foreign [Music] there are four things that I want you to hear me say right up front before anything else one whatever your interpretation of scripture on tonight's topic you are welcome here in this community and I really mean that two I hope you will form the way you view all of life through the lens of Jesus not form Jesus to fit your particular lens three it is my prayer that you will be curious and self-reflective about the baggage that you carry into tonight's topic because we've all got back at you and the only destructive way to carry our baggage is ignorant of the weight that we're dragging behind us none of us are starting tonight's conversation with an entirely clean slate and without acknowledging the baggage that we're carrying it then becomes the lens that colors the way that we perceive everything else that we see and think the world-renowned social psychologist Dr Jonathan hate who specializes in moral theory in other words the study of why we believe what we believe observe observes into intuitions come first strategic reasoning second in other words desire precedes belief we tend to believe things because we really want to believe them and then often we form rational arguments around our desires to confirm the beliefs that we've already decided on but still the beliefs themselves are driven by desire and not by rational thinking alone or even first we've got skin in the game for a certain conclusion to be true and so we find a way to confirm its truth that is part of the human condition so acknowledge what you're carrying fear anger demand hurt frustration suspicion Pride acknowledge what you're carrying and prayerfully entrusted to Jesus it's still going to be one of the primary factors in your thinking but it won't get to rule if you're willing to humbly name it and set it as best you can at the feet of Jesus and instead you can become curious about Jesus's view of tonight's topic and about what makes that good news because tonight is about what it's always about when we open up his word good news and sometimes good news lands instantly in the soul and other times it takes a little bit of time and processing fourth and final thing I want you to hear me say is lecture is code for you better want this because it's probably going to be boring so I am just warning you right now that we are going to dig into the biblical text together and if you're up for that this is going to be great and if you're not your eyes may glaze over but in a city filled with entertaining options you willingly chose to show up at something called lecture night so when tackling theological questions it is wise to First locate the weight that the question should carry and its implications before we dive in and we have found a four-part framework really helpful which we've borrowed from Dr Gary beshears die for divide four debate for and decide for so die for those would be theological Essentials that you'd be martyred defending think the lordship of Jesus salvation that kind of thing then there's divide for a notch beneath the essentials but still important enough to divide over think any practice or or open practice versus outright cessation of the gifts of the Spirit or definitions of sexuality and marriage for example debate for our theological topics that you have a clear position on and believe are really important but you also don't think are worth churches splitting over think predestination versus free will or the administration of the sacraments topics with varying biblical evidence and topics that matter but mature congregations can and should be able to hold these topics with civil disagreement and tension now one caveat that can Elevate these topics from debate up to division is if the expression of the position is unusually extreme so for if for example if a church that has a theological belief in calvinist predestination holds that belief so tightly that they don't practice or teach intercessory prayer at all then maybe it's worth Division and then finally decide for these are topics that are not actually theological decisions but preferential ones but some to justify preference may try to build theologies around them think should we have drums in musical worship or not or what reputable translation of the Bible do you use that kind of thing so tonight we are here to discuss women and eldership and personally I would locate this in the debate for category we can and must be able to maintain theological difference with humility and unity now of course the most extreme Expressions that you might come up with could raise the stakes on that but we are not discussing the dignity worth value or empowerment of women in church leadership generally but exclusively the relationship of women to the role of Elder in the local church and the reason for that is that this is a theologically complex topic it's a difficult one to interpret biblically it's one that you can land on either side on while remaining faithful to the truth and authority of scripture for instance two views on women in Ministry which is one of the books that was studied by our committee contains four long-form essays by four respected biblical Scholars male and female Scholars all of whom hold a high view of scripture as the inspired and authoritative word of God but all come to different conclusions on this topic some nuanced differences and some of them worlds apart from one another and yet they all believe that the conclusions drawn by the others are faithful to the biblical text and the truth and Authority within scripture and faithful to Historic Orthodox Christian tradition also pastors and Scholars that I deeply respect will are you humbly for either side Tim Keller holds to one position Dallas Willard holds to the other Andrew Wilson and Ruth Haley Barton Gary Brashears and Cynthia Westfall now if you want to know who's on which side you got to do your own research biblical interpretation is a complex task the wide variety of views on this topic within the Christian Church says something important to us at the Bible or about the Bible that it was designed as an epic story that leads us to Jesus and offers us God's wisdom on what it means to be human but the Bible wasn't actually written as a handbook on men women and church leadership structures and so the project of piecing together all the biblical passages relevant to tonight's question is a complex Challenge and it's one that requires patience and humility biblical interpretation is complex because in the words of Old Testament scholar John Walton we believe the Bible was written for us that it's for everyone of all times and places because it's the word of God but it wasn't written to us it wasn't written in our language it wasn't written with our culture and mind or our culture and view therefore if we want to get the best benefit from the communication we need to try to enter into their world here it is the