Recent Books On Divorce And Singleness

Divorce in the Parsonage, by Mary LaGrand Bouma, (Bethany Fellowship, 1979, 156 pp. $3.95); When You Are a Single Parent, by Robert C. DiGiulio (Abbey Press, 1979, 94 pp., $1.95); Divorce and the Christian: What the Bible Teaches, by Robert J. Plekker (Tyndale, 1980, 137 pp., $3.95); Stepfamilies: Living in Christian Harmony, by Bobbi Reed (Concordia, 1980, 142 pp., $5.95); A Part of Me Is Missing, by Harold Ivan Smith (Harvest House, 1979, 142 pp., $3.95); Jesus Was a Single Adult, by Bob and June Vetter (David C. Cook, 1979, 160 pp., $3.95); Divorce and the Gospel of Grace, by Les Woodson (World, 1979, 80 pp., $3.95); are reviewed by C. E. Cerling, pastor, First Baptist Church, TawasCity, Michigan.

Divorce: everyone knows it’s a growing problem. It confronts the church as a great tragedy, and in its traumatic impact on a person’s life, divorce is second only to the death of a spouse.

The problems of the divorced population are being addressed in books, but evangelical books seem weak when compared with secular writing. Often they do little more than decry the problem, but say little that is positive. For example, Harold Smith wrote A Part of Me Is Missing largely out of reaction to Morton and Bernice Hunt’s The Divorce Experience, where they suggest that those singles who do not express their sexuality are abnormal, possibly even mentally ill. Based on both a questionnaire he shared with many singles and his own experience. Smith writes with insight and clarity about the problems a Christian faces and the ways in which many Christians are responding. He is alarmed that many Christian singles are expressing themselves sexually yet feel no serious conflict between what they are doing and their Christian commitment. He proposes to deal with this by showing how a Christian can cope with his/her sexuality—but his solution is almost as good as saying, “Go take a cold shower.” Smith breaks new ground by addressing directly the problem of sexuality among the Christian singles population, but he gives no solid answers to the questions they pose. Stay pure—yes, we all agree!—but the question that needs to be answered is, “How?” But Smith should be read. No Christian writer to date has described with such clarity the sexual problems and responses of Christian singles.

In the past, books on divorce have had little to say about forgiveness. Divorce, if not on acceptable grounds, appeared to put a person into a sort of limbo where no one quite knew how to react. Little by little changes are taking place. Robert Plekker, a layman, analyzes the biblical teaching on divorce in Divorce and the Christian: What the Bible Teaches, and comes to some conclusions that could have been drawn almost directly from John Murray’s classic, Divorce. Nonetheless, he goes beyond Murray and presents an excellent chapter on restoring the fallen Christian to fellowship in the church. He also speaks pointedly and compassionately on the matter of church discipline, not excluding the possibility of public confession as an aspect of restoration.

However, Plekker could have strengthened his case by dealing with divorce within the context of a theology of marriage. Unless one’s teaching about divorce is set firmly into the biblical teaching about marriage, unless it proclaims with God that man’s aloneness is not good (Gen. 2:18), and that people should get married rather than commit fornication (1 Cor. 7:1–6), it is easy to overlook the complexity of the subject.

The extent of forgiveness available to the divorced is described in Les Woodson’s Divorce and the Gospel of Grace. The author takes a nontraditional approach to divorce that is becoming increasingly popular among evangelicals. God’s will for marriage is permanence, but as with other standards God establishes, we often fall short. When we do, because we are his children we need not fear permanent condemnation, but we should turn to him seeking forgiveness. When we do, God will forgive us completely, which means the past is wiped clean, and we are given a chance to begin again.

In order to establish his position biblically, however, Woodson denies that the exceptive clauses in Matthew came from Jesus, claiming rather that they were scribal additions. If this position is going to stand it will have to stand apart from removing certain portions of Scripture when there is no evidence of textual corruption. This book has many practical suggestions, but is unfortunately too short to be of any great help.

Divorce is becoming a difficulty for ministers as well, and there are special problems the pastor faces. Mary LaGrand Bouma, in Divorce in the Parsonage, portrays a number of these, based on approximately 200 interviews she conducted with ministers and ministers’ wives. The book is heavily laced with quotes and case histories, which make it interesting reading. She places heavy emphasis on the unrealistic demands churches place on their ministers that contribute to divorce, particularly in creating the image that a minister is above or beyond temptation. She speaks pointedly about ministers counseling women alone in the church and doing visitation without their wives. She notes that a minister’s wife has heavy demands placed on her as well, which tend to keep her involved in the work of the church—but work that is entirely different from what occupies her husband.

While the book should be read by all ministers and their wives, it should be read with caution. It appears that only one partner was interviewed in most cases, which gives an unbalanced picture. Many times as I read the book I wondered, “How would the ex-spouse feel about that statement?”

One response to divorce has been the development of singles ministries, as evidenced by Bob and June Vetter’s Jesus Was a Single Adult. Since Bob’s wife had died and June did not marry until into her thirties, each had personal experience as a single on which to draw. There is little that is exceptional about their book, but they do a good job of outlining some of the basic problems singles face. Their chapter on singles and sex provides some answers missing in Smith’s work.

The most well-known singles’ group, Parents Without Partners, more or less brought singles’ work into national prominence. While in no way a Christian organization, it expresses a biblical concern for the “fatherless and widows.” Abbey Press has taken the lectures of Robert DiGiulio, one of the more popular PWP speakers, and put When You Are a Single Parent into book form. Though there is little distinctively Christian (but much that is good) about the book, it has one chapter worth exploring. DiGiulio says the school is one agency that can often give real help to single parents. Teachers and administrators who deal daily with children can quickly detect problems the children might have. The parent who admits to the school his/her divorce (or separated) status and asks for help and understanding will usually get it. A parent isolated in a single-parent household can gain needed perspective in a major area of concern.

Bobbie Reed has written an outstanding book in Stepfamilies: Living in Christian Harmony. Book jacket promotion is rarely worth much, but Dwight Small’s comment. “If I were to choose one book on stepfamily relationships … this would be my choice.” is well taken. At times Reed is brief to the point of writing in outline style, but she compresses tremendous amounts of material into a small book. She poses excellent questions (sometimes tests) to determine whether marriage involving stepchildren would be wise, faces the major problems confronting stepfamilies, including the problem of money, and other such practical matters. If there is a problem she has missed, I can’t think of it.

A Healing Ministry?

Christian Healing Rediscovered, by Roy Lawrence (InterVarsity, 1980, 133 pp., $3.95), is reviewed by Nils C. Friberg, associate professor of pastoral care, Bethel Theological Seminary, Saint Paul, Minnesota.

This book arose out of the study leave of a Church of England pastor and the resultant teaching and practice in two successive parishes. Less than three years passed before he published one small book in 1976; another followed in 1979, and IVCF put them together.

Lawrence insists that this is a beginner’s manual, written by a beginner. He soon loses his tentativeness, however. He urges his reader to believe that if healing can happen under a pastor who doesn’t even claim a special gift, it ought to be happening across the Christian church. He asserts that this is “an idea whose time has come.”

One cannot but admire his open, expectant attitude toward the work of God. Lawrence invites people who come to his church to receive this divine operation in every area of their lives, and continuously throughout their spiritual pilgrimage. Reconciliation with God and other people lie at the heart of all healing; this is made possible by the creative energies of the Father, the saving mercies of the Son (healing in the Atonement?), and the life-giving power of the Holy Spirit.

In support of Lawrence, his Christian holism makes laudable use of prayer and meditation on pertinent doctrinal ideas that promise imbuement of health. His work is quietly reverent and without public fanfare except for an initial campaign with George Bennett, whose practice and ideas have powerfully influenced him.

At times he works with medical people, and presents no dogmatic or competitive challenge to them. But though some cases are checked out by medical consultations, the reader is left to imagine whether or not the sudden breaking of a fever or perhaps a temporary remission of multiple sclerosis are strictly miraculous healing or medically explicable. He also neglects dealing with the possible effects of the power of suggestion on some cases.

Lawrence’s pragmatic approach needs a surer foundation in biblical hermeneutics. For example, he fails to explain whether there might not be any uniqueness to the healing miracles by Jesus the Messiah, as compared with gifts and their effects on the church in later days.

For many of us, there remains constantly the critical issue of balancing openness to the work of God in every area of our lives with careful research into the genuineness of our data. In spite of its shortcomings, Lawrence’s book is an excellent attempt to join these two.

Theology For Children

A Theology for Children, by William L. Hendricks (Broadman, 1980, 269 pp., $7.50), is reviewed by Rudy Antle, director, Denver Baptist Campus Ministries, Denver, Colorado.

How can a parent, pastor, or Sunday school teacher help children understand Christian theology? What can be done with the complicated language, thought forms, and models for communication that theologians generally use?

Hendricks, a professor of theology and philosophy at Golden Gate Baptist Seminary in San Francisco, has bridged the gap well. He has “used the games, learning experiences and larger dimensions of the imaginative world of children as a setting for a theology written on their behalf.”

This is a book for those who work with children. Hendricks’s intended readers are not children themselves, but those who stand as mediators between books and children. Employing such experiences as learning to write, using capital letters, and writing within the lines, Hendricks tells how a child can understand Creation, Providence, and even the existence of evil.

Miracles, often a controversial subject, are an excellent example of the way Hendricks shows how Bible study, common sense, and creativity can achieve the balance necessary to avoid the error of extremes in either direction. He calls them “special letters” (like the large, artistic letters in ancient manuscripts).

Speaking of miracles in this way, he says, “Children need to know that when God writes with a special pen he fits that writing into his larger purpose.… When children see that the special signs of God point to what God is finally going to accomplish, they will have a reinforced sense of his purpose.”

Hendricks is a Baptist, so the book is written from a Baptist perspective. Yet it treats other points of view with respect. His broad background of dialogue and interaction with other faiths is reflected in Hendricks’s desire to help children understand differences between faiths while they accept and love the people of other faiths.

Several typographical errors escaped the editor’s eye. They are a distraction in what is otherwise a superb book.

Whether intended or not, A Theology for Children has a serendipitous side effect. It communicates theology to adults—adults who will never study theology in a seminary class. And for those who have studied under Hendricks (or other able professors), the pile of systematic theology notes on the bottom shelf of the library will suddenly come alive.

