of issues that were developing in the late 1970s. His response was to go through the major New Testament texts relating to women in the church. His interpretation of these texts was essentially feminist, but, it is important to note, it was also moderate. Examples: 1 Corinthians 11 teaches that “in the realization of redemption the old orders of creation and nature have been broken through. Women now have spiritual gifts to be exercised in the church and in the Lord. Their equality with men is understood.”¹⁰³ The veiling of women is a “cultural custom…against radical assertion of women’s freedom which would offend both Jew and Gentile and make Christian women scandalous to the culture.”¹⁰⁴ With regard to Ephesians 5 and the submission of the wife, William’s position is that “while Paul maintains the traditional hierarchal structure of the submission of wives to their husbands he modifies it by mutual submission and changes the content.”¹⁰⁵

Further, for Williams, 1 Timothy 2 is a temporary restriction on women. Paul is not saying, “I never permit,” but rather, “I am not permitting”—a conclusion based on Paul’s use of the present tense. Like many interpreters since, Williams thought that there were certain reasons why women in that situation only were not permitted to teach. In his judgment this is because the women converts would have had very little previous instruction and therefore would not be suitable teachers.¹⁰⁶

In spite of his moderately feminist understanding of the texts, in his concluding chapter Williams did not completely abandon traditional ideas: “It is clear from Paul’s letters that women are to function in the hierarchy of authority.”¹⁰⁷ However, since men are to follow the example of Christ in their headship, they give themselves to women and therefore “rather than the subjugation of women under the male ego, women are lifted to a new position as the hierarchy is infused with new content by Christ Himself.”¹⁰⁸ He therefore advocated a new “partnership” between men and women in the church. To bar women from “the pulpit, the seminary lecture hall, and the pastor’s office only weakens the church…”¹⁰⁹ Williams, like Giles, challenges the barring of women from ordination. “‘Ordination’ as we understand it today is far different from [that of] the early church where there was no clergy-laity distinction. There was only a distinction in gifts, and since women as well as men were and are gifted for ministry, they must be allowed to use their gifts.”¹¹⁰

Lucia Sannella

In stark contrast to the more mild approaches stands a challenge by Lucia Sannella in her book The Female Pentecost.¹¹¹ A brief sample will suffice:

The assumption here is that the male is naturally endowed by reason of his genitals with a superior spiritual perception with which he must lead the frail and sin-prone woman…Woman’s so-called “sin” must never be forgiven or forgotten. Her subjection is to be an eternal prison; a cosmic criminal…Now here is where Eve gets decapitated so as to hand over her head (her intellect), intelligence, and spiritual discernment to Adam. Woman has…become a mindless womb.”¹¹²

These strong words serve to alert those who teach and preach a traditional view of women to the way their proclamations are being perceived by those who do not share their convictions. What seems fair to some preachers because it seems biblical and familiar is often conceived of by many others as totally unfair, unreasonable, and dehumanizing to women.

George W. Knight III

What George Knight has written concerning the New Testament teaching on the role relationship of men and women¹¹³ provides, in the opinion of Harvie Conn, an example of this problem. Conn wrote with concern of the “narrowing of perceptions” that “gives the ‘traditionalist’ more the appearance of a knee-jerk reaction agent. And for those outside any Christian camp at all it reduces further any desire to listen.”¹¹⁴

Knight’s material was on two related topics, the only ones mentioned in the table of contents: “submission and headship.” Man is to rule both at home and in the church. These concerns, which provide occasion for considerable criticism of opposing views, were addressed with a particular ecclesiastical structure in mind, that of the Reformed tradition. His inclusion of an appendix discussing the Reformed Ecumenical Synod show his special concern for a particular segment of the church with its own view of church polity. The sharpness and defensiveness of Knight’s arguments must be seen against that concern. (James Hurley has similar concerns in his more moderate and comprehensive work.)

Knight’s appendix deals especially with the concept of “office.” For Knight the concept of “office” in the church is important in assigning the role of women. In large measure, those who hold to a traditional view of office and of ordination (especially Roman Catholics, though not Anglicans) seem to have a greater difficulty with the ministry of women than do those who stress servanthood and spiritual function over office. Entire denominations of various theological persuasions are making decisions about the ministry of women and are seeking guidelines for these decisions. Those outside the Christian faith are observing the discussion, often allowing their perception of the sensitivity of Christian writers to women’s concerns to shape their opinion of Christianity itself. Harvie Conn, according to the comments referred to above, is clearly worried about the impression that Evangelical works such as Knight’s are making on those of other persuasions.

Knight’s work has been reissued in a revised edition.¹¹⁵ There is little revision except for an appendix by Wayne Grudem on the meaning of headship. Knight also published an article on the verb authenteō in 1 Timothy 2:12.¹¹⁶

Phyllis Trible and John Otwell

Although traditionalists have sometimes failed to distinguish between differing feminist positions, feminists have certainly not been united on their approach to Scripture. Some have consciously departed from the Judeo-Christian tradition and its Scriptures. Others, like Phyllis Trible, have sought to understand both positive and what they considered negative patriarchal attitudes in the Bible. Still others focused on what they saw as positive biblical passages. Trible pioneered feminist study of the Old Testament in her book God and the Rhetoric of Sexuality.¹¹⁷ She sought to uphold feminism but also to retain the relevance of the Old Testament. Trible continued her feminist study of the Old Testament with a book published in 1984, Texts of Terror.¹¹⁸

The Old Testament had also received attention in John Otwell’s book And Sarah Laughed.¹¹⁹ Otwell seeks to show that the Old Testament is not as negative as some have proposed. One of the assumptions of feminists in their study of Scripture is that the outlook of the biblical writers (as well as that of the characters in the biblical narratives) is patriarchal. That is to say, male dominance of the family and of society in general was considered the norm, and thus all the biblical writings are colored (if not distorted, as many claim) by this outlook.