audience would have heard it and as the author would have meant it and read it on those terms similarly the Old Testament scholar Terence fretheim says that whenever you read the Bible there's three worlds colliding there's the text right in front of you what does the scripture say but then there's the World Behind the text okay what does that mean for uh first century uh Jerusalem or in ancient Ephesus and then there's the reader if that's what scripture says and what it meant for the original hearers what does it mean for us today in 21st century Western culture all to say tonight is not me trying to glorify certain churches or theological camps While demonizing others tonight is not me trying to simplify an issue that the church has wrestled over for more than two centuries now tonight is certainly not me trying to Champion a stance to welcome some while alienating others and draw some sort of line that might divide us as a people tonight is me on behalf of the elders staff and women and eldership Committee of this church attempting to serve and honor Bridgetown church with Clarity where there has been confusion what do you mean confusion well let me just remind you one final time how we got here what is bridgetown's position on women and eldership is the most frequent theological question asked of our pastoral staff both anecdotally and more formally in the classes and courses that we offer and yet we have had no public or private official written statement on this topic ever in the history of this church so in review most frequent question no clear unified response that works for a number of theological complexities but women in eldership just isn't one of them we can't just oh it's quite complicated to each their own on this particular topic because 100 years from now if we've never had a woman serve on the Elder Board of Bridgetown church we have a position and if we have had a woman serve on the Elder board Bridgestone church we have a position you cannot be an elder-led Church which we are without being clear about the biblical qualifications for eldership there must be Clarity of belief and then practice in line with that belief so having acknowledged the complexity and the necessity for Clarity on the topic of women and eldership it is imperative that we pray for grace and humility before I lead us a step further Holy Spirit would you come would you awaken our souls that we might set All Flesh aside starting with me foreign would you be the whisper in my ear in my sister's ear and in my brother's ear would you lead us through deep weeds where it might be easy to get caught get stuck or get lost and would you help us to be the kind of family that can laugh together and weep together and talk about hard things together and all of it just link our arms ever tighter together in the house that you have set us in in the relationships that you've called us to with our eyes set on the mission on which you are leading us come and help we need your help You're The Advocate right we need your help it's in the name of our Lord and Savior Jesus that we pray all this amen so we are here tonight to pick up a 2 000 year old conversation does Scripture teach that there are certain leadership roles or Expressions reserved for men only based on the exclusive criteria of gender that is the one and only question that we are addressing through our written statement and over the course of these two lecture nights and it's important that I say that because that this topic is one that can so easily bleed into others about gender roles and marriage and household structures and so forth and I'm not addressing any of that secondly it's important I know it's that while we have lacked a defined position to this point as Bridgetown Church we're also not starting from zero at Bridgetown we believe in the empowerment of women we believe that the Holy Spirit does not give out spiritual gifts according to gender we believe that women can and should lead alongside men in every expression of the church's Ministry meaning encouragement prophetic Ministry teaching preaching and so forth and we have and will continue to practice in line with those beliefs this is a Biblical exploration of the role of gender and the presence that women may or may not have in that role particularly and our question is not a new question it has been the subject of significant debate at various points throughout church history and it remains so in today's Church the Bible contains a wide variety of relevant texts and fitting them together into a coherent poll a hole is quite a puzzle and it's not an exact science leading to a wide spectrum of views both throughout church history and in today's Global Church the general range of views can be summarized in these four categories this is a chart which I've adapted from Dr William Webb who's a theologian and Baptist minister and as you scan this chart just a quick note on the terminology that you'll see there in this table we have chosen to use the terms mutualist and complementarian because those are generally the preferred terms of faithful Believers on either side of the interpretive spectrum and the terms that they use to describe their own View and in defining beliefs particularly the beliefs of those that we disagree with it's our desire to honor the preferred terminology of the parties holding those views over the course of these lectures however I will be using the terms mutualist as seen on this chart and hierarchicalists rather than complementarian which is an adjacent theological term and I'm choosing those terms because of an attempt to speak with the most Integrity that I possibly can I believe those terms best fit the bill because of both their accuracy and their Origins hierarchicalist and mutualists best describe each interpretation as one are used for some type of hierarchy and the other argues for a flat and mutual approach between genders in church leadership the fundamental belief of the view often called complementarian is that men and women while equal in value before God have different roles within a god-redained hierarchy when it comes to leadership in the church hence the term hierarchicalist egalitarian is a term that some use for what we're terming mutualist but it's a term with Origins and the political and philosophical spheres not in Theology and the fundamental belief within this interpretation is that men and women stand mutually side by side before God both in value and potential for leadership and Authority in the church hence the term mutualist and that brings me to our belief as Bridgetown Church after in-depth study involving reading scholarly works from a range of different views and hearing presentations from respected Scholars who hold to different views and interacting in depth with those Scholars and crafting individual written statements critically interacting with each other's views and thought processes