WOMEN AND CHURCH ELDERS: PT III: WHAT THE NEW TESTAMENT SAYS
By Steve Behlke
August 12, 2008
If you have not read Part I or Part II follow the links to these earlier posts.
Regarding women as elders in the church, no doubt, people smarter than myself have made engaging arguments for each side of this issue. Clearly, we can each find someone with an important sounding name and impressive sounding credentials to support our view, whichever view we currently hold to. In five seconds, we can google an author, a book, an article, pastor, a church, a denomination, or blog, to support our view.
Let's admit to that, without saying "no one can ever know" or "there is no absolute truth," so "let's all do whatever seems right in our own eyes and God will bless us."
Are you with me so far? If not, stop reading, it'll only get you upset...
... But if so, let's also admit that we each approach this issue with different backgrounds, perspectives, experiences, agendas, upbringings, sexes, training, worldviews, and interpretative values. Perhaps the best thing we can do, then, is acknowledge that we cannot put these things entirely aside, yet we must humble ourselves to God's Word, with no agenda other than to seek God's will, being full ready to practice it in our lives.
Finally, I want to mention that the popularity of this topic, when it first emerged, compelled me to bring it forth for more thorough discussion and consideration. I honestly do not wish for anyone to be waiting for me to weigh in as the male-female-elder authority, I am not. I just want to seek out God's Word, nothing else. At this point, I feel that for me to weigh in puts me in danger of angering some whose minds are long ago made up one way and being congratulated by those whose minds were made up the other way. My intention is not to be the "last word" on this, but from the start, it was to help each of us to study God's Word with an attitude of finding out what God really says, and to help those who humbly and honestly seek God's will to engage God's Word and God's Spirit on this matter.
That said, regarding women as elders, what does the Bible say, starting with Jesus? First, we saw this in Part II, but Jesus in His earth-life did not teach on the issue of church elders, period. So, glean what we can from Jesus but let's also seek the clear words of the New Testament Church Leaders to discover God's recorded Word on this matter.
And yet, Jesus did appoint leaders, the Twelve Apostles. Maybe we can learn something from this. When Jesus appointed the apostles, He only appointed males. This was not a cultural issue for Jesus, seeing that He broke every other cultural taboo to follow God's will, thus, He would have appointed women to be His apostles if it was God's will. But He did not. Clearly, for whatever reason, it was God's will that Jesus' apostles' were each male.
Okay... What does the Bible, particularly, what do the New Testament Church Leaders say? If we have a high view of Scripture, which I do, another way of saying this is what does the Holy Spirit say on this matter? Or what does the ascended Christ, the Head of the church, say on this matter?
The answer? The New Testament, the Holy Spirit, the ascended Christ, and the New Testament Church Leaders together prescribe male elders.
It's what the Bible says. Granted, we may interpret these passages to mean something differently or we may dismiss them as ancient lore and backwards thinking which is entirely unworthy of 21c Christianity, but if we look solely at what the New Testament teaches, and if that matters to us, it teaches plural, male eldership. Read the following few samples,
Acts 14:23 When they [Paul and Barnabas] had appointed elders [masculine] in every church, having prayed with fasting, they commended them to the Lord in whom they had believed.
Acts 15:22 Then the apostles and elders, with the whole church, decided to choose some of their own men and send them to Antioch with Paul and Barnabas. They chose Judas (called Barsabbas) and Silas, two men who were leaders among the brothers. 23 With them they sent the following letter: The apostles and elders [masculine], your brothers [masculine], to the Gentile believers in Antioch, Syria and Cilicia...
1 Timothy 3:1 Here is a trustworthy saying: If anyone sets his heart on being an overseer, he desires a noble task. 2 Now the overseer must be above reproach, the husband of but one wife... 4 He must manage his own family well... 5 (If anyone does not know how to manage his own family, how can he take care of God's church?) 6 He must not be a recent convert, or he may become conceited and fall under the same judgment as the devil. 7 He must also have a good reputation with outsiders, so that he will not fall into disgrace and into the devil's trap.
Titus 1:5 The reason I left you in Crete was that you might straighten out what was left unfinished and appoint elders in every town, as I directed you. 6 An elder must be blameless, the husband of but one wife, a man whose children believe... 7 Since an overseer is entrusted with God's work, he must be blameless... 8 Rather he must be hospitable, one who loves what is good, who is self-controlled, upright, holy and disciplined. 9 He must hold firmly to the trustworthy message as it has been taught, so that he can encourage others by sound doctrine and refute those who oppose it.
