|
Academics
Departments Special Interest
Navigation
|
Recovering Biblical Manhood and Womanhood
A Response to Evangelical Feminism
Wayne Grudem and John Piper
[ Previous | Table of Contents | Next ]
The Meaning of Authority in the Local Church
Paige Patterson
On February 11, 1989, Rev. Barbara C. Harris was consecrated a bishop of the Episcopal Church in the Diocese of Massachusetts. Harris thus became the first female bishop in the history of Anglicanism. The three-hour ceremony featured avowals such as "God with His mighty hand has exalted her," and "the Word of God is once again being made flesh among us."{1} Some churches were reticent to make such sweeping claims, whereas others suspected the hand of the devil rather than the hand of God and staged requiem services to lament the demise of the church.
The case of Bishop Harris is representative of the impasse developing over the past decade in ecclesiastical circles that, only a few years earlier, would have been considered sanctuaries for male clergy. At least two traditions had long since endorsed the preaching of women. Aimee Semple McPherson (1890-1944) of the International Church of the Foursquare Gospel mesmerized live audiences and radio clientele from her five-thousand-seat Angelus Temple in Los Angeles.{2} Pentecostalism in most of its expressions has sanctioned the ministry of women. By the same token, various denominations comfortable with a modern perspective, which more traditional groups labeled "liberal" but which viewed themselves as "progressive," welcomed women into the clergy. This participation of women at the highest level of church ministry was thought to represent the natural outgrowth of the socially liberating principles of the gospel.
Among more conservative and traditional denominations, the entrance of women into the clergy was consistently resisted until the decade of the seventies. Conservative Presbyterians, Southern Baptists, and other free church groups were joined by Episcopalians, Roman Catholics, and other communions of the episcopal tradition in rejecting the inroads of a growing feminist perspective. The recent confrontation in the Shelby County Baptist Association of Memphis, Tennessee, in which the Prescott Memorial Church (a Southern Baptist congregation) was disfellowshiped by the SBC Association because it had called Rev. Nancy Hastings Sehested as pastor, simply demonstrates that the issue of the rights of women to serve in pastoral roles has now been contested in arenas scarcely deemed possible a few years ago. This in turn has raised the question concerning the nature and authority of ordination, especially in communions that practice a congregational form of church government.{3}
I. The Nature of Ordination
Lexical investigations provide limited assistance on the subject of ordination. In the KJV, "ordain" is the English translation of more than twenty Hebrew and Greek terms. Most of these words also are translated at times by numerous other English words. The translators of the NIV have simplified the matter by almost uniformly translating the various Greek terms with the word appoint. Titus is instructed by Paul to "appoint elders in every town" on the island of Crete (Titus 1:5). In Mark 3:14, it is said that Jesus "appointed twelve," whereas in 1 Timothy 2:7 Paul confesses that he was "appointed a herald and an apostle." Such translations may reflect a conviction on the part of the NIV translators that "ordination" as practiced in most communions today has little in common with New Testament practice. A. H. Strong noted precisely that when he wrote, "The word 'ordain' has come to have a technical signification not found in the New Testament. There it means simply to choose, appoint, set apart."{4}
Even an ardent proponent of episcopacy such as Rudolf Schnackenburg admits that the primitive church was not highly organized in terms of ecclesiastical structure. "Now it would certainly be erroneous to try to affirm and defend in opposition to this an ecclesiastical juridical organization for the Pauline churches based on a starting point of later conditions in view."{5} C. H. Spurgeon, who was never ordained, considered ordination as practiced in his day to be essentially a vestige of Romanism void of foundation in the New Testament.
Examination of the salient "ordination" texts appears to sustain the judgment of Strong, Spurgeon, and the NIV translators. Mark 3:14 records that Jesus "ordained (poieo) twelve" (KJV; henceforward all Scripture citations in this chapter are from KJV unless otherwise noted). In Acts 14:23, Luke mentions that Paul and Barnabas traveled to certain cities in Asia Minor and "ordained (cheirotoneo) them elders in every church." Paul refers possibly to his own ordination in 1 Timothy 2:7, asserting that he was "ordained (tithemi) a preacher and an apostle. . . ." Finally, Paul calls for Titus to "ordain (kathistemi) elders in every city. . . ." Of the four texts, three use common words, each of which has the sense of "appoint," "place," or "establish." Only Acts 14:23 uses a word (cheirotoneo) that can mean "to stretch forth the hand," or "elect" or "appoint."{6} Cheirotoneo is a rare term, appearing in the Septuagint once (Isaiah 58:9) and in the New Testament only two times (Acts 14:23; 2 Corinthians 8:19, where Titus is appointed by the churches to travel with Paul to Jerusalem). The closely related compound word procheirotoneo, "to appoint beforehand," is found in Acts 10:41.
A possible connection suggesting formal ordination can be imagined by linking Acts 14:23 (Paul and Barnabas "ordained them elders in every church") with 1 Timothy 4:14. Timothy is told not to neglect the gift that he had received through "prophecy, with the laying on of the hands of the presbytery." This may parallel the experience of Paul and Barnabas, recorded in Acts 13:1-3, when the Lord instructed that the two apostles be separated for a particular work, in response to which, the church "laid their hands on them" (verse 3). On the other hand, the Acts 10:41 reference employing procheirotoneo seems to imply nothing except the sovereign choice of God, by which the apostles are called "witnesses whom God has already chosen."{7} Moreover, 1 Timothy 5:22 suggests that elders as a rule received the laying on of hands: "Do not be hasty in the laying on of hands" (in the context of instructions about elders) (NIV).