and saturating every last bit of it in prayer the Bridgetown committee for defining a position on women and eldership which was commissioned by our Elder board and participated in by every member of our Elder board has reached a unanimous and unified position which we shared publicly in the form of a robust written statement a few days ago and is available right now for anyone and everyone to read in full on our website I'll read a snippet of that defining our position exactly as it's written from that statement we believe that women and men are created equal in the image of God we believe that full equality between women and men does not mean that women and men are completely the same there is a unique goodness and Beauty represented in each gender that reflects the infinite wisdom and glory of God we believe that God raises up leaders for the church on the basis of Grace calling spiritual gifts obedience and character we believe both women and men can and should lead preach pastor and Minister within the church we believe that when men and women lead together there is a Ministry of love and grace that is more robust than can be sustained by one gender alone we believe that women and men can and should serve in pastoral leadership in the local church Bridgetown Church believes that men and women are equally gifted and qualified to lead and serve as co-laborers in the church we do not just permit but emphatically value the presence of both men and women at every level of church leadership including the office of Elder we see this as both being in line with the teaching of the scriptures as well as being practically helpful and wise and we have not reached our conclusion as a committee based on a single Scholar's argument or a single verse of scripture or some sort of theological Smoking Gun rather is through the cumulative evidence presented within both the word and world of scripture our belief is built on four pillars biblical narrative biblical trajectory biblical leadership and biblical exegesis and that will serve as the framework of tonight's first lecture so let's go through those one at a time first biblical narrative so whenever working with a Biblical interpretation it's always wise to start by establishing what is clear in scripture before moving to the more complex and less clear and when it comes to women in leadership there's no denying that there's a wide variety of scriptural passages that seem to say different things if you isolate just one biblical passage against another it can seem as if the Bible is talking out of both sides of its mouth at times and that's why we begin with what is clear in the biblical story by tracing the theme of women in leadership through the biblical drama in four familiar stages creation fall Redemption renewal so creation what was God's creation mandate for man and woman in Eden Genesis chapter 1. then God said let us make Mankind in our image in our likeness so that they may rule over the fish in the sea and the birds in the sky and over all the livestock and all the wild animals and over all the living creatures that move along the ground now this English word mankind is the Hebrew Adam which does not mean man as we use it in English it's a collective term for the human species meaning male and female unless it is restricted by context which in this case it's not The Narrative continues describing both male and female created in God's image there is nothing in the Bible's first chapter that supports any hierarchy between man and woman both are blessed by God both are commissioned to rule and Reign Over creation both are given the Earth's fruit fruit for food and enjoyment they are distinguished as man and woman as the chapter rolls forward but if all we knew about the Bible was the first creation account there would be no grounds for controversy or question there is no statement of one made before the other or varying commissions or varying Blessings by God Genesis chapter 2 complements the first chapter by zooming in on day six of creation telling the exact same story only telling it from a different and more detailed point of view God creates and then appoints the human no longer Humanity in general but a singular figure to oversee a divinely planted Garden that is marked out as a heaven on Earth spot but there is something not good in Paradise because alone human cannot accomplish the calling placed on him to be fruitful and multiply and to rule and Reign Over creation and so God famously says it is not good for the man to be alone I will make a helper suitable for him now the English helper suitable is the Hebrew Ezra connecto and it's a problematic translation to Modern ears because helper sounds like a derogatory or subordinate term in English and that is not what the Hebrew means at all helper is the Hebrew ezer and it's a bit of a clumsy word to translate but it's neither derogatory nor subordinate in fact helper appears consistently in the Hebrew Bible and most often has God himself as the subject when he comes to save his people for instance we see this in Genesis Deuteronomy Hosea and the Psalms and the English suitable comes from the Hebrew connecta which is a compound word made up of ke meaning as or like and negeged meaning opposite against or in front of this word most literally means as opposite him or like against him so here's the point this is a word that holds together both similarity and difference Eve is like Adam because she is a human not an animal but Eve is opposite from or different from Adam because she's a woman not a man The Scholar are David Friedman who's quoted in Mary Conway's phenomenal essay on the Genesis creation account writes Ezra connecto should be translated to mean approximately a power equal to man that is when God concluded that he would create another creature so that man would not be alone he decided to make a power equal to him someone whose strength was equal to man's woman was not intended to merely be man's helper she was instead his partner so then a more accurate and literal translation of uh of God's words to this woman might sound like it is not good for the human to be alone I will make an essential Ally who is both like and unlike him putting the two creation accounts together one could fairly summarize Humanity was created at one then becomes two and is called to reunite as one biblically and linguistically there's nothing in either of these creation narratives to indicate that woman is subordinate to man or carries a lesser or more specified leadership role in God's created creation mandate fall sin corrupts Paradise when Eve and Adam eat the fruit distrusting and disobeying God and God holds them accountable equally in explaining the consequences of sin in Genesis 3. consequences that include the destruction of the harmonious Union of man and woman depicted before sin your desire will be for your husband and he will rule over