As
we have seen throughout this book, the Bible is quite clear that men and women
are equally God’s image bearers (Genesis 1:27)
and therefore equal before God and in relationship with one another, and also
that they are fellow-heirs in the Christian life, equal in their spiritual
standing before God (1 Peter 3:7; Galatians 3:28).
The Bible is also clear that men and women, who are equal with respect to
creation and redemption and therefore share many things in common, are called
to different and equally important roles in marriage and the church. It is God
Himself (as we shall see later) who has determined distinctive roles for men
and women in order that thereby they may fulfill the creation mandate that He
has given to mankind (cf. Genesis 1:28; 3:15-19).
God has called men to serve as leaders in marriage and the church, and women to
submit themselves willingly to that leadership, as they labor together in their
distinctive roles (Ephesians 5:23-24; 1 Peter
3:1-6; 1 Timothy 2:12; 3:1-13). In defining how men and women are to
relate to one another in fulfilling their respective roles, God has called men
to exercise a headship that is loving, gentle, and considerate (e.g., Ephesians 5:25ff.; 1 Peter 3:7), and He has
called women to submit to that headship in a willing, gentle, and respectful
way (e.g., Ephesians 5:24, 33; 1 Peter 3:1-2).
The question we all must face is how to carry out our Biblical roles with
Biblical attitudes in specific, everyday situations. But before we proceed to
the positive outworkings of Biblical manhood and
womanhood, we need to be more aware of the forces working against us that must
be overcome and the antidotes God’s grace provides.
The
fundamental antithetical force is the effect of sin on our relationships. This we
see from Genesis 3:16, in which God speaks
of sin’s effect on the relationship of men and women: “Your desire will be for
your husband, and he will rule over you” (NIV; unless otherwise noted, all
citations from Scripture in this chapter are from NIV). In these words, God is
indicating that as a result of sin, rather than exercising a caring headship
and leadership, men will seek to “rule” in an autocratic, unloving way. And He
is indicating with reference to women that rather than being submissive helpers,
they will “desire” to have mastery over their husbands. (We are understanding the word desire
here in the same sense as that of its next occurrence [Genesis
4:7], where sin has the “desire” to master Cain.) By saying this, God was indicating that just as sin, as a
result of the fall, will bring pain (Genesis 3:16)
to the joy of childbirth (the fulfillment of God’s mandate to be fruitful,
Genesis 1:28) and sweat and difficulty to the joy of work (the fulfillment of
God’s mandate to subdue the earth and rule over it, (Genesis
1:28), so also it will bring strife into the role relationship God had
established between man and woman at creation (Genesis
2:18). Thus, God has forewarned that sin will make the role relationship
of man and woman a place beset by struggle that only God’s grace can help us
overcome.
We have seen and still see the horrible fulfillment of this curse’s effect in
man’s domination of woman in those places and cultures where the effects of the
gospel have not been felt. In contrast, in cultures and nations where the
gospel has had strong influence, the joint-heir status of men and women has
emerged as a wonderful by-product. But now we see in those same cultures and
nations where secularization is replacing the effects of the gospel that a
by-product of equality remains, while at the same time the society is giving
expression to the sinful side of the curse pronouncement-women desiring to
remove themselves from any distinctive role in their relationship to men and to
be as much leaders in the home and church as men are, while men become
increasingly passive or abusive in relation to women. We can see these outworkings of God’s prophetic pronouncement in Genesis 3:16 on the broad scale of history and
society, but we must also be aware of the presence of those very tendencies in
every human heart, including the hearts of Christian men and women. Since
Christians, like others, are affected by the “spirit of the age,” these sinful
tendencies within men and women will be compounded by the feminist push of our
age as well as by a chauvinistic and macho backlash.