Even if there is an emerging pattern in Acts 14:23, 1 Timothy 4:14, and 5:22, the induction rites of the early church were probably simple in comparison to present practice. No concrete evidence can be generated to suggest that the ecclesiastical officers of the primitive church were inaugurated in any particular fashion or ceremony. This is not to suggest that elders and deacons were just announced without formal installation. The same diverse vocabulary that suggests absence of specific ceremony probably implies some public act of recognition and consecration.
First Timothy 4:14, as well as its probable parallel passage in 2 Timothy 1:6 (" . . . fan into flame the gift of God, which is in you through the laying on of my hands."), seems to have little connection to such events as those recorded in Acts 8:17, 9:17, 19:6, in which the laying on of the hands is associated with the impartation of the Spirit. Ronald Y. K. Fung notes that the experience of Timothy is more closely paralleled by the experiences recorded in the setting apart of the seven (Acts 6:6) and of Paul and Barnabas (Acts 13:3). He concludes that Timothy's experience was tantamount to ordination but also notes that the conferring of a charisma is exceptional in this case.{8} C. K. Barrett also sees 1 Timothy 4:14 as "ordination":
The Pastorals are not inconsistent with Paul's teachings, though they probably mark a later stage of development. It was under the guidance of prophecy (cp. 1:18) that Timothy was selected for ordination (cp. Acts 13:1 ff.); that is, it had been ascertained so far as was possible that it was God's will that Timothy should be ordained to the work of ministry, and in the bestowal of the endowment for this work God's will was the cause, the laying on of the hands of the elders as a body being an accompanying act-not a means, for through is a mistranslation (meta with the genitive must mean "with," not "through").{9}
F. J. A. Hort recognizes the unique character of this event in Timothy's life, concludes that a prophetic oracle had singled Timothy out as Paul's chosen colleague, and hints that this precise event would probably not be duplicated.{10} But Bultmann views the incident more as the establishment of a pattern of ordination of elders based on practices known to exist in Jewish synagogues of the first century. While Bultmann suggests that this act did constitute the passing on of the pastoral office, he also acknowledges that the one being ordained was identified by "prophet-voices from the congregation" and that, based on 1 Clement 44:3, the congregations had to give their approval.{11}
First Clement may not sustain Bultmann's thesis of the role of charismatic prophets in the early church, but the idea of congregational ratification of the appointment of elders seems clearly to be present.
We are of the opinion, therefore, that those appointed by them, or afterwards by other eminent men with the consent of the whole Church, and who have blamelessly served the flock of Christ in a humble, peaceable, and disinterested spirit, and have for a long time possessed the good opinion of all, cannot be justly dismissed from the ministry. For our sin will not be small, if we eject from the episcopate those who have blamelessly and holily fulfilled its duties. (1 Clement XLIV.2-4){12}
Venturing no judgment as to whether contemporary ordination procedures are good or evil, it is sufficient to stress that no clear pattern or procedure for ordination is discernible in the New Testament. Neither can it be established that the various words translated "ordain" in the KJV mean anything more than "appoint." Insofar as the New Testament is concerned, ordination is not a major issue, if it exists as such at all. Most churches and denominations have developed ordination beyond New Testament precedent in both its form and its significance.
However, this is not to say that the New Testament does not recognize ecclesiastical offices. Furthermore, these officials were probably given formal recognition and installation. Apostles, prophets, evangelists, pastors, bishops, elders, and deacons all are clearly recognized in Acts and the epistles. Whatever the case may be regarding apostles and prophets,{13} it seems clear that pastors, bishops, elders, and deacons were names used for continuing offices in the churches.{14} The question for evangelical Christians who feel bound by the testimony of Holy Scripture then becomes not, "Who can be ordained?" but, more simply, "Who is qualified to serve in ecclesiastical offices?" More specifically, in light of the present debate, are women free to be appointed to the office of elder? And, if not, do elders have authority to authorize a woman to teach men? In fact, just exactly how much authority did elders wield in the primitive church?
II. Authority of the Elders
The picture of early church government that emerges from the New Testament presents elders as church leaders with substantive, but not unlimited, authority. A brief analysis of the extent of that authority will be followed by an assessment of the limitations of authority. The initial passage that suggests authority for elders is 1 Timothy 5:17-22:
The elders who direct the affairs of the church well are worthy of double honor, especially those whose work is preaching and teaching. For the Scripture says, "Do not muzzle the ox while it is treading out the grain," and "The worker deserves his wages." Do not entertain an accusation against an elder unless it is brought by two or three witnesses. Those who sin are to be rebuked publicly, so that the others may take warning.
I charge you, in the sight of God and Christ Jesus and the elect angels, to keep these instructions without partiality, and to do nothing out of favoritism.
