I originally wrote this post over two years ago, which is why there are already 17 comments. As you can see, this issue engendered heated discussion and debate. If you want to jump in with you ideas, please stick to the post subject: what does Deborah, who was clearly a woman set-up as a political AND spiritual leader over God’s people, do to the conversation on women’s role in ecclesiastic leadership?
My first post in the new “what about…” series confronts a touchy subject in evangelical circles. Plenty of churches have split and denominations tend to be marked in one way or another by this issue. Gay marriage? Nope. Infant baptism? Guess again. Women church leadership? DING DING DING! The proper role for women in positions of leadership, especially spiritual, within the church is one of the more divisive and defining characteristics in the modern Ecclesia.
Everyone reading this post knows exactly where their church stands on this issue, because it usually retains it’s own amendment or article within your constitution. Some churches give women a large degree of leadership freedom, even going so far as to allow them in pastoral roles, both associate or senior. Others allow a certain degree of leadership, but certainly not pastoral or spiritual. While others still leave little to no room for women to hold positions of leadership, other than perhaps over the women’s ministry or a sunday school class. Most evangelical, non-mainline churches I know say God does not want women to be in spiritual leadership over His people. But this thinking begs the questions:
What about Deborah?
I thought I knew where I stood on this issue, until I read this passage from Judges:
After Ehud died, the Israelites once again did evil in the eyes of the LORD. So the LORD sold them into the hands of Jabin, a king of Canaan, who reigned in Hazor.
Deborah, a prophetess, the wife of Lappidoth, was leading Israel at that time. She held court under the Palm of Deborah between Ramah and Bethel in the hill country of Ephraim, and the Israelites came to her to have their disputes decided. She sent for Barak son of Abinoam from Kedesh in Naphtali and said to him, “The LORD, the God of Israel, commands you: ‘Go, take with you ten thousand men of Naphtali and Zebulun and lead the way to Mount Tabor. I will lure Sisera, the commander of Jabin’s army, with his chariots and his troops to the Kishon River and give him into your hands.’ ”
Barak said to her, “If you go with me, I will go; but if you don’t go with me, I won’t go.”
“Very well,” Deborah said, “I will go with you. But because of the way you are going about this, the honor will not be yours, for the LORD will hand Sisera over to a woman.” So Deborah went with Barak to Kedesh, where he summoned Zebulun and Naphtali. Ten thousand men followed him, and Deborah also went with him.
Then Deborah said to Barak, “Go! This is the day the LORD has given Sisera into your hands. Has not the LORD gone ahead of you?” So Barak went down Mount Tabor, followed by ten thousand men.
Do you see what is going on here? God placed a woman in position of political and spiritual leadership over His people. In the words of a faithful novus lumen reader: “And here’s the crazier thing: Because Barak was too fraidy-cat to do what the LORD said, Deborah prophesied that the bad guy would be handed over to a woman. The Biblical Story rules…you’re totally thinking that Deb means herself – but then It twists on you…she didn’t care about her own glory. Jael dispatched Evil Mastermind Sisera with a tentpeg through the frontal lobe. Bada-bing, bada-boom. Who is this chick? Just a girly God raised up, willing to take center stage when God willed, willing to take a back seat when God willed.”
Yes, God did raise up a “girl” to lead His people!
But, if God does not desire women to lead His people, politically or spiritually, why did He place Deborah as THE leader over His nation. Does God really care if a woman is in a position of leadership within the Body of Christ? Did He design the roles for men and women to be so separate and distinct as to not include leadership as a role for women or care-taker for men? Think about within the church. Is Jesus disappointed, angry, or judgmental with a local body (or even the universal Body) when it is led by a woman, in the same manner as Deborah?
