Truth Magazine

By Edward O. Bragwell

The search for relevance is perennial in religious circles. Each generation produces those who regard the preaching and practices of their predecessors irrelevant to their needs. This is true even among those who profess to be New Testament Christians. Some are demanding new and exciting ideas expressed in new ways. This has been the cry of many since the early 1950’s as the institutional controversy began to sweep across the land.

Leroy Brownlow, in his Sermons You Can Preach outline book (1958), published an outline called “Give us Something Practical.” He ably dealt with the plea in those days, for more “practical” and less “doctrinal” preaching. He aptly shows that nothing can be more practical and suit-able to man’s real needs than those old fundamental doctrinal themes that we have preached for years.

We are beginning to see the same thought pattern evolving among some “non-institutional” brethren today. Consequently, many are abandoning doctrinal sermons and classes, especially those that contrast sound doctrine with false doctrine, in favor of “practical” or “real life situation” themes.

Many topics publicized for evangelism and edification reflect a subtle shift away from emphasizing salvation from sin, staying saved, preparing for heaven, and avoiding hell. Improving man’s “quality of life” on earth is fast becoming the main objective of preaching and teaching. Why? The average person has little interest in his real spiritual and eternal needs. He wants to know how we can make him happy now  feel good about himself now, always. He is interested in the present, not the hereafter. So, to be relevant, churches and preachers think that most of their teaching must address the day to day concerns of people in the church and the community at large  concerns that mostly relate to things of the temporal and fleshy side of man.

Many more liberal churches have “ministries” for all of man’s temporal needs and interests. Many of these churches have a counselor or director for just about any physical, social and psychological need (real or perceived) in society. This has become known as the social gospel.

Brother Sewell Hall aptly summed up our need to stay away from the social gospel approach: “The real problems of the world are spiritual. The local church is God’s organization for dealing with such problems and the gospel of Christ is the means he has given us with which to con-front them. Ten thousand other organizations are addressing the social problems of our day, using every conceivable re-source. It is urgent that we not allow ourselves to be distracted from our unique mission or disillusioned with God’s unique method” (mine, EOB.).

Again, we sincerely believe that some “conservative” brethren are unwittingly slipping over into the social gospel. The teaching done by more than a few congregations points in that direction. It deals more with stress than sin. It emphasizes man’s social and physical well-being more than his spiritual welfare. It gives more attention to social relationships than spiritual relationships. Its primary objective is finding happiness and contentment in this present world. It is no longer designed to convict men and women of their sins, but to make them feel good about themselves as they are.

No one denies that the Bible deals with stress, social relationships, and happiness. However, the gospel does not put the emphasis upon these things. The New Testament preachers did not go out preaching Christ as the answer to stress and the key to happiness, but Christ as the author of salvation and the answer to sin. That salvation from sin improves happiness and relieves stress, no one denies. We can even see from the Bible that such was the case. Still, that is not where we should place the emphasis. The New Testament church was not a recreational, social or psychiatric center for the community. It was a spiritual institution with a higher mission.

One symptom of some liver diseases is a headache. Suppose there is an out break of liver disease in the community. Many people are concerned about their head-aches. A concerned doctor offers his help. If the doctor mostly attends to the patient’s immediate interest (the headache), he will not really help the person. He may give him a pain-reliever, make him feel better for a while. An incompetent doctor may even think he has done his job. After all, the man went home feeling good about the matter. A good doctor would focus most of his attention on the diseased liver. He would deal with the headache only in the context of the liver disease. When this concerned doctor approaches such patients they may not know that they have diseased livers. They are only concerned about their headaches. At this point, they would probably consider any talk about the liver to be irrelevant. Should the doctor play to their immediate interest and shy away from talking about liver disease? Or should he inform them of their real problem and try to convince them to be treated for liver disease? I think we all know the answer.