Every time the New Testament prescribes elders in the church they are to be male. We may not understand why, we may believe it is cultural capitulation, neandertholic institutional control, or we may think we should put a different spin on it like if the Apostles only knew what we knew today it would be different, but the Holy-Spirit-inspired-New-Testament teaches male eldership in the church of Jesus Christ.
But can we honestly claim this is mere capitulation to an ancient culture? Many argue for this, but did Jesus ever capitulate to culture any time when the culture was in the wrong... ever?! NO! Did Paul... ever?! Again, NO! So why would we claim that they capitulated here?! Wouldn't this be the best time to reverse the wrong-trend of culture?
Clearly, the New Testament church that followed Jesus Christ elevated and honored women; and good and godly women were in prominent roles of influence and service in the church — just not as elders. The Bible speaks of women in other prominent roles of leadership: as deacons (1 Tim. 3:11). Phoebe was a "servant of the church at Cenchrea" (Rom 16:1). Prisca was a fellow "worker in the Lord," she apparently took the lead, even over her husband, in discipling Apollos (Acts 18:24-28). Together this couple hosted a church in their home (1 Cor 16:19). Tryphaena and Tryphosa, too, besides having the coolest two names were "workers in the Lord." (Rom. 16:12). Just not elders.
I'm going to end for now with a few random thoughts that will be explored in later posts:
- Women should be leaders in the church, just not elders.
- We should be fine with that!
... For, "All are not apostles, are they? All are not prophets, are they? All are not teachers, are they? All are not workers of miracles, are they? 30 All do not have gifts of healings, do they? All do not speak with tongues, do they? All do not interpret, do they?" (1 Cor 12:29-30).
- Spiritual gifts need to be employed. But spiritual gifts do not determine office
... i.e., a woman gifted to shepherd or lead should shepherd and lead, but that does not mean she must be appointed an elder).
- Elders aren't the best-and-end-all leadership role in the church (1 Cor 12:28; Eph 4:11).
- Elders are never meant to be red-tape beaurocratic managers of programs and rules.
... A church is deprived when this is what elders do! They are to be strong, unafraid, shepherds of the church community, teachers and proclaimers of truth, guardians and defenders of truth, overseeing and defending and feeding the souls of those in their care. It is not a position of esteem but of responsibility and hard-work and fearless proclamation and leading.
- Culture does play some role in some of this discussion (particularly the head dress language, et al) but the Bible ties it's reasons against women being the primary authorities and guardians of the truth whom God holds responsible for those under our care to the Creation Narrative, which never changes, not to any cultural biases, which always change.
- A fun but disturbing passage: Another time the apostle Paul mentions some rather dubious sounding restrictions on women's role in the church, things that my stomach grimaces over, things I don't want to touch with a 10 foot pole. Right when I want to say these can only be cultural in nature, for Paul's time and not for ours, the apostle does two things: (1) He says this is the Lord's commandment and not mere Pauline theology or cultural bias; then (2) he challenges our sense of cultural superiority and our own notion of being more spiritual than Paul or God Himself: "If anyone thinks he is a prophet or spiritual, let him recognize that the things which I write to you are the Lord's commandment. But if anyone does not recognize this, he is not recognized."
(1 Cor 14:37-38).
... I.e., If you think you're a prophet or really spiritual, Paul says, you will recognize that what Paul just wrote is Christ's commandment. And if we don't recognize this, God does not recognize us as prophet or spiritual. In other words, we're thinking and speaking from our flesh, not our born again spirit. WOW... or not wow?! Depends on how we receive these... or not.
- Also... 1 Corinthians 14:34-38
- Galatians 3:28
- 1 Timothy 2:9-15
- 1 Timothy 3:11
More posts to come...
One thing which we must keep in mind is that gender-inclusive (or gender-neutral) language is a fairly recent development. In other words, it's hard to say how much weight we should give to the fact that Paul refers to 'elders' as masculine (e.g., "he...").
The New Testament writers didn't even envision referring to God's people has "sons *and daughters* of God" or that "Christ is the firstborn among many brothers *and sisters*." Even until a few we probably would have given the qualifications of a *policeman* in a list like Paul's: *He* must...
You might not think this is very significant, but it can't be discounted...especially if the reason for limiting the roles women can take in the church is found in the passages you cite.
