AUTHORITY AND CHURCH LIFE____PART ONE

I will briefly be addressing, albeit in a two-part post, what is one of the more talked about Church issues of our modern times. Yet it may be the single issue that is most burdened with incorrect translations of the text of the scriptures themselves. [For reasons we will see.] The subject is, "Authority in the Church."

I say briefly because this is neither a theological study on the subject of authority nor an exhaustive exegesis of the many bible texts that do refer to it. It is simply a blog post, with all it's limitations,  that I trust will add a little bit of clarity on how we got to where we are today and what the bible really does say about Church authority when it does speak about it. So this post is intended to be a little bit of a guide to any person wishing for more insight into a local congregation and it's relationship to authority in light of the text of scripture instead of tradition and history alone.

First, I want to address a major PROBLEM WE FACE....

The Greek word for "authority" is "exousia." It comes from a verb that means (1) to do something without hinderance or (2) the right to do something or the right to be over something. The power of authority [influence] and of right. [privilege] 

This word exousia is used 103 times in the New Testament but only used one time regarding believers with other believers and that is in reference to marriage where it is said that each marital partner is to have "authority" [exousia] over the other partner's body in sexual matters. [1 Corinthians 7:4]  You can see that it is a mutually shared right as described by this verse. 

I repeat, this is the ONLY time the word "authority" [exousia] is used in the entirety of the New Testament when dealing with the relationships of believer to believer and it is with regards to Christian marriage relationships only and BOTH have it. [So much for the man having final say in all matters.]

Someone will ask, "But what about the passages that refer to the husband being the "head over the wife?"  Great question! That word "head, Kephale in Greek, in Ephesians 5 and Corinthians 11, was NOT a Greek word for "authority" generally speaking at all. In the passages mentioned, the word "Kephale"  [pronounced kef-a-lay] which in common [koine] Greek had an entirely different connotation to it [source or beginnings] and which will have to be a separate study altogether. [Maybe even a part-three to this post.] 

But, regardless, there is only one "Head" [Source/beginnings OR authority] over the Church and that "Head" isn't an elder, pastor, deacon or member.  It is Christ alone. Suffice it to say that Ephesians 5 and 1 Corinthians 11, and chapter 14 in 1 Corinthians as well, are referencing something entirely different than "exousia" or "authority," which was, as you would imagine, frequently used in reference to Christ.

Some of those 103 times when "exousia" was used are times when it is spoken about Christ and are when He is seen...

Executing judgment__John 5:27, having authority over His own life and resurrection__John 10:18, having authority over all to give eternal life__John 17:2, to forgive sins__Mark 1:22, 9:6, Luke 5:24, to heal__Matthew 9:8, to cast out demons__Mark 1:27.

He is said to have ALL authority and because of that He is head over ALL other authorities__[Matthew 28:18, Colossians 2:10]

I read a study where it was legitimately pointed out that this word was also used of believers when referring to...

Becoming sons of God__John 1:12, casting out demons__Matthew 10:1, to one day have authority over cities at His return__Luke 19:17, and even to access the tree of Life__Revelation 22:14. [Never believer over believer.]

Then it was used of people in general when referring to...

Property__Acts 5:4, the right to eat food offered to idols__1 Corinthians 8:9-11 [translated "liberty"] and several other places for various things.


But what is missing is ANYPLACE in the text of scripture where it is used
concerning believer over believer in the context of the Body of Christ called the Church of the New Testament.

Nor is it ever used with any "office" of pastor or deacon since no office of that nature existed in the early Church, as we shall see further along in this post. 

The Body of Christ [the Church] does have "authority," but it is derived from our Lord's action on her behalf. There is an authority of the Word of God as well. But, as mentioned, He has given all of us who make up the Church "derived authority." It's interesting to note that this authority it is translated "freedom" in 1 Corinthians 8:9 and that authority or freedom is to be used explicitely for the welfare and freedom of others and not for any rule over them  and it is NEVER because of ANY authority residing in anyone's position in the Church.

It is true that historically writers have presented the concept of "authority" in the Church emphasizing the idea of being "over others," but that is a cultural concept and is not a biblical mandate at all. Jesus made that crystal clear, it seems to me, with His rather stark statement in Mark 10:42-45 where He says that, while the Gentiles do exercise rule "over others," [there it is] it is NOT to be that way among believers.

There are two false concepts held by many in the local church historically that have fostered a propagating of the concept of church authority as" being over" rather than a true biblical pattern.

One is an unfortunate division between clergy and laity where the former does the work of ministry and the latter pays the salary of the former as a kind of professional minister. I'm not saying to pay someone on staff is wrong. But what I am saying is that the division between clergy and laity is not biblical as all believers are called to be ministers and there are no elevated positions. 

The other is the "office" idea for Pastor and Deacon with an authority inherent within the "office," which is simply not found in the text when correctly translated.

Neither of these concepts is the biblical viewpoint for authority in local Church life as our study to follow will reveal.

Both of these concepts will be dealt with next time in the second part of this post.

Paul B.

AUTHORITY IN THE LOCAL CHURCH

Authority in a local church is a much debated and, as I've discovered of late, a much misunderstood concept. I want to make several personal observations about the biblical understanding of authority in a local fellowship as I see it.

A. There is only one head of the Church/churches and all authority has been given to Him. If anyone ever assumes authority because of their person or position they are usurping the authority of the Head. [Eph. 4:5,15]

B. The Head of the Body has given an authoritative Word to the members of the Body. [Universal or local] The Old and New Testaments are that inspired Word with New Covenant people inparticularly bound to the New Testament writings. [Heb. 1:2, Acts 18:28]

C. All believers are responsible to the Head individually and have a responsibility to each other. [Rom. 14:4, Eph. 5:21]

D. All believers are priests and are gifted. Therefore all must take their place among the body members to minister for the good of all. [1 Corinth. 12-14]

E. There are certain ones [both men and women] who are gifted as all members are, but, then become a gift to the body in a unique way. The purpose of these people/gifts is to equip all for ministry. [Eph. 4:11-12]

F. There is no emphasis in the New Testament on "authority" that is derived from an "office." The King James version translates the word "office" in Rom. 11:13, 12:4, and 1Tim 3:1. But in Rom. 11:13 it is the word "diakonia" or "service." In 12:4 it is "praxis" or "action/function." While in 1 Tim. 3:1 "office" is not in the text at all. The verse simply says in the original "if anyone aspires to oversight."[Episkope]

Authority is to be experienced in the assembly because of the gifts and ministries of the Holy Spirit obvious through people. In one sense, the entire body shares authority. [Eph. 5:21, 1Peter 5:5] This means we recognize one another's gifts, knowledge, or experience in the Lord and we choose to serve/submit because the Holy Spirit has placed some as gifts and has annointed the ministries of those gifts. That is the key to understanding Pastors/Elders and their function. No one has authority BECAUSE they have a stronger personality, knows more Bible, or they hold an office. That is foreign to the New Testament. Paul the Apostle had to defend his Apostleship by virtue of it being the work of the Spirit setting him aside for it. 1Tim. 5:17 speaks of those Elders that "give oversight well"...."are worthy of double honor." It is that "give oversight well" that is the soure of authority. They defined it as Holy Spirit annointing. In other words, the annointing of the Spirit makes clear the authority that rests on a ministry done well, not the office holder.

Conclusions...

I think we can conclude in all of this that a "one man show" is foreign to the New Testament.

Further, submission to authority is to be given to those who "serve" the body well, whatever area of "service" that might be and regardless of "gender." [Some people believe that the Spirit will never place a woman in the ministry of Pastor/Elder and the BF@M concurs with that. But whether that is true or not, and I have my own views about it, "authority" and "submission" are not "gender based" in the New covenant but "Holy Spirit ministry" based. No one is to be a leader by saying "I'm the Pastor/Elder" or "I have a Seminary degree" or I'm a man."]

Finally, servanthood is the "badge" of christian living and is to be the overriding characterstic of body-life. If God's people are to ever reflect the biblical relationship of Body/local body to Head and members to members servanthood is essential.

So the rule of church life is really to be the Headship of Christ, the priesthood of all believers, and each member contributing with giftedness and edifying each other in the process. Set up any system, any format, any procedure to carry out business, but function under the annointing of the Spirit. and serve one another. This must not be theory but practice if we are to reflect the reality of Christ to a lost world in need of the gospel. Check any leadership by this standard if you want to be biblical in church life.

