Part Two
by Jon Zens
__________________________________________________
8. Paul uses the interesting Greek word, synergos, to describe those men and women who labored with him in the gospel. It means “co-worker.” He uses this word with reference to women in Romans 16:3-16; Philippians 4:3-4. That he would use such a word for both Timothy and Euodia is not without significance. The fact that Euodia and Syntyche “contended at my side in the cause of the gospel” (Philippians 4:3) must mean that they did a whole lot more than just bake bagels.
Florence Gillman observes: “a co-worker is ‘one who works together with Paul as an agent of God in the common work of missionary preaching* [Ollrog] . . . Co-workers were:
a. . . . basically rooted in the communities which sent them on their mission as community delegates.
b. They were integrally related to Paul*s mission historically (the breadth, depth, and success of the mission related to the use of co-workers) and theologically (Paul*s use of co-workers gave his mission the character of being a shared function of the Church).
c. Paul*s treatment of his co-workers as partners was based in the gospel and gave him no claim to dominating authority, i.e., there was no hierarchy directing the coworkers.
d. The relation of the co-workers to their communities remained essential to them . . . Paul was unthreatened by this type of woman [co-worker]. His leadership was evidently not premised on their diminution. . . Paul. . . in living out his own call and mission also appreciated, and depended upon, the roles, tasks, and gifts of all the members of his communities” (Women Who Knew Paul, pp.43-44,42). Paul*s women co-workers were involved in gospel ministry in much deeper ways than the “silence” position will allow as permissible.
9. In 1 Corinthians 12:7 Paul teaches that to every believer, male and female, a manifestation of the Spirit is given for the good of the body of Christ. Those who use two texts (1 Corinthians 14:34 and 1 Timothy 2:12) to prohibit women from speaking at all in the body gatherings seem to fly in the face of Paul*s flow of thought in 1 Corinthians 11, 12, 13, and 14.
In chapter 11 he asserts that it is all right for women to pray and prophesy in the gathering; in chapter 12 he emphasizes the importance of all the parts in the body of Christ (not just the males); in chapter 13 he underscores that love must reign in our relationships and our functioning together, or all is in vain; and in chapter 14 he stresses the priority of understandability (in prophecy) over unintelligibility, which all may participate in (“each of you has...,” v.26; “you can all prophecy...,” v.31).
What textual basis would anyone have for silencing women up to verse 34? Given the long context that leads up to the “silence” passage, does it seem right to cancel it out in alleged faithfulness to one text? Especially since in Acts 2 the Holy Spirit is poured out, in fulfillment of Joel*s words, on both men and women to prophesy.
To start with the “silence” passage and work backwards causes people to squeeze Scripture unnaturally into their mold:
a. “Each of you” in 14:26 really means “each male”;
b. “All prophesy” really means “all men can prophesy”;
c. “To each is given” in 12:7 really means “to each male”;
d. “Woman praying and prophesying” in 11:5 was not in the assembly, but somewhere else; etc. It is more natural to see Paul*s concern in 14:34 referring to, as Grudem suggests, “a silence with respect to the spoken evaluation of prophesies” (The Gifts of Prophecy in the New Testament & Today, p. 225).
10. It is clear that Paul teaches the headship of the husband in the home, which, of course, carries over into the assembly. However, it does seem to me that 1 Corinthians 7:1-7 reveals a mutuality that is also present in the Christian marriage.
Male headship cannot mean that the husband has control over his wife*s body. This text teaches that husband and wife each have “authority” over the other*s body. The important decision to withdraw sexually from one another for a period of time does not rest in the husband*s hands.
Such a course of action, Paul says, can only be reached by the mutual agreement of the couple. The Greek word here is symphonou, from which we get our English word, “symphony.” Would this not indicate that the goal of a “one-flesh” couple is to reach decisions together?