Do not be hasty in the laying on of hands, and do not share in the sins of others. Keep yourself pure. (NIV)
Elders who rule well are worthy of double honor, especially if their labor is in the Word and in doctrine.{15} Elders are subject to rebuke only if two or three witnesses are available; but if found guilty of sin, they are also to receive public rebuke. "Direct the affairs" of in verse 17 is a translation of proistemi, a term with a variety of possible meanings. Here, however, it almost certainly indicates the being set over or being the head of something. Liddell and Scott cite multiple uses of the word in this regard, especially in Herodotus and in Xenophon's Anabasis.{16} Reicke agrees with this sense of the word and stresses that in the New Testament the idea of "leading" or "caring for" is the more prominent one (cf. 1 Thessalonians 5:12; 1 Timothy 3:4-5).{17} The emphasis of the word is that of decisive leadership undergirded by generally recognized authority.
C. K. Barrett is unsure that these "elders" have yet evolved into official status, suspecting that the word is still being employed here to denote the elderly men of the church.{18} But Hendriksen is almost certainly correct when he notes that instructions about wages (verse 18) and laying hands on future elders (verse 22; cf. 4:14) make clear that we are dealing here with officials.{19} Elders, therefore, are leaders who perform at least three functions: laboring in and teaching the Word of God, ruling or providing decisive leadership to the church, and presiding over the setting apart of future elders.
In Hebrews 13:7 and 17, the author uses a stronger term for "leader," namely hegoumenos:
Remember your leaders, who spoke the word of God to you. Consider the outcome of their way of life and imitate their faith. [verse 7, NIV]
Obey your leaders and submit to their authority. They keep watch over you as men who must give an account. Obey them so that their work will be a joy, not a burden, for that would be of no advantage to you. [verse 17, NIV]
Not only are those who have the rule over the recipients of this epistle to be remembered, followed, and obeyed, but also their lifestyle is to be contemplated. They are not only described as ruling, but also charged with "watching for the souls" of God's people and being accountable for that responsibility. F. F. Bruce sees the leaders in verse 7 as distinct from those mentioned in verse 17. The former are those who had originally brought the gospel to the Hebrews, whereas the latter are the current leaders.{20} Regardless of who the leaders in verse 7 are, near unanimity seems to prevail regarding the identity of the leaders in verse 17:
Obey your leaders and submit to their authority. They keep watch over you as men who must give an account. (NIV)
Johannes Schneider was both representative and explicit when he wrote:
The bearers of the congregational ministries bear a specially heavy responsibility. They are accountable to God for the souls entrusted to their care and vigilance. But they can perform their ministry properly only when their God-given authority is fully acknowledged. The church of Jesus, like every other community, depends on officers and orders. It is expected of the members of the congregation that they do not obstruct the work of the leading men loaded down with heavy responsibilities, but rather that they lighten their burdens. In the church of Jesus no ministry ought to be performed with sighing. It is unsound and unworthy of the Christian brotherhood when discord or even unpleasant quarrels arise between congregation and the office holders. The latter have a claim to obedience. That is the clear directive of the Letter [to the] Hebrews. This sentence has proven an absolute necessity in the history of the Christian churches. It has as much validity today as then.{21}
The Ephesian elders are designated "overseers" and charged by Paul with feeding the church of God (Acts 20:28). In 1 Peter 5:1-4, an almost identical mandate appears:
To the elders among you, I appeal as a fellow elder, a witness of Christ's sufferings and one who also will share in the glory to be revealed. Be shepherds of God's flock that is under your care, serving as overseers---not because you must, but because you are willing, as God wants you to be; not greedy for money, but eager to serve; not lording it over those entrusted to you, but being examples to the flock. And when the Chief Shepherd appears, you will receive the crown of glory that will never fade away. (NIV)
Like Paul, Peter unites the function of oversight with shepherding or feeding the flock of God. Moreover, he cautions that this oversight should be by way of example rather than acting as lords (katakurieuontes) over God's heritage.
Finally, some attention must be devoted to the exceptionally difficult quotations from Jesus in Matthew 16:19, 18:18, John 20:23. In the NIV they read:
I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven. (Matthew 16:19)
I tell you the truth, whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven. (Matthew 18:18)
If you forgive anyone his sins, they are forgiven; if you do not forgive them, they are not forgiven. (John 20:23)
The technical aspects of the exegesis of this passage lie beyond the scope of this inquiry.{22} As the passages relate to the subject of the authority of the church, it scarcely can be doubted that Jesus invested His followers with significant authority. Whether the binding and loosing herein enjoined be understood as a rabbinic phrase involving excommunication or, as by many evangelical exegetes, as use of the keys of understanding, followed by confident declaration of the effects dependent on the response of hearers, obvious exercise of derived authority is in view.
Even if Peter is singled out as the recipient of this authority in Matthew 16:19, that is surely broadened to include a larger group in both Matthew 18:18 and John 20:23. If the commission is extended to others besides the elders, then the "binding and loosing" and the "remitting and retaining" must also be the responsibility of the church as a whole. Worth noting is the fact that the final step in church discipline in Matthew 18:15-20 is not "tell it to the elders" but "tell it to the church." This is, of course, not to be indiscriminately practiced, but rather as Westcott says:
At the same time the exercise of the power must be placed in the closest connexion with the faculty of spiritual discernment consequent upon the gift of the Holy Spirit. Compare 1 John ii.18ff.{23}
We may, therefore, conclude that Jesus gave authority to the church, even if that authority is limited to announcing a decision that had already been rendered in heaven. While that decision may be announced by the elders, it seems in reality to be the prerogative of the church as a body.
