Ministerial Ranking and Female Ministers in the Church of God Dale M. Coulter – Guest Author
In the previous post, I attempted to show the inconsistencies and confusion within the ministerial structure of the Church of God (CG). I now wish to show how this state of affairs impacts the debate over women in ministry.
- The CG’s current position on women in ministry already assumes that 1 Cor. 11, 1 Cor. 14, and 1 Tim. 2-3 do not apply to the authority accorded to women as pastors who can administer the sacraments. I know of no person holding the complementarian position who would agree with the official CG position. Wayne Grudem and John Piper would say to the CG that we have already crossed the line by allowing women to serve as pastors, teach and preach, and administer the sacraments/ordinances. Both Grudem and Piper interpret those passages as meaning that women cannot perform the normal functions of pastoral ministy. The CG’s official position is in opposition to this point. The CG is much more in the egalitarian camp if you want to use the categories of evangelicalism (I’m not much of a fan of the way evangelicalism loves to classify everything. For example, I don’t like the way Reformed folks like to classify Wesleyans as “semi-Pelagians,” or the way Reformed and Baptist evangelicals frame the debate over gifts of the Spirit as “continuationism vs. ceasationism”).
2. The CG’s position on ordination deeply impacts its view of women in ministry as does every other Christian denomination out there. Conservative Baptists, for example, will not allow women to teach because teaching/preaching is the primary purpose of ordination. Catholics, on the other hand, are happy for women to teach and even have female “doctors of the church,” which means that their teaching is deemed authoritative for Catholics. This is because ordination is linked to sacraments on the Catholic view.
3. The CG understands ordination as involving a) authority to teach and preach (Exhorter), b) authority to perform Christian services, administer the sacraments, and pastor a local church (Ordained Minister), and c) authority to exercise governance over the general church (Ordained Bishop). It allows women to possess the first two kinds of authority, but not the third because of the way it understands the role of bishop. The argument from male headship to male authority over the general church has not been utilized historically to support the CG position nor do the Minutes use this line of argumentation. This does not mean that it’s invalid, but it represents a more recent development.
4. The confusion in the Minutes about the biblical precedent for the rank of Ordained Bishop has produced much of the current debate. As mentioned in my previous post, the biblical precedent for Ordained Minister is the NT office of bishop. The Minutes also locate the precedent for Administrative Bishop and Presiding Bishop in the office of apostle, which suggests that those are distinct offices and even ranks.
What is more confusing is that the Minutes say nothing about the female Junia, who is listed by Paul in Rom. 16:7 as being “outstanding among the apostles.” There is some debate over how to translate the Greek phrase episēmoi en tois apostolois. The phrase could be rendered “prominent/outstanding among [in] the apostles” (NASB, NIV, NKJV) or “well known to the apostles” (ESV), but the majority of translations opt for the former.
5. The CG has also followed a model for how it understands the functions of a bishop derived from Methodism in which bishops are more like superintendents who are appointed for shorter periods of time. This view of the pastor as an itinerant minister or “circuit rider” has led historically to short-term appointments. Shorter term limits were reinforced by the split between the CG and the CGP and the subsequent concern that no General Overseer should be appointed for life. This concern remains prevalent among many ministers in the CG who have resisted most efforts to lengthen the tenure of Administrative Bishops or those on the Executive Committee.
The authority of an Administrative Bishop or the Presiding Bishop is seen to reside primarily in the capacity to direct the denomination through appointments and setting an international agenda. There is very little room for the idea of a bishop as a pastor of pastors given that shepherding is a long-term function that requires a longer tenure. The CG is much more comfortable with Administrative Bishops as “generals” who direct the body by commands issued in appointments and agendas than Administrative Bishops as pastors who shepherd through long-term pastoral activities.
Some conclusions:
a. The CG needs to have a public dialog on its understanding of ministerial ranking and especially the final rank of ordained bishop. As it stands, the current ranking generates confusion since it has little direct link to the NT.
b. The CG should clarify its understanding of Administrative Bishop and Presiding Bishop. These current roles function more like Methodist bishops although they are connected to the office of apostle in the NT.
c. The CG has to find some biblical reason for restricting women from the final rank given that it has already implicitly authorized them to occupy what the NT calls a bishop. I personally can find no reason to restrict women to the second rank if the CG has decided that they can perform the functions of a NT bishop. If the CG role of bishop really does stem from later developments, after there was a threefold office of deacon, presbyter, bishop, then the CG should at least acknowledge this point.
d. The CG has already ruled on the matter of women possessing the authority to teach and preach, the authority to pastor a local church and administer the sacraments, and limited authority to govern the general church through appointment to church boards. It has chosen to carve out a space where women cannot exercise authority by conflating the NT offices of bishop and apostle and not dealing with the person of Junia in Rom. 16:7.
