Positive Benefits of Bible Bowls

We will soon be involved in our fifth year of Bible Bowl competition in this area; it will be Pearl Street’s second year of hosting the monthly (during the school year) event. Recently we received a publication called REPROVE, in which Charles Coats of Webberville, Michigan wrote an article highly critical of “Bible Bowls.” He may be a fine Christian, but his objections and complaints were (for the most part) unjustified. We would not take issue with him but for his rather strong statements, which included the following:

However, I do see a great many problems with the Bible Bowl concept. Enough problems for me to say it is wrong and for me to be concerned with its long-standing effect upon the church (13).

I firmly believe that Bible Bowls are not Biblical and will ultimately do great disservice to the church (16).

One’s initial reaction to statements like these is, “Yeah, that’s right. Let’s make sure that we keep our young people ignorant. Who knows how much harm might befall the church if they learn the Scriptures?”

Of course, such was not the writer’s point, but it nevertheless seems a shame that, with all of the evil in the world, anyone feels it necessary to attack something productive of great good. One is reminded of the adage, “No good deed ever goes unpunished.” In the church, that may be modified to, “No good work ever goes uncriticized.” Whether it is the promotion of a Christian school, a lectureship, an evangelistic campaign, or producing a publication, some just have to wonder why it is necessary in the first place.

Some refused to be involved in something that requires their time and effort. First, they will spread their negative opinions around. When no one listens, they proceed to question whether or not the practice is Scriptural. Since it has now become a matter of “right and wrong,” brethren MUST now give attention to their objections; some will eventually become convinced.

Our procedure will be to look at the seven criticisms offered against the Bible Bowl, after which we will present their positive benefits.

The first criticism the author gives is “that the Bible Bowl concept is not found in the New Testament” (14). This is a rather frivolous complaint considering that the songbook concept is not in the New Testament–nor the publication concept (such as the one in which this critical article appears). Most of us tend to think that those things that promote edification are Biblical.

The second “problem” calls attention to a danger to avoid, but it is not a reason to eliminate Bible Bowls.

The Bible Bowl gives the wrong idea of why we are to study God’s Word. They study to receive the praise of men. They study to beat the other team or win a ribbon. They study to compete. This is a far cry from studying to show oneself approved UNTO GOD (2 Timothy 2:15). When it takes prizes or awards to get young people to study, what is the church going to have to do to keep them studying? (14).

Any good program can receive a wrong emphasis, but an abuse does not prove the activity itself is wrong.

The critic assumes that students compete to receive the praise of men, but how does he know that they do not participate in order to learn and become more knowledgable? But what is wrong with praise? Will not the Lord say to us, “Well done, thou good and faithful servant”? Will a few words of encouragement ruin us all? Should we withhold words of praise from a songleader or a preacher for fear that they may only do those things for the praise of men? Compliments might even provoke improvement; can we afford to risk that?

And what is wrong with competition? Did not Paul use references to those who run in a race? Are we not to be as athletes, should we not want to win the prize? Paul mentioned the crown that he expected and that he said would be given to all them also that loved the Lord’s appearing (2 Tim. 4:8). Should we be fearful about using as motivation a reward when God holds out eternal life to us as motivation? How many Christians would put their lives on the line without the assurance of the reward to follow? Jesus even endured the cross for the joy that was set before Him (Heb. 12:2). This criticism possesses no merit except to warn us that we should not become more interested in the reward than the purpose for its being offered.

The third “problem” seems to be a continuation of the second. The author fears that “we are going too far in our praise of those who win a prize” (14), and then he mentions a congregation who hung its championship banner on the pulpit. In a case like that, someone was a bit exuberant, but such enthusiasm cannot negate the good that is done. Presumably, some may mishandle the prizes or emphasize winning for the sake of winning, but many Bible Bowls seek to recognize the efforts of all those who are involved.

The fourth criticism is rather extensive:

The Bible Bowl cheapens God’s Word. It does this by placing the study of God’s Word on the same level as studying for a science test or the level of a football game, where one also competes for an award (!4).

Oh, by all means we should keep our children from learning the Bible as well as they might learn science! How many preachers have mentioned that they wish the young people would be as devoted to the Scriptures as they are to their secular homework? How many times has the irony been noted and lamented that parents will make certain that their children do their public school homework but neglect to check and see if they have done their Bible class assignments? We unashamedly admit that we wish Christian youth would pour as much energy into studying the Scriptures as in preparing for a test at school or playing football. Is one’s view not just a little skewed to think that if we put forth effort and sacrifice time in order to learn the Scriptures that the Bible becomes cheapened by it?

Coats then charges that teams use the Bible to “whoop up on the other team” (15). First of all, the word he means is not whoop, which has an entirely different definition; he means whup, which is a slang variation of whip. Second, he assumes that all Bible Bowls follow the pattern of the one he is familiar with. In the ones we have participated in, all participants take the test. Our goal is not to whup up on anyone. In our case, we study together–even though we are competing with one another. We encourage and help each other and are delighted when others do well.

If we want our young people to understand the greatness of the Bible, then we are going to have to keep it above the level of a spelling bee or any other competition for prizes. A young person will not treasure forever that which is pictured for him as being just some book for fun and games. What concerns me is what these young people will think of the Bible as they grow older and what condition the church will be in when they become the preachers and elders (15).

What is the purpose of a spelling bee? Sure, a prize is going to be given to the winner, but its goal is to improve students’ ability to spell. What is wrong with the goal of improving our young people’s knowledge of the Bible? We study and learn things that are important. The author, perhaps unintentionally, is guilty of downgrading the Word. “It’s not important enough to study and take a test over.”

The Bible is not just a book to be used for fun and games. How many bulletins print quizzes and puzzles? Should we quit publishing them, too–because someone might actually enjoy learning? Has this brother looked at what is taught in Bible classes for young students? Next he will insist on getting rid of all that material, also. We had better eliminate Vacation Bible School, also, because children seem to enjoy that, too. What will they think when we stop feeding them cookies? Christian camps must also go; families have way too much fun there. What will the condition of the church be like when those campers grow up and become elders and preachers?

This next objection may anger some:

I firmly believe that the Bible Bowl is an admission that parents are not doing their job. It is another ploy to get the church to do what the parents should be doing (15).

Apparently, this brother is not aware that entire families participate in these events. It is not a matter of “getting the church to do” something in place of the parents; it is one way of helping parents to fulfill their responsibilities. To be sure, some parents approach a congregation with the attitude, “What do you have to offer my family?” instead of “Here’s what my family has to offer the church,” but we need not cancel every activity just because some abuse such things.

The sixth objection asserts that the church is following the way of the world in giving out prizes. Jesus did say that the children of the world are wiser than the children of light (Luke 16:8). Sometimes those in the world have good ideas. Should we not use them? Shall we abandon all inventions that have come to us through the hands of sinners? How far does this type of thinking go?

The critic fears that our young people will only do things for a prize and affirms that materialism is taking over. He wonders where all of this will stop–again. Apparently, he is not aware that as young people mature, they find other reasons for doing things besides being treated to refreshments or other “materialistic” rewards. Besides, how many youngster have confidentially admitted to him that, in all truth, they only participate in the Bible Bowl in order to obtain a ribbon, that nothing else matters, that they do not care anything about what they learned–just so long as they win the ribbon?!

Finally, he thinks he has not seen any positive results from Bible Bowls.

Where is the greater Bible knowledge? Where is the greater love for God? For Christ? For the Holy Spirit? Where is the greater maturity in Christ? Where is the greater respect for God’s Word? Where is the greater knowledge of the church and the desire to defend it? (16).

These questions can certainly be turned around. In congregations where parents exclusively handle all of the spiritual training and nothing so dangerous as a Bible Bowl is engaged in, we could likewise ask, “Where is the greater Bible knowledge? Where is the greater love for God? For Christ? For the Holy Spirit? Where is the greater maturity in Christ? Where is the greater respect for God’s Word? Where is the greater knowledge of the church and the desire to defend it?”

We do not throw the argument back upon the one who made it in order to pit churches who participate in Bible Bowls against those who do not, but rather just to show the subjectivity of the standard that has been set up. The critic knows that the things he mentions are, for the most part, not measurable. The same questions could be asked about lectureships, Bible camps, and even worship assemblies. Some people are no better off after a sermon than they were before. Should we quit preaching?

The seven arguments set forth in this article are somewhat repetitive and unconvincing. Again, we have no doubt that the writer may have observed some things in connection with Bible Bowls that seemed like the wrong emphasis, and he may be conscientiously opposed to those abuses, but good ideas should not be terminated or decried on so flimsy a basis.

1. The Word of God is honored. We know what we are studying and why. The Bible is the inspired Word of God (2 Tim. 3:16-17). We are not studying the literary works of some great man; we are not studying for the pursuit of trivia. We are devoting ourselves to God’s revelation to mankind.

2. Fellowship is promoted. When we receive a set of study questions, we ask everyone to read the text and answer the questions. Then we get together to go over the answers. This meeting provides an excellent time to discuss not only the facts of the text; we also use it as a teaching opportunity. We occasionally define words or concepts with which youngsters are not familiar. Then we have a final review before the test. Although we are in competition against one another, we are also for one another. It is also a privilege to become acquainted with brethren from other congregations in the area. The refreshments we have each month affords some leisure time for visiting with one another. Even though we are in competition with these brethren, also, our desire is for them to do as well as they can. Bible Bowls (at least, in our experience) are a very positive event.

3. Learning is enhanced. As a result of our efforts, we gain more knowledge and insight into the Word and understand more quickly references to spiritual matters that are made in classes and in sermons. Instead of getting bits and pieces of the Bible, as in a topical sermon, or jumping from Old to New Testaments, as so much “Bible” literature does, we study a book (or in the course of the year, several books) of the Bible intensely and thoroughly. At the end of the school year we have our final exam covering the material on all of the other quizzes one more time. The reinforcement is helpful.

4. Relationships are strengthened. Just as those who work in evangelistic campaigns develop a special relationship with each other, so do those who study together. We become veterans of the Genesis campaign (or whatever book we examine). We often share light-hearted moments, which are interspersed with our serious studying.

5. We become better equipped for evangelism. Because we have the Scriptures on our minds, verses, ideas, and concepts flow more readily when we are discussing spiritual matters with others. The fact is that when Scriptures are internalized, expressing them becomes much easier.

Other reasons could be added, but these are sufficient to get a glimpse of the value of Bible Bowls.

The End of Innocence

No, this article is not about the Don Henley song, “The End of the Innocence.” Rather, it laments the fact that there is little left for children to be entertained by that has not been perverted. Two decades ago many were shocked that someone had produced an X-rated cartoon, called Fritz the Cat. Fortunately, there were no sequels (so far as we know). Cartoons, after all, were originally designed for youngsters as an enjoyable and innocent form of entertainment.

But then along came The Simpsons. To be sure, there were situations in the program that were worth chuckling about, but Bart’s lack of respect went far beyond a defensible “cute” or mischievous. Now cartoon perversion has accelerated. Saturday Night Live, a program suffering from a serious lack of humorous content, has aired several episodes of two “super-heroes,” which they have titled “The Ambiguously Gay Duo.” There is nothing ambiguous about their homosexuality; there’s nothing funny about it, either.

Unfortunately, it gets worse. There is another cartoon, which airs weekly on “Comedy Central” at 9:00 p.m. (Central). It carries the rating of TV-MA (mature audience). Its name is South Park, which purports to be a fictional town in Colorado. According to Denny Wilson, South Park uses “paper doll cut-out-type animation featuring 8-year-old children” (source unknown). Mr. Wilson describes both the television program and also the new movie, which is even worse: South Park: Bigger, Longer & Uncut. Following is a description of the television show that anyone with cable can watch. Then there are some comments regarding the movie.

Why has the program earned a TV-MA rating? The 8-year-old children of South Park have the foulest mouths of any characters anywhere on television. Graphic depictions of violence are a part of every program, including the killing of one child, Kenny, each and every week. God is mocked. Jesus has a TV show but is portrayed as incompetent and as powerless. Controversial themes include homosexuality, anti-Christian bigotry, drinking, drugs, illicit sex, and disrespect for every type of authority–parents, teachers, religious leaders, law enforcement, etc.

