DBE: Chapter 14 – The Priority of Spirit Gifting for Church Ministry

Discovering Biblical Equality: Complementarity Without Hierarchy. A Book Discussion. (Index here)

Part III: Thinking it Through (Logical and Theological Perspectives)

Chapter 14 – The Priority of Spirit Gifting for Church Ministry. Gordon D. Fee.

Dr. Fee writes:

What is at stake is not whether all people are equally gifted; they are not. What is at stake is whether God the Holy Spirit, in his gifting the people of God, ever makes gender a prior requirement for certain kinds of gifting. I will argue that on this point what biblical data we do have seems clear: the Spirit does not. (241)

So what I hope to do in this chapter is threefold: (1) to point out the ambiguity of the biblical texts with regard to church structures and ministries, and thus (2) to define a hermeneutical starting point from which our quest might legitimately be carried forward, and (3) to look at a variety of texts that state or imply that Spirit gifting precedes all questions of structures and gender. (241)

The Bible's Ambiguity Regarding Church Structure and Ministries

Fee begins this section by writing:

One thing that should perhaps strike the serious reader of Scripture is the general lack of concern in the New Testament about the way the church ordered its corporate life, whether in structures (“offices,” etc.) or its gatherings for worship. (242)

Fee points out that while we find very explicit, intentional instructions for how Israel should function and how the people should worship, such instruction is completely absent from the New Testament. The nearest thing we have is 1 Timothy 3:1-13 and Titus 1:5-9, but these are just qualifications for leaders. It doesn't give a job description. The concept of "office," in terms of a formal position that someone needs to fill, can only be crafted out of 1 Timothy 3:1, which is a stretch. Some things we take as titles, like "prophet," were likely not office titles but mere descriptions of someone who prophesies. Fee notes that "…what is totally lacking in our documents is any instruction intentionally stipulating who, what, how many and the duties of these various people." (243)

Fee writes that it appears some New Testament churches functioned like synagogues with elders giving leadership. Yet, some leaders were episkopoi, a term from the Greco-Roman world meaning "overseers." Fee mentions that we know that some churches were household churches. Another study I have done suggests some churches (Thessalonica?) may have been organized as burial societies, which would have been a more convenient strategy for poorer congregations. The bottom line is that we don't have a blueprint for Church structure and life.

A Hermeneutical Starting Point

As a hermeneutical starting point, Fee suggests that we recognize that we make three kinds of doctrinal statements in the Church.

1. Christian theology (what Christians believe)
2. Christian ethics (how Christians ought to live in relation to others)
3. Christian praxis (what Christians do as "religious" people) (246)

He says that:

Moreover, within these three kinds of statements there are some that are primary and nonnegotiable (e.g. the diety of Christ), while others are secondary (e.g. the two natures and how they cohere.) … most of the differences between Christians lie in two places: (1) with the secondary-level statements in the first two categories (theology and ethics) and (2) with both levels of statements in the third category (praxis). (246)

Fee points out, Christians all practice communion, but there is wide variance about how to observe it properly. Still, all the justifications "… are predicated on different readings of texts that give no explicit instruction; everything is implied." (246)

…our hermeneutical difficulties are exacerbated by the fact that our only experience of church, even for those who have broad intercommunion experience, is of a later development of church that looks almost nothing like the house church of the first-century Greco-Roman world. (247-248)

Consequently, there is no one-to-one correspondence between what the New Testament calls some function like "pastor" and what we call "pastor" today. Fee concludes:

…since the New Testament does not teach explicitly that only men may lead or serve in certain ways, and in fact seems to leave the door open on this matter (in the case of women as householders), the issue should more likely be giftedness, not gender. Indeed, I for one have as much resistance to the notion that women ought to be in leadership along with men as to the notion that only males are gifted to lead. (248-249)

Verbal Ministries in the New Testament

In this section, Fee asks:

(1) What does “ministry” mean? Can one make a legitimate distinction between ministry as “office” in the church and ministry as serving the church in other capacities? (2) What is the evidence that women were involved in ministry that included teaching, especially instructing others in scripture. (249)

Fee builds a case that when Paul talks about praying and prophesying in such an offhanded way in 1 Corinthians 11:4-5, he uses these terms as euphemisms for all verbal ministry in worship. Paul doesn't make neat, clean boundaries between various types of utterances. Fee also raises 1 Cor 14:31, "For you can all prophesy in turn so that everyone may be instructed and encouraged." He points out that "all" refers to all worshipers (men and women). He notes that,

These latter two verbs are most often associated, first, with receiving instruction through teaching and, second, with proclamation – which suggest that Paul did not have neat categories for these various verbal expressions prompted by the Spirit.” (250)

Furthermore, Fee concludes that prophecy in passages like 1 Cor 14 refers to people who occasionally prophesy not to an office of prophet.

