Click here for Ambassador Watch

Two letters on the Ordination of Women

by Keith W. Stump

The following letters first appeared in the mailbag section of Ambassador Watch, June 1 & August 22 2003

Women and ministry: A number of people have e-mailed me asking about my position on the "Women As Pastors" debate.  I'm not exactly sure why anyone would care about my view, but I thought I'd dash off this letter for any who might.  I hope it is helpful.

My opinion, in a nutshell:  In Christ there is no difference between male and female.  End of story.

Many will now be reaching for their Bibles--blood pressure rising--to trot out a host of "proof scriptures" to attack this "liberal"--if not "satanic"--view.  (George Bernard Shaw rightly observed that great truths often begin as blasphemies.)

I reject the applicability of each and every such scripture.  There is no credible biblical argument against ordaining women.  There are, however, human agendas.  And human fears.

The books of the Bible are products of, and were adapted to, the culture and level of understanding of the time.  Anyone who does not recognize this basic principle of exegesis has about as much understanding of the Bible as a blind man has of Picasso or Renoir. One may take the Bible seriously in terms of authority and still recognize that its teachings are not in every case imperatives for all time. 

Paul's opinions are not doctrine.  They are OPINIONS.  His letters must be understood for their meaning in their own time.  Those who would chisel Paul's opinions onto tables of stone make a fundamental error, one with far-reaching and sometimes devastating consequences in the lives of Christians.

Jesus said that the Holy Spirit would GUIDE the church into all truth (John 16:13).  The implication is clear.  The Church today--nearly 2,000 years after Paul--should have progressed far beyond Paul's often meager understanding and that of the error-ridden early New Testament church.  If one makes no use of new insights provided by the Holy Spirit, one closes off all possibility of growth and development.  Too many in the churches of God fail to understand the dynamic quality of truth.

Blind acceptance of Paul's sometimes bizarre opinions and personal preferences as divine mandates is a fatal flaw.  Paul's "hard to be understood" musings were, frankly, often the result of muddled thinking.  On some issues, Paul was a prisoner and a victim of his times.  Sometimes he just didn't "get it".  If we listened to Paul, we'd still be regarding slavery as a natural and normal condition within society.

If Paul did not allow a woman to teach a man or to have authority over a man, it was the ignorance of his times speaking.  He was culturally conditioned by Jewish and Greek views of his era.  At least he said, "I do not allow," not "God does not allow."  But many today conveniently ignore that distinction.  The Bible is God's revelation to humanity, and sometimes it reveals just how misguided some Christians--even apostles--can be.

Paul's outmoded opinions are irrelevant.  The proscriptions of Old Testament patriarchalism are irrelevant.  Isaiah's hand-wringing about women "ruling over" men is irrelevant.

Many, of course, will disagree.  My advice to sympathetic readers: Don't bother arguing with their biblical rhetoric.  It's a waste of time.  You can't tell people anything they don't want to hear, or that they're not spiritually mature enough to hear.  They are smug in their blindnesses and prejudices.  Leave them to God.  I am slowly learning not to argue with people for whose opinions I have no respect.  Truth does not require believers; it remains truth nevertheless.

This goes especially for those who deify Herbert Armstrong and elevate his plagiarized teachings to the level of divine proclamations.  They have abandoned even a pretense of sound intellectualism. They no longer have minds of their own.  It's pointless to reason with them for they have abandoned reason.  They measure doctrine against Herbert Armstrong's collected ramblings, not against Scripture and godly reason.  To them, "theological research" consists of searching the archived writings of HWA to determine what "God's apostle" may have decreed on the matter at issue.  It's rummaging through a trash heap in search of a pearl.  They have no understanding of theology or biblical exegesis.  In their worship of a human idol and their slavish devotion to the foolishness of his so-called "18 Restored Truths", they reject the continuing role of the Holy Spirit in guiding the church into all truth.  In so doing, they play a very dangerous game.

We can only hope that with the passing of their aging leaders in the years just ahead, some who are enslaved within these dysfunctional groups will reconsider the folly of their affiliations, and eventually be liberated from the grip of darkness, superstition and idolatry. (It's ironic that those who are so concerned about avoiding the alleged idolatry of a Christmas tree have no compunctions about idolizing a plagiarist, libertine, child rapist and hypocrite, and supporting ministers who make their living promoting his heresies and covering up his sins--sins so flagrant and disgusting as to totally disqualify him from any kind of ministry, much less "apostleship". But I digress.)

The notion of sexual inequality is primitive and foolish.  It is the teaching of weak and fearful men who promote the subjection of women as a means of bolstering their own insecure masculinity.

Men and women are equal in the mind of God, and should be equal in the eyes of each other.  Women should have their rightful share of opportunities.  It's abundantly clear that the Holy Spirit gives gifts of ministry to women.  If women are spiritually mature and have pastoral gifts, they should be allowed to use them in positions of ordained leadership.  Yet many churches drag their feet and continue to resist, and in so doing grieve the Holy Spirit.  Their leaders will be held accountable for their weakness and indecision.

A study of history reveals that a woman's place in society marks the level of civilization.  The same is true of the level of enlightenment of a church.  It's a good rule of thumb.

Those who have been led by the Holy Spirit to understand the spiritual equality of the sexes have a choice to make.  If churches refuse to release women from the stereotypes of the past, enlightened parishioners must either compromise their beliefs and by their silence reinforce and perpetuate male domination, or join a denomination whose views more closely correspond to their own.