The Tabernacle For Today

God Dwells with His People, by Paul M. Zehr (Herald Press, 1981, 232 pp., U.S. $7.95, Canada $9.20), is reviewed by R. K. Harrison, Wycliffe College, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.

In past centuries many authors have written about the Hebrew tabernacle in an attempt to understand its place in the life and worship of the Wilderness and Settlement periods. Christian expositors were also at pains to interpret the various New Testament tabernacle references, especially where they related to the atoning work of Christ.

Paul M. Zehr is well qualified to write oh this subject, having been involved for a decade in a tourist ministry in Florida and Pennsylvania centered on teaching in connnection with models of the tabernacle. His book is thus a comprehensive study of the nature, structure, and history of the Hebrew tabernacle, for which he has utilized the available resources of scholarship. He accepts the antiquity of the Pentateuchal narratives relating to the tabernacle, and has little patience with the attempts of Well-hausen to reconstruct Hebrew history so as to make the tabernacle a late rather than an early phenomenon.

The book describes the setting of the tabernacle, which is followed by a thoughtful examination of each component. The nature and place of the priesthood receives careful attention, and this leads naturally into a consideration of Christ as the Word tabernacled among us, and his work as the institutor of a new covenant community.

The author is anxious to stress the meaning of the historical tabernacle for Israel, and also to avoid extremes in typological interpretation. His views on the latter are set out in two appendixes to the book, which make plain his rejection of all allegorism and extreme typology. The book is marked by a profound sensitivity to the work of Christ, our Great High Priest, and forms an excellent study on the nature and significance of the tabernacle.

Why Should I Believe?

Reason Enough: A Case for the Christian Faith, by Clark H. Pinnock (InterVarsity, 1980, 126 pp., $3.50 pb); Evidence That Demands a Verdict: Historical Evidences for the Christian Faith, revised edition, by Josh McDowell (Here’s Life Publishers, 1979, 387 pp., $5.95 pb), are reviewed by Robert K. Johnston, visiting professor of theology, New College, Berkeley, California.

Both of these volumes have in some ways a similar intention: to argue that the Christian message is a solid truth claim that can be tested. It would be difficult, however, to find two more diverse samples of evangelical apologetics than these books. Even the titles reflect the difference. The one seeks to build for the non-Christian reader a case for the Christian faith that is reasonable enough to risk faith. The other seeks to present for the Christian apologist data and argument so convincing as to demand of others their belief. The one is low-keyed and multifaceted in approach, appealing not only to academic argument, but also to the reader’s sensitivity and common sense. The other is more hard-hitting and singular, presenting in outline form scholarly data and opinion as argued by a profusion of authorities. Pinnock, in his book, seeks to win your confidence; McDowell wants to bowl you and your friends over.

Reason Enough presents briefly and in successive chapters five circles, or strands, of evidence (the existential, the intuitive, the rational, the historical, and the moral) that intertwine and together form a strong defense for the Christian faith. Pinnock’s sources are far-ranging, from literature to philosophy, biblical studies to motion pictures. He begins his discussion with experiential concerns, seeking a bridge to his readers. Only then does he move on to present philosophical reasonings and historical evidences. Even here, the focus on his contemporary secular audience is evident. Proofs of God’s existence are popularized and updated and modern historical sensibility concerning Jesus’ life is noted. Pinnock ends his presentation with a discussion of the problem of doubt, whether created through spurious means (e.g., Marx’s attack on religion, or the battle over evolution), or through real issues (e.g., the problem of evil).

Pinnock’s book will prove a useful alternative to C. S. Lewis’s Mere Christianity,the book you give to that thoughtful, non-Christian who is willing to explore the relevance of the Christian faith. At times the jargon is distracting (Do we still want to label everything according to “isms”?); at times the argument too brief. But more times than not the point is made.

McDowell’s focus, in contrast with Pinnock’s, is more narrow, limited to presenting historical evidence for the trustworthiness of Scripture and the divinity of Jesus. Only at the end are other forms of argument used as McDowell provides his readers with the personal testimonies of 58 people, with successful or unusual lives, for whom Jesus is Lord. McDowell’s stated goal is to provide resources for Christians to use as they “write term papers, give speeches, and inject into classroom dialogues their convictions about Christ, the Scriptures and the relevancy of Christianity in the 20th century.” Toward that end, literally thousands of quotations from a wide variety of sources are presented in outline form.

Flaws continue to plague Evidence That Demands a Verdict, even in this updated and expanded version. (The revision is actually minor with relatively few additional sources noted and no alteration in the detailed outline or argument.) First, McDowell does not differentiate between the value of his various quotations or quoted authorities. The reader is left to pick and choose from sources, some current, some out of date; some significant, some marginal. For example, is it important to his argument that the Bible was the first religious book taken into outer space? Should we still use Garstang (1931) on the excavations of Jericho?

Second, McDowell refuses to make even selective use of biblical higher criticism. The result is a certain anachronistic and doctrinaire quality to the presentation that undercuts its scholarly intention.

Third, there is a certain smugness in the volume that needs to be softened by those who use its contents. One senses, rightly or not, that the author believes all non-Christians (and at times non-Protestants) to be irrational and proud.

In spite of this, however, McDowell’s volume will continue to provide thousands of Christians with information useful to their faith and witness. The presentation on biblical lower criticism is helpful, for example, as is the compendium of arguments related to the Resurrection.

BRIEFLY NOTED

Women. What the Bible says about women is a subject that continues to exercise Christians. Stephen B. Clark has addressed the problem directly in Man and Woman in Christ (Servant); it is probably the best book yet written on the subject. Taking a traditionalist view is Women and the Word of God (Presbyterian and Reformed), by Susan T. Foh. More advanced though not extreme views are in: A New Testament View of Woman (Broadman), by Shirley Stephens; Speaking Out for Women: A Biblical View (Judson), by Philip Siddons; and Women and Ministry in the New Testament (Paulist), by Elizabeth M. Tetlow.

Helpful books continue to be written about women in ministry. The following have recently appeared from various points of view: Women in Neighborhood Evangelism (Gospel Publishing House), by Marjorie Stewart; Women in Ministry Today (Logos), by Helen Beard; Women in a Men’s Church (Seabury/T. & T. Clark), edited by Virgil Elizondo and Norbert Greinacher; Women, Change, and the Church (Abingdon), edited by Ezra Earl Jones; Your Daughters Shall Prophesy: Feminist Alternatives in Theological Education (Pilgrim), by The Cornwall Collective; and Every Woman Has a Ministry (New Leaf), by Regina Lambert.

More historical and biographical are the following: Feminine Spirituality in America: From Sarah Edwards to Martha Graham (Temple University Press), by Amanda Porterfield; Women of Spirit: Female Leadership in the Jewish and Christian Traditions (Simon & Schuster), by Rosemary Ruether and Eleanor McLaughlin; Great Women of Faith: The Strength and Influence of Christian Women (Baker), by Nancy A. Hardesty; and Why Doesn’t Somebody Do Something? (Victor), by Daisy Hepburn. These are all helpful books that fill in the gaps of our understanding as to what place women have actually played in the course of the church’s life.

Take Back the Night (Morrow/Quill), edited by Laura Lederer, is a book of readings by women on pornography.

A bit hard to classify but dealing with the general subject of being a woman are: Afternoon: For Women at the Heart of Life (Nelson), by Jeanne Hendricks, dealing with growing older; Woman (Revell), by Dale Evans Rogers, a personal testimony of sorts; I Am a Woman by God’s Design (Revell), by Beverly LaHaye, about the godly woman in the home; In Praise of Women (Harper & Row), by Robin and John W. Drakeford, a Christian approach to love, marriage, and equality; Simple Talks for Special Days (Word), by Marion Prather Hays, 16 devotional messages for women’s groups and personal reflection; and The Wise Woman (Broadman), by Joyce Rogers, which gives sound, practical advice on how to be “one in a thousand.”

The Revolt of the Widows (Southern Ill. Univ.), by Stevan L. Davies, argues that women’s liberation is not a modern movement, but actually began in second-century Christianity. The Feminine in Jungian Psychology and in Christian Theology (Northwestern Univ.), by Ann Belford Manor, attempts to bring these two systems into meaningful conformity.

The Pope. A careful study of recent Catholicism is The Utopia of Pope John XXIII (Orbis), by G. Zizola.

Two biographies of the current Pope are: The People’s Pope (Chronicle, 870 Market St., San Francisco, Calif.), by James Oram, and Pope John Paul II (Dell), by George Blazynski. A deeply spiritual collection of meditations by Pope John Paul II is Sign of Contradiction (Seabury).

Three well-written and nicely illustrated accounts of the Pope’s recent travels are: John Paul II in Mexico: His Collected Speeches (Collins); John Paul II “Pilgrimage of Faith” (Seabury), edited by the National Catholic News Service; and The Pilgrim Pope: A Man for All People (Our Sunday Visitor/Shepherd Press), by Francis X. Murphy.

An attempt to evaluate the sometimes paradoxical actions and statements of John Paul II is The Man Who Leads the Church (Harper & Row), by John Whale, Petter Hebblethwaite, et al.

Christian symbols that lose their objective reference will lose their emotional content as well.

Back around 1800 something began to happen in the graphic arts. It had to do not with atheism and unbelief (though there was plenty of that) but also, and more importantly, with the relation between God and the world. The former challenge was open and direct; the latter was more subtle and therefore more dangerous. We are seldom aware how closely the fate of Christianity is tied to our conception of the world.

Around 1800 principles that had made it possible to see the world as a unity were being given up. The seventeenth-century Dutch painters had looked out on an integrated landscape because they believed it was the good creation of God. Even the classical landscape painters of the eighteenth century believed the principles of reason were universal and so the world could be understood as ordered. But these principles were being given up. The romantic movement in one sense thus represents a final attempt to see the world whole and to find divine meaning in it.

Caspar David Friedrich (1774–1840), was a painter at the center of these developments. (Virtually none of his work exists in American collections—his dark, brooding landscapes did not appeal to our got-the-world-on-a-string collectors.) Born in the small Pomeranian seaport of Greifswald, Friedrich studied in Copenhagen and in Dresden, where he finally settled. He is best known for his landscapes, which, though in the classical tradition, could almost be called existential in their impact.