AUTHORITY AND CHURCH LIFE _____PART FOUR

Authority is to be experienced in the assembly, I believe, because of the gifts and ministries of the Holy Spirit becoming obvious through people as they serve the whole of the body. In a real sense, the entire body shares authority. [Eph. 5:21, 1Peter 5:5] What this means is we recognize one another's gifts, knowledge, or experience in the Lord and we choose to serve/submit because we know the Holy Spirit has placed some as gifts and has anointed the ministries of those gifts. We follow and are instructed and encouraged.

That is the key to understanding Bishops/Pastors/Elders/Deacons and their function. No one has authority BECAUSE they hold an office. Authority certainly doesn't come because someone has a stronger personality, knows more Bible, or is held in higher esteem personally than is anyone else. That is foreign to the New Testament.

Paul the Apostle himself, had to defend his Apostleship by showing it  to be the work of the Spirit having set him aside for his ministry. 1Tim. 5:17 does speak of those Elders that "give oversight well,"as being "worthy of double honor." But it is the recognition of that "give oversight well" that is the reason for authority. Evaluating well those who say they are of the Lord is always the correct thing to do, and when found to be true, it was defined as the Holy Spirit's anointing upon them. 

In other words, the anointing of the Spirit makes clear the authority that rests on a ministry done well, not an office that is held by someone. So what we have in the text is an authority that is to be experienced in the assembly because of the gifts and ministries of the Holy Spirit made obvious through people.

As I've already said, in one sense the entire body shares authority.  [Eph. 5:21, 1Peter 5:5]  This means we recognize one another's gifts, knowledge, or experience in the Lord and we choose to serve/submit and follow one another because the Holy Spirit has placed us all as gifts to the body, in some fashion, and we all are to experience His anointing on our ministries and gifts.

What a tragedy that we have accepted a hierarchy of rulers in the local Church which ends up limiting the freedom of so many members of the Church. Then, to add insult to injury, the ruled ones have their spirituality measured by their "submission" to the "authority" of those "rulers." This, instead of measuring the "authority" of leaders by their "submission" to the Lord. 

This is I think primarily the case because of the present day view of the Church which sees the church as being an institution or organization run by leaders who are of a corporate C.E.O. mentality which is, as has been shown, completely foreign to the scriptures.

Now I want to give my ABCs for authority in the Church. 

You've heard the phrase "simply as the ABCs I'm sure. Well, this may be simple but it isn't easy as evidenced by so many who don't practice them. This failure may be because of the dreaded three "Ps," POSITION/PERSONALITY/POWER!

Regardless, my ABCs are...

A__ There is only one head of the Church and all authority has been given to Him. If anyone ever assumes authority because of their person or position they are usurping the authority of the Head. [Eph. 4:5,15]

B__Believers have been given an authoritative Word which carries with it His direction for all who make up the Body. [Universal or local] The Old Testament began that authoritative Word with Israel as the unique people receiving it and New Testament fulfills that Old covenant and a fresh Word is given to a new entity made up of Jews and Gentiles, The Church.

When He said, "Hear ye Him," the Father gave clear direction as to the source for what He says and it is found in the New Covenant record of the Old Testament fulfilled in Christ and He is our new lawgiver. [Heb. 1:2, Acts 18:28]


C__All believers are priests and are gifted with equal responsibility to the Head of the Church [Christ] individually, regardless of race, gender or age and all believers also have a responsibility to fulfill the "one anothers" of the New Testament. There is no exception. [Rom. 14:4, Eph. 5:21, 1 Corinthians 12-14]


D__There are certain ones [without regard to gender] who are gifted, as all members are remember, and become a gift to the body in a unique way. Whether pastor/elder/bishop/
deacon/ hospitality/ evangelist/ and many more could be mentioned, with the purpose of these persons/gifts serving the whole body by equipping all for ministry. [Eph. 4:11-12]

E__There is no emphasis in the New Testament on "authority" that is derived from an "office." The King James version uses the word "office" but it is not in the best texts, and it would be better to NOT use it when interpreting the verses in which is is found in the KJV.


So the rule of church life is really to be the Headship of Christ, the priesthood of all believers, and each member contributing with giftedness and ministry and edifying each other in the process. This is with no regards to station, race, or gender. 

It is legitimate to set up any system, any format, any procedure a local fellowship desires to carry out business, but to function under the anointing of the Spirit. and serve one another is real body-life, which then moves into a community for the sharing of the gospel. 

This must not be simply theory but practice if we are to reflect the reality of Christ to a lost world in need of the gospel. Check any leadership by this standard if you want to be biblical in church life.

There is no way I could tell you how many and who are the people that have assisted my understanding with their outstanding work in this area. I've used much of what I've read, researched, and recorded along the way the last several years sometimes without even noting where I got it. But when I write it here, it is my responsibility and my personal belief system fleshed out in my words. I hope it has helped.


Paul B.

AUTHORITY IN THE LOCAL CHURCH

I'm continuing in my "favorites" for the summer thing. This post has drawn more total e-mails, post comments, and phone calls than any I've EVER done. Interesting!! I've added some emphasis and clarity at certain points but the post is basically unchanged.
-------------------------------------------------------------

January 2007

Authority in a local church is a much debated and, as I've discovered of late, a much misunderstood concept. I want to make several personal observations about the biblical understanding of authority in a local fellowship as I see it.

First, there is only one head of the Church/churches and all authority has been given to Him. If anyone ever assumes authority because of their person or position they are usurping the authority of the Head. There IS only ONE Head of the Church after all and that is Jesus Christ our Lord. [Eph. 4:5,15]

Second, the Head of the Body [Christ] has given an authoritative Word to all the members of the Body. [Universal or local] The Old and New Testaments are that inspired Word with New Covenant people in-particularly bound to the New Testament writings. [Heb. 1:2, Acts 18:28]

Third, all believers are responsible to the Head individually and have a responsibility to each other as members of each other in the body. [Rom. 14:4, Eph. 5:21]

Fourth, all believers are priests and are gifted to minister. Therefore all must take their place among the body members to minister for the good of all. [1 Corinth. 12-14]

Fifth, there are certain gifted ones [both men and women] who become a gift to the body in a unique way. The purpose of these people/gifts is to equip all for ministry. [Eph. 4:11-12]

Sixth, there is no emphasis in the New Testament on "authority" that is derived from an "office." The King James version translates the word "office" in Rom. 11:13, 12:4, and 1Tim 3:1. But in Rom. 11:13 it is the word "diakonia" or "service." In 12:4 it is "praxis" or "action/function." While in 1 Tim. 3:1 "office" is not in the text at all. The verse simply says in the original "if anyone aspires to oversight."[Episkope]

Authority is to be experienced in the assembly because of the gifts and ministries given by the Holy Spirit to and through people. In one sense the entire body shares authority. [Eph. 5:21, 1Peter 5:5] This means we recognize one another's gifts, knowledge, or experience in the Lord and we choose to serve/submit because the Holy Spirit has placed some of them as gifts and has anointed the ministries of those gifts. That is the key to understanding Pastors/Elders and their function. No one has authority BECAUSE they have a stronger personality, knows more Bible, or they hold an office. That is foreign to the New Testament. Remember, even Paul the Apostle had to defend his Apostleship by virtue of it being the work of the Spirit setting him aside for it.

1Tim. 5:17 speaks of those Elders that "give oversight well"...."are worthy of double honor." It is that "give oversight well" that is the reason for any authority. We define it as Holy Spirit anointing. In other words, the anointing of the Spirit makes clear the authority that rests on a ministry done well, not the office holder.

Conclusions...

I think we can conclude in all of this that a "one man show" is completely foreign to the New Testament. It may be traditionally Southern Baptist at least over the past one hundred years but It just isn't the New Testament pattern at all.

Further, submission is to be given to any of those who "serve" the body well, whatever area of "service" that might be and regardless of "gender." [Some people believe that the Spirit will never place a woman in the ministry of Pastor/Elder and the BF@M concurs with that. But whether that is true or not, and I have my own views about it, "authority" and "submission" are not "gender based" in the New covenant but "Holy Spirit ministry" based. No one is to be a leader by saying "I'm the Pastor/Elder" or "I have a Seminary degree" or I'm a man."]

Finally, servanthood is the "badge" of Christian living and is to be the overriding characteristic of body-life. If God's people are to ever reflect the biblical relationship of Body/local body to the Head and members to one another as members, servanthood is essential. So the rule of church life is really to be the Headship of Christ, the priesthood of all believers, and each member contributing with giftedness and edifying each other in the process.

Set up any system you wish, any format you desire, any procedure you choose to carry out business, but function under the anointing of the Spirit and serve one another. This must not be theory but practice if we are to reflect the reality of Christ to a lost world in need of the gospel. Check any leadership by this standard if you want authority to be biblical in church life.