Time is precious.  Those who have a personal preference for wider options in spiritual enlightenment should not be wasting their time waiting for change (which may never come) on this or any other issue. They must look for a Christianity that's more relevant and user-friendly and less spiritually confining.  The alternative is to remain indefinitely mired in a church that's sidetracked by irrelevant details and silly prohibitions.

As hard as it is for church of God veterans to believe, God CAN be found in other churches--even those with women pastors!

Keith W. Stump

A deity shockingly different: During the past two months, I have received numerous emails in response to my pro-ordination-of-women letter (AW, June 1). Many have taken me to task for drawing a distinction between divine mandates and the private opinions of the apostle Paul. "A truly converted and yielded Christian," declared one writer, "will regard an apostle's opinion AS a command of God, even though--from a technical standpoint--sin may not be an issue." The writer concluded, therefore, that "a church that is truly submissive to the will of God" should, based on Paul's statements, "deny pastoral roles to women." The same sentiments were echoed by many others, one of whom noted that "even though they may not all be directly provable from the Bible, Mr. Armstrong's 18 Restored Truths are backed by APOSTOLIC AUTHORITY [emphasis in the original] and therefore must be accepted as divinely inspired doctrine for today." Another writer mentioned that a prominent Pasadena evangelist once "correctly observed" that he regarded "a mere suggestion" from an apostle [i.e., Herbert Armstrong] as "an order direct from God."

These kinds of cultic sentiments speak for themselves, and require no direct rebuttal. I would suggest, however, that those who hold such views consider Paul's statements regarding celibacy in 1 Corinthians 7:7-8. Paul clearly states that he wishes that everyone could be celibate as he himself is, and that "it is good" for the unmarried and widows to remain as he (i.e., unmarried). Is this apostolic advice to be taken as "an order direct from God"? If so, which of the COGs today are actively discouraging marriage and promoting lifelong celibacy? If not, how is Paul's advice on celibacy any different from his views about a woman's role in the church (which views, as far as I can tell, are nowhere labeled as "divine commands")? In I Tim. 2:12, for example, I see no suggestion of any divine mandate, just the statement that "I [Paul] do not permit a woman to teach . . . ." The prohibition is clearly not universal. It's merely a reflection of Paul's inherent bias against women arising from the male-centered cultural milieu of the 1st Century A.D. And it's of no more consequence than his views on celibacy.

Other examples could be cited from the epistles, but the above is sufficient to make the point. The books of the Bible were adapted to the culture and level of understanding of the time--a basic principle which has seemingly eluded many (or has been deliberately ignored by those who use God merely to serve their material agendas). Paul's letters must be understood for their meaning in their own time, i.e., in their social context. In addition, we must use our intelligence and reason to discern and discard the occasional wacky opinion of an eccentric mind (e.g., Paul's celebration of celibacy; what was going on THERE?). We exercise such discernment when we read Ecclesiastes, don't we? (Note, by the way, that Paul's assertion that "it is good [to remain celibate]" flies directly in the face of God's statement in Genesis 2:18: "It is not good that man should be alone.")

This is the 21st century, not the 1st century. Were he here today, I think even Paul would understand that fact, and be appalled (no pun intended) at what organized Christianity has become--or not become. Christianity has not begun to keep pace with social and intellectual development, and in no area of life is this failure as flagrantly in evidence as in women's issues. Rather than pointing the way and urging humanity toward the right use of its resources and creativity, Christianity remains stuck in the Middle Ages. Christians' seeming inability to filter the important from the inconsequential has caused many to view Christianity as disconnected from real life. It's no wonder that increasing numbers want nothing to do with it. Christianity is mired in irrelevancies--and nowhere do we see this more than in the COGs. The essence of Christianity--love of God and love of neighbor--has become lost amid useless forms and ceremonies and prohibitions. The Christian virtues of mercy, compassion and forgiveness have been subordinated to worthless doctrines that needlessly impose heavy burdens and sap the joy from life.

The sad thing is that untold thousands are wasting their lives in churches like Living/ United/ Philadelphia/ whatever -- thinking they're "God's chosen", imagining that their rituals and observances are somehow important to God, trying to gratify spiritual hungers with ersatz nourishment, fawning before petty hierarchies, playing at scholarship and endlessly "researching" trivial points of unsound theology, immersing themselves in the silly soap-opera minutiae of COG "news", submitting to nutty edicts masquerading as "apostolic commands"--when they COULD be living a real life in the real world, a life with true meaning and purpose. Instead, they're burying their talents and frittering away their time playing at religion. How sad and how pointless!

It's time to leave the toxic fantasy world of such churches and discover a Christianity that's more relevant and user-friendly and less spiritually confining -- Christianity as it was meant to be! There's a long future ahead of us on this planet (premillennial prophetic nonsense notwithstanding), and it's time to wake up, grow up, and start living a spiritual life that matters--and that includes rejecting the primitive notion of a woman's "subordinate place" in creation!

Let us all do what we can to help free the untold numbers of hapless victims who have unwittingly given up their individuality and freedom of mind to become slaves of a bastardized Christianity void of spirituality. If they only knew how many of their own ministers wrestle daily with their consciences as they continue to teach the old errors (which they secretly know or suspect are errors), all for fear of not being able to make a living in any other profession. These hirelings will shortly answer to God. And they will then discover a deity shockingly different from the petty, sexist, humanized entity they portrayed to their congregations--a deity who, among other things, recognizes neither male nor female in Christ.

Keith W. Stump

Also by Keith Stump: Intellectual Integrity and the COGs