I can almost hear the explanation: her position was political not spiritual. Sorry, but that is false. God established each of the twelve judges (including Deborah) over Israel to provide both political and spiritual leadership: politically, these leaders guided this nation in military campaigns, resolved judicial complaints, and even set economic policy; spiritually, God raised these men and woman up to expose rampant covenantal disobedient, lead Israel back into faithfulness to Yahweh, and call the community of faith to obey the covenant by applying their lives to the teachings of Deuteronomy. In short, the judges from Othniel to Jephthah and Gideon to Deborah were appointed by God to provide the moral, legal, political, and spiritual leadership to His people because, “there was no king in Israel; everyone did what was right in his own eyes.”
So in thinking about whether women can be pastors or directors within the Church (local and universal) I say again: What about Deborah?
I hope todays post gives you a better idea of what I am trying to do with “what about…”. Hopefully, in asking these questions, we all can reunderstand God, the Scriptures, the Ecclesia, and Christocentric spirituality in general. The next post will reflect on the question: What about Nineveh?
Wouldn’t you say that this instance is the exception, rather than the rule?
Good study-practices would lead us to look for Scriptures that deal specifically with the issue in question, and by looking at them, decide whether this instance is proof that female leadership is proper.
For instance: 1 Timothy 2:12 But I do not allow a woman to teach or exercise authority over a man, but to remain quiet.
I understand that the modern tendency is to use culture to explain away plain teachings like this … however, if we believe the Bible to be the Word of God, aren’t we a bit shaky in that assertion if we insist on the presence of a cultural handbook to understand what the Scriptures “really” mean?
You forgot what about Priscilla, Phoebe, Junia, and Lydia…not to mention Eunice & Lois (Timothy’s mom and grandmother, who apparently had enough authority over him to ground him in the faith) and good ol’ Mary Magdalene (who was not a prostitute, by the way, but was the first to see the Risen Christ and witness to the resurrection).
Not to be picky!! 🙂
I’m not arguing against the presence in Scripture of godly, strong women. We have a tremendous heritage! The lady in Prov. 31 was a businesswoman – resourceful and industrious.
I’m just saying, if God took the trouble to put His desires for male leadership in plain text, then aren’t we a bit hypocritical to try & use examples to negate what He said plainly?
I don’t know how Deborah fits in … but I DO know that Scripture doesn’t violate Scripture … so there must be a way to interpret her role that doesn’t do violence to other texts.
OR there is a way to interpret 1 Tim. 2 that doesn’t do violence to Deborah or anyone else trying to serve God the best way they know how. There are several great books on this subject that will probably not change your mind about women in leadership, but will demonstrate that this passage of Scripture is still open to interpretation. One is “Why Not Women : A Biblical Study of Women in Missions, Ministry, and Leadership” by Loren Cunningham and David Joel Hamilton.
As a guiding principle, I think it’s important to ask “What do we see God doing?” Do we see God choosing and anointing women out of their extremely paternalistic cultures to serve Him? Yep. Do we see Jesus choosing and anointing women? Yep. Do we see Paul choosing anointed women to lead and minister in his place? Yep. Then how can we read Paul’s letter to Timothy in a way that makes sense, given God’s continual “cultural impropriety” when it comes to choosing women? And how can we follow God’s example in a world that is vastly different from ancient Palestine?
SEE…this is exactly what I hoped would happen: healthy DIALOGUE!
Thanks for both of your perspectives…but I do wonder why Paul wrote *he* didn’t permit women to teach or exercise authority over men…or is it teach men AND lead men, which does change the meaning…and what’s up with him requiring women to be quite, not to mention preventing them to braid their hair or wear gold, pearls and expensive clothes? And why do evangelicals typically require the former and not the later?
I also wonder why God would place a woman in political and spiritual leadership over men to both exercise authority over them and teach the Words of the Lord. If God does not desire women to teach or lead men, why did He do it?