Friedrich grew up in the home of devout Protestants. But he learned his natural science from Ludwig Kosegarten, a pastor who was his first drawing master. God was to be sought in nature, Kosegarten urged; that is Christ’s bible. It was the contact with his beloved northern landscape that was Friedrich’s inspiration throughout his life.

But the young painter soon learned that one does not simply go to nature and paint what is there. He believed the one who does so will not really “see” what is there. No, artists must begin within themselves. He put it: “Artists should not only paint what they see before themselves, but also what they feel inside themselves. If they see nothing inside they should give up painting what they see outside. Otherwise these objects will become like folding screens behind which one may find someone sick or even dead” (S. Hinz, Friedrich in Briefen).

If one looks at the world as penetrated with the spirituality the artist sees within, nature will become an image of human feelings. The world will be pervaded by the artist’s spiritual vision and yield symbols of this inner reality. The impact Friedrich sought in his landscapes is spiritual. Figures often appear alone or in small groups, their backs to the viewer, lost in contemplation. Mist and fog often cover the distant reaches; only the rays of the sun suggest the light of hope. He sought to express a single pervasive feeling, and thus his pictures are better seen as parables than allegories.

Friedrich seriously wished to preserve and express a faith in God in his work. He believed that God, though separate from the world, can be experienced in and through the world. Nature could be a symbol, if not an incarnation, of God—Friedrich was no pantheist. Like his contemporary, the theologian Schleiermacher, Friedrich believed the reality of God could be felt in our experience of the unconditioned in nature. Perhaps because he saw the world in a Christian framework, he responded to nature in Christian metaphors; for his generation, Christianity was still a part of the artist’s imagination.

The Cross in the Mountains (also called the Tetschener Altar: 1807–08), for example, shows his integration of Christian symbols into his landscapes. The painting, made for an altar piece in a private chapel, identifies the confrontation of nature with Christian experience. Friedrich’s own interpretation reveals a subjective response of faith rather than a concrete credo:

“Jesus Christ, nailed to the tree, is turned here towards the sinking sun, the image of the eternal life-giving father. With Jesus’ teaching an old world dies—that time when God the Father moved directly on the earth. This sun sank and the earth was not able to grasp the departing light any longer. There shines forth in the gold of the evening light the purest, noblest metal of the Savior’s glow. The cross stands erected on a rock, unshakably firm like our faith in Jesus Christ. The firs stand around the evergreen, enduring through all ages, like the hopes of man in Him, the crucified” (Tate Gallery Catalogue, 1972).

The picture met with a mixed response. One critic wondered whether the harmony of planes and colors of Lorraine or Ruisdael could properly be replaced by a single rock! Friedrich’s response defended the rights of the artist in an almost modern way: an artist must paint what he intuits of the spiritual striving of the world; art is not a crutch: the artist must walk on his own two feet.

The relation between Christian iconography and landscape is pursued further in Morning in Riesengebirge (1810–11). Here a woman standing at the foot of a cross reaches down to pull up the man below her. Friedrich’s use of picture planes to portray levels of reality is evident. Below lie the mountains, confined and angular; above is the pure, immeasurable light of the sky. The one expresses the uncertainty of life, the other the hope of eternity. Between the two stands the cross. But that the theology is more romantic than Christian appears in the parable enacted by the woman. For the Romantics it was in the experience of human love that we know the love of God. Novalis said: “God himself is only understandable through representation.” Concrete experiences of friendship and love are images of the reality beneath, and so the woman in the picture mediates the reality of Christ, as she reaches down to pull the man up into the light of the redemption morning.

In the light of the sky there is hope; Friedrich believes in immortality. But his hope is mediated in and through natural experiences. The world needs redemption; it often appears barren and lonely. The transience of life is stressed by isolated figures looking into the fading twilight. And Friedrich can use Christian symbols to express confidence in the immortality of the human spirit. But his symbols have become emotional rallying cries, without objective content. In the second picture the cross seems only a fragile straw against the strength of the mountain; the balance between the cross and the world is shifting. God is no longer allowed a literal saving presence in the order of things; his presence is peripheral, oblique, and therefore uncertain.

Having begun within themselves to search for truth, and having settled on the natural world as a proper vehicle of revelation, artists of later generations have found it more difficult than Friedrich to find a place to stand and express their hope. Christian symbols that have lost their objective reference will soon lose their emotional content as well. So modern artists also begin their search within themselves, and seek in the world images of their faith. They, too, believe in an immeasurable infinite beneath all that exists. But they can no longer believe this is God, and so they more often face it with fear than with hope.

WILLIAM A. DYRNESS¹Dr. Dyrness is professor of theology at Asian Theological Seminary in Quezon City, Philippines.

The men in our churches who are unequally yoked encounter most of the same problems as their female counterparts. However, since generally there are fewer of them, they are overlooked in the total ministry of the church, and they may not be as readily accepted as are women with non-Christian husbands. Since it is more common for women to attend services and meetings alone, unequally yoked men often feel even more out of place than unequally yoked women.

The Christian husband’s attitude toward the complex issue of submission is usually different. Although his wife does not acknowledge Christ’s lordship, he is still the spiritual leader of his family. A Christian woman who is married to an unbeliever is forced to assume that responsibility by default. Again, because of different role perceptions, the husband may not feel obliged to maintain a “silent witness.” But neither can he make his wife accept Christ. He must do all he can to live with his wife in an understanding way and love her as devotedly and sacrificially as Christ loved the church. That is his best witness.

One of the great concerns of men in this situation is the effect their wives’ unbelief has upon the children. There is much truth in the old adage that the hand that rocks the cradle rules the world. Even if a mother is employed full-time, she still has a significant effect on her children, especially in the formative early years. Unequally yoked fathers find that parenting, when they have no spiritual support from their wives, is extremely difficult.

They find it difficult to motivate children to want to attend church when mother doesn’t go and doesn’t care if the family goes. Although the Christian father is the spiritual head of his family, the mother in many cases is the motivator, the planner of activities, and she sets the emotional environment in the home. If she balks at church, or is disinterested in it, so, too, are the children.

Sunday school teachers can help meet this need. The teacher’s concern for the children can counterbalance such negativism at home. She can legitimately call on non-Christian mothers and cultivate their friendship, based on her association with the children.

Another area where unequally yoked men face problems relates to positions of church leadership. Some churches interpret 1 Timothy 3:4, 12 to mean that if a man has an unsaved wife, he isn’t managing his own household as he ought, and therefore he should not be allowed to hold a leadership position in the body. This frustrates gifted Christian men. Further, those who are permitted to hold office sometimes face awkward social circumstances, when boards or teaching staffs have husband/wife retreats, dinners, or prayer meetings. And, of course, wives with no interest in church affairs resent the time their husbands invest in the church.

These Christian men can be given opportunities to serve in ways that are geared to their unique situations. For example, if they are not allowed to serve on official boards, they could serve in an advisory capacity. It would not be contrary to Scripture for them to teach Sunday school or do evangelism or outreach work. As for women, special meetings could be structured for men, and their wives should be included in the social functions sponsored by the women’s group. The primary goal should be to undergird them and do whatever possible in order to compensate for the needs in their lives.

Speaking to problems of the unequally yoked

One of the favorite events at the Little League picnic was a father and son three-legged race. Tall, bony men had their legs tied to those of short, cubby nine-year-olds. Heavyset dads were hitched to their wiry sons. When “Get on your mark, get set, go!” resounded in the park, people on the sidelines laughed so hard they cried.

It was funny because fathers and sons were linked together despite the fact that they were mismatched in size, stamina, and capability. The first thing each pair did when they either dropped out or crossed the finish line was untie the cord that bound them at their ankles and knees. Would any of them have considered staying tied together for the rest of their lives? Despite their fun, it was obvious that the men and boys had been uncomfortable when they were harnessed to one another.

To be permanently unequally yoked: that is the plight of Christians who are married to unbelievers. United in a permanent marriage union with a mate who is not spiritually their equal, they are burdened with an overload of spiritual responsibility. They face the tremendous task of living holy, exemplary lives with someone who shares neither their joy of salvation nor their basic purpose for living.

Such “unequal yokes” happen to Christians in at least four ways. The first is the most common: two unbelievers marry and one of them subsequently comes to faith in Christ; there is no disobedience involved.

The second way a Christian can become unequally yoked is to marry a non-Christian, thinking the mate is a believer when in fact he or she is not. Sometimes unbelievers will purposely pretend to confess Christ to get the person they want to marry. Many give outward evidence of conversion, and they go to church and even read the Bible.

A third way to become unequally yoked arises out of ignorance of biblical principles. Some people have never been taught not to marry someone who does not profess and live by faith in Jesus Christ.

Fourth, some Christians become unequally yoked because they willfully disobey the apostle Paul’s injunction in 2 Corinthians 6:14: “Do not be bound together with unbelievers …” (NASB).

However she arrived there, one of the most difficult situations a Christian woman ever faces is that of being unequally yoked. (Since the typical church includes many more women then men who are married to non-Christians, the focus of this article will be on ministering to them, although we do include a brief addendum listing some applications for husbands.—Eds.).

Such a woman is in a hard, sometimes heartbreaking position. She is supposed to live according to Scripture and be a helpmeet and submissive wife. At the same time she carries the burden of knowing her husband is neither spiritually awakened nor secure for eternity. She and her husband may differ sharply over what their lifestyle should be. Many women in this situation feel hopeless, and sometimes they are neglected by the church.

But the burden is not theirs alone. It belongs also to the church. “We, who are many, are one body in Christ, and individually members one of another” (Rom. 12:5). So, the problems faced by unequally yoked wives become corporate problems. Because we are to “bear one another’s burdens …” (Gal. 6:5), we must be sensitive to these women. Pastors, counselors, and lay people must understand their distinctive difficulties and develop ways to meet their needs.

An unequally yoked wife feels different from other Christian wives. She hurts because many church activities are planned for couples. She’s the one whose husband won’t come with her to the Wednesday night pot-luck, the Christmas cantata, or the Sunday school program. She feels left out—and is sometimes actually exeluded—because so many church events do center on husbands and wives. Church leaders need to remember this when they make plans.

