Tags:
female leadership lady women pastors church faith
Intro. A while back we received some CDs in the mail with recorded teaching. The lady teaching on the CDs asked us to promote her material on our website and presented herself as an elder in her church. We decided to give her a detailed reply as to why will not promote her teaching. In this correspondence over female leadership, you might find some useful thoughts and arguments.
All names have been changed.
Our initial reply to Audrey, with explanations.
Dear Dr. Audrey Ingram,
We thank you for contacting us and for sending us a letter complete with two CDs of your teaching. We received the letter yesterday and have already listened to some of your teaching.
We agree with what we have heard so far and we were pleased to see your interest in the end times, in Israel and the Jewish people. We appreciated your taking the Bible literally on these passages, even on the finer points ie. considering that there might be a return to primitive weapons. However, the Scriptures tell us that a woman should not teach or have authority over a man. We see this especially in congregational context, where the teaching is authoritative. We disagree that a woman should teach the Bible to a mixed group of men and women, even outside the congregation.
Please consider the following. Christ chose 12 men to be His disciples. Not one of them was a woman. After Judas died, the disciples took care to choose again out of all the men who accompanied the Lord Jesus, two, one of whom would take Judas’ place, although many women followed Christ and served Him. You would give the Lord more glory by serving the Lord and His church and leaving the positions of leadership (eldership) to men.
The Lord values simple obedience to His straightforward commands far more than any amount of service and work we could hope to do for Him. It gives Him far more glory if we simply obey what He asks us to do: obedience is better than sacrifice. We wish that you would take the New Testament passages on this subject as literally as you take prophecy. If you are indeed a literalist, as we are, then you should let a capable man take the role that you have assumed as elder in the congregation. Please note that one of the qualifications of the leader of a congregation, the bishop (or elder – both terms are applied to the same office in Acts 20:17,28 for example) is that he must have one wife, not one husband. There is simply no justification from Scripture whatsoever for a female leader of the church. You are currently in a state of disobedience to the Lord and to His Word.
Whatever the arguments may be to legitimise women’s leadership in the church, the message of the New Testament is quite clear, and we are sure that you are familiar with 1 Cor 14:33-35: “As in all the churches of the saints, let the women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but let them be in subjection, as also saith the law. And if they would learn anything, let them ask their own husbands at home: for it is shameful for a woman to speak in the church.” This is evidently speaking about the time that the believers are gathered together as a body. Many attempts are made to explain away these and other verses, but that will not change the Lord’s requirements. Another verse: “Let a woman learn in quietness, in all subjection. But I permit not a woman to teach, nor to have dominion over a man, but to be in quietness”. (1 Ti 2:11-12)
It’s for this reason that we wouldn’t want to promote the teaching, however much we agree with what we’ve heard of it. Since there is no lack of good male teachers on the Bible in general and on prophecy specifically, we would prefer to promote male teachers as this would encourage more men into leadership in the body of Messiah. We do believe that you will be giving glory to God by refraining from teaching mixed groups and directing your teaching at women. An example of this is Elizabeth Elliot, who directed all of her public teachings only at the female believing audience. Another way that you could use the gift of teaching that we believe you have, would be to use your knowledge and skill to instill true doctrine into children. This is no less important or less honorable.
Dear Audrey: we do not write this to crush your spirit or to spite in any way. We do personally know of one lady who used to function as an elder in a church. She is a most lovely believer. As time went on, and she received better teaching concerning this, she reconsidered her position and stood down. After that, her husband flowered, as well as other men in that group, and God blessed their group a lot and they grew quickly. Up until today, when we come to England, we make it a point to visit this lovely couple and we enjoy their company very much.
Your younger brother and sister in the Lord Jesus,
Michael & Annie Nissim.
The husband’s reply.
Dear Michael and Annie Nissim
You recently communicated by email your thoughts and conclusions on my wife’s teachings on the end times doctrines. My wife has decided for her own reasons not to answer personally the judgemental criticisms so clearly raised in your correspondence. I do not feel so constrained, however!
In the interests of brevity I will list my thoughts, observations and conclusions in the order in which you raise them, referring to specific paragraph numbers in your email.