Summarizing the situation as it existed in the New Testament era, Ronald Y. K. Fung notes:
The existence of some kind of specialized ministry, or more specifically of church officers, is attested for the primitive church in Jerusalem, for all the Pauline churches with the sole exception of Corinth, and for some of the churches in the General Epistles (1 Peter, James). If a different picture obtains in the Gospel and Epistles of John and Revelation, this suggests only that church organization was still fluid during the New Testament period, that 'there is no such thing as the New Testament Church order,' and that different lines of development are discernible; the existence of an organized and official ministry remains unaffected.
Further, it is possible, and perhaps even likely, that varying nomenclature used of church leaders refers basically to the same group, so that while "functional" terms are sometimes employed to emphasize that aspect of the ministry, they point to the same "functionaries" who are elsewhere described with a more official title; here we think especially of those who are referred to as proïstamenoi, 1 Thessalonians 5:12, poimenas, Ephesians 4:11, and hegoumenoi, Hebrews 13:17, 24, all of whom may well be identical with those designated elsewhere as elders and overseers. In any event, there is ample evidence which more than suffices to show that the early Christian communities were not amorphous associations run on haphazard lines; on the contrary, most if not all of them had at least a rudimentary, and some had a more advanced, form of church organization---although, on the other hand, there are no grounds for thinking that the monepiscopate is to be found within the pages of the New Testament.{24}
Fung may overstate the case for "fluidity" in the ecclesiology of the New Testament. What is remarkable is that elders existed in all the New Testament churches for which we have evidence: "in every church" (Acts 14:23); "in every town" (Titus 1:5); "let him call for the elders of the church" (James 5:14---written to many churches); "The elders which are among you I exhort" (1 Peter 5:1-to many churches). The elders of the churches, however formally or informally, exercised a teaching and governing authority throughout the New Testament churches. Nevertheless, as we will see presently, they were not the final authority in the local church.
Limitations placed on the authority of elders begin with the authority of the Scriptures, and authority is further restricted by the concept of the priesthood of believers. At no point could elders in the churches supersede the authority of the apostles or the apostolic testimony preserved in Holy Scripture. For example, the Corinthian church demonstrated little concern for the purity of the body, tolerating a man who maintained an incestuous liaison with his father's wife. In 1 Corinthians 5:4-5, Paul urges immediate action involving at least the offender's expulsion from the fellowship.{25} Worth noting is that the prescribed action is apparently the responsibility of the entire gathered assembly.
When you are assembled in the name of our Lord Jesus andI am with you in spirit, and the power of our Lord Jesus is present, hand this man over to Satan, so that the sinful nature may be destroyed and his spirit saved on the day of the Lord. (1 Corinthians 5:4b-5, NIV)
This constitutes significant evidence of congregational polity. Equally obvious, however, is the fact that Paul's apostolic authority (which is equal to the present-day authority of the apostolic writings, the New Testament Scriptures) prevails in the church, since the church is to proceed with this action based on Paul's having already adjudicated the matter (1 Corinthians 5:3).
Again, in 2 Corinthians 10-12, Paul devotes considerable attention to his own apostleship and authority. He pleads with those Corinthians who were his critics to alter their course so that he may not have to be bold with them when he personally arrives in Corinth (2 Corinthians 10:2). Again, in Galatians 1-2, Paul not only argues the heavenly origin of his apostleship but also demonstrates his equality with the other apostles through a rebuke of Peter when the latter erred (Galatians 2:11-12). Paul considers his apostolic teaching to be normative for the churches (1 Corinthians 14:37-38), and Peter puts it on a par with Scripture (2 Peter 3:16).
Abundant evidence pointing to the authority of the Scriptures over even the elders of the church is available. An example of this occurs in 2 Peter 1:19-21, in which the author informs his readers that they possessed a "more sure word of prophecy" that was not "loosed upon" the church as a result of some individual's private decision but was rather the product of "holy men of God" who were "moved by the Holy Ghost." If the objection is raised that this is surely a reference to the Old Testament, the point may be conceded. However, in 2 Peter 3:15-16, Peter makes reference to the epistles of Paul, which he describes as subject to twisting in the same manner suffered by "the other scriptures." Here surely is a clear evidence of the authority of epistles penned by the apostles.
The authority of the elders was also limited by the priesthood of believers. Although this popular concept is mentioned as such only five times in Scripture (1 Peter 2:5, 9; Revelation 1:6; 5:10; 20:6) and is provided any sort of real explanation only in the 1 Peter passages, the idea does seem to be thoroughly ingrained in the New Testament. Jews, unless they were of Levitical lineage, were excluded from the Holy Place and the Holy of Holies no matter how devout they were. Gentiles were prohibited from entering even the Court of Israel. At the death of Christ, however, the veil separating the two inner chambers of the temple was torn in two, suggesting new and wider access for His people. The author of Hebrews leads his readers to believe that as a result of the rending of the veil of Christ's body, they may all enter directly into the Holiest through the blood of Jesus (Hebrews 10:19-20). Thus, every believer becomes a priest.