BREAKING A FAST PART II

The following are the thoughts of my good friend and former staff member turned Senior Pastor to Paul and Mary Burleson for the past ten years, Chuck Andrews. Chuck is now on a heart transplant list awaiting a new heart. But the old one, it will become obvious to anyone reading his words, while having lost capacity physically, is still pumping in the body of a man who knows and loves the Lord and is feeding a mind and spirit that are clearly functioning at a high level. Read and enjoy as did I.



Authority, Leadership, & Relationships

After reading Paul Burleson’s post about Authority In The Local Church the following thoughts and ideas came to me. In the Old Covenant people were born into their position of priest or king. Their authority was inherent in their person according to their birthright. Prophets were called into their positions of authority and a stereotypical personality doesn’t appear to be a prerequisite to the call.

The following may show how historically culture has influenced our thinking in the matter of “authority” in the local church of the New Covenant.“The Divine Right of Kings states that a monarch owes his rule to the will of God, not to the will of his subjects, parliament, the aristocracy, or any other competing authority." This doctrine continued with the claim that any attempt to depose a monarch or to restrict his powers ran contrary to the will of God.” [Wikipedia ] A Priest is defined as “One who is designated an authority on religious matters. In some churches, especially the Anglican Communion, Eastern Orthodox Church, and Roman Catholic Church, the ordained church leader who serves a congregation of believers is called a priest. The priests in these churches administer the sacraments, preach, and care for the needs of their congregations.” [The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, 4th edition, published by Houghton Mifflin Company.]

A more evangelical term is Prophet. Defined by the The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, 4th edition, published by Houghton Mifflin Company as ..."1- A person who speaks by divine inspiration or as the interpreter through whom the will of a god is expressed. 2- A person gifted with profound moral insight and exceptional powers of expression. 3- A predictor; a soothsayer. 4- The chief spokesperson of a movement or cause."

In most of the SBC pastoral training I’ve been through and, for that matter, most of the evangelical pastors I have been around have put these three historical cultural ideas together and come up with an understanding of their own gift and calling. They owe their rule (kingship) to the will of God and to question their authority is to oppose the will of God. Though, confessionally, they verbally give ascent to the priesthood of the believer, they believe themselves to be ordained, educated, and authorized by God to administer the ordinances, preach, and be the all around expert on ministry. And when they speak it is as the inspired interpreter of God’s word and will with irrefutable insight (because God told them) and they use oratorical persuasion to convince people that they are right. We are trained to hold this professional position of pastor. So rationally, biblically, spiritually, and culturally I defended the “authority because of position and person” view myself and believed it whole heartedly. My identity was wrapped up in being a prophet, priest, and king--contemporarily, culturally, and sometimes compassionately called pastor.

There are some truths in this understanding—we do owe everything to the will of God; we do believe in the priesthood of the believer (at least in theory); and preaching is a ministry of inspiration, insight, and public speaking. Also, there is nothing wrong with being trained through education and mentoring. I don’t believe there is a problem with being a pastor professionally and doing everything you can to be the best pastor you can be. Diligently leading is not only commendable but commanded in the scriptures. In Romans 12:8 those who are gifted as leaders are to express that gift "with diligence." “The elders who rule (to lead out in care for) well are to be considered worthy of double honor, especially those who work hard (persistent strenuous labor) at preaching and teaching.” (1 Ti 5:17).

Yet, more often that not, we are seduced by our own egos to swallow, hook-line-and-sinker, the historical cultural perception of authority. Pastors who are more concerned with authority than leadership use that perception to defend their authoritarian posture. In word or deed they say something like, “God has called me, ordained me, and anointed me so don’t question my authority. After all, I have a degree, license, and ordination hanging on the wall.” Then they throw in something like “It’s very dangerous to do anything against the Lord’s anointed.” Their authority and identity is postured in “I am the pastor!”

In support of this seduction, it seems that in today’s church growth movement, churches are looking for a savior who will redeem their church from irrelevancy, the next king who will lead them to kingdom growth, (more numbers) a priest who will represent them before God, and a prophet who will confidently and effectively tell them God’s will for their lives. As pastors we are all too often more than pleased to be that person, if we can, and if we can’t, we judge ourselves against those who can.

Thus, what is pragmatically a pastoral health, wealth, and prosperity mindset, comes through in our conventions and conferences, then it filters into our churches. Paraded before us are a few men, [and fewer women] who are highly acclaimed because they are successful as defined by our culture. Then with all the right verbiage and pragmatic values we deceive ourselves into believing that if we can look, lead, and lecture like them we too will be successful as defined by our religious culture. The mindset becomes, God wants all pastors to be dynamic preachers, charismatic personalities, and gifted CEOs. He wants all churches to have continual numerical growth in attendance, finances, and ministries. If we’re not being that kind of pastor and if our church is not experiencing that kind of growth then it’s because we are not allowing God to develop us into the leader He wants us to be.

Antiquity has become relevant in this post-modern cultural phenomenon.Whether these values are by the Spirit or the flesh it makes no difference. Visible results are what matters. Today, in this Western culture, it is not uncommon for a local church to be developed and grow around a charismatic (not theologically but personality) pastor. With the advancement of electronics, these types of pastors can become bigger than life, being broadcast to multiple locations and reaching thousands through video and internet. Accordingly, pastors can begin to judge themselves in comparison to these bigger than life images. Also, churches can begin to judge their pastors by those they see on the internet, hear on the radio, watch on TV, or read from the Christian bookstore.

Unfortunately, lay leaders can be seduced by their own egos to be a part of a “successful” church and become authoritarian toward pastors, too.With this marriage of past and present the stage is set for a culturally acceptable form of spiritual abuse. In some circles it’s called “Pastoral Authority.” In other circles it is “Congregational Authority.” In my opinion, in all circles, it is an “identity crisis.” Both, pastors and churches, are getting their identity from culture instead of from Jesus.

In the New Covenant we are all (re)born equally and called equally. Maybe at Christmas time we would do well to remember that the one whose birth we celebrate was born Savior, Prophet, Priest, and King. He alone has authority inherent in His Person and Position. He alone rules His kingdom. He alone fulfilled all the roles of the Old Covenant completely and perfectly. He alone absolutely and faultlessly represented God to people and people to God. He alone is the one and only God-Man. If the local church is His then He is her Authority. As our authority He is our identity.There is to be a harmony and melody between pastors and people. Not a blind following due to authoritarian roles but a relationship built on personal knowledge, reputation and giftedness. Eugene Peterson interprets Hebrews 13:7 “Appreciate your pastoral leaders who gave you the Word of God. Take a good look at the way they live, and let their faithfulness instruct you, as well as their truthfulness. There should be a consistency that runs through us all. For Jesus doesn’t change—yesterday, today, tomorrow, he’s always totally himself.” Then in verse 17, “Be responsive to your pastoral leaders. Listen to their counsel. They are alert to the condition of your lives and work under the strict supervision of God. Contribute to the joy of their leadership, not its drudgery. Why would you want to make things harder for them?” You see in this interpretation that a relationship between people and pastors is developed through a willingness for each to serve the other. Pastors receive a positive reception, responsiveness, and respect in direct proportion to their willingness to relate their lives to the congregation and employee their gifts in service to the congregation. Congregations are to give this positive reception, responsiveness, and respect as they, in relationship with their pastors, observe the identity of Jesus throughout the lives of their pastors. Christ is “seated far above all rule and authority and power and dominion” (Eph. 1:21) and as servants of His, we serve each other in “the fullness of Him who fills all in all” (Eph. 1:23).

It is impossible to serve one another as is defined in Hebrews without people and pastor being in a growing relationship with each other. The bases of this relationship is a recognition that Christ is the Head and each submits to Him and that one is not more “full of Christ” than the other. In fact, maybe it takes “all” to experience the totality of the fullness of Christ since He “fills all in all.”Regardless of the time period, churches don’t need another Savior, Prophet, Priest, or King. We need servants who will demonstrate Jesus, regardless of whether those servants are called pastors, elders, deacons, teachers, councils, leaders, committees, or members.

May we all find our identity in Christ and learn to live in Christ. If we do, we will become servants like Christ. Then pastors and people will not be campaigning for authority but will be serving one another--accepting one another, respecting one another, appreciating one another, knowing one another.

__________________________________________________________________

I thought you might need the reminder and enjoy the reading of this prophetic word as I did. My blog fast will be over after our 48th wedding anniversary on May 28th.

Paul Burleson

WHO'S THE BOSS?