Any
discussion of the practical outworking of the Biblical principles of headship
and submission must take into account these sinful tendencies that so easily
subvert us and work against compliance with the Biblical norm. We need to
notice again how carefully the apostles present their teaching on the role
relationship of men and women so as to affirm two things simultaneously and
thereby to give balance to their teaching. First, they reiterate the mandate of
God about the role relationship based on creation and speak of the headship of
men and the submission of women. Second, they demand attitudes and actions that
will seek to overcome the sinful tendencies that work against the proper
functioning of these roles. Because people in authority, as a result of sin,
often seek to rule and dominate with selfish or cruel attitudes, men are
instructed not to be embittered against their wives (Colossians
3:19) but to love them and give themselves to them (Colossians 3:19; Ephesians 5:25), to nourish and
cherish them (Ephesians 5:29), and to honor
them as fellow-heirs (1 Peter 3:7). Because people under authority, as a result
of sin, often resent their role and seek to minimize or escape it, or to take
the position of leadership, women are repeatedly urged to submit (1 Peter 3:1; Ephesians 5:24; Colossians 3:18; Titus 2:5)
because it is God’s will and should be done as to the Lord (Ephesians 5:27; Colossians 3:18) and with respect
(Ephesians 5:33) and a gentle and quiet
spirit (1 Peter 3:4).
The balanced interrelationship of these two truths must control any discussion
of the day-to-day situation, since these are the operative principles that the
Scriptures give to guide us in all such day-to-day outworkings
of male/female role relationship in marriage and the church. Thus we must
constantly reiterate the roles of headship and submission and also constantly
call for attitudes and actions that enable these roles to be fulfilled, by
God’s grace, in a world where sin works from within and without against those
roles and against those attitudes and actions.
We
can further delineate what is entailed in the roles of husbands and wives in
marriage and family by taking careful account of the focused description that
God gives of each in Genesis 3 on the basis of the truths first outlined in
Genesis 1 and 2 at the dawn of human civilization and in a setting that
antedates any particular culture or society.
In this chapter, He gives the effects of sin, not only as it brings death and
separation from God to all humans but also in its effects on men and women in
their respective maleness and femaleness. In doing so, God relates the effect
of the curse respectively to that portion of His creation mandate (as already
established in Genesis 1 and 2) that most particularly applies to the woman on
the one hand and to the man on the other hand. God had said to them: “Be
fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth, and subdue it; and rule over … every
living thing that moves on the earth” (Genesis
1:28, NASB). Now He relates the curse to that aspect of the creation
mandate that is the particular responsibility of the woman and of the man and
in so doing indicates the particular role that He has determined each is to
fulfill. Thus, for the woman He speaks of her pain in childbirth (i.e., while
seeking to be fruitful) and the struggles (as we have noted above) that will
surface in the husband/wife relationship (Genesis
3:16): “To the woman he said, ‘I will greatly increase your pains in
childbearing; with pain you will give birth to children. Your desire will be
for your husband, and he will rule over you.’” In short, God speaks about what
is unique to her as a woman, namely, being a mother and a wife. To the man He
speaks of the difficulties he will have in his toil (i.e., while seeking to
subdue the earth) to secure bread (Genesis 3:17-19):
“Cursed is the ground because of you; through painful toil you will eat of it
all the days of your life. It will produce thorns and thistles for you, and you will eat the plants of the field. By the sweat
of your brow you will eat your food until you return to the ground, since from
it you were taken; for dust you are and to dust you will return.” Thus He
delineates what is the main calling for man, namely, the responsibility of
breadwinner and provider for his wife and family. It will be helpful for all
our discussion to keep this perspective in view and realize that it is the
perspective God has given and not some “Victorian” or “traditional” view that
has grown up out of some society or culture and been adopted unwittingly as the
Biblical norm.
Therefore it is important in marriage and the family for a man to realize his
responsibility as the primary breadwinner and to assume that responsibility
willingly and gladly. It is equally important for a woman to realize her
responsibility as the primary one to care for the children and the home, as
these verses indicate, and as Proverbs 31 (see below) also indicates. This will
provide the security and necessary time and energy for the woman to bear
children but also to be with the children in their formative years when they are
very dependent on their mother and need her presence. It is in this spirit that
the Apostle Paul encourages young widows “to get married, bear children, keep
house” (1 Timothy 5:14, NASB). Christ’s
apostle exalts the home and women’s duties in it and encourages women to be
“busy at home” (Titus 2:5).
