Managing God's Household

1 Timothy 2:8-3:15 Dec.1/02

Sexuality a Hot Topic in the Church

Controversy over sexuality is making headlines again, at least in Canadian church news. On the front page of the Nov.12 ChristianWeek, one headline states "Anglican bishops too divided to decide". In June a diocese in the Vancouver area voted to allow churches to "celebrate permanent, intimate, loving relationships between persons of the same sex". This despite the 1997 guidelines of the House of Bishops which states, "We do not accept the blessing of homosexual unions." A walkout by eight theologically conservative parishes, and their withholding of financial support for the diocese (about 20% of its budget), propelled the issue onto the international stage. Meeting in late October, the Canadian House of Bishops was unable to reach agreement after 3 days of emotional debate. The bishops referred the matter to General Synod in 2004, asking all bishops in the meantime to uphold the 1997 guidelines. But the New Westminster bishop has made it clear he is proceeding with blessing of such unions anyway. The outgoing Archbishop of Canterbury told a press conference that conflict over homosexuality is destabilizing world Christianity, as well as Anglicanism.

        Another front page headline in the same paper concerns the decision of First Christian Reformed Church of Toronto to allow gay and lesbian members "living in committed relationships" to be eligible to be elected to church offices such as pastor or elder. This violates the denomination's position, which states that celibate gay and lesbian members could qualify for church offices but that engaging in any form of same-sex activity is sinful and precludes such involvement. Another CRC pastor in the area states, "Our deepest concern is that the very salvation of people is at stake because people will be misled about the very basics of a new life in Christ and the nature of sin, repentance and salvation." The conclusion of the article notes that "CRC Toronto is known within its denomination for being the first North American congregation to ordain a female pastor.However, when it made this move in the 1990s it did so after the North American synod had issued a statement allowing for the ordination of women."

        As our own congregation moves toward establishing its constitution, it's important that we seek God's will on controversial matters like sexuality and who can serve in church government. We want to get off on the right foot rather than be tricked by the Deceiver and led down the wrong path. We want to be a "Christ-centred, Bible-believing" congregation even if that means being a little different. One of the initial factors in our formation was our appreciation for Scripture's guidance on sexual conduct as our Maker intended. When it comes to church leadership, is permissible for women to hold the most authoritative offices? Does ordination of women set the stage for recognition of homosexual activity, as the CRC case hints?

        Last week in our look at Christian headship in the home, we studied Ephesians 5. We found that, based on the Creation account in Genesis, the husband is the "head" of the wife, while Christ is the head of the husband, and God is the head of Christ. This means the husband bears the primary responsibility for protection, provision, and loving leadership. Wives are the "suitable helpers" complementary to their husbands, submitting to and affirming that leadership as the church submits to Christ. Women need not fear domination or coercion in this picture because husbands are accountable to God for how they treat their wives, and husbands are to practice sacrificial giving-up-self love as Jesus died to save His Bride, the Church. And in the Trinity, God being the head of Christ illustrates that headship is more about functional roles than about hierarchy. The Father and Son are one, there is a deep reciprocal love, the Son delights to do the Father's will. So there are unique gender roles in the home according to God's blueprint. The man's caring leadership is complemented and helped immeasurably by the woman's submissive support. Neither is superior or inferior for male and female are one in Christ, equals in God's eyes with respect to spiritual belonging and gifts and eternal hope, yet there are functional distinctions while this earthly life lasts.

        Matthew Henry commented on the Genesis account this way: "Eve was not taken out of Adam's head to top him, neither out of his feet to be trampled by him, but out of his side to be equal with him, under his arm to be protected by him, and near his heart to be loved by him."