Could it be we have misinterpreted what Paul was saying? Could it be we’ve eisegeted (poured meaning into), rather than exegeted (extracted meaning from), the Scripture through our patriarchal lense? Or maybe now we are eisegeting through out feminist lens? Or maybe Paul was simply giving his personal preferense in the midst of his personal, cultural context…
I am not suggesting it is not possible to know and we should just chalk this issue up to uncertainty. But I do wonder how we should understand God’s desires for His people given the clear authoritative and teaching role God gave to this one particular woman…
be His,
jeremy
I’m get the feeling though that just because a women’s role in the body of Christ may not be leadership or teaching that somehow those roles, be it compassion or service or others, are less worthy or honorable. This may be a fault of the church or society culturally speaking, but Biblically speaking I see no marginalization of women’s contributions just because they aren’t heralded as great teachers or leaders.
As I see it, some of the greatest imitators of Christ’s example were women like the Mother Teresa’s and Clara Barton’s of the world. I can think of no greater role to play.
I totally agree that gifts of service have gotten the short end of the honor and respect stick for far too long, whether people with those gifts are women OR men. Culturally, we tend to revere type-A, visionary, master-orator CEOs who can get the job done by hook or by crook, rather than steadfast, faithful servants who love others as themselves. (And look where it’s gotten us: corporate scandal on a massive scale, pastors who know how to preach but not how to shepherd, communities and churches who are united around a cult of personality rather than a vision of God’s Kingdom!)
I think, however, that we should make a clear distinction between the words “gift” and “role” for the purposes of this discussion. Servanthood and compassion are gifts that we are ALL called to cultivate, regardless of gender…these words are not used in a gender-exclusive way in Scripture, and it would be a mistake to attribute them to gender in a way that Scripture itself does not. Doing so is both to impose a preferred interpretation on the text and to open the door to continued “ranking” of gifts, which clearly runs contrary to Paul’s whole “one Body, many parts” bit in Romans.
I love that you have used Mother Teresa and Clara Barton as examples of extraordinary imitators of Christ. Both these women led powerfully by compassionate example. Both of them, too, were called upon to step out of their roles as servants to lead in more overt ways from time to time. (Mother T was asked to speak – some would say “preach” after they heard what she had to say – at a President’s Prayer Breakfast in the 1990s. She memorably begged Americans to stop aborting their babies and send them to her in Calcutta if they were so anxious to get rid of them. Clara Barton was appointed by President Lincoln to lead the search for the missing in the Civil War, began speaking around that same time in favor of women’s suffrage, and became an outspoken proponent of black civil rights.)
Was it wrong for these women to lead when they were called upon to do so, even though that leadership entailed leading men? I submit that their God-given gifts of service propelled them into roles of leadership, and it would have been tragic – dare I say wrong? – for them to refuse those roles because of an interpretation of Scripture that wouldn’t allow it.
The leadership roles that are restricted to men in Scripture are only two: church leadership, and home leadership. It says nothing about parachurch organizations or government. (There’s a certain lady for whom I would be very excited to vote for president, if the occasion arose!). Neither Mother Theresa nor Clara Barton took the place of a church elder, nor did they usurp a husband’s authority in the home! 🙂
As far as taking a Scripture narrative and using it to interpret a teaching on doctrine (as opposed to the reverse). Should we then take Old Testament history and advocate plural marraige – when there are clear teachings that God’s plan is one man, one woman, till death do they part?
Should we look at David, and say, “obviously God didn’t really MEAN “the two shall be one flesh” because David had more than one wife, and he’s even used as a type of Christ.”
I would hope you’d agree this is bad hermaneutics! Instead we say, “this is God’s plan for marriage … therefore it’s obviously an area where David is NOT a picture of Christ, and obviously not an example for us.”
As far as discussion on these issues being desirable.
I would say that it’s a good inspiration to study and can be encouraging to one’s faith.
However, I do not believe it’s a wise way of discerning truth.
There’s a good reason we live in a republic, instead of a democracy. Group discussion and decision-making is not necessarily GOOD discussoin and decision-making. Truth is not necessarily found with the majority.
In our case, truth is found in the Book … and let God be true, and every man (and woman) a liar!
