Adapt or Die – On Removing Gender Bias from the Church[1]

Brian G. Felushko

January 2019

I am convinced that in the 21^st century church, in most cultures, gender should not be either a benefit or detriment to teaching, mentoring and the appointing of individuals to official roles of leadership. In other words, it is my conviction that both men and women can, and should, be taught, mentored and appointed to roles of leadership in the church. Leadership is about giftedness used faithfully in the service of God and his church. In 21^st century western society, leadership training and appointment should not be about gender. Why am I convinced that gifted and faithful men and women can, and should, be appointed to roles of leadership in the church today?

The following statement will appear to be contradictory to my stated position and counterintuitive, at first, but hang in there and read all the way through this paper to get my point. Unlike most who argue for the inclusion of women in leadership roles, I see no clear and conclusive evidence that the NT teaches or demonstrates the equality of the genders when it comes to leadership roles and responsibilities. Rather, the NT teaches and demonstrates that only men were appointed as leaders in the early church. The examples of male leadership in the apostolic and post-apostolic church are numerous and clear. The examples often cited of female leadership in the early church are few and, a best, disputable.

No one would say that the faithful lives of service (i.e., ministering) by women were unimportant. In fact, the examples of women living, working, sacrificing and even dying for the sake of the gospel are numerous and both convicting and inspiring. Women of faith had a great impact on the early church and on the communities in which they lived. However, that does not mean they were appointed to positions of leadership in the church either alongside men or in authority over men. The biblical and historical evidence strongly suggests that women were not appointed to leadership roles in the early church.

Why were the early Christians so patriarchal? It was because the society/culture in which the early Christians lived was strongly and consistently patriarchal.[2] While the teachings of Jesus and Paul gave greater respect to women than previously imagined and called upon husbands, older men and younger men to treat female believers as equal partners before God, their teaching and example served to maintain clear gender distinctions in terms of roles and responsibilities. However, I do not believe these teachings are permanent doctrines that every generation of Christians must obey, nor are they God-inspired examples that every generation of Christians must imitate. Rather, Jesus and the apostolic and post-apostolic churches adapted in every way they could to the culture in which they lived in order to make the unchangeable gospel attractive, and thus to win as many as possible.

But let me make something very clear indeed! There is only one gospel which saves those who believe (1 Cor 15:1–7) and it remains eternal and unchangeable (Galatians 1:6–10) because there is only ONE body, Spirit, Lord, faith, baptism, and God (Ephesians 4:4–6). In contrast, the practices, structures and methodologies of the church are adaptable and, indeed, must be adapted to the culture in which it exists. While the gospel is not culturally dependent, the practices, structures and methodologies of the church must be culturally dependent if we are to become all things to all people.

The mission of the church is not to mindlessly reproduce the practices, structures and methodologies of the NT church but rather it is to preach the gospel of Christ and to do so as effectively as possible. That means doing whatever it takes to make the unchangeable gospel as attractive as possible to its potential hearers. (cf. Titus 2:1–10). At least some of what made the teaching of God our Saviour attractive to the first century hearers is not what makes that teaching attractive today. In fact, in an egalitarian society, appointing only males to official leadership roles makes the teaching of God our Saviour unattractive to many (mostly women, but also many men and certainly to most who are Gen X, Y and Z).[3]

Paul wrote, in 1 Corinthians 9:19–23, that he adapted his practices, lifestyle and/or methodology in order to most effectively reach out with the gospel to people of various cultures: to win the Jews he lived like a Jew; to win those under the law he lived like one under the law; to those free from the law he lived like one who was free from the law; to the weak he became week (e.g., not drinking wine or eating meat that had been sacrificed to idols and considering one day more important than other days, etc.); to all people he adapted in order to save some. And he said that he did all this adapting, “for the sake of the gospel, so that I may share in its blessings.” Paul ended this section of his letter with the following statement (1 Cor 10:31–11:1): “So, whether you eat or drink, or whatever you do, do everything for the glory of God. Give no offence to Jews or to Greeks or to the church of God, just as I try to please everyone in everything I do, not seeking my own advantage, but that of many, so that they may be saved. Be imitators of me, as I am of Christ.”