An individual’s spiritual condition may cause him social, psychological, and even physical problems and pain. The gospel deals with the spiritual problem (sin). We will help any problems caused by sin when we take care of the sin. If one still has such problems after taking care of his sin, then physical, psychological, or social therapy may be in order. However, this is not the work of the church or preachers of the gospel. Others can do the job much better.

So, brethren, let’s get back to emphasizing the gospel of Christ as the power of God to save man. It saves him from sin and the wrath to come. It saves him for a life of godliness and hope in the midst of a troubled world. It will eventually save him eternally in heaven.

Let’s get back to talking about the church of Christ as that body made up of those saved from sin. Let’s get back to emphasizing submission to the authority of Christ as the means of avoiding sin. Let’s get back to stressing the importance of following the New Testament pattern in all our spiritual activities, as individuals and as congregations. Let’s get back to emphasizing how men and women should be faithful to Christ, the author of their salvation, to go to heaven.

Let’s get back to teaching folks the true gospel with its results as compared to perverted gospels with their results (Gal. 1:8-10). Let’s put the “doctrine,” the “reprove” and the “rebuke” back with the “longsuffering” and the “exhort” in Paul’s charge to “preach the word” (2 Tim. 4:1-4).

One can find fulfillment for his social, physical and emotional aspirations through a variety of programs offered in the community. However, he can find salvation from sin, the hope of eternal life and the truth by which he must go to heaven only in the gospel of Christ properly preached. This is the truth of which the church of Christ is the pillar and ground. (1 Tim. 3:15). What could be more relevant than that?

Guardian of Truth XXXIX: 4 p. 6-7
February 16, 1995

By Dick Blackford

Why should the question of the equality of women ever arise? Be-cause some have misinterpreted the fact that the Scriptures give men and women different roles to mean that women are inferior. Men are in authority and women are in subjection. Some of the people who do this are men and may have wrong motives in wanting to “keep women inferior.” And some are women who are feminists who want to discredit the Bible and so have misrepresented it.

It needs to be established here at the first that we are talking about equality in the sight of God. That is really all that matters.

Different Roles

Men and women are different biologically, emotionally, physically, and sexually. Regardless of all these differences, they are equal in God’s sight. God gave them roles and responsibilities best suited to their natures.

Man’s Role: It was to the man that God gave responsibilities that involve the most physical strength. He was to dress and keep the garden (Gen. 2:15). His living would come by the sweat of his face” (Gen. 3:17-19). He is to be the provider (1 Tim.5:8).

Woman’s Role: Her responsibilities differ markedly from the man’s. Hers is the role of childbearing and a keeper at home (Gen. 3:16; Tit. 2:5).

How can they be on a competitive basis since they have different roles? They could only truly complete if their roles were identical. The reason we never see a baseball team compete with a football team is because they have totally different roles and rules to go by. It is only when the roles of men and women are blurred that competition enters the picture and problems develop.

Jesus And Equality

If God had thought women were inferior to men it is strange that five women are named in the genealogy of Jesus  a very prominent and valuable document. This is highly “unusual from a genealogical point of view” since most ancestries were traced through the man (A.B. Bruce, Expositor’s Greek Testament I:62). There were a number of times when Jesus praised women or did favors for them. 1. Healed the son of the widow of Nain (Lk. 7); 2. Saved the life of the woman taken in adultery (Jn. 8); 3. Praised the widow who gave two mites (Lk. 21); 4. Healed Peter’s mother-in-law (Matt. 8); 5. Healed Jairus’ daughter (Mk. 5); 6. Healed the woman with an issue of blood (Mk. 5); 7. Honored his mother by making provisions for her (Jn. 19).