The functions of the priesthood are "to offer up spiritual sacrifices, acceptable to God by Jesus Christ" and to "show forth the praises" of the One who had called believers out of darkness and into light (1 Peter 2:5, 9). Each believer possesses the Spirit of God (Romans 8:9, 14-15) and is endowed with certain spiritual gifts that are to be exercised in behalf of the whole body of believers (1 Corinthians 12:7-11). This authority of the Spirit, which manifests itself in the lives of the believers, operates with freedom in the assembly. This activity of the Spirit in the life of the congregation is not subject to the rule of pastors or elders. As Cyril Eastwood points out, the priesthood of believers is the doctrine that establishes the whole congregation as the ministers of Christ. "The first necessity, then, is to reinstate the general active part of the whole congregation in worship so that the members are no longer merely passive onlookers."{26}
Robert Saucy concludes:
The nature of the church yields that conclusion in that each member is endowed with the Spirit to express the living presence of Christ and to participate in His ministry with His authority. The practice of the church corresponds to that reality in that the New Testament, through various examples and instructions, places the final responsibility for doctrine and practice on the church collectively.{27}
The picture of the primitive church appears to be that of an informal assembly of believers in Jesus, each of whom functions as a minister to the others through the Spirit-directed use of charismata. These congregations, however, are bound not to exceed or violate the authority of Christ as revealed through the apostles and the witness of the apostles contained in Holy Scripture. The congregation itself clearly acts as something of an authority. Within that congregation, there are presbyters or pastors who exercise a restrained authority of general oversight and direction. In the earliest church, these presbyters may have come to office either by apostolic appointment or by congregational selection. The New Testament pattern is clearly one of ruling elders with substantive, but not unlimited, authority.{28}
Today, whatever form of church government a church may have, the officers who have the highest governing authority in the local church (whether they are called elders, pastors, deacons, the vestry, the church board, the governing council, or any other name) are the ones who most closely correspond to the office of elder at the time of the New Testament. They do in fact have governing authority (of varying degrees) in their churches. The question now is whether women should be eligible to participate in that governing group, whatever it may be called.
III. Authority and Female Teachers
No legitimate question exists with reference to either the adequacy or the acceptability of a woman serving in some teaching roles. Apollos profited not only from the instruction of Aquila but also from that of Priscilla (Acts 18:26). Women are expressly commissioned to teach younger women (Titus 2:4), and Timothy, as a child and presumably even as a young man, was taught by his maternal mentors---Lois and Eunice (2 Timothy 1:5; 3:14).{29} Neither should there remain any uncertainty about the opportunity extended to women to participate in public prayer or prophecy (1 Corinthians 11:2-16). Any suggestion of an ontological inferiority of women cannot survive the first declaration of Adam, "This is now bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh" (Genesis 2:23), or the statement, "In the image of God created he him, male and female created he them" (Genesis 1:27).
Yet Clark Pinnock observed:
. . . I have come to believe that a case for feminism that appeals to the canon of Scripture as it stands can only hesitantly be made and that a communication of it to evangelicals will have difficulty shaking off the impression of hermeneutical ventriloquism. . . . If it is the Bible you want, feminism is in trouble; if it is feminism you want, the Bible stands in the way.{30}
Why would a theologian of Pinnock's stature and egalitarian sympathies arrive at such conclusions in light of the acknowledged truths stated above? The answer is that for many evangelicals the Bible is intractably hierarchical. It teaches definite role assignments, together with their corresponding mandates, opportunities, and limitations. Great scholarly efforts have been made to prove this, but---as with other crucial truths---it seems obvious to average readers.
Careful scholarly analysis of the concept of love, for example, benefits the church. Such arduous research and thought will inevitably enhance our understanding of the nature of God's love and the love required of believers. But even in the absence of such noble research, an obvious sense of the nature of love can hardly be missed by even a cursory reading of the Bible. The spiritual leadership role of men in both home and church is obvious to many average Bible readers in the same way.
Equally obvious is it that role assignments and submission to various authorities are demanded in Scripture with no essential estimate of worth or value implied for the one in authority or the one who is subordinate. For example, Christians, who are after all the salt of the earth and the light of the world, are instructed by Paul to submit to the authority of magistrates (Romans 13:1-5). This mandate is not designed to depreciate Christians, much less suggest that a humble believer is in any sense inferior to the civil authorities. Instead, it is a matter of the nature of an ordered society in which the magistrate is to be viewed in his role as minister (diakonos) of God. By the same token, children are not of less worth than parents; yet they are counseled to obey and to submit to their parents. Learning to relate in an appropriate manner to those whose role assignments make them "authorities" assists us in learning to relate properly to God. Accountability is generally healthy and order almost always is desirable in church and society.
The most helpful paradigm is that of Jesus. According to Philippians 2:6, Jesus "did not consider equality with God something to be grasped" (NIV). In John 14:9, the Lord informs Philip that if one has seen Jesus, he has seen the Father. Or again, in the Good Shepherd discourse of John 10, Jesus flatly declares, "I and my Father are one" (verse 30). Yet, in John 14:28, Jesus also announces, "my Father is greater than I," and elsewhere emphasizes the importance of the Son's obedience to the Father. Such passages must be judged either to be contradictory or to be clumsy redactional mistakes unless we accept the thesis that Jesus was drawing a sharp distinction between essence and office. Evangelicals have opted for the latter, understanding that Jesus is equal with His Father in essence but subordinate in His office. Such a paradigm properly applied should remove the stigma from role assignments in the domestic, civil, or ecclesiastical arenas.
