Truth Magazine

By Mike Willis

The national news networks recently used long segments to report the ordination of Barbara Harris as the first Episcopalian bishop. Ms. Harris’ appointment was more a statement to the world of the doctrinal stance of the Episcopalian Church than the filling of a need by the best qualified person to serve. Ms. Harris is a divorcee and a proponent of civil rights (including gay rights), according to TV networks. She had never met the denomination’s educational requirements for a priest. Nevertheless, she was chosen to be ordained as a bishop over the protests of a sizable segment of the denomination.

Episcopalians have been working to bring unity with the Anglican Church, the denomination from which they originated. “Robert Runcie, the archbishop of Canterbury and leader of the Church of England, recently announced he would not recognize women bishops in England. The statement came in his opening address to the General Synod of the Church of England, partly in response to the Episcopal Church’s election of Barbara Harris as suffragan bishop of Massachusetts” (Christianity Today [13 January 1989], p. 60). (The Anglican Church, which refuses to allow women to serve as bishops, states that the monarch of England is the head of their denomination; that monarch is Queen Elizabeth. Archbishop Runcie is speaking from a very inconsistent position.)

The appointment of Ms. Harris is part of a wider movement, the women’s liberation movement, which is creating a broad impact on society. Other denominational fellowships are affected. “The Christian Church (Disciples of Christ) ordained 132 persons in 1987. Of these, 51 were women. This equals 38.6 percent of all ordinations” (Christian Standard [26 February 19891, p. 23). What is happening in the Christian Church is happening in most other mainstream Protestant denominations – their seminaries are increasingly filled with women.

In addition to the influence of the women’s liberation movement on mainstream Protestant denominationalism, the influence of Pentecostalism cannot be ignored. Historically, Pentecostalism has used women preachers more than the mainstream denominations. While the Pentecostals began using women preachers before the mainstream churches, the mainstream churches are rapidly gaining ground on the Pentecostals.

How Are We Affected?

To think that we can live in a society with such a movement as the women’s liberation movement influencing religious groups around us without some spillover occurring among us is naive. In the milieu of this movement, we are now seeing articles asking whether or not women should attend the business meetings. Is this the portent of a demand for a leadership role for women?

The Biblical Teaching

Modernists have discarded the biblical teachings regarding the role of women as the society mores of a bygone era which need to be discarded in this more enlightened age. Those who believe the Bible is inspired of God recognize the teachings of the Bible as God’s word for mankind. What the Scriptures teach about women’s role must be taken just as seriously as what the Scriptures teach about redemption. We turn to those Scriptures for enlightenment regarding the role of women:

1. 1 Corinthians 11:3. Paul wrote, “But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God.” This text places woman in submission to man. Submission does not mean inferiority; Jesus was equal to God (Phil. 2:6) but also subject to him (1 Cor. 11:3). Many women are more intelligent than men. In every congregation I have worked with, I have seen women more devoted to the Lord than many of the men. Hence, we are not concluding that women are inferior to men because they must be submissive to them.

2. 1 Corinthians 14:14. “Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak: but they are commanded to be under obedience, as also said the law.” This ordinance is for “all the churches of the saints” (14:33). This commandment forbids women publicly addressing the entire assembly.

3. 1 Timothy 2:11-12. “Let the women learn in silence with all subjection. But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be silence.” The limitation placed on a woman’s teaching by this passage is d &over a man.” She cannot be placed in a role in which she usurps authority over a man.

Women Elders or Deacons?

Can women serve as elders (also known as bishops, pastors, presbyters) or deacons? They cannot because they do not meet these qualifications for these offices laid down by the Holy Spirit through the apostle Paul: (a) The bishop and deacon must be a man (1 Tim. 3:1 – “if a man desires the office of a bishop”); (b) The bishop and deacon must be married (1 Tim. 3:2,12 – “husband of one wife”); (c) The bishop and deacon must rule his house well (I Tim. 3:4), something women are forbidden to do (Eph. 5:22-25). Even a man should not be appointed unless he meets all other qualifications and if the appointment divides the local church.

Women cannot serve in the office of an elder without violating the commandment forbidding them to usurp authority over a man (1 Tim. 2:12). Elders take oversight (1 Pet. 5:2), have the rule (Heb. 13:7,17; 1 Tim. 5:17), and are “over you in the Lord” (1 Thess. 5:12). For women to occupy this position is a violation of 1 Timothy 2:12 – “But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence.”

Women In the Business Meetings?

But, the question is asked, “May women attend the business meetings?” Before answering that question, I pose this question, “Why do they want to attend the business meetings?” Is it (a) for better communications or (b) to make input on decisions? Whatever reasons can be given for women to attend the business meetings can also be cited as justification for them attending the elders meetings. If they can attend the business meetings for better communications, they can attend the elders meetings for the same reasons.

