Monday, July 07, 2008

Baby Steps From Orthodoxy to Heresy

Whenever the Scriptures are misused, it grieves God and all of His children. As one of those children, I initially have a two-fold thought on this matter. First of all, I realize that I am imperfect, quite flawed, actually, and I have misused Scriptures in the past. Worse than that, I am sure that I will misuse Scriptures in the future. I have not done so intentionally, and I will not do it intentionally in the future, but even though I cannot think of a specific example, I am sure that this is a true description of me. The second thought that I have is one of indignation and anger that the Word of God is distorted by careless, immature, or malicious individuals when they use a Scripture to state as a fact what that Scripture, or perhaps even the Scriptures as a whole, does not teach at all.

And it is in the mindset of my two-fold reaction that I hope to address misuses of Scripture. First of all, if I am approached with an example of where I have used a Scripture out of context in order to support a theological conclusion (whether my final conclusion is Biblical or not, it makes no difference), I hope and pray that I will quickly have a humble attitude to investigate the issue to see if I am at fault. And once I become aware of an occurrence of out of context proof texting, then not only will I not use the text in the same incorrect manner, but I will do what I can to rectify my previous use of it in that manner.

My hope and prayer is that my Christian brethren will do the same. However, since we are all sinful, there are verses and issues that will not be given up easily or at all. Even if these misuses of Scripture are for theologically true issues or issues that are false but not at the level of being heretical, it is still a very troubling and problematic activity. If a text can be twisted out of context and accepted to affirm something that it doesn’t, even if that affirmation is not heretical, what is to stop the next person who wants to twist it even further?

There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free man, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus. (Galatians 3:28)

When I have researched and discussed the issue of female pastors, Galatians 3:28 is the verse that is used, along with other vague references and elusions to women, to argue the point. Furthermore, the passage in Galatians is the primary Scriptural cudgel that is used to bat down the opposing arguments. Proponents of female pastors and elders basically see this verse as washing away the distinctions of men and women as it relates to pastoral ministry. But along with the gender neutralizing application that is taken from Galatians 3:28, those who advocate female pastors from the Scriptures are quick to site the fact that there have been female prophetesses (Ex 15:20, 2 Kings 22:14, Luke 2:36, Acts 21:9), a female Judge (Jud 4:4), and a female member of a prominent husband and wife team that helped Apollos (Acts 18:24-28). However, without the glue of the above interpretation of Galatians 3:28, these examples don’t teach us anything about the role or qualifications of elders in the church, they are simply examples of what women had done under the Law and during the transitional time of the early church. But even the examples of prophetesses in the New Testament are not listed as elders or pastors, and that must not be overlooked or brushed under the rug.

So the question that must be addressed is this: does Galatians 3:28 teach the washing away of gender distinctions in the church, or at least regarding the issue of elders and pastors in the church? My answer is simply and quickly that it does no such thing. First of all, Paul’s letter is primarily addressing the issues raised because of the Judaizing false teachers who were teaching that one must follow the law as well as have faith in order to be saved. Paul’s pronouncement of this idea as anathema in the first chapter is one of the harshest in all of his letters.

So when we arrive at chapter three, Paul is now trying to give a presentation about the correct use or function of the law since following the law has no part in our justification. And it is in the context of the proper understanding of the law that we find Galatians 3:28.
22 But the Scripture has shut up everyone under sin, so that the promise by faith in Jesus Christ might be given to those who believe. 23 But before faith came, we were kept in custody under the law, being shut up to the faith which was later to be revealed. 24 Therefore the Law has become our tutor to lead us to Christ, so that we may be justified by faith. 25 But now that faith has come, we are no longer under a tutor. 26 For you are all sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus. 27 For all of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ. 28 There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free man, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus. 29 And if you belong to Christ, then you are Abraham's descendants, heirs according to promise. (Galatians 3:22-29)

Verses 24-26 make it clear that Paul is referring both to who can be justified and how they can be justified. And the answer is that there is no racial, class, or gender disqualifiers for justification that occurs by faith. Forgetting that Paul’s parallel statement in Colossians 3:9-11 doesn’t mention a distinction between male and female. Even if Paul would have made the same “neither male nor female” statement, the context in Colossians is about the renewal that believer’s experience who have been justified by faith and not about serving in the church.

