The subject many do not want to address...what does the Bible say?

::::::::

For God is not a God of confusion but of peace. As in all churches of the saints, the women should keep silent in the churches. For they are not permitted to speak, but should be in submission, as the law also says. If there is anything they desire to learn, let them ask their husbands at home. For it is shameful for a woman to speak in church. -- 1Corinthians 14: 33-35 (ESV)

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. -- 1Timothy 2: 11-14 (ESV)

http://ag.org/top/beliefs/position_papers/pp_downloads/pp_the_role_of_women_in_ministry.pdf

I always try to be transparent and this is another of those subjects that I have simply avoided writing about. Why? Because I know a lot of good female ministry workers. When we are forced however to read things we do not want to believe, the reactions can be brutal. I want you to know up front this has nothing to do with me. Women in ministry do not bother me. They do not threaten me. My concern is what it always is -- what does God say? Beloved, God has a plan. He always has had a plan. He spells it out plainly in His Word. The problem is our hearts are wickedly deceitful and we often approach the Bible with what we want it to say in mind instead of actually wanting to hear what God has to say. We all have done it. I know I have. It is humbling when you finally see that you have been speaking for God things He has not actually said. Such is the case for many people when dealing with women in church leadership positions.

Notice what I said. I did not say women in ministry. That is not the issue. The issue is whether women should hold the pastoral or teaching offices within the body of Christ and the resounding Scriptural answer is "no." I pray that if you are already offended that you pray before reading on because my intent is only to show what the Bible says. So as to guide the study, I will be responding to the Assemblies of God position paper entitled, "The Role of Women in Ministry As Described in Holy Scripture." The link is provided above. There is currently no fiercer defender of women pastors than the Assemblies. I understand why. They are having a very difficult time getting enough male pastors. While disheartening, that is still no reason to violate God's Word. Before getting into the meat of it, we should note the deceptive title, which in good faith I will assume was unintended. Throughout this position paper, the writers make the argument for women in ministry and then casually apply it to women in leadership positions. Proving that there is Biblical cause for women in ministry does not prove that the Bible supports women in leadership.

Point Number One -- previous disobedience does not validate future disobedience:

"Courageous women served on mission frontiers at home and abroad as missionaries, evangelists, church planters, pastors, educators, and in other roles."

While the history and practice of the Assemblies of God appears to demonstrate that God blesses the public ministry of women, debate continues as to the proper role of women in spiritual leadership."

"Historians have observed that in the early days of most revivals, when spiritual fervor is high and the Lord's return is expected at any time, there is often ready acceptance of dynamic, pioneering women ministers."

Yes, it is true that the Assemblies used many women inappropriately during the early stages of formation. That does not mean that God has changed His mind beloved. By the way, the mixing of acceptable roles such as missionaries with unacceptable roles such as pastors and educators is a major flaw in this position paper. As for the appearance of blessing it should be noted that everything is not always how it looks. Paula White has made five million dollars as a pastor but that is obviously not the blessing of God. Why? Because God would not reward or bless someone who is a false teacher. The other point here is that God will always use everything for His glory. The last quote is telling in its ignorance. So the point used to support women in ministry is that when people have thought the Lord's return was imminent, they allowed unbiblical practices but when they realized they were wrong and things settled back down they stopped these unbiblical practices? Good. That is what should happen. Most of the frenzied revivals we see today are nothing short of demonic movements so I would not be holding them up as some paragon of proof that women should have roles that the Bible simply does not support.

Point Two -- women in the Bible with ministerial roles does not mean they should have leadership roles within the church. The writers build their thesis on the fact that the Bible has plenty of examples of prominent women in the plan of the Lord. I agree. So does everyone who reads the Bible. The issue is whether those roles are in leadership over men and if so, is that an establishment of some divine principle we should take as doctrine. First, let us reason together and go through the women listed:

Miriam -- yes it is true that one verse in Exodus refers to Miriam as "prophetess." What can we glean from this? That she was considered a prophetess. That is it. In the Old Testament, the role of Prophet was much different than today. They did not hold authority either. They served God and the king (although in Miriam's case she was the sister of Aaron and served Moses). Does this one verse mean that women should hold leadership positions? No. It does however lend weight to the role of prophesying for women, which I have never heard anyone disagree about. The Joel verses about pouring out His Spirit indicate upon all flesh.

