Last fall more than 40 million Americans voted to place a woman within a heartbeat of the oval office. Today women have unprecedented influence in business and government.  

Many of our universities and graduate schools are led by women, and women make up a majority of the students in these schools.

It is far different from the time of the writing of the New Testament where the publicly influential woman was the exception rather than the rule. In first century Judaism, from which Christianity was birthed, the role of women was even more restricted than in commerce and politics. In the synagogue and in the temple women were not allowed to pray publicly in a worship service or be taught by a rabbi. In fact a common prayer prayed by a devout Jewish man was to thank God that he was not a pagan, an ignorant man or a woman. In short, women and their roles in religious life were viewed much differently than today.
                                                     
For many Christians there is a disconnect between women in the classroom, boardroom or oval office and in the pulpit.

The Georgia Baptist Convention recently removed a church from its rolls because the church selected a woman as pastor. The splintering of the Southern Baptist Convention and the Baptist State Convention of North Carolina was driven to a large degree by opposing views of the role of women in the church.

The position of many of these Christians is that the Bible explicitly prohibits women from teaching men or holding any positions of leadership that involve leading men in the church.

This position may be summarized by Richard Land, president of the Southern Baptist Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission and an early supporter of Gov. Sarah Palin for vice-president. In an interview Land stated: “We don’t go beyond where the New Testament goes. Public office is neither a church nor a marriage.”

Land and others who supported Palin see their position as perfectly consistent. Palin is qualified to be president but prohibited from being pastor of a local church by biblical teaching. Their position being that biblical truth stands authoritative over cultural changes.          

Yet perhaps the truth is not so simple. The New Testament shows a paradigm change in the expanded roles and responsibilities of women in the early church.

In passages such as the first Christian sermon at Pentecost, Peter quotes the prophet Joel and proclaims the time has been fulfilled for the Holy Spirit to come in a new way. “In the last days, God says I will pour out my Spirit on all people. Your sons and daughters will prophecy ‘Even on my servants both men and women, I will pour out my Spirit in those days’” (Acts 2:17-18).

Early in the history of the Christian church women assume some form of leadership roles that would be unthinkable in synagogues.

Phoebe is a deacon and a benefactor (Romans 16:1-2), Mary, Lydia and Nympha are leaders of house churches (Acts 12:12, 16:15, Col.4:15).   

This is in marked contrast to Judaism in which eight males were required to be present to form a synagogue.

Paul claims that in the new day of Christ there is no distinction between Jew and Gentile, slave or free or male and female. (Galations.3:28). Still there are passages such as 1Timothy 2:11-15, and 1 Corinthians 14:35-38 that seem to teach that women should be silent and not have any authority over men.

However, might those passages be considered in light of these others that reveal an expanded role for women in the church?

For those that claim that this conclusion is letting the modern place of women override biblical truth I would prayerfully ask you to consider other areas where this type of  biblical application is seen as legitimate.

In Romans 13:1-2, Paul states that all governing authorities are from God and are to be obeyed. Does this mean the Christian should see all governments as legitimate and is bound to obey them? Governments like Nazi Germany, Stalin’s Russia, and Saddam’s Iraq?

It is easy for the discerning Christian to go to his or her Bible and find passages such as Daniel 6 (where Daniel defied the pagan king’s order to cease praying to God) to justify civil disobedience. Another passage such as Peter and John’s defiance of local authorities’ orders in Acts 4 to stop preaching about Jesus could be used.

Consider the Christian’s view of the legitimacy of war. We realize that Jesus taught “Blessed are the peacemakers,” (Matthew, 5:9 ); “Do not resist evil but turn the other cheek,” (Matthew, 5:39); and, “Love your enemies,” ( Matthew, 5:44).

Yet we also take into account the cultural situation of the early church in which there were no Christians directing armies or nations.

Does the modern Christian sit idly by and let evil triumph?

Do we allow the innocent to be murdered, imprisoned and tortured if we have the power to prevent it?  

I believe a case can be made that the Christian can go to war — though surely reluctantly — to defend the innocent.

To reach that conclusion one has to consider the culture in which the New Testament was written, other biblical passages that proclaim the Christian’s duty to protect the innocent and weak, and pray for God’s guidance in that matter.

I contend this is the same method Christians use to justify women in ministry. Conclusions reached by this method will be different but the line of reasoning is similar.

Another example is how a Christian views wealth. Wealth or an abundance of goods is almost uniformly condemned in the New Testament; (Luke 6:20-26; 16:19-31; James (5:1-6); 1 Timothy, 6:9-10).

Few preachers including myself preach that we should totally renounce all our wealth. However, we use a nuanced view of scripture, considering the context of these texts and other texts that deal with the subject of wealth and material possessions. This is seen as legitimate by most, though it is similar to the line of reasoning that finds leadership roles open to women in the church.

You could think of slavery as another issue that requires consideration of the context of the time the scripture was written, other scriptures and God’s new revelation and insight given as we view the topic of slavery today.

Good people can disagree on whether the evidence is strong enough to justify women in ministry. However, recognition of the common ways we all reach our verdicts of what scripture permits can lead to more cooperation among Bible believing Christians.    

Some time ago I watched some men construct a sidewalk. As they finished the men placed expansion joints in the sidewalk.

Expansion joints are indentions or mechanisms in sidewalks, driveways or bridges that allow expansion or contraction so these objects can endure and fulfill their purpose.

Might it be that God placed the scriptures empowering women for such times as these, when women are commonly in leadership roles?

I do not claim everyone will reach the same conclusion I have reached — that women have been freed to give leadership in all roles in the church. I do desire that those good folks who have decided that my conclusion is in error would consider how they themselves reach conclusions on scriptural issues and whether the method I have used to reach my conclusion is similar to the method they use on other issues.

In a bridge or a sidewalk expansion joints allow a structure to be strong enough to endure and fulfill its purpose.

Perhaps God placed the scriptures that empower women to leadership in the Bible in order for the church to fulfill its purpose in spreading the gospel and proclaiming the kingdom of Christ for times such as these.        

(EDITOR’S NOTE — Julen is pastor of FBC Cramerton.)