I commend to you our sister Phoebe, a servant of the church at Cenchreae, that you may welcome her in the Lord in a way worthy of the saints, and help her in whatever she may need from you, for she has been a patron of many and of myself as well.
Romans 16:1
After Calvinism versus Arminianism, one of the most hotly debated topics in the contemporary church is that of Egalitarianism versus Complementarianism. Egalitarians assert that men and women aren’t just equal in value but equal on all fronts including biblical authority. Hence women can be head pastors of churches. Criteria for their roles in the church are determined by gifting not gender.
Complementarians assert that while men and women are of equal value and importance before God, they have very distinct roles within the church. Women function in various roles and authority. However, “head pastor” or overseer is not one of them. While I’ve generally leaned toward an egalitarian view myself. I’ve tried to avoid arguing for either position. My goal is to present what scripture has to say. I will ask the Acts 17:11 Bereans Bible Study participants to apply the tools we have learned thus far including the laws of coherence and noncontradiction in the context of the 2 Timothy 3:16-17 presupposition,
All scripture is God breathed…
Phoebe in Vs. 1 is often cited in defense of Egalitarianism. Phoebe is named as a servant. Servant is diรกkonos, the Greek word from which the English word Deacon is derived. Hence, Egalitarians cite Phoebe as a church deacon and proof that women originally served in church leadership. It seems reasonable. Still, others argue that the official title and office of Deacon did not exist until later. The complementarian conclusion that follows is that Phoebe was probably a faithful servant of the church and not a leader.
Servant – diรกkonos
-Strongs Concordance-
To run errands; an attendant, a waiter at the table, or in other menial duties, especially, a Christian teacher and pastor.
โข one who executes the commands of another, esp. of a master, a servant, an attendant, a minister, the servant of a king
โข a deacon, one who, by virtue of the office assigned to him by the church, cares for the poor and has charge of and distributes the money collected for their use
โข a waiter, one who serves food and drink
Egalitarians also cite Junia in vs. 7 as further proof.
Salute Andronicus and Junia, my
Romans 16:7 KJV
kinsmen, and my fellow prisoners,
who are of note among the apostles, who also were in Christ before
me.
Egalitarians interpret of note among the apostles, as stating that Junia was numbered as one of the apostles. If Junia was indeed an apostle, like Peter or Paul, then women are free to serve in any role within the fivefold ministry including the head pastor.
The ESV which is one of two contemporary translations taken directly from the original Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek instead of another English translation reads like this.
Greet Andronicus and Junia, my kinsmen and my fellow prisoners. They are well known to the apostles, and they were in Christ before me.
Romans 16:7 ESV
Clearly, Junia was respected by the Apostles. But was she AN Apostle?
Another egalitarian cited proof text is found in Galatians 3.
There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is no male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus. And if you are Christ’s, then you are Abraham’s offspring, heirs according to promise.
Galatians 3:28-29
Egalitarians cite these verses as proof that gender distinctions do not exist within the kingdom of God. That certainly lines up with Western cultural dogma over the last fifty years. Those unfamiliar with the interplay between Critical Theory, Radical Feminism and Post Modern Theory in shaping at least five decades of Western culture should read Expose What?. That said, Paul addresses the issue of justification by faith alone in Galatians 3. There are no earthy distinctions that separate those who can and cannot be saved. However, nowhere in Galatians 3 does Paul address the issue of gender in terms of roles and authority in the church. If indeed egalitarians are correct, Galatians 3:28 is not the proof text that supports it.
Another possible argument in support of Egalitarianism is found in 2 Corinthians 5.
From now on, therefore, we regard no one according to the flesh.
2 Corinthians 5:16
Gender distinctions are distinctions according to flesh. If we regard no one after the flesh then male and female do not apply in the church. That seems like a stretch because
So God created man in his own image,
Genesis 1:27
in the image of God he created him;
male and female he created them.
It seems that male and female are spiritual distinctions with characteristics expressed in the flesh. Paul frames flesh as “tents” in 2 Cor 5. Furthermore, similar to Galatians 3 the context of 2 Cor 5 is justification and reconciliation between man and God. In that case, there are no distinctions according to the flesh. Paul mentions nothing about church authority here. Once again, Egalitarianism may be valid but 2 Corinthians 5 is also not a valid supporting scripture. Perhaps an Egalitarian who is reading this knows of better supporting scripture.
The emerging conflict.
It seems to me that the idea of ending gender roles violates the law of non-contradiction. In Ephesians 5:22-33 Paul declares marriage between a man and a woman as the paradigm for Christ’s relationship with His church. The man is the head of the wife. Those who view scripture through a lens of cultural dogma often recoil at the idea of men being the head of a woman. This attitude is at least partially driven by the overwhelming propensity of contemporary humans to view authority in terms of power and domination. Power corresponds with a platform and celebrity. Yet Christian headship or leadership is based on the idea of servanthood. While Ephesians 5 clearly states that the wife is to submit to her husband, the husband is called to give himself up for the wife in reflection of how Christ loved the church. As I explain to the married couples whom we counsel, when both husband and wife are obedient to God’s Word they will find themselves hard-pressed in determining who is submitting to whom.