Huldah -- during the days of King Josiah, Huldah was indeed a prophetess of the Lord, as well as the "keeper of the wardrobe." The same points remain as we saw with Miriam.

Tabitha (Dorcas) -- the writers get a little too cute here claiming Dorcas operated an "effective benevolence ministry." All the text says is that she was full of good works and acts of charity. Only when you are approaching the Bible with an agenda can you turn the story of raising Dorcas from the dead into a validation of women in ministry.

Phillip's four unmarried daughters -- yes, the Bible does say that they prophesied, clearly supporting everything we have already agreed to. It should be noted that the insistence of using the "unmarried" notation (virgin in other translations) is to show that these four had fully committed themselves to the service of the Lord forgoing marriage, as Paul speaks about later on.

Euodia and Syntyche -- in Philippians 4, Paul refers to these two as co-laborers. So what can we glean from this text? That they were co-laborers. No one has ever suggested that women have no role in the church.

Priscilla -- in Romans 16 she is referred to by Paul as a fellow worker in Christ. Same point as with Euodia and Syntyche. This is what is deceptive about the argument being made. The argument put forth here is that the Bible supports women in leadership positions, specifically pastoral or teaching in nature. Yet the examples have all been in the realm of prophecy or co-laborers.

Phoebe -- the writer refers to Phoebe as a "leader in the church at Cenchrea." To say this is a leap is an understatement. The word used in these verses is essentially "help." Phoebe had been a tremendous help to many, including Paul. Not a leader at the church. She may have been involved in many charitable acts as well. There is zero scriptural support that she was a leader in the church. John MacArthur wrote about Phoebe once and reminds us that the word "servant" used here is translated "diakonos "; which is where we get the word deacon. Prior to church structure being set up, as in the case of the writing of this letter, the word simply meant servant. In fact, the exact word is used earlier in the letter; twice during chapter 13. When speaking about rulers, Paul says the following:

For he is God's servant for your good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword in vain. For he is a servant of God, an avenger who carries out God's wrath on the wrongdoer. -- Romans 13: 4 (ESV)

Paul is speaking about rulers who hold authority here and refers to them as servants of the Lord twice. In both instances it is the exact same word used in Chapter 16 to refer to Phoebe. No one in their right mind infers that in Chapter 13 Paul is calling rulers deaconesses, yet that is the argument being made for its usage in Chapter 16 and it is simply inaccurate. Phoebe is beyond question a very important person to Paul. He entrusted her with delivering this letter to the Church at Rome, which in those days was no small task. She was probably wealthy and a great benefactor to the cause of Christ. She deserves our admiration and respect for these things but that does not make her a leader in the church as the writers of this position paper carelessly state.

Junia -- the writers gleefully state that Junia was a female apostle so that must mean that Paul was a "strong advocate of women in ministry." They also state that translators have tried to masculinize the name to Junias because they could not bear the thought of a female apostle. I do not need to get into the gender confusion because she was not an apostle either way:

Greet Andronicus and Junia, my kinsmen and my fellow prisoners. They are well known to the apostles, and they were in Christ before me. -- Romans 16: 7 (ESV)

Those who want the Bible to say something it does not prefer the translations that say these two individuals were "outstanding among the apostles." Biblical scholars who are experts in syntax and grammar however agree that the ESV translation above is probably to most accurate. When other translations state that they were "outstanding" it simple meant that they would stand out" to the apostles. It is also of interesting note that Paul uses the male collective term kinsmen to describe both. As stated however, the gender does not matter as these two individuals were not apostles. The truly sad thing is that as you progress through this position paper it becomes clearer that the authors were looking to be able to prove what they already believed. How else could they offer up these examples and then state:

"These instances of women filling leadership roles in the Bible should be taken as a divinely approved pattern, not as exceptions to divine decrees."