1. ref: para 1 & 2
Thank you for taking the time to listen to (some) of my wife’s teaching. It is gratifying to note that, “we agree with what we have heard so far… might be a return to primitive weapons”. This acceptance of the biblical accuracy of my wife’s teaching does not surprise me. Indeed it is the major factor in my own conversion to a “born-again” Christian, baptised by full immersion at the age of 61. Up to this point in my life, I had not been an enthusiastic Christian, although I had accompanied my wife to many church services led by men. After a working lifetime in aviation, as a pilot and an air traffic control officer, I was what can only be described as a difficult convert! My professional life was marked by the need to be self reliant (and self opinionated and self centred etc) for so long that I needed a good deal of convincing. It is worth noting, therefore, that all the male teachers and preachers that I had encountered up to this point in my life had been unable to reach me in the same way as my wife’s bible studies had over her years of teaching. I am, therefore, in total disagreement with your observations that a woman should never teach a mixed congregation, believing, as you so obviously do, that it gives a woman authority over a man. I firmly believe that God knows what He is doing on these matters and that the best person for the job, in terms of biblical knowledge and commitment, male or female, is vital for the spiritual welfare of any church. My own feelings on the matter are perhaps best summarised that it is far better that the message goes out from a woman than it not go out at all.
2 ref: para 3
I note your comments that Christ did indeed choose 12 men to be His disciples. One betrayed Him, one denied Him three times and only one stood at the foot of the cross, while He endured an agonising physical and spiritual death. The rest fled “for the hills”. The entirely male dominated Jewish leadership of Pharisees, Sadducees and Scribes in Israel had demanded and orchestrated the events leading to our Lord Jesus’ death by crucifixion even to the extent of demanding the release of a convicted criminal as the substantive alternative to the release of an innocent Man. When Jesus rose from the tomb He first appeared, not to one of the 12 disciples but to Mary, who was designated to inform the disciples that Jesus was indeed risen. I can see no reluctance on God’s part in this situation to use a woman to get the message across.
I, therefore, find your opposition to women teaching, somewhat bigoted, hypocritical, blinked, judgemental and inexplicable. By demanding that my wife should cease teaching, and to give up the leadership role of a church she helped to found nearly 30 years ago, in a situation where no suitable (including myself) in that church has the necessary experience, biblical knowledge, spiritual depth or commitment and thus leave the ship rudderless, is in my view an unbelievable arrogant attitude to adopt. It does, of course, provide a perfect example of what can happen when fallible man (or woman) does not seek the Lord before speaking out. My wife does not need instructing by you or anyone else to seek the Lord in all decisions which affect her spiritual life. She does it all the time! Until she hears clearly from the Lord that she should give up her leadership role and/ or her teaching in our church, she will continue to serve the Lord to the best of her considerable abilities.
3 ref: para 4
The majority of this paragraph I have already covered. Suffice it to say that the last sentence of this paragraph is so judgemental, lacking in grace and any semblance of Christian virtue and principle that it is breathtakingly arrogant in concept and totally dismissive in nature. I find it incomprehensible that any person, who believes in the Christ I believe in, could, under any circumstances, write such a sentence to anyone who is as “sold out to the Lord” as my wife. I strongly suggest that you take this matter to the Lord. You will note that I did not use the phrase, “back to the Lord” because I, honestly, do not believe that you got beyond your own personal prejudices and preconceptions before you delivered such a devastating indictment of my wife’s spiritual walk. May God forgive you.
4 ref: para 5
You really are tied up with “a woman having dominion over a man”, aren’t you?. The biblical references you make to a woman’s role in the church are selective and I am sure you already know, there are many biblical references which give an opposite viewpoint.
1 Peter 2:9 “But ye are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood” (no gender limitation)
Gal 3:27-28 “For as many of you as have been baptised into Christ. There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond or free, there is neither male or female, for ye are all one in Christ Jesus”
Therefore, all men and women are priests!