Jesus never belittled womanhood or slighted women in any way. There is nothing one can point to in his life that would indicate he thought they were unequal to men. One of the greatest favors he did for women was his teaching on divorce. In a society where women were treated as property, Jesus equalized the situation. In the ancient world a man could divorce his wife for the flimsiest excuse. “But if a woman repudiate her husband, she shall be drowned in the river” (Hastings Dictionary of Christ and the Gospels II:834). Women were always the victims in divorce but Jesus prohibited all divorce (except for fornication). His law applied continued from cover The Equality of Women . . . equally to women (Matt. 19:9; Mk. 10:12). Even the infidel, Edward Gibbon, author of the famous work on The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire wrote, “The dignity of marriage was restored by the Christians” (III:683).

Inspiration pays its highest tribute by recording that it was women who were last at the cross and first at the tomb. While all others forsook him in his darkest hour, apparently only these women were guiltless (Matt. 27:55,61; Matt. 28:1).

Paul And Equality

Some have thought that since Paul was celibate and placed a restriction on women that he did not believe in the equality of women. However, Paul was not against women and he argued for his right to marry (1 Cor. 9:5). He said marriage was honorable (Heb. 13:4). He desired that younger women marry (1 Tim. 5:14). At the close of a number of his letters he salutes and honors many women, women we would never have known had not Paul so esteemed them. It was Paul who advocated equality by telling us that in Christ “there is neither male nor female” (Gal. 3:28). There is no distinction in dignity, honor or blessings. And he forever etched in our minds that “there is no respect of persons with God” (Rom. 2:11).

Paul’s teaching on the marriage relationship shows Inspiration’s high regard for women. A husband is to love his wife “as his own body” (Eph. 5:28); “as Christ loved the church” (Eph. 5:25); he is to “nourish” and “cherish” her (Eph. 5:29). He is to leave his parents and cleave to his wife and become one flesh with her (Eph. 5:31).

Peter And Equality

It was Peter who said, “Of a truth I perceive that God is no respecter of persons: but in every nation he that feareth him and worketh righteousness, is acceptable to him” (Acts 10:34,35). He also said the husband is to “honor the woman” and that husbands and wives are “joint-heirs of the grace of life” (1 Pet. 3:7).What could be more equal than that?

Headship And Equality

Since it is established over and over in both testaments that “God is no respecter of persons,” one is incorrect to think that God’s order of headship is somehow contrary to equality.

1. God has placed civil rulers over their citizens (Rom.) 3:10, but that doesn’t mean God loves rulers more than he does citizens for God is no respecter of persons.

2. God has placed parents in authority over their children (Eph.6: I), but that doesn’t mean he loves fathers and mothers more than he does their boys and girls, for he is no respecter of persons.

3. God has given elders oversight of the flock (I Pet. 5:2 Heb. 13:7,17), but that doesn’t mean he loves elders more than he loves deacons or any of the other members, for God is no respecter of persons.

4. God has made the husband the head of the wife (Eph. 5:23). He has said a woman is not “to teach or usurp authority over a man” (1 Tim. 2:12). But this does not mean he loves men more than he does women, for God is no respecter of persons! Headship has nothing to do with God’s love.

Conclusion

While women must accept the role God has given them it in no way means they are second class Christians or inferior in God’s sight. Both men and women need to accept this. And while some women have viewed Jesus and Paul as their worst enemies, they are actually their best friends. The teaching of Jesus and Paul (both of which are from God) elevates women to a position high above the extremists of their day and our day and any attempt to try to change that degrades women.

Guardian of Truth XXXIX: 3 p. 1
February 2, 1995

By: David Posey

Timothy 2:9-15 is the pivotal passage in the New Testament on the woman’s role in the church. Nearly every interpreter agrees that it restricts the woman’s role in some way. Unless there is some reason why this passage should not be applied by the 20th century church, then every other passage on the role of women must be reconciled to this one.

Before turning to an examination of the passage, particularly verses 11-12, I want to suggest first that regardless of our conclusions about this passage any real solution to the turmoil over this issue will turn on the willingness of women to accept their God-given role in the church. Those women who clamor for “place” and seek “the best seats” violate not only the spirit of several passages that speak specifically to the demeanor of women, but also many others that forbid every disciple, whether male or female, from striving for “place” in the kingdom.

