"GGary W. Summers" GOING

THE WAVE OF THE FUTURE?

This publication has examined the role of women in the church at various times. So, we will not now cover arguments already raised and answered (see "West End's Girl" published on November 3, 2019). However, the March, 2020 issue of The Christian Chronicle (which chronicles mostly liberal churches) reports what cannot be thought of, by sound brethren, as a good trend.

On page 16 the reader will find this sentence in column 3: "At least one study by Matt Dabbs of Wineskins.org estimates the number at more than 100." The number of what? The number of congregations willing to accept an expanded role for women. How much expanded? The list does not include small changes, such as women serving the Lord's Supper. No; it reportedly includes congregations where women are "welcome to serve in leadership positions such as pulpit minister, worship leader, deacon, and elder" (16).

Thirty years ago, there were probably fewer than five (and they would probably not have had female elders then); the list is growing. Yes, for many years we have said to our Presbyterian friends, "How can a female elder be the husband of one wife?" Who would have ever thought we would be saying it to "brethren"?

Not only does an unscriptural view toward leadership seem to be on the rise in the Lord's Church, a dean from Abilene will host a workshop to help churches accept the broader role. The Abilene dean is also an elder at the Minter Lame Church of Christ in Abilene (whoops, make that Minter Lane). [The reader can figure out which one is more accurate.] Two women there were just made elders. One made the observation that in 1 Corinthians 12 there are no boy gifts or girl gifts, which is factually correct, but it implies something untrue.

The implication is that both men and women exercised those gifts without restrictions of any kind, which is false. Philip had four virgin daughters who prophesied (Acts 21:9), but nothing is said about them doing so publicly in the presence of men. The women in Corinth apparently exercised their gifts in each other's presence (1 Cor. 11:2-16) but were forbidden to speak in the church (the assembly) (1 Cor. 14:34-35). Of course, today we do not have those miraculous gifts (or does this "elder" think we do)? But the principle remains the sameor what thinks.

The Associate Professor at Pepperdine

The other point of interest in this article, "Women's Roles: A Divisive Issue But Not a New One," involves comments made by Loretta Hunnicutt, who is an "associate professor of history at Pepperdine"\\one of the few schools possibly more liberal than Abilene.

She claims that the debate over the role of women has existed for 200 years—and that some associated with Barton W. Stone allowed "quite a number of women preachers." This statement cannot be allowed to stand. Where is the proof for it? She might as well claim that the church has been involved in Mormonism, especially the Campbell side. The fact is that Campbell repudiated Mormonism from the outset. Sidney Rigdon had been part of the Restoration Movement, but he apostatized and went to support Joseph Smith. No connection ever existed.

One gets the impression from Hunnicutt that those in the Restoration movement early on favored women preachers, and that is simply not so. At various times, there were some loose associations—especially before some came to the knowledge that baptism was for the remission of sins. Perhaps some women in those early associations believed in preaching, but they were never part of the Restoration Movement. If so, who were they? Which ones did Stone recommend as preachers? Did Campbell also approve of these women preachers? If he did, where in the thousands of pages of The Christian Baptist and The Millennial Harbinger did he show his approval of women preachers? Brethren have printed numerous biographies of great preachers from the past, and this subject does not appear in any of them. We await the evidence for the claim.

The Past and the Future

Hunnicutt notes that the Barton branch of the movement—the one with "quite a number of women preachers"—evolved into what is today known as the United Churches of Christ (1). That evolution took some period of time, since, according to them, they were not formed until 1957—about 150 years later than the beginnings of the Restoration Movement. They claim to be a merger of the Evangelical and Reformed Church and the Congregational Christian Churches. Who knows, therefore, all the twists and turns that have emerged among these groups over the decades?

So, we will not attempt to trace how they got to where they are; instead we will evaluate where they are. What do they claim? The following information is from ucc.org. They seem to be proud of this claim:

And so we were the first historically white denomination to ordain an African-American, the first to ordain a woman, the first to ordain an openly gay man, and the first Christian church to affirm the right of same-gender couples to marry.

So, what is Hunnicutt's point in bringing up this example? Is this where allowing women to preach leads—to homosexual marriage? She brought up the denomination, along with the Disciples of Christ.

One wonders why it took 150 years for the United Church of Christ to ordain women when there were quite a few women preachers back in the early 1800s. And if they did not need to be "ordained" back then, then why must they be "ordained" now?