1 Corinthians 14:33-35
v 33 shows the context is one of establishing order in the church services.
v 34 shows women are to be under obedience, i.e. in order. These women, at this time were unruly and noisy. Because they were not permitted to take part in services they talked and shouted and disturbed the services.
v 35 “if they will learn” – these women were unlearned and were asking questions in the services and causing disturbance. They are instructed that if they wish to learn they are to ask their husbands at home instead of causing disorder in the church.
Misunderstandings arise from the translation of the Greek word in v 34 “epitrepo”, which is also the word used in 1 Tim 2:12. “epitrepo” is translated “permit” or “suffer” meaning allow. In fact it is the same word used in Acts 28:16 “Paul was suffered to dwell by himself with a soldier that kept him” and in Mark 10: 4 “Moses suffered to write a bill of divorcement” In both cases, Paul and Moses were “forced” into a certain action.
Letting the Bible interpret itself v.34-35 of 1 Corinthians would read “Let your women be quiet in the church for they are not forced to speak out but to be in order, asking questions of their husbands at home, not in church, if they want to learn”
1 Timothy 2 v12 would read “I do not force a woman to teach”. This verse goes on to say “nor to usurp authority over the man”. The Greek word translated “usurp” is literally “To exercise power of one’s self”. It is the only place in the Bible where this is used. The whole verse would then read “I do not force a woman to teach nor to exercise her own authority as a man would, but to be still”
The conclusion from these and other texts is that the man is the head of the woman, the husband the head of the wife, and the woman is expected to learn of the things of God from her own husband. She must not in God override her husband’s authority. If the wife has a non Christian husband she is still to commit to her husband’s authority except when his desires are contrary to those of God. An unlearned woman is not to exercise power over men who are learned. It is intended for a man to learn of God first and for him to teach his wife as Adam was created first in order to be able to instruct Eve. For women who do learn from the instruction of men and become learned there is, therefore, no distinction in ministry “neither male nor female”. I think this describes my wife’s position exactly.
It is God’s intention that men should be Elders and, therefore, also take the main ministries in the church. This was absolutely imperative when women were unlearned and uneducated. No other situation was possible. God’s intention is still for men to fulfil their leadership roles but if men fail to do so, God now has learned, educated and mature women who are capable of filling the gap, a resource He did not have at His disposal until the last 100 years or so. The work of God need not, therefore, lapse or disappear for the want of obedient and mature men. Indeed it is imperative that it does not disappear. These women are, however, filling a gap and they must be vigilant to encourage and support the men who will subsequently take over the leadership and main ministries in the church. I hope you will agree that the above submission is not the same as categorically stating that women must never lead or teach in a church situation.
If I do not see, nor am instructed by the Lord of any reason whereby I should inform my wife that she should cease to teach and preach in our church, you will understand my objections to you doing just that.
5 ref para 6
I find the contents of this paragraph to be so bafflingly incomprehensible that I almost skipped past it without comment. E.g. how can you say that you agree with the teaching but cannot promote it, when the alternative, in our church at least at the present time, is that the word would not go out at all. Take it back to the Lord. The rest of this paragraph suggesting in the most condescending way that my wife should limit her teaching to women and children (does this include male children?) beggars believe and is contradictory to your previous uncompromising position.
6: ref para 7
With reference to the first sentence in this paragraph, I can reassure you that it would take far, far more than a blinkered, hypocritical and judgemental missive to crush my wife’s spiritual spirit. She will go where the Lord leads her and she will teach and preach His word to her last breathe, reassured that the only meaningful appraisal of her work for the Lord here on earth will be from the Lord Himself.
In conclusion she has not only been the most wonderful wife to me and mother to our two beautiful daughters (both born-again Christians married to born-again sons-in-law). She has also provided the spiritual knowledge base of our family. I firmly believe that Jesus Christ is the Alpha and Omega and everything in between. He knew what He was doing when He brought us together as childhood sweethearts some 45 years ago and He knew by what means I would be brought to the Lord. We all have much to learn as we go on through life and our walk with God. Learning to be humble, in the biblical sense, especially when our natural inclination is to take us in the opposite direction, is perhaps one of life’s most difficult lessons, but in God all things are possible. I doubt any or all of the above will change your minds on the role of women in the church but now you cannot say that you have not received an alternative point of view from an equally committed Christian.
