More on Ladies in Leadership: Rationale
More and more churches of Christ have departed from the faith as it pertains to the role of women, insisting that sisters can be preachers and elders. Those who are members of faithful congregations, with leadership based on what the Scriptures teach, should be thankful to God for their leadership’s stand for the truth; those in congregations forsaking God’s design should leave and find a congregation still holding to the Word. These who have not left often think conditions will improve or that brethren will come to their senses. If they are far enough along to have come to the point of announcing changes, it is already too late.
Last week (March 8, 2020), Spiritual Perspectives examined two articles on this topic from The Christian Chronicle; today we look at yet a third article they published—“Women’s Roles in the Future Church” (pages 23-24). Here they took a huge risk. They finally started providing the rationale of women to attempt to justify women preaching. Anyone should be able to see the tremendous weaknesses in the reasons provided. Hopefully, many brethren will comment on them.
The article concerns five young women and their thoughts on the subject. 1 Timothy 2:11-12 is quoted at the outset, and one of the women said she always thought these verses were clear. “Now she’s not so sure” (23). That’s interesting. The verses did not change; they still say a woman should not teach or have authority over a man. So, why should they be ignored now? Prepare yourself. Here it is.
Just two verses earlier, however, Paul gives specific instructions for how women should dress and wear their hair—instructions that aren’t enforced in most churches of Christ.
“We don’t tell women today that they can’t braid their hair,” Russell said. “We don’t tell them they can’t wear jewelry” (23).
There are only three things wrong with this outlook. First, if she thinks we are inconsistent by insisting on upholding one text but not the other, then we ought to practice both of them—not give them both up. This rationale would be similar to the Hebrews saying, “Say, we use graven images which were forbidden in the Ten Commandments; so, it’s okay to commit adultery, too. If we don’t enforce prohibitions concerning idols, why bother banning adultery?”
Second, this line of reasoning constitutes a tu quoque fallacy. According to Wikipedia, this is “an informal fallacy that intends to discredit the opponent's argument by asserting the opponent's failure to act consistently in accordance with its conclusion(s).” If Russell thinks brethren are inconsistent, then the solution is to adhere to and teach both passages—not reject both of them.
Third, such thinking makes no attempt to rightly divide the Word. Do verses 13-14 relate to modest apparel and hair or to authority? To ask it is to answer it. The point of verses 11 and 12, along with 1 Peter 3:3-4 is one of emphasis. It is not that women cannot have a nice hairdo or dress up on occasion, but that she realizes the best thing she can do is dress modestly and let her gentle and quiet spirit attract attention. What was Dorcas known for—elaborate costumes or good works? By insisting on leadership roles that are not authorized for them, these young women are not only violating 1 Timothy 2:11-12 but 1 Timothy 2:9-10 as well by not possessing a quiet spirit.
Slanted Language
Unfortunately, this fallacious kind of reasoning is not the only assault against the Bible teaching in this passage. Another of the young women describes her home situation as ideal, thus implying that everyone else’s was oppressive. Miss Patton is quoted as saying that
no one ever told me I couldn’t do something…. I was raised in a household where I was allowed to express my faith; I was allowed to ask questions. I was allowed to pray at the dinner table (23).
Of course, the implication is that women without this background were oppressed and never allowed to ask questions. For some, the best way to establish a case is to demonize the opponent. So, if a girl is not allowed to pray at the dinner table, does that mean she has no way of expressing her faith? And shouldn’t the question be, “Where is she authorized to pray at the dinner table?” When Jesus gave thanks for the bread, did that prohibit His apostles from expressing their faith? Who is forbidden from asking questions? Just because the answer is 1 Timothy 2:11-12 does not mean that the question was not asked.
Tradition!
These words form a weird lead-in to the next aspect being discussed: “All of the young women expressed respect—and even love—for church traditions.” Why? First of all, a definition should have been given as to the meaning of the word tradition. Jesus condemned the traditions of men (Matt. 15:8-9), but Paul encouraged brethren to hold fast the traditions when they were teachings that came from the apostles (2 Thess. 2:15). So, is the teaching of 1 Timothy 2:11-12 from God or from men? One young woman said:
I love tradition when we recognize it as a tradition, and (we don’t) say it’s the word of God and then try to uphold tradition through Scriptures that we pick and choose (23).
