Statement on Gender Equality

Created in the image of God (Gen. 1:26-27)

Man and woman were created equal as “image of God” (Gen. 1:26-27). The context suggests that this has to do primarily with the fact that they are given joint dominion over all living creatures—they have been entrusted with the management of the abundant life which God created. The statement gives us no reason to think that the woman was created subordinate to the man.

The woman as helper (Gen. 2:18)

The woman was created after the man as a “helper”. The word for “helper” both in Hebrew and Greek describes a person who comes running to help someone in need of assistance, typically when in a situation of danger or great need. God is described as the “helper” who delivers the Psalmist from his predicament (e.g. Ps. 69:6). In the context of the Genesis story the man’s deficiency is that he is alone, and the creation of the woman as a helper for the man becomes the basis for marriage. The verse cannot be taken to mean that the woman is inherently subservient. Bilezikian writes:

“If anything, the word points to the inadequacy and the helplessness of the man when he was bereft of the woman in Eden. God provided him with a “rescuer” to become with him the community that God had intended to create all along.”

G. Bilezikian, Beyond Sex Roles, Kindle location 279.

The helper must be “according to” or “corresponding to” the man. If she had been created from the earth as Adam was, she would have been another species, like the animals, not fit to be either a co-worker or “one flesh”. The Hebrew word knegdô occurs only here in the Old Testament and has the literal sense “like opposite him”, suggesting both likeness and difference or complementarity. This also provides the background for the naming of the woman, which in context is not an assertion of authority over but a recognition of her unique and distinct identity.

The curse of patriarchy (Gen. 3:16)

The subordination of the woman to the man enters the narrative as a predicted consequence of the judgment pronounced on the couple: “Your desire shall be for your husband, and he shall rule over you” (Gen. 3:16). There is no basis for the view that Genesis 3:16 refers to the corruption of an original good “rule” of the man over the woman, as is sometimes argued. On the one hand, there is no previous reference to a benign patriarchy. Prior to the expulsion from the garden the question of “rule” arises only in Genesis 1:26, where the man and woman are together given “dominion over” all living creatures. On the other, the Hebrew word mashal (“rule”) does not have the negative connotation of “domineer over”. Subordination, therefore, was not part of the original good complementarity that existed between the man and the woman. They are created different, and the formation of Adam before Eve will have some significance for Paul (1 Cor. 11:8; 1 Tim. 2:13). But this difference does not entail the subordination of the woman to the man.

One in Christ

The redemptive-prophetic dynamic is evident in the remarkable prominence of women in the ministries of both Jesus and Paul. In the Gospels the participation and intervention of women at critical moments in the story is as much a sign of the radical transformation of God’s people that was underway as the healing of the sick and demon-possessed or the inclusion of tax collectors and “sinners”. Paul is vocal about the role of women co-workers in pastoral and apostolic ministry—for example, Phoebe, Prisca, Mary, Junia, Tryphaena and Tryphosa in Romans 16:1-12; Euodia and Syntyche in Philippians 4:2-3. What Bilezikian refers to as “inaugural texts” suggest that the early Christian community was conceived as functionally without gender bias. [G. Bilezikian, Beyond Sex Roles, Kindle location 2583.]

In the Pentecost narrative the Spirit is poured out indiscriminately on men and women (Acts 2:17-18). Paul argues in Galatians 3:25-29 that women and men are equally “sons of God… Abraham’s offspring, heirs according to promise”. Peter writes that a husband and wife are “heirs together of the grace of life” (1 Pet. 3:7). We believe that in its life and mission the church should always be

straining towards the full expression of that equality. But there have been, and no doubt will be, circumstances under which it is inappropriate for women to exercise the full scope of Christian ministry and leadership—for example, in socially conservative cultural contexts. With that in mind, we turn to the passages in Paul’s letters which have commonly been invoked by those who wish to maintain hierarchy in gender relations.

The head of the woman is the man (1 Corinthians 11:2-16)

This is a complex passage that has been subjected to a wide range of interpretations. The chief point to make is that Paul here neither argues for nor presupposes the subordination of the woman to the man. His argument is not that women have been insubordinate and should respect the authority of their husbands. It is that the manner in which women pray or prophesy may bring shame or dishonour on their husbands.

In Hellenistic Greek the metaphor of a person being “head” of another person speaks not of a relationship of authority but of the relative prominence or pre-eminence of one person with respect to another. In the context of Paul’s argument in this passage, the behaviour of the woman reflects upon the man as her “head”, either for glory or for shame, because in ancient culture it was the man who had public status and visibility. The word for “authority” occurs in only one verse, where Paul in fact insists that the woman should “have authority over” her own head (1 Cor. 11:10). Paul’s concern here is for the socio-cultural impact of the new exuberant, charismatic freedom that women were finding in Christ.