So even if someone could persuade us that 1 Timothy 2:11-12 does not prohibit a woman from taking a public part in the local church today, we must still face the question: “what kind of woman pleases God?” The teaching in passages like I Peter 3:1-6 and 1 Timothy 2:9-10 could not be more lucid: women glorify God by cultivating a “gentle and quiet spirit” (1 Pet. 3:4) and “by means of good works, as befits women making a claim to godliness” (1 Tim. 2:10), not in the public arena, as some men are commanded to do. If a woman insists that these stipulations belittle her then she has problems that will not be solved by an exegesis of 1 Timothy 2:11-12.

What does I Timothy 2:11-12 say to honest hearts about the role of women? The use of the plural forms in 2:1 (entreaties, prayers, petitionss) and 2:8 (men) suggests that Paul is concerned particularly with the public assemblies in this passage, though not necessarily “at the building.” The instructions here would apply to any mixed gathering of God’s people.

Paul tells Timothy that he wants the men to pray in these gatherings, lifting up “holy hands” (2:8). Verse 9 (lit., “likewise women”) connects Paul’s next statement with the preceding instructions. Men are to conduct themselves in a certain way when they pray (“without wrath and dissension”); likewise, women are to conduct themselves properly. A woman is to fill her role in the church in a different way than a man. Men are charged to take the public part; that is appropriate for them (but see the caution in James 3:1). Women, too, are to do those things that are “appropriate” (NIV) for a woman who professes godliness (that is, one who is seeking to glorify God in her life).

What is “appropriate”? Verses 11-12 restrict the public role of women in some way. What is Paul restricting? In sum, he says “women are to learn quietly and in entire submissiveness  I do not permit a woman to take an active role of leadership in the public gathering of God’s people.” Note that there is no restriction in the passage to Sunday morning “worship services.” Whatever Paul is forbidding applies to all instances of “gatherings,” including a Bible class in a home.

The Greek words Paul uses here are significant. The word “quietly” (NASB) is from hesuchia, translated “in quiet fashion” in 2 Thessalonians 3:12. Paul is commanding a certain demeanor from women, an attitude of heart that produces quiet subjection, a far cry from clamoring for a public role. “Subjection” is from hupotasso and means the voluntary decision to obey another. In Romans 13:1, Paul uses the same word to describe our obligation to the government.

In v. 12, Paul amplifies, and perhaps modifies, his statement in v. 11. He says that he does not permit a woman “to teach or exercise authority over a man.” Since women are commanded to teach on occasion (e.g., Titus 3:3-5), we know Paul is not ruling out all teaching for women. The key phrase is “over a man.” A woman cannot teach or hold a position of authority in the local church that would place her in a superior position to a man. This is the only instance in the New Testament of the Greek word authenteo, rendered “exercise authority” (NASB). Feminist protests notwithstanding, the meaning of the word is settled: it means to “assert the self ” or to “dominate.” Such dominance is most obvious where a woman takes a formal teaching role in the church. But “teaching over a man” can also take place from the pew, or at a kitchen table, or whenever a woman attempts to “assert herself ” and dominate a man in a Bible discussion.

In summary, Paul commends a quiet attitude on the part of women, commands subjection of them to their male counterparts and condemns any teaching or exercise of authority by them that would be “over a man.”