Leonard and Arlene Swidler and Evelyn and Frank Stagg

The Swidlers edited a collection of biblical, theological, and historical articles relating to the Roman Catholic priesthood, specifically women priests.¹²⁰ Leonard Swidler had previously published a book entitled Women in Judaism¹²¹ and later surveyed the whole body of biblical literature, including the so-called intertestamental works, to gather positive material on women in Biblical Affirmations of Women.¹²² A further source book for biblical material, this time on the New Testament, and one that was likewise co-authored by a man and a woman was Woman in the World of Jesus by Frank and Evelyn Stagg.¹²³ This book offered useful information on the ministry and teachings of Jesus.

The works by these four authors took their place among the growing number of co-authored works by men and women who combined their insights to broaden the dimensions of their publications. The Staggs and the Swidlers also contributed to the breadth of the discussion by providing insights from Roman Catholic and Southern Baptist viewpoints respectively.

S. Scott Bartchy

The former director of the Institute for the Study of Christian Origins at Tübingen in Germany, S. Scott Bartchy, touched on some basic issues in his article “Power, Submission, and Sexual Identity Among the Early Christians.”¹²⁴ Bartchy focused on the misuse of power, not only by women, but also by men, as being antithetical to the spirit of Christian service as taught by both Jesus and Paul. Paul’s restrictions in 1 Timothy 2:12 had to do, not with women teachers as such, but with the content of their teaching. Bartchy followed that up with some unpublished materials and also with “Human Sexuality and Our Identity,” a remarkably succinct presentation of the topic in an expanded outline form.¹²⁵ A somewhat similar outline emphasizing the same theme of the rejection of hierarchical power appeared the next year in the TSF Bulletin.¹²⁶

Linda Mercadante

The history of interpretation can be a useful check of the validity of one’s own approach to problematic texts. Reference is sometimes made, in the course of a discussion of some disputed point, to “the commentaries” that support this or that position. But commentaries are human productions and tend to reflect ideas prevailing at the time. A survey of commentaries on a particular text over a long period of time can reveal such settings and the resultant (sometimes subjective) conclusions. Linda Mercadante, a student at Regent College at that time, published a penetrating thesis on the history of the interpretation of the 1 Corinthians passages on women.¹²⁷ It has deservedly received wide attention.

Catherine and Richard Kroeger

Several stimulating and original articles have appeared from the pens of the Kroegers. Two essays appeared in 1978: “Pandemonium and Silence at Corinth” and “Sexual Identity in Corinth.”¹²⁸ Catherine Kroeger followed these in the next year with the article “Ancient Heresies and a Strange Greek Verb.”¹²⁹ The purpose of these articles was to show how an understanding of the cultural background helps to explain the restrictions Paul placed on women. The first two dealt with the religion and society of Corinth, the third with 1 Timothy 2:12 and the rare verb authentein, usually translated “to have [or “usurp,” KJV] authority.” She suggested that authentein—which had at times been associated with sexual aggression, suicide, and murder—signified here a crude or hostile attitude. This last article drew both positive and negative reactions and has had considerable influence. Kroeger has continued her research into the use of authentein in Greek literature but, apart from a brief treatment in an essay on 1 Timothy,¹³⁰ she has not published her conclusions.

The Shaping of Issues in the 1980s

Stephen B. Clark

Several comprehensive works appeared in the early 1980s. The longest of these, having 753 pages, was a work by Stephen B. Clark, Man and Woman in Christ.¹³¹ Clark, a Roman Catholic, seeks to apply the social sciences to feminist issues. In his preface he claims that “much of the modern feminist movement in church and society is advocating measures that would destroy social roles that have performed a useful function in all of past societies. At the same time they seem to be unaware that their proposals lead to a restructuring of the very bases of our society.”¹³²

A volume of this length is difficult to work through, and it is also difficult for a nonspecialist in the social sciences to evaluate. It seems almost unfair to relate his conclusions without providing some of the substance of his argumentation. Nevertheless, conclusions are important, and among his are these:

There should be a system for raising people in the Lord with men having primary responsibility for men, and women for women…There should be a system of personal subordination among the Christian people with the elders (heads) of the community chosen from among the men and the husbands serving at the head of the family, with women in complementary positions of leadership and subordinate government…The role of “deaconess” and other female leadership roles should be restored in the Christian community…There should be cultural expressions of role differences for men and women…Each attempt to apply the scriptural teaching on men’s and women’s roles, inside or outside the Christian community, should be guided by local cultural considerations.¹³³

It is interesting that this proponent of hierarchical relationships thinks contemporary Christians should “be guided by local cultural considerations,” while some others of the same viewpoint think culture can play no role in the understanding of the first-century biblical texts.

Elizabeth Tetlow

A slender volume next to Clark’s massive work, Women and Ministry in the New Testament, is a concisely written book by Elizabeth Tetlow.¹³⁴ Clark’s work touched on ordination but that was not its focus; Tetlow, on the other hand, was concerned with the issue of ministry. Clark is traditional, Tetlow is feminist, and she uses what has come to be known as “feminist hermeneutics.” Her work will be discussed further in appendix A.