Leadership in "God's Household" Consistent with Headship in the Home

In 1 Timothy, one of the "pastoral epistles" concerned with church government and getting congregations off on the right foot, we see that leadership in "God's household" the church follows a pattern consistent with gender uniqueness and God's plan for relational structure in the home. In chapter 1 Paul relates how he left Timothy at Ephesus to counter false doctrine, promote God's work not controversies, keep people from wandering away in meaningless talk and being drawn into things contrary to sound doctrine (1:3f,6,10). So this letter is very intentionally about church government and preserving good order. Chapters 2-3 are summarized by 3:14-15: "I am writing you these instructions so that...you will know how people ought to conduct themselves in God’s household, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and foundation of the truth." So church order, relationships, and appropriate behaviour are very much the focus.

        In 2:1 Paul urges or calls for prayers for kings and all in authority, so that (v.2) "we may live peaceful and quiet lives in all godliness and holiness." Note the word "quiet" - we'll see it again shortly: Paul doesn't mean our lives should be absolutely silent, but quiet, non-disruptive, not making waves, untroubled by the authorities. This was written around 64 AD, about the time Nero was starting to severely persecute Christians, so the apostle was counselling the flock to "lay low" and not irritate the state unnecessarily. Paul recalls in 1:5-7 how there is one God who sent Christ as a mediator to be a ransom for all. So Paul was appointed as an apostle, "a teacher of the true faith". He's reminding us of the frame around the picture we call human existence: the big picture and how we fit in amongst rulers and authorities in the grand scheme of redemption.

        So we come to verse 8. Men are to pray with holy hands, not in anger or disputing. Remember Paul was keen to avoid disorder and controversy that distracts God's people from their saving mission: Hymenaeus and Alexander had rejected apostolic teaching and shipwrecked their faith (1:20). Prayer helps us look beyond our questions and confusion to God's promises, eternal purpose, and priorities.

        V.9, women are to have modest dress (Gk "prepo" - think of it as "preppy" in a godly sense of fashion: to be becoming, seemly, fit): women's attire is to be decent, with propriety, the main attraction being their good deeds not designer labels or jewelry or the latest hair style.

        V.11 says "A woman should learn in quietness and full submission." "Quietness" as up in v.2 - peaceful and quiet lives, not rowdy or disruptive. Submission we looked at last week, in combination with the mutual submission Christians are to have toward each other and our primary submission to Christ as Lord. Though He was exalted in heaven, yet He submitted to the Father's plan and subjected Himself to our human existence, rejection, torture, and death in order that we might be forgiven and gain access to heaven. Compared to that, all our earthly submissions, male or female, are as nothing.

        A word about the background situation is in order. It seems that the churches at Corinth and Ephesus were being influenced by false teachers, some of whom taught that the resurrection had already taken place (2Tim.2:18; 1Cor.15:12) thus the believers participated in a new spiritual state, a "realized eschatology", and could throw off gender roles. Women were being tempted to take the teaching of "neither male nor female" to an extreme and start assuming the role of men in the congregation. From 1Cor.11:5 it is clear that Paul expected women to exercise their spiritual gifts, praying and prophesying aloud in the congregation (quite a contrast to Greek civil custom - women weren't allowed to speak in a public meeting). But when it came to "weighing carefully" the various utterances, Paul counselled that this should be reserved for men, otherwise a woman might find herself challenging a revelation from the other gender, which would be inappropriate.

        V.12 elaborates: "I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she must be silent" (again, hesuchia or "quiet" as in 2:2, "description of the life of one who stays at home doing his own work, and does not officiously meddle with the affairs of others"). "Have authority over" translates authenteo, literally a self-doer, master, or autocrat, to domineer; modern Greek has the term "aphentes" or "effendi" which is used as "Mr."! I used to view this verse as extreme, an isolated eccentricity of Paul or an accommodation to the so-called "patriarchal" culture of the day. But when you study what the New Testament teaches about gender roles, it's an understandable outcome of our basic make-up. Look at Paul's rationale, v.13, as we saw last week: "For Adam was formed first, then Eve." Paul anchors the teaching in God's original order of creation of the genders, just as in 1Cor.11:8f. V.14 does not mean that women are more susceptible to being deceived than men, but perhaps that the Deceiver slyly conned Eve into commandeering the leader / initiator role of the man in the matter of eating the fruit first. V.15 recalls that women have a very important and special role in something men simply are unable to do (much as Schwarzenegger might disagree): childbearing. That's a woman's "forte", you're uniquely designed to nurture the young, and a society down-plays that to its peril. "The hand that rocks the cradle rules the world." (How concerned is a hiree going to be with instilling your values into your child?) Women are called to continue in child-rearing with "faith, love, and holiness with propriety" - a concern for wholesome order and complementariness in gender relationships.