The Main Problem

Actually, there is a link between the past and the future—and that is a total disregard for what the Scriptures teach. The way it works is this: The Bible forbids women publicly preaching and teaching (when men are present) (1 Cor. 14, 1 Tim. 2). Therefore, when people disregard the plain Scriptures in this one area, why will they not disregard them in another?

What if the Jews disregarded the commandment concerning the Sabbath day? Would that not make it easier to ignore the commandment against adultery—or stealing? The point is that anyone who rejects a plain commandment has opened a door which leads to the further disregard of the Word of God. And that is exactly what has happened.

Is there something ambiguous about, "And I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man, but to be in silence" (1 Tim. 2:12)? "Oh, but Paul just said that because of the culture of the times." Really? Have none of these women looked at the reasons for the statement that Paul gave and seen that they do not in the least pertain to culture? This type of response is of the same order as, "You shall not surely die. For God knows that in the day you eat of it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil" (Gen. 3:4b-5).

What this situation amounts to is Satan supplying a rationale for a person to do what she wants to do anyway. So, women who want to exercise leadership will take any rationale that someone furnishes because they desire to disregard Biblical teaching on the subject in the first place. The same principle applies with respect to an elder being the husband of one wife (1 Tim. 3:2). "Well, in the first century men had this role, but we live in an enlightened age where women can do anything a man can." Thus, the Scriptures are seen as unreliable and out of date as touching this subject.

Therefore, it is probably out of date with respect to homosexuality. "Back when the Bible was written, it was thought to be a perversion, but now we know it is normal. Why, the entertainment and news media have told us so. Psychologists confirm it; so, the Bible is just wrong on this subject. And if it is legitimate, then why should same sex people be denied the right to marry?"

See how this works? If the Bible is wrong about one subject or two, why, twenty-first century man has the right to change anything in it when we amass more information about something. It no longer matters that women have no authority to preach or that homosexuals have no authority to marry; what matters is the wisdom of men on these issues.

Salvation

When asked what the United Church of Christ believes about salvation, they cite nothing from the book of Acts; they remain silent about repentance and baptism. They quote Ephesians 1:3-14 as the basis of their beliefs. This passage is indeed a wonderful one, but it was never designed to describe the way a person becomes a Christian. Therefore, those who are part of this group have never obeyed the gospel—even if they do baptize.

Also mentioned in The Christian Chronicle article by Hunnicutt was the Disciples of Christ. Where do they stand today? They also have women elders. What do they teach about salvation? Below is their statement:

We believe salvation is received by grace alone, through faith alone, in Christ alone. Good works and obedience are results of salvation, not requirements for salvation. Due to the greatness, sufficiency, and perfection of Christ's sacrifice, all those who have truly received Christ as Savior are eternally secure in salvation, kept by God's power, secured and sealed in Christ forever (John 6:37-40; 10:27-30; Romans 8:1, 38-39; Ephesians 1:13-14; 1 Peter 1:5; Jude 24). Just as salvation cannot be earned by good works, neither does it need good works to be maintained or sustained. Good works and changed lives are the inevitable results of salvation (James 2).

Apparently, they have a problem with understanding the definition of words, such as alone. They have three alones, which means none of them is actually alone but that one is saved by God's grace in conjunction with one's faith in Christ. Notice that repentance is omitted, along with baptism. They have nothing to do with salvation, according to this statement. How is it possible that the Disciples of Christ and the United Church of Christ ever had anything to do with the Restoration Movement since they basically reject the whole idea of restoring what the Bible teaches and have rather succumbed to the theology of modern denominationalism? In fact, they consider themselves a denomination whereas those still true to restoration principles do not.

Two Stories

In a later section of the March issue are two stories—one of a woman who is using her talents Scripturally in the church and would never deign to lead a prayer or attempt to preach in an assembly of men and women. The other is about a woman who was just appointed an elder in the Culver Palms Church (20-22). But she explained that the Holy Spirit made it clear to her that she could do so (22). He most certainly did not contradict what He inspired Paul to write on this subject; such a statement is blasphemous because the Bible does not contradict itself. Neither is the Holy Spirit assuring anyone that it is all right to violate what He wrote. One person said we are elevating 1 Corinthians 14:34 because it reinforces our cultural bias. Really? For centuries, all were agreed. Who has the cultural bias?

Those who do not know what they are saying shouldn't be: