A continuation of Andrew Wilson’s review on ‘Women in Leadership: Soul Survivor’s Position on Women in Leadership,’ written by Bishop Graham Cray.*

The definition of submission: inequality, or servant leadership?

If one-way submission indicates inequality, then what about the passage that talks about Jesus submitting to the Father when he returns (1 Cor 15:28)? Similarly, what about the texts that deal with qualifications for eldership (1 Tim 3:1-7; Titus 1:5-9)? The explanation concerning elders is not at all satisfactory:

… in 1 Timothy 3 we read instructions for appointing elders and deacons. Although many Bibles translate the commands as ‘he’ … the original texts didn’t use masculine nouns for these leadership titles but neuter ones ... That would again point to the fact he was only temporarily stopping women from teaching until they themselves had been taught.

I’ve already pointed out the inaccuracy of the statement about neuter nouns. At least two of the qualifications are explicitly addressed to men (3:2, 4-5). Furthermore, I have yet to encounter a commentator who does not believe that the Pastorals assume overseers/elders will be men.

A further problem is the pamphlet’s confusing use of language. It is not clear to me, as a relatively well-informed reader, how exactly the differences between terms like 'hierarchy', 'authority', 'leadership', 'in charge', 'take priority' and 'dominance' are to be understood. From what I can tell, 'leadership' is compatible with 'equality' and is used whenever the nuance is intended to be good, and the other words are incompatible with 'equality' and are used whenever the nuance is intended to be bad – but that may be an oversimplification. Jumping between them makes the argument difficult to follow: there is no hierarchy in the Trinity, and man is not supposed to be in charge of woman or take priority over her, but men and women can both exercise leadership. Which makes me want to ask: if a woman 'leads', is she thereby exercising 'authority'? Part of a 'hierarchy'? 

If a find-and-replace was to take place on the document, and every one of these terms was replaced by 'servant leadership' – which, for Jesus as for Paul, is the only sort of gospel-shaped authority there is – I wonder if the pamphlet would take on a different, and perhaps more even-handed, flavour.


A very important question 

On a related note, the pamphlet frequently pitches equality against hierarchy, authority and leadership. This approach, although (sadly) common in the debate, is very problematic. Take this very important question, for example: is it possible for one person to have a leadership responsibility with respect to another, and yet be equal with them? If the answer is yes, then the fact that a husband and a wife are equal is in no way an argument against one having leadership responsibility for the other. If the answer is no, on the other hand, then a whole series of questions emerge: is a woman church leader not equal with the people she serves? 

Does acknowledging the leadership responsibility of an Emperor, or a Prime Minister, make me somehow unequal with them before God? Surely not. 

One would assume the answer, then, was that leadership – authority exercised in such a way as to serve others – is compatible with equality. As such, affirming (rightly) the equality of men and women has no bearing at all on who gets to be overseers/elders, and whether the husband leads his family.
  

Leadership in marriage 

Finally, when it comes to marriage, the pamphlet seems to come out against any role distinctions in marriage at all, but it doesn’t quite say that. Many leading egalitarians, including several of those cited at the end of the pamphlet, argue that women can be overseers/elders/bishops in the church, but that men should take primary responsibility for their families as servant leaders (Wright, Witherington). At any rate, the standard popular egalitarian arguments on Ephesians 5 are presented, namely (1) headship means source, and (2) Paul was talking about mutual submission. But again, when the weight of church history and New Testament scholarship are considered, (1) becomes virtually untenable in this context – even egalitarian scholars cited in the pamphlet (Tom Wright, Howard Marshall), who tentatively suggest it might mean 'source' in 1 Corinthians, admit it must refer to leadership in Ephesians 5 – and consequently, (2) does not have the force the pamphlet implies, since the way husbands and wives submit are clearly different (husbands, like Jesus, as servant and self-sacrificial leaders, with wives, like the church, responding in joyful and voluntary submission). 

I began this article by affirming my support for women in leadership, and my love for Soul Survivor … The significant concerns I have with the pink pamphlet, and my continued view that God intended men to be elders and to lead their families, does not affect my support for women leaders, my thanks to God for Soul Survivor, and my ongoing love and appreciation for them. They have repeatedly shown that their love for people and their partnership in the gospel matters far more than any theological disagreements they may have. I wholeheartedly agree, and my hope is that this review comes across in the same spirit.

*This article has been cut down and edited with kind permission from Andrew. The first part can be found at 'I Believe In Women In Leadership, But ...' and his original, fuller version can be found here.