愛戀 ‧ 情曲 ‧ 神の語

Introduction

The proper biblical understanding of women’s place in the ministry has been in intense debates among evangelicals in modern times. In general, there are two major views on this subject: complementarian and egalitarian. Although there are nuances of beliefs and methods of applications within each camp, they do represent the two prevalent perspectives on women’s role in ministry today. This research paper will attempt to show that neither view is entirely correct or incorrect. Both men and women are equal in their inherent worth before God, and both gender can function in all the ministerial positions in Christ with a calling, and that within a marriage context, the husband and wife have different roles.

Women’s Role in Ministry

            It is fundamental to establish women’s personhood before discussing their roles in the church. In the Genesis creation account, both “male and female” were created “in the image of God” (Gen 1:27).[i] Therefore, men and women have equal spiritual status and value, before the same Creator who “shows personal favoritism to no man” (Gal 2:6; 3:28), although there are definite qualitative differences between the masculine and feminine bodies and spirits. Both complementarian and egalitarian concur with the equal intrinsic worth of both sexes. However, complementarian, such as Piper, Grudem and Schreiner, believe that women are prohibited from fulfilling certain functions in the church.[ii] These offices may vary from individual complementarian, but usually include pastoral positions such as pastors, elders (presbyters), overseers, bishops, and apostolic and prophetic offices.[iii] The main supporting texts are 1 Cor 11:1-16, 14:34-35 and 1 Tim 2:9-15.[iv] Egalitarians, on the other hand, believe that these passages need to be interpreted against the specific culture and setting of Paul’s day; not every verse is to be taken literally as universal commands, as this would violate hermeneutical principles. The Scriptures, therefore, places no restrictions on women being pastoral ministers in the Body of Christ.[v]

            In regard to First Corinthians 11:1-16, the words translated as “man” and “woman,” aner and gune, are also the words for “husband” and “wife.”[vi] The context concerning “honor” and the reference to Adam and Eve, who are marriage partners, show that “husband” and “wife” are the better translation.[vii] There are no Scriptures indicating that every man is the “head” of every woman, but Eph 5:23 is an unambiguous verse on the headship of the husband. Whatever the meaning of this headship is, which will be discussed later, it is clear that it makes much more biblical sense to limit this headship within the marriage context only. It is also not very difficult to see that the head covering in this passage is only a cultural constraint particular to the Corinthian Church during Paul’s time,[viii] for he did not command any other churches to follow suit. Moreover, nowhere in the Bible do we find a direct relationship between outward physical adornment and a believer’s sanctity (cf. 1 Sam 16:7). The principles behind the customs of the day are good Christian witness through proper order and submission, which are applicable across all ages. If complementarians do not require women or wives to wear head coverings in the church, but explained it as something culturally conditional, then the headship of aner over gune must also be interpreted in the context of the passage. Thus, if it is not referring to a man’s authority over women in church functions, sound exegetical rule does not allow room for prohibiting women in certain ministry offices from this passage.

Wives’ Role in Marriage and Family

            In terms of women’s place within the marriage framework, however, an egalitarian view errs in interpreting everything in Scriptures as culturally conditioned. Galatians 3:28 does not apply to a marriage because, in God’s definition, a proper marriage consists of exactly a male and a female. It is still true that men and women are equal in their spiritual standing and functions in the ministry, but their roles in the family are different. They have different soul qualities and inherent spiritual masculinity and femininity (1 Pet 3:7). In both First Corinthians 11 and First Timothy 2, Paul’s appeal to the order of creation, namely Adam was created first, and then Eve was created from Adam subsequently as a comparable helper and companion, is not a cultural phenomenon (Gen 18:25). For this reason, the “husband is head of the wife” (Eph 5:23). It is imperative to note that Adam and Eve are of a marriage relationship, thus, the headship can only be practiced within a family context, not in the ministry or in the world. In the very beginning in the Garden of Eden, where everything was ideal and perfect, untainted by sin or any human civilization after the Fall, this is the order that God has set. The fact that Eve was created after Adam and also as “a helper” suggests that the husband is indeed the head in the matrimony, for God could have created both of them at the same time or not have called Eve a helper to Adam. However, both of them were given the same responsibility of tending the garden and having dominion over all things, implying that both men and women’s service qualifications are equal (Gen 1:28-31).

