An article published by Daniel Silliman on May 5, 2021 in Christianity Today reveals that the Christian and Missionary Alliance (C&MA) is considering the idea of women as pastors in its congregations.  Currently, within the C&MA, women can carry out the normal duties of a pastor.  They can preach and teach, baptize new members and disciple them; they can officiate weddings, bury members and counsel them.  However, they are not called pastors.  They are executive directors of ministries.  Apparently, the title “pastor” is reserved for those who qualify to be called elders, even though not all pastors are elders, and not all elders are ordained to be pastors.

Does it matter? If women are allowed to perform the duties involved, is the idea of women as pastors important or is it just a title?  One woman involved in such a ministry answers as follows:

“Because certain words are off-limits, you end up doing verbal gymnastics. Without the commonly understood language around what I do, people don’t understand how I can help them. That’s one of the big functional implications of this policy. People come to the church and say ‘I would like to speak to a pastor,’ and it’s not clear to them that an executive director of ministries can help them.”

The current C&MA president, John Stumbo, has expressed his concern, as seen in an official statement he made:

“It’s become clear to me that some of our policies unnecessarily restrict otherwise called and qualified ministers. This grieves me. … I believe we’ve been inconsistent in our documents and inappropriate in some of our policies. Any place we find that our policies limit people from ministry beyond any limit given by the Scriptures, are we not in error?”

The current C&MA vice-president, Terry Smith, seems to view the current situation as unintentional, and merely the result of a legitimate focus on evangelism (The Great Commission) rather than conscious decisions made on matters of theology and Scripture interpretation.  However, an observer will legitimately feel that there is some level of discrimination at work from the fact that men and women go through the same two-year training and vetting process, but only men become pastors.

The C&MA plans to discuss changes to the restrictions related to women as pastors at its upcoming General Council meeting at the end of May.  No changes will actually be made, but the discussions will be focused on allowing women to be ordained as pastors.  They will still not be allowed to be elders.  They will not be senior pastors either, since senior pastors must be elders.  In individual congregations, elders are decision-makers who, today, can prevent women from carrying out the duties of a pastor.  The changes would give women access to “key places of leadership in the Alliance at the local church, district, and national levels.”

As explained on its website, the Christian and Missionary Alliance grew out of the vision of Rev. A. B. Simpson, a Presbyterian pastor from Canada.  It was formed in 1887 as a missionary society rather than a denomination, and is an alliance of congregations belonging to various denominations, including Wesleyans and Pentecostals.  Simpson, who was the pastor of a church in New York City, was responding to “a call from God to reach the lost masses both in New York City and around the world.”  Today, the alliance focuses on planting churches in the US and overseas.  It has more than 2000 churches in the US.  It considers itself Christ-centered and derives its sense of mission from one biblical verse in particular:

“But you will receive power when the Holy Spirit comes on you; and you will be my witnesses in Jerusalem, and in all Judea and Samaria, and to the ends of the earth.” (Acts 1:8)

The C&MA claims to rely on the authority of the Bible, but given the variety in the participating denominations, it has historically tolerated disagreements in biblical interpretations.  Surveys by the alliance have found that 61% of members believe women should be called pastors.  At the same time, 58% support restricting eldership to men, but only 10% say the C&MA currently gives women too much leadership.

There are some who strongly disagree with the notion of women as pastors.  They explain that their disagreement is grounded on historical and biblical considerations.  Historical considerations have led to the current practices, and go back to the founder of the alliance whose writings, while not explicitly discouraging the idea of women as pastors, implicitly assumed that men were referred to whenever the words pastor or overseer were used in the Bible.  Biblical considerations, according to some, lead to the conclusion that the concept of women as pastors or elders is not acceptable.  Indeed, according to a dissenter named Andrew S. Ballitch,

“The line should be drawn where Scripture is clear. A pastor is an elder is an overseer. Pastors-elders-overseers are biblically qualified men. And only those qualified to be pastors-elders-overseers preach during corporate worship of local churches.”

However, it is a fact that women have contributed greatly to the work of the alliance and have done pastoral work with competence, even though they have been denied titles.  Why would men want to impede their efforts to contribute to the work of the kingdom of God?

The creation story in Genesis 1 shows no difference in the way women and men are created:

“So God created mankind in his own image,
in the image of God he created them;
male and female he created them.” (Genesis 1:27)

The story of creation is presented from a different perspective in Genesis 2.  Here, the woman is created from the man as a helper to him, and the man gets to name her (Genesis 2:23).  However, the punchline of the story emphasizes unity and mutual care between man and woman in the marital relationship:

^“That is why a man leaves his father and mother and is united to his wife, and they become one flesh.” (Genesis 2:24)

The story of the fall, in Genesis 3, assigns guilt to the man, the woman and the serpent, and all three are cursed.  However, more than Genesis 2, it reflects a male perspective by blaming the woman for misleading the man.  Accordingly, the woman’s punishment now makes her subservient to the man:

“Your desire will be for your husband,
and he will rule over you.” (Genesis 3:16)

Clearly, the narrative shows a degradation in the status of women parallel to the degradation in human nature implied in the story of the fall.  Those who embrace a strict literal interpretation of the Bible will see the female subservient status as a reflection of God’s will.  Indeed, the deterioration will continue.  In the Ten Commandments, women will be listed along with property in the prohibition against covetousness (Exodus 20:17).  The Levitical rules will associate menstruation and pregnancy with uncleanness, and female babies will make mothers twice as unclean (Leviticus 12:1-5).  In fact, women will be considered intrinsically less righteous than men (Ecclesiastes 7:28).