There are some questions that all of us should be asking.

1. How did we ever arrive at a point in this society where 8-year-old children speak so vilely that their speech would once have been associated with only the worst adult element in society?

2. When did it become permissible for God and Jesus to be mocked, and for anti-Christian bigotry to be promoted? Would racial bigotry be tolerated?

3. When did it become acceptable to use small children to convey such sick messages?

4. Why is it that anyone considers this base material as funny?

5. How much further can this form of “entertainment” degenerate before there is a groundswell of outrage?

6. How will young people grow up to respect anything?

Guess what? The movie is worse than the television show. “Originally this film was given a NC-17 rating, and was only recently downgraded to an R rating,” Wilson observed. Checking www.screenit.com revealed that there were at least 133 uses of the one word still not generally allowed on television, followed by an assortment of various other vulgarisms.

One would think that cartoons could avoid nudity, but according to www.screenit.com this movie managed to combine nudity with anti-Christian bias: “Many bare-breasted women are at Heaven’s gate where the population is stated as less than two thousand, while Hell has a count of millions if not billions.” “Satan is portrayed as a gay man who just wants to be loved…. Satan and Saddam Hussein are gay lovers….”

Wilson offers this summary:

It [Heaven, gws] is portrayed as an exclusive club for elite sinners. Hell is depicted as “the place to be.” God is cursed regularly…. God is continually ridiculed. Satan is the hero of the film. Satan comes and saves the world. The Christians are constantly made fun of and belittled. Those who choose to stand up for education, censorship, and moral principles are mocked and defeated.

The language and attitudes this movie conveys are so bad that film critic Roger Ebert gave it a “thumbs down.” Ebert would not do that on the basis of language alone. He defended Spike Lee’s use of the same type of language in his Summer of Sam movie. He would not oppose nudity; he thought Stanley Kubrick’s use of it in Eyes Wide Shut was fine. In fact, he complained that 65 seconds of nude action was muted. Apparently, what bothered Ebert about South Park was the fact that eight-year-olds were so profane and that their attitudes of disrespect were completely beyond decency. (Of course, one might wonder at what age he thinks foul language and nudity become acceptable.)

Wilson “watched an interview with the creators of South Park, Trey Parker and Matt Stone, on the TV recently. They said they didn’t really care if people liked it or hated it, the point is to get a reaction.” Their entire goal is to get a reaction? Do they regard getting reactions as some sort of virtue? Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold got a reaction at Littleton, Colorado. Timothy McVeigh got a reaction as a result of his actions in Oklahoma City. Hitler got a reaction when he tried to conquer the world. What kind of high are Parker and Stone hoping to achieve by their promotion of corrupt and evil things and their attitudes of disrespect?

Our prayer is that the reaction that will result from their “art” is that parents will become outraged enough to say, “Here is the place we draw the line. We will not allow our children to be influenced by the wicked imaginations of those who have nothing positive to offer society. They will not destroy our children!”

Is it going a bit far to assign to Parker and Stone the destruction of young people? We do not mean to imply that they will accomplish such a feat single-handedly. But this kind of “entertainment” is precisely what this country does NOT need at the moment. Those in the entertainment industry might ask themselves, “Where do teenagers such as those in Littleton come up with the attitudes they have? What has caused them to be so careless of life that they would take the lives of innocent students and then give up their own as well?”

As Tim LaHaye wrote as long ago as 1980, the year his book, The Battle for the Mind (Old Tappan, NJ: Fleming H. Revell Co.), was published:

It certainly has not been the Bible-believing churches of our nation that have advocated sexual permissiveness; trial marriages; easy divorce; abortion-on-demand; inflammatory sex education forcibly taught our school children from kindergarten through high school; coed dorms; homosexuality as an optional life-style; and free access to pornography, marijuana, and occasionally, hard drugs (64).

We might further add that neither Christians nor those who call themselves Bible-believing churches have been in favor of crude, vulgar, and blasphemous language, nudity, or attitudes that teach disrespect for authority and things holy. However, the entertainment media have certainly supported all of these things.

Apparently those in Hollywood don’t think people have conversations without profanity any more. They must also think that the average person is thinking about something of a sexual nature 95% of the time. They must think it is hilarious for children to curse and swear and that the public wants to see blood and gore when people are shot or blown up. In many movies the “heroes” have a callous disregard for human life. (One wonders where the humanists are on these matters.) Christians are the ones who promote decency.

How can Parker and Stone get away with making Satan the hero while Christians are made fun of? Should these men continue to profit from the ugliness they have manufactured, they will, as Balaam did, find the price of success insufficient. Perhaps their obsession with Satan will net them a location near their hero in torment. Likely, however, they will be disappointed in their expectations of good company and hilarity.

If this trend toward profuse perverseness continues, one of two reactions may occur. This type of licentiousness may provoke a call to censorship on the part of those who have been most opposed to any limitations. We have arrived at the point where it certainly would be deserved and where many people may finally be thinking to themselves: “Enough is enough.” The other alternative is worse–judgment from God upon this nation for her excessive sinfulness.

A Sure Path to Oblivion

Because we are in the midst of a full-blown apostasy, reason would dictate that we all encourage one another to stand for the truth (John 17:17). We especially need to promote an understanding of the way God authorizes so that we may be correct in doctrine and pleasing to Him in worship (Col. 3:17). Unfortunately, the post-modern position of many brethren echoes Pilate’s skeptical remark: “What is truth?” (John 18:38). Or perhaps it would be more accurate to say that the current attitude amounts to: “Who cares what is truth?”

Since congregations are teetering daily on the brink of the hill overlooking liberalism, it is indeed unfortunate that some have taken it upon themselves to criticize brethren who have heeded the Biblical admonition to mark those “who cause divisions and offenses contrary to the doctrine,” which the New Testament teaches (Rom. 16:17). The faithful who remain cannot afford sniping at one another; this is the time to support one another. It was therefore disillusioning to hear a prominent brother say these words a few months ago.

There are some preachers who think that they have been appointed of God to try to be pope over the church. And they find out everything they can about what’s wrong in other places, and they’re writing about it. Elders, know what your preachers are writing. And if they’re tearing down the church of our Lord, and they’re writing about things they shouldn’t be writing, then correct them on it. Don’t let them demote fellowship. But make them promote it in the brotherhood. And then all of us have an obligation to do that–and to love the entire church. We sometimes treat other congregations like they’re denominations.

Although we do not deny that someone somewhere might want to be the pope over the church, we have never met this fellow. This charge seems to be a bit on the trite side. If someone has some evidence to substantiate the charge, let him present it; otherwise, this hackneyed expression is worthy of a quick burial.

Likewise, who is the fellow spying on other congregations? Most of us hear more than we care to about other churches in the area, but who is the man running around collecting data? Because our society is highly mobile, we occasionally get visits from dissatisfied members of other congregations. Some leave an apostate church and of their own free will communicate the various problems that led to their decision. If the concerns they express are legitimate, then one congregation may decide not to fellowship another one until the matter can be resolved. Churches departing from God’s word, however, do not generally want to discuss such matters with those standing firm.

We receive many bulletins, and occasionally someone does write an article exposing a false teacher or apostate congregation. In the articles we have seen, evidence is offered to establish the case. Usually, the very words of the preacher or congregation in question are cited. We are grateful for the information because brethren are always asking about sound congregations they can safely worship with when they travel. Many people ask ahead of time because of bad previous experiences. There is an international publication that devotes itself to this topic, and it serves a useful purpose. Faithful brethren do not generally protest it.

Those who expose error are not guilty of tearing down the church. People such as Rubel Shelly and Max Lucado (and those who bask in their shadows) are the ones causing the problems and tearing down the Lord’s church. Those who expose their false, soul-damning doctrine are not the source of conflict any more than Elijah was the troubler of Israel. The guilt lies with the false teachers and those who are allowing them to corrupt God’s people.

If someone is spreading slander and gossip, that is wrong, and it ought to be stopped. If there are those who are just looking for something or someone to write up, they have the wrong motive and should be counseled to understand that brethren need to build up one another. Certainly, elders should know what their preachers are writing, but the idea should be applied to liberal preachers, also. (Why have elders with liberal preachers failed to rebuke their false doctrine?)

To the charge that we sometimes treat other congregations as if they are denominations we plead guilty. When “brethren” cease to teach baptism for the remission of sins, begin appointing women to leadership positions, introduce denominational concepts into worship, and fellowship denominations, exactly how are we supposed to treat them? There are many congregations that still refer to themselves as a “church of Christ” who ceased being such long ago. There may be a few brethren somewhere who insist on conformity with every optional matter before they will extend fellowship, but most brethren give as much slack as they can to avoid the charge of being opinionated.

To be fair, the brother who made these remarks also encouraged everyone to stand for the truth; perhaps he did not mean these things the way they came across. The elders and preacher of the host congregation made a response similar to this one in their church bulletin–and rightly so. We have no animosity toward this brother, but we disagreement his ideas was in order. To ignore or minimize a sister congregation’s errors is a sure path to oblivion for the Lord’s church.

The above-titled article appeared in the July Gospel Advocate, and it merits similar criticism. The author, “a recently retired professor of ministries at Abilene Christian University,” offers several kind remarks about watchdogs before he points out that some of them contract rabies. He does make an attempt to be fair in presenting the strengths and possible weaknesses of “whistle blowers.” And in a time of relative peace among brethren the article might, with a few changes, serve a useful purpose. But again, the brotherhood would better be served with exhortations to remain steadfast. Despite his efforts at objectivity, there are a few points that need to be made.

First, in the middle of page 17 in large bold letters is this statement: “Various self-appointed watchdogs have uselessly irritated faithful people and even bitten others whom they have had no right to bite.” The author is absolutely correct in this statement; everyone probably knows of a good brother who has been ill-treated at the hands of a jealous, spiritual pygmy. But one wonders two things: “Are all watchdogs self-appointed?” and “Exactly how is the author going to apply this prominently-displayed principle?”

Perhaps the answer to the first question is that the self-appointed watchdogs are the ones that create the most problems. But most literal watchdogs are bought or trained for that purpose by a master. Our master told us all to beware of false prophets (Matt. 7:15) and false doctrine (Matt. 16:12). Furthermore, He denounced the Pharisees and the scribes (Matt. 23). Paul cautioned all brethren to “beware of dogs” (Phil. 3:2), and Jude cautioned all brethren “to contend earnestly for the faith” (Jude 3). Do we not all have a responsibility to be a watchdog? And were we not appointed by our Master to fulfill that function?

To answer the question regarding the way this author applies the principles stated in the article, he applauds the work of F. LaGard Smith in his book, Who Is My Brother? Although he does not specifically state the reason for praising Smith, presumably he thinks Smith’s exegetical work qualifies him to openly rebuke Max Lucado and surreptitiously take issue with Mike Cope, which Smith does in the book.

The problem is that Smith is inconsistent on the issue of fellowship; he contradicts himself often, which Daniel Denham pointed out in his 90-page scholarly review of Who Is My Brother? in Bellview’s 1998 lectureship book, Fellowship (from Pensacola). Wayne Jackson, a brother never known for shoddy work, also exposed the weaknesses of Smith’s work. Smith leaves the door open for fellowshipping those in denominations, and by his own admission he does so himself during the months he spends in England each year.

In an e-mail from Keith Sisman to Dub McClish, dated June 15, 1999, brother Sisman writes concerning the Ashton-Under-Hill-Free-Church:

I have visited this church with other sound brethren. They are Calvinistic (predestination and direct action of the HS in conversion). They teach that baptism does NOT save. Women lead in prayer and give testimony. The instrument is used in worship, “But not when LaGard attends.”

They consider Smith a member! Smith I understand has also given financially to the work there.

Smith has criticised Lucado on his stance of failing to preach baptism, yet Smith openly worships in England with people who teach much the same thing as Lucado, plus Calvinism.

The warnings against self-appointed watchdogs begin to ring a little hollow when we see who and what the author of this article is willing to fellowship. Since he is recently retired from ACU, we might ask, “Did he not consider fellow faculty member Andre Resner’s blasphemous article, ‘Christmas At Matthew’s House,’ a barrier to fellowship?” Or was Resner a qualified scholar? And what did he think of Abilene’s distinguished Carmichael Professor Carroll Osburn’s book, The Peaceable Kingdom? That was the occasion of Osburn’s saying that church organization, premillennialism, instrumental music, and baptism for or because of the remission of sins should not be matters of fellowship (in which case, what would be?). Does he agree with Osburn, is it a matter of fellowship, and is it wrong to “write him up”?

