Men and Women: Partners in God's Purposes

Bible Study presented at the joint
Anglican Church League / Equal but Different conference
"Men and Women: Partners in the Gospel"
Saturday 13 September 1997

by Dr. John Woodhouse

I am grateful to the organisers of this conference for the work they have done in helping us all to focus our minds this morning on important questions. I am less grateful for their asking me to address something as massive as bringing together the immense subject of "God's purposes" and our understanding of ourselves as men and women. I am grateful for the limited time that I have available which provides me with a ready excuse for the certain inadequacy of the treatment that follows.

My purpose is to do four things:

First, I want to draw attention to what the purposes of God, which he has made known to us in our Lord Jesus Christ, are.

Then, I propose to reflect briefly on the extraordinary fact that we human beings are not just objects of God's purposes, which would be important enough, but we find ourselves called to be partners in the purposes of God.

This sets up the question that is the focus of this study, namely, How are men and women partners in God's purposes?

So, thirdly I am planning to take a look at the context in which we find that question controversial. I want to sketch out the different understandings of manhood and womanhood, maleness and femaleness, masculinity and femininity [Which is the most acceptable term?!] -- the two understandings that confront us: the understanding of Feminism and the teaching of the Bible.

All this, I hope, will provide us with a perspective from which to look at a series of Biblical examples of women and men as partners in God's purposes, which will illustrate the Bible's own teaching on the subject.

We begin by considering the purposes of God.

 

1. God's purposes

It seems to me to be of fundamental importance that as we approach the supposedly big questions of our day -- whether it is the environment, racism, tolerance, feminism, or whatever -- the Christian mind must be clear about and shaped by the purposes of God. Too often it works in precisely the opposite way. Our understanding of the purposes of God is shaped -- I should say distorted -- by the agenda of our times. We expect that God must march to our tune. Only a generation of Christians who have forgotten the word of God, who have stopped reading their Bibles, could do that.

Let us, then, take note afresh of the word of God. What are the purposes of God?

a. In creation - Genesis 1-2

Genesis 1:1: "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth." Here is a statement of purpose, a purpose that is unfolded in the following two chapters. We have time to only note three major points:

First:

b. In redemption

Now the Bible of course reveals the purpose of God to redeem fallen humanity and fallen creation. Redemption, however, is not God's Plan B. It is the manner in which he is pleased to accomplish Plan A. There has never been a Plan B.

In the gospel of Jesus Christ God has "made known the mystery (the secret) of his will according to his good pleasure which he purposed in Christ" (Eph 1:9).

Again we haven't the time to pause as we ought. But do take note:

first, of

c. In the end

This purpose of God will, in the end, be fully and perfectly realised. The purpose of God that embraces all things is precisely what the future holds.

Be aware again of:

 

2. Partnership in the purposes of God

But we are going to go further, and speak of "partnership" in the purposes of God. To see something of the scope and character of the purposes of God should help us to see how extraordinary it is to speak of partnership in those purposes. But that is how the Bible speaks.

There are two extraordinary concepts here. The first is:

a. Partnership with God

It is God who will accomplish his purposes. And yet, from the beginning -- as we have seen -- human beings are not only the objects of God's purposes, but -- as we might now put it -- his "partners". Not equal partners by any means. Not partners on whom he is ultimately dependent. But partners nonetheless.

The apostle Paul, speaking at least of himself and Apollos, said "We are God's fellow-workers" (1Cor 3:9). Timothy is "our brother and God's fellow-worker in the gospel of Christ" (1Thess 3:2).

The second extraordinary concept follows from the first:

b. Partnership with others

Those who are God's fellow workers are in partnership with each other. And here we enter a whole matrix of relationships in the NT, expressed in various terms -- relationships of partnership with one another in the purposes of God: Paul and Philemon (Phmn 17), Paul and Titus (2Cor 8:23), Paul and the Philippians (Phil 1:5), Paul/Barnabas and James/Peter/John (Gal 2:9), Paul and Priscilla and Aquila (Rom 16:3), Paul and Euodia and Syntyche (Phil 4:2-3), and so on.