Sad to say, when these distinctive emphases are not maintained, children often
fail to develop healthy sexual identities, and marriages tend to break up
because husband and wife are no longer dependent on each other but are
increasingly independent, ready to go their own ways.
Some
Christians have interpreted Titus 2:5
(“workers at home,” NASB) to mean that any work outside the home is
inappropriate for the wife and mother. But the fact that wives should care for
their home does not necessarily imply that they should not work outside the
home, any more than the statement that a overseer in
the church should “manage his own household” (1
Timothy 3:4-5) means that he cannot work outside the home. In neither
case does the text say that! The dynamic equivalent translation of Titus 2:5 by the NIV, “to be busy at home,” catches the force of Paul’s admonition, namely, that a wife
should be a diligent homemaker. Moreover, Proverbs
31:10-31 depicts a wife and mother whose support for the family extends
well beyond ordinary domestic chores (cf. e.g., verses 16 and 24: “She
considers a field and buys it … she plants a vineyard… .
She makes linen garments and sells them, and supplies belts to the tradesmen,”
NASB). Since Scripture interprets Scripture and its teaching is consistent and
unified, we realize that the picture of Proverbs is not contradicted by the
Apostle Paul.
Furthermore,
we must realize that the emphasis
on the home is the very point of the Proverbs passage. The woman in Proverbs
works to care for her family and to fulfill her responsibility to her family
(cf., e.g., verses 21 and 27). She does this not only for her children but also
to support her husband’s leadership role in the community (verse 23). She is
seeking the good of her family. Furthermore, she seeks to aid the poor and
needy by her labors (verse 20).
Here, then, are keys to the question of a wife and mother working outside the
home: Is it really beneficial to her family, does it aid her husband in his
calling, and does it, in correlation with these first two, bring good to
others? Can she do it while still being faithful to her primary calling to be
wife and mother and to care for her home? It must be noted that even though the
woman in Proverbs has not sought to “find herself” or to make her own career,
but rather to serve her family, in the end she receives praise from her family
(verses 28, 29) and recognition for her labors (verse 31) because she has
conducted the whole endeavor in obedience to the Lord she reverences (verse
30). The decision in this realm must not be unilateral on the part of the woman
but made under the leadership of her husband as the head of the marriage and
the family.
This
brings us to the question of responsibilities and processes for
decision-making. The delicate balance that must be maintained is that of the
husband’s leadership in a situation in which two equal image bearers of God are
involved. The husband must honor his wife (1 Peter
3:7, “grant her honor as a fellow-heir of the grace of life, so that
your prayers may not be hindered,” NASB) and respect her views, opinions,
feelings, and contributions about the issue at hand, and he must do so in a way
that takes into account both his and her strengths and weaknesses (1 Peter 3:8,
“husbands … be considerate as you live with your wives, and treat them with
respect as the weaker partner”). He must not give over the leadership to the
woman as Adam did to Eve, for then to him also the rebuke given to Adam will
apply (“Because you have listened to the voice of your wife,” Genesis 3:17, NASB). Neither
should he act rashly and harshly as Nabal did, not
seeking the sensible and wise advice that his wife could and would have given
him (cf. 1 Samuel 25:2-26:38). After
all, the wife is given to the husband to be his chief “helper” (Genesis 2:18). The husband and wife should seek
to come to a mutually satisfactory decision after discussion and through prayer
and seeking the principles of God’s Word, and they should do so under the
leadership and guidance of the husband, who should initiate this process. In a
world of sin in which both husband and wife are beset by the limitations sin
brings to our understanding and to the evaluative and decision-making process,
there will be times when a consensus may not be reached. In this situation, it
is the husband’s responsibility to exercise his leadership role and make the
decision. The wife needs to submit to that decision (unless the decision is
clearly and intrinsically evil [cf. 1 Samuel 25:14; Acts 5:29]).