It is interesting that the ONLY place in the New Testament where the word "authority" (Gr. exousia) is used with reference to marriage is in a verse found in 1 Corinthians 7 [verse 25] where Paul is addressing the abstaining from sex between a married couple. There he says such a decision is to be a mutually agreed thing and one made in "symphony" with each other. [In other words, the man's not the boss here.]

Passages like Ephesians 5:21-33, 1 Corinthians 11:3-16. Colossians 3:18-18, and 1 Peter 3:1-7 certainly all speak to several aspects of men and women relationships, in marriage and in the Church to mention a couple, but the Greek word for "authority" in never used BECAUSE AUTHORITY IS NEVER ADDRESSED in these verses. Terms such as "head" may be interpreted to mean "authority" but that is reading into the text rather than interpreting from the text. I repeat...The ONLY text in the Bible that actually uses the word "authority" (Gr. exousia) in the context of MARRIAGE is, in fact, 1 Corinthians 7:25.

This ought, it seems to me, to give pause to anyone holding to the commonly held position that "the husband has authority and the wife is to submit to it because the man has the final say or word in any decision." [The man's the boss.] Is that biblical? Is that actually found IN THE TEXT OF SCRIPTURE?

Not according to my good friend Jon Zens who has done a remarkable study on ALL the texts about men and women to be found in scripture. let me give you just a bit of what he says about it all.

Jon says it this way...

"First, 1 Cor.7:1-5 is the only place in the NT where the word “authority” (Greek, exousia) is used with reference to marriage. But it is neither the authority of the husband over the wife, nor vice versa, that is in view, but rather a mutual authority over each other’s body. 1 Corinthians 7:4 states that the wife has authority over her husband’s body. One would think that this would be a hard pill to swallow for those who see “authority” as resting only in the husband’s headship.

Second, Paul states that a couple cannot separate from one another physically unless there is mutual consent (Greek, symphonou). Both parties must agree to the separation or it doesn’t happen. The husband cannot override the wife’s differing viewpoint."

Jon Zens goes on to address this statement by John Piper who is a great preacher [IMHO] and has quite a following among those who hold to the "The man's the boss" mentality.

"John Piper suggests that “mature masculinity accepts the burden of the final say in disagreements between husband and wife, but does not presume to use it in every instance” (p.32). But 1 Corinthians 7:5 contradicts Piper’s maxim. If the wife disagrees with a physical separation, the husband cannot overrule his wife with the “final choice” (p.33). Such separation can occur only if both husband and wife are in “symphony” (unity) about such an action."

Jon Zens then has a personal conclusion he makes...

"Now, if mutual consent applies in an important issue like physical separation [sexually] from one another for a period of time, wouldn’t it seem proper that coming to one-mindedness would be the broad model for decision-making in a healthy marriage? In light of 1 Corinthians 7:1-5 I would suggest that decision-making should focus on finding the Lord’s mind together. Over the years good ideas, solutions to problems and answers to dilemmas will flow from both husband and the wife together as they seek the Lord in “symphony” (unity)" as a couple."

Mary and I have for several years now lived with the understanding Jon Zens is articulating here about decision making as a couple. Paul teaches that unless the couple can agree on a course of action, it cannot be executed. So our goal has been to come to some agreed course of action as a couple. How is that done? That will take another post. But that it CAN be done and SHOULD be done according to scripture is the point of this post. I'm convinced that from the bible TEXTUALLY one CANNOT support a "The man is the boss" mentality in marriage. It seems to me that is decidedly more cultic than Christian at it's heart

Paul B.

TEXTS TEEMING WITH TRUTH--MAP ONE--EPHESIANS 5:19-22

Ultimately, each one of us is responsible to find the meaning of the sacred text of scripture as best we can. This should be done while always bearing in mind a couple of important guidelines. One is that it takes the Holy Spirit to come to ANY true understanding of that text. The second is that, with all our study, prayer, and searching for real meaning, we are not infallible in EITHER our research OR our ability to hear clearly from the Spirit. That is not discounting His ability to show us, but it is recognizing our fallibility in being willing to always hear what the Spirit of God says to us about it.

History shows us the value of being willing to question and even say what our disagreement is with what has traditionally been held as truth on some issues. Luther and his disagreement with the Roman Church over the meaning of scripture, Wesley, with his disagreement with the Anglican Church, and finally Benjamin Keach, the Baptist pastor who appeared before Lord Chief Justice Hyde and defend his views against infant baptism which went against the Church of England, all attest to that fact.

Real openness takes a "The bible means what it means" mentality, instead of the far too easily said, "The bible means what it says," mentality. Since knowing only what has been taught us without examining it is never healthy, it is the search for the "meaning" of scripture that can drive us on to examine, study, interpret, and even change where we might need to in our understanding.


Notice I've made no mention of "culture" on either side. I'll grant that those who disagree with me believe they understand the bible and believe they are not following their culture. Although it would be impossible, perhaps, for anyone to be completely free from some kind of cultural influence when interpreting scripture, I would ask for the same respect from the other side about a sincere effort on my part regarding my conclusions. I try to deal with the text with as little bias as possible culturally also.

I am now going to deal with one of several things I believe the Spirit is showing me about certain texts teeming with truths [hence the title] that I had never troubled myself to re-examine___until the last few years. My subject is one of many I hope to eventually examine on this blog. But that will take any number of posts and some time. This first issue does, however, show why I fall closer to what we've looked at as the "Egalitarian" idea in theology. Our topic is.....

MUTUAL SUBMISSION______[Ephesians 5:17-22]

This is a biggy. I was told early on in my life and ministry that this Ephesians passage CLEARLY shows that the man is the "boss" over the wife like Jesus is the "boss" over the Church. That's clear [they said] because the woman is told to submit to him, but he is not told to do likewise. That idea was reinforced with the one other passage that mentioned the "head" thing as well. [1 Corinthians 11:3] It seemed to be the only way it could be taken. So I lived it and I preached it. The man is "head meaning boss" over the woman and family, Ephesians 5 says so! That's enough for me!

Then one day I began to search this text anew for myself. What was said wasn't as clear as I'd been told. In fact I've begun to think Paul would be a bit ticked at the words we put in his mouth instead of finding out what he really meant. I began to see he was talking about something other than "authority"ALTOGETHER. It was, in fact, MUTUAL SUBMISSION he was speaking of and without seeing this, the rest of the chapter will NEVER be correctly understood. I've come to now believe mutual serving/submission is the whole key to correctly understanding those very few passages that lend themselves to the "boss" idea. We'll look at them all eventually, as I said.

In this Ephesians text I found that there is only ONE imperative [command] in the whole passage. That is found in Ephesians 5:18. Don't be drunk but do be filled with the Spirit. [Paraphrased] OK! Then what are verses 19-21 saying if they are not commands? They are simply two present active participles and one present passive participle that all show the RESULTS of obeying the command to be filled with the Spirit. Verse 19 shows that a Spirit-filled person will be [notice 'be' not 'do'] joyful as evidenced by singing and making melody in their heart is how it's said. Verse 20 shows that a Spirit-filled person will be [there it is again..'be' not 'do'] grateful as evidenced by giving thanks in everything is how it is said. Verse 21 shows that a Spirit-filled person will be a servant. But here it changes to a present middle participle because it is showing it is a voluntary heart issue of serving or submission that is being described. [The middle voice means it comes from the heart [inside[ and not because it is commanded. [Outside]] Being joyful, grateful and a servant to one another. That's real Christianity produced by the Holy Spirit.

Whatever else a Christian looks like, they look like that. Paul is drawing on the truth spoken by Jesus that says "He that is greatest is servant of all" and while the Gentiles seek to "boss" others, it is not to be that way among Christians. This is the backdrop and context that all else is said here. This is what the language of Paul means here.

 It is only then that Paul begins to show how Spirit-filled living shows up in marriage and family life. Verse 21 has already shown it will be by being a servant "one to another." By the way, that 21st verse can't be restricted by making it refer JUST to the Church. The text doesn't say just the church is being talked about here at all. That's eisegesis, reading something into the text instead of exegesis, drawing something out of the text. Besides, the New Testament doesn't address the family with a clear cut separation from the local church anyway since they met in family units culturally. ALL of Ephesians is written to the Church and any "one another" statement in that passage applies to husbands and wives and the whole of the family. It is speaking of a "mutual submission/serving" that is supposed to show up in the marriage and family [as per the rest of the chapter] as it does in ALL believers.