Another article in the same issue of the Gospel Advocate laments that a “congregation or university is called liberal because it has used speakers who have spoken where other speakers deemed to be liberal have spoken.” Wait a minute! Why dally in obscurities such as “deemed to be liberal”? Who are we talking about? If the men in question are Rubel Shelly, Jeff Walling, and others of their ilk, they ARE liberal–not just thought to be so.

Now granted that some, in their zeal for truth, may have gone too far and drawn lines of fellowship too quickly. We should avoid such hasty actions until enough time is given to talk calmly through the situation. Again, we live in perilous times, in which many congregations and colleges have invited someone because he was popular–never mind the fact that he has associated with those who have departed from the Word of God. If elders had been more observant regarding those whom some of these speakers fellowshipped, perhaps they could have avoided division. If anything, the brotherhood needs to scrutinize preachers more closely, not less.

The writer seeks to justify his thesis that “guilt by association” is wrong by appealing to the fact that Jesus was a friend to tax collectors and sinners. The two situations are not parallel; Jesus did not endorse their immorality and fellowship their sins. The speakers in question, however, do not disagree with the liberals on the programs in which they appear. They fellowship the other men and endorse one another’s teaching; otherwise, they would not be invited!

“Guilt by association” IS a Biblical principle. Jehu the prophet asked King Jehoshaphat: “Should you help the wicked and love those who hate the Lord? Therefore, the wrath of the Lord is upon you” (2 Chron. 19:2). Although this occurred in the Old Testament, there is no reason that the same question should not be asked in this era.

A third article in July’s Gospel Advocate continues this theme. It is, perhaps, the most vicious of them all.

Our modern-day Pharisees are the same. All they want to know is where you go and who you know. If you do not associate with people they deem faithful, you must be unfaithful. They think that they can dictate with whom you should or should not fellowship. They have their lists and measure you by their lists instead of the Bible (15).

Really? Has the author seen these lists? Is it possible to get a copy? He sounds like an annual attendee of the Tulsa Soul-Winning Workshop or the Nashville Jubilee. The only criterion most of us use to determine fellowship is, “Does this person or group teach what the Bible teaches?” If not, we usually try to discern if the person is a babe in Christ and untaught–or if he knows what those men stand for and agrees with them. Toward the former we exercise patience and tolerance, but we must withhold fellowship from the latter. By the way, is it Pharisaical to point a finger at those who disagree with you and call them a Pharisee?

Just look at the modern Pharisees. Their empty church buildings, lack of action, and constant whining about how difficult life is are testimonies to their lack of love for the lost.

Oh! So, a facility empty of people is a mark of Phariseeism. Pity the poor animals on the ark and all the time they had to spend with Noah and his Pharisaical family! Most congregations still standing for the truth show signs of meaningful activity and are engaged in evangelistic activities. These generalizations are unwarranted and unprovable.

The motto of today’s Pharisee might be, “The sins in others I can see! But praise the Lord there is none in me!”

Whew! One wonders how the writer knows the Pharisees so well. If he is acting as a watchdog, where is the scholarship that qualifies him to make these charges (as the brother who wrote the “watchdog” article insisted was necessary)? Those of us who have not met these modern-day Pharisees should rejoice immediately.

Today’s Pharisees know what the Bible teaches about marriage and remarriage, baptism for the remission of sins, instrumental music in the church, fellowshipping the denominations, and paying tithes, but they do not know love, joy, peace, longsuffering, gentleness, goodness, faithfulness, meekness, and temperance (Galatians 5:22-23).

How, O how, does this man know these folks so well that he can even describe their personal, private walk with God? Although the phrase is overworked today, this accusation really does amount to judgmentalism.

It is sad to see articles of this stripe in a magazine once (but no longer) known as the “Old Reliable.” The Gospel Advocate still contains a number of articles by sound brethren; some of the information published is helpful, but it is not the same publication it once was.

This article was not intended to be an advertisement for the forthcoming Gospel Journal, but it certainly calls attention to the fact that the brotherhood needs a publication to take the place of some older papers that once were held in high esteem.

The purpose of this article was to protest and lament those who are calling for broader fellowship and more tolerance at the very time we need to be most alert. To complain about a few brethren who may have been overly vigilant when wolves are stealing sheep by the dozen makes as much sense as replacing light bulbs in the chandelier of the Titanic while it is sinking.

Recommended Reading: Worldliness

Every day someone makes the decision to become a Christian. Departing from sin and its influence is both a difficult decision and a challenging process. If Satan tried to tempt Jesus with the lust of the flesh, the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life, he will do no less toward us, His humble (and weaker) followers. Trying to live a holy life in the midst of a crooked and perverse generation is a constant struggle. This latest lectureship book of the Bellview Church of Christ in Pensacola, Florida, published in June of this year, titled Worldliness, will be of great help to Christians striving diligently to serve a holy God.

Worldliness comes packaged in various forms, and this book performs an excellent service in defining these areas of temptation, which we all need to be able to identify and overcome. The first chapter serves as a general introduction: “Living Soberly, Righteously, and Godly.” Not only are all three words carefully defined, but an interesting discussion of three elements of righteousness is included. The second chapter, “Denying Ungodliness and Worldly Lusts,” is also of a general nature, with a special emphasis on the way in which fleshly lusts “war against the soul” (1 Peter 2:11).

The next chapter is also foundational; it deals with “Causes of Worldliness” and is followed by a look at the philosophy of “Hedonism,” which is thoroughly defined, with a special focus on Epicurus. There follow 14 examples of hedonism, most of which are located in the Scriptures, but a few modern-day instances are also listed. This section closes with suggestions for overcoming the hedonistic philosophy.

Another well-documented chapter (65 endnotes) deals with the philosophy of “Humanism,” which Christians really need to comprehend if they want to understand much of what is happening in society and in the nation’s schools. Basically, Humanism is atheistic and deifies Man (69). Brother Daniel Denham mentions such humanistic luminaries as Corliss Lamont, August Comte, John Dewey, Julian Huxley, Carl Sagan, George Gaylord Simpson, Paul Kurtz, and others; he lets them and their works speak for themselves so that it is clear that they are not being misrepresented.

It is important to understand what role the “Educational System” and “The Media” play in influencing our society towards humanistic thought and behavior. These two chapters have a combined total of 49 endnotes, thus continuing the high standard of research already evidenced in the book and making it excellent resource material. There is a page of facts about Disney, which includes information such as their signing an occultic rock band, whose music is “laced with Satanic themes” (100); they also have a four-year contract with Martin Scoresese (director of the blasphemous The Last Temptation of Christ).

Following a look at “Occultism” are three chapters of a more general nature: “Examining One’s Life,” “Purity of Mind, Life, and Speech,” and “Disobedience to Parents.” The first of these chapters contains a fascinating poem titled “The Church Walking With the World” (129-31). The second contains a list of character traits that Christ exhibited during His earthly ministry (142), an analysis of Philippians 4:8 and 1 Corinthians 13, and a sample chart from , which is a handy tool to use to find out what forms of worldliness will be found in movies that are currently playing (163). David Brown also takes a brief look at a variety of subjects, most of which have their own chapters elsewhere in the book.

“Pride” and “Envy” are subjects infrequently discussed, and we need to be reminded of their dangers. A more common topic is “Immodesty.” Although it would be a relief to need never prepare, present, or listen to another lesson on this topic, it remains needful. The definitions set forth are appropriate, and the purpose for immodest dress is clearly established, including the famous quotation from Mary Quant, the “mother” of the miniskirt (222).

Young people still need information about “Dancing.” The author examines eight defenses that are offered in favor of dancing and five reasons why Christians should avoid the practice. Another perennial problem is “Pornography.” The author lists the amount of money spent annually by Americans each year for hard-core pornography (242), the number of phone sex calls made every day, 70% of which are made by minors (243), and an indication of the extent of the problem created by the Internet (243-44).

“Fornication and Adultery” may seem like sins that are pretty easily recognized as being of the world, but each year some Christians allow themselves to be overcome by this problem. The topics of “Abortion and Euthanasia” occasion no little amount of controversy whenever they are introduced. One might affirm that these practices are simply Humanism applied.

No current book on worldliness could fail to include a chapter on the most-promoted sin in America, “Homosexuality.” The writer presents the basic argument against homosexuality and lists Bible passages that are pertinent to the topic. A brief look is given at various defenses made on behalf of the sin, but they are generally specious and contrived (the Bible being so clear with respect to this perverted practice). Evidence is presented to show that homosexuals can change (283-84). Everyone should be aware of the homosexual agenda (284-85).

“Alcohol, Tobacco, and Drug Use” have not ceased to be an allurement for some. The effects of these are highlighted, as well they should be. It is far easier to prevent these habits from forming than it is to find ways to quit them in order to save one’s life.

“Covetousness,” “Materialism,” and “Stealing” cannot be assumed to be sins of the past. We often assume that spiritually-minded people will not be bothered by sins like these, but the Scriptures emphasize this temptation–for a reason!

Some of the material in the chapter on “Gambling” is taken from the outstanding tract by Garland Elkins and Robert R. Taylor, Jr.: Gambling: National Pastime to Prosperity or Sure Bet to Poverty? This 27-page chapter contains several definitions and persuasive information. Some may take issue with such statements as “gambling is robbery by consent” or a gambler “gives no fair exchange of goods or services in return” (332); an intelligent refutation would be interesting. Information is provided concerning the ways gambling has “benefitted” Las Vegas (339-40) and Atlantic City (340-42). After analyzing the “state lottery,” brother Elkins cites from the tract 20 reasons why gambling is Biblically wrong (349-52).

“Anger, Hatred, and Malice” are among the old clothes that Christians must shed. These are defined and explained, as well as what constitutes appropriate anger. “Backbiters and Gossips” receive much-deserved attention, also. Not only is it difficult to avoid repeating “gossip,” it is even harder to avoid hearing. The writer offers a different perspective on the subject by calling attention to the fact that some, who are guilty of actual wrongdoing (and refuse to acknowledge or repent of it), are pointing fingers at those who are sound in the faith and referring to them as “gossips” because their own sins have been exposed (374)!

Closely associated with the preceding topic is “Lying and Corrupt Communication”; we are bombarded with them daily. According to the book, The Day America Told the Truth, 91% of the population tells lies on a regular basis (382)–that is, if those surveyed told the truth. (Perhaps that is the reason so few people care that the holder of the highest elected office in this nation lies to us on a regular basis.) The importance of truth is emphasized appropriately in this chapter.

It may not seem like it at first, but there is a connection between worldliness and “Denominationalism.” Brother McClish focuses on some of the contradictions of denominationalism, its consequences, and cures for it. “Wastefulness” would probably not come to mind for most people as an example of worldliness, but it is important to recognize that the waste of one’s time, talent, and resources is of the world and repudiated by Christ. The Bible teaches that we must look for and take advantage of our opportunities. The book concludes with “Consequences of Worldliness.”

This book’s 436 pages should be studied by all members of the church because of its valuable treatment of subjects relevant to us. As Jesus pointed out, we are in the world, but we are not to be of the world. Such a task is not easy; this book will help us clarify our thinking with its appeal to and reliance upon the Scriptures on these matters. The price of $12.00 is a bargain. It may be ordered from the Bellview Church of Christ, 4850 Saufley Field Road, Pensacola FL 32526 or from Valid Publications, Inc.

Media Glut

The homosexual agenda continues to make strides on a daily basis. Since we published our last article on the subject a few weeks ago, the following things have occurred: 1) There was a graduation from a Dallas area school for homosexuals; 2) The Dallas Morning News also reported on the area’s first “gay prom”; 3) A school board in Grapevine refused to remove from the library a book checked out by a third grader, which promotes homosexuality; 4) a protest against The Practice received a scathing response; 5) Bill Clinton proclaimed June as Gay Pride month on June 11th; and 6) over 100 television stations across the country broadcast a propaganda piece for homosexuals entitled It’s Elementary. What will they do in July and August to top all these events: Gay Fireworks and Back-to-Gay-School Sales for homosexuals only?