I want to say this morning that this partnership, with God, and with each other in God's purposes, is what this conference is about. Building and strengthening and equipping and motivating and energising that partnership is what I take it we all want to see. And it is to this end that we have a particular question before us.

c. The question before us:

How are women and men partners in God's purposes?

It should be no surprise that the list of some of Paul's fellow-workers in the gospel included both men and women.

The debate about the ordination of women, and the general response to the ideas of modern feminism have sometimes marginalised this fact -- or at least caused it to receive less attention than it should.

The question that is before us is how we are to understand the partnership of women and men in the purposes of God.

The question is asked, of course, in the context of contemporary thought. Let me say a little bit about that.

 

3. The context in which the question is asked1

The modern Feminist movement is generally traced back to the early 1960s. Over the three and a half decades since then ideas that were then radical have become what I am going to call "dogmas" -- i.e. beliefs that are so firmly established, that have such authority, that they are generally unquestioned. If today you do not hold to the dogmas, you are at least a radical. You might even be a heretic.

Dogmas are not necessarily bad, or wrong. They are just the beliefs that a community accepts on authority. And I am suggesting that it is fair to say that for us Feminism -- at least in some respects -- some very important respects -- has achieved the status of dogma here in the 1990s. The struggle of the last 30 years and more, where fundamental tenets of feminism were almost all controversial to some degree has given way to a time where even the term "Feminism" has an old fashioned ring to many -- not because it is a thing of the past, but because at least on many basic matters the struggle is over, the battle is won. Feminist ideas are now mainstream ideas.

The three dogmas of Feminism

There are three basic beliefs that seem to me to sum up -- admittedly in an oversimplified way -- what Feminism has been about.

The first of these is:

a. The basic truth:

The equality of the sexes

Women and men are equal. And although history and society have denied women equality with men in various ways, that fundamental equality is Feminism's starting point.

What does this equality mean?

The major thesis proposed by the feminists of the early '60s was that as far as emotions, psyche, and intellect were concerned, there are no demonstrable differences between male and female. Any apparent differences resulted from cultural conditioning rather than biological fact.2

Therefore any differentiation of roles between men and women is artificial. And the Feminist agenda in those early days was to deal with obstacles to that equality, whether those obstacles were a result of the physical biological differences or society's restrictions. So they sought legal freedom for abortion, changes in marriage and divorce laws, tax reform, universal day care, equal pay for equal work, affirmative action in employment, and changes in language.3

Now it is true that in the 1990s there has been something of a reaction. There are books that explore and boldly assert the differences, at every level, between men and women. However, what strikes me is that such books are now considered radical. They are the thoughts that are challenging the accepted dogma of the equality of men and women.

And whatever the radical thinkers of the '90s suggest, they are not, as I understand them, challenging the basic belief that society must continue to work out how obstacles can be removed that prevent women enjoying exactly the same opportunities as men.

The serious inconsistency of all this seems to be going un-noticed. In the '60s an equality was argued based on sameness. This argument has won the day. Now it is generally acknowledged that men and women should be regarded and treated as equal in the sense of being the same. But, having won that argument, the literature is now exploring how men and women are not the same! If we are not the same, then should we not revisit and reconsider the sense in which we are equal? No-one dares to propose such a course.

The second dogma, is:

b. The basic problem:

The evil of patriarchy

If women and men are equal, what is it that has robbed them of that equality?

The answer is patriarchy. The term "patriarchy" was introduced in the late '60s to describe the male dominance of societies. Greek pater means "father", arche means "rule". In their dominance it is men who have determined what part women shall or shall not play. Patriarchy is the power of men that has oppressed women and has been responsible for their unhappiness.4

Is it not the case that men's domination of society for centuries has been to the profound disadvantage of women? Does anyone really doubt that today? I am suggesting that that is the second basic dogma of Feminism that has become a dogma of the 1990s: the basic problem for women is patriarchy.