Another textual objection raised in this text, but in my experience much less frequently, is that we are all, male and female, “heirs according to promise”. The promise that we are heirs to in Christ is the promise made to Abraham and not one of temporal gifts or service in the church. Being an heir in this sense is saying that we receive the promise that was made to Abraham and passed down through Isaac, Jacob, and the nation is one of salvation (see Galatians 3:6-9).

But one proponent of the egalitarian view made a very wild “logical” continuation of applying Galatians 3:28 “only to salvation.”
“If Galatians 3:28 only refers to salvation, then we would have a difficult time defending the inclusion of the gentiles in the leadership roles of the church. Let me explain what I mean.

What if someone said that only the Jews were to rule, and all the gentiles had to be subordinate? After all, weren’t all of the books of the Bible written by Jews? Weren’t all of Jesus disciples Jews? Jesus never appointed anyone who wasn’t a Jew to a place of authority in the church.

Is that Biblical? It may sound logical because these are the same arguments that have been used against women. But the wall of separation has been taken down in every case.”1

The proof-text that is used here referring to this dividing wall that is broken down and that the speaker relates to the roles of men and women in the church is Ephesians 2:14-16. While the verses do talk about breaking down a barrier and making the two into one new man, the context is about the Jews and the gentiles, not men and women.

One of the explicit qualifications given for the role of elder or overseer is that the person must be a one woman man. The language is clear that the individual must be a man, not simply a person who is devoted to one other person. He doesn’t say that the elder or bishop must be a good looking man, a black man, a white man, a young man, an old man, a Jewish man (Israelite), or a gentile man; he just says that he must be a one woman man.

Galatians 3:28 does not overrule or even clarify the male qualification for being an elder or bishop when Paul announces that there is no “male or female” in Christ Jesus. Paul is responding to the heresy of the Judaizers in Galatia and their insistence that you must add law-keeping to faith, especially circumcision, in order to be saved. And there is no distinction because of pedigree, gender, or social status. Conversely, when Paul wrote to Timothy and Titus, he was giving positive instructions on leading in the church.

We must be careful not to confuse the Scriptures in their application. Even though it is my conviction based up on the Scriptures that it is wrong for a woman to be a pastor or teacher of men, it is not heresy (not by a long shot). That being the case, using Galatians 3:28 as a verse that breaks down gender distinctions when this passage says nothing of the sort can open it up to further abuses. What context is to stop someone from making the positive case for committed Christian homosexual relationships? Of course the Bible explicitly refers to one man and one woman for marriage, but if there is neither Jew nor Greek, slave or free man, male or female in Christ Jesus, who are we to stop two loving people from being married?

There are always a few baby steps from orthodoxy to heresy, and we must be careful to school the steps of faith that we take by the Word of God in its proper context.


1 Women in Ministry Silenced or Set Free? part 7 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JCUFC1ss-Dw&feature=user


8 comments:

Cheryl Schatz said...

Hi,

You said: "We must be careful not to confuse the Scriptures in their application. Even though it is my conviction based up on the Scriptures that it is wrong for a woman to be a pastor or teacher of men, it is not heresy (not by a long shot)."

Well, I am certainly glad that you do not believe that a woman teaching a man means that the woman is a heretic. Many complementarians have taken this position and it is to the detriment of the church as it causes separation and division.

Since you have quoted a very small portion of my DVD, it might be a good idea to view it in the complete context before you try to refute it especially when it comes to the divisions that existed between Jew and Gentile. The portion that you quoted goes on to focus on chapter 4 as the basis of the argument. We must not stop at one verse and rip it from its context.

The question of course would be then how could you possibly allow a woman to teach you? It appears that you see this as a sin issue since you say that it is "wrong". This gives me cause to question concerning why you would even watch a video with a female teacher? Surely if it is "wrong" for a woman to teach a man, then it must be equally "wrong" for a man to listen to a woman teach. However I have searched the scriptures and see no "sin" listed. It also would be difficult to point out the woman's error if one didn't listen to her teaching.

The solution of course is that we are to take scripture in its context and Galatians 3:28 as well as 1 Timothy 2:12 must not be ripped out from their context. When one takes one verse alone without considering the context, it is usually a pretext for error. While Galatians chapter 4 is crucial to understanding Paul's point in Galatians 3:28, 1 Timothy 2:15 is also crucial to understanding verse 12.

EJ said...