This passage was mentioned:
1 Peter 3:3, 4 Your adornment must not be merely external—braiding the hair, and wearing gold jewelry, or putting on dresses; but let it be the hidden person of the heart, with the imperishable quality of a gentle and quiet spirit, which is precious in the sight of God.
The obvious intent here is that women are to focus on the inner, and spiritual, as opposed to external, and physical.
I know some who DO choose to forego jewelry and fancy hair for this very reason (thankfully, they don’t go so far as to forego “putting on dresses”) 🙂
Some interpret it as simply saying that they need to focus on the inner, and not outer.
Either way, though, they aren’t voiding that the plain meaning of the passage.
The same with 1 Cor. 11 — some women believe a literal head-covering is spoken of (myself being one of them). Otheres see it as symbolic – that they should be under the authority of the leadership God has in place. Either way – it’s taking the meaning of the passage at face value.
Trinka
one quick additional thought regarding your initial post …
Rather than Deborah’s appointment being a sign of God’s ideal, could it not be, rather, a sign of just HOW bad things had gotten at the time of the judges?
Is it possible that there was not one single man qualified and available?
May our church and our homes never degenerate to that level!
Trinka and Aly, I really appreciate your thoughts and insight. Such bright individuals 🙂
Going along with Trinka’s last thoughts…think of all the men in families today that have neglected their “home leadership” positions and the tragedy that some families face because of this. Many wives are forced to pick up the slack of the “dead-beat/weak/skipped town” dads, putting so much extra stress on them and the kids that they weren’t meant to wield. I think your theory that the circumstances in Judges was similar is a valid one.
It can be a calling for us men to step up as leaders or potential leaders in the home, and to a certain extent in the Church. Not to exercise condescending control over wives and women, but in the form of the quintessential example of servanthood and humility; that being Christ’s.
This is a subject about which I could dialogue for DAYS – preferably over strong drinks! The problem with diablog, however, is the facelessness and anonimity of the participants – it’s difficult to feel the spirit in which any point is being delivered, merely because I don’t know the person making it…and the reverse is also true: how do you know I’m not some crazy femi-Nazi whose sole purpose in life is to disrupt God’s design for relationships?
All I can say is that I’m not: my driving purpose in life is to see God’s Kingdom reign over more and more of life. That said, I think our disagreements on this subject in particular are in fact differences in approach to reading and applying Scripture. I suspect that both of you (Trinka and Keith) have a high regard for God’s Word, and the furthest thing from my mind is to diminish or question that regard. Your reverence is commendable, and I respect it.
I also hold God’s Word in high regard, though I think my approach to reading and applying it probably differs from yours. Where you read God prescribing roles and relationships for all places and times, I read God monumentally shifting the paradigm of those relationships in the cultural context in which He was interacting. Example:
“Husbands, love your wives as Christ loved the church.” What?? We have to love our wives? You mean we can’t go on treating them like beasts of burden or convenient salves for our overactive libidos? You mean we have to begin to see them as people, getting to know them and respecting them as fashioned by the hand of God? Shoot. I liked the old way better.
Obviously, husbands loving their wives in our current culture is a given (or at least hoped for by most people who get married), whereas in first-century Palestine, the concept was revolutionary. God is and always has been on the leading edge of reconciling people to Himself and each other – and this is a great example. So what does it look like for us to continue in His example, living on the leading edge of reconciliation?
Hmmm … so are you saying Aly that we’ve moved beyond the need to daily focus on incorporating love and respect into our marriages?
I’m single, so my expertise is strictly from observation of godly marriages …
but I see godly married women making a determined effort to treat their husbands with respect.
And the same with the men — studying to “live with their wives in an understanding way” and to live out love for them in day to day life.
I think that most of the grevious error in today’s church is caused by interpreting the Scriptures to fit our culture.
