The Gospel and the Messenger
How many apostles were of the female gender? How many elders in the Lord\How many evmany evangelists were women? The answer to all three questions is the same—zero. The reason for that answer is that Christ and His apostles both taught and set the example from which the zero is derived.
Were there some devout, knowledgeable, and articulate women that Jesus could have chosen to be apostles? We know that Mary, the sister of Martha, had chosen that good part (Luke 10:38-42). We also know that some of the ladies followed Jesus and even used their means to help support Jesus’ preaching (Luke 8:1-3). Could He not have selected one or two women as apostles? Yes—had it been permissible.
Paul explains why women were not included in any of these roles as he writes to Timothy about things pertaining to the church. After speaking about the need for women to dress in modest apparel, he then moves on to proper conduct with respect to authority:
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 the transgression (1 Tim. 2:11-14).
This is the reason one finds no female evangelists in the Lord’s church. It does not relate to talent but to roles God designated from the beginning. Often the means to try to justify women as preachers boils down to the claim that women were not allowed to do so in the culture of the first century, but our society accepts the practice. However, Paul did not cite the popular customs of his day. He goes back to the pattern given at the very beginning as a precedent. If Jesus was correct in going back to Genesis 2 to observe God’s pattern for marriage (one woman for one man for life, Matthew 19:3-9), then Paul is right to go to that same text to show that man was created first—and then woman. Paul, by citing this precedent, is implying that God created man for the leadership role to begin with. The second reason he cited for that arrangement is that Eve was the one who was deceived—not the man, which is found in Genesis 3:1-6.
Therefore, any teaching or preaching role (in which men are among the number of those listening) must be assumed by men. An elder must be able to teach (1 Tim. 3:2); therefore, a woman cannot be an elder. In addition, both elders and deacons must have wives (1 Tim. 3:2, 11-12). Both must also rule their houses well (1 Tim. 3:5, 12). The Scriptures are clear on this subject. Therefore, a woman who sets herself up to lead is presumptuous and not submissive to the Scriptures.
Therefore, the messenger, the proclaimer of the gospel, must always be a male because this is the Divine pattern. Any female, however good at it, is in error and opposition to God when she takes it upon herself to preach—even Billy Graham’s daughter. He, at first, did not like the idea of her preaching because it violates the Scriptures—not to mention Baptist principles, but he eventually decided she could use her oratorical abilities in a public manner. This decision, however, was not based on the Scriptures. What kind of defense can be given—unless one attacks the integrity of Paul’s first letter to Timothy? The teaching there is plain enough for anyone to understand.
Of course, a second response is simply to ignore what the Scriptures teach and carry on anyway. Most people do not know the Bible well enough to know that the practice is wrong. Or else they do not care. If something becomes popular, that is sufficient for many to be convinced that it is all right. It’s the ad populum logical fallacy, which basically means that if most people accept a practice on a widespread basis, it is all right to jump on the bandwagon. When was the last time someone attempted to make a defense of instrumental music? It is seldom necessary because the practice is so commonplace.
Friendship or family ties cover a multitude of sins. Why didn’t the congregation withdraw fellowship from an elder’s daughter when she married a second time without having a Scriptural divorce? Remaining single would have been the proper response—but not the popular alternative. So nothing is done. Why do brethren continue to fellowship those who fellowship false teachers? They do so because they are in the majority, and objectors are categorized as trouble-makers (an ad hominem attack). Thus, whether in or out of the church, people are frequently not going by, “What saith the Lord?” so much as, “What saith the majority?”
What Gospel?
Mrs. Lotz, then, is not the appropriate messenger, but she also does not have the appropriate message. Her “gospel” is not the gospel. The following information comes from a September 21, 2009 article in Newsweek, which was titled, “A Graham Slam.” This published piece about her quotes her as saying:
Religion is an impediment to knowing God. Procedures, rituals, creeds: how in the world can they help you connect with God? … If you’re sprinkled when you’re baptized or dunked when you’re baptized, it doesn’t matter as far as your salvation goes.
What Scriptures teach this doctrine?
The answer is that none of them do. The reader is supposed to just take her word for it rather than do what the Bereans did, which was to search the Scriptures to see whether such things are so (Acts 17:11). Many people do not take this Scripture to heart. If a popular speaker delivers a popular message, that’s good enough for them. Here, however, we want to analyze Lotz’ remarks.