The traditional notion that male headship equates to the husband “making the decisions” does not seem to flow out of Paul*s thought. If decisions in a household are continually being made unilaterally by the husband, without the input of the wife, would this not constitute a serious distortion of the husband as head of the home? As the couple submits to one another in the fear of Christ, shouldn*t they be constantly seeking to be one-minded in their lives together? And isn*t this the way it should be in the assembly?
Traditionally, “the Pastor” as the head of the local church pretty much makes decisions for the congregation. The idea of the assembly working matters through until the Holy Spirit brings like-mindedness (as happened in Acts 15) is virtually unknown.
Unfortunately, many Christian marriages follow this pattern. The husband rules with a rod of iron, and the wife is made to feel like a piece of property. A Christian man with a naturally strong personality who uses “submit to your husband” as a justification for dominating or abusing his wife is out of touch with how Christ cares for his bride, the church.
11. It seems that often problems and concerns related to the ministry of women arise because we read our traditional church practices into the New Testament. For example, in many circles the question boils down to, “Is it right for a woman to say things while standing behind a pulpit?” But such a question was never asked in the first century. There was no pulpit for men or women to stand behind (cf. Norrington, To Preach or Not To Preach).
Another big question is, “Should women be ordained to the ministry?” But, as Strom points out, this “whole debate is premised on notions of leadership and ordination that cannot be found in Paul or the rest of the New Testament. Given the ways Paul repudiated the conventions of leadership, the argument should not be about whether women should be ordained, but about why anyone should be” (Reframing Paul, p. 179).
Thus, when you place the ministry of women and men in the first century context of the “assembly that meets in their home” (Romans 16:5), the whole issue takes on more of a family flavor instead of an institutional setting. Witherington*s research led him to conclude that the Corinthian ekklesia consisted of about 40 people. “It is tempting,” he says, “to see the Corinthian house congregation as an extension of the household, with the head of the house also being the head of the assembly. Favoring this view is that Gaius, Priscilla and Aquila, and perhaps Stephanas, Chloe, and Phoebe were both the hosts and the leaders of the churches that met in their homes” (Conflict & Community, p.30).
The basic picture we see in the New Testament is that believers got together “to break bread” (Acts 20:7) in homes and in that context the Holy Spirit led their mutual ministry with one another as illustrated in 1 Corinthians 14. In a Christian home, when a husband, wife, two boys, and two girls gather in the evening around a table for dinner, do only the father and the sons converse, while the wife and daughters remain totally silent? Of course not.
When you picture the early church meeting in Priscilla and Aquila*s home to eat and fellowship together around a table, isn*t it a bit inconceivable and unnatural to believe that all of the wives and daughters were mute during the meeting? The “silence” position seems out of touch with the reality of the family nature of early Christian assemblies.
12. It seems to me that it is also important to put the function of elders and deacons in this family setting. Perhaps a number of issues regarding “church leadership” can be put into better perspective by realizing that the early church was like an extended family, where servanthood — not office, title and position — was important. It would be quite natural as an assembly functioned together as a spiritual family for a grouping of older, mature men and women to be recognized by the body for their service.
The Greek word presbuteros means “older man,” and presbutera means “older woman.” The oversight of the assembly is to be carried out by the “older men,” the presbuteroi. As Frank Viola notes, “We never see women in the first century exercising oversight in the church” (Open Letter). The “older women,” the presbuteras, have the privilege of ministry, not limited to, but certainly focused on helping the younger women in the assembly.
Two times in the New Testament these groups are in close proximity to one another: 1 Tim:5: 1-2, “rebuke not a presbutero” - “treat presbuteras as mothers”; Titus 2:2-3, “teach the presbutas to be temperate” - “likewise, teach the presbutidas to be reverent.” With regard to the elders, the family analogy in home and congregation is evident in this apostolic standard: “if he does not know how to manage his own family, how can he take care of God*s ekklesia?”
The elders living among the spiritual family do not lord it over the flock, or dominate ministry, but desire to protect the brethren and equip them for various ministries, just as a father/husband does with his wife and children.
__________________________________________________