The Vineyard, Kelly Edmiston, and the Churches of Christ (#3)

So what is the case Kelly Edmiston (Lead “Pastor” of The Vineyard in Sugar Land, Texas, and former member of the church of Christ) presents for female preachers, pastors, and so on? To answer that question she takes the long way around the barn, and she seems to have meandered out to an adjacent meadow in the process. She begins by describing accurately the teaching in the churches of Christ regarding women. She says women are prohibited from:

• Preaching/teaching in the assembly
• Leading songs, prayers, or reading Scripture
• Teaching the Bible in mixed-gender settings of people older than 10-12
• Serving as deacons or elders
• Serving communion in the assembly
• Giving any sort of announcement, testimony, or knowledge in the assembly.

One correction ought to be made. Neither men nor women are allowed to give “testimonials,” which (apparently) The Vineyard encourages. Churches of Christ preach the Word of God—not subjective experiences, which cannot be validated.

Another observation is that, yes, Paul does prohibit women from doing certain things in the assembly (1 Cor. 14:34-35; 1 Tim. 2:11-14), but also lacking are passages of Scriptures authorizing women to take these positions of leadership. Both of these principles have a bearing on the issue.

The Church’s Appeal

Having listed these six applications of prohibition in the churches of Christ, Kelly makes a foray into church history. Unfortunately, she learned her history from liberal professors at Abilene, and they assert many things that are questionable, if not downright untrue. She claims, first of all, that

Churches of Christ (along with Disciples of Christ and Christian Churches) were born out of the “Restoration Movement” that began in the 19th century led primarily by Barton Stone and Alexander Campbell.

The churches of Christ were not “born” in the 19th century; they came into existence in the 1st century (Rom. 16:16). History is sparse with information for centuries due to the prominence of the Roman Catholic Church, but evidence of their existence can be found as much as 500 years prior to the 19th century. Despite the concept of doing only what is authorized in the New Testament (Col. 3:17), some congregations began adding instruments of music into the worship. These began to proliferate after the Civil War (which ended in 1865). Those using instruments began calling themselves the Christian Church; the division was officially recognized in 1906. The Disciples of Christ then split off from them; they advocated further departures from the Word.

Kelly claims that this was a populist movement, by which she means that “good common sense and rational thinking in community can lead to a right and plain biblical interpretation.” The way we would put it, in English, is that we do not believe that anyone needs to have a theological degree to understand the Scriptures. Even though some passages are difficult, the majority of what is written can be understood by most people. A large portion of society agreed that people did not need a “special clergy” to interpret everything for them.

However, from this point, Kelly makes an unwarranted leap. She claims that since women could understand the Bible as well as men, it led to congregations having women preachers.

Therefore, women were ordained, preached, and led publicly in the early Restoration Movement churches. To name only a few: Ellen Grant Gustin and Emi B. Frank were ordained in 1873. Melissa Garrett Terrell, Laura D. Garst, Mary L. Adams and Josephine W. Smith were all ordained as ministers and served in public roles. Clara Hale Babcock is commonly credited with being the first woman ordained for preaching. In the early days, there were so many women in leadership that The International Women’s Preachers Association was created to support women (Ibid. 779). Women preachers and women serving in public roles was common, although not without controversy.

This paragraph seems really impressive and favorable toward women; one wonders why Earl West mentions none of these women or the organization cited in his first two volumes of The Search for the Ancient Order, which covers the early period of the American Restoration Movement.

Clara Hale Babcock was not even born until 1850, which means she was not around in the early years of Stone (1772-1844) and Campbell (1788-1866). These women were “ordained” by Christian churches, which had already departed from following the authority of the New Testament. As for the association mentioned above, their website says this:

On November 21, 1919, at the YWCA in St. Louis, MO, four officers were elected to run the newly formed International Association of Women Preachers.

This organization was founded 100 years later than the early years of the American Restoration Movement. Besides, how could the average person read 1 Timothy 2:11-14 and conclude that women should preach?

David Lipscomb’s Fault

According to Kelly, the idea of women preachers was at full throttle until David Lipscomb ruined things. “David Lipscomb was very influential in the eventual exclusion of women from leadership.” It is doubtful that David Lipscomb (1831-1917) would have had much influence over the liberal congregations that were using these women. Like several of the women mentioned, he too was not around during “the early years.”