you now the Hebrew verb for rule here is not the same word used when God blesses Humanity to rule and reign in Genesis chapter 1. instead it's a word for absolute authority over another person and it is the same Hebrew verb we see in Genesis chapter 4 describing the necessity that Cain gained absolute authority over sin sin is crouching at your door it desires to have you and you must rule over it it's also the same word used in Genesis chapter 37 when Joseph's brothers took offense at his prophetic dreams assuming the sort of authority that he dreamed of having over them was negative rather than generous as it turned out to be his brother said to him do you intend to Reign Over Us will you actually rule us one human being ruling over another is not God's design it is a distortion of it and that leaves the first part of the consequence your desire will be for your husband which is a bit more complex the Hebrew word used here for desire is tashuka which means passions or longings desire in itself is not negative so this could be a good desire rooted in God's image or it could be a deceived desire rooted in sin how do we know which one well I think it's telling that God speaks this very same word in the very next chapter of Genesis only a few verses later in that same warning issued to Cain we just referenced sin is crouching at your door and it meaning sin desires tashuka to have you but you must rule over it the relational consequences of sin in Genesis 3 are then immediately connected to sin's ongoing destruction in Genesis 4 the god-ordained partnership between man and woman has been corrupted by sin for both parties so subordination between man and woman is found in the Bible's first few chapters but it is clearly found as a consequence of sins corruption not as a part of God's design that brings us to Redemption God's Redemption of sins corruption focuses in on an elderly Barren couple Abraham and Sarah to whom God promises to make a nation through whom he will bless all of the world so God's Redemption plan is directly aimed at the repair of sins consequences the union of man and woman and the creation mandate for Fruitful multiplication the Redemption story then goes on through the nation of Israel to reach its Crescendo in the person of Jesus and for our purposes I want to look at the life of Jesus holding the question how did Jesus relate to women or even more specifically did Jesus espouse any hierarchy between the leadership roles of men and women based purely on the criteria of their respective genders in short Jesus was revolutionary in his empowerment of women Scholars across the interpretive Spectrum agreed that Jesus includes both men and women as his disciples that was a revolutionary act for Jewish rabbi at the time to invite women to be his disciples in Luke chapter 8 we read of three specific women and many others who traveled with Jesus alongside the twelve in Matthew's gospel Jesus has told his families outside and wants to speak with him pointing to his disciples he said here are my mother and my brothers for whoever does the will of my Father in Heaven is my brother and sister and mother now you may be drawn to what seems like a dismissive comment that Jesus just made toward his nuclear family it's not but that's an entirely different sermon I want you to see that Jesus clearly just named women sister and mother among his disciples Mary sat at the Lord's feet and listened which was the posture a disciple took before a rabbi as noted by the Apostle Paul in the book of Acts one day as Jesus was teaching a woman in the crowd called out blessed is the mother who gave birth to you and nursed you that was meant as a compliment in the ancient world it was thought that a woman's highest calling was to Bear children but instead of received the compliment on his mother's behalf Jesus responds blessed rather are those who hear the word of God and Obey it so for Jesus motherhood and fatherhood are honored but a woman's highest calling is identical to the highest calling of a man salvation and discipleship the vast majority of Scholars maintained that there were women in the 72s sent out by Jesus ahead of him to the towns were about where he would go to preach and that women were present to the Great Commission and sent out with authority to go and make disciples of all Nations baptizing them in the name of the father and the Son and the Holy Spirit and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you not to get ahead of myself here but then in the early church era we see the word disciple used in the feminine form mathera to describe either Tabitha or dorkus in Acts chapter 9. perhaps most counter-culturally all four gospels designate women as the first Witnesses of the Resurrection an unthinkable choice in an era when a woman's testimony was considered suspect and often excluded from the Law Court altogether in fact the Greek philosopher celsus in his own writings points to these first female witnesses as grounds for dismissing the resurrection as viable altogether together women were entrusted as the first Witnesses and the first messengers of the Gospel that's an unthinkable choice and an unthinkable Choice you've got to believe God made intentionally the resurrection just doesn't seem like an event that Yahweh was leaving up to chance there's sufficient biblical evidence to say that Jesus did not draw a distinction between his male and female disciples when it came to value or qualifications for discipleship or even leadership in fact he was subversive even revolutionary in his inclusion of women among his disciples still May point out that Jesus did not include women among the twelve so the question must be asked was the rationale for calling 12 male disciples and then later in Acts 12 male Apostles due to a leadership distinction purely based on the criteria of gender I believe no that the criteria was the Fulfillment of redemption which began in the womb of Abraham and Sarah whose Offspring grew through three generations to 12 sons the seed of Israel's Twelve Tribes a Biblical theme of blessing for the whole world that carries all the way up to through the pages of Revelation Jesus is 12 where an expression of his role as the peak of God's Redemption fulfilling what God began in Abraham and Sarah Theologian William Witt writes Jesus chose 12 male Apostles for the same reason they chose 12 Apostles and Jewish Apostles and so far as Jesus followers represent the new Israel Jesus's 12 Apostles typologically represent the 12 tribes of Israel and specifically the 12 Patriarchs the sons of Jacob from whom the nation of Israel was descended the twelve had to be free Jewish males not slaves women or Gentiles in order to fulfill the symbolic function of their typological role Jesus did not call 12 male disciples but 12 Jewish male disciples so if we don't believe in any realm of church leadership position should be