        In chapter 3, Paul addresses qualifications for those responsible for leadership in the church, "overseers" and "deacons". 3:1 mentions the "overseer" episkopos, synonymous with "elder" or presbuteros as seen from Acts 20(17,28). The word means supervisor, someone who "looks after" the flock. Elders differ from deacons mainly in being able and qualified to teach (end of v.2) and to govern; 5:17 speaks of them directing the affairs of the church, including preaching and teaching. V.3 the elder is to be gentle, not quarrelsome - compare 2Tim.2:24f, "And the Lord’s servant must not be quarrelsome but kindly to everyone, an apt teacher, patient, correcting opponents with gentleness..." To be a true leader, sooner or later you're going to have to make decisions that involve saying "no" to someone, possibly even correcting wrong teaching, as Paul and Timothy were already encountering. To respect God's intention for gender guidelines and Biblical headship, in most situations where it means going "head to head" this would be more appropriate for a man than a woman.

        Look closely at verses 4-5. The overseer "must manage his own family well and see that his children obey him with proper respect..." (Paul draws a very deliberate parallel) "If anyone does not know how to manage his own family, how can he take care of God's church?" Do you see the connection between last week (headship in the home) and this week (headship in the church)? The apostle sees the qualification for leadership in the church as growing out of the experience a man gets being a father and husband in the home. 3:15 calls the church "God's household", "God's family" in essence - there's a similarity in the application of gender principles. It wouldn't be appropriate for women to be submissive in the home as their husband's essential complements, then come to church and suddenly switch roles to being in the hot seat as pastors and elders.

        The church is in many respects a family of families. The distinctions and roles God expects of us as dads and moms don't suddenly disappear the instant we walk in the door (even though we're no longer restricted to being "house churches" as in the early centuries). This is no isolated teaching, a meteorite plummeted in amongst an egalitarian gospel: it's simply consistent for men to bear the primary responsibility (and flak) at church because they're already carrying that burden in the individual household units. It would seem contrary to the nature of womanhood (Biblically understood) to place women in the front lines of combat in physical war; elders and pastors are the "front line" troops in God's army the church, spiritually speaking.

        Now look at deacons diakonos in 3:8. The word means "servers" or "waiters", literally "one who raises the dust by hastening", someone who runs errands, one who executes the commands of another. The job originated in Acts 6:1-6 when Greek widows found they were being overlooked in the church's daily food distribution "service" (or ministry - diakonia). Typically such a person in the early church cared for the poor and had charge of and distributed the money collected for their use. Paul states deacons should be worthy of respect, keep hold of the deep truths of the faith, and understandably in view of their financial function, be "not pursuing dishonest gain". Note again in verse 12, a deacon "must manage his children and his household well." Like v.4: leadership in the home helps prepare one for leadership in the church. Order in the church is strengthened by, and does not counter, the order or functional roles which are already instituted in the home.