In a patriarchal society, it only makes sense that the culture of the church would be patriarchal. Jesus was patriarchal in his choosing of the 12 apostles because the society in which he lived was patriarchal. The apostles had the Jerusalem church choose seven men [not women] whom they appointed to distribute food equally to all the widows, because the society in which they lived was patriarchal. Paul chose men [not women] to be elders in the churches he had planted and he instructed both Timothy and Titus that elders (overseers and shepherds) were to be “the husband [male] of one wife [female]" because the society in which they lived was patriarchal.

But we don’t live in a patriarchal society. We live in an egalitarian society, or, at least, one that is striving to be more and more egalitarian. Times have changed. Our culture is different. Women are accepted in leadership roles throughout western society. I am convinced that if Jesus had lived in an egalitarian society, he would have appointed at least some women as his apostles. I am convinced that if Paul had lived in an egalitarian society, he would have chosen the best people, from both men and women, who were suitably gifted and living faithfully for God, to be leaders of the churches he planted.

We don’t have the right to adapt the gospel of Jesus – it was, is and always will be counter-cultural (cf. 1 Cor 1:18–25). It will always be a stumbling block to some, foolishness to others and the power of God to those who are being saved! However, we must adapt our practices, structures and methodologies to whatever makes the most sense in our culture, “so that the message of God may not be discredited” and to “make the teaching about God our Savior attractive” and thus “win as many as possible.” A patriarchal leadership structure is not attractive or effective in an egalitarian society. A hierarchical leadership structure (with or without gender bias) is not attractive or effective in a democratic society. And in the information age, one-person leadership is not attractive or effective. So, I’m convinced that what the church needs today in our culture is a plurality of men and women, multi-generational (baby-boomers, Gen Y and even X), who lead, not by authority, but by example in their service to God, the church and the world.

Really Important Notes:

• This short paper represents my opinion and perspective only. I am not writing this on behalf of any church group, local or global. 
• I'm sure there are some (perhaps many) who would disagree with some (or all) of what I've written. I welcome your comments and critiques. I would request, however, that you would be respectful -- i.e., disagree all you want with the paper, but please do not attack or judge the motives of the author (i.e., me!).   

---

[1] This is a ‘position paper’ and is a summary of a longer and more detailed expository paper where I will discuss key passages in their literary and historical contexts. Examples, both clear and disputed, with regard to the gender of leadership in the early church will be explored. I hope to finish and post that paper by the end of February.

[2] A patriarchal society, family, or system is one in which the men have all or most of the power and importance. Please note: patriarchal does not equate to misogynistic, which means reflecting or exhibiting hatred, dislike, mistrust, or mistreatment of women. 

[3] Egalitarian means supporting or following the idea that all people are equal and should have the same rights and opportunities.

How to Be a Life-Long Learner -- Part 1

When exposed to interpretations of familiar Bible passages, which challenge our current beliefs, we can very easily respond in one of three unhelpful ways. These follow comments are based on Dr. Craig Allert's "Introduction to Christian Theology".

1. The Knee-Jerk reaction. I would prefer to call it the "throw the baby out with the bathwater" reaction. Upon hearing an interpretation of Scripture that contradicts what we've believed and/or been taught, we jump to the conclusion that we've been deceived and thus everything we've been taught or believed is wrong. In essence, we want to throw out everything. For example, perhaps we've been taught and believed that women's role in the church is limited. However, now we are learning that the main passages used to support that belief/practice (1 Tim 2; 1 Cor 14) are contextually/culturally limited and thus do not apply to women's role today. This does not mean that everything else we've been taught and believed is incorrect. This reaction is lazy-minded, impatient and undiscerning.

2. The Disengagement reaction. I like to call this the "see and hear no evil" reaction. We hear something that we've been taught and believed might be incorrect or inadequate. Rather than consider it, we just shut our minds to it. We tune out and refuse to engage. We're called to do our own study and discuss what we think with others in our local church family. Rather, we ignore it all and make excuses for why we can't (really "won't") engage in the process. The "see and hear no evil" response is fear motivated and/or it is spiritually lazy.

