Customer Reviews

Women in the Church: A Biblical Theology of Women in Ministry

5 star:		(3)
4 star:		(1)
3 star:		(1)
2 star:		(0)
1 star:		(1)

 

 

"Historical, biblical, and theological considerations", writes Stanley J. Grenz "converge not only in allowing, but also in insisting, that women serve as full partners with men" in the work of the Christian church. His book (coauthored with Denise Muir Kjesbo), Women in the Church: A Biblical Theology of Women in Ministry is one of the best- perhaps THE best treatment I've ever read on the subject of women's roles in churches, marriage, and family.

Grenz and Kjesbo are always respectful toward those who espouse a hierarchy for church and family based on gender roles, but their case for an egalitarian theology of women's roles is extremely thorough and compelling.

While I recommend Grenz and Kjesbo's Women in the Church as perhaps the best example of the superior scholarship being performed today by egalitarian theologians and expositors, two other treatments deserve mention. Gretchen Gaebelein Hull's Equal to Serve (1987) and Rebecca Merrill Groothuis's Good News for Women (1997) treat the subject admirably.

I read this book as part of a Bible study and found it to be a very helpful resource. Grenz and Kjesbo go into thorough detail looking at the "problem texts" facing women in ministry today, keeping a very solid, honest exegesis of the Word of God. Even as both authors are unapologetic about subscribing to an egalitarian view of women in ministry (believing that women should be allowed to participate in ministry without imposing constraints beyond what is expected of their male co-laborers), both the egalitarian and complementarian views receive a fair and respectful assessment based on an honest reading of scripture.

I would recommend this book for anyone seriously interested in studying out the issue of women in ministry. Because of the thoroughness of the book--investigations into the original languages, outlining of various stances and debates, and the citing of numerous outside sources--it is an extremely helpful study resource, although it would not serve as well for a casual read. Even so, the tone of the book is such that the reader does not need to be a theologian in order to appreciate it. This book sets a good scriptural foundation for a study of women in ministry, and I believe men and women alike will benefit from reading it.

This is easily the best work written supporting biblical equality. It is thorough, touching on a variety of issues of men's and women's roles. It addresses complimentarian concerns carefully and thoughtfully, but explains clearly why the Bible teaches equality in gender issues. It does not take on a more liberal hermaneutic, but stays within an evangelical framework.

I recommend this book highly.