Susan T. Foh and James B. Hurley

Two books by conservative writers, both graduates of Westminster Seminary, appeared within a year of each other. Susan Foh wrote Women and the Word of God as a response to Christian feminism.¹³⁵ Foh is more traditional than Hurley, but not so strongly so as Knight. Hurley’s Man and Woman in Biblical Perspective is more comprehensive in its sweep of Scripture and has gained more attention.¹³⁶

Both Foh and Hurley showed themselves capable of careful exegesis, although in taking a traditionalist stand on complex and controversial passages it is not surprising that they have been heavily challenged. Foh acknowledged the cultural dimensions of women’s roles, but minimized the importance of culture in the interpretation of Scripture (see appendix A). Foh did interact with other scholars, though, as Harvie Conn observed with regard to Foh and the issue of Evangelical egalitarianism: “It is here she cannot match the scope of Scanzoni and Hardesty’s work. She has not really seen the cultural woods for the egalitarian trees.”¹³⁷

This same reviewer called Hurley’s work “by far, the fairest and best of the hierarchical statements…” Hurley takes the reader through a survey of ancient Near Eastern culture and the Old Testament, through Judaism in New Testament times and the role of women in the New Testament, through detailed discussion of various key texts, and toward the discussion and attempted resolution of basic issues. Having written an article on head coverings,¹³⁸ he naturally included a fine discussion of that in this book. A useful feature at the end of his work is a series of case studies in which he describes several hypothetical situations involving the role of women and seeks to apply his principles to them.

The issue of culture is important in connection with Hurley’s work as with others just cited. Linda Mercadante wrote:

There is clear evidence of a distinct accommodation to the cultural realities of the changing, improving status of women. This is reflected in the exegesis of the very theologians who would be the first to throw the stones of “cultural accommodation” at those who insist the Bible does not support female subordination.¹³⁹

In her review of Hurley, Mercadante noted that Calvin “justified the subordination of women by claiming the innate superiority of men” and that “Charles Hodge based this same hierarchy on the contention that man, but not woman, was given dominion over creation.” She noted that Hurley holds, as they did, the subordination of women to a God-ordained male dominance, but disagrees with their reasons.¹⁴⁰

Mercadante offered trenchant criticisms of Hurley’s work, and some of these will be mentioned here to illustrate several of the issues that need careful consideration. She cited Hurley’s failure to recognize a different verbal formula in the pre- and post-Fall instances of Adam’s naming of Eve, thereby missing the fact that “dominance of man over woman will now be one of the sinful conditions of fallen humanity.” She is uneasy with such terminology as “dominant partner” and “to whom submission is due.” In addition, she claimed that Hurley did not apply his own observations on Jesus’ example to the issues.

Kari Torjesen Malcolm

Another European has written a work in English. Kari Torjesen Malcolm had Norwegian parents but was born in China. Her work, Women at the Crossroads sought to avoid both the traditional and the feminist viewpoints:

Each side has its cheerleading squad. The conservative church waves her arms with the traditionalists and shouts, “Men, be men. Don’t give an inch. God is on your side…your side…your side.” Women’s liberation also has its cheerleaders. They shout with even more vehemence, “Women, it’s your turn to run the show. Don’t lose the ground we’ve gained. Stand firm…stand firm…stand firm.”¹⁴¹

Malcolm combined references to women in church history, some comments on Scripture, observations from her broad international experience, and a good deal of warm spiritual encouragement to women. She expressed concern about the number of women who desire to serve God, while, at the same time, there are desperate needs in the world that are not being fulfilled. If women were given more scope for ministry, there would be both a greater fulfillment of their desire to serve and a greater filling of the vast existing needs. Malcolm believes that the Great Commission is calling women from lesser involvements to world evangelization. She has a concern for single as well as married women. The book is not intended to stir controversy. Feminists would think it too mild, but it brings a challenge and encouragement to Christian women.

E. Margaret Howe

Women and Church Leadership by E. Margaret Howe¹⁴² is different from any other work considered thus far. Howe devotes part of the book to considering the major biblical texts. There is little that is ideologically new in Howe’s work; its value lies in its appraisal of the contemporary scene. Although one reviewer found reason to criticize her exegesis and statistical methods in gathering information,¹⁴³ Howe made a valuable contribution in providing a chapter on the feelings of women in seminary, and another chapter on the present-day attitudes toward the ordination of women in various church groups, along with some historical and biblical material and the personal observations of the author.

The book represents an important phase in changing perspectives on women. The numbers of women in seminaries have been increasing significantly. Many of them are frustrated both in seminary and on graduation as they face severely limited opportunities for ministry. Many of these women find themselves in a tension between traditional teachings and denominational positions on the one hand and an inner sense of the call of God on the other. It must be granted that the latter can be subjective and false, whether it is in the experience of women or of men. But it remains true, as is abundantly illustrated in the preceding chapters, that many women have been convinced that God has given them gifts and called them, whatever church officials may say. In the quest for trends and patterns, one reality certainly stands out beyond question: the dilemma of the woman who feels called of God but who is refused opportunity to respond to her sense of call.