The sixth event mentioned created the most controversy; in fact, KERA-TV (Channel 13) here in Dallas chose not to air the film, but it was shown in 23 of the top 30 markets, according to The Dallas Morning News of June 10th (37A). Furthermore, it will be used in some school districts to train teachers. It’s already been adopted in Newton, Massachusetts, which is hardly surprising for a state which keeps electing Barney Frank. It was made in San Francisco (who could have imagined?). “The message of the video is that homophobia gets ingrained early and hurts people, and that schools are one place to teach tolerance” (37A). What this sentence means is that parents can expect their children to be taught acceptance of homosexuality in many of the public schools. It also makes one wonder how homophobia is defined–as someone who believes the Bible?

When KERA refused to broadcast It’s Elementary, they cited sufficient reasons for that decision. They charged that the film was “not balanced” and “potentially inflammatory” (37A). The station spokesman added that “some parents’ morals might be offended” and that “the program takes the stance that people who disagree with its message are in the wrong.”

An editorial in the June 17th Cincinnati Enquirer made this observation:

Although advertising says the video will be “educational and promote respect and tolerance,” it teaches acceptance and tolerance of only one viewpoint: Homosexuality is healthy and normal and anyone who believes otherwise is stupid, bigoted and responsible for hate crimes. It’s peddled to state and local school boards as an “award-winning educational documentary.” No question, it is slick and manipulative.

The following excerpts tell something about the contents of the film from Jon Miskowski of Wisconsin Public Television, who replied via e-mail to someone protesting It’s Elementary. They were in the process of reviewing the program for possible broadcast. The video:

considers how teachers in six schools–including one in Madison–are using discussions about homosexuality to explore stereotypes, civil rights and different kinds of families. It looks at ways that children, not just the small minority who will grow up to be gay or lesbian, are affected by prejudice and name-calling…. It is not easy to resolve questions about how elementary schools should approach discussions of homosexuality and their place in the curriculum….

Wait just a moment! Schools have banned reading the Bible and prayer, and now they want to teach their own version of morality–or should we say more appropriately immorality. One teacher in the video argues that students must be taught that life-styles are equal. “There isn’t a right way, there isn’t a wrong way; there isn’t a good way, there isn’t a bad way.” Of course, fourth-graders will probably not think to answer this nonsense by saying, “So what you are saying is that there are no moral values. In that case, it is not wrong or immoral to reject homosexuality, either.”

But there’s more. Following the discussion, the students are herded into the auditorium for a mandatory “Gay and Lesbian Pride” program. Teachers praise the fourth graders for being more tolerant than their parents. Christians must ask themselves, “Is this the kind of irreligious propaganda I want my children taught?” There is a greater need for private schools than ever–a place where students are actually taught mathematics, science, history, and English instead of “socially correct” attitudes, and where students are passed on their own merits instead of receiving social promotions and not being able to read when they graduate!

It’s Elementary claims to get rid of stereotypes, but does it tell the truth about the diseases that homosexuals transmit and receive? Does it mention how many partners the average homosexual has during his brief lifetime? Or does it simply whitewash these matters in order to gain acceptance for the sin?

According to some, the film’s producers included some stereotypes. They portray all Christians as dangerous bigots. How will that affect the students of religious families who remain in the public school system? It is a shame and a disgrace that our government uses the tax dollars from Christian families to promote perversion in schools where those same children attend! No wonder the idea of school vouchers is gaining in popularity!

The director and co-producer had the temerity to take to task the television station for not airing their propaganda piece. She took issue with the statement that the video is “not balanced” (The Dallas Morning News, 6-20-99, 3A). Once again, she used the fallacy of comparing homosexual prejudice with racial prejudice, as if the Bible ever called it a sin to be black, yellow, red, or white. One’s race is determined by birth. One’s sexual preference is learned. One cannot change the former; many have changed the latter. Thus, these two are not comparable. Perhaps the producer is blinded by prejudice against the Scriptures, or she could see that point.

No Christian would argue in favor of anti-gay crimes; no one is advocating harming others, but there must be a better way of teaching respect than by disregarding the Scriptures.

Recently Jim Neugent from Mena, Arkansas, wrote to ABC to protest the way homosexuality was handled on a recent episode of The Practice. The mother of one of the lawyers on the show decided she was a homosexual and wanted her son to go to court to help her get a marriage license to marry her “partner.” The only one opposed to the idea was the office “dufus,” who was made to look “out of touch.” Romans 1 was cited in protest of the show’s favorable stance on homosexuality. The reply from the ABC on-line Webmaster was blistering:

How about getting your nose out of the Bible (which is ONLY a book of stories compiled by MANY different writers hundreds of years ago) and read the Declaration of Independence (what our nation is built on) where it says “All Men are Created Equal”–and try treating them that way for a change!? Or better yet, try thinking for yourself and stop using an archaic book of stories as your crutch for your existence.

There was an apology issued later on, and the person who wrote those words was disciplined in some manner, but the hostility and rage is honest. It may only be a matter of time before assaults on the Bible become fashionable and believers suffer persecution of a physical nature (besides already being socially incorrect).

These charges demand a step-by-step refutation. How about getting your nose out of the Bible…. This is the greatest compliment we have been paid since the worldly woman on Donahue accused us of being “blinded by the Bible.” Since wisdom, understanding, truth, salvation, and eternal life are found in the Scriptures (John 6:66), why would we want to cease our association with something so healthy? No one has died from AIDS by studying the Word of God!

Is the Bible ONLY a book of stories? Although the Bible contains many historical narratives, especially in the Old Testament, it also contains moral and ethical teachings, which the “stories” illustrate. Accounts of human interaction in the Bible are not there to entertain, as Homer did with The Iliad and The Odyssey. They are presented to reveal how God views things and how He deals with mankind.

…compiled by MANY different writers hundreds of years ago…. Writers write; editors compile. Which does the hostile critic wish to charge the Scriptures with? The fact that there are about 40 different writers who wrote over a period of 1600 years is one of the Bible’s strengths. No one has ever been able to duplicate its unity. Muhammed is the only writer of the Qur’an, and he contradicts himself. Who wants to take charge of a committee of 40 people today (who enjoy the advantage of being contemporaries) and produce a document the size of the Scriptures, touching every possible moral issue known to man, and produce a work with doctrine that is completely harmonious? Incidently, whereas certain contradictions have been alleged (erroneously) regarding various Bible teachings, homosexuality has not been one of them. It is completely, thoroughly, and unanimously condemned throughout. If homosexuals could find even one verse that was favorable to their cause, they would shout it from the rooftops.

…read the Declaration of Independence (what our nation is built on) where it says “All Men are Created Equal”…. Guess what? That line from the Declaration of Independence includes some words which the Bible critic omitted. The complete sentence is:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness.

Endowed by whom? Our nation is built upon the Biblical concept of God. Our founding fathers, unlike the ABC spokesman, believed in that “book of stories.” They also made other references to God, as seen in the two concluding sentences.

We therefore, the Representatives of the United Stated of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the Name, and by the authority of the good People of these Colonies, solemnly publish and declare, That these United Colonies, are and of Right ought to be free and independent States; that they are Absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as Free and Independent States, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace, contract Alliance, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do. And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes, and our Sacred Honor.

So, in this short document our founding fathers appealed to the Creator, the Judge of the world, and Divine Providence. Perhaps the ABC on-line Webmaster would like to reconsider his appeal to the Declaration of Independence.

Furthermore, nothing in these words authorizes perversion. Being created equal does not guarantee the freedom to be a thief, an adulterer, a homosexual, or a child molester. Nor does this document guarantee that any of those individuals are worthy of respect. They are guaranteed legal rights, so long as they do not transgress the laws of this society. Even then, they have the legal right to defend themselves.

Or better yet, try thinking for yourself and stop using an archaic book as your crutch for your existence…. Christians do think for themselves. We do not just blindly accept the Bible any more than we would any other book. But we know through various means that the Bible is what it claims to be–the inspired Word of God. If the critic is implying that the only people who think for themselves are those who agree with him, he certainly does not suffer from poor self-esteem!

The Bible is not a crutch; it is a viable explanation for the origin of all things. We have never seen a better explanation, nor did this man offer one. His demeaning, irreverent, and critical attitude toward the Scriptures is precisely what we can expect from those who do not believe in God. Their credo is, “Might makes right.” And if the day comes in which this thinking prevails, they will not hesitate to persecute those who are not as “enlightened” as they are.

Many denominations have had trouble in recent years over “ordination” of homosexuals and homosexual marriages. The latest problem was reported in The Dallas Morning News last Saturday (June 26, 1999).

With the governor on one side and a prominent congressman on the other, a leading United Methodist church in the Atlanta suburbs split this week in the latest case of what has become a crisis in the church on the issue of same-sex unions.

A breakaway group, led by the former pastor of the First United Methodist Church of Marietta, had its first official service Sunday. Attending and signing up to join the breakaway congregation, named Wesleyan Fellowship, were U.S. Rep. Bob Barr, an influential Republican, and his wife, Jeri.

Gov. Roy Barnes, a Democrat, chose to stay at First United Methodist, which has about 5,000 members (4G). [Note: This is the group favoring such unions.]

Several churches of Christ have caught up to denominations in doctrinal infidelity; how long can it be before they join them in moral looseness as well? When will we read a news story about a split in some large, liberal “church of Christ” over same-sex unions?

How shameful that groups of so-called “Christians,” who should be the last bastion of morality, are often times the ones leading the charge for the public to accept the latest immorality. One thing is certain: We are probably in for more and more news stories and movies sympathetic to homosexuals and encouraging acceptance of same-sex marriages. When that day of approval arrives, it will only be a short step to silencing any opposition. Appeals to the Scriptures will be classified as “hate speech” or as “hate crimes,” and religious freedom will become a thing of the past.

Since completing the article in this week”s bulletin, I have had occasion to read the following headlines.

6-17-99: “Baptists Again Aim At Gays”
6-24-99: “Report that Lincoln Was Gay Stirs Anger in Illinois Town”
6-25-99: “U.S. Honors Gay Site an Historic Place”
6-26-99: “Presbyterians Uphold Stance Against Ordaining Gays, Lesbians”
6-30-99: “G-CISD Board Delays Decision in Book Dispute”

The first four appeared in The Dallas Morning News; the last one is from the Denton Record-Chronicle. The most grotesque one is the Lincoln article. Some “scholars” hope to prove that Lincoln, as well as Washington and Custer, was a homosexual. The last of the five mentioned above deals with a children’s book, Tiger Flowers, which is on the shelves of an area elementary school. The boy loses an uncle and his “friend” to AIDS. Homosexuality is implicit and obviously approved.

The fact is that homosexuals, and those who support their agenda have no shame. Hopefully, there will be a backlash against this constant “in-your-face” barrage of degradation!

The Role of Women in the Church (Part 5)

Because of the restrictions God placed upon women concerning the role they can not have in the church, some have mistakenly erred (especially the feminists) in thinking that the denial of leadership means that they are second-rate citizens in the kingdom and inferior in quality to men. Rebecca Merrill Groothuis states such a conclusion in her 1997 book, Good News For Women: A Biblical Picture of Gender Equality (published by Baker):

It stands to reason that anyone who is deemed permanently unfit to occupy the superior position must be inherently incapable of performing that function satisfactorily, and certainly someone who is inferior should occupy only the inferior or subordinate position (53-54).

This complaint has already been answered previously with the observation that the Father is the head of Jesus and the Holy Spirit. Must we conclude that the latter two are “permanently unfit to occupy the superior position”? Also, there are many men who, although they can lead in a number of ways, cannot serve as elders. Must we conclude that they are “permanently unfit”? To be unqualified is not the same as being unfit.

Besides, the Scriptures do not say that women cannot lead in prayer, teach, or exercise other forms of leadership. The restriction is that they cannot do so over men (1 Tim. 2:8-14). Apparently, some have taken this one restriction to mean that women have no rights and no value in the kingdom, that they must sit around in docile solitude, ever rehearsing and practicing their doormat routine. This is just as erroneous a concept as the one in which women lead over men.