The business meeting is a expedient manner for the business of the church to be taken care of in the absence of elders (actually elders also have business meetings; they are just called elders meetings). This is a decision making meeting. Those placed in the position of decision making in the home are the husbands and in the church the men. God has specifically placed this role on the men and withheld it from the women. Why then would women want to put themselves in meetings designed to do what God forbids them doing? Could some of our women have been influenced by the feminist movement of the particular time in which we live?

I freely confess that some churches with which I have worked have suffered from poor communication, both with men and women. The input of the congregation was not considered before decisions were made nor was much effort made to keep the membership informed after decisions had been made. This problem should not be solved by putting women in positions forbidden them by God (i.e., meetings designed to make decisions for the oversight of the church); rather, this problem should be solved by the men recognizing their obligations to seek input from the entire congregation and to keep all of the members informed. The problem is one of communication and can easily be resolved by a little effort in this area without resorting to a questionable practice which might divide the congregation.

Conclusion

A few years ago, I asked a godly woman to write an article for Guardian of Truth on the subject of “Esther.” She sent me a kind letter back, declining to write the article. As best I remember, she stated that she did not want to do anything which might be construed as teaching or usurping authority over a man. While one may or may not agree with her decision, he certainly can commend her spirit. How different is her spirit from that which presses the boundaries of what women are allowed to do. Women preachers are not that far away for some of the more “progressive” liberal churches of Christ. Already there are some men-women teaching teams addressing mixed audiences.

Let us be content to be what God wants us to be. The pressure to conform to society’s mold is present for both men and women. The society’s mold for a man is a “macho” man who drives around in a sports car, goes to the bars, and commits fornication or adultery with any woman when he has the opportunity. We teach our Godfearing men not to be conformed to this mold for men. The godly man loves his own wife (not the wife of someone else), works to provide an honorable living for his family, brings up his children in the nurture and admonition of the Lord, and devotes himself to God’s service.

The pressure to conform to society’s mold is also present for the woman. She is being told that being a housewife is a waste of one’s life; she should pursue her own career in the area of her skills. She is told that “quality time” with the children is more important than “quantity time.” She is coached to reject “obey” as a part of her marriage vows. The modern society’s role model for women is different from the role model God gave for women. Women are to be submissive to their husbands, love their children, and manage the house. What they contribute to the welfare of mankind through their roles as mothers and wives is more important than the dollars they bring home from a job outside the home. We need to encourage our women not to allow society’s mold to shape their thinking of what a woman should be.

Guardian of Truth XXXIII: 6, pp. 162, 182-183
March 16, 1989

By Joanna Peterson

All my friends are Christians, therefore I am safe from corruption, I smugly thought to myself. Didn’t I see these friends every Sunday and Wednesday at worship as well as social gatherings on weekends? Staying at home with my two little girls, I no longer had to listen to fellow workers cursing and telling filthy jokes. I wasn’t subjected to their humanistic views. I was all set to be a strong Christian wife and mother, right? Wrong!

After a couple of years had passed, I noticed an apathy for all things spiritual. I no longer sang hymns around the house or in the car. I had virtually stopped praying to my God. My Bible was never opened at home and something which had never happened to me before began. I started finding excuses to miss worship services because I felt I was getting nothing from them.

That much was true. I was getting nothing from them. But that was no one’s fault but my own. Most people don’t realize how difficult it is to follow a lesson or sermon when a mother must take her baby out for changing, feeding or rocking at every service. But while this makes attention difficult, it is something I could have overcome if I had desired.

When my husband questioned my weak faith, I gave him the baby excuse. I must say, in my own defense, that I firmly believed this myself. What I didn’t see were the subtle influences which I had let creep into my life. These were the actual bad companions which were corrupting my morals.

Instead of singing hymns, I turned a rock station on in my car and in my house. While I did my work the lyrics of these songs coursed through my brain. Some of these songs weren’t bad within themselves, but they took the place of spiritual songs in my life and that is where they became a sin unto me.

Another bad companion I took was my television. Oh, not the prime time shows which I acknowledged to be suggestive or downright foul, but the evening news and the late night talk shows. These shows are more subtle. They are giving out facts, are they not? Yet they are only giving negative facts with few exceptions. Stories of terrorists and, worse in my opinion, crazed shootists in our own country severely shock my faith in God and man. The late night comedians who ridicule our leaders and everything else important to us, especially religion, made me feel that everyone felt as they did. I’m afraid I felt somewhat as Elijah did when he said, “I, even I only, am left.”