Mary J. Evans

In 1983 Mary J. Evans’ survey appeared, advertised as an “overview of all the crucial passages on women’s roles,” a work that David M. Scholer called “the best book in support of women in ministry written from an evangelical perspective with a commitment to careful exegesis.”¹⁴⁴ Originally written as a thesis under the direction of Donald Guthrie at London Bible College, it deals briefly and thoughtfully with a great many Scriptures on the topic. Evans takes pains to present opposing views, deal with exegetical data, and reach conclusions on an impressive number of key passages. The footnotes and bibliography are extensive, making this a good reference work for further study.¹⁴⁵

Willard M. Swartley

A unique contribution was made by Willard M. Swartley in a book called Slavery, Sabbath, War, and Women, published in 1983.¹⁴⁶ Swartley reviewed arguments on different sides of the issues named in his title. He found remarkably similar approaches used in the discussions. Those who upheld slavery in the nineteenth century, for example, believed they had Scripture on their side, that it was “divinely sanctioned among the patriarchs,” and that it was “recognized and approved by Jesus Christ and the apostles.” Proof texts from the Bible were freely quoted, just as certain texts are today regarding the role of women. Abolitionists, by contrast, “gave priority to theological principles and basic moral imperatives, which in turn put slavery under moral judgment. The point we should learn from this is that theological principles and basic moral imperatives should be primary biblical resources for addressing social issues today.”¹⁴⁷

Such a statement naturally will be welcomed by those who emphasize that the general tenor of Scripture supports women’s ministry. Swartley, however, did not sell out to one side or the other. Rather, he issued a caution:

It is striking to note how one’s position affects and even determines what one sees in the text. The emphasis on female subordination permeated the hierarchical commentary, but the word “subordination” occurs only once in the texts cited above, and that is in a text (I Cor. 14:34) which counts least in the hierarchical argument, precisely because its apparent call for women to be silent in worship is an injunction that even the most thoroughgoing hierarchical interpreters cannot accept as normative policy. On the other hand, emphasis on equality permeates the liberationist’s commentary, but such a word occurs nowhere in the various texts cited. One may argue, however, that the concept of equality is present, but this raises an even longer agenda [i.e., the meaning of equality].¹⁴⁸

Rosemary Radford Ruether

One of the most prominent theologians of the feminist movement is Rosemary Radford Ruether. Mention was made earlier of her 1972 work, Liberation Theology and of New Woman, New Earth (1975). Among many of her other contributions, she has authored an article entitled “Misogynism and Virginal Feminism in the Fathers,”¹⁴⁹ co-edited Women of Spirit: Female Leadership in the Jewish and Christian Traditions,¹⁵⁰ written Sexism and God-Talk,¹⁵¹ contributed a chapter, “Feminist Theology and Spirituality” to the volume Christian Feminism¹⁵² and compiled Womanguides: Readings Toward a Feminist Theology.¹⁵³

Like other feminists, Ruether views the Bible as clothed in patriarchy, yet she does not want to discard Christianity as she understands it. For her, God is “the transcendent matrix of Being that underlies and supports both our own existence and our continual potential for being.” The task of the feminist theologian is laid out as follows:

The sexist bias of patriarchal theology…must be evaluated as blasphemous ratification of sin in God’s name…Feminist theology engages in a systematic reconstruction of all the symbols of human relation to God to delegitimize sexist bias and to manifest an authentic vision of redemption as liberation from sexism.¹⁵⁴

Other religions also provide insights for Ruether. She finds “usable tradition” in a number of religious sources. As with many other feminists who remain within the sphere of Christianity, she is not at ease with some orthodox concepts that many consider crucial. Regarding the maleness of Christ, she distinguishes between “Jesus as the Christ thought of as an ontological necessity” and “as a historical particularity.” “The symbol of Christ must not be encapsulized in Jesus, as though he alone represented a perfect kind of humanity…Jesus’ humanity points beyond himself to the new humanity that is indeed both male and female and includes all people of every time and place.”¹⁵⁵ It is difficult to summarize or typify the ideas of such a prolific thinker in a few words, but, as with others surveyed on these pages, a few sentences can provide some idea of the distinctive perspectives of significant scholars as well those as of popular commentators on the present scene.

Elisabeth Schüssler Fiorenza

There is probably no feminist theologian and biblical scholar whose works, especially In Memory of Her¹⁵⁶ have been as widely discussed today as that of Elisabeth Schüssler Fiorenza.¹⁵⁷ An idea of the focus of her studies in this area can be gained by mention of several titles of articles published over a period of years. One of these, which provided copious references to source materials, was “Women in the Pre-Pauline and Pauline Churches.”¹⁵⁸ Another, which was published in Germany, was “Die Beitrag der Frau zur urchristlichen Bewegung. Kritische Überlegung zur Rekonstruction urchristlicher Geschichte.”¹⁵⁹ She also published a collection of her essays, including “Women-Church: The Hermeneutical Center of Feminist Biblical Interpretation”; “The Functions of Scripture in the Liberation Struggle: A Critical Feminist Hermeneutics and Liberation Theology”; “Remembering the Past in Creating the Future: Historical-Critical Scholarship and Feminist-Critical Interpretation”; and “Toward a Critical-Theological Self-Understanding of Biblical Scholarship.”¹⁶⁰

The title of Fiorenza’s major work, In Memory of Her, was taken from Jesus’ comment about the woman who anointed him, of whom he said, “Truly I say to you, wherever the gospel is preached in the whole world, what she has done will be told in memory of her” (Mark 14:9 RSV). Fiorenza began by noting that although the name of the man who betrayed Jesus is well known, the name of the woman who did this is forgotten because she was a woman. Fiorenza’s approach is indicated by the subtitle: A Feminist Theological Reconstruction of Christian Origins. She uses what has come to be called a “feminist hermeneutic.” This calls for careful attention, and so will be considered further in appendix A.