The grace of our Lord and Saviour and Messiah of Israel be with you
David Ingram
Our reply to David.
Dear David,
Thank you for your response to us regarding women’s teaching and leadership in the church. We read your letter carefully. True, we disagree with each other on these points, but we are your brethren in Christ. We have done our best to supply Scriptural arguments and we have not written simply out of prejudice. Even before writing this e-mail, we have prayed for God to guide us and to give us teachable spirits.
No doubt that in our modern days, an e-mail such as the one we’ve written you seems completely out of place in our tolerant, open-minded society. However, we have been accused by you of being bigoted, hypocritical, judgmental, lacking in grace and any semblance of Christian virtue, breathtakingly arrogant, blinkered, and inexplicable, though we’ve done our best to base our arguments solely upon the Word of God. We think that you have decided that our views are wrong, just because we hold an opposing view, and have used words to describe our view which we would have never dreamed of using to describe yours, even though we disagree with it.
We also think that you described us and our views in this way because we spoke with directness. True, there was correction in our letter. You might ask ‘Who are you at all to give reproof to my wife?’ The answer is that we are your brethren in Christ. From your letter we are 100% sure that you are true believers and we would even love to meet you one day, if time and circumstances allow and you would be interested. We have written our letter, not out of a condescending attitude, but as fellow believers, and we do not in any respect view ourselves as better than you.
Is it forbidden for one believer to reprove or correct another on the basis of Scripture?! If you were wrong on a certain subject and were corrected by a brother, would you not count it a privilege? Is any believer above correction of any kind, especially if they are in a leadership role? Note that King Uzziah was a good king; so long as he sought the Lord, the Lord was with him. He was successful in everything he did. But the day that he entered the Temple to do the work of a priest, he was smitten with leprosy on his forehead. Note however, that he was not smitten immediately but was first given a correction by the priests who told him that it was not his place. Only when his anger burnt against their correction was he smitten with leprosy and rushed out of the Temple. This is different from King David’s attitude, who, when he was corrected, immediately said, ‘I have sinned unto Jehovah’. Please note that these two men were kings – and still they were not above correction. Wouldn’t you benefit more by adopting the attitude of King David, when he says in the Psalms, “Let the righteous smite me; it shall be a kindness: and let him reprove me; it shall be an excellent oil…” (Ps 141:5). When I am reproved, I feel humbled and even humiliated but I know that it is also grace from God and I assure you that I have been corrected quite a few times.
We hope that at this point, you will be willing to consider some of the answers that we will bring to your points. We cannot answer each and every point that you’ve raised, only the most important ones. Anyway, our intention is not to dismantle your letter point by point. So here we go …
One of the first things that you have mentioned in answer to the point we made that Jesus chose 12 male disciples was that one betrayed Him, one denied Him three times, and only one was at the foot of the cross. Although it proves the point that men are fallible, a point which we agree with entirely, we do not understand what you were getting at. You seem to imply that Jesus was mistaken in His choosing men and not women, which we think is a dangerous attitude. We further stressed in our letter that when a new disciple was to replace Judas, they took care to choose from the men, though many women followed the Lord (Acts 1:21). The reason for choosing the men was not because they were more educated than the women; we are told specifically that Peter and John were uneducated and untrained (Acts 4:13).
It is wrong to think that women cannot or should not teach in the church because of lack of knowledge or ability. These are never given as reasons in the New Testament and I believe that they are simply not true. The reason given in Scripture that women are forbidden from teaching, is simply the order of creation. Capability has nothing to do with it.
Since we mention women’s capability, it is not true to conclude that women did not have the capability to teach in New Testament times either. We specifically have the example of Priscilla, wife of Aquilla, who together with her husband taught Appollos (Acts 18:26). But it mentions in that verse that they took him home to teach him. So obviously, Priscilla was wise in the Scriptures and had the ability to teach; we are sure she was not the only one. However, she is never mentioned to have taught in the church and for that matter, no woman is ever mentioned as addressing a church, and not for lack of capability.