The argument is ccasionally made that women were not put in leadership roles because doing so would have violated the customs of the time. When did Jesus ever worry about the customs of His day if they stood in the way of the truth? According to the customs of Jesus’ day, He should not have healed on the Sabbath day, but He did because it was not a sin. This action of His angered His enemies so much that they wanted to kill Him (John 5:17-18). He also ate with unwashed hands, thus violating the custom of ceremonial cleansing (Matt. 15:2, 11, 17-20). He also denounced their practice of circumventing the honoring of their fathers and mothers by means of a technicality (Matt. 15:3-9) and the distinction between swearing by the temple and swearing by the gold in the temple (Matt. 23:16-17).

Jesus also talked to a Samaritan woman in public, which constituted a double cultural violation (John 4:9, 27). The first was that Jews had no dealings with Samaritans, and the second was that a Jewish man would have no public conversation with a woman. No wonder the apostles marveled at this when they returned with food for Jesus to eat.

Had it been God’s will that He should choose women to be apostles, they would have been numbered among the twelve, regardless of society’s feelings. After all, in a world in which the gospel message called for people to give up their love of sin, how much easier would it have been for them to give up their perceptions of male leadership and embrace female preachers?

Jesus transgressed the conventional customs by speaking with the Samaritan woman; He did not hesitate to praise the faith another woman–one from Syro-Phoenicia. Although He sometimes observed that His disciples possessed little faith, to her He said, “O woman, great is your faith!” (Matt. 15:28). He also commented upon the faith of the woman with the flow of blood, telling her that her faith had made her well (Luke 8:48).

At the house of a Pharisee Jesus astounded the guests by allowing a woman (who was a sinner) to wash His feet with her tears, dry them with her hair, and anoint His feet with oil (Luke 7:36-39). Those present failed to see the faith, repentance, and love she expressed toward Jesus; to make it clear to them, Jesus publicly proclaimed that her sins were forgiven (Luke 7:48-50).

Not only did the twelve travel with Jesus, but so did “certain women who had been healed of evil spirits and infirmities” (Luke 8:2); some of these provided support for Him from their substance (Luke 8:3). How easy it would have been to appoint some of these faithful, committed women as apostles, if the role of leadership was open to both genders.

Jesus could have condemned the woman taken in adultery and cast the first stone, but instead He rescued her from a hypocritical mob and told her to “sin no more” (John 8:3-11). And what about the tribute Jesus paid to Mary, who anointed His body for death? He promised that “wherever the gospel is preached in the whole world, what this woman has done will also be told as a memorial to her” (Matt. 26:13; John 12:3-8).

After His death, burial, and resurrection, Jesus appeared first to Mary Magdalene–even before visiting with any of His apostles (Mark 9:1). None of these occasions or compliments can be reconciled with the charge that women are “unfit” and “inferior” because they do not have positions of leadership.

Paul was not a woman-hater any more than the Lord was. He spoke highly of Priscilla, Phoebe, Lydia, “Mary, who labored much for us” (Rom. 16:6), and others. He gently reminded Euodia and Syntyche to be of the same mind (Phil. 4:2) after he had dealt with, in this short letter, the pressing need both for unity and the proper frame of mind (Phil. 1:27; 2:2-8; 4:8).

Paul taught that men and women are one in Christ Jesus (Gal. 3:28). This passage demonstrates that role does not imply inequality or inferiority. Peter recognized the same order of authority in the home that Paul taught, but he also described husbands and wives as “heirs together of the grace of life” (1 Peter 3:7). The New Testament is therefore consistent in this regard. There are no contradictions with respect to headship either in the church or in the home.

One need only look at the Bible to find ways to be a great servant in the kingdom of God. The first way is suggested by 1 Peter 3:1-2, which involves setting a good example for an unbelieving husband. Undoubtedly, many men have been converted by this means. An unblemished life constitutes a powerful sermon, and it can be preached in eloquent silence.

Second, a woman can be a godly influence in her home–not only upon her husband but upon her children. How was Moses able to make the right decisions (Heb. 11:24-26)? Was not the reason that he had been taught by his mother? Even though Timothy’s father was a Greek, his mother Eunice and his grandmother Lois were positive influences in his life. Were it not for their faith, there might have been one less gospel preacher (2 Tim. 1:5). Many of life’s valuable lessons have been learned at a tender age from mothers.

Women are certainly free with respect to performing acts of kindness. Dorcas was described as “full of good works and charitable deeds” (Acts 9:36). Some ladies reflect great talent in this area and are appreciated as much as anyone in the church. When Peter arrived, “all the widows stood by him weeping,” her loss was so great to them (Acts 9:39). Women often “take the lead” in thoughtfulness and kindness.

Hospitality is yet another area in which women excel. The Shunemite woman made Elisha’s journey more comfortable (2 Kings 4:8-10). Lydia insisted that Paul and Silas stay in her house (Acts 16:15). Only the women who had practiced hospitality were allowed to be enrolled as those the church would fully support (1 Tim. 5:9-10).

Many women have engaged in personal evangelism–sometimes helping their husbands, sometimes doing it on their own. Aquila and Priscilla were a team that was discussed previously. Today a number of women who are not in the public work force might show interest in a Bible study. There are also single women, including mothers, who stand in need of the gospel. There is the inspiring story of Elizabeth Bernard, who (though legally blind) went to a foreign country and entrenched herself in the mission work there. The woman who so devotes herself to endeavors like these will be rejoicing so much in the harvest of souls that she will not have time to pity herself because she is excluded from the public proclamation of the Word.

Women have proven themselves to be excellent teachers. Not only have they exercised considerable influence in their own homes, but they have edified many other people’s children by virtue of the Bible classes they teach. They can be particularly valuable at teaching younger women the will of God (Titus 2:3-5).

So far we have seen the freedom women have and the possibilities in the realms of evangelism, education, benevolence, and hospitality. Their godly example in the home and in the church is inestimable. Anything we have missed can probably be summed up by saying that she can be a servant. Anyone who aspires to greatness must travel on the pathway of servanthood.

Jesus was speaking to the multitudes and His disciples when He said: “But he who is greatest among you shall be your servant” (Matt. 23:11). The multitudes included women, and they are not excluded or limited in any form or fashion. Equally generic is Paul’s declaration that “the whole body” is “joined and knit together by what every joint supplies, according to the effective working by which every part does its share,” which causes growth in the body (Eph. 4:16).

We are not told of any women in the upper room for the “last supper,” but Jesus took a towel and, by washing their feet, showed His dumbfounded disciples a lesson in love, humility, and service. Certainly no one is forbidden on the basis of gender to practice these great virtues. The New Testament reveals a multitude of opportunities for women to serve. Every congregation of God’s people usually has more work than it can accomplish. Most of these tasks do not involve exercising leadership over men, but they are necessary nevertheless.

Barnabas was known as the Son of Encouragement (Acts 4:36) because he possessed that outstanding quality. Many sisters in the kingdom could rightly be called Daughters of Encouragement for the spiritual boost they have given to young preachers, song leaders, and Bible class teachers. (Some have occasionally given some helpful advice, also).

Society practices this precept all the time in relation to sporting events. The runner is cheered on to victory. In team sports the announcer will sometimes observe, “The crowd is getting into the game,” meaning that, after a period of relative silence, they have begun cheering and trying to pump up the players. In basketball or hockey arenas the female fans do not say, “I am not going to cheer because no women are on the team.” The ladies who attend these events encourage the players as loudly as they can.

In the Lord’s church men have been appointed for leadership roles. Yes, women are excluded from that privilege; so are some men. Those who (for whatever reason) cannot lead, can certainly encourage those who have devoted themselves to those various tasks. In the body of Christ, not everyone gets to be the eyes, the ears, or the tongue. But everyone contributes to the well-being of the body (1 Cor. 12:12-27). Concerning restrictions, whether natural or divine, we may all learn contentment by accepting and doing those things for which we are qualified.

The Role of Women in the Church (Part 4)

Another approach sometimes taken in the effort to find a Biblical argument for women to exercise leadership positions over men in the church is the “deaconess” allegation. The evidence offered is scant and insubstantial: an appeal is made to three passages of Scripture: Romans 16:1, 1 Timothy 3:11, and 1 Timothy 5:9-10. Each of these deserves an examination.

In Romans 16:1 Paul commends a woman named Phoebe and refers to her as “a servant of the church in Cenchrea.” The word translated “servant” by the King James and the New King James is the Greek word diakonos, which transliterates into “deacon,” as baptisma does into “baptism.” A transliteration means that the Greek word has been given an English pronunciation instead of being translated.

So how is diakonos translated in the New Testament? The word appears thirty times. The King James’ translators used “servant” seven times, “minister” twenty times, and “deacon” three times. Twenty-seven times, then, diakonos is translated as “minister” or “servant,” but three times the word is transliterated as “deacon.” The translators chose not to translate the word when it referred to a church office. Following are those three occasions.

Paul and Timothy, servants of Jesus Christ, to all the saints in Christ Jesus who are in Philippi, with the bishops and deacons (Phil. 1:1).

Likewise deacons must be reverent, not double-tongued, not given to much wine, not greedy for money (1 Tim. 3:8).

Let deacons be the husbands of one wife, ruling their children and their own houses well (1 Tim. 3:12).

The translators needed another choice in these passages than “servant” or “minister” due to the fact that Paul is referring to a particular office (work) in the church. They went with the transliterated “deacon.”

Someone might point out that the American Standard, the New American Standard, and the New International all have footnotes on Romans 16:1 that say “or deaconess.” Linguistically, it is appropriate to point out that possibility. But the decision must be based upon whether or not Paul is clearly referring to a church office (as clearly as in the other three verses). Since various commentators hold opposing views on this subject, the usage in Romans 16:1 is obviously not clearly referring to an office.

Paul’s remarks in Romans 16:2 might be cited as evidence for this view, but there is nothing in the verse that could not be said of a number of brothers or sisters, who hold no office. Epaphroditus is likewise commended, termed “a messenger” and one “who ministered” to Paul’s needs; furthermore, Paul encourages the Philippians to “receive him in the Lord with all gladness, and hold such men in esteem; because for the work of Christ he came close to death” (Phil. 2:25-30). Yet there is no indication that this great servant held a church office, nor has anyone suggested it.

The Pulpit Commentary thinks the verse implies that Phoebe held an office, but such a conclusion is merely guesswork and hardly constitutes ironclad evidence. M. R. Vincent, in his Word Studies in the New Testament cites a work called The Apostolical Constitutions, which distinguished deaconesses from widows and virgins, prescribed their duties, and presented a form for their ordination (2:752). This work also uses a feminine form to refer to these sisters, diakonissa, which would transliterate to “deaconess.”

There is a problem with using this “evidence.” First, that word is not used in the New Testament (perhaps because it had not yet been invented), and by Vincent’s own admission The Apostolical Constitutions was a “collection of ecclesiastical prescripts in eight books, containing doctrinal, liturgical, and moral instructions, and dating from the third, or possibly from the close of the second, century” (2:1196). Whoops! Even taking the earliest possible date, the work is 100 years too late for it to be considered authoritative. We know that departures in church organization constituted the very earliest of errors. Any innovation later than the New Testament cannot authorize a practice.

In this text Paul encourages the church to honor (support financially) widows “who are really widows.” The qualifications for enrollment were: 1) she had no family to care for her (4); she was spiritually-minded (5); 3) she must be sixty years old (9); she has been the wife of one man (9); she is well reported of for her good works, which included bringing up children, lodging strangers, washing the saints’ feet, relieving the afflicted, and diligently following every good work (10).

Nothing is mentioned in this text about her holding any office in the church; she is not even called “a servant of the church,” as was Phoebe. The qualifications listed are not intended to qualify someone for holding an office; their purpose is to qualify women for receiving support from the church. If this passage were describing “deaconesses,” it would be a great curiosity that these women must be over sixty and single while their male counterparts must be married and have children (1 Tim. 3:12)!

In the context Paul does list a number of qualification for elders and deacons. Some would argue that verse 11 is a third office–that of deaconess. Paul first discusses the bishops (elders) in verses 1-7. In the next three verses is found a shorter list of qualifications for deacons. Then follows this verse:

Likewise their wives must be reverent, not slanderers, temperate, faithful in all things (1 Tim. 3:11).