Another problem is their husbands’ jealousy, not of other men, but of Christ. Because the unsaved husband has no allegiance to Christ, he cannot understand his wife’s commitment to him, and he may deeply resent the time she devotes to her Christian responsibility.

Yet churches sometimes inadvertently pressure these women to get more involved with activities that cut down the amount of time they spend with their husbands—and thus aggravate the problem. There is a difference between time with God and time spent at church. The church needs to fit into the extraordinary circumstances of their lives, rather than expect them to fit into all the programs.

Unequally yoked women do not have the usual freedom of time and movement. Many of them cannot attend church regularly, nor take regular ministry assignments; yet we must use them. Rather than exclude them, church leaders can provide opportunities for them to minister in ways that suit their limitations. Many unbelieving husbands don’t want their wives going to church during the weekend. But since it is easier for these women to be involved during the week, churches can schedule classes and activities during those days and thus not infringe on the time they must devote to their unbelieving mates.

One church prints an outline of the pastor’s Sunday sermon and provides a “tape” class of his message during the week for women who cannot get to Sunday services. Once a quarter the pastor serves Communion to them.

Several churches involve these women in volunteer work, such as record keeping and phoning, which they can do in their homes. One woman, a gifted counselor, is appointment secretary and screener for a staff counselor. She interviews people who call for help, sets up appointments, and personally disciples many women with problems whom the pastor refers to her. She does this at home, and in no way neglects her husband for the church.

The sexual relationship is also a problem to many unequally yoked wives. Several years ago, when I was teaching a Bible study on the topic of sex within marriage, a woman asked, “I’m married to an unbeliever. Neither of us were Christians when we were married. I came to Christ and my husband hasn’t. Although I love him very much, I feel guilty every time we have intercourse, because I’m plagued by the idea that I’m joining a child of Satan with a child of God. This has really decreased my enjoyment. What should I do?”

Unequally yoked wives crave assurance that their marriages are looked upon by God with favor. The apostle Paul affirmed the sanctity of such a union (1 Cor. 7), but many Christian women are ignorant of that fact. Scriptural knowledge and practical advice are most helpful, so they can be free to enjoy full, meaningful sexual relationships with their husbands.

Almost all unequally yoked wives agree that their greatest heartache is the spiritual need of their husbands. Because of their concern, it is easy for Christian wives to dwell on their husbands’ unbelief to such an extent that they overstep the scriptural formula for winning them without a word. In desperation they may start “preaching,” judging them, or putting pressure on their husbands to behave differently, or to go to church. Ultimately, they may feel they are responsible to save them.

Pastors, counselors, teachers, and friends can help these women change from a negative focus to positive deeds of godliness and be the wives God wants them to be. Unequally yoked wives can be encouraged to live in the present, to make the most of their marriages as they are—and not wait in limbo for their husbands to receive Christ. At the same time, prayer and faith can be developed in dependence on the Holy Spirit. Practical knowledge of Scripture is indispensable.

Another serious problem is the verbal and physical abuse unequally yoked wives often suffer. What should her pastor tell her? Does God expect them to tolerate vicious belittlement? Is it contrary to mutual submission to refuse to put up with continual mistreatment?

There are some guidelines to follow. If a woman or her children are in physical danger, she should be told to move out—not to get a separation or a divorce, but to survive. She should work out a plan to avert an attack, or to escape if one occurs. Someone from the church can be assigned to her, whom she can use as a “crisis hotline” and call upon for help at any hour of the day or night.

In cases of verbal abuse, which can be just as debilitating as physical attacks, the best answer is no answer. In cases of severe, ongoing abuse, a temporary separation may be necessary, to decrease the danger and to start emotional healing. Many women stay because they think they have done something wrong and hope to make it right, but this rarely works. Regardless of the cause of conflict, the wife doesn’t have to be a punching bag. Women in such circumstances need expert counseling and should be encouraged to get it. They must rebuild their self-esteem and sort through their guilt and remorse.

A significant dilemma in a Christian/non-Christian marriage is the lack of a spiritual leader in the home. Of course, many non-Christians make good husbands, but the issue here is between husband and wife. No matter how many Christian friends she has, the unequally yoked wife suffers spiritually because her husband does not nourish and cherish her as Christ does the church (Eph. 5:29).

How can local church leaders help such women? First, know who they are, and second, develop a ministry of encouragement to them. It helps greatly if they have at least one close friend of the same sex who can be a spiritual helper and sustainer: a prayer partner, someone they can sit with in church, someone to study the Bible with and to go to for advice.

In some churches, upwards of 25 percent of those who attend are married to unconverted mates, yet few churches do anything specific for them in terms of either fellowship or instruction. To meet this need, pastors and lay leaders can start a ministry to the unequally yoked. Poll the congregation and find out who are unequally yoked, what their personal needs are, and then get their suggestions about how the church can help.

There are many approaches; here is one that has been successful. Five women in the church (with permission) formed a planning committee to see what could be done: a single girl, two unequally yoked women, and two who were not. They brainstormed together and built on ideas from other churches. They did not want to segregate the unequally yoked women from regular Bible studies or church activities, so they decided a monthly meeting would be sufficient, with special functions like potluck dinners, theater parties, beach trips, or ball games, arranged intermittently, to include husbands whenever possible.

Meetings are open to any Christian woman who is married to an unbeliever. Since many women work, they chose a week night, and they keep to a rigid 7 to 9 P.M. limit. Husbands thus are less likely to complain about their wives being out long hours at church activities. They also offer child care, so husbands are not saddled with baby-sitting.

Different individuals speak each month on topics based on the special needs of the group. A sponsor’s committee selects topics, arranges for speakers, mails notices, takes attendance, keeps a roster of members, and sets up book and tape lending libraries. They also conduct the meetings and, along with volunteers from the class, plan the supplementary husband/wife social activities. Speakers include women Bible teachers, pastors, women who have been unequally yoked or still are, and people from other churches who have expertise in a specific area of interest to the unequally yoked.

The special ministry to the unequally yoked has many purposes. It provides a setting where women can share and interact with Christians of like circumstances. It serves the unique needs of unequally yoked wives. It offers a forum for biblical instruction. From Scripture these women can be taught how to be “First Peter Three wives”—how to understand their roles and spiritual responsibilities, and how to apply biblical principles to their own situations. Counselors and friends are available to give advice about problems. And, of course, this ministry becomes a source of prayer support.

Another important purpose of the ministry is outreach when the unequally yoked group becomes a basis for social functions that include unsaved husbands. As long as they are not made special targets for preaching or public prayers on these occasions, many men are willing to come. Frequently their association with believers ultimately leads them to a personal knowledge of Christ.

To avoid any possible misunderstandings, the unequally yoked group should be approached as part of the total ministry of the church in the same way churches approach ministries to other specialized groups, such as singles, single parents, drug users, divorcees, the elderly, and so on. This ministry is not to be structured so as to take the place of any ongoing ministry, but rather as an additional, special support system for people with a particular problem.

One potential problem is that unless the church is extremely careful in the way the classes and ministry to the unequally yoked are publicized, some unsaved husbands might be offended. Leaders must stress that the term “unequally yoked” should never be used publicly where a non-Christian mate could learn of it.

Another possible pitfall is that the class or ministry takes on a negative tone. Women must be taught to be positive about their situations.

Specifically, the purposes of such a group would be: (1) to see that the needs of the unequally yoked woman are met; (2) to direct her attention toward Jesus Christ and his plan for her life and away from her problems; (3) to provide an environment where she can express herself, without embarrassment, with women of like circumstances.

As these objectives are met and as unequally yoked wives deepen their commitment to Christ, they will feel more a part of his body, and share, grow, and learn together. Changes for the better do take place. As wives develop godly attitudes and learn techniques for improved husband-wife relationships, the Holy Spirit woos and wins their mates to the Lord.

If this is not happening often in local churches, it is perhaps because no one knows the depth of the burdens and the singular problems of unequally yoked wives. A special ministry could be the answer to many of their difficulties. It could make the difference between whether some of their husbands are lost or saved.

You see the rule of obedience? Well, hear also the rule of love. Do you wish your wife to obey you, as the church obeys Christ? Then take care for her, as Christ did for the church. And even if you must give your life for her, or be cut in a thousand pieces, or whatever you must undergo and suffer, shrink not from it. And even if you suffer all this, you have not yet done anything that Christ did. For you do this being already joined in marriage to her, but he suffered for a bride who rejected and hated him. As then he brought to his feet her who rejected him and hated him and scorned him and despised him, with wonderful care and affection, not with terror, not with threats, nor with anything of the sort; so do you towards your wife. If you see her despising you, scorning you, treating you with contempt, you can bring her to your feet by spending care on her, love, and kindness. No bonds are more despotic than these, and especially between man and wife. A slave a man may perhaps bind by terror; but nay, not even him, for he soon will escape and be free. But the partner of your life, the mother of your children, the subject of all your joy, you ought to bind not by terror and threats, but by love and gentle consideration.

JOHN CHRYSOSTOM (345?–407). on Ephesians 5:25

One of the fathers of the Greek church, Chrysostom was Patriarch of Constantinople (398–404).

No woman was ever more independent than I. Until my marriage I had a good job and enjoyed a carefree life that centered on good clothes and the ownership of a car. Even though I was a Christian and could have talked about the lordship of Christ, I really didn’t know what it meant. (In fact, I have learned that I really don’t know any verse of Scripture until I have lived it.)

When, at 27, I was married to Russell Hitt and moved from Detroit to Chicago, I couldn’t wait to get back to work again. In less than a month I had found a new job in an advertising agency. But when children came, I was soon trapped (so I thought) in the less glamorous chores of washing diapers and preparing formulas. Back in my mind there always lurked the hope I’d be freed from these humdrum tasks and would return to a real job. If anyone at that juncture had suggested that women are to be “keepers of the home,” I’m sure I’d have flared up and argued that the four walls of home were making me a prisoner. (Don’t quote verses to me.)

About this time I was also challenged by another possibility—hosting a neighborhood Bible class. At first I argued with God about this, but slowly, ever so slowly, I began to submit to this opportunity. One New Year’s Eve, I surrendered with these words, “Lord, if you don’t want me to have a job, then I don’t want one. And if you want me to start this neighborhood Bible class, then that’s what I want.”