When we look at the issue of homosexuality, we see most churches falling into one of two wrong camps:
Either they say that the meaning Bible changes over time – and therefore say that homosexual relationships are not sinful.
Or – they react to that error, and go in the other direction to an unbiblical extreme, condemning homosexuals as hopeless sinners.
Where the Scriptures say in 1 Cor. 6:11 … “such WERE some of you.” We have brothers and sisters who have struggled with this sin, and the Lord has brought them out of it.
However, if we excuse it as permissable, they’ll never know freedom.
If we rail against them in hate, they’ll also never know freedom.
The answer is in what the Scriptures teach — this behavior (not the tendency) is sin, and God has a love and answer for those who struggle with it.
Trinka
Aly, I’m wondering where your evidence of “loving” your wives was a revolutionary concept in 1st Century Palestinian Jews? Check out [url=http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Proverbs%2031&version=31]Proverbs 31[/url]. Now this is only one OT example, but I know of no other chapter in the Bible that devotes the [i]whole[/i] thing to the honor, respect, nobility, and love of a [i]husband[/i] or [i]man[/i]? And that was written circa 1000 BC!
Though the “cultural” norm may have been different, those New Testament people were well aware of a proper, selfless, loving marital relationship and anything else was definitely not God sanctioned, OT relationships included. Paul merely uses the example of Christ because there was no better one up to that point. But God established the dynamics of that relationship right from the start, in Adam and Eve’s.
Sure superficial things like styles, courting rituals, etc. will change over time, but the heart of man and woman definitely won’t and hasn’t. That’s why God is consistent in his internal description of them, the roles to be played, and how He designed them to work right to glorify Him.
Also, just because some of those husbands were/are @$$holes to their wives doesn’t mean they all were/are…
-Peace my sistas 🙂
What HTML isn’t enabled??? What kind of low-rate, two-bit webmaster we got here????
Good point Keith,
Song of Songs, Abraham & Sarah, Isaac & Rebekah, David and … oh … well … never mind that last one. 🙂
Trinka
I’m with you guys on the long and beautiful history of Great Romances in Jewish history. But Paul was writing to the Ephesians (5:25) and the Colossians (3:19) when he told husbands to love their wives, not the Jews. I think you’ll be hard-pressed to find a cultural norm of men respecting and loving (REALLY loving) women in these ancient cultures.
Just because we have the blessing of a complete, leather-bound canon of Scripture, doesn’t mean we have the right to read each small story as JUST a continuation of The Big Story. I contend that The Big Story makes the most sense when we allow the small stories to inform The Big Story, rather than making assumptions about The Big Story and reading each small story through that lens.
If The Word and The Spirit are pretty much what we’ve got to work with, shouldn’t we honor both by not making assumptions about what they have to reveal to us?
Hi everyone, I am a friend of Jeremy’s and occasionally check the blog to see what is going on inside his head. The discussion is exciting open and non confrontational, which is incredible given a difficult subject to discuss. It is great to see everyone speaking openly in a not condescending manner.
First off, let me say I am uncertain as to what my thougts are on this subject. So it is great to read these thoughts.
One quote I am reminded of is this and I may not have it down perfect but anyway….”In the essentials unity. In the non essentials liberty. But in everything, Christ.” – Martin Luther
I’m not trying to a point that this discussion is not important nor that the end result isn’t as well. I’m also not making the point that I don’t care because I do, to a degree. I question that I submit (concerning the subject, not the discussion) is, How does this fit in to loving God and loving others?
I’m just joinging this conversation so I’ll leave it at that. I also need to go to bed! By the way Jeremey, I’m with Keith, where is the HTML support?!
Peace.
First, go back to the beginning when God made man and woman in his image and likeness, and God blessed THEM and said to THEM, “Be fruitful…and rule over the earth” (Gen. 1).
As for a man ruling over his wife, that was an aspect of the curse (Gen. 3:16), not a divine intent for a “role.” By the way, using the term “role” to desscribe husband and wife responsibilities in importing a very secular word used originally for plays and movies, and later became a psychological term. It is far from being a “biblical” term.