3. The Counter Attack reaction. This reactions is based on the idea that "the best offence is a great defence." Instead of humbling considering what is being presented to us, and challenges us, we sharpen our arguments, look for the support of others who also want to counter attack and we engage, not in respectful discussion, but in firming up our long-held belief and making statements that undermine the new thoughts and even might attack the integrity of the one who is trying to rock our world. We might even label the new teaching and teachers with one or more of the following words: heresy, heretic, liberal, progressive, false, etc. But such a reaction is unfair, disrespectful and potentially divisive.

So, if these reactions are not helpful to us and/or to our spiritual family, then what reaction would be helpful? It's called engagement, where we listen, study, reflect and engage in honest, humble, respectful discussion. In the end, we may hold to what we've previously been taught and believed, or maybe, just maybe, we might actually learn something we actually didn't know. Perhaps, in the process, no matter where we land, we will have learned some things we didn't know and gain a better, overall understanding of the Bible and a greater appreciation for the beliefs of those with whom we may, in the end, we might disagree.

As Dr. Allert writes, "But, the fact is, Christianity is much larger than our own local faith communities, our own denominations, and our own western Protestant tradition." Life in Christ is about being a "mathetes". The Greek word (μαθητής) means, "a learner, pupil, apprentice, follower, disciple." Let's determine to humbly acknowledge that we haven't arrived theologically or spiritually. There is still so much to learn, so much room for growth in our understanding of God and his will for our lives and our church.

Challenge: Be a Life-Long Learner...
I've been a Christian for almost 42 years. I graduated from an intense biblical studies program in the first two years of my new spiritual life and I have been studying the Bible on my own, discussing it with other Christians and "sitting at the feet" of many and various Bible scholars, ever since. I've learned to read the New Testament in Greek; I am growing in my ability to translate from Hebrew and Aramaic into English. Yet, I have learned, and continue to learn so much about God and his revealed will. Rather than lose my faith, I have grown in my faith. My faith is sharper and clearer and more focused than it ever has been. I am committed to continue to be a learner until I am incapable of learning any longer.

Holding the Tension of "Opposites" re: the Hebrew Bible/Old Testament

When I started out to deepen my understanding of the overall context in which both Judaism and Christianity arose and developed, I had to deal with questions regarding the historicity of the Old Testament. For the first two-thirds of my Christian life, I was either ignorant of, or conveniently avoided, the inconsistencies, diversity and examples of myth that were pointed out by those critical of the Hebrew Bible's historicity. 

In defence, I labelled all such critics as "minimalists." I dared not read any of their observations and conclusions lest I take the first step onto the slippery slope of their postmodern ideology. I believed that "all scripture is God-breathed" and thus I believed it had to be inerrant – i.e., devoid of all error, inconsistency and contradiction. I was, by self-identification, a "maximalist" and spent many years defending the historical, scientific, moral and ethical perfection of all Scripture, Hebrew Bible and New Testament. Yet, there were things that were troubling to me, questions I could not answer, even from my modernist perspective. For most of those, I blindly accepted the assurances of conservative evangelical scholars that there were ways to reconcile all perceived inconsistencies and contradictions. In my ministry, I passed on to my hearers the pat answers proposed by maximalist scholars, without personally examining the veracity of their conclusions. 

However, I chose to pursue further education at a secular institution – in Classics at UBC –  which allowed me to take various elective courses within my department (Classical, Near Eastern & Religious Studies). These studies forced me to deal with both minimalist and maximalist scholars as they critiqued or defended the historical and scientific accuracy of the the Hebrew Bible. It was during those undergraduate years that I came to realize that I had buried my own doubts, questions, and concerns that were raised not on postmodern scholarship, but on my own reading and study of Jewish and Christian Scripture. 