My obedience to God did not include submission to my husband. I did not tell him about my spiritual struggle. I knew he wasn’t eager for me to take a job. But it was enough to give in to God without giving in to Russell, too!

As I look back on that experience, I realize that I was beginning to comprehend the principle of submission—both to the Lord and to my husband. It opened up new vistas of freedom for me and a life of fulfillment.

I recognize that economic necessity forces many wives to seek employment these days. I am sure God knows all about such situations. But for me it was important to follow the course I took. We have never lacked the necessities of life with only one breadwinner for the household. Maybe after 42 years of marriage I have mellowed a little, too—not quite so independent.

Just last summer while we were vacationing in New England, the ongoing truth of submission was illustrated. One of the glass apothecary jars of a kitchen set used to store flour, sugar, coffee, and tea had cracked. The jagged edges of the cracked coffee jar became a real hazard. Russell said: “Lillian, you need to replace that jar.” I thought to myself: “And where do you expect me to find one of those when kitchen accessories now are all modern?”

My only hope was that I might find one in an antique shop somewhere. As we drove through the delightful Connecticut countryside, there were dozens of signs that proclaimed “antiques.” But Russell—as though he hadn’t heard me—pressed harder on the accelerator. (Oh well, maybe Russell will cut his hand on the old jar.)

One day when we stopped in Boothbay Village, Maine, to pick up a New York Times, I saw a sign announcing a bam sale. To my surprise, my husband said, “Why don’t you go and look. I’ll get my paper and meet you there later.”

I rushed into the bam and—would you believe it?—there was my apothecary jar on a table not ten feet from the door. Just one jar—not the flour, sugar, or tea size—but the coffee jar I needed. And only $2.00!

Without arguing about the theology of submission and headship or whether Russell was right or wrong about speeding by the antique shops, I learned and lived another lesson in that small incident.

I wonder how many adventures like that one I’ve missed because of my independent spirit. At least for once I had submitted and experienced the full and rich life God can give when we do it his way.

LILLIAN HITT¹Mrs. Hitt is a homemaker and Bible teacher from Merion Station, Pennsylvania.

For biblical leadership to work properly in the family, the husband must be willing to take the leadership and the wife must be willing to let him have it. My husband Hale is an easy person for me to yield to as head of our home. He exemplifies the gentleness, goodness, and humility of Christ. While it hasn’t always been easy for me to agree with his decisions, he has not been a heavy-handed authority figure handing down ultimatums. This is how I have responded to his headship.

Hale and I have varying tastes in music, literature, hobbies, home decorating—and even in Christmas trees. He doesn’t like Christmas trees, and wouldn’t care if we never put one up. My family always had real trees that scraped the ceiling and filled the house with their fragrance. The conflict came when we were given an artificial tree as a wedding present.

For the first several years we had more than just a “discussion” on real versus artificial trees. Finally, my husband said he didn’t want to hear about it any more. So, during some years when the children were temptable babes, we didn’t put up any tree; the rest of the time I have had to be satisfied with an artificial tree, with no mention of a real one at all.

Last Christmas Hale asked me if I would like to have a real tree, since my sister, brother-in-law, and their children would be joining us. As missionaries on board ship, they have no access to any trees—let alone live ones. The incident illustrates that when I have “given up” to his leadership, and been willing to put aside my own desires, he has met me halfway.

Another area of tension has been in raising our children. The hardest decision was whether we should send our daughter to school as a five-year-old or wait, and whether it should be to public or Christian school. Although I agreed in theory with my husband, it was hard for me to send her to public school. I am deeply concerned about humanism, materialism, and undermining of parental authority, and I wanted her “protected” by a loving Christian environment. Hale thinks it is better to let the child be exposed to problems, then deal with them as they arise. So she went to public school; but it took me a few months to get my attitude right.

We try to present a solid front when it comes to discipline. When we take different approaches, we sit down and discuss why our actions aren’t effective. We refer to books to gain insight, and we reach agreement before we finish.

Hale is interested in our home life and is actively involved in making decisions. I am glad he enjoys doing so, even though this brings some differences. For example, we live in an older home that we ourselves have been remodeling. Our tastes and ideas—even in color schemes—are extremely different. Yet this is not my home, but our home. I want him to share in these decisions so he will feel the same way. Sometimes, however, as in the case of the living room ceiling, I am adamant: no acoustical tile! But we talk things over and such a decision usually involves a compromise.

Fortunately, in the realm of finances we rarely disagree. We look at all we have—both money and material possessions—as from the Lord. At the beginning of each new year we plan first where to put our money for the Lord’s work, and then how to budget the rest. We discuss all major purchases and many minor ones.

Concerning Hale’s spiritual leadership, he exercises his headship by showing the family his priorities: family devotions; his daily conversation in the home. Every morning at 6:15 the alarm goes off, and he gets up for his time with the Lord. Sometimes I join him. I want to do it more often, but frequently I wait for “Captain Kangaroo” or our toddler’s nap time. Hale’s example is a constant challenge to me, even though I don’t always rise to the occasion.

I’m glad for my husband’s headship in our home, and for the way he exercises it. I am especially thankful for his relationship to God. I appreciate so much the Lord’s (and my husband’s) patience with me in waiting until my inward attitude matches my outward acquiescence. For myself, I know there is no substitute for the peace and security of having a biblically ordered home.

MOLLY JOHNSON¹Mrs. Johnson, former missionary to Indonesia, now lives in Lancaster, Pennsylvania.

An increasing number of InterVarsity Christian Fellowship girls are saying, “I’m confused about i my role. Magazines say this. Speakers say that. Suppose I get married: what’s a Christian woman supposed to do?” I’d like to respond with a few observations, because I’m worried by what I see, read, and hear. My views are based on Scripture (as best I understand it) and clarified by counsel from my wife, our two married daughters, several IVCF staff wives, and countless college women.

One area causing confusion. I believe, is that of “headship.” In the New Testament the noun “head” occurs 58 times as translated in every instance from the same Greek work: kephale. In 45 of those instances kephale refers to physical anatomy. For example, “the hairs of your kephale are all numbered”; “give me here John Baptist’s kephale …”; “having shorn his kephale in Cenchraea …” (Matt. 10:30; 14:8; Acts 18:18).

In 13 of those occurrences, kephale refers to relationships between persons. For example, “But I want you to understand that the kephale of every man is Christ, the kephale of a woman is her husband, and the kephale of Christ is God”; “… and he has put all things under his feet and has made him the kephale over all things for the church which is his body …”; “rather, speaking the truth in love, we are to grow up in every way into him who is the kephale, into Christ”; “For the husband is the kephale of the wife as Christ is the kephale of the church, his body, and himself its Savior. As the church is subject to Christ, so let wives also be subject in everything to their husbands”; “He is the kephale of the body, the church; he is the beginning, the first-born from the dead, that in everything he might be preeminent”; “And you have come to fulness of life in him who is the kephale of all rule and authority” (1 Cor. 11:3; Eph. 1:22; 4:15; 5:23–24; Col. 1:8; 2:10).

Question: How does the foregoing apply to Christian men and women whom God calls to marry? It seems to me that kephale in those references connotes in part love for, concern for, service to, support of, partnership with, participation with, responsibility for, and so on.

So far so good. Probably all evangelicals would agree up to this point. But that isn’t the whole story. The disagreement comes here: kephale also connotes accountability for and authority over. The first marriage that God established illustrates that fact. After the pair sinned, God did not summon both Adam and Eve to give account as coequals in responsibility. He summoned the husband as if to say, “You are the responsible partner in your marriage, and I am calling you to give account.”

There is more. If God gives children, it is the father whom God holds primarily responsible for the behavior of those children. If they are denied sound training in the home, the father cannot alibi by blaming his wife (see 1 Tim. 3:4).

I believe God’s design is “husband headship”: the husband is to be the kephale of his wife and family and will be held accountable by God for the manner in which he fulfills that headship. We violate that design by deviating to two extremes: distortion and abolition.

“Last summer Mary, a Canadian woman visiting a Christian couple in the U.S., noticed that Sheila, the wife, was uncharacteristically silent. Shortly Mary realized, to her astonishment, that Sheila only spoke when Joe, her husband, gave permission. This he did either verbally or by some nonverbal signal such as a nod of the head. ‘What’s going on?’ Mary asked. ‘We’ve discovered what headship really means,’ Joe replied, ‘and how Sheila must show she is a submissive wife in every way. So I decided I must signal when she can speak. Also, Sheila has cut down almost all her church work so that she can devote herself entirely to being a real woman and wife.’ He added, ‘We want to live out the fullest meaning of the gospel’ ” (HIS magazine, May 1978, p. 17).

Such deviation needs to be corrected. But an overcorrection is not a good correction, and I am sobered at what I see happening in evangelicalism by going to the other extreme.

Second, abolition. God’s design is violated by abolition of “husband headship.” This overcorrection can occur in two forms: “coheadship” and “wife headship.” “Coheadship” is sometimes termed “egalitarian marriage” and is widely advocated in numerous evangelical magazines and books and by many evangelical speakers. Husband and wife are equal in authority for decision making and accountability. Let’s admit that in a healthy marriage neither partner makes all the decisions; responsibilities are delegated within the partnership. The crunch comes when the partners disagree on decisions felt by each to be equally significant. Who decides then? Who is the final authority? Suppose Abraham and Sarah belonged to our modern “coheadship” philosophy? 1 Peter 3:6 indicates (1) she obeyed her husband, and (2) her good example is to be emulated. Looking at Christian marriages around America, my impression is that most “coheadships” (or “egalitarian marriages”) evolve into “veto-power-for-the-wife.” Husbands gradually give in on more and more decisions. I believe that “coheadship” (“egalitarian marriage”) is a mistake. It is an overcorrection.

“Wife headship” is even more extreme. Apparently some marriages from the outset are of this type. In some instances it is the woman’s dominant power grasping the headship. In others, she simply receives it by default as her husband passively abdicates his God-given responsibility. In “wife headship” Eve becomes accountable for Adam. (The most extensive book I know written against the “abolition” philosophy is The Castrated Family, by Dr. Harold Voth [psychiatrist with Menninger Clinic]; Sheed Andrews & McMeel, 1977). In view of the new opinion sweeping our society, it is surprising to me that a publisher would have the courage to publish a book such as Voth’s.

