HOW ABOUT WOMEN ELDERS?
Cecil Hook

Although I could always see inconsistency in the restrictions that we placed upon women in service capacities, I was content to limit women to their traditional roles as a “safe course.” Along with the usual restrictive proof-texts, I often quoted the sharp-witted English writer Samuel Johnson: “Sir, a woman preaching is like a dog walking on his hind legs. It is not done well; but you are surprised to find it done at all.”

Compelled by honesty with myself, however, in time my studies have forced me to change many strongly conditioned conclusions. Now I must admit that I see only one main restriction hindering a women from any Christian ministry that her male counterpart can fulfil.

A few years ago I came across a booklet with a long title, “The Christian Woman May Pray in the Public Worship Assembly,” written by Darrell Foltz. After reading it, I wrote the author stating that he had answered every objection that I had except one. If women are accepted in the same capacities as men, I inquired, why did Jesus not choose some women apostles?

Pondering that question after mailing the letter, I concluded that it was because the culture of his society would have considered it objectionable. A few days later I received a similar explanation from the author of the booklet.

That is the chief, if not the only, restriction to be considered relating to the women’s activity today.

This factor is not too surprising when we consider that social and cultural perceptions are considered relating to various other things like the veil, women’s hair, the kiss, footwashing, and slavery.

The limiting statements in 1 Corinthians 14 and 1 Timothy 2 were meant to correct improprieties in the conduct of certain women in their particular situations. Paul was not laying down universal prohibitions. He had already told what women could do in I Corinthians 11, and he had not changed his mind by the time he wrote chapter 14. He said that they could pray and prophesy in their gatherings.

Paul’s regulations relate to husband-wife more than to man-woman relations. Man is not the head of woman in a universal sense. I am not the head of your wife; neither do you have authority over my wife. The husband is the head of his wife and she is to be submissive to him, not me. These points are clarified in good studies, or re-studies, that are now available in books and tapes.

Simply put: Paul plainly states that women may pray and prophesy, and Philip had four daughter who did so. And few of us would deny that a woman may rightly do what the evangelist Philip did with the Ethiopian eunuch. He preached Jesus to him, and she can preach in a similar manner. So what is the problem other than our prejudicial social conditioning?

Alright, you caught me in a trap, didn’t you? A woman cannot he an elder. An elder must be the husband of one wife. We have never seen a woman with a wife!

It is undeniable that Phoebe was a deacon (the Greek has no feminine form like the English deaconness). Women are included in the description of deacons in 1 Tim. 3:8-13. They were to qualify as deacons. Yet it says, “Let deacons be the husband of one wife.” If a woman can be a deacon without a wife. why can she not be an elder without one?

The descriptions of elders and deacons are not lists of legal qualification as we have generally perceived them to be, else the lists to Timothy and Titus would be identical. They are, however, the general description of the kind of persons to recognize. Paul used terms like man and he, like we do at times, to indicate persons without reference to gender, and he specifically includes women in 1 Timothy 3.

Are you declaring that you will never reach these conclusions. I never thought that I would either. But when I declared that I would not change my mind, I was really saying to myself that I already knew and understood everything about the subject and would grow no more.

Fortunately, as with the expansion of my waistline, growth is not always intentional, invited, and without resistance. Expansion is of God when we hunger and thirst after righteousness.

Will the women’s service be forever restricted as long as anyone objects to their participation? If it is the weak brother whose conscience is being violated, respect must be given to his convictions until he can be taught more fully. But the stubborn person who refused to grow in understanding is not the weak brother. He is the divisive brother when he demands that his ideas rule.

In Romans 14 and elsewhere Paul called for consideration of persons with scruples about meat, days, and circumcision, yet he did not permit them to bind diet, days, or circumcision. We must not continue to allow contentious people to limit Christian liberty by binding their convictions. Much courageous teaching of the weak brother needs to be done regarding the liberty of women.

It is not the “safe course” to forbid the exercise of the God-given gifts of women in serving. —1350 Huisache, New Braunfels, Tx. 78130

Ultimately all preaching must be the attempt to reconcile men to God through Jesus Christ; and therefore the preacher must continuously confront the hearer with the challenge of the Gospel of Christ and the invitation to the pilgrimage of the Christian life.-- William Barclay