What does this gobbledygook mean? How many things do we have to admit are merely tradition for her to love it? The role of women—is that one of our traditions? Do we just pick and choose that (while ignoring hair and jewelry, for example)? The use of instrumental music—is that another tradition we should admit? Is that one of the things we try to say is the Word of God?
Another woman adds that she frequently heard the phrase, this is what we’ve always done, “to justify various church traditions” (23). Really? This is just too much. Many times those raised in denominations tell their young people those words when they ask questions, but such a response should never occur in the churches of Christ. We believe that our teaching comes from the Scriptures and nowhere else. We are the ones who have debated people thousands of times in the past 200 years—always appealing to the Word for the basis of our beliefs. We are the ones who study the Bible with those wanting to learn; we never study the doctrines, commandments, or traditions of men with others. Therefore, it is almost beyond belief, for a people who abide by a “thus saith the Lord,” that anyone would say, “This is what we’ve always done,” which is a totally invalid way of reasoning. If anyone actually said such a thing, he ought to be ashamed.
The Evidence for Female Preachers
So far, no case for women in leadership has actually been presented; the Bible’s teaching is clear. But opponents of the Word have actually advanced a rationale that some would not disagree with. The first indication of it was at the end of the second article, and two of the five women also reference it. One describes how she made the decision to become an “elder”:
“But one morning—really after a sleepless night—the Holy Spirit made it clear that in spite of my doubts and fears, I was to say yes” (22).
“Exactly how did the Holy Spirit do that?” one wonders. Did He delete 1 Timothy 2:11-12 from her Bible? Did He speak to her and contradict what He wrote in the New Testament? She did not tell us how the Spirit made it clear to her. So, let’s return to the five young women. One of them said she knows girls “who have felt a calling to do something outside the boundaries of traditional male/female roles in Churches of Christ” (23). Oh, so now they have a calling. Does that come by the Holy Spirit, or was it made known to them in some other way?
It is important to keep emphasizing that these traditional roles were begun by the apostles—not by uninspired men. The “anti-traditional” view comes from the Feminist movement of the 1970s, whether these five sage women know it or not. She continues:
If someone has an urging from God, it’s important to not immediately shut them down and just tell them no.
Well, of course, if it were from God, a woman could not but speak (Acts 4:20). So, are these callings and urgings actually from God? Or the Holy Spirit? The answer is an obvious no because God would be contradicting His Word. But suppose these callings and urgings were correct; suppose somehow for 2,000 years we have all erred in our understanding of what Paul wrote. Then these women who claim the Holy Spirit made it clear that they are to be elders or called them to be preachers ought to be able to explain why the normal understanding of 1 Timothy 2 and 1 Corinthians 14 is wrong. Where are the messages to clear that up?
Notice that none of these women are claiming to be inspired of God—yet. They have been careful to describe the Spirit’s communication with them as an urging or a calling. In the other instance, the Holy Spirit made it clear to her. So, while not claiming inspiration, they are claiming the direct influence of the Holy Spirit. They have not learned from the Scriptures anything bearing on this subject, but they claim the Spirit has in some way communicated with them.
How long will it be until the Spirit urges them to use instrumental music in worship? When will some be urged to use incense in worship or allow dancing in the assembly? That might be one of those things that we’ve just never done before. Maybe the Holy Spirit will soon show us that we should fellowship false teachers. Some may have already had that vision.
“All You Need is Love”
Before the article ends, one of the women opines, “I think the whole Bible is about loving one another, loving God, putting that first.” Yes, those are the two greatest commandments, but we should all remember that loving God means keeping His commandments (John 14:15).
The women also agreed that Jesus wants His followers to be united; therefore, discussions must be amicable. One said: “Arguments lead to tension and broken relationships, and that’s not what God advocates for” (24). Does anyone remember that Jesus said, “Do not think that I came to being peace on earth. I did not come to bring peace but a sword” (Matt. 10:34)? But despite the emphasis on love and unity, we find this paragraph:
Although this group of women believes the church should be unified and peaceful, they also agree there are times when change is needed (24).
Does a Christian laugh or cry at this statement? “Oh, we want love and peace and unity, but sometimes you just need to blow it all up in order to change things.” Right. Many don’t mind alienating older brethren (who have fought battles that youngsters know nothing about) because it’s their personal preference to have women in leadership roles. One can tout love, peace, and unity all day long, but the fact is that congregations cannot insist on female leadership without causing a split. It must be one way or the other; it cannot be both. We can only go by what the Holy Spirit has already taught.
Those who do not know what they are saying shouldn’t be: