Ever since that infamous reptilian encounter in the Garden of Eden; Mother Eve and her long lineage of daughters have laboured under a crushing sentence and sanction of enforced subservience in matters religious and secular. In almost all spheres of human endeavour; in business, politics, and religion, women, more often than not, live and function in the shadow of men. Perhaps no where else, is this practice of institutionalised subservience more apparent, than in the major monotheistic religions of the world. Religions in which, it is taken for granted that women are destined to function almost exclusively in secondary and second class roles.

As an adherent of one of these faiths, and a keen observer of this practice; I have often wondered, if and when, a time would ever come, when women believers would mount a challenge to the status quo; or, if they would, in accordance with age long tradition, simply accept their fate, and continue without clamour in their lesser roles. It occurred to me, also, that if any meaningful protest were to emerge on the part of women, regarding their status in these major monotheistic faiths; such protests would in all probability emerge from within the bounds of Christianity; rather than any of the other major monotheistic faiths.

But this is not to suggest, in anyway, that Christianity, in contrast to the other major monotheistic faiths, is or has been more amenable to change over the course of its history. For even within Christianity, there are, still to this day, major denominations, which remain inflexible and opposed to change, in much the same way as the other major monotheistic faiths. But it is fair to say, however, that where change has not always occurred within Christianity, at least a discussion of it has. And if nothing else, these discussions represent a beginning of sorts, which may eventually lead to something more tangible being accomplished.

If one were to pinpoint a denomination within Christianity, where change and discussions about change have been taking place in recent times; it is the Anglican denomination. And as can be expected, because of the nature of change; much of the discussion regarding it, has been of an emotive and divisive nature; such that the discussions have threatened to fracture the unity of that denomination.

Within the Anglican Church bitter arguments have arisen regarding the propriety and otherwise of ordaining practising homosexuals as clergymen; and the elevation of one of such, to the rank of bishop; an act undertaken by the American Episcopal Church. These bitter arguments have also been compounded by the perceived failure of the Archbishop of Canterbury to discipline the American arm of his Church for its provocative action; thereby giving rise to deep schisms in the Anglican Communion.

Such that, for the first time; the Anglican Communion’s 10 yearly Lambeth Conference, holding this week at Canterbury, is being boycotted by a number of African provinces; most notably that of Nigeria; where only one of its bishops, that of Owerri, is attending the conference, ostensibly to promote church unity, but I suspect also to undertake a much desired shopping trip to England. The Church of Nigeria has been particularly vociferous in its opposition on this issue; and its boycott of the Lambeth Conference, effectively deals, the Archbishop of Canterbury a bloody nose.

But while tempers continue to flare on the issue of the ordination of homosexual clergymen; the debate has shifted to the issue of the role of women in the Anglican Church. As it happens, this debate has been no where near as emotive or divisive as the other one. In fact, female clergy are already being ordained in the Church of England; and have been for some time now. And the General Synod of the Church of England has recently agreed to assign bishoprics to women in due course. This follows the example of the American, and Australian, provinces of the Anglican Communion where women bishops are in place.

But where does the Church of Nigeria stand on the issue of the ordination of women clergy and their eventual elevation to bishop status? Is it opposed to such a move? And if it is, what is its opposition based on? And are there scriptural prohibitions against this practice? And if there are, are they justified or justifiable in the light of the historic and present role of women in the advancement of Christianity?

At present, it appears that there is no evidence of, or plans for, the ordination of women in the Church of Nigeria . It remains a bastion of male dominance. However, the Church of Nigeria recognises that it in spite of its discomfort with, and its reluctance to, the idea of women clergy; it acknowledges that it may, at some point in the future, have to cede ground on this point. Hence, its general, but non committal statement of futuristic intent to appoint female deacons at some indeterminate point. This undoubtedly, represents a common sense approach, given the fact that the fast growing sister and ‘rival’ Pentecostal movement in Nigeria , allows for greater female participation, visibility, and leadership.

I suspect that the reluctance of the Church of Nigeria to follow in the steps of its English, American, and Australian, counterparts in this regard has much to do with scriptural as well as cultural considerations. But I suspect that it is upon the basis of scriptural provisions, that it justifies its position in not empowering women in the Church; rather than on cultural considerations.

