Honestly, there was much in the article I agreed with, but I believe there are some conclusions of the author that are not warranted and other issues that are not even addressed or dealt with.
Let me begin by saying this...I believe that male chauvinism is just as wrong and sinful as militant feminism. And what has been allowed to occur in the church is that women are denigrated and, at times, oppressed because of the kind of hermeneutic displayed in that article.
Let's begin with this understanding in Christ, that there is neither male nor female. We are all one in Christ Jesus (Galatians 3:28). Now saying that, I am not trying to wipe away any gender differences. But what I am saying is that in terms of salvation, we have a new distinction and identity in Christ alone.
When one does a study of the role of women throughout Scripture, one can see quite an array of roles. I want to look at women in Jesus' ministry as well as in the life of the Apostolic Church.
If you study Judaism at the time of Christ you would see that the Rabbis of Jesus' day considered that a woman's part in religion was restricted to personal piety and periodic attendance at worship. The ministry of Jesus sets aside such rabbinic views and practices at many points.
Jesus considered his teaching to be for women as well as men, and at times, Jesus pointedly sought to teach women. Jesus ignored customary separations in situations in which his ministry would be hampered by them. When you read the gospels, it seems as though the Gospel writers give particular concern to women.
For example, Luke 8:1-3, gives insight into the entourage which followed Christ. This appears to be his close circle. These were women who benefitted from the ministry of Jesus and contributed to the support of that ministry. They were traveling companions and not concubines (as some have suggested) or apostles (as others have suggested).
The presence of these women must have been a source of considerable comment as Jesus traveled. It was not uncommon that a rabbi should have a band of followers; it was most unusual that the followers should include women.
The accounts of the crucifixion and resurrection give us more detail about these women. Matthew and Mark comment on the presence of Mary Magdalene and Mary the mother of James the younger and Joseph, standing at a distance watching the crucifixion. Also mentioned are Salome and the mother of the sons of Zebedee (Matthew 27:55-56; Mark 15:40).
Mark adds in his gospel that Mary Magdalene and Mary the mother of Joseph watched him (Jesus) being placed in the tomb and returned after the Sabbath to annoint his body, becoming the first witnesses to the resurrection (Mark 15:40-16:7). John's account notes that Jesus appeared to Mary directly (John 20:10-18).
The reason this is significant is that Jewish law prohibited women from acting as witnesses court rulings in the civil or religious sphere and yet it was women who were made the first witnesses to the resurrection!
I want it to be understood that Jesus view of and interactions with women should not be understood as a reaction to the Judaism of his day. Jesus taught with personal authority and grounded his teaching in his understanding of the Old Testament and of the kingdom's mode of arrival.
Another important side-note is that some of the most important discourses Jesus had were with women. The lengthiest discourse we have on what worship is and how it should be done was given to a woman (John 4:4-26).
The role of women in the teaching and community life of the church is also a very important aspect for the Christian to consider when thinking about this subject.
Something to understand is that women are highly visible and active in the life of the church. You see right from the start that women were playing a significant part in the life of this new community (Acts 1:13-14). In Acts 2, after Pentecost, Peter explains that women are a part of the new kingdom with as much standing as any man (Acts 2:17-18).
It seems that Luke, in his account of the expanding church, took pains to make it clear that women were included. The apostles continued in their Lord's example in the inclusion of women.
We see women participating in worship vocally (1 Corinthians 11:5), bringing their offerings (Acts 5:7-10), performing ministries of mercy and hospitality (1 Timothy 5:10), performing ministry to the poor (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=acts%209&version=NIV). Women also housed churches (Acts 12:12; 1 Corinthians 16:19).
The apostle Paul considered women "fellow workers" and in Romans chapter 16, eight of the twenty-six persons mentioned are women and six of these receive specific comment.
Priscilla (or the more formal - Prisca) enters the biblical narrative in Acts 18:2. They (Priscilla and her husband) become traveling companions of Paul. We next read about them in Romans 16:3-5.
In Philippians 4:3 we learn about Euodia and Syntyche. These two women were quarreling. But Paul warmly identifies both of them as having worked by his side. The reason this quarrel was so detrimental was that, having been "fellow workers" with Paul, these two women would have held a very prominent role in the church. The conflict then needed to be resolved.
The point in going through this study is to see that with Christ and the ministry of the apostles, women were held in a new light. They were extremely active and participated in all arenas of the life of the church.
The article I referenced at the beginning of this study, describes three God-ordained institutions: the family, the church, and government (or as he references it, the state). I believe that God has designed man to be the responsible leader in the family. You cannot argue any other point from Scripture(1 Corinthians 11:8-9). Paul's appeal to the created order supercedes any reason to think that this was merely a cultural statement for Paul's day.
The same implications are clear in reference to the design for the church. Men are to the the responsible leaders in the overseeing of the church (1 Timothy 3:1-7).
And I agree by extension that the same implications exist for government. But there is no clear "thus saith the Lord" on this part. It is through inference and Old Testament examples that the author of the referenced article makes this point. (But let me be clear, I do not disagree with him on this point).
What the author of the article does not address, however, is the reality of a man who abdicates his role and responsibility as the spiritual leader, either in his home, or his church, or his government. What happens then?
When a man decides that he will not lead his family to the Lord and he slides into a selfish, carnal pursuit without God in his life, what should happen to the wife and children of this man? Does this wife dare not lead spiritually because that goes against the clear design of Scripture?
Or does she lead spiritually, in "quietness and reverence for Christ"? I believe, as I have witnessed many times in ministry, that where men abdicate their responsibility, women are used of God to lead spiritually.
This isn't the design. It is not what the Lord intended, but God uses women in the home, nonetheless, to help bring the light and presence of Christ to the family when a man fails to do so.
Sadly, the same is true in some churches. Now, I am not naive enough to think that every church that has women running it is because all the men have abdicated their responsibility. Unfortunately, there is also the fact that some women have usurped their roles and have taken charge where they clearly have no place or business to do so.
But there are some circumstances where there simply are no men to lead. I am thinking about a dear friend of our family who is now with the Lord. She worked in Haiti for many years. She went because she felt called by God. She worked in the church she served very well. But she almost started that church from scratch. There were no men when she began this work...only women and children. And then when men started coming, they were not mature enough spiritually to lead.
Was she disobeying God by doing what she was doing? Because now there is a thriving church in Haiti that began because of her work. Did God use her when there was no man to be found. Most certainly.
The same can be true in government. I believe the best circumstance, the most preferred, would be to have a godly man leading us in the civil arena. But when there is not one to be found, does this mean we should simply vote for an ungodly man over a godly woman?
No. I believe that Scripture supports and shows (from Deborah all the way to Phoebe) that where godly male leadership falters, God will use godly women to continue advancing His agenda.
I could do what the above referenced article did, and proof-text my way into voting for an ungodly ruler simply because he's male. But that would do the whole counsel of Scripture a great injustice. God uses willing vessels. The design is clear. We should have a male leader. But when we don't and there is a willing, godly female...we most definitely need to rally our support behind such a person!