An Inclusive-Language Lectionary

This lectionary¹⁶¹ is a selection of readings for the church year produced by the National Council of Churches and is intended for “experimental and voluntary use in churches.” It has stirred a large amount of controversy because of its substitution of inclusive (i.e., nonsexist) language for God. It is important to read the appendix, repeated at the back of each volume, which explains the reasons for the wording, along with examples. Wherever the term Father is used for, or in connection with other terms for, God, the Lectionary has “[God] the Father [and Mother].” (The italics are not for emphasis but, as in some versions of the Bible, to indicate added words.) “Lord” becomes “Sovereign”; “Son of God” is rendered “Child of God”; “Son of Man” is now “Human One.” In addition, “Kingdom,” because of the masculine, “king-,” becomes “Realm”; “Brethren” (which, as an address usually applies to both men and women) is variously translated “Sisters and Brothers,” “Friends,” or “Neighbors.” Where a man’s name is used in connection with the birth or descent of children, the wife’s name is added to the text. Thus Matthew 3:9 becomes “We have Abraham as our Father [and Sarah and Hagar as our mothers].”¹⁶²

The effect of these changes is seen especially in doctrinal passages. John 1:18 now reads in part, “We have beheld the Word’s glory, glory as of the only Child from [God] the Father [and Mother]. Such renderings are related to the issue of feminine characteristics of God, a subject that will receive attention in appendix A on theology.

Beverly LaHaye

This energetic national director of Concerned Women of America and wife of a popular minister has written several books from a traditionalist and strongly antifeminist viewpoint. Her concerns and opinions developed largely from her observation of the agendas of those involved in the International Women’s Year, the International Year of the Child, and of course, the ERA movement.¹⁶³ In The Restless Woman¹⁶⁴ LaHaye described the present period as “the last days” and challenged the feminist activists who appealed to restless women searching for their identity. She selected several early feminists as examples and found some “common threads of thought,” such as “hatred of God and authority figures,” “rebellion based on selfishness,” “disdain for family life and children,” and “a commitment to atheism or spiritualism.”¹⁶⁵ One of LaHaye’s major thrusts has been to lay the blame for the breakdown of the family at the door of the feminists. Concern for the family also led her husband, Tim LaHaye, to write The Battle for the Family.¹⁶⁶ In The Restless Woman venereal disease, divorce, abortion, and teenage suicide are all blamed on feminism or on the sexual revolution.¹⁶⁷ Career women are especially vulnerable. LaHaye’s work takes its place in the succession of concerned writings over the past many decades that saw deterioration developing from such changes as women having the right to vote, working outside the home, and gaining higher education. The complexity of social issues makes simple cause-and-effect hard to determine. Many Evangelicals would, however, identify with La-Haye’s troubled spirit over present conditions.

Not all, on the other hand, would agree with LaHaye’s attitudes toward the feminists themselves. She writes about the “sick ideas espoused by the leaders of the feminist movement…They have grown up filled with paranoia and impulsive hatred…In a very real sense these women are mentally disturbed…This kind of disturbed woman puts our society in danger…The unhappy women are all feminists.”¹⁶⁸ In contrast to this, one might note the comment of another Evangelical woman who shares LaHaye’s concerns over the need of contemporary women for a sense of self-identity. Dee Jepsen, who, as a special assistant to President Reagan, had many opportunities to interact with women of different viewpoints, said, “Labeling each other liberal, conservative, feminist, traditionalist, only divides; it does not unite. People don’t fit into neat, tidy little labeled boxes. We are not merchandise. We are human beings, unique, special—each one of us.”¹⁶⁹

John W. Robbins

Whereas LaHaye is a traditionalist against feminists, John W. Robbins is a traditionalist against traditionalists. He cites several writers who are well to the “right” of most scholars dealing with women’s issues today and castigates them for not being conservative enough. In his Scripture Twisting in the Seminaries, Part I: Feminism,¹⁷⁰ Robbins heavily criticized George W. Knight III, Susan T. Foh, and James B. Hurley for what is in his opinion a distortion of Scripture. Others were likewise criticized, while the revered Benjamin War-field was quoted against “heretics,” presumably in reference to those with whom Robbins disagrees. Prior to the introduction, on a separate page, there is a quotation from Benjamin Warfield, a staunch conservative theologian of an earlier day at Princeton. Warfield wrote that anyone who “modifies the teachings of the Word of God” is “already, in principle, a ‘heretic.’” Robbins did not provide the source of this quotation, so it is impossible to know if Warfield had the subject of women’s ministry in mind when he wrote it. The implication, however, is that those who disagree with Robbins’ interpretation of Scripture are heretics. He also quotes his late associate, Gordon H. Clark, in a statement that begins with such phrases as “the persuasive influence of liberalism” and “apostate denominations,” and then he warns, “Too many seminaries and denominations slip into apostasy almost imperceptibly.”¹⁷¹

Eminent Christian leaders—such as James Packer, Carl Armerding, John Gerstner, and W. A. Criswell—who endorse Hurley’s book “either did not read Hurley’s book” or “their understanding of and adherence to Scripture is as defective and inconsistent as Hurley’s.” Robbins thought it necessary to introduce the former views of Westminster Seminary professor Bruce Waltke on the subject of Exodus 21 and abortion into a discussion on whether Paul’s teaching on women applies only to church meetings. Although Hurley had affirmed three times in his book on women that he accepts the Bible as the “Word of God, written,” Robbins asserted, in oversize boldface type, “Nowhere in his book of 271 pages does Hurley affirm that the Bible is infallible and inerrant.” Further, “neither George Knight nor James Hurley believes what the Bible teaches about the silence of women in church.”¹⁷²