The third dogma is:

c. The solution:

Liberation

The solution is obvious in principle, even if the details are hard and complicated. Given the first two points, it is obvious that what is needed is the liberation of women from the restrictions imposed on them by men, and indeed from the dominance of men itself. The solution is the demise of patriarchy. Fulfilment for women will come in their freedom from patriarchy. Then and only then will women become whole.5

The differentiation of male/female roles must go. Women must be allowed to do everything that men can do, and in the same manner, and with the same recognised status. Equality demands no less.6

More, of course, women must be allowed to do it better.

Here is what I am calling the third dogma: anything that restricts women from reaching their potential, from realising their dreams, from becoming what they could become should be done away with. It is unjust. Unfair. Wrong. Freedom from such unjust limitations is basic to the solution to the oppression women have suffered.

This, too, is an idea that was radical in the '60s, but is a dogma of the 1990s. Don't you agree?

Now if that is the context in which our question is being asked, we must bring these dogmas to the light of the Word of God:

The teaching of the Bible

Mary Kassian has said:

"The world-philosophy of feminism stands in antithesis to the philosophy of the Bible."7

And I am convinced that she is right.

Feminism, for all of its success, is fundamentally flawed.

Here I want to take up three of the Bible's teachings that correspond, and contrast to the three dogmas of Feminism.

The first is

a. The basic truth:

The complementarity equality of the sexes

The Bible teaches the equality of men and women, but in a way different from Feminism. Each human being, man or woman -- makes no difference here -- stands before God as a person created purposefully to be the image and likeness of God (Col 3:10). And that is our most fundamental identity. Further, each human being, man or woman -- makes no difference here -- stands before God as a sinner in desperate need of salvation -- exactly the same need. Each of us has at the same time absolute equality of worth before God, and before one another, and a total equality of need for Jesus Christ as Saviour,8

Hear again Genesis 1:26-27:

"Then God said, 'Let us make humanity in our image, in our likeness ... so God created humanity in his own image, in the image of God he created him, male and female he created them."

But because the Bible understands the depth and profundity of human nature, because the Bible understands the meaning of being human, to lie in our relation to God, the Bible does not teach an equality of men and women that depends on sameness. It is not an equality that is threatened by the real differences between men and women.

And so I am calling the Biblical teaching the complementary equality of the sexes.

Furthermore, the Biblical ideal, the God-given ideal for men and women is partnership, not competition.

You see that basic statement of Genesis 1 does not say God made men in his image, and God made women in his image. It says more than that. It says that God made humanity [Hebrew Adam] in his image as male and female. It is men and women together that constitute humanity. And it is humanity, male and female together, that is the image of God.

And the Bible then teaches that the differences between men and women are to serve this complementarity. And the Bible has no embarrassment at presenting different roles for men and women. It is in no way a denial of their equality. Our equality is more substantial than that. A husband is different from a wife. A wife is different from a husband. A mother is different from a father. A father is different from a mother. A man is different from a woman. And a woman is different from a man. And the differences, as well as the equality, are good!

Now I am not going to develop this very far this morning. That has been done on other occasions. But I should say that these differences include what the NT calls male headship. There is a heresy of the '90s, if ever there was one! But it is usually dismissed without even understanding what it means. According to Ephesians 5, for example, the husband is the head of the wife, and this means that the husband has the responsibility to take the initiative in the sacrificial service of his wife. The husband is the head, in exactly the same sense that Jesus Christ is the head of the church by dying on the cross for her. Male headship in the Bible does not mean male selfish dominance. Because we are not meant to be at war. It has to do with serving, with caring.

The first teaching of the Bible that I am drawing to your attention is an equality between men and women that is far more important than that asserted by Feminism, and an equality that leads to partnership, not competition. This is very different from the dogma of Feminism. You see if you believe the Bible, you do not have to be threatened by the differences between men and women. They do not have to touch our equality.

The second Bible teaching we will note is:

b. The basic problem:

The self-centredness of men and women

Men have in many ways oppressed women, and denied them freedoms they should have.

But the Bible, again, takes us deeper. What is it that has caused the breakdown of harmony between the sexes? What is it that has caused so much hurt to women? And, it should be said, hurt to men? What is it that has destroyed the ideal partnership that ought to exist between men and women, and between husbands and wives?