So ...Paul begins by saying in verse 22 "Wives to your own husbands just as you do the Lord. Notice, the word 'Submit" doesn't appear in the verse as the KJV shows it to be. The better translations recognize this and don't have it there. In other words, Spirit-filled wives will have a heart for serving as indicated by verse 21 and it will be ESPECIALLY toward their own husbands in a Christ-like manner is what is meant in verse 22. [By the way, this word "submit" is totally different than the one about children which follows in 6:1.]

Now here is what I found NEW and textually TRUE in a way I'd not before seen. This is critical. See this and the rest of what is meant will come through. There is nothing about AUTHORITY here at all. Serving isn't COMMANDED in the text BECAUSE she's a woman. It's because the Spirit always brings about a servant's heart that serves others and THAT'S what is being addressed here. Whether it's a wife or, as we'll see later, a husband or any Christian.

Paul doesn't use either of two perfectly good and understood Greek words for "authority" here. He's not talking about authority! Why should he! In fact, his use of "Head," as a metaphor, doesn't mean "authority" either as I'll eventually show. If "head" is understood correctly in this passage it WON'T BE SEEN as referencing authority at all. In fact, Paul had already shown the "authority" of Christ in Ephesians 1:22 where he says, because of the resurrection, Christ has had, metaphorically speaking, all THINGS PUT UNDER HIS FEET." That speaks of His authority. It is also said of Him in 1:22 that He has become the "Head" of the Church. But that's not speaking of His authority. Being under His feet speaks of that. Being the "Head" of the Church is referencing something else entirely as we will see later. I can't say it too strongly. AUTHORITY is NOT the reason serving or submitting is spoken of here. It is the result of being Spirit-filled that men AND women mutually serve one another. Later [v25] a man's serving is called "love your wives as Christ loved the Church." But love is not less serving than submission. It is simply a description of the man's way of serving his wife. it's all about serving and NONE about AUTHORITY.

In fact, the ONLY place in the New Testament where the Greek word for "authority" is used in reference to marriage and as something between a husband and wife is in 1 Corinthians 7 where it says a woman DOES NOT have "authority" over her own body in regards to sex in marriage [mutually abstaining] and a man DOES NOT have "authority" over his own body in regards to sex [mutually abstaining] in marriage. So the ONLY place where "authority" is actually mentioned between a husband and wife in the entire bible is a place where it says the other has it. So much for the man being "boss" over everything. He's not even "boss" over his own body in a marriage. But the woman isn't "boss" either.

The point is both are to be serving "one another" [mutual serving/submission] as stated in Eph. 5:21, because Jesus is "Boss"." [Lord] Fortunately, for both men and women, there is neither a command for the wife to unilaterally submit nor a command for the husband to make certain she does submit to him or anyone else for that matter. It's a heart issue for both. Let's get off this "boss" thing. There is only one "boss" for any Christian and his name isn't________. It's Jesus! But, someone says, there HAS to be SOMEONE in charge in a marriage. There is. "Be not drunk with wine wherein is excess, but do be filled-with the Spirit." In joy and gratitude we will serve one another in the power of the Spirit and things will happen relationally as they should. Try it and see.

Well, then what does "head" mean if it doesn't mean "boss?" Next time we'll see.

Paul B.

PERVERTED AUTHORITY

Mark 10:42-45 is a remarkable passage of scripture largely ignored by the Christian community, in practice if not in words. In other words, we talk a good game at serving and practice a better game at ruling, thus, being in our behavior, more like unbelievers, than we are like a biblical believing body.

Remember that the verses referred to in Mark are spoken by the Lord in the context of some of His disciples seeking a better position. [verse 37] Jesus didn't deny the reality of positions [verse 40] but explained the way to be elevated to a position of leadership is NOT by appointment. [verse 42] THAT'S the way of the Gentiles [unbelievers] and NOT the way of disciples. It is this fact..."the way to be elevated to a position of leadership is NOT by appointment" that seems to be totally forgotten by the Church and, as a result, the family.

Someone will, I'm sure, want to remind me that the scripture says Paul "appointed" elders in churches as he planted them on his missionary journeys. I would remind those reminders that the word "appointed" means to "ordain" or "set aside" and had to do with discovering those who were gifted, having a serving heart, who were then RECOGNIZED by the laying on of hands [ordained] to minister in that capacity.

This means that they were viewed to be gifted leaders by others and were thus appointed by the Holy Spirit and then recognized by the people. So that, even when the writer of Hebrews admonishes believers to follow the leadership of elders, it uses the Greek language that according to W.E. Vine, means [peitho] "to persuade, to win over, in the Passive and Middle Voices which indicates one voluntarily does so with an eye on their [The elders] character and life. [Hebrews 13:17]

There is no authoritarianism in Heb 13:17. In fact, the correct interpretation of the language in the first part of that verse is..."Be disposed to be persuaded by these elders to follow them as.." or.."The obedience stipulated is not by submission to an authority, but results from persuation." It's within the power of the body to examine and say 'NO." [See Heb 13:7]

As I read the whole of the New Testament epistles, it is also interesting to me that church leaders were not addressed separately, as if they had some special decision-making authority residing in them, when problems were addressed by the human authors of those epistles. Instead, Paul, for instance, directed his writings to the ENTIRE ASSEMBLY. He did not rebuke the ELDERS at Corinth for failing to deal with the immoral person or for not resolving the disputes among the brethren, as if they [elders] possessed some special ruling right over the body. As Jon Zens says, "He puts the nexus of responsibility on the whole congregation to carry out Christ’s revealed will."

There is a big difference between genuine behind-the-scenes loving elders [plural] who stand firmly for sound doctrine and admonish the Body of Christ to obey scripture and an authoritarian ONE-MAN show who teaches his own agenda and draws people away from the scripture and to himself. The latter MUST not be found in the Church. [Or in the family either for that matter.]

Someone asks, "I thought we were talking about marriage and authority?" We are!! Unfortunately there is a "kissing cousin" kind of relationship that exists between authoritarianism in the home and in the church. This since so many attempt to establish authoritarianism based on certain scriptures falsely interpreted and then applied to ALL men in ALL leadership positions.

So it seems to me that while the Bible DOES makes it clear that we are to submit to governmental authorities such as to the police and we are to obey the laws of our land (pay taxes, obey traffic laws, live peaceably, etc.), it also clearly commands us to NOT set up authoritarian systems or regimes within the Church and, properly interpreted, this prohibition would flow naturally into the home.

One man I read who obviously suffers from an authority complex stated "Every church must have one man who has the final authority and decision making power in the church, or else chaos would reign." I'm sure that man would also falsely pronounce, "Every home must have one man who has the final authority and decision making power in the home." This flies in the face of the servanthood of every believer to others and the truth that Christ IS the ONE MAN who has authority over all the churches AND homes and directs uniquely gifted people [Never one individual] to assist in the growth of all involved in that church or home.

It might help to indicate what an authoritarian individual in a Church or home might look like. I have a friend [Jon Zens] who gave some indicators that I've slightly adapted and will now use here.

1---They make a claim of direct authority from God which attempts to bypass the need to test all things such as character and scripture.

2---Their command to “submit to me” replaces the commitment of “I will serve you”;

3---Their method of leadership is to “order” people around instead of talking, listening, and desiring the right thing.

4---There is a dominating, “pushy” spirit in them instead of a loving appealing spirit.

5---They live in an atmosphere of control instead of an atmosphere of support.

6---They are unapproachable, intimidating and argumentative instead of loving, respectful and conciliatory toward others.

7---They offer an inflexible statement.."do what I say!", instead of a soft question.. "What do you think?"

8---They are more concerned with maintaining an authoritarian structure than they are for caring about the people and where they truly are personally.

May it not be so in our churches and homes is my desire and prayer.

Now we've established from this and the last post that, from my perspective at least, marriage involves more than one person, even in authority/leadership, and that such leadership is never automatic or is never demanded. And the same is true in the church. The next post will address specifically how this can be effectively worked in a marriage and family so that each person can reach their full Christian potential and be uniquely themselves in a family context where there is only One Lord.

Paul B.

A GUEST WRITER, DR. GILBERT BILEZIKIAN, SPEAKING TO THE CHURCH!

A Challenge for Proponents of Female Subordination
To Prove Their Case from The Bible.

By Dr. Gilbert Bilezikian

Professor Emeritus
Wheaton College
Wheaton, IL

 For a short bio of Dr. Bilezikian click here

"Open my eyes that I may see
Glimpses of truth Thou hast for me.
Place in my hands the wonderful Key
That shall unclasp and set me free"

 Clara H. Scott,  Hymn

The purpose of this challenge is to prompt Christians to grapple with biblical facts rather than to accept traditional assumptions about female roles.  What is at stake is not the role of women as much as the definition of the church as authentic biblical community.  Is it possible for a local church to aspire to define itself as biblical community when more than half its constituency is excluded from participating in the most significant aspects of its life?

