Thanks to Kenneth Bailey

Though I have sometimes spoken and written about the liabilities of having a conservative evangelical background, I don’t regret the fact that I was brought up with both a knowledge of the Scriptures and an appreciation for their “authority in matters of faith and practice” as the statements of faith always put it.

I say that even though that stance cost me no end of grief for many years over the issue of women in church leadership.

Just so you know at the outset, I not only think women belong in church leadership, but I also know a few who absolutely should be who aren’t yet and some who are but shouldn’t have had to wait so long to get there.

That said, for many years, I chose to believe that in fear and trembling, without the comfort of knowing for sure that the Scriptures were with me. My position was simply, honestly this: I didn't know what the Bible said about it. I wished I did, but I didn't. All I could do, ultimately, was come down on the side of grace, which is to say that I honestly couldn't see myself standing before Jesus at the judgment seat, defending actions that kept women out of leadership because it might be the right thing to do. I could, however, see myself standing before Him apologetic for having done something out of love for half the human race because I wasn't sure it was wrong.

Yeah, I studied it. I read most everyone’s book. But everybody had an axe to grind and, unfortunately, most everyone’s argument often had less to do with biblical scholarship and objective consideration of the Scriptures than with church politics. Typically, those on either side of the issue passionately (if not convincingly) constructed elaborate (and often fanciful) schemes for reinterpreting the other folks’ verses in order to line them up properly with their own verses. They’d conclude their argument with “Clearly, … “ when it the only thing that was clear to me was that they were reaching. Besides, I've always been of the opinion that if you needed 250 pages to explain your position on a Biblical passage just a few verses in length, maybe its because you're on shaky ground. One of my favorite examples of infamous reaching was the “women can’t” reply to the Deborah argument. Deborah, in the book of Judges is, without question, in a position of leadership in Israel. In fact, it is about as official as you can get. She’s one of the judges, who in that time, were pretty much it except for the occasional prophet. Between the time Joshua’s generation died until Saul was anointed, the Israelites fell on bad times. The people of the land God had given them began to have success fighting back as the Israelites lost their zeal for the Lord. They began to suffer counterattacks. So it was that the “the Lord raised up judges who saved them out of the hands of these raiders.” Says it right there. God raised them up. Pretty ironclad, huh?

Well, the naysayers skipped that verse in Chapter 2 and waltzed over to Chapter 17, verse 5 & 6, where Micah had erected a shrine for some of his idols and installed his sons as priests. The Scripture notes at that point, “In those days, Israel had no king; everyone did as he saw fit.” From this one verse, they constructed an argument that having a woman judge was a consequence of this fallen state, and – I kid you not – it was probably the result of some man not answering the call. The up shot was that Israel had a woman in authority over them because not enough worthy men could be found. (Good grief!)

To be fair, I remember there were at one time two very outspoken proponents of women’s ordination who happened to be here in town and were associated with what is now Denver Seminary. I remember some wag asking one of them in an interview if she -- presented with incontrovertible proof that the Bible did, in fact, teach that women could not be in leadership over men in the church -- would she drop her cause and find a way to go along it. She said “No.” Again, I kid you not. And of course the other side jumped all over that one.

It was in this climate, as a matter of fact, that I, as a 27-year-young ordained elder in a conservative Presbyterian church, sat on a board that was discharged or voluntarily withdrew (depending on whose story you believed) from its liberal-leaning denomination, because we refused to appoint women to the board. This was back in the '70s, mind you, but that place (by way of confession) is where I began my long journey to where I stand now.

All that to say this: My journey would have been shorter and much less painful had I been exposed to a mercifully short article that theologian Kenneth Bailey published at the turn of this century, which, for me, has finally settled most of the questions that have long lingered in my mind about what the Scriptures say (and don’t say) about the subject of gender and church leadership. (Maybe you all have seen it, and I’m just coming way late to the party, but if not, you can download a PDF of the article at http://www.theologymatters.com/BackIssues.html. Sorry, couldn't get the darn link thingey to cooperate.)

Bailey is now Canon Theologian for the Episcopal Diocese of Pittsburgh, Pa., but he made his reputation as a scholar during the 40 years he lived and worked as a Presbyterian professor of New Testament in the Middle East (apparently, he gets to put both "Rev" and "Dr." in front of his name). He spent many of those years studying Middle Eastern cultures, looking for clues to how those cultures may have looked in the 1st Century. While in Pittsburgh, I happened to read his book Poet and Peasant, an exposition of 10 parables of Jesus, in which he applied what he had learned. His thesis is that you cannot fully understand the New Testament without understanding the cultural milieu, assumptions and, especially, the literary forms used by the people who wrote it. I believe that he has found some solid 1st Century ground on which to stand. That book still stands as one of the best books I’ve ever read, fiction or nonfiction.

I was not aware, at the time, of his work on the issue of church leadership. In fact, I was introduced to his little essay, ironically, by my ex-wife, who is now an ordained but currently unemployed Episcopal priest. For obvious reasons, she's studied the subject almost unceasingly for more than 25 years. But this little gem had escaped her notice, too. She tells me its the best thing she's ever read on the subject, and I'm pretty sure she's read just about everything out there. So that's high praise.

If you haven't already, have a look.