Regarding the DVD – I do not have the resources at my disposal to view the video in its entirety. I found your vid on youtube and took it in the given context. But regardless of the context of your video (not to minimize your efforts or be dismissive), but Galatians 3 and 4 do not speak to service in the church, but standing in Christ. The division between Jew and Gentile was huge because of the overwhelming racism of the Jews at that time (the Judaizers), and that is the reason Peter’s sin, Paul’s rebuke of Peter, and the letter as a whole.

The contrast of Paul’s letter is between law and faith. We are not saved by works of the law but by faith. That is the point of the analogy of Sarah and Hagar. Galatians is about the wiping away of distinctions in that it wipes away the false teaching that you had to be Jewish (circumcision) to be a true Christian. But I cannot stress enough that Paul’s context says nothing about Church service, and so applying these verses to elders, bishops, or pastors is unwarranted by the text in its context.

And we are all sons of God by faith in Christ in the sense of inheritance, not in specific roles or qualifications given in the church.

“This gives me cause to question concerning why you would even watch a video with a female teacher? Surely if it is "wrong" for a woman to teach a man, then it must be equally "wrong" for a man to listen to a woman teach.” My point in the post and my video comments are specifically related to the servant teaching roles of elder, pastor, and bishop. I was not referring to school teachers or even the running of a household, only the service roles in the Church. So it was not wrong for me to see this vid and examine it.

“Surely if it is "wrong" for a woman to teach a man, then it must be equally "wrong" for a man to listen to a woman teach. However I have searched the scriptures and see no "sin" listed.” I would recommend against this hermeneutic or argument, because although it may be a quick quip to silence the questions or objections of some, it opens the door to many other problems. The most common objection is used by the Tony Campolo “red letter Christian” type crowd when they argue for all sorts of things because Jesus never said such and such. Now, you are not saying the same thing as Mr. Campolo, so please don’t infer that from my words – I am only saying that similar logic is being applied.

The teaching and authority servant leadership positions in the church have various qualifications that “weed” out all sorts of Christ loving, Bible believing, born again people from being in those positions. In both 1 Timothy and Titus the second qualification following being above reproach is that the person needs to be a one woman man. The language is very clear that the elder or bishop (episcipos or presbuteros) must be a man (aner) and not a wife (gune). The female qualifications given in 1 Timothy are in the context of the role of deacon – hence the role of deaconess.

But I reject the whitewashing of 1 Timothy 2:12; 3:2; and Titus 1:6 because of 1 Timothy 2:14’s reference to Eve’s being deceived. That is true that she was, but this is not Paul’s affirmative statement about why women should teach or exercise authority over men or why they should be elders and bishops and pastors. To say this would be truly to rip the verses out of context and make them say the opposite of what Paul is clearly saying.

Women do have a role given by God where they are to teach and where they are to exercise their gifts. Teaching women (Titus 1:3-5) and children (1 Tim 2:15) is where this is to take place, and it is here that exercising her gifts of teaching, doctrinal explanation, and Scriptural exposition are much needed and valued.

Soli Deo Gloria

Cheryl Schatz said...

EJ,

The reviews that I have received from the video series in its complete context have been very encouraging. Even complementarian pastors have written me about how well done the series was and they have commented that the teaching in one area or another has been the best that they have heard (i.e. 1 Cor. 11 on head coverings or 1 Cor. 14 women's silence in the church). I would recommend you get a copy when you have the resources because I think it would help you to get the full picture. The very first feedback I had was from a comp pastor who provided this public feedback:

"The story of creation tells us that both man and woman were made in the image of God. All people are given intrinsic value in the miraculous act of creation, and all people are loved passionately by God, regardless of gender, race, age, education, economics, etc. However, though men and women are equal in value and purpose in God’s eyes, there are passages in the Bible that raise the question of whether or not God limits the roles that are available to women in a local church family. Women in Ministry: Silenced or Set Free examines this question in a thoughtful and persuasive way. Through clear, concise teaching and multimedia, this series provides an excellent presentation of the arguments in favor of a woman’s freedom to serve in all roles of Christian leadership according to God’s leading. Though I disagree with the theological conclusions of this series at several points, I found the series very helpful in understanding the issues involved from a different perspective. Without a doubt, the presentation is offered with tremendous respect, integrity, and grace.
-Dr. Scott Heine, Compass Church, Goodyear, Arizona"