The third group of bad companions I took were the movies. We didn’t visit the theater much because of the expense. But we own a video cassette recorder and that is where the problem arose. It wasn’t that we watched dirty movies. What hurt my faith further was that we watched movies almost every weekend. The movie studios are not known for their high morals or a desire to teach right from wrong. Such a steady intake of their humanistic and anti-religious ideas couldn’t help but influence mine. Without even realizing it, I began adopting some of those views.

Therefore, though I thought I was treading the straight and narrow path, I had slowly slid from it. This had happened so slowly that I didn’t even realize it till it was almost completed. When I did catch myself I immediately put these bad companions from me and began singing, praying, and worshiping my God again.

Guardian of Truth XXXIII: 5, p. 139
March 2, 1989

By Hoyt H. Houchen

Question: In Matthew 27:36 we read: “And about the ninth hour Jesus cried with a loud voice, saying, Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani? That is, My Got, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?” Did God actually forsake Jesus while he was dying on the cross?

Reply: This statement of Jesus is one of the seven recorded sayings of Jesus on the cross. Jesus said that God had forsaken him and we see no reason for believing otherwise. This utterance of Jesus is taken from Psalm 22:1, and while these words were partly verified in David, they were more fully applied to Christ. Christ applied the word to himself.

Did God actually forsake Jesus while he was on the cross? Some say that Jesus learned the 22nd Psalm while a child and now he was delirious and merely babbled these words. But we deny this; we have every reason to believe that Jesus was lucid every minute. And, if these words of Jesus were spoken in a state of delirium, why could not his other sayings also be attributed to this state? Who would determine when he was rational and when he was not? Some say Jesus was in such pain that these words were forced from his lips. This, however, is contrary to his attitude toward his own suffering and death. Jesus voluntarily laid down his life and gladly endured all the pain for us. He was a perfect example, even while dying (1 Pet. 2:21-24). Others say that Jesus just “felt” that God had forsaken him. No, Jesus knew what it was all about. There is no evidence that Jesus was at anytime self-deceived while he was upon the earth, and there is certainly no evidence that he was in this specific instance on the cross. Then there are some who offer the objection that if God actually forsook Jesus, why did not God turn away the whole six hours that he was on the cross instead of the last three? We do not know how long God forsook his Son. “Hast forsaken” (Gr. egkatelipes) is second aorist, therefore it is past tense. But supposing that God forsook his Son for the last three hours, at least one commentator has suggested that Jesus suffered at the hands of men and Satan for the first three hours and at the hands of God during the last three hours. Anyway, the length of time that God forsook Jesus is not germane to the issue. The fact is that God forsook him. Then it is asked, since Jesus as priest, presented himself before God as our substitute for sin, why did not God turn away then too (Heb. 7:26-28; 8:3; 9:7-9,23-25)? God did not turn away from his Son in his priestly function, but rather in his function as a sacrifice. As we shall see, he became a sin offering on our behalf, and paying the penalty for our sins is why God forsook Jesus, not because he was a priest. Neither did God turn away from Jesus because he was deity, or because he was a man, but because he was a sin offering. No one could ever truthfully say that Jesus our Lord ever did anything wrong (1 Pet. 2:21-23). After almost twenty centuries have passed, we still look upon him as a sinless. He was indeed God-man. We believe that he spoke the truth while he was on the cross, and that he was actually forsaken by God for a period of time.

Why did God forsake his Son? Jesus himself had no sin but he died in our behalf, taking upon himself our sins. We have this beautiful prophetic utterance about Christ in Isaiah 53:6: “All we like sheep have gone astray; we have turned every one to his own way; and Jehovah hath laid on him the iniquity of us all.” He died as if he were a criminal; he took the place of the sinner; therefore, God withdrew his presence from him. Paul wrote: “For he hath made him to be sin, who knew no sin” (2 Cor. 5:21). Jesus paid the full penalty of sin and this is why God forsook him. Sin separates man from God (Isa. 59:1,2). The word “forsaken” is one of the most tragic in human speech. We picture a wife forsaken by her husband, a child forsaken by his parents; but the most tragic of all is for man to be forsaken by God. By paying the full price or penalty for sin, Jesus experienced what man suffers when he commits sin and is separated from God. Jesus endured it all, and he paid it all – the full price. This made the sacrifice for our sins complete. Paul wrote in Romans 8:3, “. . . God, sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh and for sin. . . . ” The marginal rendering is: “Or, as an offering for sin.” He took away the sins of the world by being a sin offering.