Other writers in this symposium examine the specific questions relating to those role assignments and whatever limitations may be imposed on the service of women in the church. Like many other evangelicals, I am convinced that 1 Timothy 2:12-15 is normative for the church in every age. The three reasons provided by Paul (verses 13, 14) for his limitation on the ministerial activities of women are both historical-theological, not cultural or situational.{31} The remaining purpose of this chapter is to determine, in light of the three restrictions of 1 Timothy 2:12 (and other supporting passages), whether a woman is to teach men or have authority over men and whether it is possible for the church or the elders to authorize women to function in a teaching role with men.
A general answer to that question is possible based on data previously mentioned. To review, the pattern of authority in the primitive church is as follows: All authority in heaven and in earth the Father has vested in Jesus (Matthew 28:18). That authority has been passed along to the apostles and to the church (Luke 10:19), though with some limitations. The apostolic witness to Christ, as found in the New Testament, is conceived to be the voice of God through the apostles (1 Corinthians 14:37; 2 Peter 1:21; 3:16) and thus carries full authority for the church. Elders governing and leading at the will of the churches, therefore, have general authority to adjudicate matters that have not already been settled either by Jesus or in the Scriptures. They do not, under any circumstances, have the authority to reverse the Scriptures or make exceptions to the teachings of Scripture due to circumstance or culture.
More specifically, the churches appear to have the authority and perhaps even obligation to encourage women to participate in the worship of the community of the saints with certain restrictions. Women, for example, are to keep silent in the churches according to 1 Corinthians 14:34. That this cannot mean "total silence" or mere passive participation is clear from the permission granted to pray and prophesy in chapter 11,{32} and from the verse itself when it is added that women are to be in submission ". . . as also saith the law." James Hurley is probably correct in rejecting interpretation of the phrase ". . . as also saith the law," which attempts to find some specific law of the Old Testament as one to which Paul refers.
Paul's appeal to "the law" need not have any particular text in view. It is enough that he reminds them that men were called to exercise authority and to render judgment in matters in the home and in the "church in the wilderness," in the religious life of Israel. From his appeal, however, we may deduce that he considered that the Old Testament pattern of male headship in religious matters should continue in the church alongside the new freedom of women to participate in the worship.{33}
The appeal to "the law" settles the issue for Paul. And the appeal to "the law" also suggests strongly that at least the mandate of submission in the passage removes the passage from a merely temporal or cultural delimitation. Hence, elders, churches, or even apostles are not free to give directives that are contrary to the intent of the law of God.
Calvin properly interpreted 1 Timothy 2:11-15 in a similar fashion.{34} He acknowledges exceptions to the general rule but argues that these exceptions pose no threat to the ordinary and constant system of government. As if anticipating the current debate, Calvin says,
If any one bring forward, by way of objection, Deborah (judges iv. 4) and others of the same class, of whom we read that they were at one time appointed by the command of God to govern the people, the answer is easy. Extraordinary acts done by God do not overturn the ordinary rules of government, by which he intended that we should be bound.{35}
Paul's appeal to Scripture in 1 Timothy 2:13-14 makes clear the ultimate source of appeal: Scripture itself. Thus, for theological and historical reasons, the church or the elders cannot elevate women to a formal office of rule or instruction over men without violating the whole spirit of the law.{36} In no other area of life would we be willing to say that a church or its elders can give a woman (or anyone) permission to disobey the teachings of Scripture. It is difficult to understand why some have claimed that such permission is acceptable in the area of women teaching or having authority over men in the church.
IV. Conclusion
In this chapter, I have attempted to show that the life of the early church was not highly organized. Nevertheless, authorities did exist and were recognized by those early churches. While ordination as a formal ceremony, such as is commonly practiced today, probably did not exist, the setting aside of persons for special leadership tasks does seem to have been the prerogative of the churches. This was at least sometimes accompanied by the laying on of hands. These authorities or elders exercised considerable authority but had no authority to abrogate the clear teachings of Scripture. Hence, an elder or a church apparently does not have the authority to elevate a woman to a formal role of instruction or spiritual authority over men. There are gifts and roles by which women may impart to both men and women their wisdom and spiritual insight, but this is not through the channels of authoritative office and teaching in the church. Dorothy Patterson's thought is worth noting in conclusion:
The church has never sought to suppress gifts God has given but rather strives to ensure full and proper use of those gifts in a divinely given framework based upon natural order of creation and appropriateness of function within a master plan. One cannot accept the Bible as authoritative while rejecting its authority concerning home and church order. One cannot negate truths concerning the structure of church and home, such as the image of the relationship between God and Israel and between Christ and the church, just to satisfy cultural whim or to accommodate higher plateaus of education and opportunity. One cannot lift outward manifestations, such as a man's prayer posture or a woman's head covering (1 Corinthians 11), and use them to ridicule or belittle the timeless directives given to protect and edify men and women within the Kingdom.
Without doubt women did have a variety of positions of service, influence, and even leadership and teaching in the early church. The text of Scripture, however, bears witness that the functions they assumed were done with modesty and order (1 Corinthians 11:2-16; 14:40), and that they did not teach or exercise authority over men.{37}
Endnotes to Chapter Fourteen
{1}Stephen Goode, "Fretful Murmur in the Cathedral," Insight on the News, vol. 5, no. 17 (April 24, 1989), p. 46.
{2}Earle E. Cairns, "Aimee Semple McPherson," The New International Dictionary of the Christian Church, ed. S. D. Douglas (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1979), p. 620.