Throughout my undergrad years in Classics and my graduate years in Religious Studies I received scholarly mentorship from professors of various stripes in our department, including Drs. Sara Milstein, Gregg Gardner, Lyn Rae, Robert Cousland, Thomas Schneider, Kurtis Peters, Shelley Reid and Franco De Angelis. Contrary to popular conservative evangelical perspective, none of these professors ever tried to undermine my personal faith, but rather they encouraged and helped me to be as objective as possible in all my studies, writings and presentations.

Late in my graduate studies a friend – a young minister in our conservative Christian congregation – introduced me to the work of Dr. Peter Enns. As I read his books, and listened to the podcasts in which he and his cohost, Jared Byas, interviewed various Jewish and Christian scholars, I began to be able to put words to the doubts, questions and concerns, which previously I had difficulty articulating. 

From my own studies and through reading and reflecting on the work of various biblical scholars, I have come to some understandings about the Hebrew Bible that make sense to me because they fit with the facts – the facts about when and how the books of the Hebrew Bible came to be in their "final" form – the form that has been preserved for us in the Masoretic text. Recently, Dr. Enns recently wrote a brief article, "5 Modern Insights About the Old Testament That Aren't Going Anywhere" (www.peteenns.com). Though he elaborates on each only briefly, I couldn't agree more with his key points.

1. The Old Testament is an ancient Near Eastern phenomenon. Thus it "cannot be treated in isolation from its environment." It is not a 21st century North American creation and cannot be read and understood as if it were.

2. "Myth" is an inescapable category for describing portions of the Old Testament. "Myth" does not equal false, but rather myths are stories used to communicate truths, as their authors understood them. 

3. Israelites did not write their history "objectively." As Enns states, "That doesn't mean the Old Testament is 'devoid of history'...[but that it] gives us something very different than what we might call 'history' today."

4. The Old Testament does not contain one systematic and consistent body of "truth" but various, even conflicting, perspectives. One place this is clearly seen is when one honestly compares Samuel–Kings to Chronicles, where numerous so-called "historical facts" are in direct contradiction.

5. The Old Testament "evolved" over time until it came to its final expression. Most OT books probably came into their final form during the post-exilic era, even though many had initial and early editions as early as the 8th century BCE and, perhaps for a few, even earlier.

For me, these realizations, had (and still have) me re-evaluating my understanding of "inspiration" (i.e., God-breathed). I am holding in tension that in some way(s) the texts of the Old Testament are indeed God-breathed, while at the same time, they contain human perspectives, world views, and theology. Surprisingly to many, this has not weakened my faith, but rather focused it. I no longer have to spend one minute trying to defend the indefensible, but rather my goal in studying the Hebrew Bible is to seek a better understanding of its people, its message(s) and Yahweh, of whom it speaks. I now find in its revelation a God who wants to have an honest relationship with us based on a faith that often has doubts, questions, concerns and even complaints. Holding the divine aspect of the Scriptures in tension with its human contribution has given me even greater motivation to explore, to question and to revel in the mystery that is Yahweh.

Holding the Tension of Opposites

I've been striving for an 'authentic faith' for most of my life. However, since 2003 - a year that is meaningful to many of my readers - I've been doing so in a very conscious, deliberate and determined way. And the result has been very freeing.

In my striving, the key practice that has allowed me to keep (and even strengthen) my faith and yet, at the same time, acknowledge, challenge and critically examine the fundamentals of my faith, is referred to, by mental health professionals, as "holding the tension" (see quotes below).

One quick example is that I have learned how to hold to the belief that the Bible, as we have it, is "the word of God" while at the same time I acknowledge, challenge and critically examine the inconsistencies, contradictions and inaccuracies exposed by an unbiased reading of the Biblical text.

In other words, I've come to a place where I've accepted that much which has to do with my faith does not require an immediate "either/or" decision. I can hold to my beliefs while critically examining the questions and concerns that I'd buried in a locked room in my mind for many years.

I hope, over the next few weeks, to write more about the specific issues that I am "holding in tension" and how that practice has helped me to understand and focus my faith.

"Holding the Tension" Quotes:

"By learning to hold the tension of the opposites, we stretch and grow bigger. There is more space for seemingly opposite ideas, feelings and behaviours to peacefully coexist. We become less rigid and more flexible, less judgmental and more tolerant, less fearful and more loving." (www.psychologytoday.com, June 25, 2018).