God’s plan moves between those two extremes and calls for a Christ-centered husband and a Christ-centered wife to love, serve, and support each other within an authority structure where Christ is kephale of both of them within his body and husband is kephale within the marriage.

It seems to me the world is conforming us to its mold—pressing an increasing number of Christian marriages into the two extremity traps of distortion. Let’s build our marriages according to God’s plan—and train our students (if God is calling them to marry): instructing them and preparing them for “husband headship” marriages under the kephale of Christ, warning them against the dangers of husband dictatorship on the one hand and the pitfalls of “coheadship” or “wife headship” on the other.

Copyright 1979 by Inter-Varsity Christian Fellowship of the United States of America.

What did the Apostle Paul mean when he wrote, “For the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church, his body” (Eph. 5:23)? And, “The head of every man is Christ, and the head of the woman is man, and the head of Christ is God” (1 Cor. 11:3)?

Discussion about the biblical role for men in church, society, and home is based on these verses. The meaning of these verses rests largely on the meaning of the Greek word kephale, translated “head” in the New Testament.

One possible way the word “head” is used today means leader, chief, or director. We say, “He is the head of his company,” or, “He is the department head.” In husband-wife and male-female relations this idea popularly carries over to suggestions of authority. The husband is said to be the boss of the family. Before we accept that idea, we must ask what the Greek word kephale (head) meant to Paul and to his readers.

To find the answer, we must first ask whether “head” in ancient Greek normally meant “superior to” or “one having authority.” In the first half of this article we will introduce three kinds of evidence:

1. Lexicographers Liddell, Scott, Jones, and McKenzie (A Greek-English Lexicon, ninth edition. Clarendon Press, 1940, a really comprehensive Greek lexicon) give no evidence of such a meaning.

2. The Septuagint translators took pains to use different words than “head” (kephale) when the Hebrew word for head implied “superior to” or “authority over.”

3. In his commonly used lexicon (A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Early Christian Literature, William Arndt and F. Wilbur Gingrich, eds., U. of Chicago Press, 1957/1979), Walter Bauer gives little or no salient support for such meaning outside of his personal interpretation of five Pauline passages in the New Testament.

In the second half of the article, we will answer the fundamental question: If “head” does not normally mean “superior to” or “authority over,” what does it mean in those seven New Testament passages where Paul uses if figuratively?

First, what about the differences in the lexicons? One of the most complete Greek lexicons (covering Homeric, classic, and koinē Greek) is the work by Liddell, Scott, Jones, and McKenzie. It is based on examination of thousands of Greek writings from the period of Homer (about 1000 B.C.) to about A.D. 600, which, of course, includes New Testament times. Significantly, for our purposes here, it does not include “final authority,” “superior rank,” or anything similar as meanings of kephale. Apparently ordinary readers of Greek literature would not think of such meanings when they read “head.”

However, another commonly used lexicon is the koinē Greek lexicon by Arndt and Gingrich (usually called Bauer’s). It does list “superior rank” as a possible meaning for kephale. It lists five passages in the New Testament where the compiler thinks kephale has this meaning. As support for this meaning in New Testament times, the lexicon lists two passages from the Greek translation of the Old Testament, the Septuagint, where kephale implies leadership or authority.

Those who support Bauer’s view that kephale meant “superior rank” point to these passages in the Greek translation of the Old Testament as evidence that this meaning of kephale was familiar to Greek-speaking people in New Testament times.

However, the facts do not support that argument. About 180 times in the Old Testament, the Hebrew word ro’sh (head) is used with the idea of chief, leader, superior rank (similar to the way English-speaking people use “head”). However, those who translated the Hebrew Old Testament into Greek (between 250 and 150 B.C.) rarely used kephale (head) when the Hebrew word for head carried this idea of leader, chief, or authority. They usually used the Greek word archon, meaning leader, ruler, or commander. They also used other words. In only 17 places (out of 180) did they use kephale, although that would have been the simplest way to translate it. Five of those 17 have variant readings, and another 4 involve a head-tail metaphor that would make no sense without the use of head in contrast to tail. That leaves only 8 instances (out of 180 times) when the Septuagint translators clearly chose to use kephale for ro’sh when it had a “superior rank” meaning. Most are in relatively obscure places.

Since kephale is so rarely used when ro’sh carried the idea of authority, most of the Greek translators apparently realized that kephale did not carry the same “leader” or “superior rank” meaning for “head” as did the Hebrew word ro’sh.

There are seven passages in the New Testament where Paul uses kephale in some figurative sense. The concept of a hierarchy, with men in a role of authority over women (at least over their wives) rests largely on two of these: 1 Corinthians 11:3 and Ephesians 5:23. When Paul used kephale in these two passages, was he thinking of one of the usual Greek meanings of head, or a common figurative Hebrew meaning?

Paul knew both Hebrew and Greek. Although he was a Pharisee who knew Hebrew well, he grew up in Tarsus, a Greek-speaking city. Greek was his native tongue. In all the passages where he used kephale, he was writing to Greek-speaking people in cities where most Christians were converts from Greek religions. Their contact with the Old Testament would be limited to hearing parts of the Septuagint read in their services. They might go to church for years without ever hearing those eight relatively obscure places in the Greek Old Testament where kephale seemed to have a different meaning from the usual meanings in their own language.

Since Paul was a Greek-speaking Jew, he would likely write to Greek-speaking Christians using Greek words with Greek meanings they would easily understand.

If “head” in Greek did not normally mean “supreme over” or “authority over,” what did it mean in those seven New Testament passages where Paul used it figuratively? Careful examination of context shows that common Greek meanings not only make good sense, but present a more exalted Christ.

1. Colossians 1:18 (context 1:14–20); kephale means “exalted originator and completer.” “He (Christ) is the head of the body, the church; he is the beginning, the first-born from the dead, that in everything he might be preeminent.” Paul seems to be using kephale with common Greek meanings—“source or beginning or completion” (Liddell, Scott, et al.)—in a sense that Christ is the exalted originator and completer of the church. Bauer does not list this passage among those where kephale means “superior rank.”

2. Colossians 2:19 (context 2:16–19); kephale means “source of life.” Christ is the source of life who nourishes the church. Christians are told to hold fast to Christ, who is described as the “head,” from whom the whole body, nourished and knit together through its joints and ligaments, grows with a growth that is from God.” Bauer agrees that in this passage kephale does not mean “superior rank.”

3. Ephesians 4:15 (context 4:11–16) is very similar to Colossians 2:19. It reads, “We are to grow up in every way into him who is the head, into Christ, from whom the whole body, joined and knit together by every joint with which it is supplied, when each part is working properly, makes bodily growth and upbuilds itself in love.” This passage stresses the unity of head and body, and presents Christ as the nourisher and source of growth. Bauer classifies kephale here as meaning “superior rank,” although he does not see that meaning in the very similar Colossians 2:19.

4. 1 Corinthians 11:3 (context 11:2–16); kephale seems to carry the Greek concept of head as “source, base, or derivation.” “Now I want you to realize that the head of every man is Christ, and the head of the woman is man, and the head of Christ is God” (NIV). In this passage Paul is discussing how men and women should pray and prophesy in public church meetings. His instructions apparently relate to the customs, dress, and lifestyle in Corinth and the tendency of the Corinthian believers to be disorderly. Paul discusses women’s and men’s head coverings and hair styles. (Veils are not mentioned in the Greek text.) Paul says, “man was not made from woman, but woman from man” (v. 8); he also says, “woman was made from man” (v. 12). This suggests that Paul used “head” in verse 3 with the meaning of “source or origin.” Man was the “source or beginning” of woman in the sense that woman was made from the side of Adam. Christ was the one through whom all creation came (1 Cor. 8:6b). God is the base of Christ (John 8:42: “I proceeded and came forth from God”).

When we recognize one Greek meaning of kephale as source or origin, as Paul explains in verses 8 and 12, then verse 3 does not seem to teach a chain of command. Paul’s word order also shows he was not thinking of chain of command: Christ, head of man; man, head of woman; God, head of Christ. Those who make it a chain of command must rearrange Paul’s words. In fact, Paul seems to go out of his way to show that he was not imputing authority to males when he says, “For as woman was made from man, so man is now born of woman. And all things are from God” (1 Cor. 11:12).

5. Ephesians 5:23 (context 5:18–23); “head” is used in a head-body metaphor to show the unity of husband and wife and of Christ and the church. “For the husband is head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church, his body.” Paul often used the head-body metaphor to stress the unity of Christ and the church. In fact, this unity forms the context for this passage. The head and body in nature are dependent on each other.

This verse follows Paul’s explanation of what it means to be filled with the Holy Spirit. His last instruction is, “Be subject to one another out of reverence for Christ” (v. 21). This is addressed to all Christians and obviously includes husbands and wives. Naturally, as part of this mutual submission of all Christians to each other, wives are to submit to their husbands.

The Greek word “submit” or “be subject to” does not appear in verse 22. It says only, “wives to your husbands.” The verb supplied must therefore refer to the same kind of submission demanded of all Christians in verse 21.

To stress the oneness of husband and wife, Paul then returns to his favorite head-body metaphor: “For the husband is the head (kephale) of the wife as Christ is the head (kephale) of the church, his body.”

Paul develops his head-body metaphor at length in 1 Corinthians 12:22–27. If he thought of “head” as the part of the body that had authority over the rest of it, would not that meaning appear in this long passage? We know that the brain controls the body. But Paul did not use that concept in his metaphor. He refers to the ears, eyes, and nose; the head as a whole is mentioned only in verse 21: “The eye cannot say to the hand, ‘I have no need of you,’ nor again the head to the feet, I have no need of you.’ ” Paul taught here the unity and mutual dependence of all parts on each other: “If one member suffers, all suffer together; if one member is honored, all rejoice together” (v. 26). There is no suggestion that the head has authority over other parts of the body.

Christ does have authority over the church (Matt. 16:18). But most of the passages that deal with Christ as the head of the church do not point to his authority over the church, but rather the oneness of Christ and the church. In Ephesians 5:18–33, this oneness is applied to husband and wife.