In the course of history, the church has often lost its way.  For instance, during a thousand years, the church forgot something as crucial as the way of salvation and replaced it with methods of salvation by works that never worked.  The biblical teaching was finally recovered by the Reformers just a few centuries ago.

Likewise, many present-day Christians believe that, along the way, the church has lost its own definition as community and replaced it with false definitions that reduce it to the status of institution, establishment, hierarchy, corporation and programs.  This challenge provides an incentive to help Christians rediscover for themselves the biblical definition of the church as God's community of oneness.

To anyone who might be tempted to think that this challenge is a feminist plot to subvert the traditional church, it should be pointed out that feminism is a quest for equal rights and equal power.  A basic premise of this presentation is the exact opposite, the belief that the Bible requires all Christians to pursue relationships of mutual submission and of reciprocal servanthood.

An effective approach to tackle this challenge would be to go through this document one page at a time, to check the references with an open Bible at hand, and to search the Scriptures in order to supply the requested references. The challenge is to let the scriptures speak for themselves and to come away with how you see one of the great needs of the modern church.

1.  The Challenge

Cite a text from the creation account in Genesis 1 and 2 that enjoins or entitles men to exercise authority or leadership over women, or that designates men as "head" or "spiritual head" over women.

The Facts

There is not a hint, not even a whisper about anything like a hierarchical order existing between man and woman in the creation account of Genesis, chapters 1 and 2.  In fact, the exact opposite is clearly taught in these two chapters.  Both man and woman were made in God's image (1:26-27) and they both participated in God-assigned ministries without any role distinctions (1:28).

The creation order established oneness, not hierarchy (2:24).  The first indication of a hierarchical order between man and woman resulted from the entrance of sin into the world (3:16).  The subordination of women to men was not part of God's original design.  It resulted from the violation of God's creation order.

The use of the word "helper" for the woman reinforces the relation of non-hierarchical complementarity that existed between the man and the woman prior to the fall (2:18).  In the language of the Old Testament, a "helper" is one who rescues others in situations of need.  This designation is often attributed to God as our rescuer.  The word denotes not domesticity or subordination but competency and superior strength (Ex. 18:4; Deut. 33:26, 29; Psalm 33:20, 70:5, etc.).

According to the text, the woman was instrumental in rescuing the man from being alone and, therefore, from not being yet the community of oneness that God had intended to create with both of them (Gen. 1:27.)  As "helper," she pointedly enabled him to become with her the community that God had intended to establish through their union.

The word "helper" is used specifically in this context of God's deliberation to create community (2:18).  The biblical text becomes violated when the word "helper" is wrenched away and lifted out of this specific context to be given other meanings that demean women by reducing them to the level of "complements" or docile conveniences created to improve the quality of male life.

In the account of the created order within which every relation of authority is carefully spelled out (1:26, 28; 2:17), there is not the slightest suggestion of a structure of authority existing between the man and the woman.  Instead, the explicit evidence provided in those texts describes both as participating cooperatively in reflecting the image, and both fulfilling jointly the tasks of rulership and dominion without the necessity of a structure of hierarchy between them. 

2. The Challenge

Cite a text from the Bible that assigns women subordinate status in relation to men because Adam was created before Eve.

The Facts

In the first chapter of Genesis, the sequence of creation moves, in increasing levels of sophistication, from material things to plants, to animals and, finally, to humans.  According to chapter two, the process culminates with the creation of the woman.  Obviously, chronological primacy was not intended to denote superior rank.  No such lesson is drawn within those two chapters from the fact that the man was created before the woman.

In 1 Corinthians, chapter 11, an argument is presented for women to wear a head covering during worship.  It is based on the differences in status between men and women that derive from the fact that man was created first (v. 7-10).

But, according to the same text, all those considerations have been decisively swept aside "in the Lord," that is, in the Christian community (v. 11).  In the new covenant, both men and women are in a relation of originative interdependence since men must recognize that they owe their existence to women just as the woman was made from man.  Only the primacy of God as creator of all has significance since all things come from him, including both men and women (v. 11-12).  As a result of this leveling of the ground "in the Lord", a covering is not even required of women since their hair is their covering (v. 15).

The ministry restrictions exceptionally placed on women in 1Timothy, chapter 2 are not based on the creation order.  They are drawn from the temptation account.  No conclusion is made in the text from the fact that Adam was formed first except for the one lesson that Adam was not deceived but Eve was and she became the first transgressor (v. 13-14).

Adam had been instructed about the prohibition relative to the tree directly from God while Eve was not yet in existence.  For this reason, of the two, she was the one less prepared to face the tempter.  He was present during the temptation episode but he remained silent (Gen. 3:6).  Despite this disadvantage, she boldly engaged the tempter and she became deceived.  This illustration from the Genesis temptation story has nothing to do with assigning all women of all times a subordinate status in church life.  It was cited in this epistle to make the point that untaught and unqualified individuals should not aspire to teaching functions or to positions of leadership.  They should first become quiet learners (1 Tim. 2: 11-12). 

3. The Challenge

Cite a text from the Bible that defines the headship of Christ to the church as a relation of authority or of leadership.

The Facts

The New Testament defines the headship ministry of Christ to the church as a servant relation designed to provide the church with life and growth.  This headship is never presented as an authority or lordship position.

Eph. 1:22-23.  Christ is supremely and universally sovereign, but as head for the church, it is not said that he rules over it.  Instead, he provides his body with the fullness of him who fills all in all.  He causes the church to grow and flourish.

Eph. 4:15-16.  Christ as head provides the body with oneness, cohesion and growth.  This is a servant-provider role, not one of rulership.

Eph. 5:23.  Christ is head of the church, the body of which he is the Savior.  His headship to the church is defined as saviorhood which is biblically defined as a servant, self-sacrificing function, not a lordship role.

Col. 1:18.  Christ is the head of the body, the church; he is the beginning, the first-born from the dead.  As its head, Christ is the source of the church's life.

Col. 2:19.  Christ is the head from whom the whole body grows because it is nourished by him.  He is servant-provider of life and growth to the church.

Obviously, Christ is Lord of all and therefore Lord of the church.  But never does the New Testament define Christ's relation to the church as its head in terms of lordship, authority or rulership.  As head to the church, Christ is always the servant who gives the church all she needs to become his radiant Bride.  So is the husband to his wife (Eph. 5:25-30), within a relationship of mutual submission (v. 21).

The word "head" used figuratively in the English language refers to boss, person in authority, leader.  It never has that meaning in New Testament Greek.  There are hundreds of references in the New Testament to religious, governmental, civic, familial and military authority figures.  Not one of them is ever designated as "head."

Even Christ, as "head" of all rule and authority, remains their original giver of life and fullness (Col. 2:10; 1:16).  Similarly, Christ was never called "head" of the church until after his crucifixion, the supreme expression of his servant ministry as the giver of new life.

Whenever Christ is described as "head" to the church, his ministry is that of servant-provider.  Similarly, as head to his wife, a husband is a servant-provider of life, of fullness and growth, not one who exercises authority over her. 

4. The Challenge

Cite a text from the Bible that makes men head over women, or a husband head over his wife.

The Facts

There is no such statement in the Bible.  The text in 1 Corinthians 11:3 is often cited as establishing a top-down hierarchy:

God over Christ--- Christ over man--- man over woman.

However, this biblical text must be radically dismembered and its components reshuffled in order to produce such results.  The untouched biblical sequence is totally different and it does not present a hierarchical structure:

Christ, head of man--- man, head of woman--- God, head of Christ.

The teaching in this text concerns the concept of "head" as giver of life.  In creation, Christ (as the Word, John 1:3) gave life to man; man to woman (as she was taken from him, Gen. 2:21-23); and in the incarnation, God gave life to Christ (Luke 1:35).  This understanding of "head" as "provider of life" is consistent with the immediate context which deals with the significance of origination (1 Cor. 11:7-12).

The meaning of "head" as servant-provider of life in this text is also consistent with the headship passage in Ephesians 5:21-33.  There, the church is described as being subject to Christ in the reciprocity of servanthood because Christ as head is also servant to the church as its Savior and as the source of its welfare.  Saviorhood in the New Testament is not a lordship role but one of self-sacrifice in radical servanthood.

Likewise, the wife is servant to her husband as she submits to him because the husband is servant to her in radical headship as he gives himself up for her as Christ did for the church (v. 25-30).