David Lipscomb was the editor of the Gospel Advocate. Through his efforts, he was able to save many congregations in the south from using instrumental music in worship. He wrote on many subjects over the years in the Gospel Advocate; he also wrote (with E.G. Sewell) Questions Answered. Kelly is probably giving Lipscomb more credit than he merits in curtailing women leading over men. She then adds: “Today, Churches of Christ have continued in the spirit of David Lipscomb to exclude women from leadership in the church….”

Hold it! We do not continue in the spirit of David Lipscomb; we continue in the doctrine taught in the New Testament. So here is Kelly’s thesis. We are not consistent in what we teach from 1 Corinthians 14:34-35 or 1 Timothy 2:11-15. To prove that, she cites “a Church of Christ ‘Women’s Roles’ policy statement.” But she does not name the source. What this statement says does not necessarily represent all congregations. Finding an isolated statement that she judges to be inconsistent cannot prove her case.

So, let’s focus on what she objects to. Among other things, she claims that, if we believe the two passages cited above, then we cannot allow women to teach children or other women. Kelly is so confused that it is hard to know where to begin. Here are two of her criticisms:

We will not allow a women to serve in a Children’s or Youth ministry classroom if it requires that she will be teaching or reading the bible out loud, lest she be disgraced. As Paul says, “it is disgraceful for a women to speak in the church” (1 Corinthians 14:35).

We will not allow a woman to teach a woman’s bible class, just as David Lipscomb said. And effective immediately, all women’s small groups and classes are cancelled for fear of eternal death.

A woman cannot teach children in a Bible class? The first thing Kelly should realize is that a Bible class is not the worship assembly. It is a shame for a woman to speak in the assembly; a class for children is not under consideration. Second, the prohibition is that of teaching over a man; does she not know the difference between men and children (no wisecracks allowed)? Women have conducted Bible classes in their neighborhoods where there is no connection to a worship assembly. They also teach children Vacation Bible School classes. These may be held at the church building, but there is no worship assembly—especially on Saturdays or other days of the week.

Whether or not David Lipscomb said women cannot teach other women is irrelevant; the question is, “What do the Scriptures teach?” Many of us think that what Paul is describing in 1 Corinthians 11:2-16 is a time for women to exercise their spiritual gifts. Since they could not use them when the church came together in one place, they needed some other opportunity to exercise them—or what would be the purpose in having them? They can pray together and teach one another—so long as men are not present. The absence of males in their meeting leaves them without those whom they are forbidden to exercise authority over. Ladies’ Days and Bible classes do not infringe on the leadership of men.

So, what is the upshot of her argument? It seems to be that 1) We do not consistently apply 1 Corinthians 14:34-35 and 1 Timothy 2:11-15; 2) therefore our interpretation of the Scriptures is wrong; 3) therefore women should be allowed to take any role a man has in the church. This is a disastrous attempt at logic. The first hypothesis is false, which we successfully refuted above. Even if we did misapply those principles, it would not authorize practices that directly contradict what Paul wrote. It would only prove we are erring and need to change. There remains no authorization for women to preach.

Kelly’s Snarky Comments

We encourage all women to stay home and raise their children for we know that women will be saved through child-bearing (1 Timothy 2:15, Ephesians 5:22).

We do not allow a woman to obtain advanced degrees where they will be tempted by their professors to use their knowledge somewhere other than in their homes. If a woman has a question, she can ask her husband once they are at home (1 Corinthians 14:35).

Women with children should be taking care of them, but some women are widowed; some are divorced; some do not have children, and some have never married. Each couple must decide for themselves the way it is best to run their household. Some can balance a career with the obligations of home; some may not be able to. Once children are in school, more time is available—unless home schooling is involved.

Who has prohibited women from obtaining college degrees? More women than men are obtaining degrees. Who has said women cannot have a profession outside the home? Her first priority, however, must be the home, just as a father’s is, also.

What we see in the many pages of the document under review is “much palaver,” as natives of Liberia are prone to say. No substantial case has been made for women being in leadership roles in the church. Kelly has not shown any influence of the churches of Christ on her, either. At least, it is not detectible. One wonders what she would tell someone to do if they wanted to be saved from their sins. Would it be anything akin to what Peter preached on the Day of Pentecost in Acts 2:38?