What Dr. Heine has written here is very appropriate. He speaks about the "roles available to women in the local church family". This is not about what one can do within a building but how one can use their gifts amongst other believers. When one teaches the bible in one's home, that is within the "local church family". Church buildings and pulpits were not a part of the early church and believers met by the river or in a believer's home once they broke away from the Jewish congregation. How do we minister effectively with our gifts for the benefit of the body of Christ? This is the subject of the DVD set and it certainly deserves to be addressed. Listening to a woman teach whether by DVD or in your home or by personal communication is a method of ministering to the body of Christ. I think the subject that we are concerned about is not, for example teaching in a hospital setting, but teaching the precious truths of God's word. Those who serve others with their gifts are to do so with an attitude of humility and servanthood, not from a position of taking authority over another believer. When we serve as Jesus did we can know that we are walking in the will of God whether we are male or female, no matter what our ethnic background and no matter how much education or money we have. Our love for other believers in allowing them to benefit from our gifts is a key way to show our love for one another. When we withhold our gifts from a believer we practice being prejudiced and unloving.

The context of Galatians 3 & 4 is our inheritance in Christ. It isn't just about salvation but about our complete inheritance given to us through the Holy Spirit and this includes the gifts that the Holy Spirit gives.

While some say that women are to teach doctrine to women and children, scripture does not limit our use of our spiritual gifts nor does it even instruct women to teach other women Christian doctrine. The only instruction regarding women teaching other women is in domestic and marital areas. Some well-respected leaders have even made women's doctrinal teaching to other women to be inferior. They say that the greatest spiritual source for a woman will always be a man. In this way they limit the spiritual worth of a woman not in God's eyes but in the eyes of even other women. A woman's doctrinal teaching is subsequently taught as inferior and of a lower nature. This is a very sad reflection of making the spiritual gifts that Jesus gives to be pink or blue. Scripture does not give a list of spiritual gifts that are allowed for women and those that are allowed for men. Jesus decides who gets what gifts and the fact that he gifts a person is to be embraced and not rejected.

When we truly love one another as Christ instructed us to love, we will value and welcome the gifts that the Holy Spirit gives through each one of us. There is no Christian that I cannot benefit from and I honor them when I submit to learn from them. We then take what we learn and test it against scripture to prove its worth. Test all things, hold fast to what is good.

EJ said...

We seem to be talking past one another here…

My whole point of the blog entry is this: Galatians 3:28 says nothing about women serving as elder or bishop or pastor. Galatians 3:28 refers to salvation in Christ. Even if you disagree and believe that it speaks of inheritance, that still does not address the issue of the qualifications – not Spiritual gifts – for someone to be a pastor, bishop, or elder.

And while the passages referring to the giving of gifts doesn’t give “qualifications”, the passages referring to serving in roles of pastor, elder, or bishop does have qualifications. And one of the explicit qualifications given in those passages is that the person must be a man. This has nothing to do with worth or value, but only of God ordained structure. I would counsel any man or woman who thought of someone as less spiritually valuable or of less spiritual worth simply because they were not a pastor or elder that they needed a serious paradigm shift. Our Triune God is the best place to go for that: The Spirit is not the Son, and the Son is not the Father, nor the Father the Spirit. The fact that the Spirit points to the Son, and the Son points men to the Father while the Son is the Christ does not make the Spirit less spiritually worthy than the Son, nor the Son than the Father, nor any other combination you can think of.

Since the ability to teach is a qualification as well as the fact that the person must be a male, the question of “giftedness” of the believer is already dealt with in the context of 1 Tim and Titus. I believe that women are gifted to teach, but they are not to exercise these gifts in the role of bishop or elder. That is my point here.

I would go on further to say that her expression of these gifts is not to be over men and I would deal with 1 Tim 2, but since that is not what I was writing about, I will leave that debate for another day, another post, or another video.

Soli Deo Gloria

Cheryl Schatz said...

EJ,

In your article you said: "So the question that must be addressed is this: does Galatians 3:28 teach the washing away of gender distinctions in the church, or at least regarding the issue of elders and pastors in the church? My answer is simply and quickly that it does no such thing."

While you think we may be talking past one another, the issue is about "gender distinctions in the church". This means spiritual distinctions not physical distinctions.

The issue of pastors is an issue of gifting as it is included in Ephesians 4:11. Galatians 3 & 4 are about our inheritance and Paul specifically says that we are equal in Christ (Gal 3:28) and he goes on to define the equality in Christ in chapter 4 as dealing with our inheritance. There cannot be spiritual distinctions if we are equal heirs together.

