Women In Leadership

It seems that the Board is simply going along with a progressive culture. How do we maintain biblical integrity in a rapidly changing culture?

The Christian church comes from the Restoration Movement tradition. This is a tradition that, at inception, was trying to examine our teachings and practices to ensure they’re consistent with the teachings and practices of the apostles and the record they left behind for us in the New Testament scriptures. By using the redemptive lens to interpret Scripture, we are holding to that same tradition.

This decision did not come about because of a cultural shift, but rather from a study of scripture and a humble realization that perhaps we had been interpreting scriptures (particularly 1 Corinthians 14:34 and l Timothy 2:11–15) regarding women in church leadership selectively and differently than the original churches would have understood them. Some assume that today, we are shifting this perspective due to the prevailing “inclusive” culture around us. However, what drove previous generations to adopt their positions should also be asked. We wish to respect the previous consensus about the meaning of scripture. Still, we need to face the fact that long-standing agreements have been shown to have been driven by cultural standards of their day and need to be reexamined in light of how the early church would have understood these texts.

For example, there was vast justification for slavery by Christians in the 18th and 19th centuries, and more recently, the position on the superiority of one race over another as practiced in the southern United States, Colonial Africa, and elsewhere. Neither of these issues would be acceptable today as legitimate and biblically justifiable. However, based on their interpretation of certain parts of the Bible both issues were fought for by some Christians for many years.. The issues at stake were not challenged because this was the practice of the culture at large, so it was easy for Christians to avoid questioning them (with notable exceptions). Similarly, women have been denied equality with men as a general practice in most societies until recently, so the church in the United States has never faced this question as honestly and sincerely as it is being forced to today.

An underlying concern has been that using a framework for viewing scripture in this way may lead to a degradation of the authority of scripture and God’s Word. For our church, we do not believe this to be the case, and seek to ensure that the historical and scriptural view of topics like marriage, identity, and sexuality are aligned with our practices and beliefs. Meaning, we believe that God created man and woman in his image, male and female He created them. We believe that marriage is to be between one man and one woman, and that sexual relationships are to only happen within the confines of a marriage relationship.

Every generation is responsible for holding to the authority and integrity around their interpretation and application of scripture. This means things must be examined and reevaluated from time to time. The examination asks where we have let past cultural bias influence our interpretation and where we need to realign to the Apostles’ understanding. The goal has always been to let the Holy Spirit guide that process and not the culture. Having a redemptive lens allows us to do this with integrity.

Doesn’t the Bible teach that men are the head of the church?

Honestly, no. Ephesians 5:23 tells us in no uncertain terms that Christ is the head of the church. We must be careful to define ministry in the church not in terms of hierarchy and status, but of service and submission.

The entire church functions under the authority of Jesus Christ. He is its head, and our service is to be done “in the name of the Lord Jesus” (under his authority, on his initiative, and by The Spirit’s power). Therefore, discussing roles within the church, whether male or female, is to discuss servanthood, not hierarchy; submission, not authority.

Wait, what about Eve being created as the “helpmate” of Adam?

Eve is made as a “suitable helper” for Adam. This is not a role of subordination but one that means “one who meets our needs” or “indispensable companion.” The same Hebrew word is used frequently to describe God as our “helper,” one who does for us what we cannot do ourselves. It is a word of companionship, not subordination.

God places his image equally on both man and woman. This mutuality of women and men is confirmed when God charges both the man and the woman together—without distinction of roles—with the joint responsibility of ruling over the creatures, rearing children, and stewarding his good creation (Gen 1:26-28).

Aren’t there two passages in the New Testament that expressly forbid women from
being leaders or teachers in the church? What do you do with 1 Corinthians 14 and 1 Timothy 2?

See Appendices A and B below.

Are women more easily deceived than men? Is Paul making a statement of fact concerning a female’s ability to discern as a reason for restricting her from leadership?