Reply to this
This is a very good article, I agree with most of the references contextually. However, when it comes to the grammar, and gender, Greek is similar to Latin and French usage of gender. This means he/you (il/nous; ou-tou, autos, touto demonstrative pronoun, used as adjective and as substantive this) in most cases are referring to both genders. In English when you say the car is beautiful. Both words are used independently but in Greek all words in a sentence have to match in gender and number. Masculine pronouns happen to be the dominant pronouns in those languages. Therefore, this is why most of the time masculine is use as a neuter in Greek and in most of the Latin languages; to refer to both masculine and feminine. Nonetheless, the pastor’s has touched a hot button subject in our churches today, which needs to be addressed if we are to be God’s pleasers not men’s and women’s. This is very helpful; I have never referred to the book of Acts when it comes to this subject.
Simeon
Reply to this
There is an example in the New Testament of accepting something in the culture that was wrong. We don’t look at this as a “capitulation to the culture” but an acknowledgment that this situation exists along with instruction on how individuals should deal with it.
Paul accepted slavery as a cultural reality. He didn’t preach or write against slavery. He didn’t instruct slaveowners to free their slaves or tell slaves to flee their situation. Instead he discussed how each of the parties involved should relate to each other in a Christlike way. We don’t look at this as an endorsement of slavery, although it was seen that way by some in years past.
Reply to this
I think you make many good points in your post, and I agree with many of your "random thoughts" towards the end. I wish more complementarian churches practiced this, instead of tacitly keeping women out of all public roles related to teaching and leadership within the church!
However, I agree with Gabe and RT that arguing for men as elders primarily from Paul's use of masculine language is not a compelling argument (they cover the "why" pretty well so I won't repeat it). I look forward to hearing you discuss Genesis (and Paul's interpretations of Genesis) more fully -- in my opinion, that is a stronger question for discussion.
I'm curious about what you think the practical applications are. For example, would you be open to hiring a woman in an associate pastor role? She would still be under the authority of the head pastor (and I'd guess the elders, given CC's leadership structure). What about having women as guest preachers on a Sunday -- using teaching gifts to edify the congregation, but not ordained by the church?
Reply to this
I think the case goes way beyond masculine terminology. That is actually a small matter in the presentation.
Practical stuff will come soon. But an immediate response: I would hire the best person to be an associate pastor, male or female. Although, I do not think CC is yet ready for this.
Yes, I would, in fact, we are in contact with a female guest speaker during the Perspectives Course in 2009, to speak on Sunday morning at CC.
Biblically, and this angers or befuddles some, but biblically speaking, I believe the big issue is primary human authority (leadership, etc) over the church.
Reply to this
Mary Lewis once preached the sermon at College Church. This was after she had graduated from seminary, can't remember if it was just before or after she got her first pastor job (elsewhere). It's been done before!
Reply to this
I have some dear friends who live in Northampton and I visited your church this weekend. I consider myself a "young evangelical." I have many friends (including my wife) who have an undeniable call to pastor and lead. They are fiery and orthodox bible-lovers--the church would greatly benefit from their teaching. I don't think that the "Jesus only chose men as apostles so we can only appoint male eldership" argument can be used. Jesus also didn't choose a gentile to be one of the twelve. According to this line of argument, global Christendom is in deep trouble, we'll have to remove 99% of our leadership from ministry!
Reply to this
I like what Pastor Steve says when he says that women should be leading in the church and have much to teach us. I would go further and say that they could be elders. There is a significant difference between the didactic portions of scripture on this and the practice. While no women elders are listed, Junia was listed as "outstanding among the apostles" (Romans 16:7). Some have attempted to make this masculine, but there is simply no instance in Greek literature of that form being anything but a woman.
I would also take slight issue with the person who said Paul never spoke up against slavery. I would say that the little book of a Philemon is a subtle but significant challenge to slavery.
Lastly, and this is my main point, no matter what position we take on women in ministry, it is clear that women should be involved and using their gifts to the maximum degree permitted. My question then is, why are not more women involved in leadership in College Church, particularly in visible and teaching roles? Northampton is one of the more women friendly cities in the country. It is hard for me to imagine that our area is not ready for women to have a more significant role than they currently have at CC. It seems that this should be an important part of our missional involvement with the community.
In our area, an often heard complain is why anyone would believe in a male-dominated religion. Having qualified women in leadership roles would go a long way toward addressing that complaint.
Reply to this