The passage then concludes with two more verses concerning deacons.

Are “the wives” or “the women” (depending on the translation) therefore deaconesses? There are several reasons why such is not the case.

1. Paul did not use the word diakonos when referring to the women; he could have made it clear that this was a third office if, in fact, it were.

2. Once again, the best that anyone can do is say that this verse implies deaconesses, which again does not constitute proof, especially when there is another, more natural explanation of the verse’s meaning.

3. How odd that there are eighteen qualifications for elder, nine for a deacon, and only four for a deaconess! If men and women are equal with respect to their roles in the church as a diakonos, they should have equal qualifications.

4. There are no family criteria, as there are for the men. The women do not need to be married or have children (if, in fact, this verse applies to a deaconess).

The likelihood is that Paul is referring to the wives of both elders and deacons. Both were to be married and have their children in subjection. It is only logical that Paul would mention some qualities that should characterize their wives. Since their husbands are involved in the spiritual work of the church, their wives should likewise be spiritually-minded women.

There is no case for deaconesses, not even a good circumstantial one. Phoebe was a servant, but no one has proven that she was more than that. I Timothy 5 certainly does not mention such an office, and the idea must be forced into 1 Timothy 3, since it is not naturally found there.

But suppose that, even though a compelling case is lacking, such an office did exist. On the basis of all the other passages, would we have any right to conclude that the women, even if they were deaconesses, had any authority over the men? The author of Barnes Notes makes some interesting and pertinent comments about deaconesses in Romans 16:1:

It is clear from the New Testament that there was an order of women in the church known as deaconesses. Reference is made to a class of females whose duty it was to teach other females, and to take the general superintendence of that part of the church, in various places in the New Testament; and their existence is expressly affirmed in early ecclesiastical history. They appear to have been commonly and aged and experienced widows, sustaining a fair reputation, and fitted to guide and instruct those who were young and inexperienced; comp. 1 Tim. v. 9-11; Tit. ii.4. The Apostolical Constitutions, book iii. say, “Ordain a deaconess who is faithful and holy, for the ministries toward the women” (10:2:326).

Barnes combines all three passages heretofore examined and, along with the reference to the aforementioned, third-century work, concludes that there were deaconesses in the church. But this paragraph does not help the feminist cause at all because he claims that this so-called office was for “ministries toward women.” In other words, even if our analysis of the three passages were totally off-base, and there actually was an office of deaconess, and Phoebe was really a deaconess, none of these things would in any way prove that women exercised authority over men in the church. At best, it would prove that they served other women, and there has never been any quarrel against that concept!

It would be quite presumptuous for any congregation to appoint women as deaconesses without clear Biblical authority to do so, and that authority is lacking in the New Testament. What attitude prompts a congregation to alienate some of its own members and risk fellowship with sister congregations by appointing women to an office, which is not plainly set forth in the Scriptures?

Some may argue that certain women would do an outstanding job if they were appointed. So would some men, who are likewise excluded. What about those men who are single or who have never had children? Are they less spiritual or efficient? Paul revealed the qualifications for elder and deacon and in giving them excluded himself! Whereas Peter could write that he was “a fellow elder,” Paul could not. So Paul could not be an elder or a deacon, but who, besides Jesus, ever made a greater impact for the cause of Christ?

Being denied a role in leadership should not discourage anyone, male or female, from being a servant. None of us needs a title to accomplish good things for God. Teenagers have been known to study with and baptize others into Christ. Many singles (male and female) have rendered invaluable service to the kingdom. The example and encouragement of children has been known to bring adults to obedience. Anyone can serve and therefore be great in the eyes of God (Matt. 23:11). Perhaps the fault lies in viewing such offices as positions of honor rather than a work to be performed.

Various women were an important part of the ministry of Jesus (Luke 8:1-3), and others were a vital part of the New Testament church. No one needs to feel sad or useless in the kingdom of God based on various roles or qualifications for those roles, because there is plenty of service to perform: everyone can have a share in the work.

An excellent reference work on this controversy is Feminism and the Bible by Dr. Jack Cottrell, Professor of Theology at Cincinnati Bible College and Seminary (affiliated with the Christian Church). His book provides a history of feminist influence on the role of women, from Elizabeth Cady Stanton to Betty Friedan and beyond. Besides tracing feminist thought through these recent times, he also covers “goddess” theology, which has seen a surge in popularity of late. The book was published by College Press in Joplin, Missouri, contains 358 pages, and was published in 1992.

A book not recommended, except for purposes of refutation, is by Rebecca Merrill Groothuis, published in 1997 by Baker. Her defense of equal roles for men and women consists of much verbiage and little substance. One can read for pages in search of an argument and come away disappointed.

She dismisses 1 Timothy 2:9-15 with little more than a wave of the hand by citing F. F. Bruce on the passage: “It is merely a statement of practice at a particular time” (201). Ordinarily Bruce is an excellent scholar, but 1) we do not have the full context of his statement, and 2) even usually excellent scholars can be wrong. Where is an argument? This statement implies that Paul was referring to mere custom, but such a cursory statement does not deal with the fact that Paul’s references to Genesis transcend culture.

Groothuis finds fault with citing Biblical prooftexts (which is perhaps the reason she fails to do so) and then says: “It does not seem to occur to these people that there is room for debate on this issue within the bounds of biblical authority and orthodoxy” (145). There is plenty of room for debate; discussion is healthy. But there is no room to flatly oppose what the Bible teaches.

This quotation is bizarre: “It runs contrary to the context and intent of Ephesians 5:21-33 to see the analogy between the husband and wife and Christ in terms of authority” (153). Really? “For the husband is the head of the wife, as also Christ is the head of the church…” (Eph. 5:23). It certainly sounds like authority is part of the analogy. No doubt, this is what she means by prooftexting.

Most efforts which attempt to prove that women share equal roles with men, despite what the New Testament teaches, are equally lame. The reason is that they run contrary to the truth. It is difficult to make an effective argument against what is plainly taught in the Word of God; it is impossible to make a logical one. How unfortunate that some must continually be angry because of a role that God denied them–when they could be using all that energy in a positive way by being what Phoebe really was: a servant of the church.

The Role of Women in the Church (Part 3)

1 Corinthians 14:34-35 is the remaining New Testament passage that limits with the role of women in the church. It is also part of a text that deals with the proper use of spiritual gifts. The main point that Paul makes is that in the church it is more profitable to speak understandable prophecy than to speak in unintelligible tongues. Paul compares these two spiritual gifts because some brethren were obsessed with speaking in an unknown language, which edified no one.

Paul states what should be obvious to anyone not carried away with the thrill of possessing a gift: a message in another language carries no meaning for the church unless someone interpreted it. How much edification would the church in America receive if we were addressed in French or German? For that reason, a lesson taught in a language we can understand is much more valuable than the most superb teaching in a tongue unfamiliar to us all. (Consider Paul’s arguments in verses 5-6, 18-19, and 27-28.)

1 Corinthians 14:34-35 deserves careful analysis. The subject of the passage is women: “Let your women keep silent in the churches….” The word translated “women” is used 221 times in the New Testament and is translated either “woman” or “wife,” depending on the context. In 1 Corinthians 7, for example, “wife” is more appropriate than “woman” because the subject of marriage makes it clear that Paul is dealing with husbands and wives (see verses 2, 3, 4, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, and 16).

Most translations choose the more general term “women,” perhaps because it is more inclusive than “wives.” But with the mention of “husbands” in verse 35, it may well be that this problem was a marital one. Were the wives interrupting, questioning, or contradicting their husbands in the assembly? If so they were wrong on two grounds.

First, it was a violation of the general principle of 1 Timothy 2:11-14 (as discussed earlier). God gave to men the leadership role, which includes public teaching, preaching, and praying. Whereas the quietness ascribed to women in that passage arises from within (a person’s character and manner of life), “keeping silence” in 1 Corinthians 14:34 involves exercising restraint. The Greek verb sigao is frequently translated “to hold one’s peace” (Luke 20:26; Acts 12:17; Acts 15:12-13). The word is also used two other times in this very text! If there was no interpreter, the tongues-speaking brother was to “keep silent in church” (1 Cor. 14:28). Also, if God revealed something to a brother while another was speaking, the first was to “keep silent” (1 Cor. 14:30). Thus, there is an intentional silence imposed upon oneself for the reasons ascribed above.

Some foolishly argue that if a woman cannot speak in the assembly, then she cannot sing. Well, then, neither could the tongues-speaking brother who lacked an interpreter or the brother who was speaking when another received a prophecy. The context must determine the appropriate time for anyone to keep silence. Obviously, singing is not that time, since all are expected to sing praises to God (Eph. 5:19: Col. 3:16).

The women, then, are not to speak in the assembly (for the purpose of teaching or exercising authority over the man, as per 1 Timothy 2:8-14). “They are not permitted to speak.” This reason would apply to all women; virgins, wives, widows, the Scripturally divorced, and the deserted.

But there is a second reason for their silence, and it involves the marriage relationship. They “are to be submissive, as the law also says.” The law which Moses revealed did not cover the role of men and women in the church, but it does deal with the role of men and women in the home: “Your desire shall be to your husband, and he shall rule over you” (Gen. 3:16b). For a wife to openly challenge her husband in the assembly violates her submissive role set forth since the introduction of sin into this world. It would be difficult to find many principles more long-standing than that.

That 1 Corinthians 14:34-35 refers to the husband-wife relationship is seen not only in the reference to the law, but also in the fact that Paul commands her to ask questions of her husband at home. Even if she were not disputing with him and only needed a clarification, she still had the opportunity to do so at home. The assembly was not the place to satisfy an inquisitive wife. Furthermore, her interruptions would only add to the confusion and disorder that already existed in the Corinthian church (1 Cor. 14:33, 40).

Women should hold their peace in the assembly based on the general teaching of 1 Timothy 2:8-14, and wives in particular should ask their husbands questions in a submissive manner in their home. (Is it possible that some women had said, “I wasn’t trying to teach; I only asked a question”?)

Paul mentions that it is shameful for a woman to speak in church. The Greek word is used only in 1 Corinthians 11:6 (“It is shameful for a woman to be shorn or shaven”) and Ephesians 5:12: “For it is shameful even to speak of those things which are done by them in secret” (referring to “the unfruitful works of darkness”). The root word (the verb from which the adjective comes) is always translated “ashamed.” For a woman to exercise authority over the man is just as much cause for shame as any immoral act of the Gentiles. She has not been chosen as the one to exercise leadership over the man either in the home or in the church.

Despite the clear teachings of 1 Timothy 2:8-14 and the reinforcement of 1 Corinthians 14:34-35, some make an effort to try to find a verse here or there which they think will reverse or circumvent the Bible’s teaching on the subject. The person who would do so lacks respect for the integrity and consistency of the Word of God. Actually, they are seeking contradictions.

When someone will ignore the plain teachings of the Scriptures in hopes of finding a loophole or an exception (as has often been the case with divorce and remarriage), there already exists a major flaw in their hearts. They possess an attitude which seeks to justify what they refuse to obey. A lack of submission to the Word of God is the first and worst problem that anyone can have.

Sometimes the Bible emphasizes one aspect of a process (grace, faith, obedience), and some have mistaken the emphasis for exclusion of anything else. Thus Scriptures must be harmonized (Romans with James). Also, the meaning of some verses may be obscure with our current knowledge (1 Cor. 15:29, for example). So we tread lightly and avoid being dogmatic about the meaning. But there is nothing ambiguous about God’s assignment of the leadership role to men; neither is it a process that will find a different emphasis in a different passage. Other statements in the New Testament must be harmonized with the overall principles already set forth; they cannot contradict them or seek to supplant or modify them.

1. The “women can’t sing” argument has already been commented upon. It is an argument born of desperation and runs contrary both to proper interpretation of the Scriptures, as well as common sense. Whatever we do mutually can scarcely fall under condemnation. In fact, we sing, pray, give, observe the Lord’s Supper, and are taught together. Men just have the lead in all these matters. No one can successfully affirm that women exercise authority over the men when we are all participating in the same action.