"Out of tension flows a creative discussion and differences of opinion that force us to re-evaluate our viewpoints and emphases to ensure that we’re thinking biblically and effectively." (www.pastors.com; Sept. 25, 2011)

"We all must struggle over the moral and ethical issues, and the feelings of those we care about, but in the final analysis, we only have this life to live (in this body and this personality). Many people have a tendency to shove this struggle underground and deny its existence. This only causes further suffering. Rather, we need to embrace the opposites and hold the tension until our way becomes clear. Don’t move away from it, move towards it." (www.psychotherapyinsights.ca)

"I am willing to run the risk of being wrong about Jesus."

Even though I've self-identified as a Christians for 41 plus years, and served as a pastor for 35 or so years, I still have a lot of questions and doubts (many yet unanswered) about the God, Jesus and the Bible. People might ask me, why then are you still a Christian? Aren't faith and doubt in opposition to one another? After 41 plus years, shouldn't you have found the answers to your questions and resolved your doubts? How could you possibly lead and shepherd others in "the faith" if you have been uncertain about "many" things.

It all comes back, each and every day, to why I chose to become a follower of Jesus in the first place. I was drawn to the person of Jesus as he is depicted in the Gospels. I fell in love with the story of Jesus: the Word who become flesh, was born in a barn, lived as a carpenter's son, spent about three years in active ministry preaching the "good news" of the kingdom of God and ultimately submitting to death on a cross but being raised to live again and lead his people from the side of the throne of God. In spite of my questions and doubts, I still love that story and I choose each and every day to believe that it is true enough that I will allow his life to be my example, and his teachings to be my guide.

What it comes down to for me is that faith is about making choices. When I was an atheist, my choice was to believe that there wasn't enough evidence to trust that God existed. I chose to believe that there was enough evidence to believe that the cosmos could be explained as an accident of science (physics, biology and chemistry combined). I won't go into all that happened to cause me to look at other so-called evidence, but the bottom line is this: I read about and chose to trust the story of Jesus, and I choose each and every day to continue to do so.

I was listening recently, during a very difficult and physically painful period of time, to a podcast where Rachel Held Evans (RHE) was being interviewed. She, like me, has lots of questions and doubts about the Christian faith. So she was asked, "Why, then, are you still a Christian?" I love her answer, and I am appropriating it as my own. She said, “The story of Jesus is a story I am willing to risk being wrong about. I get that I might be wrong about this…but the story is still so compelling.”

I get that many have chosen not to trust the story of Jesus as told in the Gospel accounts, and as referenced in the other NT books. And I respect each person's right to make their own decisions about what and who they believe. For me, the story of Jesus (or "the gospel of Jesus") is so compelling that I want to embrace it and strive to live it out in my daily life, to the best of my ability. And I, too, am willing to run the risk of being wrong. That's why I became a Christian and will remain a Christian for the remainder of my life.

(The RHE podcast - https://www.nomadpodcast.co.uk/rachel-held-evans-loving-th…/)

(A short interview with RHE - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ch4YlC_3tPY)

"Before Abraham was born, I am." (John 8:58)

For all my fellow Christian "Bible nerds" out there, recently someone asked me about Jesus' use of certain "I am" statements in the Gospel accounts. My effort to respond resulted in some thoughts about the relationship between the OT and the NT, ancient translations and the interplay between biblical Hebrew, Koine Greek and spoken Aramaic. Such a simple phrase in Greek - ἐγώ εἰμι - so many possibilities and so many implications.

Part 1 - My initial response...