            There have been strong debates on what being the “head,” kephale, of the wife actually means. Greek lexicons, such as Thayer’s, simply states that it means the “chief, prominent; of persons, master Lord: of a husband in relation to his wife.” Strong’s explains kephale as “the head, literally or figuratively.” Piper and Grudem rightly define it as follows:[i]

“In the home, Biblical headship is the husband’s divine calling to take primary responsibility for Christlike leadership, protection, and provision. Headship does not prescribe the details of who does precisely what activity. After the Fall, God called Adam to account first (Gen 3:9). This was not because the woman bore no responsibility for sin, but because the man bore primary responsibility for life in the garden—including sin.”[ii]

            The husband should be the leader of his family. Certainly this in no way denotes an autocratic leadership style, because the husband’s leadership role is limited within the confines of the Scriptures. Just as the command for children to obey their parents in the Lord, meaning not just to blindly follow even beyond biblical standards (Eph 6:1). In a similar way, wives need not adhere to anything from their husbands that is unambiguously outside of the Word of God, although a proper respect should still be demonstrated. It also does not mean whenever a wife disagrees with her husband, she should raise her voice and put down her husband angrily while quoting Scriptures. The Lord’s love and wisdom are necessary in every Christian marriage relationships; sometimes a compromise is better than outright objections. After all, neither the husband nor the wife is infallible; thus, each case has to be considered on its own merits. This is why Paul also commands through the Spirit before admonishing the wife’s role that all Christians should “[submit] to one another in the fear of God” (Eph 5:21). This mutual submission is a sense of respect for everyone regardless of gender. The leadership role of the husband does not signify that the wife should listen every time, on the contrary, husbands may gain greatly if they would heed their wives in a mutually loving atmosphere and humility. As explained by Piper and Grudem, this leadership role means to “take primary responsibility for Christlike leadership, protection, and provision.” Furthermore, the instruction for husbands is that they should love their wives as “Christ also loved the church and gave Himself for her… [and as] their own bodies, [to] nourish and cherish [them], just as the Lord does the church” (Eph 5:25-29). This is no less a command than that which is for the wife, perhaps even a much harder task. In real-life practices, the ideal situation of a husband being the Christlike head might not be possible in some cases. An unbelieving husband or a less spiritually developed husband will not be able to be function in the full capacity in the spiritual leadership role to the wife and/or their children. These scenarios are not synonymous with unhappy marriages, for they can still be fulfilling and rewarding; however, may require more efforts, and likely conflicts, on both the husband and wife. The goal is to help the husband to grow into spiritual maturity to assume the headship responsibility in Christ.[iii] In this imperfect setting, the wife will have to take on the role of the spiritual leader in the home, although she still needs to honor the natural authority vested to the husband. For even in non-Christian marriages, where both parties are not believers, husbands are still the natural head according to the divine order that God has set.

Since the husband is supposed to be the head of the family, and families are the basic fabrics of society, therefore, it seems that male leadership is and should be more common, though women are still qualified for all ministry and secular roles as I have argued before. Consequently, there needs to be a general respect extended towards all men from women, just as it is necessary for men to be extra understanding and caring for all women (1 Pet 3:1-7). This is largely due to the inherent masculine and feminine qualities of spirit, soul, and body that God has fashioned for each sex. Although our imperfect world has exploited this divine make-up of both men and women, as ambassadors of Christ (2 Cor 5:20), it is a Christian mandate to uphold what is biblical and not throw out the baby with the bathwater.