Both the general concept of headship in the New Testament and this passage of Scripture are infused with the notions of mutual submission (v. 21) and, therefore, of reciprocal servanthood.  Such biblical teachings reduce the imposition of hierarchical relations between husbands and wives to irrelevance, if not to abuse in their relationship. 

5. The Challenge

Cite a New Testament text according to which men are given unilateral authority over women or are permitted to act as their leaders.

The Facts

Once the fall shattered the God-given oneness between man and woman, they both faced a dysfunctional relationship.  The woman was warned that, because of the disruption of the fall, the husband would rule over her (Gen. 3:16).  Oneness would turn into abuse.  But no mandate was ever given to the man to claim this rulership over the woman.

There is no allowance made in the New Testament or license given for any one believer to wield authority over another adult believer.  The pledge exacted from brides in an older wedding ceremony, "Wilt thou obey him...?" had no biblical warrant.

There is no text in Scripture that enjoins wives to obey their husbands.  The call is for mutual subjection (Eph. 5:21).  Both wives and husbands must relate to each other "in the same way" as slaves submit to their masters (1 Peter 2:18; 3:1, 7 NIV) in order to follow in the steps of Christ, their supreme example (2:21).

The New Testament singularly cites the case of Sarah who obeyed her husband Abraham (1 Peter 3:6).  Sarah's case was cited in full knowledge of the fact that Abraham pointedly obeyed his wife just as often as she obeyed him, once even under God's specific command (Gen. 16:2, 6; 21:11-12).

Christians are solemnly forbidden by their Lord to establish among themselves structures of authority similar to the hierarchical systems that prevail in secular society.  Those who aspire to attain such positions of leadership must, instead, become servants and slaves of those over whom they wish to wield authority (Matt. 20:25-28).

Leadership is always defined in the New Testament as shared leadership.  In church life, leadership is a team function entrusted to a plurality of persons such as elders.  These act as servants who have recourse to the exercise of authority only exceptionally when required to do so because of disciplinary or crisis situations and then, only corporately.

In marriage, husbands and wives are bonded in a relationship of non-hierarchical complementarity within which each partner brings to the union his or her leadership gifts in a structure of shared leadership.  (For resolving biblically situations of decisional impasses, see Bilezikian, Beyond Sex Roles, pp. 212-214).

6. The Challenge

Cite a New Testament text that exempts husbands from being mutually submitted to their wives.

The Facts

Male rulership has prevailed since the time of the fall.  For Christians, the new covenant in Christ should reverse this situation to the original goodness of the created order, from rulership back to the reciprocity of oneness (Matt. 19:4-5).

Submission to Christ requires of believers that they submit to one another (Eph. 5:21).  According to this text, where there is no mutual submission, reverence for Christ is wanting.  Because the newness of the Gospel calls for new relationships, a paradigm shift has occurred that requires of Christians, including husbands and wives, to be in mutual subjection.

Since the practical expression of subjection is servanthood, this means that both husbands and wives are servants to each other.  But perhaps in order to overcome the ruler legacy that men have inherited from the fall, it is additionally specified that Christian men must also love their wives to the point of Christ-like self-sacrifice for their sakes (v. 25-30).

For this precise reason, in the only New Testament text where the word "authority" is used (in verb form) to describe husband and wife relations, husbands are not exempt from coming under the authority of their wives.  A Christian wife has exactly the same authority rights over her husband as a husband has over his wife (1 Cor. 7:4).

In this text, the Scriptures teach specifically that a husband has no authority over his own body but that his wife does.  (Interestingly, the NIV has considerably softened its translation of this challenging statement).  In fact, decisions that affect their marital relationship may not be made unilaterally by either husband or wife (v. 5).  They require the agreement of both parties.  They both have equal say in the matter since either of the two may veto the proposed course of action.

Thus the New Testament requires that, beginning with the most personal expression of conjugal life, the one that emblemizes par excellence the union of man and woman, relationships be controlled jointly and that decisions be made by consensus with the involvement of both partners on a basis of equality.  This call to mutual subjection and to joint participation in the exercise of authority strikes at the very foundation of any authority claim of husbands over wives. 

7. The Challenge

Cite a biblical text according to which men are favored over women in the distribution of spiritual gifts, including those that qualify believers for ministries of leadership.

The Facts

In the garden, Adam and Eve were jointly entrusted with the dual responsibility of populating the earth and managing the environment (Gen. 1:28).  The two mandates were committed to both of them without any role differentiations on the basis of gender.  In order to fulfill this command, the man and the woman must have brought their best abilities to the accomplishment of both tasks in a relationship of equal partnership, best defined as non-hierarchical complementarity.

On the day of Pentecost, Peter gave the inaugural speech that marked the beginning of the life of the church universal.  The very first statement he made concerned the consequences of the new availability of the Holy Spirit to all believers.  The outpouring of the Spirit promoted both men and women without differentiation to the ministry of prophecy (Acts 2:16-18), a function that was regarded as one of the highest ministries in the life of the church (1 Cor. 12:28).

Consistently, the New Testament declares that all the members of local churches are endowed with spiritual gifts by the Holy Spirit (Rom. 12:4-8; 1 Cor. 12:7-12) without any mention of women being excluded from such ministry roles. 

Furthermore, the text teaches that no individual has the right to excuse oneself (v. 14-16) and that no one has the right to exclude someone else from doing ministry (v. 20-22).

On such premises, all may prophesy (14:31), and both men and women may lead in worship through prayer and the spoken word (11:4-5) such as the four women who prophesied in the church of Caesarea (Acts 21:9).

In this light, it is evident that the statement in 1 Corinthians 14:33-36 forbidding women to speak in church has nothing to do with women exercising their spiritual gifts.  In this passage, the Apostle was dealing with a different issue that did not concern the exercise of spiritual gifts.  He was actually opposing, by quoting their words derisively, abusive church leaders who were intent on excluding women from active participation in the life of the church.  (For a commentary on this passage, see Bilezikian, Community 101, pp. 86-89.) 

8. The Challenge

Cite a biblical text that exclusively disqualifies women from exercising church leadership ministries.

The Facts

The one passage that is ultimately adduced to claim that the New Testament prohibits women to teach or to have authority over men is found in 1 Timothy 2:11-15.  However, the same section of Scriptures imposes similarly restrictive leadership and ministry prohibitions on men.  According to it, a man's family status provides the indispensable credential for his ability to lead the church (3:4-5, 12).  The only men who may aspire to positions of church leadership, which include the ministries of teaching and managing the affairs of the church, must be married ("husbands of one wife"), and have children who are submissive and respectful, and who are believers (Titus 1:6).  According to this text, ability to manage family provides indispensable proof of ability to manage the local church.

Such requirements disqualify from service not only women, but also all men who are single; all men married but childless; all men married but who have only one child; all men married but who have children too young to profess faith; all men married but who have one unbelieving child or children; all men married and whose children are believers but not submissive; all men married and whose children are believers and submissive but not respectful.

These exceptionally harsh and restrictive requirements are all the more amazing since the New Testament favors singleness for both men and women as preferred status to do ministry (Matt. 19:11-12, 1 Cor. 7:25-35), and since the New Testament emphatically requires the total utilization of all available spiritual gifts in the ministries of the church, regardless of marital status or gender.

Of course, the Scriptures provide an explanation for those apparent contradictions.  The singularly restrictive structure of ministry prescribed in 1 Timothy and Titus was established as a remedial measure for churches that had fallen into a state of terminal crisis.  Its underlying principle of restricting ministry in sick or immature churches to few leaders of proven managerial competency is relevant today to churches that find themselves in similarly extreme situations.  However, the prevailing New Testament model of full participation of the total constituency in the ministries of the local church applies to healthy churches (See Bilezikian, Community 101, pp. 82-128).

It should be sternly noted that, for the sake of biblical consistency and integrity of practice, churches that insist on keeping women out of ministries of leadership on the basis of the prohibitions of 1 Timothy 2, thereby make themselves accountable to keep also men out of the very same positions on the basis of the similarly restrictive provisions stipulated in 1 Timothy 3 and Titus 1, and listed above.

9. The Challenge

Cite a biblical text that prohibits the ordination of women to church ministry positions.

The Facts

The evidence indicates that women were entrusted with the ministry of the Word in New Testament churches.  There were female prophets (Acts 2:17-19; 21:9), female teachers (Acts 18:26; Titus 2:3), female church leaders (Rom. 16:1, 3-5; Phil. 4:3; Col. 4:15), and even a female apostle by the name of Junia (Rom. 16:7).