It is interesting to note that from a scriptural perspective (the New Testament) the Lord Jesus Christ is not known to have espoused, endorsed, or enforced any prohibitions regarding the participation of women in matters of ministry or in their holding of office. Even though as we know it, there were no women amongst his designated apostles; but I find it inconceivable to imagine, that there would have been no women, in the band of 72 disciples that he sent out on specific ministerial assignment on one particular occasion.

However, unequivocal and specific prohibition, regarding their participation in the Church is to be found in the injunctions of St. Paul . And some examples of these injunctions are as follows:

1 Corinthians 14:34-35

"Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience as also saith the law. And if they will learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for women to speak in the church."

1 Timothy 2:11-12

"Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection. But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence."

The above injunctions are emphatic in their purport. They leave no room for contention. But it is difficult to reconcile the absoluteness of the above provisions, when one considers some of St. Paul ’s other statements in the New Testament. For instance, in Galatians 3:28, he states that in Christ there is no male or female; thus underscoring the equal status of men and women in things pertaining to God. So I wonder what was going on in his mind when he recorded his prohibitions regarding women. Could he have been privy to some information about them that was not freely available to others? Or was his approach simply a throwback to the stance of the law and events in the Garden of Eden?

But notwithstanding his emphatic provisions as to the conduct of women in the church; different attitudes have been adopted by different denominations to his prohibitions. Some see them as being anachronistic and not in keeping with present realities, and, therefore, requiring change. And others simply ignore them; allowing women to play visible and vocal roles in the church in Nigeria and elsewhere; while others still, follow them to the letter.

In approaching scriptures, as much as is possible, I try to refrain from using the ‘anachronistic’ argument i.e. that times have changed and so the scriptures must also be changed to reflect present realities. The problem with this approach is one of, where do we draw the line, in an increasingly changing world like ours?

I much rather take the view, that the scriptures should be interpreted, in the light of the revelation of the love of God. A God whose love is reflected by his desire to draw all towards him; and one who causes the sun to shine, and the rain to fall, upon all without discrimination; one whose love and character is demonstrated in the many parables narrated by the Lord Jesus Christ (the parable of the missing sheep; the missing coin; the prodigal son etc.).

My view is that Christian women, have for many years, been a bedrock of support in and for the advancement of the gospel of Jesus Christ. And I believe that it is only proper and fair for women to be allowed to play greater and more visible roles in establishment   Churches ; holding office and positions as men do. One only has to look at the pivotal role of women in the ministry of the Lord, and even in that of St. Paul to form an idea of their importance.

The Church of Nigeria has been stalwart in its opposition to those it views as trying to devalue and undermine the Christian byfaith. It must now also demonstrate its support for the strengthening of the same faith by reforming its own house of prayer and by promoting the fair and equal treatment of its loyal female base.

I know it will take a quantum leap of faith and a radical paradigm shift in order for the Church of Nigeria to travel along this route; but I suspect that going forward, it will have little choice, other than to embrace its women in higher ministerial capacities. Its putative plans to introduce female deacons at some indeterminate point in the future, is encouraging; but as for now, they remain only plans. I sincerely hope that it is able to muster the courage to go all the way; particularly if it is to retain its long term relevance as a redemptive and reformative force in Nigerian society.

Interestingly, for millennia, male bishops have worn dresses as their official garb of choice; so maybe the time has now come for women too to try on the trousers of authority in establishment Churches.

Remembering that ‘… God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them.’ Genesis 1: 27

Robot  Villager

# 1 ...Read the full article. Posted by Robot| 23.07.2008 22:24

Agidimolaja  Villager

# 2 Sheyi, The two texts you quoted above to support why women have not been allowed as Priests,Pastors etc were quoted accurately. Based upon those texts,the issue should be laid to rest. It is better they{women} are not ordained. Although there are self-ordained women in various unorthodox churches wearing all kinds of tittles.They are nothing in the face of your above quoted texts but counterfeits and unscriptural. Posted by Agidimolaja| 24.07.2008 00:42

philipikita  Villager

# 3 =Agidimolaja;4295074504>Sheyi, The two texts you quoted above to support why women have not been allowed as Priests,Pastors etc were quoted accurately. Based upon those texts,the issue should be laid to rest. It is better they{women} are not ordained. Although there are self-ordained women in various unorthodox churches wearing all kinds of tittles.They are nothing in the face of your above quoted texts but counterfeits and unscriptural. Of course. The church and christian leadership was made for men, as do many religions. Women would forever remain dominated if society were to be run according to the Bible. Posted by philipikita| 24.07.2008 03:26