Here is Fee's summary of the biblical data:

First, one finds a general lack of precision in Paul when it comes to describing verbal ministries within the community of faith. (251)

Second, in no instance in Paul’s letters does he mention leader(s) who are to be in charge of what takes place; for him the Spirit is the obvious leader of the community in its worship.

Third, there is no distinction of any kind between men and women when it comes to the actual verbal activities involved; indeed, a straightforward reading of all the texts together seems to imply that “all” means both men and women. (251)

Fee points out that an important implication of this analysis is that the New Testament just isn't concerned about the specific structures and offices. He notes that Paul never addresses church leaders either to exhort them to take charge or praise them for work well done. He never speaks to leaders as though they are the ones to carry out his directives. "He does at times tell the community to "recognize" its leaders, but the language is in the form of verbs describing their activities rather than nouns that indicate their "offices" (see I Thess 5:12-13). (253)

Fee closes, noting that such a view of ministry based on gifts makes ministry less authority driven. It eliminates the problem common in seminaries of many students assuming they meet the first requirement for ministry: being male. It also allows everyone to participate in all facets of ministry, whether male or female.

Thus, my issue in the end is not a feminist agenda – an advocacy of women in ministry. Rather, it is a Spirit agenda, a plea for the releasing of the Spirit from our strictures and structures so that the church might minister to itself and to the world more effectively. (254)

Author:

Gordon D. Fee received his M.A. from Seattle Pacific University and Ph.D from the University of Southern California. He is professor emeritus of New Testament studies at Regent College as well as an ordained minister in the Assemblies of God. His publications include How to Read the Bible for All Its Worth; How to Read the Bible Book by Book; New Testament Exegesis: A Handbook; God's Empowering Presence: The Holy Spirit in the Letters of Paul; Listening to the Spirit in the Text; and commentaries on 1 Corinthians and Philippians (NICNT) and the Pastoral Epistles (NIBC). He and his wife, Maudline, have four married children and twelve grandchildren.

Before commenting, please read Prefatory Comments.

[Previous] [Next] [Index]

Comments

[molly]

Let me tell a story to make this more personal (er, at the risk of offending anyone who is extremely anti-cessationalist...sorry).

At the height of my "patriarchal-hood," (lol), I remember being in a home Bible/prayer meeting. We'd been hosting them for new believers weekly, and they were really good and growing in attendance. A fairly new Believer was with us (who had been asking a TON of questions about the Holy Spirit during the Bible study) that time.

I was just sitting there, during a prayer time, when I was absolutely consumed with the need to go and lay hands on him and pray for the gifts of the Holy Spirit to be imparted to him. It was so powerful that I was shaking, and the instruction was VERY clear---to go pray for that man.

I glanced at my husband and made a nod to our friend, and my husband knew it meant I wanted to go pray for him...and my husband then glared at me and gave me the, "no," clenched jaw. (We had been in charismania for a time and he was terribly against it, for good reasons, afterwards)...

I remember being caught in such a dilemna. I *knew* I was supposed to go pray for our friend and that God wanted to impart something to him (no, I don't go doing that stuff all the time). Yet my patriarch told me that I was not allowed to.

I didn't know what to do. I got up to quietly run upstairs to our bedroom because I knew I couldn't sit there without starting to cry...loudly...it was all I could do to sit still as it was...every fiber of me *needed* to go pray for that man. But I was told no.

My patriarch knows God better than I do, I was taught---if he says no, then, as my mediator (as my covenental head), I must obey him...and if he was wrong, then God would deal with him (the woman making a vow in Numbers---she may keep her vow to God if her patriarch says she may, etc).

I started up the stairs but broke down weeping on the first step...loudly. At which point everyone looked up and asked what was wrong, etc. It was terribly embarassing... My patriarch gave an annoyed nod to me, that I could do what I wanted to do, now that I'd ruined it...

I wiped away the tears, tried to just put the humiliation of the situation out of my mind, and went to pray for our friend. It was incredibly powerful. Gifts were imparted on the spot. It was awesome...more than just gifts, but a calling... (he became an incredible teacher/preacher, went off to Bible College and is a pastor now in an inner-city church, etc)...

I look back at that situation now and just scratch my head in amazement. I was literally under the assumption that if a conflict came up between my husband and the Holy Spirit, that I was to give allegiance to my husband. That I would be in MORE trouble with God for disobeying my husband than I would be for disobeying the Holy Spirit!

(Btw, my husband is not like this now, just so you know. We were both under a teaching of covenental headship that we don't ascribe to now...though, to be honest, we don't really know *what* to ascribe to, either...just trying to pick up the pieces, I guess, and learn how to serve God together all over again, in that sense...how to walk together now that we are side by side instead of one behind the other).

Okay, my extremely personal moment is over now... :) But I want to add that ministry based on personal gifting does not exist in most fundamental churches. The one I grew up in, the one we now work in...it doesn't matter if I'm gifted to teach or preach from the Bible, I will never be asked...NOT because they would purposely ignore me, but because they literally cannot conceive of a woman teaching a mixed audience.