Women should keep silent

The requirement that women should be silent and submissive in church, that they should ask questions of their husbands when they get home (1 Cor. 14:34-35), is essentially practical in character. It is not presented as a restriction on charismatic ministry—this would conflict with the assumption underlying Paul’s argument in 1 Corinthians 11:2-16 that women prayed and prophesied in church gatherings. If the passage is genuinely Pauline (there is some evidence that it was a later addition to the text), it is best read as an attempt to moderate the negative effects of the clash between new-found freedoms in Christ and prevailing cultural values. Just as Paul was willing to restrict his own freedoms in order to win both Jews and Gentiles (1 Cor. 9:19-23), he asks women in Corinth to observe traditional proprieties for the sake of the reputation both of the community and of Christ.

John Stackhouse says it is crucial to understand that when Paul wrote these letters, he was giving the church a few instructions on how to “survive and thrive in a patriarchal culture that he thinks will not last long and to maintain and promote the egalitarian dynamic already at work in the career of Jesus that in due course will leave gender lines behind”. [J.G. Stackhouse, Finally Feminist: A Pragmatic Christian Understanding of Gender, 51.]

I do not permit a woman to teach

In this passage Paul clearly prohibits women from teaching. The question is why. Interpretation of the passage is fraught with difficulties, but in our view there are good reasons for thinking that the prohibition is a pragmatic response to a particular set of conditions.

1. That Paul makes it a matter of not giving permission already suggests that he did not regard it as an absolute theological principle.
2. The verb authenteō does not mean “to have authority over” as traditionally understood. It means “to instigate or perpetrate” (typically a crime) or “to exercise influence over”. In this context it seems that Paul is concerned that if women are given permission to teach, they will have a damaging influence over the congregation.
3. Paul appeals to the creation narrative in verses 13-14 because he finds in it a calamity analogous to the situation in Ephesus. Eve was deceived by the serpent and became the means by which his false teaching was transmitted to Adam.
4. In 2 Timothy Paul warns against “those who creep into households and capture weak women, burdened with sins and led astray by various passions, always learning and never able to arrive at a knowledge of the truth” (2 Tim. 3:6–7).

These observations lead us to conclude that Paul regarded women in the church as susceptible to deception—on the one hand, because they lacked education or “formation”; on the other, because they were the natural target of seductive deceivers. He did not want them to do what Eve had done. To retain the prohibition under very different cultural conditions, where women are not less educated than men and no more likely to be seduced by false teaching, would be a matter of simple prejudice and injustice. It may also suggest that we have failed to grasp the real point of Paul’s teaching, which is that church leaders should exercise critical, contextually appropriate judgment in their oversight of the teaching ministry. “The principle he lays down to protect the teaching ministry and the exercise of authority functions from incompetent persons is valid for all times and for all churches”. [G. Bilezikian, Beyond Sex Roles, Kindle location 2667.]

Household Codes

The so-called “household codes” or Haustafeln, which enjoin the submission of women (Eph. 5:22; Col. 3:18; 1 Pet. 3:1), differ sharply from the prevailing Greek-Roman model in that 1) the subordinate partner is addressed first; 2) she is urged to submit voluntarily, as a matter of free moral choice; and 3) the form of the texts in the New Testament presupposes not the rigid social structure of the prevailing culture but the socially liberating message of Jesus and the early church. John Howard Yoder notes that the admonition to submit or obey in the New Testament is directed “first to persons on the bottom side of the social order, and assumes that they have heard a message which calls into question the subjection they have hither to not been able to challenge” [J. Howard Yoder, The Politics of Jesus, 178]. Paul does not impose an immutable hierarchy on husbands and wives. He teaches them how to maintain the integrity of their newly redeemed relationships in an uncongenial but socially inescapable patriarchal context.

Husband of one wife

It is sometimes argued that Paul’s insistence that overseers and deacons should be “the husband of one wife” restricts these offices to married men (1 Tim. 3:2, 12). The passage appears to assume that these positions were held by men (cf. 1 Tim. 2:12), though “women likewise” in verse 12 may refer to female deacons (rather than to the “wives” of the deacons), and Phoebe is described as a “deacon” in Romans 16:1. Also, the restriction to married men would have excluded Timothy and quite likely Paul himself. The phrase is idiomatic and the emphasis is on “one”. An alternative view is that it means “married only once”—that is, not remarried after death or divorce. But in this context it more likely means simply that the married overseer or deacon should be “faithful” (a “one-woman man”), which fits appropriately alongside the other character traits (“sober-minded, self-controlled, respectable, hospitable, able to teach, not a drunkard, not violent but gentle, not quarrelsome, not a lover of money”) which constitute what Paul means by “above reproach” (1 Tim. 3:1).