employlawone  Villager

# 4 "However, unequivocal and specific prohibition, regarding their participation in the Church is to be found in the injunctions of St. Paul . And some examples of these injunctions are as follows: 1 Corinthians 14:34-35 "Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience as also saith the law. And if they will learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for women to speak in the church." 1 Timothy 2:11-12 "Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection. But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence." Dear Sheyi, Good to hear you speaking. May I attempt to add a point or two to your very useful piece, using the tools of hermeneutics. I have drawn from Robert E Billings Jnr below and contrasted it with the African Bible Commentary. "In order to properly interpret scripture, we must follow basic hermeneutical principles (principles of interpretation). One key principle is that 'unclear' passages of the Bible should be interpreted in light of clear passages. Doctrine should be based on explicit teaching in scripture, not inference. All the great Christian doctrines—justification by faith, the deity of Christ, the inerrancy of scripture—are based on explicit statements in the Bible. The major objection is usually based on 1 Cor. 11:5, which reads, “But every woman who prays or prophesies with her head uncovered dishonors her head, for that is one and the same as if her head were shaved.” Some say this means that it was acceptable for a woman to pray or prophesy as long as her head was covered. But that view is only an inference. Explicitly the verse says that a woman who prays or prophesies with her head uncovered dishonors her head. There is no explicit sanctioning of women speaking with their heads covered. The inference that women may speak with their heads covered appears to contradict Paul’s explicit command in 1 Cor. 14:34,35 not to speak at the church meeting. Since the Christian should submit to the clear commands in scripture, the teaching of I Cor. 14:34,3 5 should be followed. What, then, is Paul saying in I Cor. 11:5? In order to answer that question it is necessary to look at the context. The broad context of I Cor. 11-14 is proper conduct at the meeting of the church. The immediate context of 1 Cor. 11:2-16 is spiritual headship, i.e., God’s order of authority. Paul writes in v. 3, “But I want you to know that the head of every man is Christ, the head of the woman is man, and the head of Christ is God.” He then goes on to discuss the head covering as a symbol of God’s creative order, i.e., women being under the headship (authority) of men. “Head” is mentioned eight times, sometimes referring to headship and at other times referring to the physical head. “Covering” (or “covered”, “cover”, and “uncovered”) is mentioned seven times. In contrast, praying is only referred to three times, and prophesying is only referred to twice." I am also using the 'African Bible Commentary' to contrast this. "The word translated as we 'speak' in 4;34 and 14;35 can mean either talking in an ordinary way or asserting with authority. From Paul's reference to submission, it seems that some women may have been speaking in a way that went against the virtue of submission. In the Corinthian context, a woman who asserted herself in public in a way that suggested she was not a submissive wife brought disgrace on her husband and her community - in this case the church. When we relate this prohibition to our times, we need to think about ways of speaking in public would suggest that a wife is not submissive. Generally, this would involve speaking in a way that humuliates her husband or other men. But it is possible for a woman to express her views, even where she differs with others, without humuliating her husband. Effective African women have demonstrated this. The Timothy passage, submission is at the heart of the discussion. In both places Paul is not concerned with ability but with priorities that God has established. In conclusion while these facts from scripture prove the ministry of women in the New Testament church, it has been suggested they do not address the specific issue of whether a woman can be given ordination. This is primarily due to the fact that the modern concept of ordination far exceeds the use of the word in the Bible. Today it includes the idea of an advanced authority above that of other ministers, an idea absent from the Scriptures. A careful study of the words translated “ordain” and “ordained,” along with the texts where they are used will demonstrate that the modern idea is absent. I hope this adds and enhances your very credible piece. Posted by employlawone| 24.07.2008 05:19

folys40  Villager

# 5 <QUOTE>1 Corinthians 14:34-35 "Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience as also saith the law. And if they will learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for women to speak in the church." 1 Timothy 2:11-12 "Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection. But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence." Regarding the first part, Paul said that because it was a common thing for women to come to church and be discussing about themselves or personal events in the church thereby disturbing the service. Sometimes a lady sitting 30 feet away would see another lady friend and would start talking. I think that if it were the men and not the women doing this at that time, Paul would not have made that statement. The second part was due to the fact that it was a man's world at that time. Women were regarded as second class. Their only mission in life was to cook and get pregnant. That was their culture. God never said that women should not be on the pulpit. Posted by folys40| 24.07.2008 06:12