First, how is religion defined? According to The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, the word religion means: “The expression of man’s belief in and reverence for a superhuman power recognized as the creator and governor of the universe.” How does religion, therefore, get in the way of knowing God—since by definition it leads us to acknowledge God? Obviously, people disagree on the proper way to reverence God (Hinduism, Buddhism, Islam, Christianity), but religion itself is just a general category.
Procedures, Rituals, Creeds
Consider someone this hostile against the practice of circumcision under the Old Covenant. “How does circumcision help you to connect with God?” An Israelite might have answered, “I don’t know, but not doing it will disconnect you from God” (Gen. 17:14).
Would someone dare call the Passover a ritual? Or did God not design it to be meaningful—and a constant reminder of the way He saved Israel out of Egypt? Was the Day of Atonement (Lev. 16) a mere ritual, or was there something extremely significant in those actions? How dare anyone make value judgments on things that were instituted by God!
Does Lotz think that the Lord’s Supper is merely a ritual, when Jesus designed it as a memorial to Himself and the sacrifice He made to redeem us from our sins? As a ritual, this observance may not connect anyone with God, but God designed it as exactly that—a connection to Him. The bread of which we partake represents His very body, which was broken on the cross for us. The fruit of the vine represents His very blood, which was poured out for our sins. If the observance of the Lord’s Supper has become a mere ritual, the fault is not God’s but those who have become careless in their devotion.
Creeds are manmade and therefore have usually been wrong. However, the fact that human beings have misused the Scriptures does not mean that God did not give us legitimate teachings. Paul wrote that God’s Word is able to build us up and give us an inheritance (Acts 20:32). Jude wrote to Christians and urged them to “earnestly contend for the faith” which had been once for all delivered to the saints (v. 3). Jesus told His disciples that when they made disciples, they should teach them “to observe all things that I have commanded you” (Matt. 28:20). Therefore, even though God never authorized a creed, He certainly gave the church certain doctrines, which can neither be ignored nor miscategorized.
Dunking
Paul also wrote that some were preaching “another” gospel, which was not valid, and that they would be accursed for doing so (Gal. 1:6-9). The idea that it doesn’t matter what someone teaches is not a Biblical one. Baptism is part of the gospel (Acts 2:38; 1 Cor. 15:1-4; Rom. 6:3-5; Acts 22:16; Rev. 1:5). Perhaps Lotz sees baptism as one of those procedures or rituals that doesn’t matter, but the apostle Peter wrote that “baptism doth also now save us” (1 Peter 3:21, KJV), which means that it is part of the gospel.
To claim that “sprinkling” is baptism reveals a colossal lack of study on her part. Has she never checked a lexicon to find out that baptism means “to dip” or “to plunge”? In the 21st century, with all the resource tools available, it is inexcusable to make such a statement. Where in the entire New Testament was water ever sprinkled on anyone? John baptized in Aenon because there was “much water” there (John 3:23). No one needs “much water” to sprinkle. Philip baptized the Ethiopian eunuch in the wilderness. Why did they find a place with water so that they could both go down into the water and come up out of the water—if sprinkling was all that was necessary? Now where are the passages in which anyone sprinkles another and it is called baptism? Lotz knows there is none.
Why is it that every time someone wants to denigrate the Bible’s teaching of baptism for the remission of sins that they refer to it as being “dunked”? They use this term because they think it belittles the teaching of baptism. Okay, then, let’s use their terminology and see how they like it. Should we start with John the Dunker? What? Does that seem to denigrate John? Perhaps we should use the word in place of the Lord’s teachings:
“He who believes and is dunked shall be saved…” (Mark 16:16). “Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, dunking them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit” (Matt. 28:19).
Does this usage seem to be disrespectful toward Jesus and His commands? How about Peter saying, “Repent, and let every one of you be dunked in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins…” (Acts 2:38)? If these seem awkward and inappropriate, remember that Lotz brought up the practice. She thought she would insult those who honor the Scriptures’ teaching regarding baptism, but we did not originate the doctrine; we are only following what the Bible says. She is the one insulting the Author of the Scriptures.
In her mind, baptism is just a ritual that has nothing to do with the forgiveness of sins—despite Acts 2:38. As a ritual, one could sprinkle, pour, or dunk. It does not affect one’s salvation. Her opinion here, however, contradicts New Testament truth. If baptism is not important, why was the jailer and his family baptized after 1:00 A.M.? Why was the eunuch baptized in the wilderness? Why was Saul of Tarsus baptized immediately when Ananias came to him? Lotz is not preaching the gospel of the New Testament, nor is she a qualified messenger.