Again, sometimes scripture bucks contemporary cultural dogma that has, among other things, depreciated the traditional roles and value of women especially the miraculous anointing to bring human life into the world.
Paul directly addresses the structure of church leadership later in 1 Timothy. If Phoebe held the office of Deacon and Junia was an Apostle then either something changed or the God breathed scripture contradicts itself. If scripture contradicts itself then it is not God breathed.
I desire then that in every place the men should pray, lifting holy hands without anger or quarreling; likewise also that women should adorn themselves in respectable apparel, with modesty and self-control, not with braided hair and gold or pearls or costly attire, but with what is proper for women who profess godlinessโwith good works. Let a woman learn quietly with all submissiveness. I do not permit a woman to teach or to exercise authority over a man; rather, she is to remain quiet. For Adam was formed first, then Eve; and Adam was not deceived, but the woman was deceived and became a transgressor. Yet she will be saved through childbearingโif they continue in faith and love and holiness, with self-control.
1 Timothy 2:8-15
1 Timothy 2 is the only place of which I am aware where Paul addresses the improper alignment of authority as a reason for the fall of mankind. Still, it is always easier to appease culture than to buck it on Biblical grounds. At the end of the day, we can make an argument for anything. We can justify and rationalize any position by attributing more weight to one proof text over another. However, we cannot do so without violating the law of non-contradiction and undermining the authority of scripture.
The saying is trustworthy: If anyone aspires to the office of overseer, he desires a noble task. Therefore an overseer must be above reproach, the husband of one wife…
1 Timothy 3:1-2
In 1 Timothy 3 Paul lists the qualifications for overseers, (Bishops) which translates to head pastors in evangelical churches today. He does the same for the office of deacon.
Their wives likewise must be dignified, not slanderers, but sober-minded, faithful in all things. Let deacons each be the husband of one wife, managing their children and their own households well…
1 Timothy 3:8-12
Egalitarians will often cite Galatians 3 and extrapolate the interchangeable nature of gender roles here as well. That seems like a serious stretch to me particularly in the context of Ephesians 5:22-33.
As for other offices, there were women prophets, like Anna in Luke 2:36. The first recorded evangelist was a woman. John 4 Some women taught alongside their husbands such as Pricilla with Aquila in Acts 18:26. Philip the evangelist, had four unmarried daughters, who prophesied. Acts 21:9 Titus 2 exhorts women to lead by example. Older women are to teach younger women.
Then we have detailed criteria for the exercise of tongues and prophetic gifting in 1 Corinthians 14.
As in all the churches of the saints, the women should keep silent in the churches. For they are not permitted to speak, but should be in submission, as the Law also says. If there is anything they desire to learn, let them ask their husbands at home. For it is shameful for a woman to speak in church.
1 Corinthians 14:33-35
Did Paul just contradict what he wrote three chapters before? Many say that Paul was simply addressing the issue of cross-talking during the sermon.
but every wife who prays or prophesies with her head uncovered dishonors her head
1 Corinthians 11:5
Granted the context is a religious debate over head coverings. Yet Paul acknowledges that women do prophecy.
In 2 Timothy Paul praises the faith of Timothy’s grandmother Lois and his mother Eunice who imparted their faith to him.
I am reminded of your sincere faith, a faith that dwelt first in your grandmother Lois and your mother Eunice and now, I am sure, dwells in you as well.
1 Timothy 1:5
Clearly women hold authority. But apparently, their roles are different from those of men. One of the best definitions of a manโs role in the Church is found in 1 Corinthians 4.
Let a man so account of us, as of the ministers of Christ, and stewards of the mysteries of God.
1 Corinthians 4:1
Those with a contemporary cultural lens will almost undoubtedly view this verse as a declaration of authority and power. They recoil with,
“If a man can do it, a woman can too!”
Yet a deep dive into the word minister yields the Greek work hypฤrรฉtฤs– an underrower, subordinate rower. Underrowers were not celebritized platform holders. Underrowers were slaves chained to benches below deck on ships. They rowed to the beat of a drum determined by the ship captain.
Steward is oikonรณmos – a manager, superintendent (whether free-born or as was usually the case, a freed-man or a slave) to whom the head of the house or proprietor has entrusted the management of his affairs, the care of receipts and expenditures, and the duty of dealing out the proper portion to every servant and even to the children not yet of age – the manager of a farm or landed estate, an overseer…
It appears to me that contemporary culture, a.k.a The World to which are not to be conformed Romans 12:1-2 has conflated the role of the overseer with that of the head of the house or proprietor.ย That should be no surprise in a culture where some claim that men can give birth to children. Headship is not held by any human being. It is held by Jesus.
I could be wrong. But it seems to me that we have a choice. Obey the word of God as it is written. Or jump through intellectual hoops formed by inference and induction. We adhere to the voice of culture or to the voice of God. Once again, this has been an underpinning controversy since Augustin first departed from the literal teachings of Polycarp and Irenaeus. Polycarp was discipled by John. We discussed this the first time the Acts 17:11 Bereans Bible Study met.
But then I am just one man with one fallable perspective.
Am I Wrong?
What say you?
Wiktionary