The question here is, was Paul referring to a timeless principle in 1 Timothy 2:13-14? Because Adam was created first, and Eve first deceived, is this a foundational principle for all churches for all times, or is it limited to a local church dealing with primogeniture (rights of the firstborn) and patriarchy?

Let’s start with verses 13-14: “For God made Adam first, and afterward he made Eve. And it was not Adam whom Satan deceived. The woman was deceived, and sin was the result.” Here, Paul is reviewing history. This is his summary of Genesis 3. At stake here is primogeniture. That is, the family's rights and inheritance go to the firstborn. Although this was true culturally throughout the Old and New Testaments, the Bible never affirms this as a cultural norm. In fact, Scripture often subverts this idea. God chose Isaac, Jacob, Joseph, and David–none were the firstborn. Jesus himself is the “last” Adam, and Jesus exercises the most significant authority. Finally, the Gospels themselves teach that the first will be last, and the last will be first in God’s Kingdom.

Then comes verse 14. Yes, Eve was deceived first, which seems to be a real issue for the church in Ephesus. The women there were being deceived like Eve; therefore, Eve is a good example to bring up for this church.

However, does that mean that all women for all time are susceptible by their gender also to be so easily deceived? If so, this is the only place in scripture that teaches this principle. The totality of scripture teaches that all humanity has a sinful bent to be deceived by the Enemy, the World, and their own nature.

Further, the track record of men throughout scripture is vastly tainted, and yet we do not hold their faults against an entire gender. For instance, Jacob is the ultimate deceiver. He deceives others and was deceived by other men. Yet no one would argue that every man since Jacob should be considered as easily deceived as Jacob was.

The “deception” argument does not consider women such as Pricilla, Phoebe, Junia, Euodia, and Syntyche among Paul's trusted and wise colleagues in ministry. Paul trusted men and women to make wise decisions concerning the church and their ministry. Oh, and Pricilla was in Ephesus.

So, are women easily deceived? Yes, but not any more than men.

Finally, this same text is often used to depict women as being more sensitive in nature and countenance than men. Nowhere does Scripture present women in such a way, but instead, we are reading a biased understanding of masculine/feminine attributes back into texts. At the risk of redundancy, no gender gets to claim to be more sensitive in any given social context than the other.

But when Paul gave the qualifications for elders in 1 Timothy 3, he said that elders need to be “the husband of one wife,” which means only men can be elders. Right?

Interpretive Approaches

Originalism is an interpretive process that holds that the meaning of a text or policy should be determined based on the author’s original intent at the time that it was written or enacted. Originalism stands in contrast to “Living” or “Broad” interpretive methods which suggest that the interpretation of a text or policy should evolve and adapt according to changing societal values, norms, and circumstances.

While Broad Interpretive Methods place a high significance on the current values and desires of the interpreter, Originalism places a strong emphasis on adhering to the original meaning and the historical context of the text and its author.

Broad Interpretive Results

Broad Interpretive Approaches to I Timothy 3 have produced many acceptable doctrines within the Evangelical community and are currently practiced as Western Christian cultural norms. Here are just two:

• Many churches exclude unmarried men from positions of Eldership as this passage implies marriage and children as a pre-requisite: A married man who rules his wife and children well is the training ground for ruling the family of God.
• With the rise of No-Contest Divorce in the 20th century, Evangelicals looked to I Timothy 3 to stem the tide of divorce by interpreting that the passage forbade divorced candidates from applying for positions of Eldership.

While both interpretations abound within American Evangelicalism, neither is the result of the Originalist Approach. Both interpretations demonstrate the desire to combat a current problem (The declining structure and unity of the American family & the dissolution of marriage as a social institution) by extrapolating certain inferences identified within the text.

Difficulty arises with these Broader Interpretive Methods when confronted by the full testimony of Scripture. Under the first illustration, the Elder is seen as functioning as the Husband and Father of the church, positions held by Jesus Christ (Eph 1:22-23), and God the Father (John 20:17). Under this doctrine neither Jesus nor Paul could have served as elders within the churches they founded or planted.