Robbins showed a concern for careful exegesis, though he centered attention on the restrictive verses rather than viewing the whole sweep of the Scriptures relative to women. Unlike LaHaye, who thought that the sexual revolution shared blame with the feminist movement for contemporary social abuses, Robbins wrote sweepingly of the “women’s movement, with all its attendant evils—child abuse, promiscuity, adultery, homosexuality, abortion and divorce.”¹⁷³ Robbins’ position is based in part on his particular concept of authority. He thinks Foh is wrong for holding that the diaconate does not possess authority as do elders and teachers. He also believes that Knight and Hurley are wrong for thinking that Paul distinguished preaching from prophesying, allowing women to do the latter.¹⁷⁴

At the end of the book Robbins appended two articles by Gordon H. Clark, one on the ordination of women and the other on the Presbyterian doctrine of ordination. It is here that one can place Clark and Robbins in their proper stream of thought. “Note well that ordination confers authority to preach, administer the sacraments, and exercise discipline.”¹⁷⁵ This concept of ordination and its relevance to the ordination of women is crucial in Robbins’ thought and in that of several other scholars who have been previously noted.

Sheldon Vanauken

Much to the chagrin of Bible scholars, popular opinion is typically formed, not by detailed exegesis, but by forceful writing and first-person sincerity. The author of the widely acclaimed book A Severe Mercy, Sheldon Vanauken, has chronicled his departure from feminism in a thirty-eight-page chapter of narrative and observations in Under the Mercy.¹⁷⁶ The change began in the last year of his wife, Davy’s, life, when she “began to desire to be, not a ‘comrade-lover’ but a wife.”¹⁷⁷ His own transformation took time. The strength of his growing convictions regarding women and the church was already seen in the title of an article he wrote in 1978: “Since God Doesn’t Make Mistakes: WOMEN’S ‘ORDINATION’ DENIES THE INCARNATION” (emphasis his).¹⁷⁸

The line of argument seems to be that Jesus was God incarnate and did his Father’s will perfectly. Since he did not appoint any women apostles, it is clearly not God’s will for a woman to be a priest. If Jesus were wrong in that matter, he could not be God incarnate. Vanauken insisted,

I am not…hostile to women. I do not for a moment believe that men are superior to women—only different…[They are] equal in importance as a nut and bolt are entirely equal without being identical—and doing a job together that neither two bolts nor two nuts could do.¹⁷⁹

This kind of metaphor is appealing. But an evaluation of Vanauken’s work must put alongside this analogy the kind of reasoning that assumes that the absence of women apostles necessarily means there can be no women priests. Whether or not one accepts the conclusion, the way it is reached is part of the package.

Ronald and Beverly Allen

Yet another example of Evangelicals who are trying to assess the contemporary scene and provide guidance for Christians is the husband-and-wife team of Ronald and Beverly Allen. They produced a comprehensive, easy-to-read survey of feminism and biblical texts.¹⁸⁰ Their book, Liberated Traditonalism, is significant in being an attempt by Evangelicals to provide a guide through conflicting claims. The book is part of the Critical Concerns series of Multnomah Press. It is not intended to be a study of the biblical texts. Rather, it offers clear opinions under clever captions without discussion of the exegetical data. This helps the reader to grasp the authors’ interpretation of the key texts without getting bogged down in working through the issues. The authors tend to be warmer to traditionalists than to feminists, but depart from the traditionalist position in significant ways.

Gilbert Bilezikian

Gilbert Bilezikian’s book Beyond Sex Roles¹⁸¹ was attracting considerable attention among Evangelicals shortly after its publication. The reason for this is undoubtedly that Bilezikian wrote a clear, forthright argument for a Christian feminist position. This characteristic has also drawn criticism, as some consider the clearly stated conclusions to be at times overdrawn. A minor, but significant example is in a section on the appearance of women in the parables and other teachings of Jesus: Bilezikian concluded, “In His own teaching ministry, Jesus made use of women as teachers.”¹⁸² One reader, in a personal comment, remarked that actually the women were examples and illustrations, not teachers. Taken as a point of detail, the use of the word teacher is perhaps unfortunate. Seen, however, as part of the whole, the fact that Jesus did refer so often to women in his teachings does have significance, as Bilezikian recognizes.

It is this kind of insight that will commend the book to many who are looking for support in their concept of women. Although debate over the book will probably center on the interpretation of specific texts, one section has special value that may be overlooked. The conclusion offers practical and sensitive suggestions for the improvement of mutual attitudes and relationships between men and women. This is transparently the goal of the author.

Elaine Storkey

The same concern that Bilezekian had is expressed in one of a number of penetrating chapters in the outright Christian feminist work What’s Right With Feminism by Elaine Storkey.¹⁸³ Her discussion of the question “Is God the Father?” is, like the rest of her book, conducted in a balanced, sensitive manner. While not a theological work, it does not neglect theology.¹⁸⁴

Storkey is not ready for easy answers. Her recognition of complexity where it truly exists helps the reader to break through ideological patterns in the search for truth. The following statement illustrates this: “It has often been supposed that a discussion of women and the Church is, in the end, about the ordination of women. I hope I have shown that the issues are more complex than that.”¹⁸⁵ She has indeed shown the complexity of the issues, working through early chapters like “The Feminist Case” to “Some Christian Responses” and what she calls “A Third Way.” This last chapter presents not only her synthesis, but also a posing of yet more questions. This invitation to think and to apply characterizes Storkey’s approach—a needed one.