2. Philip’s daughters were considered under “Other Occurrences of Prophetess.” Although these sisters may have exercised their gifts in a setting such as the one described in 1 Corinthians 11:2-16, there is no indication that they prophesied publicly in the presence of men.

3. Strange as it may seem, some have asserted that Priscilla was the leader in the family over her husband Aquila. Some aver that she took the lead in their spiritual work, also, and the basis for both of these allegations is that her name appears first in three (and perhaps four) of the six verses which mention them together (in one of the verses there is a textual variation).

The six verses are Acts 18:2, 18 and 26, Romans 16:3, 1 Corinthians 16:19, and 2 Timothy 4:19. Aquila’s name appears first in Acts 18:2 and 1 Corinthians 16:19. Priscilla’s name is first in all others except Acts 18:26; some manuscripts have his name first, and some list her first. What does this alternative listing of the two names prove?

Are we supposed to believe that there was an ongoing struggle for supremacy between this husband and wife? This argument is absurd on the face of it. Some manuscripts call her Prisca; is that a significant fact? Was she sassier and more prone to take the lead with the shorter name? Obviously, some are trying to find something not stated explicitly; so they send their imaginations into hyperspace. There are many couples whose names we reverse when referring to them, sometimes putting the male name first, sometimes the female. Sometimes Barnabas’ name precedes Paul’s (Acts 11:30; 12:25; 13:2; and 14:12); does anyone wish to argue that these two servants of God also exchanged positions of prominence? Such observations lack substance.

If Priscilla tried to lead in the home or in their spiritual work, she would have violated the teachings given by the inspiration of God, but absolutely nothing indicates that she did so. The teaching of Apollos was done privately anyway; Priscilla did not oppose publicly the eloquent, but mistaken, preacher. This text provides no justification whatsoever for women preachers.

4. Romans 16:7 is sometimes cited as proof that there were female apostles: “Greet Andronicus and Junia, my kinsmen and my fellow prisoners, who are of note among the apostles, who were also in Christ before me.” Some are quick to jump to the conclusion that Junia, a female, must be an apostle–thus showing a willingness to ignore all the other principles which apply to this subject.

First of all, such presumes that these two are apostles, when in fact Jesus chose twelve men, and one male was selected to replace the son of perdition, Judas (Acts 1:15-26). Paul was chosen as one “born out of due time” (1 Cor. 15:8). Others are called apostles in the general sense of “one sent,” but no one else ranks with the twelve except those already mentioned. The best argument that could be made is that Andronicus and Junia were outstanding as a team of missionaries (not unlike Aquila and Priscilla).

The far more likely explanation, however, is that these two were considered, among the apostles, outstanding workers. The Pulpit Commentary says of this verse: “The phrase, however, will bear the interpretation that they were persons held in honour in the circle of the original twelve” (18:2:455). No one would think otherwise unless hard-pressed for some kind of authorization from the Scriptures for women preachers. Those who make such attempts are like golfers whose shots have gone awry. They think that every candy wrapper and dandelion gone to seed is their ball–only to be disappointed by the truth the object they seek remains elusive.

The Role of Women in the Church (Part 2)

Three passages in the New Testament set forth restrictions concerning the role of women in the church. Each is important and will be examined, but only one of them is a general passage, not involved in the exercise of spiritual gifts. Therefore, we begin with it.

1 Timothy 3:15 provides a context for chapters 2 and 3; after he has concluded remarks about men and women, elders and deacons (and their wives), Paul says:

But if I am delayed, I write so that you may know how you ought to conduct yourself in the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth.

God expects certain behavior in His house, the church, and the preceding verses deal with the subject of leadership and followship. 1 Timothy 2:8 begins with the words: “Therefore I desire that the men pray everywhere, lifting up holy hands, without wrath and doubting.” The word translated “men” in this verse is not the word anthropos, which means all mankind (male and female); it is a word which can be properly translated as men only. God’s desire and design is for the men to lead in public prayers everywhere–whether in the assembly on the first day of the week or in a gathering in a private home or at a fireside devotional at camp. The same is true of public preaching or teaching. Contrary to what many are today advocating, God has designated a pattern which must be followed and proper conduct to be observed. Men and women are equally guilty when they choose to violate God’s order.

Since men have been commanded to lead in prayer, what about the women? After discussing appropriate adornment for them (1 Tim. 2:9-10), Paul writes:

Let a woman learn in silence in all submission. And I do not permit a woman to teach or have authority over a man, but to be in silence (1 Tim. 2:11-12).

What do the words silence, submission, and authority mean? According to Vine’s Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words, the word silence means “quietness, a tranquility arising from within, causing no disturbance to others” (3:242). Such demeanor accompanies her godly character. She does not need to be rebuked by others to be quiet; the desire arises from within. This spirit is the precise opposite of the one which desires to dominate (which demands the right to teach and preach publicly).

The inspired apostle Paul taught that a woman is not permitted to have or exercise authority over the man (in the church). Some have erroneously argued that if elders grant women leadership roles, then their public teaching and preaching in the presence of men would be acceptable. But man has no more authority to abdicate his leadership position than woman does to assume it. If men are too weak to lead, then women ought to spur them on, as Deborah did Barak–not replace them. God determined that the role of leadership falls upon men–whether they want it or not. He denied that aspect of service to women–whether they want it or not. No one, male or female, has the right to tamper with the way God ordained it. Those who seek to change God’s system evidence a lack of faith in God’s wisdom.

The women are to learn “in all submission.” The same word is used in 1 Timothy 3:4. One of the qualifications of an elder is that he must be “one who rules his own house well, having his children in submission with all reverence.” No one has written books or articles trying to defend the children’s right to rule over their father. If we can understand the way in which children must be submissive to their parents, we should be able to comprehend how it applies to women, also.

The third word of concern in this text deals with authority. Thayer traces the derivation of authenteos in his Greek-English Lexicon. The Greek word is a compound word, joining together autos (self) and entea (arms). Originally, then, it referred to “one who with his own hand kills either others or himself.” Later it came to mean “one who does a thing himself, the author.” Finally, it came to mean “one who acts on his own authority, autocratic.” The word’s only appearance in the New Testament is in 1 Timothy 2:12, and Thayer defines it as “to govern one, exercise dominion over one” (84). Women who presume to take upon themselves public roles of leadership (over men) act on their own authority–and in violation of God’s authority.

Why has God determined that things be according to this pattern, when men and women are of equal value to Him (Gal. 3:28)? Women do not lack competence, and in worldly pursuits they have succeeded at just about everything they have tried (physical prowess remains the one inequality). So what are the reasons behind this arrangement?

1. “For Adam was formed first, then Eve” (1 Tim. 2:13). This citing of the order of Creation transcends any appeal to the culture of the first or any other century. Nothing that has occurred since the foundation of the world can alter the fact that God formed man first. He did so intentionally. In other words, He created man for the leadership role. Our 20th century technological advances can not negate the fact that women were designed to have children and that men are to provide for them and protect them during this vulnerable time (and all other times as well). Paul reminds the Corinthians that originally the woman came from the man and that woman was created for the man (1 Cor. 11:8-9).

2. “And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived, fell into the transgression” (1 Tim. 2:14). This reason pertains to mankind’s fall, long before any culture was formed. Whether this difference between men and women involves more gullibility on the part of the female gender or that women respond more emotionally than men, thus being more susceptible to deception, makes for an interesting discussion, but whatever the major distinction is, she remains disqualified from leadership positions because of it.

Some have theorized that Paul’s teaching in 1 Timothy 2:8-14 is the general rule, but that 1 Corinthians 11:2-16 is an exception to that doctrine. In other words, if a woman covers her head, then she may lead a prayer or deliver a prophecy in the assembly because she is showing proper submission. Most female preachers obviously do not believe this idea since they do not wear a covering on their heads.

But the theory is incorrect anyway. First of all, Paul leaves no leeway for modifications to the general explanation he gives in 1 Timothy 2. How would wearing a head covering in any way diminish or change the two reasons for women being in submission? The idea of an exception lacks merit. Second, nothing in the text indicates that Paul is writing about a mixed assembly.

One “brother” states unequivocally that if we admit the context is a public assembly (which has yet to be proven), then forbidding women to pray in public is wrong. But why single out praying? The text mentions “praying or prophesying” (1 Cor. 11:4). Prophesying, according to Thayer, is “a discourse emanating from divine inspiration and declaring the purposes of God, whether by reproving and admonishing the wicked or comforting the afflicted, or revealing things hidden; especially by foretelling future events” (522).

So if 1 Corinthians 11:2-16 is referring to the public assembly, it would authorize a woman to pray and to preach as well (as long as she wears the covering). If such were the case, it is surprising indeed that Jesus did not appoint female apostles, issue appropriate head coverings, and send them out to convert sinners.

The fact is, however, that no one has presented convincing evidence that 1 Corinthians 11 refers to an assembly with men present. D. A. Crist wrote a tract, which was approved by the Dunkard Brethren Church, entitled “The Doctrine of the Prayer Veil.” Its thesis is that women may teach men (contrary to 1 Timothy 2:8-14) if they wear a covering when they do so. His thesis fails because he does not devote even one paragraph to prove that this text involves males and females worshipping together.

Following is a brief summary of the text. Paul begins by reminding them to keep the traditions he delivered to them (2). Next, he establishes authority: The Father, Christ, man, woman (3). Then he talks about how men and women honor or dishonor their head (4-7). A man dishonors his head if he wears a covering. A woman dishonors her head if she prays or prophesies while uncovered. But nothing is said about a worship assembly. These principles would apply in or out of the assembly. Paul reminds the women that man was created first and woman was created for the man (8-9).

Then comes the much-wondered-about comment of Paul’s that the woman must have a symbol of authority upon her head “because of the angels” (10). Whatever interpretation is placed upon that phrase, it nevertheless does not require a gathering of men along with the women. Paul concludes this section by affirming that men and women are dependent upon one another (11-12).

“Judge among yourselves. Is it proper for a woman to pray to God with her head uncovered?” (13). Notice that Paul does not say “in the presence of men” or “in the assembly.” He has been speaking in general terms throughout this section. He closes with comments about the length of hair and the fact that there is unanimity of thought on this subject throughout the churches of Christ (14-16).

As Paul moves to the next subject (the Lord’s Supper), he makes it clear that he is talking about something that does occur in the assembly. He claims that they are coming “together not for the better but for the worse” (17). Verse 18 is somewhat repetitive: “For first of all, when you come together as a church, I hear that there are divisions among you….” All of these clear statements could be taken to imply that the previous discussion (2-16) concerned something that was not occurring in the assembly, when they came together in one place. It would scarcely be surprising to learn that women met together in the absence of the men in order to exercise their spiritual gifts.

It is important to notice that in the other discussion involving spiritual gifts (1 Corinthians 14), Paul leaves no doubt that he is discussing something that takes place in the assembly. Notice the explicit statements from this chapter which follow.

a. “…he who prophesies edifies the church” (4).

b. “…that the church may receive edification” (5).

c. “…let it be for the edification of the church…” (12).

d. “Yet in the church…” (19).

e. “Therefore if the whole church be gathered together in one place…” (23).

f. “…he is convinced by all, he is judged by all” (24).

g. “…Whenever you come together…” (26).

h. “Let your women keep silence in the churches, for they are not permitted to speak; but they are to be submissive, as the law also says. And if they want to learn something, let them ask their own husbands at home; for it is shameful for women to speak in the church” (34-35).

In 1 Corinthians 11:2-16 Paul never talks about what is done “in the church” or “in the assembly.” He only discusses appropriate headcoverings for men and women whenever they pray or prophesy.

That Paul is referring to some other gathering in 1 Corinthians 11:2-16 is not only possible, but gleanings from history make this notion far from farfetched. Christians did meet at other times and other places than for the weekly assembly. Everett Ferguson records the following comments from Justin (writing about A. D. 150) in his book, Early Christians Speak:

“We are always together with one another” (67).

In addition to the regular first day of the week meeting for common worship…Christians met at other times (75).

Ferguson himself comments: “Paul perhaps refers to the different kinds of gatherings when he mentions what occasions a Christian woman might have for appearing in public…” (86).

We know that the brethren in Jerusalem met daily (Acts 2:46). In Acts 12 the church met continually to pray for Peter’s release from prison (5, 12). Therefore, it is entirely within the realm of possibility that the women needed to “cover” themselves only when leading in prayer or prophesying in private gatherings of women only.