The phrase "ἐγώ εἰμι” is found 38 times in the gospel accounts. How it is best understood and thus translated depends on the context and the interpretation of the translators. In Mark 6:50, I think the choice that all the translations I am aware of, “It is I” while not a literal translation, is probably the sense. He’s not trying in the context (IMO) to declare his divinity, but rather letting his disciples know that the one approaching them on the water was not a ghost, but it was he, that is the living, breathing, person they knew…Jesus. A literal (i.e., word for word) translation is not always the best translation. Even in Mark 14:62, I don’t think Jesus is trying to usurp the Greek form of the Hebrew YHWH, but rather he’s answering, directly, their question, “Are you the Christ, the Son of the Blessed One?” He responds by saying, “I am (i.e., the Christ, the Son of the Blessed One?” Without further study, I think the use of "ἐγώ εἰμι” to obviously cause people to recall Exodus 3:14 is found only in a few passages, and maybe even only one e.g., John 8:58. My opinion.

Part 2 - My follow up response...

One other thing I’d say is that the Greek version of Exodus 3:14-15 is quite confusing to me.

וַיֹּ֤אמֶר אֱלֹהִים֙ אֶל־מֹשֶׁ֔ה אֶֽהְיֶ֖ה אֲשֶׁ֣ר אֶֽהְיֶ֑ה וַיֹּ֗אמֶר כֹּ֤ה תֹאמַר֙ לִבְנֵ֣י יִשְׂרָאֵ֔ל אֶֽהְיֶ֖ה שְׁלָחַ֥נִי אֲלֵיכֶֽם, I think, literally translates as “And God said to Moses, I am who I am. So say to the sons of Israel, ‘I am sent me to you.’” Translators and biblical scholars disagree as to how best to translate אֶֽהְיֶ֖ה (I am or I will be?).

The Greek translation of the Hebrew text reads: καὶ εἶπεν ὁ θεὸς πρὸς Μωυσῆν Ἐγώ εἰμι ὁ ὤν· καὶ εἶπεν Οὕτως ἐρεῖς τοῖς υἱοῖς Ισραηλ Ὁ ὢν ἀπέσταλκέν με πρὸς ὑμᾶς., which literally translates something like, “And God said to Moses, “I am the one who is. And thus speak to the sons of Israel, ‘The one who is has sent me to you.”

When it comes to the name, “Yahweh” (יְהוָ֞ה), the Greek translation always (as far as I know) uses “Lord” (κύριος), which is the very common term meaning “lord, master, sir, etc.”.

So when it comes to the Greek New Testament (John 8:58, etc.), Jesus says "ἐγὼ εἰμί” (I am), whereas God told Moses to tell the Israelites, "Ὁ ὢν” (the one who is). It is my opinion that it wasn’t only that Jesus said “I am”, but rather that he said “before Abraham was born, I am”. So, while it might have been his effort to connect “I am” to “the one who is”, I think it wasn’t just that which set off the Jews, but rather that he was claiming pre-existence, i.e., his eternal existence.

Also, note the parallelism of Exodus 3:14-15.

• (v. 14) “Thus you shall say to the Israelites, ‘I am has sent me to you.’ ” 
• (v. 15) “Thus you shall say to the Israelites, ‘Yahweh, the God of your ancestors, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob, has sent me to you.’" 

Thus the author of Exodus quotes God as equating “I am” with “Yahweh, the God of your ancestors”. In the Greek translation, Ὁ ὢν is equated with "Κύριος ὁ θεὸς τῶν πατέρων ὑμῶν”

I realized as I was responding to this question that this is a complex issue as we’re dealing with two languages, both ancient, both dead. Plus, if you understand that the Jews of the first century spoke to each other in Aramaic, then our Greek NT quotations of Jesus are not direct quotations, but translations. So now you’ve got three languages involved.

For me, then, the most convincing reasons to believe that Jesus’ statement in John 8:58 is to be understood as the evangelist's claim of Jesus' divinity is how he reports the Jews' reaction, "So they picked up stones to throw at him, but Jesus hid himself and went out of the temple” (v. 59). Compare that response to John 10:30–32, "The Father and I are one.” The Jews took up stones again to stone him. Jesus replied, “I have shown you many good works from the Father. For which of these are you going to stone me?” The Jews answered, “It is not for a good work that we are going to stone you, but for blasphemy, because you, though only a human being, are making yourself God.” In John 8, the evangelist records that the Jews picked up stones to throw at him because they understood him to be making himself to be God.