The
care and management of the home and children is another area in which Christians
need to implement Biblical principles carefully. The Scriptures present the
direct management of the children and the household as the realm of
responsibility of the wife and mother. First
Timothy 5:14 says that wives are “to manage
their homes” (NIV). The Greek word oikodespoteo?, which is rendered “manage,” is a very forceful term.
Proverbs 31 indicates some of the many ways in which this management is carried
out (cf., e.g., verses 26 and 27: “She opens her mouth in wisdom, and the
teaching of kindness is on her tongue. She looks well to the ways of her
household, and does not eat the bread of idleness,” NASB). The husband must
recognize this calling and grant her the necessary and appropriate freedom of
operation under his leadership. At the same time, the wife must recognize that
her management is to be conducted in submission to her husband’s leadership,
who is responsible for the overall management of the household (cf. Titus 2:5, “to be busy at home … and to be subject
to their husbands”). The Apostle Paul says that the man is responsible to
manage his own household well (1
Timothy 3:4-5).
Although the wife and mother will have the most contact with the children,
especially when they are young, and therefore will have the most direct responsibility
for supervising them, the husband and father is held responsible for
instruction and oversight of the children (Ephesians
6:4; 1 Timothy 3:4). It is imperative that fathers and mothers carry out
this joint task in such a way that the leadership of both over the children is
maintained and the headship of the father over the family is manifest. Thus
neither should allow the children to play one parent off against the other in
seeking to contravene the other’s commands or prohibitions. The parents should
resolve those questions in private away from the children; in public they
should uphold each other’s decisions, especially the mother upholding the
headship of the father. Fathers should exercise an appropriate leadership by
being careful to avoid exasperating or provoking comments or commands (Ephesians 6:4; Colossians 3:21) that not only
discourage or anger their children but also provide occasion for their wives to
feel the necessity of intervening and make it more difficult for them to be
subject to their husbands’ leadership. Exasperating or provoking comments or
commands include commands that are unjust and comments that are given in a
callous or unfeeling way. All parental give-and-take before children should
manifest mutual respect and communicate before the children that the husband
genuinely loves and respects his wife and the wife, too, respects and desires
to submit to the leadership of her husband and their father. Such an attitude
can itself be the best setting for the children to learn their own necessary
submission to both father and mother.
The division of duties in the home and household must take seriously the
respective roles of the woman and the man and their equal importance before the
Lord and in the home. The direct care and supervision of the children is the
specific calling of the wife/mother (cf. again Genesis
3:16; 1 Timothy 5:14; Titus 2:5). It would be unnatural in the normal
family setting for the husband/father to assume this task and to surrender the
task of “breadwinning” to his wife. This is not to say that he is not to
be as concerned and as involved in the training of their children as she is,
but rather that he does so in correlation with his responsibility as the
primary provider.
Other
duties and responsibilities should be allocated in such a way that the feminine
and masculine proclivities come to their natural expression and the strengths
and weaknesses of each partner are recognized and their mutual dependence on
each other for distinct roles are a help to both. Yet we must realize also that
there are many things in the daily affairs of a household that the specific
teachings and broader principles of Scripture do not categorize as either
“masculine” or “feminine.” Here we must allow freedom and variation and not
attempt to go beyond what is written in the principles we affirm and teach.
There
are two basic Biblical truths relating to men and women that must be affirmed and
upheld in the life of the church. The first is their equality as bearers of
God’s image (Genesis 1:27) and as fellow
Christians (Galatians 3:28, 1 Peter 3:7).
The second is the leadership role to which men are called by God in the church
so that by apostolic injunction, based on God’s creative action, women are not
allowed “to teach or exercise authority over a man” (1
Timothy 2:12, NASB).