{3}Reduced to the most simple level, the three forms of church government are episcopacy (with a system of bishops and local clergy who constitute a priesthood distinct from the laity), presbyterianism (with a system of elders who govern the local church and who also belong to a regional presbytery and a nationwide general assembly), and congregationalism (in which final governing authority rests with the local congregation as a whole). In both episcopacy and presbyterianism, the matter of ecclesiastical authority is more clearly defined and regulated because governing authority clearly rests with the priesthood (episcopalcy) or with the elders in general assembly (presbyterianism). The former invests much more extensive authority in upper-level clergy than does the latter.
Evidence favoring one pattern of church government over another can be garnered both from early church history and from certain Biblical texts. This confusing malaise is doubtless what prompted Leon Morris to provide the following assessment:
A consideration of all this evidence, then, leaves us with the conclusion that it is impossible to read back any of our modern systems into the apostolic age. If we are determined to shut our eyes to all that conflicts with our own system, then we may find it there, but hardly otherwise. It is better to recognize that in the NT church there were elements that were capable of being developed into the episcopal, presbyterian, and congregational systems, and which, in point of fact, have so developed.
But, while there is no reason why any modern Christian should not hold fast to his particular church polity and rejoice in the values it secures to him, that does not give him license to unchurch others whose reading of the evidence is different. (Leon Morris, "Church Government," Baker's Dictionary of Theology [Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House, 1978], p. 127.)
Nonetheless, any highly developed system of episcopacy is clearly absent in the New Testament. No monarchial bishops are discernable in the New Testament. By the same token, such a doctrine as the priesthood of all believers surely favors systems that provide maximum participation and freedom for local assemblies and for individuals within these assemblies.
{4}A. H. Strong, Systematic Theology (Philadelphia: Judson Press, 1907), p. 919.
{5}Rudolf Schnackenburg, The Church in the New Testament (New York: Herder and Herder, 1965), p. 23. Hans Küng essentially agrees. He sees the early church developing with two different patterns but admits that neither pattern was highly developed. He sees only bishops and deacons as the first officers and doubts that ordination is present in Paul's letters at all. Hans Küng, The Church (New York: Sheed and Ward, 1967), pp. 388-480.
{6}Walter Bauer, A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature, 2nd ed., trans. William F. Arndt and F. Wilbur Gingrich, rev. F. Wilbur Gingrich and Frederick W. Danker (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1979; henceforward cited as BAGD), p. 881. According to Moulton and Milligan, cheirotoneo carries the usual meaning of "election by show of hands." "Nomination" is also sometimes intended. Only in Patristic literature is the word used for ordination of bishops or of deacons as it is, for example, in the Coptic ostracon. James Hope Moulton and George Milligan, The Vocabulary of the Greek Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1974), p. 687.
{7}Procheirotoneo Means "choose or appoint beforehand" (BAGD, p. 724)
{8}Ronald Y. K. Fung, "Ministry in the New Testament," in The Church in the Bible and the World, ed. D. A. Carson (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House, 1987), pp. 168-169.
{9}C. K. Barrett, The Pastoral Epistles (London: Oxford, 1963), pp. 71-72.
{10}F. J. A. Hort, The Christian Ecclesia (London: Macmillan, 1914), pp. 187-188.
{11}Rudolf Bultmann, Theology of the New Testament (New York: Charles Scribner's Sons, 1955), pp. 107-108.
{12}Alexander Roberts and James Donaldson, eds., The Ante-Nicene Fathers, ten vols. (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1975 rpt.), vol. 1, The Apostolic Fathers with Justin Martyr and Irenaeus, ed. A. Cleveland Coxe, p. 17.
{13}Beyond the scope of this paper is the interesting debate about what precisely constitutes the apostolate or the office of a prophet.
{14}Also beyond the purview of this discussion is the assessment of the number of ecclesiastical officers. Some argue that there are only two, pastors and deacons. Others see three or even four, adding elders and perhaps bishops. Advocates of the two-office model point to passages such as 1 Peter 5:1-4, where the words elder, pastor, and bishop are used interchangeably. Only elder appears as a noun in the passage. But the verbs translated "taking oversight" and "feed" are clearly connected with the nouns bishop and pastor respectively. Also, in Philippians 1:1 and 1 Timothy 3 only two offices are listed. Other passages seem to suggest diversity of function among the elders with some being worthy of special honor (1 Timothy 5:17). The role of Timothy in Ephesus and Titus on Crete suggests to some that there is precedent for a regional bishop. Well-known defenses of the view that only two permanent officers were intended for the church may be found in the famous work of J. B. Lightfoot, Saint Paul's Epistle to the Philippians (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1953), pp. 95-99, and, for a distinctly free-church context, in H. E. Dana, A Manual of Ecclesiology (Kansas City: Central Seminary Press, 1944).
{15}This, as Barth notes, is especially important because
. . . the church must continually be occupied with the exposition and application of Scripture. Where the Bible becomes a dead book with a cross on the cover and gilt edging, the Church rule of Jesus Christ is slumbering. (Karl Barth, Dogmatics in Outline [New York: Harper and Row, 1959], p. 146.)
{16}Henry George Liddell and Robert Scott, A Greek-English Lexicon (Oxford: The Clarendon Press, 1966), pp. 1482-1483; also BAGD, p. 707.