restricted only to Jewish males then neither can we limit them to just males based on the criteria of Jesus's disciples right and if we believe as the pages of scripture clearly showed that the church was meant to be channeled through the Jewish people to bless welcome include and be led by people of all Nations than to build a Theology of church leadership differently when it comes to women we must build on some Foundation other than Jesus's 12 disciples the life death and resurrection of Jesus points forward to the gift of the Holy Spirit and the birth of the church on the day of Pentecost which Peter interpreted through the prophecy of Joel in the last days God says I will pour out my spirit on all people your sons and daughters will prophesy your young men will see Visions your old men will dream dreams even on my servants both men and women I will pour out my spirit in those days and they will prophesy the gift of the Holy Spirit and the birth of the church is biblically depicted as the Fulfillment of Old Testament prophecy that is profoundly and equally inclusive of both men and women and that brings us to redemption's last major movement the early church where women took on unique prominence in comparison to the surrounding culture describing the way God equipped the church for leadership and Ministry the Apostle Paul writes so Christ himself gave the apostles the prophets the evangelists the pastors and the teachers to equip his people for works of service so that the body of Christ may be built up until we reach unity in the faith and in the knowledge of the Son of God and become mature attaining to the whole measure of the fullness of Christ here we have five distinct leadership roles that make up the church's holistic leadership so again for our purposes a question worth asking is is there biblical evidence that women were not qualified to serve in any of these five roles based exclusively on the criteria of gender first prophets Philip's four daughters are named prophets and minister to the Apostle Paul himself in Acts 21 later Paul offers instructions to women on actively prophesying in the church in First Corinthians 11. so that one's out then there's evangelists you odia and sentike were leaders in the Philippian church and described as contenders for the gospel who worked alongside Paul in Philippians 4. additionally there are a number of women nympha Chloe and Lydia sent out by the Apostle Paul to various Greco-Roman cities to plant churches which is an obviously Evangelistic endeavor pastors is a little bit trickier to nail down and we'll look further at it in the biblical leadership pillar in a moment but for our purposes right now it's worth knowing noting that first if the Apostle Paul sent out nympha Chloe and Lydia to plant churches but didn't intend for them to Pastor those churches then the task of getting the church planted would be pretty tricky don't you think I mean how do you get the thing started without doing some level of pastoring and then secondly we can't import our expression of church onto the pages of the New Testament we have to understand theirs and the early church met in homes not in buildings they didn't have staffs leading various Ministries the way that we commonly do today instead in most cases the householder served to lead the house church pastorally and as we will see later there are a number of female householders in the early church this brings us to teachers Priscilla and Aquila are a couple whose names occur in the book of Acts as well in the letters of Romans and second Timothy Priscilla is known as a female teacher across scholarship from various views in the Greco-Roman World referring to a man and a woman like Aquila and Priscilla the male's name was always listed first name order was highly important in every social order of the day that came for leadership positions and class and secular gender hierarchy and when the New Testament writers talk about this couple as tent makers alongside the Apostle Paul they always follow that pattern Aquila and Priscilla but interestingly whenever their Teaching Ministry is in view the order of the names is always reversed Priscilla and Aquila a change that was so radically counter-cultural that you have to imagine that it was intentional by Luke the author of the book of Acts all the way back in the third Century the Theologian John chrysostom who is definitely not a feminist you can do your own research on him if you'd like concludes that Paul named Priscilla first in these instances in recognition of the fact that her piety was Superior to her husbands and then finally apostles Romans is arguably the most important of all new testament letters for the whole discussion that we're having because in it Paul personally greets almost as many women as men and the majority of those women five out of the nine he greets as Ministry colleagues or what's often translated co-workers most notable among those women is Junior because she receives the highest marks outstanding among the apostles because of the perceived theological weight that's carried by this very simple verse it's been reinterpreted many times over throughout church history some biblical Scholars attempt to circumvent Union's apostleship first by asserting that she's not a woman named Junior but in fact a man named Junius however the male named Junius does not occur in a single ancient writing of any variety from the same time period while the female name Junior appears widely infrequently making that theory extremely unlikely and built entirely on unfounded speculation more recently other biblical Scholars have attempted to circumvent uni as apostleship by translating this verse as esteemed among the apostles or in the sight of the Apostles however that translation simply does not reflect the context of the verse nor does it reflect the historic translations if we Trace translation back nearer and nearer to the first manuscripts it seems that by far the most likely conclusion is that the Apostle Paul clearly commends Junior a woman gifted and faithful as an apostle in the early Church in summary on the pages of the New Testament we have evidence that women served alongside men as Apostles prophets evangelists pastors and teachers filling all five roles in the five-fold model of leadership introduced to us in Ephesians bringing us finally to the fourth and final stage renewal the close of the biblical narrative is the restoration of God's created order what was present in the first two chapters of Genesis is then restored in the final two chapters of Revelation there was no hierarchy in the roles of male and female in Eden and neither is there any hierarchy in Revelations Garden City the aim of the biblical Narrative of which the church is a living preview is one of partnership men and women co-laboring as God's equally empowered image bearers New Testament scholar Dr nijay Gupta summarizes