A discussion between Sean McDowell and Tony Jones

Tony says:

Sean, today I was watching CNN in the morning, and something occurred to me. Not only are we talking about a woman candidate for President of the United States, but the majority of the CNN hosts and reporters were women. There I was, receiving my authoritative information on the Burma cyclone, the presidential race, and the weather from women. And I got to thinking, Why would women be excluded from presenting me, a man, with authoritative instruction in the Christian faith?

As you might guess, I think that excluding women from full participation in the leadership of Christ’s church is a sin. We’ve talked enough about the Bible in this space for you to know that I take it very seriously, and that you and I differ on how to interpret it at points.

What I don’t get is how conservatives can stick to an interpretation that keeps women out of the pulpit, but they don’t enforce the similar requirements that women cover (or shave!) their heads, remove their pearls, and take out their braids. To me, that inconsistency smacks of a hermeneutic that serves the men in power and that’s about it. I mean, if you’re going to keep women silent, shouldn’t you at least be consistent?

I realize that some churches take it the next step and say that women can’t preach in worship, but they can teach Sunday school, lead the youth group, etc. But that’s even worse! That’s like the rabbis in Jesus’ day who argued about how many steps someone could walk on the Sabbath without it being “work.” Those kind of legalisms are pharisaical, and they’re the very thing that Jesus consistently rails against with statements like, “The Sabbath was made for people, not people for the Sabbath.”

Sean says:

Tony, I’m glad to hear you say that it’s ultimately about properly interpreting the Scriptures. Our standard should not merely be blind commitment to tradition (as some conservatives hold) or the desire to acquiesce to secular culture (as some liberals hold), or what we want to be true, but what the Word of God actually teaches.

It’s true that many conservatives have been inconsistent in disallowing women to teach in the church but not also enforcing the other requirements in the very same passage (1 Tim. 2:9). Such inconsistency should be brought to light. But can we really say that limiting the role of women serving in the church is about serving “the men in power and that’s about it?” Certainly some have used Scripture this way (and it’s a terrible stain on the church), but many conservatives I know hold this view out of deep biblical conviction. We should give them the benefit of the doubt.

I think we agree that women have been given the same gifts as men to be used for the edification of the church and the building of God’s Kingdom. But, I can’t agree that it’s a sin to exclude women from full participation in the leadership of Christ’s church. The NT does seem to give men the role and burden of leading the local church through eldership (1 Tim. 3:1). Men seem to be given a similar leadership role and responsibility for the family (Ephesians 5).

This doesn’t mean that women are less able to do the job, or should not be able to provide wisdom to an elder board. Throughout church history, male leaders in the church have regularly sought the input of women (They’d be foolish not to!). And it doesn’t mean that men have the right to abuse their power. Paul was clear that men are to lead in the sacrificial manner of Christ. In my view, Tony, this seems to be the biblical precedent.


Tony says:

Sean, you’re right. I don’t think it’s just about men holding onto power. I also think it’s about bad interpretation. Yes, though I am a postmodernist, I do think there is a difference between good interpretation and bad interpretation, and excluding women from certain roles in the church is an example of the latter.

To the Corinthians and Ephesians, Paul seemed to advocate hierarchical relationships between men and women, but to Macedonian Christians (in Thessalonians), he talks of women being his co-workers and co-pastors. That’s because women were valued differently in those two cultures.

Paul’s point, it seems to me, is this: Don’t allow your worship gatherings to be a stumbling block. Don’t let your treatment of women be so out-of-step with the culture around you that it keeps the curious from joining the Way of Jesus.

Now we’ve got women running for president, running corporations, leading universities, and functioning at the highest strata of society. In banning women from the highest levels of authority, we’re actually keeping seekers from the faith because we seem to promote an archaic misogyny that is completely out-of-step with our world today.

Sean says:

I’m glad to hear you’re concerned with good interpretation. But it’s curious to me how you can be a postmodernist and also hold that there are “good” and “bad” interpretations, for such terms imply an objective extra-community standard.

Believe it or not, I actually agree with you that many of the passages limiting the teaching roles of women were cultural. In Corinthians 11 and 14, for example, Paul’s larger point was that services must not be chaotic and disorderly.

While Paul didn’t want to add additional stumbling blocks to non-believers, his primary concern was in being faithful to the message of Jesus. While the biblical pattern is that women are fully gifted to participate in the leading, teaching, and edification of the church, it’s hard to avoid the New Testament conclusion that men are given the unique role of headship and leadership in the family and church. We actually see this hinted at in the OT and modeled in the life of Christ.

There’s a difference between leadership in culture and leadership in the church. The problem today is not that we haven’t fully acquiesced to culture, but that we fail to live the sacrificial love of Christ.

Tony says:

No, Sean, postmodern theory does not imply that one interpretation cannot be better than the other, but neither does that stance mean that there is some transcendent, objective, extra-communal place from which to make that determination. Instead, we make that determination from within the communities in which we have embedded ourselves.

I happily submit myself to the interpretive communities of Solomon’s Porch, the Jones family, the Emergent Coordinating Group, and others. They, as opposed to a Bible commentary or a seminary professor, help me to determine how to interpret and apply scripture to my life.

It’s on this basis, combined with my own theological training, that leads me to advocate full inclusion of women at every level of church leadership.

Sean says:

I think you’ve contradicted yourself, Tony. On one hand you say that “excluding women from full participation in the leadership of Christ’s church is a sin.” But, on the other hand, you deny any extra-communal standard by which to make that judgment. Which is it? If it’s a sin then there has to be an extra-communal standard for you to make this charge against those outside your community. If you don’t think it’s a universal sin, then why are we having this conversation? Why would you try to correct the beliefs of conservatives who belong to a particular interpretive community?

Sure, we do make judgments from within a community. That is part of being human. But our communities should not be the final standard for the Christian life—Scripture should be. And that is why I believe men are given the unique role of headship and leadership in the family and church.

This has been a good discussion, Tony. Our readers will find our next discussion equally stimulating when we tackle the merits of Intelligent Design.