Once we have established that Paul isn't setting up "an inheritance hierarchy", then we can go on to elders and deacons. These are not listed as "gifts" but as issues of maturity and moral purity. There is no indication that for one to aspire to be an overseer would be a sin for some and there is no list of sins that includes an unmarried man who is an elder or a woman who is an elder because the elder is to be the "husband" of one wife. If we reject women as qualifying we cannot also accept unmarried men since neither are "husbands". We also have no biblical right to accuse either of them as being in sin since that would be going beyond the scripture. The issue then is not about 1 Timothy 3:1 but about 1 Timothy 2:12.

You said: "Since the ability to teach is a qualification as well as the fact that the person must be a male" This is inaccurate. The qualification does include the ability to teach but it doesn't say a person must be a "male". It is not "male of one wife". It is "husband of one wife" and this is the issue that must be dealt with. What exactly is the qualification and what moral characteristic is meant by this term?

One of the things that I have noticed that appears to be prejudicial against women is that I have not personally seen any churches accused of heresy who have unmarried elders. I have not seen people separate and leave a church because an elder in their church is unmarried nor have I seen people accuse that elder of sin.

I am glad that you appear to be more open. That is good. We are all brothers and sisters in Christ and we are to work to lift each other up so that we can be the very best that we can be for our common Lord and Master.

EJ said...

Ms. Schatz -

“The issue of pastors is an issue of gifting…”

We must not stress the issue that being a pastor is an issue of being gifted with those gifts necessary to be one over and above the right use or expression of it. The issue of rightly using the spiritual gift of tongues was dealt with. There was a correct and incorrect way to use that in the setting of a church assembly. So there are rules for correctly using gifts.

“It is not "male of one wife". It is "husband of one wife" and this is the issue that must be dealt with.”

Again, I respectfully disagree with you. There is no word for “husband”, only male/man and female/woman. The text says that the man must be a “one woman man” or “one woman kind of man” or something to that effect. And this is an important point not only for the clear gender language that is used here, but it is germane to your next objection:

“If we reject women as qualifying we cannot also accept unmarried men since neither are "husbands".”

“I have not seen people separate and leave a church because an elder in their church is unmarried nor have I seen people accuse that elder of sin.”

The reason that you haven’t seen the uproar over unmarried male pastors is that the language of the qualification in the letters to Timothy and Titus use the “one woman man” language. The word used for husband is translated both as “man” and “husband” in the NT, but it doesn’t necessitate marriage. Furthermore, the word for marriage was used a few times later in 1 Tim, but it is not a qualification given for the role of elder/bishop. What does a one-woman man look like? Well, if he’s married then he’s faithful. If he’s unmarried he’s chaste and faithful. He’s the celibate future husband of one wife in a similar way that the Jews were married prior to consummation (Mary & Joseph were married before she was found to be pregnant).

Where an unmarried man can fulfill the “Mias gunaikos andra” qualification even though he is unmarried but faithful/chaste for a future wife, a married woman or unmarried woman cannot because the subject in the phrase is the man.

Soli Deo Gloria

Cheryl Schatz said...

EJ,

Please call me Cheryl. I am not a fan of the title of "Ms."

There is a difference between having a gift of teaching and being a teacher. One is a thing you do and the other is who you are. Jesus gives gifts of people to the body of Christ. Tongues was regulated because it wasn't useful if the body could not understand what was being said. All could prophesy one by one and there was no regulation on how many people one could heal or how much shepherding a pastor could do. When God gifts a person as a pastor, that person is to use their gift without prejudice in the body of Christ. There is not even one verse in scripture where a pastor is regulated or hindered from using their gift as pastor.

You said: "There is no word for “husband”, only male/man and female/woman."

I respectfully disagree. The Greek word is aner and its meaning is a man or a husband. To say that there is no word for "husband" would be equal to saying that there is no Greek word for "male". The meaning of the word is defined by the context. When a man and woman are in relationship, it is almost universal that the two are translated as husband and wife not man and woman. The Greek says husband "of one" wife. Literally it is "of one wife husband". There is no way to get around marriage in this case.

You said: "Where an unmarried man can fulfill the “Mias gunaikos andra” qualification even though he is unmarried but faithful/chaste for a future wife"

This is not the case. An unmarried man is never called "of one wife husband" in scripture. Faithfulness is either to God or to one's mate. Abstinence would fall under "above reproach" not under "of one wife husband". This term is never used of unmarried men.