the ultimate Redemptive hopes of scripture and the gospel are not that man will find his rightful place as head over woman it is the good news that man and woman can be restored to a healthy partnership where each one is given dignity and respect and where each brings their gifts and wisdom toward a Cooperative tending of God's world pillar 2. biblical trajectory the biblical narrative is one with an ark that bends toward Redemption a story that builds and builds until all that was lost in the fall has been restored through Christ and the reunification of Heaven and Earth in short the biblical story has a trajectory the church is meant to be a living preview Community giving glimpses of God's promised future to the world here and now the church has formed and held together by the Holy Spirit given on the day of Pentecost and as we've just noted the future promised on the day of Pentecost explicitly included an equal distribution of spiritual gifts to both men and women Sons and Daughters the full restoration of God's created order has been made possible through the sacrificial death and resurrection of the Son and the giving of the Holy Spirit the church is meant to live that restoration here and now as an outpost of Heaven on Earth the restoration and call of the church includes equal relationship and Leadership between men and women Christ is moving his people from the ravages of the fall and in into life in his kingdom and that process is Progressive non-instant Progressive not because God is changing his mind about what his kingdom looks like at different points in history but because we can't receive individually or culturally all of the Redemption God has for us right at once God's mind has always been made up but we need help to see and actualize his kingdom in full Dr William Webb terms this the Redemptive movement hermeneutic and explains it using the XYZ principle X meaning the original cultural context then why the words of scripture then our culture the place that we are in the process of actualizing that Redemption now and then Z is the ultimate ethic where we are being led by Christ so if you take slavery for example like you'll see on this chart one note on this chart as you scan over it I assume that Webb which who I'm borrowing this chart from was referring to legalized slavery when speaking about our culture eliminating slavery across the table because some may point out that many forms of illegal slavery are sadly still quite in operation today so as we read the Bible tracing the theme of slavery from the fall through Old Testament history up to Jesus and then into the early church we see Redemptive movement away from the relational manifestations of original sin we see movement toward freedom for the enslaved some have pointed out though that the Apostle Paul who comments on slavery in a number of his new of his letters that are found in the New Testament speaks in a startlingly progressive and dignifying way for the slaves in his time and culture but does not explicitly condemn slavery altogether and that is frustrating for some Esau Macaulay speaks to this in his book reading while black saying the Old Testament and the later New Testament created an imaginative World in which slavery becomes more and more untenable Paul despite claims to the contrary sought to limit the Damage Done by slavery and rethought the whole institution in light of the Cross and Resurrection my colleague goes on to conclude that the biblical narrative creates a world in which slavery becomes entirely unimaginable which is why Christian churches began to make Arguments for the abolition of slavery documented as early as the 4th Century despite the fact that no Society before the 18th century contended that the institution of slavery was immoral the evolution the abolition of slavery is a Christian innovation a good news Innovation that theologically relies on a Biblical trajectory Redemptive movement a trajectory that informs the church to go on in the same direction that scripture has clearly been going until the full Redemptive picture of God's created design has been actualized again until enslavement of every kind has been eliminated and there is only brother and sister likewise as you'll note in this second chart we see movement in the biblical narrative from beginning to end toward mutuality between men and women so think of it like American football where the line of scrimmage moves incrementally down the field in pursuit of a touchdown for some ethical themes scripture moves like a line of scrimmage across eras and generations and so the question for The Interpreter is does this movement point to more movement in an inevitable touchdown or is the movement complete as it stands on the page and in the case of the role of women as with slaves our conclusion is that there is indeed Redemptive movement across the biblical narrative whose end was depicted in Eden before the Fall prophesied by Joel given at Pentecost entrusted to the church and will be completed in Christ's return now maybe you will feel suspicious of Redemptive movement hermeneutics altogether and if that is the case I understand that but I would just want to offer a couple of responses the first is this that it would be theologically irresponsible to form a belief on any biblical topic based solely on biblical trajectory however as one of four pillars of Redemptive movement matches other forms of biblical study it serves to strengthen a theological conclusion secondly Jesus himself uses a Redemptive movement hermeneutic in Matthew chapter 19 when interacting with the Pharisees over the matters of marriage and divorce Jesus refers to Moses instruction on divorce certificates as a step toward Redemption but not full Redemption itself According To Jesus full Redemption was not immediately possible because of the people's Hardness of Heart so Moses divorce certificate ethic which is on the page in Deuteronomy 24 was Redemptive in his time and culture but is still short of God's design and full Redemption for the union of man and woman as depicted in the beginning at creation Jesus is Calling The People beyond the law which God did call the people to at the time to the ultimate end to which the law was pointing Jesus forms a Theology of marriage and divorce relying on a Biblical trajectory argument third pillar biblical leadership there are important examples of women in leadership in Old Testament history but for the sake of time tonight I'm going to jump right into the new testament which is most pointed at our question about women and eldership roughly half of the household churches that Paul mentions in the New Testament were headed by women as we've already noted the vast majority of early church examples we have indicate that a householder was doing a whole lot more than holding the door open and letting people sit on their couch but was leading the church overseeing