Seriously? You offer up six women who prophesied, four co-laborers, one woman who was not an apostle and another who was not a deaconess and think that has established a divine pattern we can rely upon to dismiss actual scriptural instruction? I do not think so. It should be noted however they did offer up one other name that I have saved for last and that is the judge, Deborah. She is the single representation of female leadership in the 6,000 + years of recorded biblical history. There is no question that Scripture states she was a judge and a prophetess. But beloved we must reason together. She is the outlier in Scripture, not the normative. Many have speculated that her rise to be a judge, the only female judge in the 400 years of judges, was a testimony against the men of Israel. That God had to turn to a woman to lead. I see no value in devaluing her role and her contribution to the people of God. The larger point is that in the entire canon of Scripture she is the only example of a woman in a leadership position, exercising authority over men. You cannot build doctrine upon that, especially in light of the very clear instructions that are in Scripture regarding the role of women.

Point Three -- you cannot establish a false narrative and then use that to explain away the verses that do not work in favor of your argument.

"Without attempting to definitively resolve this debate, we do not find sufficient evidence in "kephale" to deny leadership roles to women (in light of biblical examples of women in positions of spiritual authority, and in light of the whole counsel of Scripture)."

"Therefore, Paul's consistent affirmation of ministering women among his churches must be seen as his true perspective, rather than the apparent prohibitions of these two passages, themselves subject to conflicting interpretation."

"Passages that imply most leaders were male may not be taken to say that all leaders were male, since the biblical record speaks approvingly of numerous female leaders."

Throughout the paper the authors run into the very clear problem that Scripture presents to their argument and every time they are left to speculate where there is no lack of clarity and return back to the false case that they built. There is only one example they provided of a woman in spiritual authority and that is because there was only one example, the aforementioned Deborah. The Bible does not speak approvingly of numerous female leaders. It does speak approvingly of many females in ministry but not leadership. Paul may have consistently affirmed women working as co-laborers but nowhere does he affirm them in leadership. Nowhere. I trust that the writers are not being willfully deceitful but this cuts to the core of how deceitful our hearts can be. When we want the Bible to say something, we can convince ourselves of anything.

Point Four -- let's get back to Scripture. Let us go through the various Scriptures the writers tried to dismiss in this paper:

But I want you to understand that the head of every man is Christ, the head of a wife is her husband, and the head of Christ is God. -- 1Corinthians 11: 3 (ESV)

To try and dismiss this verse, the writers turn to alternative translations for the word "head." They come up with "authority over" and "source or origin." Can you guess which one they like? They side with source and in doing so try to turn 1Corinthians 11 into a chapter about everything coming from God. The problem is when you read the entire chapter it is painfully obvious Paul is teaching about proper roles for the genders within the body of Christ. Don't get me wrong, if this was the only verse supporting male authority, I might be worried. There is however, overwhelming evidence. Now we come to the key verses for today:

For God is not a God of confusion but of peace. As in all churches of the saints, the women should keep silent in the churches. For they are not permitted to speak, but should be in submission, as the law also says. If there is anything they desire to learn, let them ask their husbands at home. For it is shameful for a woman to speak in church. -- 1Corinthians 14: 33-35 (ESV)

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. -- 1Timothy 2: 11-14 (ESV)

Beloved, if you approach these verses honestly, there is very little to persuade you from the fact that women are clearly not to hold roles of authority within the church. That is not to say they cannot exercise the gifts of the spirit and contribute greatly to the cause of Christ. It is simply not God's design for a woman to hold a leadership position within His body. So how do the writers get out of this dilemma? By trying to undermine Scripture unfortunately:

"Since these must be placed alongside Paul's other statements and practices, they can hardly be absolute, unequivocal prohibitions of the ministry of women."