This book deserves praise in that it uses a lot of angles to look at gender roles in the church. Many books on this subject only treat biblical passages, but fail to consider a lot of other factors that contribute to the debate.
Grenz offers some of the best arguments in favor of egalitarian view that I have read so far. I can understand more why Egalitarians hold their view against Complementarians. It does make some sense.
To be more specific, his explanation that the creation narrative itself does not mandate the hierarchical structure of male-female relationship after the Fall is persuasive. One cannot deduce from the text itself that complementarian view is God's timeless command. Also, he makes a good case that the New Testament does not say that the gift of leadership is only given to men, not women. It is a stretch, if not an error, for Complementarians to appeal to the Scripture to justify barring all women from being ordained.
But still, Grenz's argument fails to persuade me ultimately. There are too many instances where his argument is incomplete, or presumes some contestable assumptions, or just misses the point of controversy.
In Chapter Two, Grenz mentions many women in the early church who conducted ministries, but the majority of these cases are not leaders over men. Complementarians do not doubt that women can legitimately lead other women, or work in relief ministries. So mentioning these cases do not build an argument against Complementarian view. Though there are several women who appeared to be leaders over men, one cannot confuse "what is" with "what ought to be." If Grenz really want his readers to take up this assumption, then undeniably, there are far more male leaders than female ones in the church history, and far more voices that prohibit women from entering into leadership than otherwise. What then?
Grenz contends that male-dominated leadership comes only when the church is institutionalized. He observes that whenever there was a revival, there would be some women who participated as leaders. But his underlying but unspoken assumption is that institutionalization is a bad thing, but revival is a good thing, guided by the Holy Spirit. This assumption may be true, but it needs to be defended, not assumed. People who do not think institutionalization is a bad thing will not be persuaded.
In mentioning female prophets in the Old Testament, Grenz fails to present adequately the counter arguments from Complementarians on the leadership of Miriam, Deborah, and Huldah. The fact that Grenz can only mention Miriam leading other women in singing songs (p. 68) indirectly shows that she was not active in leading the whole congregation of Israel. Also, many Complementarians have pointed out that Deborah, though being a judge, did not want to be in charge of the military campaign, but instead encouraged Barak to lead (Jud. 4). Yet Grenz does not even raise this issue.
Grenz claims that Jesus was a liberator of women, and it fits egalitarian view. But a careful reading of Grenz's evidence reveals that Jesus only liberated women to be His disciples and to receive religious education, but He did not appoint women to be Apostles or even preachers. If Grenz wants to equate right to discipleship to right to leadership, he needs to prove it, not assume it.
On numerous occasions, Grenz emphasizes that women minister side by side with Paul. For example, in p. 83-84, Grenz argues that since Paul's coworkers and those who labor with him include women, and since some of the jobs include leading, Paul thus allows women to be leaders . But Grenz ignores the fact that there was no explicit mention of any woman who oversees a congregation. There are indeed leaders among Paul's coworkers, and there are indeed women among them, but one cannot infer from this observation that some women must have performed as leaders. Furthermore, Complementarians do not bar women from all ministries, but only those that involve leading men. Hence, pointing out that women serve side by side with other leaders in itself is no argument against Complementarian position.
Grenz argues that, in ancient world, women were generally not educated, thus Paul instructed Corinthian and Ephesian women (1 Cor. 14:34-35; 1 Tim. 2:11-12) to be silent and to be submissive. Yet he also contends that several women acted as patrons, deacons, and there is likely to be a female apostle (Junia, Rom. 16:7), which meant that they were leaders in the church. He also mentions that some Roman women exercised influence over commerce and politics (p. 72). So which one is correct: women were generally not educated so they needed to be submissive, or they were educated enough so that some women could serve as leaders? If Grenz wants to maintain the former, then he cannot assume that Paul's female coworkers exercised leadership roles, entailing that there are no solid evidence of woman leadership in the New Testament. If Grenz wants to maintain the latter, he cannot appeal to the rarity of education for women as the reason for Paul's prohibition of all Corinthian women to speak in the church and prohibition of all Ephesian women from teaching and ruling over men. Not to mention that Paul did not use lack of education as the reason for such prohibition. Thus, Grenz cannot have his cake and eat it too.
Both Egalitarians and Complementarians agree that there may be female deacons in the early church (1 Tim. 3:11), but Complementarians rightly point out that the nature of the office of deacon is not necessarily of a leading type. Grenz acknowledges it (p. 87). Yet he tries to show that Phoebe was indeed a leader in a church by the mere fact that she was called a deacon of the church in Cenchrea (Rom. 16:1). Such argument is too fragile to be taken seriously.
Concerning the office of elder and overseer, Grenz acknowledges that no woman was called an elder or an overseer, but he points out that only a handful of men were called elders in the New Testament; thus it is not abnormal that no woman was mentioned with those titles. What Grenz fails to bring up is that when 1 Tim. 3:2 discusses the qualification of an overseer, and when Titus 1:6 discusses the qualification of an elder, only men are qualified ("the husband of but one wife").
Gal. 3:28 is cited throughout the book, and Grenz thinks that this text deserves hermeneutical priority, following F. F. Bruce's admonition. (p. 107) Grenz acknowledges that Complementarians are right to say that this verse is too broad to prove Egalitarian cause. Yet the way Grenz argues against Complementarian's explanation is by appealing to his previous discussion on Paul's acknowledgement of female leaders. Hence, it seems that Grenz, in reality, uses the text that potentially endorses female leaders as his control text, not Gel. 3:28. But as I have pointed out earlier, his argument on this issue is problematic.
The meaning of "head" in 1 Cor. 11:3 is debatable, thus Grenz tries to neutralize this verse and claims that this verse is not about who has authority over whom. (p. 114) He brings up Eph. 5:23-24 that talks about headship and submission, but he stresses that this is only in marriage relationship, and the overarching principle is mutual submission (Eph. 5:21). Yet Grenz fails to acknowledge that though Eph. 5:23-24 is about domestic guidance, it does prove that the word "head" has authority connotations. Thus he cannot deny that 1 Cor. 11:3, which mentions "head," also has to do with authority. Appealing to Eph. 5:21 does not help unless Grenz wants to teach to his readers that Christ also submits to His church out of "mutual submission" principle.