the finances and the logistics and the Pastoral matters the de facto lead Pastor in modern Church language in the words of the Theologian Gordon fee the householder would naturally serve as the leaders of the house or the leader of the House Church that is by the very sociology of things it would never have occurred to them that a person from outside the household would come in and Lead what was understood as simply an extension of the household to put it plainly the church is not likely to gather in a person's house unless the householder functioned also as its natural leader it's worth noting that the Apostle Paul greets women alongside men as Ministry colleagues in his letters and when he does he never makes a special note of subordination or particularity to their roles in fact highly counter-cultural to his time Paul not only greets women as colleagues but does so interspersed with greetings with men rather than putting all the men's name first and then all of the women's names second which would have followed the form of the day finally while we've already pointed out the highly counter-cultural nature of Paul's greetings to women in Romans the greatest Commendation given is not in the Letter's contents but rather in the letters carrier Phoebe I commend you to our sister Phoebe a deacon of the church at sangria I ask you to receive her in the Lord in a way worthy of his people and to give her any help she may need from you for she has been a benefactor of me of many people including me so Phoebe is given the letter of Romans to carry on behalf of the imprisoned Apostle Paul to the church at Rome so why does Paul go out of his way to praise the character of the mailman or in this case the male woman well because a letter carrier in the ancient world was typically doing a whole lot more than delivery a letter carrier was responsible for explaining the letters contents and the intent of its author to the recipients Paul refers to Phoebe as a diocanos In this passage a term frequently used by Paul particularly in Romans where it's translated equally as Deacon servant and minister in various places some argue that though Phoebe was entrusted to carry the letter and communicate its contents to the church in the heart of the letter writer her role was called Deacon because she was intentionally put by Paul in some role beneath eldership and maybe that's so but that does make it suspicious that in the very same letter Paul calls himself a dioconos in Romans 11 and 15. and that just a few verses prior in Romans 15 Paul calls Jesus a diaconose for what it's worth here's a list of all the women referred to in Acts in the New Testament letters revealing the prevalence of women throughout the early church and while it's very important to consider the biblical passages that speak directly to the question of women and eldership that's exactly where we're going next it is equally important to take into account how women practically LED within the church at various points in Biblical history it would seem that women are being counter-culturally empowered at every era of Biblical history and given the role of women leaders in the Greco-Roman Church it would seem that the Apostle Paul who authored all of the most consequential debated passages on the role of women and eldership was radically counter-culturally empowering in to women in his practice we must look not only at what the Apostle Paul said but what he did in relation to female leaders and interpret his words accordingly that's so important because of what we think Paul is saying in a particular passage doesn't match Paul's own practice we should question our interpretation of Paul not Paul's ethics there's no denying that the Apostle Paul wrote some very direct and challenging commands delivered to women in a number of his letters but those letters must be read in light of Paul's practice and of his own practice doesn't seem to line up with some of those commands might there be something more specific going on than just a blanket statement or a universal rule to interpret the Bible accurately we have to read Paul's letters in light of Paul's life let the clear interpret the unclear finally the fourth pillar biblical exegesis all of that being said it is possible to stand in agreement with every syllable of this teaching thus far but still hold the role of Elder and Elder exclusively as an office reserve for men and those who make that argument typically rely entirely on four key passages all of which are founded in Paul's letters First Timothy 3 Titus Chapter 1 First Corinthians 14 Romans 11 and First Timothy 2. now those first two passages I'm treating as one because of the heavy amount of overlap between the two and for the sake of time and Clarity I'm going to address only that first passage in this lecture as it is the most important for our discussion and I will get to the latter three next week First Timothy 3 and Titus 1 are two passages in Scripture that lay out clear and straightforward qualifications for serving in the role of Elder also called overseer though Paul was writing to different people and leading in a very different context the qualifications contain a remarkable amount of overlap which helps us in applying these passages as universal wisdom applicable for us today not contextual just to one congregation at the time so the question that we should be holding as we listen to a reading of each of these passages is are women disqualified from serving as Elders based purely on gender First Timothy 3 verses one through seven here is a trustworthy saying whoever aspires to be an overseer desires a noble task now the overseer is to be above reproach faithful to his wife temperate self-controlled respectable hospitable able to teach not given to drunkenness not violent but gentle not quarrelsome not a lover of money he must manage his own family well and see that his children obey him and he must do so in a manner worthy of full respect if anyone does not know how to manage his own family how can he take care of God's Church he must not be a recent convert or he may become conceited and fall under the same judgment as the devil he must also have a good reputation with Outsiders so that he will not fall into disgrace and into the devil's trap in Titus Chapter 1 verses 6 through 9. an elder must be blameless faithful to his wife a man whose children believe and are not open to the charge of being wild and disobedient since an overseer manages God's household he must be blameless not overbearing not quick tempered not given to drunkenness not violent not pursuing dishonest gain rather he must be hospitable one who loves what is good who is self-controlled upright holy and disciplined he must hold firmly to the trustworthy message as it has been taught so that he can encourage others by sound Doctrine and refute those who oppose it so first despite the prevalence of male pronouns