The
first truth has as its corollary that women are to use their gifts in every way
that Christians in general are to do, except for those areas explicitly
prohibited by Scripture. This is seen in Paul’s treatment of the gifts in 1 Corinthians 11-14, where women are excluded only
from speaking in church (1 Corinthians 14:34-35) where congregational
“teaching” is involved (1 Corinthians 14:26; notice that the items listed in
verse 26 correspond with the subjects dealt with in verses 27 and 35 [with only
the first item, “a psalm,” not dealt with in these verses] and in particular
notice that “teaching” [NASB] in verse 26 is the one-word description for the
“speaking” Paul will deal with when it comes to women in verses 34 and 35).
These women are recognized as properly participating in praying and
prophesying, for example, but are only asked not to throw off the cultural sign
of their submission when they do so (1 Corinthians
11:1-16).
Some very practical deductions and applications can be drawn from these
principles. If all other members of the church participate in voting at
congregational meetings, then of course women members equally share that right.
If all other worshipers are participating in the worship by sharing and
praying, then women also should participate equally. The
One must not draw the false conclusion that the Scriptures are opposed to women
teaching or exercising any kind of leadership. Far from it.
Women are encouraged by the Apostle Paul to teach other women and to make full
use of their gifts in that realm (Titus 2:3-5).
Just as Paul directs how tongue speakers and prophets may use their gifts in
accordance with God’s order, so he encourages women to teach other women (Titus 2:3-5).
Similarly, the New Testament commends the activities of women in various sorts
of ministries except those that would violate the male leadership principle. In
an earlier work I summarized this range of ministries in the following words:
Several passages indicate that women are involved in diaconal tasks and
appropriate teaching situations. A sampling of those activities may be seen in
the following: older women are called upon to teach and train younger women
concerning their responsibilities to their husbands and children (Titus 2:3-5); wives (gunaikas)
are referred to in the midst of the description of male deacons (1 Timothy
3:11); Phoebe is designated “a servant [diakonon] of
the church which is at Cenchrea” (Romans 16:1); Paul
refers in 1 Corinthians to women praying or prophesying (11:5); and Priscilla
and Aquila, that inseparable husband-and-wife team, in a discreet and private
meeting expound to Apollos “the way of God more
accurately” (Acts 18:26).
This brief Biblical summary, as true as it is and as helpful as it is, reminds
us by these examples of the wide range of ministries available to women in the
With half the world’s population outside the reach of indigenous evangelism;
with countless other lost people in those societies that have heard the gospel;
with the stresses and miseries of sickness, malnutrition, homelessness,
illiteracy, ignorance, aging, addiction, crime, incarceration, neuroses, and
loneliness, no man or woman who feels a passion from God to make His grace
known in word and deed need ever live without a fulfilling ministry for the
glory of Christ and the good of this fallen world.
Alongside
our insistence on women’s legitimate participation in the life of the church,
we need to remind ourselves again that the apostolic teaching insists on men
being the primary leaders in the church (just as in marriage) and therefore
excludes women from that role. The clearest statement is 1 Timothy 2:12:
“I do not allow a woman to teach or exercise authority over a man” (NASB). The
contextual setting of this statement makes it plain that the apostle is
speaking about women publicly teaching men in the religious realm and
exercising authority over men in the Christian community. It is the male/female
role relationship based on creation that requires this prohibition (cf. 1 Timothy 2:13). And thus, since the church
by definition includes both men and women, those situations where both are
present are situations in which this prohibition is in effect.
When
the Apostle Paul moves on from this statement of principle to a description of
the qualifications for the officers in the church (overseers and deacons; 1 Timothy 3:1-13), as an outworking and
application of this principle, he describes them in masculine terms (i.e., the
husband of one wife; cf. both 1 Timothy 3:2 and
3:12). Similarly, the church today, as it seeks to apply the
apostolic principle faithfully, has insisted that the primary leadership of the
church must be male. This has meant that both the minister who serves as a
full-time teacher and pastor and the ruling officers chosen from within the
congregation (often called “elders” in line with the Biblical nomenclature)
have been males. But this would also apply to other church officers, who may
not be called “elders” but who have governing authority for the whole church
similar to that of elders in the New Testament. The equivalent office to New
Testament elders is called by other names in differing systems of church
government: “deacons” in many Baptist churches, the “vestry” in an Episcopal
system, and often just the “church board” or “church council” in many churches.
