Sermon Tone Analysis

“Women should adorn themselves in respectable apparel, with modesty and self-control, not with braided hair and gold or pearls or costly attire, but with what is proper for women who profess godliness—with good works.

Let a woman learn quietly with all submissiveness.

I do not permit a woman to teach or to exercise authority over a man; rather, she is to remain quiet.

For Adam was formed first, then Eve; and Adam was not deceived, but the woman was deceived and became a transgressor.

Yet she will be saved through childbearing—if they continue in faith and love and holiness, with self-control.”

[1]

Almost a year ago, I delivered a message bearing the identical title to the message this day.

[2] I knew at the time that the message would be considered controversial, and it did prove to be so.

The message was not well-received in some quarters; however, I have never preached to obtain the accolades and praise from those who listen to the message.

Disapproval of women functioning as elders, or even filling the pulpit, is controversial in great measure, because of the insinuation of feminist ideology into the life of Christ’s Zion.

Unquestionably, the churches of this day have been feminised to a dismaying extent.

The adoption of attitudes that are antithetical and even hostile to the Word of God has ensured the elevation of women to the eldership and the diaconate among modern churches.

Increasingly, evangelical churches view these services to the saints as positions of power.

According to this novel worldview, if women were proscribed from functioning in these roles, they were excluded from power.

Exclusion from power for any identifiable group is strictly verboten in contemporary culture.

Thus, women were said to be discriminated against and kept from realising their full potential within God’s work if they could not serve as elders and/or deacons.

In order to accommodate this novel desire for power among the churches it was necessary to discount two millennia of church practise and impose a radical reinterpretation of the Scriptures.

Novel concepts were advanced to support the new push to feminise the face of the Faith.

Scholars “discovered” new evidence for a female apostle and dismissed much of the apostolic literature as misogynistic and culture-bound by Jewish concepts that were no longer applicable to the churches of the Master.

Perhaps the most vigorous push for reinterpretation was mounted against Paul’s First Letter to Timothy.

In this letter, the Apostle to the Gentiles has written: “Women again must dress in becoming manner, modestly and soberly, not with elaborate hair-styles, not decked out with gold or pearls or expensive clothes, but with good deeds, as befits women who claim to be religious.

A woman must be a learner, listening quietly and with due submission.

I do not permit a woman to be a teacher, nor must woman domineer over man; she should be quiet.

For Adam was created first, and Eve afterwards; and it was not Adam who was deceived; it was the woman who, yielding to deception, fell into sin” [1 TIMOTHY 2:9-14].

[3]

What is apparent upon reflection and when considering the Apostle’s statements preceding this portion of the Letter, it is apparent that there are some serious difficulties with these modern efforts to reinterpret the Word.

If we allow that Paul’s statement to the men leading in prayer is universal, then it follows of necessity that what is stated concerning the role of women among the churches is also universal.

This must be stated as it has become somewhat popular in recent days to argue that he was correcting a local problem in Ephesus.

The argument of some feminist theologians is that the situation in Ephesus was an aberration; therefore, the instruction provided in this passage is not to be applied as the normal pattern for the churches.

*GENERAL CONSIDERATIONS CONCERNING WOMEN IN PASTORAL ROLES* — Was this portion of the Word the sole proscription against women functioning in the role of congregational teachers, it would weigh heavily upon the congregation of the Lord.

However, there are other considerations in this matter.

There are broad implications of the debate over setting women apart to pastoral leadership.

Among the areas of concern that must be raised are questions touching such fields as bibliology, hermeneutics, Christology, trinitarianism and ecclesiology.

Though admittedly speaking broadly, I do wish to touch on each of these areas briefly.

For those wishing to elevate women to congregational oversight, the Scriptures as translated must be jettisoned in favour of gender-neutral versions.

Otherwise, advocates of women pastors will be continually frustrated by the language employed throughout the New Testament.

I admit that this is not a strong argument for rejecting feminist theology, but it is a consideration must not be neglected.

Supporters of female eldership will feel increasing pressure to transform liturgical language, seeking to ensure that it is inclusive.

Shortly, churches will be praying to “Our Father-Mother who art in heaven,” preaching that God gave “His only Child” and reciting creeds affirming, “We believe in the Holy Spirit, the Sovereign, the giver of life, who proceeds from the Father-Mother and from the child.”

[4]

Traditional hermeneutics advocates understanding the historical-cultural context of the passage one is reading; feminist theology introduces a theology of victimhood.

Scriptures will be reinterpreted from the standpoint of woman as victim.

Where this leads is anyone’s guess.

Once this concession is made, it will be impossible to exclude black theology, gay theology, ecological theology, liberation theology and so forth.

In fact, it is a sorrowful observation that one of the strongest arguments presented for the ordination of practising homosexuals is that the churches are already ordaining women to ministry.

Feminist theology challenges Christology.

In particular, recent arguments are presented for a “non-violent atonement.”

[5] The concept is driven by the feminist attempts to rescue the atonement from its harsh punishment angle.

Women are said to recoil from the idea that God would punish anyone, much less punish His Son because of man’s sinful condition.

The argument presented so very often today is that males shaped the various theories of atonement.

