I’m a Canadian, so all of this has been happening at a distance for me. That being said, my heart breaks for all the people affected by this decision.
Holding to male-only leadership as being ordained by God has become an untenable perspective: biblically, logically, and experientially.
First, let’s ask the question - assuming that male-only leadership is God’s will - is there a functional difference between men and women which justifies this hierarchy?
If no, then we are left with the conclusion that God has arbitrarily created a hierarchical division between humanity. Personally, I don’t see how one can defend this view in light of the major biblical theme of equalization - that hills will be made low and valleys filled in, the wise will become foolish, and the foolish will be made wise.
If yes, then this functional difference must be in their ability to lead. If it’s anything else (e.g., the quality of having a penis), then it’s the same as being arbitrary.
So then, are women incapable of leadership?
It seems impossible to me to answer “yes” to this question. Clearly, there are plenty of women with the ability to lead. To deny that is ignorance.
Obviously, women are capable of leadership.
Of course, proponents of male-only leadership may argue that, on the whole, men are typically better at leadership than women, just as men are generally taller than women, though not every man is taller than every woman. But this completely breaks down, because it means that gender isn’t the difference after all - it’s simply ability. And if this is the case, then regardless of generalizations, individuals with the ability to lead should lead, whatever their gender.
There is no Jew or Greek, slave or free, male and female; since you are all one in Christ Jesus.
This topic alone deserves a few books of material, but to share my progressive American view, I believe the SBC has a history of supporting patriarchy. But what came first, patriarchy or Biblical interpretation? In the spirit of assuming the best of my fellow Christians, let’s assume the problem lies in interpretation.
The SBC holds that the Bible is the literal, inerrant word of God. I don’t know what to do with that kind of view in my own faith life. Consider: -Many books and verses seem to contradict each other -Jesus “updated” scripture in his sayings -There are many verses that clearly seem to be written by flat-earthers, as anyone might have been thousands of years ago
The Bible was written in the language and culture of its time. Our knowledge and understanding continues to grow and our faith must continue to expand. This should all be seen through the lens of Christ first. Let’s measure the intent of scripture through Christ’s love, and if there is a contradiction, Christ wins over scripture. I cannot for a single second believe that Christ would not allow women to play equal roles in the church.
But what about Paul? We hear a lot about 1 Timothy 2:12. Paul is pretty clear that women should be quiet in church here. But why? What is the cultural context? It seems tied to not wanting to seem like another cult. We don’t have that context anymore.
We don’t hear as much about the last chapter of Romans where women like Mary and Junia are preaching all over the place with Paul’s blessing. Does Paul contradict himself? Sure. How can we really know Paul’s thoughts? More importantly, who cares if there is a contradiction? Applying what we know of Jesus, it seems really clear that we should be way beyond this issue in 2023.
The way that someone chooses to interpret scripture is certainly going to impact their perspective on women in leadership. I agree with you that, despite the claims of many fundamentalists, it seems difficult to uphold the Bible as a univocal, concordant text. I see a lot of issues stem from the assumption that the Bible is effectively an instruction manual with a clear and consistent message on how we are to live our lives. A great resource on this topic is “The Bible Made Impossible,” by Christian Smith.
I think an interesting example of how we should depend on biblical authority within the Bible itself is from Acts 15. By appealing to the scriptures, the early church determines that Gentiles shouldn’t be required to practice circumcision - which was one of the core elements of their faith at the time, because it was commanded in the scriptures.
In my experience and perspective, the value of the Bible comes from its role as the word which reveals the Word. I will stand firm on the conviction that Jesus is the definitive revelation of divinity - not the Bible. The Bible is useful inasmuch as it is a book about Jesus. And yes, the portrait of Jesus it provides for us is someone who declares liberation, not subjugation.
Thank you for that. I hadn’t really thought about Acts 15 that way but it is so fitting. And I agree, the Bible is a testament to the Word. The Word is Christ. I feel privileged to have this collection of writings from people who struggled back and forth with issues of faith just as we do today. I love that the compilers and canonizers were fine with those contradictions and wanted to enshrine the diversity of our faith. The contradictions inherent in that earnest back and forth are nothing to be confused or embarrassed about, they are the very point of scripture to me. Highlighting Acts 15 as you did above shows this evolving in action, led by the Holy Spirit. The Bible isn’t a magic rule book. It’s there to show you ways people who shared our faith for 3,000 years approached a relationship with God.
Unfortunately, for a lot of Americans, there is so much prideful tribalism tied up in particular ways of understanding the Bible that I’m afraid admitting literal inerrancy is too limiting would shatter their identities. But that requires a few more books worth of material…
Paul did not say Mary and Junia were preaching all over the place in Romans 16. He just said they were fellow believers, and that Junia had been in prison with him.
Concerning circumcision, since it was mentioned, is similar to other command in the OT. God gives different commands at different times, for different reasons. Many of these commands in the OT were to be a foreshadow of something else to come. Jesus didn't come to change all those rules, but the purpose of many of those rules were fulfilled with the coming of Christ, and the birth of the church.
You asked why Paul said what he did in 1 Timothy 2:12. Keep reading and he explains it. 1 Timothy 2:13-14 KJV — For Adam was first formed, then Eve. And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression. Women are more easily deceived than men. And men more easily give in to doing wrong if asked to do so by women. So, one reason to have men in leadership in church is to help prevent false teaching in the church. And most times I have seen churches with female pastors, they teach that certain sins are okay, and that church goes along with it. Not allowing women in leadership isn't just an anti-female rule, but its saying men are weak and less likely to stand up for truth in that situation. This is why most churches will not allow women in leadership. Because if you are not following the scriptures, then you are just making it up as you go.