That the office of elder should be filled by men is particularly appropriate,
since their labors are designated in terms of teaching (1
Timothy 3:2 and Titus 1:9) and of managing and caring for the church (1 Timothy 3-5)-the very roles denied to women in
1 Timothy 2:12.
Most Christians and churches who have made the application to “elders” have
done so also for “deacons,” noting that they, too, are designated in masculine
terms (1 Timothy 3:12; also Acts 6:3, where the Greek word used for “men” [aner] is the word used to distinguish men from women rather
than one used for men as mankind whether male or female [anthro?pos]). They have noted furthermore that the role of
deacons is still one of leadership, even if leadership in the area of service.
At the same time it should be noted that women (or wives) are referred to in
this section on deacons (1 Timothy 3:11).
This has led to two understandings. The first is that the text distinguishes
them from the deacons (who are males), does not designate them as deacons, but
mentions them because they serve with and alongside the deacons in diaconal
service. It is my judgment that this view understands the passage correctly and
furthermore that it is the wives of deacons who are in view. A reference to
wives would explain what would otherwise appear to be a seemingly abrupt
statement in the midst of the passage but which, on such an understanding, is
but the first of several comments about the deacon’s family. Others
understand this verse as indicating that the New Testament recognized female
deacons or at least deaconesses, and they appeal to
Phoebe in Romans 16:1-2 for corroboration.
If this understanding is correct, then the modern church should act
accordingly. However, the prior understanding is
more likely, since the reference to Phoebe as a “servant of the church” has
been widely understood to be a use of the Greek term diakonos in a
non-technical and non-official sense, as it often is used elsewhere in the New
Testament. Even though we must recognize that 1 Timothy 3:11 and Romans
16:1-2 must be considered in their interaction with one another, the
hermeneutical principle is that the section dealing most fully and explicitly
with the office and with deacon
as a technical term must be resolved first, and then the historical statement
may more appropriately be evaluated in that light. Whichever position is
adopted as to whether women are to be “deaconesses,” there is still consensus
that women should be involved in “diaconal” or service ministries in the
church, whether they are elected as “deaconesses” or not.
Here
it should be noted that the prohibition that the Apostle Paul gives in 1 Timothy 2:12 (and 1
Corinthians 14:34-35) is not stated in terms of a prohibition of an office
in the church or restricted to that sphere (e.g., a woman may not be an
elder/overseer), but is stated rather in functional language indicating what
she may not do (“I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a
man; she must be silent,” 1 Timothy 2:12).
For this reason, it seems clearly contrary to the apostle’s teaching for some
to argue that the male elders in the church may give a woman the right to give
the exposition of the Word of God to the church and to say that since she does
it under the authority of the male leadership, this activity would be
acceptable. Paul rules out such an activity and underscores this by saying
that, in the public teaching situation where men are present, a woman must
remain “silent” with respect to this activity and not “speak” (cf. again 1 Timothy 2:12; 1 Corinthians 14:34-35).
No decision of male leadership can justify approving the exact opposite of what
the apostle commands. This unqualified prohibition extends to every situation
in the life of the Christian community where there is actual, recognized teaching of the Scriptures and the
Christian faith to a group that includes men, e.g., a Sunday school class, a
small group meeting, a couples group, etc. The statement in the text focuses on
the activity of teaching and, by implication, includes the authority inherent
in that activity. Other activities in which a group might be involved, such as
participating in a group discussion on the meaning of a passage of Scripture or
sharing the impact of the passage on their lives, which are neither teaching
nor the exercise of authority, should certainly
include the full and free participation of the women of the group. The
prohibition is focused and specific, and thus the implication is that all other
activities are open to women.