[6] Thus, modern feminist theologians tend to repudiate the cross as an instrument of violence against the powerless and powerless.

The cross, they argue, justifies violence against the weak.

[7]

Trinitarian theology is challenged as feminist leaders reject the idea that subordination and equality can be simultaneously true.

According to these leaders, accepting a submissive role automatically means that a woman does not have equal status with a man.

However, Scripture teaches that the Son submits to the Father and the Spirit submits to the Son.

Therefore, egalitarians and feminist theologians are on the horns of a dilemma.

Anyone reading the Gospel of John will see the subordination of the Son to the Father.

To be certain, JOHN 1:1 teaches that Jesus is God: “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.”

However, in JOHN 14:28, Jesus asserts that the Father is greater than the Son! “You heard me say to you, ‘I am going away, and I will come to you.’

If you loved me, you would have rejoiced, because I am going to the Father, for the Father is greater than I.” Jesus’ high priestly prayer in JOHN 17 demonstrates the tension in God who has become flesh.

These concerns must be addressed; neither can other issues of Scripture be ignored.

For instance, it is significant that Jesus named no women to serve as Apostles.

While feminist theologians have argued that Jesus was bound by Jewish tradition, it is evident that He liberated women.

There is no question but that Jesus treated women with respect; nevertheless, when appointing those who would serve as Apostles, Jesus chose no women.

If, as feminist theologians argue, Jesus came to abolish role distinctions, wouldn’t the appointment of Apostles be the time?

Jesus was the only person with authority to appoint Apostles; if He did not do so when He was walking the Judean hills, when would be the right time?

When would society, much less the churches, be ready for female apostles?

According to many contemporary theologians, this act would require waiting until the Twentieth Century.

Until then, God would be required to adapt His Word to the prevailing patriarchal culture of the Old Testament to gain a hearing.

According to this view, not even Jesus Christ could break free from GENESIS 3 and the curse pronounced by the LORD God!

Saul of Tarsus, a male, was divinely appointed to serve as an Apostle after Judas had fallen [see ACTS 9:1-19].

When the Twelve took it upon themselves to choose someone to replace Judas, why did they not consider a woman?

They were familiar with Jesus’ teaching and certainly had some understanding of His will in such matters, yet, they chose between Justus and Matthias [see ACTS 1:21-26].

Much has been made of Paul’s greeting to one particular woman in his Letter to Roman Christians.

In ROMANS 16:7, Paul writes, “Greet Andronicus and Junia, my kinsmen and my fellow prisoners.

They are well known to the apostles, and they were in Christ before me.”

Junia is a feminine name; thus, a growing number of contemporary theologians are prepared to argue that this was a “female apostle.”

What is uncontroverted is that this woman was known to Paul.

She is associated with Andronicus, who was likely her husband.

This couple were early converts to the Faith, having trusted Christ before the Gentile mission.

This couple appears to have been imprisoned at some point, possibly sharing time in gaol with him, and he calls them his kinsmen.

Either they were part of his family or they are possibly identified as belonging to the tribe of Benjamin, as was Paul.

It is his statement that they “are well known to the apostles” that provides controversy.

Does this mean they were honoured in the eyes of the apostles, or does it mean that they were honoured among the apostles?

The text does not say.

Additionally, you should know that the term “apostle” was used of messengers (itinerating teachers or missionaries) sent out by the churches [see PHILIPPIANS 2:24; 2 CORINTHIANS 8:23].

However, allowing that Paul did identify Junia as an “apostle” does not mean that she bore official status.

Since she is the sole individual thus identified in the New Testament, it is not likely that she had official status.

With respect to women identified as prophetesses, it is significant that Deborah declined to lead the military campaign against the Canaanites, deferring instead to a man, Barak.

No women ever served as a priest under the Old Covenant.

None of the authors of the Old Testament were women.

No woman had an ongoing prophetic (speaking before people) ministry like that of Elijah, Elisha or the other prophets.

While Miriam [see EXODUS 15:20], Deborah [see JUDGES 4:4], Huldah [see 2 KINGS 22:14] and Isaiah’s wife [see ISAIAH 8:3] are called prophetesses, none had a permanent calling to that office.

Miriam, Deborah and Huldah gave only one recorded prophecy and Isaiah’s wife none.

She is called a prophetess because she gave birth to a child whose name had prophetic meaning.

A fifth woman mentioned as a prophetess, Noadiah, was a false prophetess [see NEHEMIAH 6:14].

While God spoke through women on a few limited occasions, no woman had an ongoing role of preaching and teaching.

[8]

Again, there is no recognition of a woman serving as an elder either in the writings of Paul or in the General Epistles.

Nothing can be said to alter this observation.

Again, advocates of women preachers have argued at various times that Paul and the other Apostles were misogynists or that they were enmeshed in the patriarchy of that ancient culture; but such arguments are reactionary, at best.

Paul commended women for participating in numerous ministries of the churches; however, he never even hinted that they were to function as elders.

One cannot read the statements of the writers of Scripture when admonishing husbands to esteem their wives without drawing the conclusion that consideration and recognition of the worth of a woman is of utmost importance in the godly home.

However, several statements in Scripture speak pointedly against permitting women to serve in the role of leading a congregational meeting.