There is no text in the Bible forbidding women to be ordained because, according to the New Testament, all believers without exception are ordained by God to do ministry on the basis of their spiritual gifts (Rom. 12:4-5; 1 Cor. 12:7, 11; 14:31; Col. 3:16; 1 Thess. 5:11, 1 Peter 4:10-11).  In fact, those very ministries that are traditionally viewed as requiring "ordination" carry only a supportive role according to the New Testament (Eph. 4:11) while the executive part of the ministry, the works of service that build up the body of Christ, belongs to the "non-ordained" people of the congregation (v. 12).

The practice of ordaining select people to hold positions of authority in churches should be viewed as an ecclesiastical tradition rather than as a biblical prescription.  Thus, Paul and Barnabas were already among the recognized prophets and teachers of the church in Antioch when they received the laying on of hands, not to make them prophets or teachers but to commission them for a short-term sub-ministry (Acts 13: 1-3).  It was their recognized spiritual gifts as prophet/teacher that had validated their ministry, not the subsequent laying on of hands.

This New Testament practice of the laying on of hands can hardly be associated with the current practice of ordination since Timothy received it twice, one at the hand of elders (1 Tim. 4:14), then from Paul himself (2 Tim. 1:6).  In both cases, the purpose was the impartation of a spiritual gift, not the recognition of the ministry deriving from it as is the case with ordination as currently practiced (see Bilezikian, Community 101, pp. 155-161).

Since the institution of ordination is traditional rather than biblically prescribed, there can be no valid objection raised on scriptural grounds to women being ordained.  According to the New Testament, all believers, without exception, are ordained by God to do ministry on the basis of their spiritual gifts.

10. The Challenge

Cite a biblical text according to which the differences between manhood and womanhood warrant hierarchical relations between Christian men and women.

The Facts

The organization of the Christian community is never described as a gender-based hierarchy in the Scriptures.  To the contrary, it is the doctrine of the community of oneness that sets the norm (Matt. 19:4-6; John 17:11, 20-23; Acts 4:32; Rom. 12:4-5; 1 Cor. 12:12-14; Eph. 4:4-6; etc.).

The practical implementation of this oneness is summarized in Galatians 3:28: racial distinctions (Jew/Greek), class distinctions (slave/free), and the gender distinction (male/female) are declared to have become irrelevant to the functioning of Christian communities.  The compelling mandate for this radical restructuring of community is given as: "for you are all one in Christ."

Proponents of female subordination often insist that this oneness, which transcends race, class and gender differences, is limited to the inclusion of new believers in the community through justification and baptism (Gal. 3:24-27, 28; 1 Cor. 12:13).  However, Scripture prohibits limiting the principle of non-discrimination taught throughout the New Testament merely to entrance of converts into the community.

The New Testament emphatically declares that the same oneness, which transcends differences of race, class and gender as a condition for entering the church, is also the driving force that energizes the constituency of the local church into the performance of its ministries.  This oneness pertains to the functional life of the body (Rom. 12:4-5).  The same oneness sustains the corporate use of all the spiritual gifts invested in it by the Spirit for the performance of the ministries of the local body (1 Cor. 12:11-12; Eph. 4:4-8, 11).

Oneness is always defined in the New Testament as the basis for participation of all in the ministries of the local church.  Oneness and ministry are inseparably linked in the biblical text.  Therefore, the declaration according to which there is no male or female because we are all one in Christ is a ringing mandate for all to participate in church ministry functions without raising the gender difference as grounds for discrimination.

The Scripture absolutely forbids racial, class and gender discrimination by reason of the oneness of the church as a body.  This oneness is consistently defined in the New Testament as full participation of the total constituency in the ministries of the church.  This and other teachings of Scripture rule out gender-based hierarchy as a structure for biblical oneness.

INCREDULOUS

Definition........."Incredulous"......[ expressing disbelief]

That's what I'm doing. Expressing my disbelief. I cannot believe the nonsense I've read in the comment sections of some blogs over the last several days.

For example..Jesus was subordinate [according to one pastor] to the Father because of the nature of that relationship and so should the wife be to her husband [as pictured in the Trinity] because that's the way relationships were intended from the beginning. The subordination within the Trinity was used to prove that authority in relationships has always been God's way.

I wonder what happened to the equality of the Godhead? What happened to the study of the Greek language where the word 'hupo-tasso' was used to speak of one who was of equal voice AND value choosing to stand under and serve and was the word used of the submission of Jesus to the Father? [Which was the word used of the husband/wife relationship also.] What happened to the word in the same Greek language 'hupo-akuo' which was used of an inferior submitted to a superior but was NEVER used of Jesus to the Father OR in the husband/wife relationship either?

Another example of what leaves me incredulous as I read comments on blogs is the idea that women are not to teach the scriptures to men because this shows authority over men which is wrong. A woman is NEVER to be in authority over a man. [Said the commenter.] So..I guess this would mean, one.. you have to declare Christian women off base [sinning] who hold authority over men in our society..OR.. two, you would have to declare whatever organization a Christian woman might be in.. a 'church'.. if you don't want said woman in authority over said men in your said organization.

If the first is true one would be establishing a biblical standard for a society made up of unredeemed people with the same standard one would have for the church. If the second is true you are totally identifying the church as an organization and would have to declare ANY organization where this principle is put into play..A CHURCH. [Which one Seminary has done.] You've got to be kidding me. I don't know which is worse. The institutional church idea or the universal standard for all lost people idea.

Another example of what makes me incredulous..is one where some one stated that if you don't believe 1Timothy 2:12 is saying that a woman is to never have authority over a man..[as stated by that commenter...others say it refers to times in the church] and were you to think otherwise you don't believe the bible and can't have fellowhip with him.

So, because of my view which is that 1Timothy is speaking about one situation in one church.. [the language is singular].. and Paul uses a word here for 'authority' that is found no where else in all of scripture, or classical Greek either for that matter, [There is evidence it WAS used as slang in the streets with a sexual conotation in that day..ie..a woman using sexuality to gain power over men.] and was probably refering to a woman in that church converted out of the worship of Diana, whose temple was outside the city, who may have still had some old habits that needed addressing by Paul, since the mystery religion of Diana held strongly to women being created before men and superior to men in every way... [Thus, in context, NOT a universal principle, and I see this BECAUSE of an historical, grammatical, and textual study.]... I'm unable to fellowship with this commenter BECAUSE I don't believe the bible. As I've said, you've got to be kidding me.

His idea loses sight of a thought well expressed by someone who said.."Sometimes, the Bible doesn’t give you enough evidence, one way or the other, to settle a question beyond the possibility of a continuing discussion and debate. If this is true, and if the enlightenment of the Holy Spirit does not remove this ambiguity, then there are points beyond which discussion and debate ought to proceed only with considerable and generous amounts of respectful humility."

One final example of comments that leave me incredulous. Some one said that the attitude I just refered to in a quote is REALLY the view that is narrowing the parameters of our convention life and is being divisive in suggesting that there is NOT a clear biblical statement on ALL issues. All Baptists will know the truth about these issues of authority, or women, or the make-up of the church or whatever if we just believe the bible. To suggest a thought on something other than what is stated in scripture, as they interpret it, or the BF@M, as they see it, is dividing us. As one commenter said to another SBC pastor, "Shame on you for being divisive in SBC life." [Because that SBC pastor believed there were lesser important truths that we could hold different interpretations on even in the BF@M and still fellowship as SBCers.]

Add to all this the one hour conversation I just had with a trustee of one of our SBC Seminaries [which for the moment will remain unknown unless he reveals the information though I have his permission to reference this] who will not be renominated for the position because of his bad behavior and divisive [there it is again] attitude. His bad behavior? He asked for information on the use of some money designated for one thing and used for another by a Southern Baptist state entity. His divisive attitude? When he was refused the information he asked why? It became obvious to him that to disagree with a decision made and to ask 'why' about that decision was seen as divisive. His actions and attitude were reported to the powers that be and he will NOT be renominated as a trustee of one of our Seminaries. He was never contacted about any issue of action or attitude that resulted in his being dropped from the trustee nominations until after the fact and, then, not by those in charge.

I'm wondering if those in charge of that particular SBC state entity and several other SBC entities I know about have ever pastored churches. For a Pastor/Elder to be asked 'why' is par for the course and that Pastor/Elder had better have a good answer for the questioner. That is, unless of course, there is more than one Lord over the church. There does seem to be a danger of there being more than one Lord in Southern Baptist life in these days.

As I said, "incredulous" is the word that best describes my state of mind at the moment.

Paul B.