Of course male chauvinism and belligerence has been an expression of it. But deeper than that is what the Bible calls "sin", and what I have called here self-centredness. People cannot live in harmony when each one's chief concern is his or her own welfare. Then we are at war. And between men and women, when self-centredness rules, there is war.

The Feminist dogma observes the war, and observes that historically it has been men who have had the upper hand in the war. But Feminism does not adequately see that the war broke out because of the rebellion of men and women against God. You see, reject God, and you have no choice but to become self centred. If you will not have God, then who will look after you if you don't look after yourself? If you will not rely on God, you have no choice but to rely on yourself. And if you rely on yourself, then in one way or another everyone else is a threat.

Feminism has succeeded in many ways in turning the battle. The upper hand is not now always male. But the war is still going on. Because Feminism was not a way to peace. It was a way to turn the war around.

The third Bible teaching, therefore, is:

c. The solution:

Forgiveness and reconciliation in Christ

What is the solution?

Since the Bible teaches us that the basic truth about men and women is deeper than Feminism realises, and the basic problem of men and women is more fundamental than Feminism sees, it is no surprise that the Bible teaches that the solution is more radical than anything Feminism dreams.

Since our problem begins with a rejection of God, the solution for us depends on God's willingness to take us back.

Humanity begins to be healed, only when human beings return to God.

And the gospel news is that the way back to God is open. The Father's arms are outstretched to welcome women and men back.

Jesus died on the cross, for men and women, to demonstrate that to each of us, and to make it possible.

Each of us, male or female, comes on the same terms. Sinners in need of the Saviour.

And together, forgiven and reconciled, the partnership for which we were made male and female can begin again. The war can be over. We are being renewed in the image of our creator (cf. Col 3:10).

Feminism does not have the answers to our brokenness, our hurts, our emptiness, our frustration. Not really. It is flawed in its analysis of human nature, inadequate in its appreciation of human sinfulness, and way off the mark in its dream of liberation.

 

4. Men and women: "equal" and "complementary" partners:

Some Biblical examples9

What, then, does the partnership of women and men in the purposes of God mean? How is the equality of men and women expressed in that partnership? And how is the complementarity expressed? I believe that the rest of this conference is going to explore some answers to that question. I want to make a comment on a number of Biblical examples that are sometimes cited for a different purpose.

It is sometimes suggested that the practice in the Bible is more "advanced" than some of its teaching -- specifically its teaching about male leadership. This is an approach to interpreting the Bible that has emerged in supposedly evangelical circles, where it should never have been admitted. One part of the Bible is set against another. It is pointed out that whatever the Bible says in some places about differences in the appropriate roles of women and men, in fact you find both women and men praying, prophesying, teaching, working together in the gospel, deacons, elders, and even apostles. These Biblical examples, it is sometimes argued, relativise the teaching, and call it into serious question.

In this final part of our study, I want to say that this is emphatically not the case. Apart from the fact that it is a serious error of method to pit the Bible's descriptions of what happened over against the Bible's teaching, or prescriptions, about what ought to happen, the supposed conflict is simply not there.

a. Prayer?

Take prayer, for example. I take it that praying is a key way of participating in God's purposes.

"Pray for us ... that God may open a door for our message, so that we may proclaim the mystery of Christ, for which I am in chains. Pray that I may proclaim it clearly, as I should." (Col 4:3-4)

In prayer, is it not clear that women and men are equal? Are not the prayers of men and the prayers of women equally important, equally effective, equally heard by the Father? Is there any difference between the prayers of women and the prayers of men?

But that real equality does not mean we obliterate the complementarity between men and women themselves, in contexts where praying brings men and women into relationship. And so the praying woman will not, in her praying, or in the manner of her praying, deny male headship according to 1 Corinthians 11 -- just as the praying man will not, in his praying, or in the manner of his praying, deny Christ's headship. Whatever else 1 Cor 11:3-5 means, it seems to me to mean that.

But do not let that matter deflect us from working hard, labouring together at this partnership in God's purposes. Women, men, PRAY.

b. Prophecy?