This message is so clear that attempts to dull’ the application of it takes some real ingenuity. Of course, some argue that “Paul was a chauvinist,” or that the New Testament epistles are just “good advice,” or make sundry other arguments that deny the veracity of the Bible. Some claim that Paul was dealing with a cultural problem in Ephesus and thus the application of the prohibition is limited to Paul’s time. Feminist Catherine Clark Kroeger, for example, argues that Paul is saying, “I do not permit a woman to teach error,” shifting the emphasis from woman to error. The particular error Paul had in mind was probably Gnosticism, she argues.’ Besides the fact is that Gnosticism was not well-attested before the second century A.D. Furthermore, Paul says nothing at all about the content of teaching here. It would have been easy enough for him to use the word “error” if that is what he wanted to say. On “exercise authority” (authenteo) she concludes that it represents “a tenet propounded by the heretical teachers.” But earlier in her article, she concludes that authenteo could mean “to proclaim oneself the author or originator of something.” While that definition is a stretch, she still recognized that authenteo is a verb. But later, she makes authenteo a noun, “tenet,” apparently because that serves her purpose better. Instead of sound exegesis she is forcing Scripture to accommodate her particular point of view.

Some argue that a local church eldership, or a Bible class teacher, can, in effect, nullify Paul’s limitation by “delegating” authority to a woman. But they do not have that authority to give. The word authenteo means to “dominate,” not “authority” (exousia). The issue is not that a woman is taking away a male teacher’s authority, but that she is stepping out of her God-given role in seeking to teach over a man. God has not given elders the authority to set aside God’s instructions in any matter he has spoken, including this one.

I’ll conclude by stressing that our interpretation of this passage is not informed by a desire to “keep women in their place.” Nor do we wish to resurrect the extreme views of the past. Aquinas said that woman is “defective and misbegotten” and Tertullian claimed that women are the “devil’s gateway.” But nothing in Scripture warrants such a dismal view of women. On the contrary, women have often played a major (though non-public) role in the growth of church. Pheobe, Priscilla, Eudodia and Syntyche, Lydia and others helped spread the gospel in a quiet, God-glorifying way, “by means of good works, as befits women making a claim to godliness.”

Woman have a different role than men, but nothing in Scripture suggests that women are second-class citizens of the kingdom. And Paul holds no brief for men who regard them as such  they can expect no more help from Paul than the most wide-eyed liberal feminist who is demanding her place in the church.

Footnotes

‘Catherine Clark Kroeger, “1 Timothy 2:12, `A Classicist’s View,”‘ Women, Authority and the Bible, Alvera Mickelson, editor,pp.225ff.

Guardian of Truth XXXIX: 3 p. 8-9
February 2, 1995

By Gary Henry

Timothy, whose mother and grandmother taught him well, is not the only Christian whose life has been shaped by godly women. There is likely not a person who is strong in the Lord and effective in his work who does not owe profound gratitude to several women for the role they have played in his or her spiritual development. It would be hard to overestimate the contribution that women make to the local congregation. Since their special endowments suit them for important work, women are not merely useful to the Lord’s work, they are absolutely critical.

Paul’s remarks about Phoebe are instructive. He wrote to the church in Rome: “I commend to you Phoebe our sister, who is a servant of the church in Cenchrea, that you may receive her in the Lord in a manner worthy of the saints, and assist her in whatever business she has need of you; for indeed she has been a helper of many and of myself also” (Rom. 16:1,2). He does not specify what kind of service Phoebe was rendering, but Paul’s language clearly shows that this sister was doing things in the Lord’s work that amounted to far more than a token contribution. She is described as a “servant of the church in Cenchrea.” Paul said that she had been “a helper of many and of myself also.” Her work was important enough that Paul instructed the church in Rome to assist her in whatever way she had need while she was there. This passage alone is enough to teach us that there is ample scope within the Lord’s work for women to serve in deeply significant ways.

Benevolence. Seeing to the needs of those who are sick, those who are impoverished, etc. is not just work for women. The Lord’s people, men no less than women, need to do more than we sometimes do to help meet physical needs among the saints (Jas. 2:14-16; 1 Jn. 3:17,18). There can be no question, however, that sisters in the Lord are capable of bringing to this important work a grace and a beauty that men are normally not capable of. Certainly, the women who waited upon the physical needs of the Lord himself (Matt. 27:55; Lk. 8:3) added a touch of grace that his male disciples were hardly able to supply. Being a disciple of the Lord means putting ourselves on the line for those who need us (Jn. 13:12-17), and the unique at-tributes of femininity make the work of benevolence far more heartening than it would be without them.