Cleverly mixing apples and oranges as they have the entire paper, no one is saying that women are not allowed in ministry. But Scripture is most certainly absolute. It does not change. The writers try and pretend that these two Scripture sets must be dealing with a "local problems that needed correction." The only problem with that theory is they simply made it up. There is no context to support that and within these verses it is painfully clear Paul is talking about in all churches. He even says "As in all churches of the saints" in the Corinthian verses! Both verse sets have the same language yet they are for two different congregations!

The trump card no one wants to talk about is found at the end of the Timothy verses. Paul actually explains why God says women should not hold an authoritative or teaching position within His church. Two reasons. Adam was formed first and it was Eve who was deceived in the Garden. As we have seen the feminization of the church we have heard the recount of the Garden be changed to equally blame Adam and these verses destroy such a politically correct notion. Eve was deceived and became a transgressor. I understand if you think it is harsh. Take it up with God. I sometimes think it seems harsh to not let Moses into the Promised Land or to make Uzzah pay for his life for merely following the orders of King David. At the end of the day it does not matter how I feel. God is God and He didn't ask for my input. We conclude with the last verse the writers referenced, from Galatians:

There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is no male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus. -- Galatians 3: 28 (ESV)

The writers state that in their opinion this verse, "carries a ring of universal application for all our relationships, not just an assurance that anyone can come to Christ." While that sentiment fits their pre-determined outcome it is simply not supported contextually. The immediate context revels this verse is specifically referring to salvation. When it comes to salvation, we are all one in Christ Jesus. Here is an excerpt from Barnes Notes on The Bible:

"There is neither male nor female - Neither the male nor the female have any special advantages for salvation. There are no favors shown on account of sex. Both sexes are, in this respect, on a level. This does not mean, of course, that the sexes are to be regarded as in all respects equal; nor can it mean that the two sexes may not have special duties and privileges in other respects. It does not prove that one of the sexes may not perform important offices in the church, which would not be proper for the other. It does not prove that the duties of the ministry are to be performed by the female sex, nor that the various duties of domestic life, nor the various offices of society, should be performed without any reference to the distinction of sex. The interpretation should be confined to the matter under consideration; and the passage proves only that in regard to salvation they are on a level." -- Barnes Notes on the Bible

That is the problem when one approaches the Bible as these writers appear to have done. You are forced to throw off the confinement of context in search of some magical combination of factors that proves your point. Suddenly a woman who was generous "ran an effective benevolence ministry." Suddenly Scripture which flat out says what women's roles are, and is repeated in a different portion of Scripture written to a different church, is hazy or somehow unclear enough to stand on its own. The reality meanwhile cannot be clearer when you approach the Bible just to hear what sayeth the Lord. That reality is that the roles for women and men have not changed in the eyes of God but they have changed in the eyes of the world. It is amazing that most Christians will correctly point to the changing roles for women in the world as a root cause for the breakdown in the family which has fueled the breakdown in morality but they cannot see the folly in trying to apply that same change standard to the church.

Beloved, God sets the standards; not man. While the world spins out of control in the change it thinks is progressive and positive, God does not change. The world might view this line of thinking as sexist but God's ways are so much higher than ours. We are not to think like the world. There have been plenty of women God has used through the millennia to further His cause and kingdom. There are plenty of roles women are allowed to pursue. Essentially there is one they are asked to be submissive in and that is leadership within the body of Christ. Just like there was one tree that Adam and Eve were told not to eat the fruit of. Yet no matter how much God says no, our flesh says, surely God did not say"

Without apology my dear sisters in Christ. Yes He did.

Reverend Anthony Wade -- July 1, 2016

Authors Bio:
Credentialed Minister of the Gospel for the Assemblies of God. Owner and founder of 828 ministries. Vice President for Goodwill Industries. Always remember that in all things God works for the good of those who love Him and are called according to His purpose.