Gender and Leadership in the Ministry of Jesus and the Early Church

The resource by John Piper and Wayne Grudem (Recovering Biblical Manhood and Womanhood) contains an excellent survey of how women were incorporated into various ministries in the life of Jesus and the early church. But a quick review here might be helpful. Jesus elevated women above their position in the Jewish culture of the day: Pharisees argued for separation of the sexes in religious life. Jesus welcomed them as followers. Women were not considered reliable witnesses; for example, Jewish historian Josephus warns, “But let not the testimony of women be admitted, on account of the levity and boldness of their sex.” Humph! God and the risen Lord chose women to be the first witnesses of the resurrection. In His public ministry, Jesus regularly conversed with and responded to questions by women on an equal basis with men. In John 4 His disciples were astonished to find him talking to a woman. He made women the subjects or heroines of many of His teaching illustrations. Both men and women were considered disciples. Women played an important supporting role, especially in Galilee, where several helped out with material needs (Mk.15:41); Luke even mentions one who was the wife of the manager of Herod's household (Lk.8:1-3). Yet when Jesus appointed twelve apostles, He chose all men. Probably not only because of the authority issue, but also the danger: Jesus must have been very aware these appointments were a set-up for martyrdom.

        Did anything change in this regard in the New Testament church? Consider the replacement of Judas as an apostle after the resurrection. In Acts 1:21 Peter says "it is necessary to choose one of the men who have been with us the whole time..." The Greek word is aner "men" not anthropous "people": Peter's requirement is that it be a man. Again, in Acts 6, when helpers for the food distribution service are chosen, pastorally it might have made sense to choose women because it's widows who were being overlooked, but again the Twelve tell the group to choose "men" (aner). Paul had many "fellow workers" who were women: Php.4(2-3) mention Euodia and Syntyche who "contended at my side in the cause of the gospel". In Rom.16(1) he greets Phoebe a "servant", "deaconess", "great help" or patroness. Priscilla and Aquila, a wife and husband, together brought Apollos up to speed privately in some areas where his knowledge of the gospel was deficient (Ac.18:2,26); they were influential fellow-workers with Paul at both Corinth and Ephesus, but it's not that Priscilla held an authoritative teaching office in conjunction with her husband (1Cor.16:19). In the early church, women were involved in ministries in many forms apart from official leadership. Commentator Robertson notes that "the Apostolic Constitutions have numerous allusions to deaconesses; the strict separation of the sexes made something like deaconesses necessary for baptism, visiting the women, etc." There's no question of ability or gifting; God DOES gift women for a whole range of ministries. It's just that some roles are more appropriate than others.

Hermeneutical High Jinks, Gender Confusion, and the Road to Desolation

When I began researching this area, it was with a view to finding a useful approach to a few apparently difficult verses restricting the highest-profile church leadership roles to one gender. But the more I read of the Piper/Grudem resource, the more lights started going on. I began to understand that 1Tim.2:12 is not an isolated verse but the tip of the iceberg so to speak, a logical conclusion based on the guidance the rest of Scripture teaches about manhood and womanhood, how we're different and complementary, meant for each other. Like Thomas Jefferson taking the scissors to his Bible to cut out only the parts he liked, you have to do a lot of "explaining away" of other texts in order to ignore this one. Call it "hermeneutical high jinks" - interpretative evasive maneuvers in order to disobey what Scripture seems to fairly plainly instruct.

        Piper and Grudem note, "Two of the concerns that prompted us to form the Council on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood were: 1) “the increasing prevalence and acceptance of hermeneutical oddities devised to reinterpret apparently plain meanings of Biblical texts;” and 2) “the consequent threat to Biblical authority as the clarity of Scripture is jeopardized and the accessibility of its meaning to ordinary people is withdrawn into the restricted realm of technical ingenuity.”...But we believe the emphasis should fall on the usefulness of all Scripture. “All Scripture is God-breathed and useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work” (2 Timothy 3:16). We do not want to discourage any serious lay person that the usefulness of Scripture is out of his or her reach." (RBMW p.81) If Living Water Christian Fellowship professes to be a "Bible-believing" congregation, it would seem we should at least give Scripture an honest try at face value, rather than dismissing parts out-of-hand that run counter to our current cultural sensitivities.