If Paul’s admonitions of chapter 11 do not pertain to private gatherings, why would Paul say there that the women need a covering in order to speak but then just a few verses later tell them to keep silent and not prophesy at all (chapter 14)? If the apostle is not discussing different situations, his writing approaches being unintelligible.

“But,” someone may ask, “why bother to wear veils when no men were present?” The answer is as Paul stated it–to show submission. When the entire assembly was gathered together, the women were to keep silence. When they met by themselves, however, they could exercise their spiritual gifts–but even then they needed to show that they were subject to authority. In other words, they were always to show submission, but in different circumstances there were different ways to do so. Roy Deaver made this point in the 1978 Freed-Hardeman lectureship book, The Future of the Church. He suggests that the absence of men may have been the very reason that some of the women were removing their coverings (102).

Viewing 1 Corinthians 11:2-16 as relating to other gatherings than a mixed assembly does not then negate 1 Timothy 2, and it is in harmony with all the facts we possess on the subject of worship and the text itself.

The Role of Women in the Church (Part 1)

One of the popular topics during the past fifteen years has been the role of women in the church. As with so many other subjects, members of the Lord’s church once understood what the Bible taught with reference to the equality of men and women before God (Gal. 3:28) and the difference in their roles in the church (1 Tim. 2:11-14). But in an age when some are changing worship which would be acceptable unto God into what pleases and entertains themselves, and when baptism has been rejected by some as a part of salvation, it should not also be surprising that women are now being allowed to take positions of leadership.

First of all, a distinction must be made between role and worth. People often assume that a difference in roles is due to superiority of intellect or ability, but Paul explains the basis for the difference:

Let a woman learn in silence with all submission. And I do not permit a woman to teach or have authority over a man, but to be in silence. For Adam was formed first, then Eve. And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived, fell into the transgression (1 Tim. 2:11-14).

Notice that neither reason relates to any country’s culture of the first century. Paul cites first the fact that God created man before woman. He already had the leadership of man in mind from the outset. The second reason involves her being deceived by Satan. Genesis 3:6 says: “She also gave to her husband with her, and he ate.” She not only sinned, but she also led her husband into sin. Thus, she forever lost her right of leadership. Some women protest that such a pronouncement is not fair. They will need to register their complaints with the One who established the order (by creating Adam first). It is just as legitimate to deny women the leadership role based (in part) on her sin as it is for her to still experience pain in childbirth as punishment.

To demonstrate that leadership does not deny equality one need only consider the Godhead. All three members are eternal and share the same essence. Yet the Father is the leader. Jesus said that He did not speak on His own authority: “But the Father who sent Me gave Me a command, what I should say and what I should speak” (John 12:49). Furthermore the Holy Spirit who would guide the apostles into all truth would “not speak on His own authority”: whatever He heard from the Father was what He would speak to them (John 16:13). If the Father, therefore, could exercise the leadership role in the Godhead and equality be maintained, why cannot the same thing occur in the home and in the church?

Is Jesus inferior to the Father? Is the Holy Spirit worth less because He does not exercise the leadership role? All should agree that each member of the Godhead is of great value. In order for someone to draw the conclusion that women cannot be leaders because they are somehow worth less than men, one must equally conclude the same about Jesus and the Holy Spirit.

The concepts of role and worth must be disassociated, and the Scriptures must be accepted for what they teach. It is our current culture that seeks to discredit the Word of God on this, along with so many other, subjects. The Word of God is truth (John 17:17).

Occasionally, in the course of a discussion of this kind, someone will cite a woman who exercised leadership in the Old Testament. This cannot be considered proof for women leading in the church (over men) even if the case could be proved because we know God allowed certain departures from His ideal will during that time period.

Jesus sets forth God’s ideal will concerning marriage as now binding (with one exception) in Matthew 19:3-9. But in the Old Testament He allowed polygamy, and, though He never approved of the practice, He did regulate it (Deut. 21:15-17). Likewise, He never approved of divorce, but Moses permitted it because of the hardness of their hearts. Therefore, it should not be surprising if there is an occasional departure from the norm as regards the roles of women.

Exodus 15:20 presents Miriam as a prophetess. There are eight Old Testament Scriptures that use the word; in at least seven of them the woman is the female equivalent of a prophet (the eighth one may refer to a prophet’s wife).

Miriam was a leader–of other women. The text begins in Exodus 15:1: “Then Moses and the children of Israel sang this song to the Lord….” The song itself continues through verse 18, verse 19 being a summary statement. This description follows:

Then Miriam the prophetess, the sister of Aaron, took the timbrel in her hand; and all the women went out after her with timbrels and dances. And Miriam answered them [the men, gws]: “Sing to the Lord, for He has triumphed gloriously! The horse and its rider He has thrown into the sea!” (Ex. 15:20-21).

We should notice first of all that Miriam’s followers were women. Answered is a key word. The implication is that the men and women were singing back and forth to each other. The Pulpit Commentary suggests that the words recorded in verse 21 constitute a chorus which the women sang at the end of verse 5, 10, 12, and 19. Moses, apparently, led the men, and Miriam led the women in this song of praise directed toward God.

The occasions in which Miriam spoke as a prophetess are not set forth. She and Aaron, as they rebelled against their brother, said, “Has the Lord indeed spoken only through Moses? Has He not spoken through us also?” (Num. 12:2). God suppressed their vain thoughts by pointing out that Moses was greater than either of them (Num. 12:6-8). Nevertheless, Miriam was a prophetess, but there is no record of her publicly addressing the congregation, and none of what she said was written down or preserved. There is no proof she exercised authority over men.

Deborah is probably the most oft-used example of a woman in a leadership role. She was the prophetess who judged Israel (Judges 4:4). She proves beyond a doubt to anyone (who might be confused about the value of women) that they are capable, spiritual, and intelligent. That she held a position of prominence is indisputable, but it is of interest to see the way in which she went about doing what needed to be done.

She did not champion ‘the feminine mystique,’ as Betty Friedan did; she was not a former “playboy bunny,” as Gloria Steinem was; nor was she bisexual like Patricia Ireland. There is no evidence to suggest that she was seeking self-exaltation or pre-eminence in any way. She refers to herself as “a mother in Israel” (Judges 5:7).

In fact, her chief problem seems to be finding a man with enough courage to lead (an occurrence not uncommon in some congregations of the Lord’s church today). Judges 4:5 explains the manner in which she judged: “And she would sit under the palm tree of Deborah between Ramah and Bethel in the mountains of Ephraim. And the children of Israel came to her for judgment.”

She did not force her way into a meeting with the elders of the city, blurting out, “I’m in charge here!” She did not assume control of the troops based on her own military exploits and prowess. Instead it appears that her wisdom, inspiration, and abilities were well-known and respected. The people came to her in a quiet, serene setting, and she rendered her judgments. How can such a circumspect lady be used to justify women preachers today, who stand before hundreds or thousands in a public place?

When she sent for Barak, she did not say, “Get out there and fight, you lazy coward.” Instead, she phrased it thus: “Has not the Lord God of Israel commanded, saying, ‘Go and deploy the troops at Mount Tabor…and I will deliver him [Sisera] into your hand’?” (Judges 4:6-7). Had it not been for Deborah’s prompting, who knows when the men might have taken action? How often today would congregations fulfil the work God has required of them were it not for the prompting of some conscientious sisters?

Even so, Barak refused to engage the enemy unless Deborah accompanied him (Judges 4:8). She consented but pronounced that Sisera would be given into the hands of a woman (v. 9). After she tells Barak the day of victory (v. 14), she is not mentioned again with respect to the fighting.

As predicted, Sisera was taken captive by a woman–not Deborah, but Jael, the wife of Heber the Kenite. He turned aside to hide in her tent (there was peace between their houses), and as he slept, she drove the peg into his temple (Judges 4:17-21).

Many think that Deborah composed the song that she and Barak sang, which begins with the words: “When leaders lead in Israel, when the people willingly offer themselves, bless the Lord!” (Judges 5:2). This wording may be a mild rebuke to both leaders and followers. A paraphrase for the church today might be: “When we all do what God has commanded us to do, it is wondrous how the Lord blesses us.”

The Pulpit Commentary suggests that, in place of village life ceased in Judges 5:7, the text should be rendered leaders ceased. Others, however, point out that the safety of villages was threatened because this was a time of anarchy and violence. Highways and villages became deserted out of fear of attack (see Clarke, Keil and Delitzsch). Even if the word leaders does not belong in verse 7, it is not difficult to see why commentators might link certain expressions to a lack of leadership, since Judges 4 makes that reality rather obvious.

Should men have exercised leadership at this time? Yes, but it did not happen until a mother in Israel arose (shame on the men of that time). God used this special woman to spark Israel into performing His will. The fact is, however, that Deborah’s success ruins the feminist’s case because she accomplished great things, more or less, behind the scenes instead of taking the lead out front. The manner in which Deborah accomplished God’s purpose should be noticed. She did not execute her judgeship as the men did; she sought out a man to lead the nation. She accomplished great things while still recognizing and respecting that there are different roles for men and women.

Miriam (Ex. 15:20) and Deborah (Judges 4:4) are the first two women mentioned who are termed prophetess. The next two references are parallel accounts involving Huldah (2 Kings 22:14; 2 Chron. 34:22).

Josiah was the last good king before the Babylonian captivity, and there was in his day a woman with a reputation not unlike Deborah’s. Josiah’s men went to inquire of Huldah, and she gave them a response from God. Again, there is no evidence that she was out publicly proclaiming the word, but God did speak through her. This account could not rightly be used to justify women preachers today.

Nehemiah 6:14 is the last Old Testament passage that provides a specific name for a prophetess–Noadiah. The reference is so brief that we do not know what good things she might have done, but we do know that she was a hindrance to the work of Nehemiah. He asks God to remember her, along with Tobiah and San-ballat, because they tried to make him afraid. She may have even been a false prophetess.

The other Old Testament reference is found in Isaiah 8:3: “Then I went to the prophetess, and she conceived and bore a son.” The Pulpit Commentary suggests that she is merely being called by the title of her husband, but even if this interpretation is not correct, there is still no evidence that she proclaimed publicly the Word of God. At best, all that could be claimed is that she was a prophetess after the order of Deborah and Huldah.

The New Testament introduces us to Anna the prophetess, who “did not depart from the temple, but served God with fastings and prayers night and day” (Luke 2:36-38). Having seen the baby Jesus, she “spoke of Him to all those who looked for redemption in Jerusalem.” She can scarcely be faulted for wanting to pass along the good news, but nothing indicates that this was a public proclamation so much as it was a personal sharing with all those who would listen.

The last prophetess mentioned by name (whether it is her real name or whether it stands for her character) is Jezebel! She was a prominent leader and teacher, and the congregation at Thyatira was rebuked because they allowed her “to teach and beguile” Jesus’ “servants to commit sexual immorality and to eat things offered to idols” (Rev. 2:20). Did she exercise the role designated for men? It is possible, and if she did, so much the worse. But whether she injected her poison into the church publicly or privately, the congregation failed to act as they should have to stop her (an abdication of male leadership again?).

The New Testament mentions that there were other women who prophesied (Acts 2:17-18), but the context does not suggest a public proclamation. Philip had “four virgin daughters who prophesied” (Acts 21:9). Again, the context in which they prophesied is not specified. How can such examples be used today then as authority for women preachers when not one word states that the spoke in public in the presence of men? Actually, they did not even prophesy in private regarding Paul’s future. When God wanted to deliver a special message of warning to Paul, he brought Agabus down from Judea (Acts 21:10-11).

One writer charged that when these daughters went home and talked to their husbands, telling them the Word of God, that it would then become a case of women teaching men. This is a strange argument since virgins do not usually have husbands. But there undoubtedly were married women who possessed miraculous gifts who did speak to their husbands. Where in the Scriptures does God ever forbid husbands and wives from discussing spiritual matters? Homes are private, not public. So long as family roles are not violated (Eph. 5:22-33), then why may a man not profit from the knowledge and insight of his wife? Those who attempt to justify female preachers from the women and the texts cited herein fail completely.