David Scholer

The dean of Northern Baptist Seminary, David Scholer, has been in the forefront of Christian feminist studies for some years. Since his contributions have been in the form of articles and scholarly dialogues, rather than in a single book, the significance of his work may not be as apparent to the nonspecialist as it is to those who have interacted with him in scholarly circles. One example of his approach to the issues is found in a series of articles he has written.¹⁸⁶ These covered a number of the relevant passages in an open dialogic manner. Scholer concluded that it was his “deepest conviction that the full evidence of Scripture and an understanding of balance and consistency in interpretation mean that we must rethink some of our traditions and reaffirm with clarity and conviction the biblical basis for the full participation of women in the ministries of the church.”¹⁸⁷

Scholer wrote an informative article entitled “Women’s Adornment,” which provided excellent background materials for understanding references in Scripture to the clothing, jewelry, and hair styles of women.¹⁸⁸ But the fullest presentation of his exegetical research is in an essay, “1 Timothy 2:9–15 and the Place of Women in the Church’s Ministry.”¹⁸⁹ Scholer investigated the background of 1 Timothy 1:12–15, holding that Paul’s prohibition of women’s teaching is directly related to the problem of false teaching at Ephesus. His conclusion was that the restriction of women in that passage is not applicable universally.

Aída Besançon Spencer

In Beyond the Curse¹⁹⁰ Spencer combined a high view of Scripture with exegetical ability to produce a series of interpretive studies supporting women’s ministry in the church. Spencer worked carefully through major texts and phases of biblical history, beginning in Eden. She presented references to women in Scripture—women who are often overlooked—including women in the Gospels, Paul’s associates, and the women mentioned as possible overseers of house churches. In the last category she discussed the question of whether the “elect lady” of 2 John is merely a metaphor for a church or an actual female leader. Spencer opted for the second alternative.¹⁹¹

Spencer had already published an article on 1 Timothy 2:11–15.¹⁹² In that study, which was further pursued in her book Beyond the Curse¹⁹³ she stressed the importance of the fact that Paul did want women to learn and that their quietness and submission in this context had to do with learning (not a submission in every sphere). Their restriction was temporary: “When women anywhere, including Ephesus, grow beyond a resemblance to Eve in this respect, then the analogy is no longer valid.”¹⁹⁴

In connection with the issue of women leaders in the apostolic church, Spencer made the following observation: “Similarly, the New Testament also does not record any example of a woman pastor. Yet, neither does it record any example of an individual male pastor.”¹⁹⁵ One assumes that she considers Timothy and Titus to have been apostolic delegates rather than “pastors” in the modem sense. She continued with the observation that on looking into the New Testament for evidence, “one notices that present church practices and first-century church practices often jar against one another.” For Spencer, the matter of women in leadership must include the probability that “the functional equivalents of today’s ‘head’ pastor was yesterday’s overseer of church communities.”¹⁹⁶

Roman Catholic Writers

Contributions to the discussion on women and the church have not to this point been categorized according to ecclesiastical position, but the discussions among scholars in this large sector of Christendom call for particular attention. Among those with a Catholic background, Rosemary Radford Ruether, Elisabeth Schüssler Fiorenza, and the Swidlers have already been mentioned. Many other scholars and publications could be mentioned. Several significant representatives of scholars and their works will be discussed here.

In 1965 Charles R. Meyer wrote a careful study entitled, “Ordained Women in the Early Church.”¹⁹⁷ Meyer maintained that there is evidence for the ordination of deaconesses in the early church equal to that of deacons. He also cited materials indicating that ecclesiastical responsibilities were accorded women beyond what has traditionally been supposed. This work has been selected for attention here because of the immense significance that the practices of the early church has for Catholics (and, in varying degrees, for others). Scholars have disagreed on the implications of some of the evidence. It seems clear that certain women servants of the church in the early years (see chapter 3) were given ecclesiastical recognition, even with the laying on of hands. But it has been difficult for Catholics to identify this with ordination to the priesthood and the right to administer the sacraments. The material Meyers has provided requires intense study.

Sister Agnes Cunningham, a seminary professor, theological and patristics scholar, and former president of the Catholic Theological Society of America, has written a number of papers and articles on women and the church. She has been a consultant to bishops on the matter and is sensitive to the biblical, historical, and theological evidence and to the complexities of the ecclesiastical situation. Her titles express her concerns and include the following: “Ecclesial Ministry for Women,”¹⁹⁸ “The Role of Women in Church and Society,”¹⁹⁹ Women in Ministry: A Sister’s View²⁰⁰ (a work that includes contributions from scholars in such varied fields as sociology, psychology, and pastoral theology, as well as in different ethnic groups), The Role of Women in Ecclesial Ministry: Biblical and Patristic Foundations,²⁰¹ and “Women in Ministry: A Roman Catholic View.”²⁰²

In these works, Cunningham considered the ministry of women in the Catholic church from a number of different perspectives. She showed the rich ministry of women in the church’s early history. She stressed that the gifts of the Spirit have been given to women and that their ministry enriches the church. Among the issues she addressed are those of authority and the sacraments. It is precisely at these sensitive places that agreement becomes most difficult. In one observation of interest to both Catholics and Protestants who are concerned with the significance of ordination, she observed, “There seems to be some basis for admitting an association between women’s exclusion from formal ecclesial ministry and the rise of ‘clericalism,’” a subject that she cautions needs careful handling.²⁰³

The following four books serve to indicate the kinds of resources available to those investigating the Catholic situation. One deals with canon law: Ida Raming, The Exclusion of Women from the Priesthood: Divine Law of Sex Discrimination.²⁰⁴ Another contains the proceedings of the Detroit Ordination Conference: Women and Catholic Priesthood: An Expanded Vision.²⁰⁵ A vigorous discussion is carried on by Haye van der Meer, SJ, in Women Priests in the Catholic Church? A Theological-Historical Investigation.²⁰⁶ This work is packed with information and opinions relating to both sides of the issue. The Concilium series now has a section on feminist theology. The first contribution was Women: Invisible in Church and Theology.²⁰⁷ This project is supervised by an international advisory committee of women scholars. A further work, already cited earlier, is the compilation of articles concerning the Vatican Declaration on the admission of women to the priesthood, edited by Leonard and Arlene Swidler.