        But this is more than just an issue of Scripture interpretation and Biblical authority. What's at stake relates very directly to this congregation's path and experience over the past few years. For how we understand our roles as men and women impacts powerfully our relations as couples, dynamics in the home, expectations of gender, the practice of child-rearing, and - ultimately - the health of society's sexual self-awareness. Piper/Grudem argue that radical feminism leads ultimately to acceptance of homosexuality as normal. They say, "we believe that the feminist minimization of sexual role differentiation contributes to the confusion of sexual identity that, especially in second and third generations, gives rise to more homosexuality in society." As an example they cite the split in the Evangelical Women's Caucus in 1986 over the endorsement of lesbianism. They comment, "what is significant is how many evangelical feminists considered the endorsement “a step of maturity within the organization” ...In other words, they view the movement away from role distinctions grounded in the natural created order as leading inevitably to the overthrow of normative heterosexuality.It seems to us that the evangelical feminists who do not embrace homosexuality will be increasingly hard put to escape this logic."

        Another example they give is Gerald Sheppard, professor of Old Testament at Emmanuel College in Toronto. Though nurtured in a conservative evangelical tradition, and having attended an evangelical seminary, in recent years Sheppard "has argued for the ordination of women to the pastorate." He has also moved on to advocate affirmation of gay and lesbian partnerships "ruled by a Biblical ethic analogous to that offered for heterosexual relationships."

        Reading this, even more lights went on for me, because I remember as a student at Emmanuel for my M.Div. sitting in a chapel service one Wednesday afternoon in '86-'87 and hearing Prof.Sheppard preach a sermon along those lines. I remember he was sweating profusely, and wondered if his conscience had something to do with it!

        For some of us, this issue captures a lot of the feeling of "This is Your Life" - at least as church experience goes. Trace the trail with me in memory lane for a moment of questioning Scripture, gender confusion, and the road to desolation. In the 1960s there was the New Curriculum which cast doubt on Scriptural infallibility and hissed, "Has God really said...?" In the 1970s we were indoctrinated in the merits of inclusive language; the sexual revolution got into full swing with the acceptance of abortion, which radically disengages a woman (and a man) from the consequences of sexual activity; it's a deep and painful rejection of one's womanhood. In the 1980s (climaxing in '88) we saw the acceptance of homosexual behaviour (what some see as the "Abomination that causes Desolation" - at least with regard to childlessness and AIDS). Through the 90s it began "standing in the Holy Place" in officially-recognized ordained capacities. Then 2000 saw the completion of the path begun in the 60s, humans claiming authority to define what sin is in outright defiance of God's Word in Scripture. Is this ringing any bells? Have you "been there", is this your experience too? It's a slippery slope downward I'm not keen to start on ever again. It causes grief to see other denominations such as the Anglican and CRC now caught in the same slide.

        Biblically-informed gender roles are so important. Piper/Grudem add, "To us it is increasingly and painfully clear that Biblical feminism is an unwitting partner in unravelling the fabric of complementary manhood and womanhood that provides the foundation not only for Biblical marriage and Biblical church order, but also for heterosexuality itself."

A Return to Christ-honouring, Scriptural Sanity

God has given us valuable guidance in designing policies for church leadership, managing God's household. Jesus wants His body, His Bride, to be strong, healthy, fully functional, not torn by doctrinal controversy or emptied of power through doubting His Word. Manhood and womanhood when it comes to leadership is not just a small detail of church government, something to accept as a "done deal" in light of changing morals and attitudes in culture. This teaching is not based on just a few isolated verses, but woven into God's plan for what it means to be male and female as humans - for the good and order of the home, church, and society. I'd like to give the last word to Piper/Grudem: "On this issue of manhood and womanhood we encourage lay people to consider the arguments available to them, think for themselves, saturate themselves in Scripture, and pray earnestly for what Paul promised in Philippians 3:15: “[I]f on some point you think differently, that too God will make clear to you.”...Our procedure should be...to continue to read Scripture carefully and prayerfully, seeking a position that dismisses no texts but interprets all the relevant texts of Scripture in a coherent way. And then we are to obey that consistent teaching." Let's pray.