|
Why I can no longer defend the ministry of women in the church.
 by Dr Stephen Holmes
(originally from his blog - republished with permission)
I have defended the ministry of women in the church in public for a while now, including on this blog.
I don’t think I can do it any longer.
Not because of any lack of calling or gifting in their ministry, but because of a lack in mine.
Take Phoebe Palmer.
She began to be involved in leading a Bible study in New York around 1830. She soon received invitations to preach across the USA and in the UK. Something like 25 000 people were converted by her ministry.
25 000 people. Converted. Does that need defence? Really?
She visited prisons regularly, ran a society helping poor people in need of medical attention, and was involved in an ambitious project to challenge the new problem of urban poverty through the provision of low-cost housing, free schooling, and employment. She had a particular concern for orphans throughout her life.
Challenging injustice on a grand scale. Do you want me to defend that?
In The Promise of the Father, and 20-odd other books, she stressed the idea that God could and would give the blessing of holiness in an instant to a believer, and taught that holiness would be gained by faith. This teaching gave rise to the Holiness Movement, which by 1900 had changed the beliefs and practices of almost every evangelical church in America and Britain. Her ideas shaped the early Pentecostal movement, and the modern charismatic movement.
She formed the spirituality that formed me. She changed the world. Who am I to even think of defending her?
By any standards, she was one of the most powerful preachers, and most influential leaders, of nineteenth-century American evangelicalism.
For me to try to defend her ministry would be as ridiculous as a worm trying to defend a lion.
She did not often encounter criticism for presuming to preach as a woman, but eventually she wrote a defence of the ministry of women, The Promise of the Father (1859). She argued that it was a clear mark that the gift of the Holy Spirit had come that women as well as men could ‘prophesy’, which to her meant preach powerfully and evangelistically to spread the gospel.
In the face of so evident a work of the Spirit as was seen in her life, who am I to even consider the question of whether God had called her to preach? It would be offensive, presumptuous – approaching blasphemous – to even accept that the question can be asked.
And then there’s Catherine Booth. And Mary Dyer. And Catherine of Sienna. And Mother Julian. And Rose Clapham, all-but forgotten, whose first sermon, preached when she was 18, saw 700 miners converted to Christ.
Defend that? Why?
There’s a thousand stories like it. That I know. Ten thousand times ten thousand that have gone untold, no doubt.
And I think of women who I have the privilege to know, who I sit in awe of, some of whom graciously allow me to call them friends. If I could preach one tenth as powerfully or effectively as Ness Wilson, or Bev Murrill, or Miriam Swaffield, or if I had a tiny portion of the vision and capacity to inspire change of Cathy Madavan or Natalie Collins, or if I had some little echo of the pastoral wisdom and visible holiness of Pat Took or Ruth Goldbourne, or if I could even once in my life make something happen the way Wendy Beech-Ward or Ann Holt do every day – then I might think the question of whether these women are permitted by God to lead and preach was worth thinking about.
As it is, no. I can’t defend their ministries. I am not worthy to.
I will continue to fight sexism and bad teaching wherever I see it. I will continue to explain, as well as I can, the truth of Scripture, that it is a crucial mark of the Kingdom that God calls women and men indifferently to every ministry. I want to give more time in coming months and years to tracing the real harm that bad theologies of gender do. I might even write my big book on a theology of gender one of these years (the story roughly runs: Augustine meets Judith Butler and they get on surprisingly well…).
But I’m not going to try to illuminate the sun.
And I’m not going to try to dampen the sea.
And I’m not, any longer, going to try to defend the ministry of women in the church.
Dr Stephen R. Holmesis Lecturer in Systematic Theology at St Andrew’s University. His research is broadly focused on Christian theology in its classic forms, including both its history and contemporary expression. Within this wide field, he presently has three main areas of interest: Evangelical Christianity, Baptist theology, constructive theology.
-
Editor of the International Journal of Systematic Theology (www.ijst.org)
-
Chair of the Theology and Public Policy Advisory Commission of the Evangelical Alliance UK
-
Council member, Evangelical Alliance UK
-
Council of Reference member, Scottish Bible Society
-
Member of Research Committee, Rutherford House
Discuss this Article on the Fulcrum Forum
Forum Posts About This Article:
Posted by: WATERANGEL
Tuesday 12 March 2013 - 06:06pm
I feel it might be wise to consider whether defending the ministry of a woman is the same as submitting to the authority of a woman? Also i wonder when it comes to the "defending the position of" from where that comes.
I am saying this on these grounds, that when "we" both male and female and as a corporate fellowship listen to the "word preached" any of us are only hearing the word of God through the communicator of it.
Sometimes the communicator of Gods word and will has been "nature" for instance if people build on fault lines then the earth will eventually open up and divide and cause cracks in the earth. It is said that the rainbow represents the spirit.
So what i am inviting you to do is consider can you separate human authority from spiritual/ biblical authority, a woman may not preach directly for instance but may be clearly used by God to communicate as has already been cited in the original post.
It seems like a humble position to say i cannot defend a woman in ministry because well God needs no defending, when Jesus was on the earth in human form he was just that a human chosen by God He told his disciples that he would leave the earth and return the disciples did not intervene in that process, they did not have the Romans attacked they did not go for a coo to take over, they accepted Jesus words.
Women are not "the word" in the same way as men are not "the word" what we all are are absorbers and holders of the precious word of God, to be communicated in accordance with Gods will. There is no "authority" in the person that delivers it only in "the word itself" What gives the word authority? Well I am no authority myself but i believe that the "authority" of Gods word to us is in the previous fulfillment of the promise and in the promise of the "hope of things to come" I often cite it, because we need to first hear the word of God we then need to follow the word of God and whist we do that we discern the will of God as part of the" Living word" Jesus lives in us all but we do not all give him life through the Gospel. Sharing the gospel in whatever form is not an issue of human authority, but of divine intervention in the hearts and minds of those who hear it and go on to live it and share it.