Dewdrops  Villager

# 6 =Robot;4295074478>...Read the full article. Waka pass je je!:wink: I no wan make any ol man cry for my neck for this thread. This na real "sexist" area and I can feel "an erection" already. Hmmmmmmmmmm!:evil: Posted by Dewdrops| 24.07.2008 06:42

employlawone  Villager

# 7 Regarding the first part, Paul said that because it was a common thing for women to come to church and be discussing about themselves or personal events in the church thereby disturbing the service. Sometimes a lady sitting 30 feet away would see another lady friend and would start talking. I think that if it were the men and not the women doing this at that time, Paul would not have made that statement. The second part was due to the fact that it was a man's world at that time. Women were regarded as second class. Their only mission in life was to cook and get pregnant. That was their culture. God never said that women should not be on the pulpit. You useful add what I was unable to add. It is also useful to note that in those times and in that culture only those that had attended Rabanic schools were entitled to teach and of course women never attended such schools. So training and 'qualification' I dare suggest was a reason for this Pauline advise. Posted by employlawone| 24.07.2008 07:00

UncleTisha  Villager

# 8 =folys40;4295074557>1 Corinthians 14:34-35 "Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience as also saith the law. And if they will learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for women to speak in the church." 1 Timothy 2:11-12 "Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection. But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence." Regarding the first part, Paul said that because it was a common thing for women to come to church and be discussing about themselves or personal events in the church thereby disturbing the service. Sometimes a lady sitting 30 feet away would see another lady friend and would start talking. I think that if it were the men and not the women doing this at that time, Paul would not have made that statement. The second part was due to the fact that it was a man's world at that time. Women were regarded as second class. Their only mission in life was to cook and get pregnant. That was their culture. God never said that women should not be on the pulpit. @Folys40, can you please back up the underlined with specific references in the Bible? Thanks. @Topic There are numerous examples of women playing active roles in the Bible, both in the NT Christian ministry and OT lives. Examples are Deborah in the Book of Judges, who even led a war, and Priscilla in the New Testament. Deborah was respected and followed by men in a time when women were supposed to be subservient. She had the gift of prophesy and she was a judge. It is recorded in the Bible that when Apollos "began to speak boldly in the synagogue" about Jesus, "Priscilla and Aquila... took him aside and explained the Way of God to him more accurately." (Acts 18:26, NRSV) Whether they were ordained as ministers is a completely different issue, and the Bible should be the Sole Guide, not political correctness or equality of the sexes. Cheers. Posted by UncleTisha| 24.07.2008 07:12

allaccess  Villager

# 9 it is all good and well to discuss creating female leaders of a relation that has no conclusive reasons for being in existence. these churches were created in the belief God exists and did the things he is accredited with. No moral and religious basis for electing anyone to a sect or cabal that has no truthful purpose in this world of ours Posted by allaccess| 24.07.2008 07:24

Jagunlabi  Villager

# 10 Interesting comment, however in this time and age where women are pratically found in all sphere of human endeavour(Hillary Clinton narrowly missed out on the Democratic ticket), the argument for or against their involment in the church, should i think, be one of very minute importance. For it to have risen to the point where it's almost causing schism within the body is what really baffers me. Where we are contending with doctrinal issues we have million go to bed hungry(especially in African the loudset advocate), we have people who have not been reached with the love that is suppose to eminate from these pulpits. Yes these issues need to be discussed, homosexuality, women ordination, but should we go to the extent that we are removing ourselves from one body. Are there ways we can put our views across without lossing the message by the delivery. I've watched some African bishop express their views on homosexuality, and at times i want to bury my head in the sand at the level of vituperation from these ordanied men, not forgeting that adultery is sin, greed is sin, falling below God's standard is sinful(only, that He strengthen us day in day out). Yes God is love, and He would not condone our own ways to be his own standard, however we can all sit down and talk, agree to disagree, and not forget the broader issues, poverty, man's inhumanity to man, greed, covetousness and other things that are not pleasing in His sights. Posted by Jagunlabi| 24.07.2008 08:48

---

The conversation continues in our forum. Click here to read all comments

---