Edification. Numerous passages speak of our need, whether men or women, to encourage and strengthen our fellow saints. The specifics will vary depending on whether it is a man or a woman doing the edifying, but I believe instructions like the following have important implications for the spiritual work of women as well as men: “bear one another’s burdens, and so fulfill the law of Christ” (Gal. 6:2); “comfort each other and edify one another” (1 Thess. 5:11); “comfort the fainthearted, uphold the weak” (1 Thess. 5:14).

This writer can personally testify to the powerful and unique ability of sisters in the Lord to encourage. Time and again in my life I have been the beneficiary of words and actions of edification that have come from women among the Lord’s people. I do not doubt that, as a gospel preacher, my survival spiritually and my continuation as a preacher is largely the result of strength imparted to me by sisters who knew exactly what to say and how to say it. In the “hospital for souls” that is the local congregation, we desperately need what women can do to bind up wounds and lift spirits. Especially in a day when personal crises, difficulties in relationships, emotional problems, and family breakdowns are so widespread, the gift of encouragement that God has made women able to give is essential.

There is a special need for women to see themselves as teachers of other women and of young people. We have already mentioned the impact on Timothy’s life of his mother’s and his grandmother’s teaching. The Scriptures also indicate that older women are to teach younger women: “the older women likewise, that they be reverent in behavior, not slanderers, not given to much wine, teachers of good thingsthat they admonish the young women to love their husbands, to love their children, to be discreet, chaste, homemakers, good, obedient to their own husbands, that the word of God may not be blasphemed” (Tit. 2:3-5). As the family unit in society continues to deteriorate and the teaching network of the extended family is lost, I believe there will be all the more need for spiritually mature women in congregations to assume the role of edifiers and teachers of the wisdom that used to be passed down by parents and grandparents. Without this womanly wisdom about the basic business of living life, our congregational work is seriously hindered.

Evangelism. Not only are women capable of being edifiers, it is possible for them to play an important role in evangelism, the work of teaching those who have not yet obeyed the gospel. The realm of personal evangelism contains many opportunities for women to plant the seed of the gospel in the hearts of those who are lost. We are told that both Aquila and Priscilla were involved in teaching Apollos the way of God more perfectly (Acts 18:26). In more than one place, Paul speaks of women who were fellow workers in the gospel (Rom. 16:3,6,12; etc.). Of Euodia and Syntyche, he said, “Help these women who labored with me in the gospel, with Clement also, and the rest of my fellow workers, whose names are in the Book of Life” (Phil. 4:3).

The scriptural limitations on the teaching work of women (1 Tim. 2:12; etc.) should never be thought of as barring women from any participation in the work of rescuing lost souls. Indeed, there are times when individuals can be won to the Lord by the efforts of a woman when it is not likely they could be won any other way. Women who have both a deep love for the Lord and a skilled understanding of the Scriptures are powerful forces in the work of evangelism. We need more women who will accept the challenge of doing all they can do, uniquely as women, to win the world to Christ. The imperative of the Great Commission applies not just to men, but to all the saints of God.

To conclude, there is much that women can do to invest themselves in the work of the local church. The very act of praying for the work is no small thing. Beyond that, there is a wide range of specific activities by which women, without at all stepping beyond scriptural boundaries, may contribute to the benevolence, edification, and evangelism that their fellow Christians are engaged in. Every single member of the body has the duty to “adorn the doctrine of God” (Tit. 2:10). It is not too much to say, considering the high gifts granted by God to women, that the gospel is never adorned any more beautifully than when women of the Lord love and work and serve faithfully in his work.

Guardian of Truth XXXIX: 3 p. 10-11
February 2, 1995