What about prophecy?

In both OT and NT we find women and men prophets.10

Miriam is called a prophetess in Ex 15:20. We find the prophetess Huldah in 2 Kgs 22:14, an un-named prophetess in Isa 8:3. There are both men and women false prophets (see Ezek 13:17; Neh 6:14). Best known of all is Deborah (Judges 4-5), who was not only a prophetess, but also a judge who ordered Barak about.

In the NT we find the prophetess Anna (Lk 2:36). Indeed had not God said through Joel "your sons and your daughters will prophesy" (Joel 2:28 = Acts 2:17). And Philip's' four daughters did (Acts 21:9).

In prophesying, then, we find men and women partners in God's purposes. Is the word of the Lord by Huldah less important than the word of the Lord by Jeremiah? Certainly not.

But again, it is a mistake to think that equally real partnership in the purposes of God means discarding the complementarity for which maleness and femaleness has been created. 1Cor 11:3-10 again insists that while prophesying a woman should be adorned in a way that does not deny male headship. So one of the key texts that shows that it is perfectly proper for women to prophesy is actually at pains to establish the principle of m ale headship.

What about Deborah and Huldah and Miriam? Just two comments:

(1) We should be extremely cautious about deducing principles about what should happen from descriptions of what did happen. This point is even more serious when we are looking at OT narrative.

(2) It should nonetheless be noted that Deborah is the only judge who had no military leadership role (Barak did that), Huldah had no public role, but was consulted in private, and Miriam sang to the women who followed her. It is difficult to argue on the one hand that these are Biblical examples that overthrow the principle of male headship, but on the other hand that the expressions of male headship that remain are irrelevant!

The important point is that it has always been the case that the word of the Lord can be spoken by both women and men. May it be so -- more and more. Let us not allow the contemporary debate to deflect us from encouraging this partnership: being those who have the word of God on our lips.

c. Teaching?

What about teaching?

Priscilla and her husband Aquilla explained the gospel more accurately to Apollos (Acts 18:26). All believers are to teach one another (Col 3:16). Women explicitly are told to teach in Titus 2:3 (even though the word is not the usual one for teaching).

This is enough to demonstrate that the Bible does not suggest that women lack the capacity to understand and to communicate the truth. In teaching, as in prophesying and in praying, women and men are to be partners in God's purposes.

The complementary equality of men and women, of course, will mean that there will be situations where women should take the teaching responsibility (Titus 2:3-4), and other situations where men should do so (1Tim 2:12).

Again I want to say, let us not allow that truth to keep us from the other one, namely seeking and encouraging men and women to be teachers of the word of God -- each in appropriate contexts.

d. Fellow-workers?

In Rom 16:3 Paul calls Priscilla a "fellow worker". In Phil 4:3 he says that Euodia and Syntyche are his fellow workers who "have shared my struggle in the gospel." In Rom 16:6 we hear of Mary "who has worked very hard for you." There are three more women mentioned in Rom 16:12 (Tryphena, Tryphosa and Persis) who "have worked very hard in the Lord."

There is indeed a wonderful expression and example of the partnership of men and women in the gospel. The same descriptions of fellow worker, and labourer are applied to many men.

The force of this should not be lost. Where men and women are competing with one another, fighting with one another, there is something very wrong. We are to work and labour together in the gospel as partners, not as competitors.

That does not, of course, mean that distinctions in our roles should be obliterated. The fact that we all work very hard together for the same gospel does not mean we all must do, or even be permitted to do, the same things.

The last three examples are a little different, but I should touch on them before closing.

It is sometimes argued that in the NT we find examples of women deacons, elders, and even an apostle. Doesn't this prove that all barriers between men and women were indeed breaking down, so that the Feminist ideal was beginning to be realised, even in the NT church? Equality is what matters. Difference is to be overcome.

e. Deacons?

On deacons, it is argued that 1Tim 3:11, and Romans 16:1 refer to women who were "deacons".

In both cases it is possible, but I think unlikely. While the evidence either way is slight, Phoebe in Rom 16:1 was probably a patron of the church, who is commended therefore as a "servant" (not "deacon") of the church.