in our English translations the original Greek texts of each of these contain no male pronouns William Witt writes with the single exception of the three-word expression one woman man which is translated by the NIV which we just read from as faithful to his wife nothing in the passage would indicate that the person being discussed for the office of Elder would be either man or would be either a man or a woman the key phrase and the only phrase relevant to the question of women in eldership in these passages is the phrase faithful to his wife and this phrase I would argue does not prohibit women from eldership instead it contextually assumes that men will comprise most eldership offices in the Greco-Roman cities where Paul was ministering and where these letters were addressed but the fact that Paul assumes that most Elders will be men does not mean that he prohibited women from this role there were very good reasons for assuming that most Elders would be men women were given much less access to education in that day and very few opportunities for leadership or employment of any kind outside of the home the likelihood of a woman qualified to fill competently the role as described in these passages was very unlikely in that day which is a sad matter of Injustice but assumption particularly assumption based on sad Injustice is not prohibition DJ Gupta offers this helpful illustration imagine this a golf club with a Sign by the course that says golfers must have their facial hair properly groomed this statement assumes relevance for the vast majority of golfers who are men but by itself does not prohibit women from golfing assumption is not prohibition Paul's faithful to his wife phrase in these two letters is reflective of the majority group to whom Paul is writing but is not exclusive of the minority if Paul wanted to clearly restrict women from the office of Elder these two qualification passages would have been the obvious place to do so where there are many other exclusions clearly listed as written though Paul does not clearly forbid women from this role on the sole basis of gender and as we've just observed Paul's own practice I would argue actually seems to pretty clearly indicate the opposite now I want to conclude tonight's first lecture with two very important questions which will undoubtedly be in the minds of some first are we on a theological slippery slope short answer no I imagine that there may be some who actually don't take issue with the biblical conclusions that we've arrived at regarding women and eldership but still relate to this whole process with fear or anxiety or concern of what this might mean for other theological topics like if we looked deeply at this then what's next is this the first in a tumble of dominoes reinterpreting the Bible and light of cultural landscape or popular opinion and if that's you I would just ask that you pay very close attention not so much to the conclusion that we've arrived at but the way we reached that conclusion run sexual ethics or marriage or gender or any other theological topic that you'd like for that matter through these four pillars that I've just outlined and you will not find this to be a slippery slope but a responsible thoughtful commitment to biblical Authority and biblical interpretation for instance when it comes to sexual ethics any sexual expression outside of a one-man one-woman marriage covenant is not biblically supported by a single one of the four pillars that I've just outlined hey you won't land anywhere but on a firm historical position using this interpretive framework this is the furthest thing from a slippery slope it's a firm foundation to build our beliefs in practice not on The Changing Winds of cultural opinion but on the ancient wisdom of scripture second question what if we're wrong first I should say I don't think we are but second it would take an enormous amount of pride to assume that the many great Saints who read scripture differently than us on this particular topic are all just way out in left field this is theologically complex and I'm humble enough to acknowledge that it's unlikely that we're the First Community in human history to read the Bible with 100 accuracy as I said at the beginning this is a complex topic that's impossible to ignore you cannot be an elder-led Church which we are without an explicit or implicit position on this question and I believe that doing the hard work of crafting an explicit position and then communicating it with love is more honest and kind and helpful to you the congregation than holding one quietly and implicitly so as the lead pastor of this church that's required me to make peace with a few facts I've had to make peace with the fact that not everyone will agree with the conclusion that we've come to I've had to make peace with the fact that not everyone will be happy with the conclusion that we've come to I've had to make peace with the fact that while we arrived at this conclusion by carefully weighing all the biblical data and seeing where it holistically points that there is still complexity remaining for anyone and everyone who takes a hard look at this particular question and I can be at peace with that because of the way we got here we assembled a committee of rooted seasoned committed theologically educated men and women Elders pastors and lay people and we came in from different backgrounds holding different positions and we committed as very best we could to start again with fresh eyes we committed to submitting to each other and listening to each other and learning from each other and we worked diligently we did our homework across a broad range of study of Scholars representing different traditions and different conclusions we were slowly thoughtfully and intentionally we wrestled with the text and we wrestled with God In Prayer we each formed and articulated our own positions in writing back biblically we did so prior to any group conversation to avoid group think or arriving at some sort of conclusion prematurely we reached a unanimous decision with every member of our committee arriving at the same conclusion we were transparent and honest with the whole of the church at the very beginning of this process and I'm doing my very best to be transparent and honest with the whole of the church right here at the end of the process this was a healthy thorough process and I stand behind it so what if we're wrong I've had to make peace with the fact that I'm going to stand before Jesus one day and if he looks at me and says Tyler you got that one wrong then I hope I can respond oh man I'm really sorry rabbi I did it with the most Integrity I knew how to with the most faithfulness to your word that I knew how to bring and the most love for your people that I knew how to carry and I hope I led with enough faith hope and love to overcome that and the multitude of other things that I got wrong [Music]