The Churches of Christ and Leadership

"It was really cold today," Johnny Carson stated on one of his Tonight Shows. "How cold was it?" the crowd asked. "It was so cold today that all the lawyers had their hands in their own pockets." The material under review in this article was written by a lawyer; therefore, great care will be taken not to break any law on the books that might be applied to this response.

Most people do not mind being quoted, so long as it is in context. But when a lawyer says that all rights are reserved concerning anything he has published, one wonders how willing he may be to sue violators. This makes it much more difficult to write without direct quotes, but the gist of his intent can be seen in just one title that he invited readers to consider: "20 Passages Asking Women to Speak, Teach, Lead, and Have authority Over Men, In the Assembly and Elsewhere."

The author of this document, Steve Gardner, has been a lawyer for more than 25 years. He was (and still may be) the president of something called Aukenjam LLC. He possesses a Master of Divinity from Wake Forest, whose sports teams are known as the "Demon Deacons." Is that also known what their scholastic teams are called? How about the Religion Department? Just wondering.

Gardner also was a Doctor of Ministry student at Lipscomb; he may or may not have received that degree. In either case, he is staunchly against what the churches of Christ have historically taught concerning the role of women in worship. In fact, he begins his article of September 17, 2019 by praising the Highland Church of Christ (yes, the one in Abilene, Texas) for announcing that women, as well as men, would be preaching in their public assemblies. Highland at that time had about 1,600 members.

Gardner uses the words prohibiting and blocking, frequently. One searches in vain to find the word authorizing, which is needed for a practice to be correct (see Colossians 3:17)—although attempts are made to establish women in leadership roles. Gardner points out that in time past, the Highland Church "prohibited" females from public preaching.

After studying the Scriptures, however, their elders discovered that women could preach publicly. So, what did they discover that no one had seen before? The only element that Gardner left out was that they prayed about it, too. Usually when a congregation decides to expand the role of women in the church, they study and pray—which means that their new views must be correct. Not. Now why would anyone think the Scriptures "prohibit" or "block" women from this public role? How about 1 Timothy 2:12?

And I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man, but to be in silence.

Is Paul "prohibiting" women from doing something here? Sure, it looks like it, but then you probably don't have an M. Div., as well as having studied Hebrew and Greek. Gardner will talk about this verse later. In the meantime, he cites two more congregations with female preachers; he also says that most colleges affiliated with churches of Christ allow women to speak in their chapel programs. Colleges such as Freed-Hardeman and Faulkner remain in the "prohibiting" business. The ladies in those schools can't read Scriptures, lead the singing, or voice a prayer. No doubt, Gardner's attitude is, "Shame on them!"

Hop on the Bandwagon

One of the fallacies in argumentation is the "bandwagon" tactic, which appeals to what people are doing (ad populum). In this instance, the argument would be: "All other religious groups allow women to lead over men; why don't you?" Yes, this is similar to: "All other religious groups use instruments of music; why don't you?" Actually, the answer is the same: God does not authorize the practice. "Most religious groups engage in fundraising; why don't you?" "Most religious groups are premillennial; why aren't you?"

The answer to all these questions is that it doesn't matter what various religious groups are doing; the question is, "What does the Bible teach?" Most religious denominations will argue that baptism is not essential to salvation, either. That does not make them right. Acts 2:38 remains in the Bible.

Psychological Damage?

Someone else may have used this argument before, but it sounds like something only a lawyer would take seriously. How Gardner can type this "information" with a straight face is anybody's guess, but, believe it or not, he mentions a "recent" (but undocumented) study which claims that young women are suffering psychological harm because only men are leading in the worship. Seriously?

Why, yes. Don't you know that women who grow up in those congregations suffer from low self-esteem? They are more depressed than other women, and they exhibit more anxieties. Probably feeling repressed, they end up being less educated. Fewer of them are employed (or do they stay home to rear their families?). They tend to view God as authoritarian (didn't Jesus say all authority had been given to Him in heaven and on earth?) and judgmental. Uh, isn't Jesus going to be everyone's judge (2 Cor. 5:10)? It's surprising that it is not alleged that more women from the male leadership environment are criminals. The Greek word for all of these wild and reckless assertions is poppycock! Those of us married to these ladies from male leadership congregations can refute such nonsense.