In discussing 1 Tim. 2:12, Grenz raises three possibilities why Ephesian women were not permitted to teach men: 1) cultural sensitivities, 2) low educational level, 3) women were drawn into heresy. (p. 131-132). None of these are adequate. If Paul cared about cultural sensitivity in Ephesus, why did he not care about it in other places such as Corinth, where Paul assumed that women could prophesy? Why did he go against cultural sensitivity in affirming female leaders as Grenz contends he did? If the reason is low educational level, it seems absurd that Paul did not mention it, and more absurd that he prohibits all women from teaching men, assuming that all women were not educated. If the reason is that women were drawn into heresy, Grenz needs to prove that not only this was so, he also needs to prove that no other men were drawn into heresy in order to explain why Paul singles out women in his prohibition.
Apart from this difficulty, Grenz argues that "man" refers to the teachers, thus "the principles of the text hold true for any similar situations in which unlearned women are usurping authority over those who are the true teachers in the community." (p. 133-4) What Grenz does not explain is the reason why Paul chooses to use the word "man" instead of "teachers." If such reading is correct, Paul would be a complementarian, for he does not see women as legitimate teachers.
Complementarians often appeal to the subordination of Christ to the Father as an argument that subordination does not mean inferiority. Grenz criticizes this line of thought by saying that an individual subordination is different from a class subordination. (p. 152) Thus if an individual willingly obeys another individual, it does not entail inferiority, but a necessary subordination of all females to all males cannot escape the suspicion of inferiority. This line of argument is flawed. First, it is not clear why a change from individual to class makes any difference. Nobody denies that all congregation needs to submit to the authority of all their leaders, but nobody would say that this entails inferiority. Second, to distinguish between willingness and necessity also makes little difference. Again, congregations are called to obey their leaders. It is necessary, for without order, things will get into chaos. But necessity does not exclude willingness, for though it is necessary that people obey leaders, it is also necessary that people are willing to do so themselves. Thus, I find no compelling reason to reject using the relationship between Christ and Father as evidence that subordination does not equal to inferiority.
In discussing the meaning of the creation narrative on the gender roles, Grenz contends that the hierarchy between the sexes is the result of the Fall, not timeless command. Christ's redemption includes redemption from such hierarchy, which finds no place in God's Kingdom. (p. 169) This reasoning is problematic. It is true that one cannot deduce the norm of hierarchy from the creation narrative itself, but one cannot ignore the fact that Paul uses this narrative as a support for his prohibition that women should not rule over men (1 Tim. 2:13-14). This leaves us with only two possibilities: Paul misuses creation narrative; or Paul legitimately adds another layer of significance on this narrative which was not intended by the original author. The second possibility is more likely since it is not uncommon in the New Testament (e.g. 1 Cor. 10:1-4). Hence, even though one can argue that hierarchy is not taught in the creation narrative itself, Paul definitely adds this meaning unto it.
Furthermore, if Grenz is right, that Jesus comes to abolish the hierarchy between two sexes, then Paul seems to have violated this vision in 1 Tim. 2:13-14. Of course, Grenz denies that Paul intends to legitimize hierarchy in this text. He argues that Paul intends to show the reversal of order by appealing to this creation narrative: "The one who was second in creation became the first in sin." (p. 168-9) Grenz concludes, "Thus the point of the verse is that rather than fulfilling God's intention to complete the creation of humanity by delivering the male from his solitude, the female actually became the agent of the opposite result." (p. 169)
This argument does not hold up. First, it is not obvious that the idea of reversal is in Paul's words. He does mention that Adam was formed first, but he does not say that Eve turned out to be the first to sin. Second, and more importantly, even if Grenz's interpretation is correct, it does not make that much difference. The point is the same, that Eve, not Adam, was deceived. Paul uses this fact to prohibit women from ruling over men. Yet Grenz blurs this focus by discussing the hierarchy as the result of the Fall, and how Christ's redemption liberates people from this curse. It is not clear how his line of logic negates common understanding that Paul asks the women to be silent and not rule over men. It would appear that Paul contradicts Christ's intention. According to Grenz, Christ comes to liberate women from the result of the Fall (subordination). Thus, it logically follows that women should not stay silent, but should freely go after position of authority. Yet this is the opposite of what we find Paul is saying.
In the last two chapters, Grenz contends that since the priesthood of all believers is a clear teaching in the New Testament that complementarians are eager to accept, prohibiting females from entering the office of leadership contradicts this teaching. But Grenz does not take seriously Complementarians' position that leadership is not the only way to serve or to represent Christ. Thus to bar women from leadership does not mean women cannot serve or represent Christ. Ultimately, whether women should or should not enter into leadership in the church hinges on biblical exegesis, not on the definition of "ordination," a procedure not found in the Bible.
In conclusion, I appreciate Grenz's effort to argue for his position. In some regards, he has persuaded me that some of Complementarian's arguments do not hold up. He has shown me that Complementarians do not have it all together. After reading this book, I find it hard to categorically reject women from being ordained. Yet, as flawed as Complementarian position may be, I still find Egalitarian position more problematic, especially on its exegesis. I guess no camp has all the answers. Each possesses some wisdom that the other needs to listen to.

I approached this book hoping that it could give a biblical rationale for egalitarianism, but it couldn't. Instead it gave the same old philosophical tirade: different in role = different in worth. When are folks going to figure out that the argument just doesn't follow? Economic (role) subordination does not necessitate ontological disparity and ontological equality does not necessitate functional sameness. The only thing that writers could do is try to re-interpret Paul's words in a way that they clearly weren't written. It was an unfortunate read.

This book truley explaines where women fit in in the church.