The clearly misogynistic and intemperate comments of American evangelist Gino Jennings on how women in the Church should dress and adorn themselves is a matter that has incensed a lot of Jamaicans. It has brought into public gaze, once again, the issue of the place of women in the Church. It might be easy to just simply ignore Jennings’ misinformed comments as arrant nonsense, but when so many people, including women, seem to agree with him, the matter needs further distillation.

From the very beginning of the Church the place of women in its ministry has been a vexing and contentious one. Like hives, it breaks out every so often, especially when misinformed preachers like Jennings are given a public platform to lay bare their invectives against women.

There are those denominations which on doctrinal grounds have barred women from ministry. Some have grudgingly admitted them to positions of leadership, but will still exclude them from ordained ministry. And there are still those who have steadfastly and stubbornly refused to admit them to any position in the Church on the belief that they are standing on strong biblical grounds.

Over my years in the Church I am yet to come across a cogent theological argument for the exclusion of women from ordained ministry. Such exclusion, in my view, is more rooted in sociology and culture than in a theological understanding of the mind of God in this matter. Furthermore, it is a function of the patriarchal milieu which influenced the environment out of which the Bible arose.

In the Old Testament, this patriarchal mindset predominates. The male is given the ascendancy in important institutions in society — in kingship, prophecy, the family, and the various functional institutions of religious life. With the coming of Jesus and the birth of the New Testament, the role and function of women in society and religion is little changed, as patriarchy continues to dominate.

In the Jewish family, the role of the woman was highly appreciated, but when it came to matters of religion a very low estimate was taken of her participation. This was also the case in Greek and Roman culture. In Judaism she could hold no position in the synagogue. She was not even allowed to read the scripture there.

At the risk of sounding blasphemous to some people, Jesus, Paul, and the other apostles were prisoners of the culture in which they were born and brought up. They too were influenced by the prevailing patriarchal mindset. But the fact that Jesus did not include women among his 12 disciples is no theological basis to state that he did not endorse their ordination to ministerial or pastoral roles. Perhaps he did not want to allow unnecessary controversy to erupt around his brief ministry and thus distract from the main task that was ahead of him.

Notwithstanding the patriarchal environment which was hostile to women’s rights, Jesus and Paul, as revered teachers, did more than any other to assert the dignity of women. Women might not have been with the original 12, but they figured prominently in Jesus’s life and ministry. So did they in Paul’s. There was never an instance of the denigration of women by either man.

There are two frequently used references by evangelicals and Pentecostals to exclude women from ministry. One relates to women speaking in church (1 Corinthians 14: 34) and the other to women’s adornment and dress (1 Timothy 2: 9). Here again we are dealing with socio-cultural constructs which influenced Paul’s thinking, rather than a theological dispute. In these instances Paul was simply being practical and he was not laying down any rule that was intended to be permanent. In the matter of women’s dressing, he urged modesty so they would not be confused with the many prostitutes, especially the temple prostitutes, who peddled their wares.

It is not enough simply to quote biblical texts and hold them up as wholesome interpretations of a writer’s mind and intentions. As Christians, the Bible must remain our rule and guide, but texts ought to be seen in the context from which they are taken. And context means the historical and cultural context out of which particular pieces of writing derive. This is why serious and careful students of the Bible, especially the New Testament, subject themselves to historical and textual context, and form critical methods of studying the Bible in an effort to understand the milieu of scripture and come to a more enlightened understanding of the force of the message. There is often a story behind the story. Merely quoting a text is intellectual laziness, which does not befit a serious student of the Bible.

When it comes to official positions in the Church, and especially the ordained ministry, the call to ministry is a function of the Holy Spirit, who gives charismatic gifts to both male and female. There is no gender distinction in the conferment of gifts. Thus Paul could write to the Ephesians that God gave some to be apostles, some prophets, some evangelists some pastors and teachers for the perfecting of the saints and for the work of ministry (Ephesians 4: 11-16). Here there is no gender distinction in ministry, for as Paul himself acknowledged in another epistle, in light of the reality of the new life to be had in Jesus Christ, there is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, for all are one (Galatians 3: 28).

If the call to ministry is a function of the Holy Spirit in the life of the believer, it is not a concession that is given by a magisterium or institution. Yes, the Church must evaluate and vet those who are so called, but it does not belong to a church to promulgate policies which specifically deny those who believe they have the call of God on their lives the possibility to do so on the basis of their gender. This is unscriptural and is, in fact, sloppy theology. Properly understood, there is absolutely no gender distinction in the call to ministry.

If the Holy Spirit is not gender-specific, the idea of a woman being excluded from ministry because she is a woman is an abhorrent practice. It is no more than a “talibanisation” of the Church where the male view is allowed to predominate in matters of faith.

A careful theology of ministry is not built on discrimination. Instead, it takes careful note of the fact that both male and female, having been created in the image of God, are called to function within the context of his or her own gift and talent. And men are no more talented and gifted to do the work of ministry than women. Has the female received less of the charismatic gifts than her male counterpart? In truth, women may be able to bring peculiar and special gifts to the task of teaching, pastoring and general ministry than a man can. Each gender’s intrinsic worth in doing God’s will is recognised in the task to which each is called in the body of Christ. And the call is a very sacred thing that should not be trivialised along gender lines.

The intrinsic worth of both genders in the eyes of God is seen from the very beginning in the creation narrative in Genesis. Here there is no distinction between the male and female other than the obvious biological distinctions. The fact that man was made first and the woman taken from one of his ribs is of no significance here. This may be important to those who hold steadfastly to the patriarchal narrative, but it has no real theological import. What is important is to see that in the divine initiative to create both male and female, God recognises the equality of both and intends that they both would have dominion and control over what he had created. The misogynistic dumbing down of our women in the Church does not square with this sense of equality and must stop. Women should not cheer on those who denigrate them.

Dr Raulston Nembhard is a priest and social commentator. Send comments to the Observer or stead6655@aol.com.