Peace be with you
Angela
Posted by: Deleted user 5015
Monday 11 March 2013 - 10:46pm
Firstly I would echo the point made above, that the holiness movement was no good thing and is a thouroughly unbiblical position to hold. It poses many an issue and is simply not the truth.
Secondly I wish to offer a rebuttle to the main point of your argument. You say you can no longer defend the ministry of women as some have been incredibly succesful preachers so to defend that is absurd. I agree, there have been and are women who preach very well.
I think the issue, as you are well aware, is biblical. It is simply over the biblical text, and peoples views on that. Yes, people's views on what scripture is saying can seem to oppress people, but I do not think that is a reason to deny one's convictions. I am of the opinion that God's word says that women should not teach and exercise authority in that form over men. I respect your position, and I hope you would respect mine as I think it is quite clear why I might think that from the bible. Even if you disagree you must see that there is a plethora of passages that must be struggled over with regard to this issue. I hope we can respect and love each other as Christian brothers even though we disagree, as we can be united in Christ. I would point you to this article, which I found very helpful.
I do not think I am sexist, or that a complimentarian position is sexist. Because I believe it is the truth from God, I actually think that the complimentarian position allows women to be most free to live in the beautiful way God intended.
Another point you make is "Who am I to even think of defending her?". But when we remember what the issue actually is we see that it is not about experience or opinion. It is about what is true. Who are we to question God's word? We should approach it with trembling, as the Psalmist tells us. We should allow it to change us and not come to try and change it. I am not saying that is what you are doing, I hope that is not the case, but in making points as weak as these I hope to remind you that this is a big deal. This is God's word and we must respect it.
I apologise if my points seem incoherent and unorganised, they probably are. I hope you understand I write this not to get one up, not to seem better or in any way cleverer or more enlightened. I write this as a sinner. A sinner saved by grace who loves you. A sinner who genuinely believes you are wrong, not because he hates women and desires to oppress them, but because he believes that is the word of God. I wish you would consider this issue carefully and prayerfully. It is really important.
God bless you, brother.
Posted by: Kim
Sunday 10 March 2013 - 09:28pm
Dear Stephen Holmes,
You write: "In The Promise of the Father, and 20-odd other books, she stressed the idea that God could and would give the blessing of holiness in an instant to a believer, and taught that holiness would be gained by faith. This teaching gave rise to the Holiness Movement, which by 1900 had changed the beliefs and practices of almost every evangelical church in America and Britain. Her ideas shaped the early Pentecostal movement, and the modern charismatic movement." I'm sure Phoebe Palmer was a sincere Christian, but on this point I prefer the Augustinian and Reformation view of santification, in line with mainstream Evangelical and orthodox Anglican tradition. The view that you can be sinless in an instant usually goes along with the view that you can also lose not only your sanctification but also your salvation in an instant, any instant, and go to hell. This is not much comfort, and makes praying the Lord's Prayer an impossibility for "sanctified christians." Read B.B. Warfield, Perfectionism, for a thorough critique of the Second Blessing movements.
sincerely, (Rev.) J.M. (Kim) Batteau, retired minister of the Reformed Churches in The Netherlands (Liberated) (B.A. Harvard, M.Div. Westminster Seminary, Philadelphia, Drs. Theologische Universiteit, Kampen, The Netherlands.
Posted by: John Watson
Sunday 10 March 2013 - 05:08pm
Dear Friends
Today we publish an article by Steve Holmes arguing, from the experience of history, that God has worked through women in ministry and leadership in powerul and, I would add, apostolic ways.
As we head towards the conference on the 16th March this may help in whetting the appetite!
Best wishes
John Watson
Add your comments on the Fulcrum Forum
|
|
THE brutal murder of a soldier in Woolwich on Wednesday, in a suspected terrorist attack, has shocked and saddened people in the area, the Bishop of Woolwich, the Rt Revd Michael Ipgrave, has said.
Ed Thornton. Church Times 24 MAY 2013
24 May 2013
The Bishop of Woolwich has said he is "deeply saddened and distressed" to hear of a fatal machete attack on a man in south-east London.
Christian Today. 22 May 2013
22 May 2013
Iran has launched a public crackdown on dissent before next month's presidential election, executing two men charged with espionage and waging war against God, arresting a group of activists, including Christians, and summoning campaigners for questioning. Political prisoners in some of the country's most notorious jails have had their parole or visiting rights withdrawn and some transferred to solitary confinement.
Saeed Kamali Deghan Guardian 21 May 2013
22 May 2013
Thanks, Bowman. And does this - the pleasantness of compliance to God's order and commands - not apply not only to aspects of the law given to Israel, which we are not obliged to keep, but also to the traditions of the apostles, which we are instructed to hold on to, and pass on to the next g...
I quite like Bowman's point that there is potential danger in bringing the women bishops issue into Ephesians 5 (if I can put it like that), which is about marriage. If we want to know 'how we should conduct [ourselves] in the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pilla...
Bowman, you say that the only distinguishing quality of the relationships: Christ:man, man:woman, God:Christ, and Christ:church, husband:wife (I have added one there), is coinherence. Surely, there is a hierarchy of authority visible here. Jesus submits to the Father, the church submits to the Lo...
Michael Bourdeaux gives us a new insight into Margaret Thatcher
John Martin reviews Andrew Goddard's timely memoire of the Archiepiscopate of Rowan Williams
Andrew Goddard offers a positive assessment of the recent FAOC document
|