You might ask, ‘For what reason, then, did God give a woman the ability to teach?’ It might be noted that some of the most important teaching is not done in church context. My mother, who is a natural teacher and a very gifted woman, was among the first to explain Messianic prophecies to me and to teach me the arguments against the objections to Yeshua’s Messiahship (she also wrote a beautiful Messianic poem book in English, which we can send you if you like). It is written in the Scriptures “My son, hear the instruction of your father, and do not forsake the law of your mother” (Prov 1:8 the Hebrew word for law is interchangeable with ‘instruction’). Further, “She opens her mouth with wisdom, and on her tongue is the law of kindness” (Prov 31:26), which causes her husband and her sons to praise her.
What an asset it is to have a godly mother and wife. You’ve mentioned that your wife led you to the Lord (or at least closer to Him) and she will be commended for that. You also mentioned that your two daughters are believers and married to believers. This is truly a wonderful thing and should not be taken lightly. I am sure that your wife had a central role in leading your children to the faith as well, and without her they might have not known the Lord at all. Now, is it condescending to “confine” a woman to raising her children in the faith? It is actually you who suggested that such an attitude is condescending and we think that, on the contrary, it is your attitude toward this crucial task that is condescending toward women. It shows that you don’t properly value this vital role that leads children to knowledge of the Lord (to briefly address your question on whether a woman can teach male children, the above verses from Proverbs answer).
My wife’s longing and desire is to raise children in the faith. What an important task this is. My wife has obtained a University degree in Hebrew (biblical and modern) and theology from Cambridge. She’s also looked a lot into the creation/ evolution debate. I appreciate my wife’s thoughts and meditations on Scripture and benefit much from discussion on Bible topics with my wife. She intends to use her knowledge and training in bringing up the children that God will give us, in His good will, and fortify their minds against the philosophies of the world. It is because of Timothy’s believing mother and grandmother that he knew the Scriptures from childhood (2 Tim 3:15) and he grew to be a servant of the Lord. So the mother’s role in raising godly children, out of them godly men and worthy leaders, is pivotal.
There also seems to be an apparent contradiction in things that you state. On the one hand you say “Men should be elders… and take the main ministries in the church”. With this we agree. You also say that “God’s intention is still for men to fulfill their leadership roles” and “the women are … filling a gap…” and should be “vigilant to encourage and support the men who will subsequently take over the leadership and main ministries”. With all of this we entirely agree. But then you also say that there is “no distinction in ministry”. What is the meaning of such a statement and how can this fit in with the previous statements you made which are truer to Scripture? Is there indeed no distinction in ministry? And if so, then why should the women be “vigilant to encourage and support the men” to take the leadership and main ministries? By these statements you made, though slightly ambiguous, you reveal to us that you too believe that it is the men who should be the leaders – and rightfully so.
You have mentioned that we are a kingdom of priests. Examining this term both in the Old and the New Testaments does not promote in any way, the leadership of women in the church. Taking the example from Israel, God intended them all to be a nation of priests unto Himself. This included all men and all women. However, only one tribe could function as priests in the Tabernacle and in the Temple. Certain families within that tribe had specific tasks and could not fulfill the roles that were intended for other families. In any case, no woman priest is mentioned, let alone a woman high priest, though the women were capable of doing most of the work the priests did. So God is particular in His demands and His requirements are to be followed as written.
In the New Testament as well, the church is described as a kingdom of priests. Does this mean there are no distinctions in ministry? Are men and women instructed to do the same tasks? Not at all. It is clear from the passages we’ve quoted in our previous email that the role of leadership, particularly eldership, belongs to the man, not the woman, and not only prior to the 20th century. Teaching in the church belongs to the men as well: In 2 Tim 2:2 Timothy is instructed to commit the teaching he heard from Paul into the hands of “faithful men”. Note that the first requirement is that they’re faithful, not exceptionally talented; “faithful men, who shall be able to teach others also”. The teaching was not committed generally to men and women – it was committed to faithful men who would carry the task of teaching the church. Even the public prayers should be led by the men: “I desire therefore that the men pray in every place, lifting up holy hands…” (1 Tim 2:8). You can look up any good commentary here to verify that the word for “men” here refers to the males specifically, not people in general. The passage continues also to specify the women’s role. It’s you, David, and the fellow men in the church, who should be leading the meeting – not the women. It is your responsibility and you shouldn’t neglect it.