We know that Jesus Christ redefined “rule over” as “serve under” (see Mark 10:45 in context). A husband is “head” of his wife only as he gives away his life for her as Christ gave away his life for the church.
1 Timothy 2:11 ff (in context) is an ad hoc statement from Paul to Timothy to correct abuses by women in the Ephesian church *at that time* and *in that place.* He was NOT giving directives (or timeless truth) for all churches in all places/cultures at all times.
The idea that there were no men around in Deborah’s day flatly ignores the plain text. Deborah even urges men to act. If we start playing with the text like this, then I’m all for polygamy for Christian husbands because a whole lot of “godly” men in the Old Testament had multiple wives…at God’s command.
Jeremy,
i appreciate the light you are bringing with this subject. I first must say that for far too long women have been neglected in the church in roles of leadership, which is sad because if we define our selves as complementarian, then how are we doing this if both men AND women are not involved?
In the case of Deborah, i tend to this of this as the exception rather than the rule, within the biblical canon Deborah’s role was temporary, it was not permenant, and it was precisly as you say due to a LACK of male leadership.
From what i see throughout the biblical canon, there is a pattern of male leadership. Despite obvious objections of trajectory of teaching or a patriarchal mindest of the east, i think its safe to say that Deborah was not the model for leadership, as it was not repeated.
it is a good issue to bring up however to help us make sure we are really empowering both genders in the church to serve and glorify God.
just my thoughts 🙂
Jason
I would counter Jason’s thought that “From what i see throughout the biblical canon, there is a pattern of male leadership.” In the biblical canon we have a record of patriarchal cultural practices. This record does not require that is God’s will. God’s will, as I read the Scriptures, is for undiminished equality and mutuality. Male dominance over women in home and church as a concept is a sadly mutant version of lordship leadership which Jesus vigorously opposed
I would counter the words “vigorously opposed”, although Jesus valued equality and mutuality he seemed to carry on those “patterns” from the Old Testament, when it came time to choose his 12 core disciples and the intimate 3. Obviously there were women disciples but not in these groups.
Which begs the question “why didn’t Jesus include women in this group” one answer is usually the social pressures of the culture.
However, Jesus spent most of his ministry breaking those social and cultural “taboos”. He talked, spent time with, and even taught a women, and let alone a Samaritan woman. Which was a HUGE cultural no no of the day. Also his breaking of the religious customs of the day eventually led to his death.
If Jesus broke many customs of the day then how come he didn’t break the “record of patriarchal cultural practices?”
I have seen that Luther quote before wisely put forth by Tommy back in October. And as always, Jeremy you raise good dialogue. The older I get the more tolerant and patient I become……not execusing the kernel truth of Holy Writ.
How many times have I heard and read where God raises up Godly women under church banners to go forth into the mission field and conduct church services, etc.??
I do not think Holy Writ teaches women may rule over men from an established church pulpit where able men are present.
The bottom line sometimes is to hold our peace and personal opinions (unless Holy Writ is perspercuious on the topic) to foster spiritual unity and compassion.
Keep up the good work JB!
the quote mentioned in the comments is by augustine rather than luther and it is: “in essentials unity, in nonessentials liberty, in all things charity.”
as for “exceptions” in scripture, they are very important. i believe they are to show us where not to make sweeping universal claims. for example, when the disciples ask jesus who sinned the man or his parents jesus answered neither. this was to show a very important aspect as to what causes physical illness. he was pointing out that sometimes God allowed illness merely for his own glory to be displayed. there are other biblical examples of “exceptions” that are very important when one forms their theology. Job certainly comes to mind.
as for those who want to say deborah was raised up because there weren’t any godly men to do the job, we need to remember that deborah was a judge before this scene with barak where he expressed timidity as to going to fight without her. barak may have expressed timidity but it does not explain why deborah was a judge.