If we are to see a meaning in “head” in Ephesians 5:23 beyond the head-body metaphor of mutual dependence and unity, we must do so on the basis of the immediate context. Christ’s headship of the church is described like this: “Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her” (v. 25). Christ gave himself up to enable the church to become all that it is meant to be—holy and without blemish.

As Christ is the enabler (the one who brings to completion) of the church, so the husband is to enable (bring to completion) all that his wife is meant to be. The husband is to nourish and cherish his wife as he does his own body, even as Christ nourishes and cherishes the church (v. 29).

The concept of sacrificial self-giving so that a spouse can achieve full potential has been the role that society has traditionally given to the wife. Here Paul gives it to the husband. Of course, giving oneself sacrificially for the other is an excellent example of the submission wives and husbands are to have toward each other (v. 21).

6. Ephesians 1:20–23 (context 1:13–23): kephale means “top or crown.” Paul presents an exalted picture of Christ and his authority over everything in creation: “… when he raised him from the dead and made him sit at his right hand in the heavenly places, far above all rule and authority and power and dominion, and above every name that is named, not only in this age, but also in that which is to come; and he has put all things under his feet and has made him the head over all things for the church, which is his body, the fulness of him who fills all in all.” The authority of Christ, established in verses 20–21, is extended to every extremity from crown (head) to feet—including the church which is his body.

7. Colossians 2:10 (context 2:8–15); kephale again seems to have the Greek idea of life-source, as well as the idea of top or crown. This verse emphasizes the church as the “fulness” of Christ. “For in him the whole fulness of deity dwells bodily, and you have come to fulness of life in him, who is the head of all rule and authority” (vv. 9–10).

Paul uses two metaphors here—the head-body metaphor, with the church coming to “fulness of life” in Christ (the life-source, nourisher, enabler), and also the concept of top or crown when he speaks of Christ as the head of all rule and authority. In these two passages, “top” or “crown” emphasize Christ’s position by virtue of the cross and resurrection. He is the victor, and is crowned with glory and honor (Heb. 2:9; Ps. 8:5).

These are the only passages in the New Testament where kephale is used figuratively. They include the five given by Bauer as examples of kephale meaning “superior rank.” despite the fact that such a meaning for kephale does not appear in the secular Greek of New Testament times. If Paul had been thinking about authority, or leader, there were easily understood Greek words he could have used, and which he did use in other places. He used exousia (authority) in Romans 13:1–2; and archon in Romans 13:3.

The passages where Paul used kephale in a figurative way make better sense and present a more exalted, completed view of Christ when kephale is read with recognized Greek meanings that would have been familiar to his original readers. Among these meanings are: exalted originator and completor; source, base, derivation; enabler (one who brings to completion); source of life; top or crown.

Can we legitimately read an English or Hebrew meaning into the word “head” in the New Testament, when both context and secular Greek literature of New Testament times seem to indicate that “superior rank” or “authority over” were not meanings that Greeks associated with the word, and probably were not the meanings the apostle Paul had in mind? Has our misunderstanding of some of these passages been used to support the concept of male dominance that has ruled most pagan and secular societies since the beginning of recorded history? Has this misunderstanding also robbed us of the richer, more exalted picture of Christ that Paul was trying to give us?

The role of women in the church continues to provoke discussion among the churches. For instance, the United Presbyterian Church is demanding that women be represented on every session (church governing board). Evangelicals in particular are discussing the role of women. Consider the numerous books and articles on the subject in recent years.

I believe the New Testament makes a two-fold declaration: first, men and women stand equal in Christ (Gal. 3:28), and second, women are not to lead and teach either the church corporate or men in the church (1 Tim. 2:11–14; 1 Cor. 14:35ff.).

Men and women in their humanity are equally image bearers of God and, in their redemption, joint heirs of the grace of Christ. So they participate equally in all the aspects of the priesthood of believers in church life. But God has also created us male and female, and arranged that we reflect these different aspects of our humanity in the matter of leadership in the church and in marriage.

Does the Bible really teach this? Let’s look at some important passages. The New Testament seems to forbid “a woman to teach or exercise authority over a man” (1 Tim. 2:12) in the life of the church. When Paul says, “I do not permit,” he issues as much of an imperative as one can have in the first person singular, “I” form. Also, the present tense does not mean he limits the prohibition to that time only. Rather, it indicates the kind of action, so he means “I am continually not permitting.” Further, the word translated “permit” in the King James Version and is quite strong as used in the Greek world, and in the New Testament. Paul employs it in 1 Corinthians 14:34 and 16:7. It is especially strong with the negative.

The phrase “exercise authority” is sometimes wrongly interpreted to mean “domineer.” Some argue, therefore, that such action is not forbidden to women only; it would be inappropriate for any Christian to act domineeringly toward another person. When we examine the word, however, we find it will not permit this stronger and universally objectionable meaning.

The Greek word authenteō, rendered “exercise authority,” occurs only here in the New Testament. In “Authenteō in Reference to Women in 1 Timothy 2:12,” an article to appear in the journal, New Testament Studies, I have examined the occurrences of the word elsewhere. I conclude that its meaning here is “to have authority” or “to exercise authority” in a positive or neutral sense, and that the meanings “domineer” or “to bring pressure in a sexual sense” are inappropriate and especially in 1 Timothy 2:12.

The context of 1 Timothy 2:11–12 bears this out. The words and concepts used in verse 12 are the converse of verse 11 and flow out of it; learn (verse 11) but do not teach a man (verse 12); learn with submissiveness (verse 11) but do not exercise authority (verse 12) over a man. Both the teaching and the exercising of authority that Paul does not allow relate to men in the church corporate, because “a man” is the object of both verbs.

This follows not only from the context, in which Paul is addressing the question from the male/female relationship exclusively. It is also evident from parallel passages where Paul, who does not contradict himself, permits women to teach other women (Titus 2:3–5). The prohibition of 1 Timothy 2:12 is made in connection with general instructions for order in the church. Compare chapter 2 in its entirety and then chapter 3, especially verse 15: “I write so that you may know how one ought to conduct himself in the household of God, which is the church of the living god, the pillar and support of the truth.” There are four possible ways to take 1 Timothy 2:12–15. Is this prohibition a Pauline error? Or is it a part of the culture that Paul supports simply to maintain good order? Or is there something unique about the situation in Ephesus (1 Timothy) and Corinth (I Corinthians) that causes Paul to write instructions applying only under that unique situation? Or, last, in appealing to the order God instituted and established at Creation, the creation order, does Paul show he understands his instructions to have the most fundamental basis—that is, the creation and our continued sexuality, male and female? If this last explanation is the case, the prohibition is permanent and universal.

Marriage

In choosing among these alternatives, we can get help by considering the New Testament’s teaching about roles in marriage. We find that uniformly it teaches that there are to be different roles for husband and wife (Eph. 5:22–33; Col. 3:18–19; Tit. 2:4–5; 1 Pet. 3:1–7). Those roles are assigned simply because one is the husband and one is the wife. The basis is their maleness or femaleness, even though both husband and wife are joint heirs of the grace of life (1 Pet. 3:7). In each passage, the role is described either directly or indirectly in terms of the husband as the “head” or leader of the marriage, and the wife as one who, though equal, is asked to submit herself as an equal to the headship of her husband.

Significantly, each spouse is required to exercise his or her role with just the appropriate attitude and conduct that will offset a misuse of that role. For example, husbands are to love their wives as Christ loved the church, and as they love their own bodies (Eph. 5:25, 28; Col. 3:18). This is grace’s antidote to the tyranny with which sin poisons leadership. So the apostles reject not the role of leadership, but its abuse.

But some may object that these passages are only expressions of the apostles’ ordering of society along the lines that then existed. After all, most of these passages speak of slaves and masters in close connection with husbands and wives. Are the apostles teaching only that when masters had slaves and husbands had wives, both were to submit? Was this the Christian way of living only in that time and situation? Before we accept such a domino theory we need to recognize that children and parents are also mentioned here, and their relationship becomes another domino that may be toppled.

It is necessary to ask whether Paul groups together regulations for members of the household not because the relationships are parallel, but for mere convenience since all deal with the membership of many households of that day. As a matter of fact, it would appear that these relationships have quite different bases. Paul is quite willing for the slave’s status to change to one of freedom (compare Philemon and also 1 Cor. 7:21). He never insists that slavery is instituted by God and therefore to be perpetuated. Paul is simply giving directions on how slaves and masters should live if they are in that situation, just as Moses gave directions as to how a person should put away his wife if he divorced her (Deut. 24). But Jesus indicates that Moses’ instruction about divorce does not indicate God’s desire about marriage (Matt. 19:8); so neither do Paul’s instructions about slaves and masters indicate God’s desire for the way people are to relate in this area.

We face a different situation concerning children. Paul grounds his word to children in the permanent word of the Ten Commandments (Eph. 6:1–3). And, likewise, when we ask about the basis for the uniform teaching on the role relationship of husband and wife in marriage, we find it is God’s activity in Creation (just as Jesus appealed to that activity to answer the question about divorce and marriage). He also appeals to the analogy of Christ as the head to the church, but this too is related to the bridegroom-bride, husband-wife imagery of both Old and New Testaments.

The evidence that the apostles root the uniform teaching about headship and submission for husband and wife in the creation order of God surfaces in the quote from Genesis 2:24 in Ephesians 5:31. It is made explicit in Paul’s full use of Genesis 2 to establish the roles relating to headship in 1 Corinthians 11. We must admit that Genesis 2:24 seems to surface only in Ephesians 5:31. But consider also the nomenclature and development of thought in Ephesians 5 and the specific correlation of Genesis 2 with headship in 1 Corinthians 11. Clearly the Genesis 2 truths are the basis for the apostles’ consistent teaching about headship and submission.

Paul is quite specific on what Genesis 2 teaches about how men and women are to relate to one another in terms of headship. His exegesis and application of Genesis 2:21–23 is given in 1 Corinthians 11:8–9: “For man does not originate from woman, but woman from man; for indeed man was not created for the woman’s sake, but woman for the man’s sake.” This understanding undergirds his early statement covering headship: “Christ is the head of every man and the man is the head of a woman, and God is the head of Christ” (1 Cor. 11:3). Here headship is unfolded not only between man and woman, but also between God and Christ.