Similar collections could be cited in connection with discussion among Anglicans and other denominations. With few exceptions, the church is confronting the issues openly. In some quarters there is a greater acknowledgment that women do possess the gifts of the Spirit and should have far greater scope for ministry than has been granted, even if certain official positions are still closed to them. Some consider this minimal progress and perhaps for some a means of terminating the discussion quickly; others are more hopeful—or fearful—of further developments. But it is difficult to deny the increased study of Scripture and of church history and the value of open dialogue among scholars of both fields.

Scholars in Dialogue

Help in understanding differing positions on women and the church is found in various compilations. Among these are a collection of papers and responses given at a 1984 colloquium and in books published as parts of two series on current issues.

One of these publications, Women, Authority and the Bible,²⁰⁸ consists of papers delivered at an “Evangelical Colloquium on Women and The Bible,” held in the Chicago area in October 1984. The participants included prominent theologians and Bible scholars from diverse backgrounds, such as James I. Packer, Richard N. Longenecker, Berkeley Mickelsen, and Roger Nicol, to name just a few. Subjects included discussions of the key biblical passages and of major issues, such as authority, headship, and hierarchy.

The British Inter-Varsity Press has approached significant current issues in a series entitled, “When Christians Disagree.” One volume is The Role of Women.²⁰⁹ The participants in the discussion include several persons well known in the United States, such as I. Howard Marshall, Michael Griffiths, and James B. Hurley. Topics range from relationships in the home to women in church ministries.

One aspect of the discussion is of special importance with respect to the ministry of women in church leadership. In the dialogue between New Testament scholars I. Howard Marshall and James B. Hurley, the question of “office” occupies an important place. Hurley sees a more firm organizational structure in the early church than does Marshall, but he acknowledges that there have been abuses in the limiting of certain church functions only to those who hold specific offices. For his part, I. Howard Marshall notes that

the modern concept of “the minister” in the sense of one person ordained by the laying on of hands to be (usually) the chief functionary in the local church and (usually) the one person authorized to celebrate the sacrament of the Lord’s Supper, has no single counterpart in the New Testament.²¹⁰

Marshall also observes that

the trajectory which apparently leads through the Pastoral Epistles to the rigid clamping down on the place of women in the postapostolic church and on into many modern churches is a false one; rather, recognizing that the Pastoral Epistles were concerned to deal with a real abuse in their time, we may argue that the true line of advance should be traced from Jesus through the earlier epistles and onwards in the direction of the equality of God’s people in His church. There were good social and cultural reasons why the early church “hastened slowly” in giving women a vital role in the church and its ministry, thus restraining potentially dangerous developments at the time. In the world of today, we can move more readily to a full appreciation to the part that women can play in the church.²¹¹

The British series in which this volume appeared was being somewhat paralleled by a series published by the American InterVarsity Press. A volume in this series, as yet forthcoming at the date of this writing, sets forth four views, with responses, on various positions on women, ranging from traditional to feminist.

These dialogues are a significant development in the publication of books on women and the church. After years marked by individualistic expressions of opinion, both in print and in pulpits, Evangelicals are talking together publicly, willing to have their ideas critiqued by respected representatives of opposing views.

A significant example of this was the 1986 annual meeting of the Evangelical Theological Society, held just as the present work was undergoing final editing. Evangelical scholars of traditionalist, centrist, and feminist persuasions were invited to present papers pertaining to male-female relationships, including church roles and ministries. Just previously the October 3, 1986, issue of the Evangelical magazine Christianity Today contained a supplement from the Christianity Today Institute on “Women in Leadership.” The contributions were from various perspectives but included some perhaps unexpectedly strong support for women’s ministry and church leadership. Subsequent letters to the editor demonstrated strong reactions as well as agreement. Thus between the Evangelical Theological Society and Christianity Today the dialogue has now come strongly before the Evangelical public. There is promise of further open conversation on the subject with an increasing awareness of the reasons and the serious studies that lie behind the various viewpoints.

Conclusion

During the period just surveyed, the church has devoted increasing attention to the ministry of women. Whatever position a particular denomination may take, it is certain that there is now an intense awareness of the issues among its leadership and people. The amount and diversity of material written during the decades just surveyed—not only by the exegetes and theologians but also by lay people of all sorts—is astounding. And it is long overdue.

It is difficult to draw conclusions from such a sequence of varied and often opposing viewpoints. Both the opinions themselves and the methodologies for reaching them defy simplistic categorization. To be sure, the approach of some has been ideological. That is to say, the views one holds regarding women are seen as part of a closed structure of beliefs that are considered of extreme importance. For others, conclusions are tentative, subject to further illumination from historical and exegetical research. But traditionalists and feminists can be found in both groups, and of course there are many who cannot be categorized, either as to position or as to methodology.

There is no doubt that some earlier exegetical decisions need to be reviewed in the light of continuing research. New lexical information, aided by computer data banks, new insights into ancient literary form and syntactical structure, and a better understanding of ancient society contribute to this need. Although some opinions have naturally been more a reaction either to strong feminism or to a patriarchal mentality than they have been a carefully worked out position, exposure to the recent work of those scholars who at least strive for objectivity should open new perspectives for all.

↑ Back to top