You said: "The reason that you haven’t seen the uproar over unmarried male pastors is that the language of the qualification in the letters to Timothy and Titus use the “one woman man” language. The word used for husband is translated both as “man” and “husband” in the NT, but it doesn’t necessitate marriage."

I do not know where you are getting your information from. The term aner is translated husband whenever there is a relationship with gune. There are no single "one woman men" in the scripture. The term is always used for the marriage relationship. When Paul talks about unmarried people he never uses this term.

There are also those who take these verses literally as they are written and they will not allow an unmarried man to be an elder. This would have disqualified Paul himself from being an elder since he was not married.

You said: "What does a one-woman man look like? Well, if he’s married then he’s faithful. If he’s unmarried he’s chaste and faithful. He’s the celibate future husband of one wife in a similar way that the Jews were married prior to consummation (Mary & Joseph were married before she was found to be pregnant)."

I agree with you here in one way. The point is IF he is married, then he is faithful. IF married and IF a man. The example of Mary and Joseph is an example of a contractual marriage that has not gone to the consummation phase yet. This is why Joseph pondered in his heart to divorce Mary. Even though they had not yet come together, they were considered man and wife and to break the covenant would mean a divorce. Both Joseph and Mary were faithful to their spouse even though they were celebate. They could not be faithful to a future spouse but they could be sexually pure. There is no such reference in the Talmud or Jewish writings that I have read that makes a "one wife husband" to be a single person waiting for a future spouse to come into their life. This is not the term that is used for unmarried people. If I have missed some of the Talmudic writings, then please show it to me.

So while Paul makes a qualification that a married man is to be faithful, you are perfectly correct in pointing out that it is understood that IF he is married, he is to be faithful. In the same way, it is understood that IF the one is male. The reference to women in the same passage is not a possessive term. It is not the wives of the Deacons, but qualifications for women leaders.

EJ said...

Cheryl,

Regarding aner and gune – I apologize for the sloppiness with which I stated a few things before. In my haste, I did not edit my comment as I normally do….

What I was trying to say is that there is no word for “husband” that is distinct from “man”. They are the same word. Context does always help us understand the meaning, but that was my primary point that there is not a different word for husband and man (not including anthropos which, as you know, is man in general or mankind).

My point with the Joseph & Mary allusion was the idea of sexual purity – before and during marriage. And dismissing pre-marital purity from this part of the verses because “above reproach” is also a qualification is unwarranted, I would say. While I would agree that a person could be subject to moral indictment if they are promiscuous before marriage, this qualification is a general characterization of the character of the man. And since Paul doesn’t use “hupondros” in either Timothy or Titus, I believe that it would be unwarranted to mandate marriage. That is why the “if” is present for whether a man is married or not.

However, there is no contextual reason to apply the same “if” to the gender of the elder. Paul’s whole set of instruction on qualifications of elders begins in chapter three but chapter two sets the stage. And chapter two sets the stage by saying that a woman is not to teach a man or exercise authority over him, and that is based on the facts that Adam was created first and that Eve was deceived. This puts his reason in context both before and after the fall. Then moving forward we see the qualifications of elders laid out in detail. There is no way for the “if” to apply to a woman because women are expressly restricted in the preceding verses.

It is because of this clear and plain Scripture that proponents of women pastors/elders have looked to Galatians 3:28 as the equalizer. And even if Galatians 3 & 4 has more to do with temporal spiritual gifts inheritance to be used in the Church and things of that nature (which I still reject) as opposed to our eternal inheritance with Christ, 1 Tim couldn’t be clearer in the fact that one of the qualifications for elders is that the person must be a man…but not just any ‘ol man; he’s got to go through a whole lot more sifting after his gender to be a qualified elder.

I believe that women receive gifts of teaching and the like that pastors and elders need to have. Furthermore, there are very likely some women (maybe many) who are more gifted in some areas of the qualifications for elders than men who are already elders in the church. But they are disqualified because of the fact that they are women. And even though women are as spiritually valuable as men and they have the same worth in Christ as men do, the roles are different. The same can be said of the Trinity. The Father, Son, and Spirit are all co-equal, worthy, glorious, and holy; but they have different roles because that is the way that God has set things to operate.

Copyright © 2005-2010 Eric Johnson