{17}Bo Reicke, "prohístemi," in Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, vol. vi, ed. Gerhard Friedrich (New York: Harper and Row, 1959), p. 146.
{18}C. K. Barrett, The Pastoral Epistles (Oxford: The Clarendon Press, 1963), p. 78.
{19}William Hendriksen, New Testament Commentary: Exposition of the Pastoral Epistles (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House, 1957), pp. 179-180.
{20}F. F. Bruce, The Epistle to the Hebrews (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1977), p. 407. In the Anchor Bible, George Wesley Buchanan is representative of those who believe that the expression "considering the end of their conversation" (KJV) is a reference to a departure from this life, possibly even martyrdom. See Buchanan's To the Hebrews (Garden City: Doubleday, 1981), p. 233. B. F. Westcott notes that the same position was taken with even greater specificity by Theodoret, who alluded to the martyrdom of Stephen, James the son of Zebedee, and James the Just as the subjects in view. See B. F. Westcott, The Epistle to the Hebrews (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, n.d.), p. 434.
{21}Johannes Schneider, The Letter to the Hebrews (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1957), p. 132.
{22}For one of the most objective and perceptive analyses of the passage in Matthew, see D. A. Carson, Matthew, vol. 8 of The Expositor's Bible Commentary, twelve vols., ed. Frank E. Gaebelein et al. (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1984), pp. 367-374. Insights into the interpretation of John 20:23 may be derived from Leon Morris, The Gospel According to John (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1971), pp. 847-850; F. F. Bruce, The Gospel of John (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1983), pp. 391-392; Brooke Foss Westcott, The Gospel According to St. John (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House, 1980), p. 352; and George R. Beasley-Murray, John (WBC; Waco, TX: Word Books, 1987), pp. 382-384.
{23}Westcott, Gospel According to St. John, p. 352.
{24}D. A. Carson, ed., The Church in the Bible and the World (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House, 1987), pp. 174-175. For a different conclusion, see Robert L. Saucy, "Authority in the Church," in the Festschrift for John Walvoord edited by Donald K. Campbell. Not only does Saucy present a cogent and convincing argument for congregational government in the church, but he also insists, somewhat less convincingly, that terms such as bishop, pastor, deacon, etc. were purely functional descriptions void of "official" status. Walvoord: A Tribute, ed. Donald K. Campbell (Chicago: Moody Press, 1982), pp. 219-238.
{25}For the view that removal from fellowship is all that the reference includes, see Leon Morris, The First Epistle of Paul to the Corinthians (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1980), p. 88, and Paige Patterson, The Troubled Triumphant Church (Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 1983), pp. 86-91. For the view that an apostolic judgment resulting in death was in Paul's mind, see Hans Conzelman, A Commentary on the First Epistle to the Corinthians (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1975), p. 97.
{26}Cyril Eastwood, The Priesthood of All Believers (London: Epworth Press, 1960), p. 250.
{27}Saucy, "Authority in the Church," p. 234.
{28}The earliest non-canonical literature of the church tends to confirm this picture also. The First Epistle of Clement refers to the officers of the early church as deacons and bishops or presbyters. See Alexander Roberts and James Donaldson, eds., Ante-Nicene Fathers, Volume 1 (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1973), pp. 16, 17. The same is true of the Epistle of Polycarp, which orders that the presbyters ". . . be compassionate and merciful to all, bringing back those that wander, visiting all the sick, and not neglecting the orphans or the poor . . ." (ibid., p.34)
{29}Calvin remarks, "Not that he takes from them the charge of instructing their family, but only excludes them from the office of teaching, which God has committed to men only." John Calvin, Commentaries on the Epistles to Timothy, Titus and Philemon (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House, 1979), p. 67.
{30}Clark H. Pinnock, "Biblical Authority and the Issues in Question," in Women, Authority and the Bible, ed. Alvera Mickelsen (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1986), pp. 57-58.
{31}As C. K. Barrett states the case, "The regulations governing the actions of women in public are dictated by practical consideration, but their relations to men rest on more fundamental grounds, which belong to the created order itself." The Pastoral Epistles, p. 56. See also Chapter 9 in this volume.
{32}See chapter 6 in this volume.
{33}James B. Hurley, Man and Woman in Biblical Perspective (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan: Academic Books, 1981), p. 192.
{34}For a contrary opinion, see Paul K. Jewett, The Ordination of Women (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1980). For a mediating position see Walter L. Liefeld, "Women and the Nature of Ministry" in Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society (March 1987).
{35}Calvin, op. cit., p. 67.
{36}For a thorough discussion of the theological reasons for this limitation, see H. Wayne House, "Should a Woman Prophesy or Preach Before Men?" Bibliotheca Sacra (April-June, 1988), pp. 141-161.
{37}Dorothy Kelley Patterson, "Why I Believe Southern Baptist Churches Should not Ordain Women," Baptist History and Heritage, vol. xxiii, no. 3 (July 1988): 61-62.
Copyright 1997 Council on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood. All rights reserved.
[Previous | Table of Contents | Next]
Recovering Biblical Manhood and Womanhood can be ordered online through the CBMW Store.
2825 Lexington Road
Box 926
Louisville, KY 40280
Phone: 1-888-560-8210
Fax: (502) 897-4061
Email: info@cbmw.org
Web Site: www.cbmw.com
copyright © 1995-2008 Leadership U. All rights reserved.
Updated: 14 July 2002