As I have pointed out before, the New Testament states that Jesus (not Moses) is the only one who truly makes God the Father known to mankind (John 1:17-18).  His view on the matter is therefore interesting.  The Pharisees had the Law of Moses which authorized men to write a certificate of divorce whenever they wanted to get rid of a woman who displeased them in some manner.   When they ask Jesus if it is lawful for a man to divorce his wife (Matthew 19:1-9), he refers them to Genesis 2:24 rather than Genesis 3:16 because 2:24 reflects God’s will, namely unity in the marriage relationship.  Here, Jesus recognizes that Genesis 2:24 is a principle that represents what God intended from the beginning.  He does not even mention Genesis 3:16, which is a lower level practice that is associated with human inadequacies.

During his ministry, Jesus does much to restore dignity to women.  He saves a woman who was going to be stoned for adultery (John 8:1-11).  He teaches a Samaritan woman who then becomes a leader introducing the Messiah to her community (John 4:1-42).  He encourages Mary to learn about the kingdom of God instead of confining herself, like her sister Martha, to typical female duties (Luke 10:38-42).  He has women in his entourage who play an important role in his ministry, and most importantly, his resurrection places women at the center of the Gospel since they witness it before men do.

During his evangelical work, Paul relies on a woman named Lydia (Acts 16:14-15) whose house becomes a gathering place for the first Macedonian church (Acts 16:40).  Later, he meets the four unmarried daughters of Philip the evangelist, who, according to Acts 21:9, are prophets.  Also, in Romans 16, there is a list of apostles that includes several female names.

The ability to move from reliance on an explicit set of rules and regulations such as the Law of Moses to principles reflecting God’s nature and will, is what Paul is talking about when he urges believers to move from observing the Law to living by the Spirit.  The Spirit transforms them and makes them more inclined to live by the so-called fruit of the Spirit (Galatians 5:22).  Therefore, Christians should be able to discern God’s will by focusing on principles that reflect God’s nature, such as love, compassion, justice, peace, etc.  They should also recognize that some biblical practices merely reflect traditions of the day and have no universal or permanent relevance.  For example, Galatians 3:28 (“There is neither Jew nor Gentile, neither slave nor free, nor is there male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus”) clearly promotes the pursuit of equality as a godly principle.

However, it appears that much of the debate within the C&MA focuses on concerns raised by statements made by Paul in 1 Corinthians 11.  Terry Smith raises that issue when he says:

“Anyone who totally understands 1 Corinthians 11 perfectly can come talk to me. But even Peter said Paul is sometimes hard to understand in one of his epistles, so can we not admit that maybe my brother or sister who loves Jesus and Scripture and reads faithfully might come out with a different understanding of 1 Corinthians 11 than me?”

Smith is among those who are open to discussions about the future of women as pastors.  But the concern is about a biblical passage where Paul recommends that women cover their heads in worship.  In the passage, he uses language that shows him, after all, as a product of first century Judaism.  From the very beginning, he makes it clear that he is talking about a tradition rather than a principle:

^“I praise you for remembering me in everything and for holding to the traditions just as I passed them on to you.” (1 Corinthians 11:2)

He then argues that the head of all men is Christ, while the head of the woman is man, which is in contradiction to Galatians 3:28.  He then makes statements that have no meaning in the 21^st century:

“Every man who prays or prophesies with his head covered dishonors his head. But every woman who prays or prophesies with her head uncovered dishonors her head—it is the same as having her head shaved. For if a woman does not cover her head, she might as well have her hair cut off; but if it is a disgrace for a woman to have her hair cut off or her head shaved, then she should cover her head.”

Several additional verses follow the above and follow similar questionable logic.  He ends with the following:

“Judge for yourselves: Is it proper for a woman to pray to God with her head uncovered? Does not the very nature of things teach you that if a man has long hair, it is a disgrace to him, but that if a woman has long hair, it is her glory? For long hair is given to her as a covering. If anyone wants to be contentious about this, we have no other practice—nor do the churches of God.”

The 21^st century reader is left with the impression that Paul was asked to state his opinion on a relatively unimportant matter and chose to preach to the choir.  In the end, he is merely telling the churches to continue the existing practice because there is nothing in the Gospel of Christ that fundamentally addresses the issue and mandates a change at that point in time.

But for the longer term, Christianity is about godly principles rather that old practices, and topics such as covering a woman’s head should not generate debates in the 21st century.