In the second illustration, Scripture clearly lays out the acceptable process for divorce (Matthew 19:9, I Corinthians 7:15). Should a “Biblically Divorced” candidate be restricted from Biblical Eldership? The Broad Interpretive Approaches to any passage of Scripture generally offer immediate relief from an urgent problem while simultaneously creating new problems.

An Originalist Approach

For context, we understand that Paul was not ministering in a culture that was facing the pressures of increasing divorce rates and challenges to family roles brought on by modern social dynamics. He was, however, facing the problem of polygamy. A husband having more than one wife was a pervasive problem at the time of the author’s writing, in fact, the problem of polygamy was common during the first three centuries of the church’s existence.

We believe that in order to restore marriage to its original (Edenic) intent, Paul is forbidding polygamists from leadership, with the goal of bringing polygamy to an orderly end within the Churches of Jesus Christ. When applying an originalist approach to interpreting Paul’s statements in I Timothy 3, we believe that the clearest and most literal understanding of the passage is that gender is not being addressed as a qualification for candidacy. To assert that the passage excludes candidates based on gender is to extrapolate an inference based on pre-existing preference.

In holding to this Originalist interpretation of I Timothy we do not deny the inference of masculine gender in Paul’s message. He is clearly addressing a primarily male audience, and why? Simply because Paul is addressing a primarily male issue. For Paul to have addressed women, or even multiple genders in his original writing, he would have had to be facing the issue of polyandry (a wife married to multiple husbands). This is something never mentioned in Biblical texts, and virtually unknown in either the Mediterranean or Roman world of the first century.

As a result of holding the Originalist position on I Timothy 3, we do not extrapolate a gender disqualification from inference, especially when that inference exists for an easily identifiable original intention. The phrase “husband of one wife” does not exclude women from serving as Elders in the church; it excludes polygamists from serving as Elders in the church.

The most compelling case for the Originalist Interpretation of this passage is that the author’s intent for this passage has come to fruition – in the places where Christian Churches proclaim the Gospel and teach people to obey all that Jesus commanded, polygamy disappears, and marital virtue is restored.

Also, see Appendix B.

Don’t our bylaws require that elders be men?

No. Our bylaws do not refer to gender as a condition of filling the office of governance.

What perceivable change will this decision cause?

Very little. Currently, our elder Board is comprised of all men, who have appointed one Senior Leader who reports directly to the Board and has ultimate responsibility for the overall organization, staff leadership, ministry plans, vision, and mission. Right now, the Senior Leader the Board has appointed and the Spirit has called is a woman. She leads a professional staff that is made up of male and female pastors, preachers, and support staff. This change means that moving forward, our church can now appoint female elders. Those elders will go through the same onboarding, vetting, and prayerful process that every elder has always gone through.

Each campus will continue to function with outstanding leadership entrusted to lead locally while keeping unity within the organization. Dynamic worship, teaching, discipleship, missions/outreach, students and kids ministry, and leadership development will continue just as it has. The vast majority who call our church home will not notice any real perceivable change.

If I disagree with this, do I need to leave the church?

No, absolutely not. This is not a decision to break fellowship over. We are one in Christ; his Spirit unites us, We share the essentials of the faith, even if we disagree on secondary issues. The goal should be unity, joined as a whole; not unanimity, agreement by all. There is full unity among our elders and staff who all sit at different places on the spectrum of this decision. Please, agree to disagree and jump back into serving. There are lost people all around us who need to be touched by God’s grace.

How can I learn more?

We encourage you to be open to the leading and teaching of the Holy Spirit in your life for learning and growth. Do what the elders/staff did and submit to a process of exploring God's
heart in this matter, which will take time, study, and prayer. Start by reading this paper carefully and looking up all the Bible passages. Read the surrounding context and ask the Spirit to guide your discovery. If you are still hungry for more, the following books will help you understand the elders’ position more clearly. However, not all the elders would agree with everything written herein.

And if I still have questions, who should I reach out to connect with?

Please reach out to Chris Yarco, Grant Hickman, or one of our elders.