So though in Christ there is neither male nor female, the verses above give distinct instructions to both sexes. We are not without gender. The same verse also states that there is neither slave nor free, yet both slaves and freemen are also given distinct instructions in the Epistle to the Ephesians. God is One, the Son being equal to the Father, yet the Son is subject to the Father and has a distinct role.
As for the word Epitrepo: We’ve checked Vine, a known Greek scholar. His explanation of the word’s meaning is “leave, let, liberty, licence, permit, suffer”. No “force” there. I’ve checked my Greek interlinear and it says: “but a woman to teach I do not allow”. I’ve also checked ALL major translations of the Bible: over 25 in number, including my Hebrew translation; all translations, both modern and ancient, carry the sense of not allowing a woman to teach (the only one that differs is “The Message” and even that distorted version doesn’t say “I do not force”).
Besides that, in the examples you gave of the usage of the word Epitrepo, we also didn’t find support for translating it “force”. With the example with Moses: it cannot be “force” because Moses wasn’t forced to write a bill of divorce; neither did he force anyone else to do so; the very last option, requires double use of the word, like “Moses was forced to permit you to write a bill of divorce”. None of these interpretations make sense or are true to Scripture. In the second example, with Paul under arrest: he wasn’t forced to be with a guard under house arrest; he was permitted. It denotes a betterment in his situation. Would you rather be in jail or under house arrest? And finally, when applied to the verse about women teaching, it doesn’t make sense either: Paul didn’t “force” the women to teach?! Didn’t “force” them to speak out?!
You’ve mentioned also that the women at the time were unlearned, noisy, disturbing and disrupting the meeting with questions etc. Though the historical context is important and even crucial to the understanding of a text, it in this case does not change the interpretation of the verses about women’s silence in the church, such as in 1 Cor 14. Paul not only requires the women to be more orderly, he required complete silence, prohibiting them from speaking at all, while encouraging the men to take an active role (see ch. 14). If the women would have wanted so much as to ask a question, they would have had to wait until they got home to ask their husbands because it was a shame for a woman to speak in public. But if the men wanted to ask a question, for clarification for instance, there would be no problem. It is the men’s voices that should be heard in the meetings. I understand that it seems unpalatable, but we cannot change the meaning of the text.
The last thing you mentioned which I would like to address is that the Lord Jesus was seen first to Mary the Magdalene. Indeed, that is one of the most touching passages in Scripture! I almost cry each time I read that passage; Jesus’ love and sensitivity to women and to this woman in particular is very touching – and how it was enough for Him to say “Miriam” and she fell at His feet! But this also, David, cannot be used as an argument for women’s teaching in the church. The fact that the risen Lord was seen to Mary the Magdalene first and that she conveyed his message to the disciples doesn’t mean she was installed as a teacher in the church or that she became an apostle or that she took part in the Jerusalem council.
So now, after we’ve presented all of these points to you, we hope you will consider our position once again, that the roles of leadership and teaching in the church belong to the men. We do not know how, after 30 years, there haven’t been any men to grow up in your church and take the leadership. We can only assume that male leadership was not nurtured or actively encouraged. Instead of that, female leadership was maintained and promoted. So the men in the church have to submit to a woman elder – and that would include her husband. This is not only different but is opposite to what Scripture teaches. So long as female leadership will be vehemently defended, you will not have male leaders as God intended.
If one will not obey the simple teaching of Scripture, he cannot expect the Lord to give him a personal revelation of His will. Therefore, we beseech you to prayerfully consider all that we’ve written to you. The Lord is gracious and will richly reward simple obedience. These scriptural requirements are not impossible to follow and it is never too late to make drastic changes. May we ever change and be transformed to His image.
“Do not be conformed to this world”. Rom 12:2.
With genuine and sincere brotherly love in Christ,
Michael & Annie Nissim.
We hope you’ve benefited from reading this article.