Since this is a statement of principles on the part of the apostle, it would
seem that this principle extends to teaching the Bible to men in colleges,
training men in seminaries, and teaching the Bible and Biblical truth to men in
parachurch organizations. In women’s colleges, in schools training women to
serve as directors of Christian education, and in women’s parachurch groups,
according to the Scriptures (cf. Titus 2:3-5),
women have every right to teach.
The question arises as to how this prohibition of women teaching men applies
where boys are in transition to manhood; i.e., what is the cut-off point? It
seems that the church must answer this question in terms of the society’s
evaluation of the time when, in that particular society, the boy becomes a man.
If the young man is still under the direction of his parents and the
instruction of a woman, his mother, at home, then it would seem appropriate for
him to be under the instruction of a woman in the church. If he is regarded as
on his own or as having reached manhood, whether married or not, then he should
not be taught by a woman. Teaching a mixed group of high school students would
seem, in our society, to be one kind of “borderline” situation. In such cases,
if all involved agree on the basic Biblical principles involved and then pray
for wisdom in applying those principles (cf. James
1:5-8), appropriate solutions will generally be found. Where doubt still
remains, since we should not want to disobey the apostolic injunction, often
the best solution would seem to be not to place a woman in that doubtful
situation but rather to look to male leadership.
What of the Apparent Blessing When Women
Seem to Have Violated These Principles? It may be retorted that in
all these situations women have served in the church and their service has
produced blessings in spite of the Apostle Paul’s prohibitions. This kind of
end-justifies-the-means argument surfaces more often than we think among
Christians who would object to such an argument in other situations.
But here we must realize that God often gives blessing in spite of our
mistakes. We gladly admit that God’s grace is greater than all our sins,
including the unwitting ones in this and many other areas. And we gladly
rejoice, as did Paul, in any proclamation of the gospel and teaching of the
Word of God (cf. Philippians 1:14-18).
However, in this passage Paul does point out the errors in that activity and
their effects (e.g., “envy and strife,” verse 15; “selfish ambition,” verse
17), and it is to be hoped that the effect of his doing so would be that such
errors would be remedied. We would seek to have the same Pauline balance, i.e.,
to rejoice in God’s grace overcoming disobedience because His Word was present
and effective. But we should not argue that such an outcome justifies the
practice.
Just
as we have sought to apply the principle of women not teaching men in the
Christian community above, so also here in a similar way we must address the
question of exercising authority over men in the life of the Christian
community. Any board or committee in the local church or at other levels in the
life of the church that exercises authority over that body should consist, by
definition, of men who are called on to give leadership. Most denominations who
hold this principle specify that the membership of denominational boards will
be made up of church officers only, i.e., men. Since parachurch organizations
(such as mission boards or campus ministries) and Christian institutions (such
as Christian colleges and seminaries) are also part of the church universal,
the body of Christ, it would seem that such restrictions should apply to their
governing boards as well. They are part of the church; why should they act as
though they were not? However, if a committee in the local congregation is
formed to have representative input from various groups in the church, e.g.,
the women’s group, etc., to give a cross-sectional perspective that can be used
by the officers but that does not itself exercise authority, then, of course,
all segments should be included. This would also be the case for advisory
councils of parachurch organizations. On the other hand, it must not be argued
that men cannot possibly conduct the affairs of the church involving men and
women without the presence and input of women as members of the governing
bodies. We have already seen that Christ’s church, according to Scriptural
teaching, is to be led by a male leadership. Thus, since male leadership can
serve in the body of Christ that encompasses men and women, boys and girls,
then a leadership of men also can function in other areas of the Christian
community. This will entail, of course, that male leaders must be sensitive to
and eagerly listen to the concerns of the whole spectrum of people whom they
lead, with a special regard for the opposite sex. But that is the kind of male
leaders the Scriptures call for--servants who lead with love, gentleness, and
understanding as well as with strength and commitment (1
Peter 3:7).