The headship in view must not be restricted to origin, for the headship referred to in marriage concerns the wife’s submission (this is not the question of her personal origin, but of leadership). Likewise, the reference to the relationship of God the Father to Christ his incarnate Son concerns relationship, not to origin of being.

Here we have the most perfect example to encourage women and provide them with a model. In marriage and in the church they are, as equals, to submit to the headship of men. The example? Christ has submitted to God as his head!

This removes once and for all the charge that submission means inferiority and denies equality. At the same time it shows that Paul is zealous to make this point of headship. Not only does he appeal to the creation order which continues in the face of our masculinity and femininity. He also appeals to Christ’s act of submitting to the Father. He does not write later in the chapter on the equality of men and women and their mutual dependence on one another (1 Cor. 11:11–12) in order to set aside his earlier teaching on the headship of men. Rather these verses are to remind all that it is a headship among equals and to remove any tendency to arrogance by men or to servility by women. Likewise Peter refers to men and women as fellow heirs (1 Pet. 3:7) in his statement on the roles of headship and submission in marriage (1 Pet. 3:1–7).

Marriage And The Church

The significance of this look at marriage is, first of all, that we find here the same features in marriage that we find in the larger family, the church. In both, with similar terminology, headship or leadership is required of the man, and submission to that headship or leadership is required of the woman. Also, either indirectly or directly, women are denied that headship. In both marriage and church the appeal is to God’s order of Genesis 2.

Second, notice how Genesis 2—the differentiation and role relationship established by God at Creation—is the connecting link for both and at the same time their foundation. Paul establishes the principle of headship for man in 1 Corinthians 11 (note especially vv. 3, 8, 9). In 1 Timothy 2:13, when Paul gives the reason why a woman may not teach or exercise authority over a man, he also cites the significance of the order of creation in Genesis 2. Likewise, when Paul prohibits a woman speaking in church he also appeals to the Law (1 Cor. 14:34). This cannot include a prohibition against praying or prophesying (he has already approved them in 1 Corinthians 11), so we must liken it to teaching, the function in view in the parallel passage, 1 Timothy 2. Since the Law to which he has appealed in the parallel or analogous passages (1 Cor. 1:8–9; 1 Tim. 2:13) has been the order of creation in Genesis 2, we shall also presume what is in view here is that same emphasis in Genesis 2 and not, as some say, the judgment upon sin in Genesis 3:16.

What is the meaning of Genesis 3:16? It is saying how sin will affect the previously established relationship; it is not saying how that relationship is to be conducted, and it is certainly not the basis for the principle of headship and submission. The reference in 1 Timothy 2:14 to the deception and transgression of Eve gives an illustration of the effects of reversing the leadership role, not an additional basis for it.

We see, therefore, that the role relationship for men and women in marriage and in the church is the same, and that the basis given for both is the same: God’s creation order determines for the sexes once and for all how they are to relate in the area of leadership in marriage and in the church. New Testament teachings on the role relationship of men and women in marriage and in the church stand or fall together.

Let us take as proven that Paul’s appeal for the headship of man in marriage and in the church is to God’s creation order differentiating male from female. If this is true, then prohibiting women from headship in marriage or from teaching and authority in the church corporate must be the permanent and universal teaching of the Word of God. Paul further indicates this character of his teaching by asserting in 1 Corinthians 14 that what he is teaching is the commandment of God (v. 37) and that this is to be observed in the churches (plural, v. 34, compare v. 33).

It may be objected that there are things difficult to understand in these contexts, such as veils (1 Cor. 11), the asking of questions by women (1 Cor. 14), and jewelry and hair style (1 Tim. 2; 1 Pet. 3). Many of these are indeed only concrete applications of a principle to a specific cultural setting. For instance, this is true of the veil and the significance of the hair style and use of jewelry as an indication of immodesty and ostentation in the apostles’ day. (Compare 1 Tim. 2:9 “modestly and discreetly, not with …”)

But the difficulty of these contextual matters or even their local cultural character does not topple the teaching of the role relationship. We should understand these other matters as applications of a principle, whereas the role relationship in marriage and the church is itself a principle.

According to the CHRISTIANITY TODAY-Gallup Poll, clergymen favor the ordination of women by 49 to 43 percent; 8 percent have no opinion. As might be expected, 60 percent of the Catholic clergymen oppose such ordination, while 40 percent of the Protestant clergy are negative.

However, the highest percentage of opposition comes from Southern Baptists (74 percent), while the Methodists are far and away the most in favor (83 percent).

Middle-aged clergy (30 to 39) are most in favor, but only slightly more so than older clergy. Younger clergy (18 to 29) are most opposed.

Among evangelical clergymen, those who identified themselves as “liberal” (referring generally to social and political views rather than to theology) were strongest in favor of ordaining women, while those calling themselves “conservative” were strongest against it. “Middle-of-the-roaders” gave a 65 to 25 percent edge to ordination of women.

Women As Deacons?

Nor can appeal to the extensive involvement of women in the ministry of Jesus and Paul overturn this teaching. Such examples are analogous to the involvement of wives in marriage. Yes, women are also in the broad ministry of the church just as wives are in the marriage, but not in a leadership role. A careful examination of every case will make it plain that no example sets aside the prohibition of women from a leadership role in the church. Passages often cited include Phoebe in Romans 16:1–2; Prisca in Romans 16:3; Euodia and Syntyche in Philippians 4:3.

Consider Phoebe’s role (Rom. 16:1–2). An appeal to the usage of the feminine word prostatis (NASB and RSV: “a helper of many”) is often made to attempt to establish Phoebe as a leader in the congregation. The argument often proceeds from this word to a verb with the same root (proistēmi) and the similar masculine noun (prostatēs). It usually insists that since the masculine noun and the verb are directly associated with leadership, the feminine noun must be also. As a matter of fact, New Testament Greek lexicons and classical Greek lexicons consistently indicate that this is not the case, and that the feminine noun indicates one who is a “helper” or “patroness” but not a leader. Paul Jewett, although contending that the word means more than that she was only a deaconess, candidly admits that “in this passage, prostatis, literally ‘a woman set over others,’ should hardly be taken to mean that Phoebe was a woman ‘ruler.’ Rather the meaning would seem to be that she was one who cared for the affairs of others by aiding them with her resources” (Man as Male and Female).

Furthermore, the argument often appeals to the word diakonos to indicate that Phoebe is a “deacon” of the church and thus an officer. We must make three observations about this. First, diakonos is not always used as a technical term for a “minister” or “deacon” in the New Testament because its most basic general meaning is that of “servant.” It is rendered this way in other places in the New Testament as well as here.

Second, the fullest treatment of deacons in the New Testament, 1 Timothy 3:8–13, describes deacons as men, and refers to women in that context in distinction from the men deacons. It does not apply the term diakonos to them in that technical sense. This explains why so many translations have not used “deacon” in Romans 16:1; they are aware that the more definitive Pauline usage in 1 Timothy 3:8–13 does not apply the term in a technical way to women.

Third, even if for argument’s sake we say that Phoebe is a “deacon,” the apostle’s prohibition is not overturned. The very distinction in the New Testament between the official deacon and elder (or bishop) is that an elder holds the teaching or ruling office, while the deacon is in the serving office, one not inherently involving teaching or ruling. Thus even if we grant that Phoebe is a church deacon, the New Testament has still not placed her in the ruling or teaching office. Many churches who hold to the apostolic prohibition on teachers and rulers have ordained women as deaconesses.

Furthermore, according to a principle of biblical interpretation, we should understand practical examples in light of broad teaching, not pit them against such teaching. We can at least grant that Paul practices what he preaches.

We also see another set of parallels. Denial of headship to the woman does not change her equality or her full involvement in the ministry of marriage. Likewise, in the church the denial of the leadership roles does not deny her equality as a human being or as a joint heir in the body of Christ. Nor does it deny her full involvement in all aspects of ministry to which Scripture welcomes the whole priesthood of believers. Nor are women excluded from teaching per se, for they are encouraged to teach women (Tit. 2:3–5). And they are to be involved in the full range of worship activities and diaconal service where these do not involve leadership offices or functions (compare, for example, 1 Timothy 3:11 and 5:10).

Gifts

But finally, some may object that this denies freedom to God’s Spirit to impart gifts to women, predicted by Joel (2:18) and reaffirmed by Peter (Acts 2:17–18). That same kind of objection could be raised against men as being the only heads of marriage, for does not God equip some women in the natural realm to be better heads of marriage than men? But there are other solutions to this seeming dilemma. May not the gifts be used both in marriage and the church in a way that does not violate the principle of male headship? In Titus 2, for instance, Paul urges some women to teach other women and exercise leadership with them. In 1 Timothy 2:12 he prohibits women only from teaching men and the church corporate, not from the act of teaching itself.

Is not this question of spiritual gifts versus God’s order raised in the context of the entire fourteenth chapter of I Corinthians? And is not this why it deals with the question of women speaking in church, that is, because some were claiming that spiritual gifts would now enable women to speak? The apostle Paul insists that such an appeal cannot set aside the creation order taught by the Law (verse 34), recognized in all the churches, and now taught by him as an apostle giving the Lord’s commandment. In summary, Paul is saying that the grace of redemption and the work of the Spirit do not overturn God’s creation order, just as he said that God’s order in general may not be ignored or overturned by the activity of spiritual gifts (compare vv. 27–33, and v. 40).

Considerate Leadership

Does this mean that the church is the last bastion for male dominance, the sanctified domain of male bigots and chauvinists? God forbid! Jesus’ word about leadership is the final word in working out and applying God’s creation order: “You know that those who are recognized as rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them; and their great men exercise authority over them. But it is not so among you, but whoever wishes to become great among you shall be your servant; and whoever wishes to be first among you shall be slave of all” (Mark 10:42–44). What God requires of male headship in marriage he also requires of male headship in the church—men must be loving, considerate, humble to all over whom they exercise oversight, whether male or female. He equally requires all people under that oversight to be submissive, respectful, and supportive, whether they are male or female.

We are not engaged in a political or sexist power struggle; we are engaged in deciding the biblical prescriptions for marriage and the church. These prescriptions balance two insights: the God-given equality of the sexes, and the God-given differences.