1Tim 3:11 certainly does not explicitly refer to women as "deacons". It has traditionally been understood as a reference to the wives of deacons, and the context seems to me to support this.

However, as far as I can see, nothing hangs on this. The word "deacon" means "servant", but does not specify the manner or content of the service.

Again let us not allow that debate to deflect us from working at strengthening and equipping and motivating and energising men and women to partnership in serving.

f. Elders?

It has been suggested that there are women elders in Titus 2:3. It has been added that 2John, being addressed to "the chosen lady", is addressed to the woman presbyter of the church.

I can only say that this is clutching at straws.

The masculine term presbuteros means an older man or an appointed elder, according to the context. When we encounter the feminine term presbutis in Titus 2:3, on the one hand it is not the feminine form of presbuteros, which would have been presbutera, and on the other hand the context is clearly addressing the various groups in the church: older men, younger men, older women, younger women.

The plurals on 2John demonstrate clearly enough that that letter is addressed to the church as "the chosen lady", not to its supposed elder.

But the negative point should not take us away from the positive. Just as older men should be giving a lead in various ways in the work of the gospel, so should older women -- as Titus 2:3-5 makes clear.

g. Apostles?

Finally (and it is the last straw!) it has been argued again and again that the Junias of Rom 16:7 was a woman apostle, whose name should be rendered therefore as the feminine "Junia". Her apostleship rests on the expression that she and Andronicus were "outstanding among the apostles" (NIV).

The problem with this is that it rests on a double uncertainty. Junias may have been a man or a woman. There is evidence that the name could be masculine or feminine. The wording of Rom 16:7 could mean that Andronicus and Junias were apostles, or that they were well known and well regarded by the apostles.

These uncertainties mean that Rom 16:7 cannot be taken as evidence for anything about men and women in the purposes of God, except that Andronicus and Junias were two people who were evidently partners in the gospel of Jesus Christ.

 

Conclusions

To conclude: The debate about the ordination of women is a side issue. The central issue is the great sovereign purposes of God to bring his whole creation under the headship of Christ. However, if the ordination debate has helped us to understand and appreciate the wonderful complementarity and equality of men and women more clearly, then that ought to motivate us to work very hard indeed at developing our partnership in the mighty purposes of God in our Lord Jesus Christ.

 

Footnotes

1 This section is indebted to the following published material:


Mary A. Kassian, The Feminist Gospel (Wheaton: Crossway, 1992);
John Stott, Issues Facing Christians Today (Basingstoke: Marshalls, 1984), pp. 234-257;
Karen Armstrong, "Divinity and Gender: A God for both sexes," The Economist, 21 December, 1996, pp. 67-72.

2 Kassian, p. 31.

3 Kassian, p. 250.

4 Kassian, pp. 23-24.

5 See Kassian, p. 24.

6 See Kassian, p. 27.

7 Kassian, p. 253.

8 See Kassian, p. 248.

9 This section is indebted to Thomas R. Schreiner, "The Valuable Ministries of Women in the Context of Male Leadership: A Survey of Old and New Testament Examples and Teaching," in John Piper and Wayne Grudem, eds, Recovering Biblical Manhood and Womanhood: A Response to Evangelical Feminism (Wheaton: Crossway Books, 1991), pp. 209-24.

10 There are differences between OT and NT prophecy which need not concern us here.

 

© John Woodhouse 1997.

John Woodhouse(Bible Study presented at the joint Anglican Church League / Equal but Different conference "Men and Women: Partners in the Gospel", held at St. Paul's Anglican Church Carlingford, Sydney, Australia - on Saturday 13 September 1997.)

At the time of the conference, the Rev. Dr. John Woodhouse was the Rector of Christ Church St. Ives, in Sydney. In March 2002, he was appointed Principal of Moore Theological College.

 

Anglican Church League, Sydney

ACL's website can be found at www.acl.asn.au

Mailing address: P.O. Box 746 Royal Exchange, NSW, 1225, Australia.

Document added 09 October 1997.

www.acl.asn.au