About the fifth heading into Gardner's article, he finally mentions 1 Corinthians 14:34-35 and 1 Timothy 2:12. Unfortunately all he says about the two verses is that they are taken out of context, and they do not mean what male leaders of the past have generally thought. In other words, these verses are to be set aside even though Gardner has not explained how they have been misused or misapplied. Apparently, everyone is just supposed to take his word for it.

Justification Attempts

Now the author begins to find ways that he thinks will justify the violation of the two passages he has not examined but only attempted to malign. His first argument is that prohibiting women from a public teaching role is sexual discrimination and that we would not tolerate keeping a black male from speaking. The conclusion is, if racial discrimination cannot be allowed, neither is it correct to have sexual discrimination.

But who makes this decision—God or society? Consider what God says on the subject. It appears below because Gardner did not include it in his article:

Let a woman learn in silence with all submission. And I do not permit a woman to teach or to 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 transgression (1 Tim. 2:11-14).

This arrangement may well be called discrimination, but it is not one that prohibits women from participating in worship or in service—only in not exercising a leadership role. Two reasons are cited for that Divine decision, and they have nothing to do with culture, to whom our lawyer-friend bows. God created man for the leadership role, and when the woman "led" the way, the results were not good. Thus, the male leadership role stands in the Christian system.

On the other hand, God did not make any racial distinctions concerning leadership. Neither did He offer any educational qualifications (such as having a Doctor of Ministry) or require economic or political standards. Gardner actually brought to mind the fact that some have believed in time past that "the curse of Ham" was that God made him become black. Certainly, the Bible does not support this idea, and no one has erroneously espoused it for more than two centuries. Why would Gardner even bring it up unless he is trying to prejudice the jury?

There is another form of discrimination that Gardner does not mention. What about all the qualifications for an elder-pastor-bishop that are listed in 1 Timothy 3:1-7 and Titus 1:5-9? Don't these qualifications exclude single men and men without children? Not to mention women? Even in the Old Testament, God had restrictions. Not just anyone could be a priest (with God's approval). One had to be a Levite, descended from Aaron; all the other tribes were excluded.

But there is something even worse, culturally speaking. All of society is opposed to discrimination against homosexuals. The influence has been so great that religious groups are even "ordaining" homosexuals as priests and ministers. That practice includes lesbians as well. Lawyer Gardner may not like this fact, but practicing homosexuals cannot even become Christians, according to the Scriptures. Neither can practicing adulterers or fornicators, according to 1 Corinthians 6:9-11. All of these are defined as sins, which those who desire to be Christians must give up. Perhaps Gardner would like to set forth his "theology" on that point.

Blocked Again

Gardner uses the word blocked so many times, one wonders if he was watching a football game when he composed this article. His next argument is that if, according to the Greatest Commandment (Mark 12:28-31), women must love the Lord with all their heart and soul and mind and strength, don't we "block" their doing so by refusing to allow them to have leadership positions? The answer is, "No." Take singing, for example. First of all, not all men in a congregation will be asked to lead singing; only three or four men may do so on a regular basis. Have we refused to let men practice Mark 12:28-31 because they are not leading the singing? Of course not. All are free to worship with all their heart, soul, mind, and lungs. Both men and women can worship enthusiastically regardless of who is leading the singing.

Just because Gardner alleges that women are deprived spiritually does not make it so. To this point, all that he has offered is just sophistry—his personal reasoning with the Scriptures. No one is required to agree with his conclusions because he has not made a Scriptural case. He can make comparisons and suggestions all day long, but he has not discredited the two passages of Scriptures in which the limitations are set forth, and he has not given a passage that supports his position.

If he could set forth Scriptures in which women take the leadership role with God's approval, all he would have proven is that the Bible contradicts itself, which Christians know is not the case. Actually, then, he has two tasks: 1) The first is to demonstrate that 1 Corinthians 14:34-35 and 1 Timothy 2:11-14 do not mean what everyone thinks they mean. Plenty of commentaries over the years will verify that the vast majority of the "Christian" community have understood that male leadership is what God requires—in the home, as well as the church (Eph. 5:22-25). Or does Gardner want to dispute that passage as well?

In fact, it has only been since the rise of the Feminist movement that views on this subject have changed. As with the acceptance of homosexuality, these are examples of the world influencing the church instead of the church influencing the world, as God intended it. 2) His second task is to establish a clearcut case that women have been authorized to lead in worship over men. In the next article, therefore, an examination of those arguments will be offered (to be continued).