Jesus, on the cross, was burdened by all the sins of the world; thus, the pure eyes of God could not look upon the scene. For a period of time he turned away from it. It is stated: “Thou that art of purer eyes than to behold evil, and that canst not look upon perverseness” (Hab. 1:13). God’s laws had been broken (1 Jn. 3:4) and someone had to pay the penalty. Jesus was qualified to do this because he had no sin. As we sing, “He bore it all.” All the sins of the world were on Jesus – murder, adultery, dishonesty, jealousy, and the list is ad infinitum. As we also sing, “He carried my sins with Him there.” Jesus was actually forsaken by God, and the Bible tells us why.

Guardian of Truth XXXIII: 5, p. 133
March 2, 1989

By Barney Keith

History has a way of repeating itself, doesn’t it? In April 1865 Moses E. Lard, one of the “Pioneer” preachers, was disturbed as he saw various things happening among churches of Christ. Writing in Lard’s Quarterly (Vol. II, p. 257) he referred to certain developments as “ill-omened symptoms in our ranks.” Among other things he cited weak and effeminate preaching, the “pastor system” in many congregations, instrumental music, and other unauthorized practices as he deplored the changes that were coming over the brethren in many places. On page 262 Lard remarked: “He is a poor observer of men and things who does not see growing up among us a class of men no longer satisfied with the ancient gospel and the ancient order of things. These men must have changes; and silently they are preparing the minds of the brotherhood to receive changes. Be not deceived, brethren, the Devil is not sleeping. If you refuse to see the danger till ruin is upon you, then it will be too late.”

Lard was absolutely correct in his appraisal of his times. A new generation of seminary-trained, liberalminded, young preachers had come along. Dissatisfaction with the anicent gospel became more evident and digression spread rapidly as innovations were introduced into one congregation after another. The result was inevitable – the liberals continued their march and the Christian Church and Disciples of Christ denominations emerged. The brethren who were insistent upon following the Bible pattern opposed the innovations and strove for the purity of the church of the Lord. The majority of the brethren embraced the digressive move toward change as only a very small minority stood firm for the old paths. Those stalwart brethren of more than a hundred years ago were called various names as they took their stand – such as “anti’s.” That struggling minority, however, grew faster than any would have dared think. Simple churches of Christ began to appear across the country and, with the passing years, the digressives lost more and more of their identity. Today they acknowledge their denominational status proudly.

Sadly, that is exactly what has been happening all over again. Since World War II especially there has been growing up among us a class of men who are no longer satisfied with the ancient gospel. Many of the present day preachers have been trained in schools where outright modernism is found. Those who have been anxious to put the church “on the march,” or to create a “a better image” for the church of Christ, or to involve the churches in all sorts of projects are no part of the New Testament pattern – these men have slowly had their effect on the people of God. Human wisdom and modernistic theology are always inimical to faith in the New Testament as an all-sufficient pattern. Too many people in too many churches of Christ are being taught by too many men who do not respect the authority of the Scriptures. It is no surprise that we have “liberal” churches.

There are many indications of “change” in the churches of the Lord. such as “sponsoring elderships” or “sponsoring churches” to coordinate the work of two or more churches; building and maintaining other institutions to do the work of the church; church support of recreational camps; church parties, dinners, showers, etc. (in the church’s “fellowship hall” or “Family Life Center,” of course); “youth ministers” to handle all activities of the young people; other “ministers” galore; church choruses; church involvement in social welfare projects; facilities for the counsel and care of unwed mothers; the operation of daycare centers, kindergartens, secular education schools; all sorts of gimmicks to attract kids to the “bus ministry” fad; etc. Brethren, there is no end in sight. What happened in the late 1800s has happened in the mid and late 1900s. Wearing the designation “Church of Christ” by no means is proof that a congregation is respecting the authority of Christ.

There are still many, many congregations which have notfollowed the digressive pattern of the day. There are many faithful disciples who still believe that we must “speak as the oracles of God” (1 Pet. 4:11) and that we dare not “go beyond the doctrine of Christ” (2 John 9). A firm, Bible-based conviction is the only thing that will preserve a congregation from apostasy. It is faith in “what is written” that causes a church of Christ to avoid the many innovations. It will never be out of place for Christians to ask for Bible authority for the things churches may begin to undertake. And it will always be right to resist and oppose any changes which involve a surrender of the all-sufficiency of Divine revelation, God’s word.

What Moses Lard saw in 1865 is likely to be seen in any age. Let us take ample warning from the lessons of history. A Christian ought to have no fellowship with a congregation that digresses from the Bible pattern in organization, worship or work. Let none of us be deterred from standing firmly for the truth by the ridicule, sarcasm, name-calling, etc. from our brethren who are bent on following the course of liberalism. Fellowship with God isfar more important than fellowship with men.

Guardian of Truth XXXIII: 5, p. 140
March 2, 1989