It just isn't even an option. But I can supervise VBS. Or lead the children's choir. Or run the Christmas program. Or host a ladies tea... If a woman has a gift to teach, then it simply proves she was called of God to take a Sunday School class. (Not saying that is bad---I LOVE teaching children...just saying, it ends there. It doesn't matter if I'm actually gifted to teach adults, because it will NEVER happen here, outside of a total miracle).

It is for the same reasons I described above in my painful personal story. It's not because one doesn't want to obey the Holy Spirit. It's that one thinks that the Holy Spirit's way is through the heirarchy, and if it appears the Spirit is moving a different way, a way outside the heirarchy of men and women, then the problem is the *perception* of His movement. It can't really be Him moving, because He only moves within the heirarchal structure (because the heirarchal structure comes from God, therefore God would never go against it).

[Michael Kruse]

Wow Molly! What a great testimony. It is a powerful illustration of what Fee is talking about here. I have close friends who are from very conservative Baptist background that share some of your experiences and are on a similar journey. Thanks for sharing this.

[Dana Ames]

Fee's point of view is where I arrived this morning after the sometimes tedious and tiring engagement at Scot McKnight's - what a breath of fresh air. Those who believe God can't work in any other way but through hierarchy are only being consistent in maintaining women's subordination. There are so many good and beautiful aspects of spirituality and theology that have come from the RC/EO church traditions. From my point of view, the insistance on hierarchy that I fail to see Jesus or Paul constituting in the NT casts a pall over all that I find attractive in those traditions. Thanks for your clear and measured input over at JesusCreed, Michael.

Thanks to you too, Molly. You're where I was, although not in such a tight system, for about 15 years. I haven't been there for a long time, but my husband is still wandering in those circles.

Dana

[Michael Kruse]

As an INTJ I am the first to admit that I am often tone deaf to the emotional signals I give off and people sending me. But I am equally aware that isn't always me with the problem. :) Thanks for your feedback about my comments.

"There are so many good and beautiful aspects of spirituality and theology that have come from the RC/EO church traditions. From my point of view, the insistance on hierarchy that I fail to see Jesus or Paul constituting in the NT casts a pall over all that I find attractive in those traditions."

Me too. I really like the final paragraph I quoted from Fee.

[molly]

My husband is the INTJ in our home (and I'm the ENTP that he can't ever fit into a box, poor guy). :)

Dana, in a big way my husband is still there, too, in that he would have prefered to stay in a patriarchal framework, and it really is only my fault that we're not. I have told him that I will happily go back, when I am sure it's God's desire/will/plan, but until then, have asked for grace to question and search.

Our marriage has been very difficult through these changes, I won't lie. It is very hard, I think especially for the patriarch, because in a huge sense, your manhood is defined by whether or not your wife is obedient to you.

I, personally, was so angry at him at first for how patriarchy has crushed and drained me...until the Spirit reminded me that it wasn't just *him* doing it to me, but that I, too, was decieved---I, too, chose that path as God's intention for us.

And am learning to have more patience and to be merciful to him. He changes slowly whereas I'm a quick leaper (together we have a good balance).

And, I also need to accept that he may not ever change. He may always feel that the Bible supports patriarchy, that the Bible supports male covenental headship. And I am going to have to live with that.

How do I love in that setting? How do I love and honor him...CAN we love and honor eachother with a huge difference of opinion in this matter?

I think the answer is yes. The church itself, for example, will never agree on all the particulars, but can we be known for our love, for our unity, while at the same time allowing for diversity? The answer is YES. I think we're *supposed* to be able to, anyways. Whether or not we will is another question altogether. :)

So I feel that way on a personal level... It would be so much easier if we could just see eye to eye...if I wasn't on this journey by myself. But I see this road (of doing it alone) as having great value, too. Can I love him? Can I honor and esteem him? I did it before because it was my place---because I was in subjection. Can I do it now for a higher reason---because I am called to love my neighbor, because the Love of God compells me to think outwardly instead of inwardly, because I am called as a Christian to love my brother as myself, to prefer him above myself?

Some days Jesus flat out rocks (in me) and I love and offer grace. Some days I am selfish and want to "love" only when everything is perfect and all my own *needs* are met, only when *he* gets it right, only when...

But I am learning! And so is my husband. We are learning to love in a whole new way. Because he's having to face the fact that *I* may never agree with the form of patriarchy we adopted, too...he's having to deal with the fact that we may never see eye to eye here. He's having to learn to love, also.

Love is the hardest thing I've ever done, I'll admit that, and is demanding more from me than any of the rules and codes and lists ever did. It is the only thing that requires Another to do it in/through me. I cannot do this "rule." I am powerless in and of myself. I hate that...and yet I also know it's the best place to be in the world... :)

Warmly,
Molly