Letter to Church

To the spiritual leaders of (my church), with much respect I compile this breakdown of my views in an attempt to bring correction and hopefully clarity on some very important biblical issues that I have become aware of during my time here. My experiences have been positive for the most part, the friends I’ve made, the relationships I’ve nurtured and the lessons I’ve learned in a way have all come in a time in my life where I was lost and lacking in my understanding about what Christianity is.

However, for the past two years I have taken a new direc>on in my journey, no longer satisﬁed with what I saw were shallow teachings, sermons without substance and unbiblical practices. I say this with the utmost respect, my ultimate approval doesn’t come from the church I belong to but from God, who sees all and misses nothing.

I immersed myself in exegetical teachings, basically discipling myself by using various resources. I started with one simple question – “Why do I believe what I believe?”. I realised early on that I had no idea how to answer this. I couldn’t give an answer to myself as to why spiritual gifts should still be active today, why we tithe, why women can step into the role of elder or whether I knew how to defend my faith when my system of belief was up for debate.

I recognised that I wasn’t taught how to answer this question in the church I attended, at least not from the pulpit. When confronted by verses like 1 Peter 3:15, I realised that I have nothing to show for the hope that is in me. Of course, I’m not puttng all this on you all, I acknowledge my own faults. I never read my Bible fully to know what is in it and the truths it professes. If only I had read my bible with intention, I would’ve realised the interpretations I was being exposed to don’t line up with scripture a lot sooner. So, I decided to start from square one. I delved into other sources of information to get answers. Being intentional about seeking TRUTH grounded in the Word of God, not by my experiences, my biases or my preferences.

In the end I concluded that what I was seeing at my own church was a massive error in its teaching. Therefore, I aim to communicate in this letter the meaning of scripture as God intended.

In Jesus’ own words in Luke 10, “You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your strength and with all your mind, and your neighbour as yourself”. ‘Your mind’ is mentioned there for a reason, and Jesus makes a clear distinction between that and your heart, supporting the point that we as fallen humans often speak and reason from our hearts instead of using biblical wisdom and discernment. Simply put, to utilise our minds by fully immersing ourselves in the Word, properly exegeting the text and acknowledging authorial intent behind the writings. It’s not “what does this verse mean to me?”, it’s “what does this verse mean?”.

“Love your neighbour as yourself”, this is the commandment Jesus left us as those who profess to believe in Him. So, I write this to you all to fulﬁl this command. I love you all enough to tell you the truth, as I have been fortunate enough to have done for me by others. The unloving thing for me to do will be to continue on without a word. Please consider what I have laboured to compile for you in this document. If you read and choose to disagree, I would still love to hear your thoughts and have a healthy discussion around the issues I’ve raised. It comes from a place of love. My love for you, my neighbour, and my love for God, my Lord.

I won’t be able to speak on all the unbiblical teachings I’ve seen so far, so I’ve chosen to address the ones I felt were the most important to discuss. Particularly because of the implications it has on how we may interpret the rest of scripture. The examples I pushback on are a collection of remarks I’ve heard from members/leaders that I have interacted with in the last couple of years. My goal was to have a good understanding on what our church’s ‘theology’ is, so I can accurately refute the teachings I saw as unbiblical rather than out of my own ignorance. I owed you this much, as fellow believers I saw this as an opportunity to bring truth to build up the body of Christ.

I was glad to have the chance to sit down with some members in the hopes that we could have good healthy theological dialogue. However, what I found, sadly, was an incredible amount of confusion and assumptions, which led to more unanswered questions and frustrating discussions. Fortunately, I have been able to reach some with biblical truth, by planting that seed of curiosity so they can be encouraged to dive deep into the Word for themselves.

Although I am beyond grateful as well to the leaders I have had the chance to meet with, it was somewhat discouraging how hard it was to arrange meetings. I am not discounting that the leadership has responsibilities that require their attention and contribute to a busy schedule. Also I am sympathetic that they have families to attend to and I have much respect and understanding for that. However, as overseers with the duty of managing their ﬂock, if someone starting discussions that are contrary to what this church teaches, they should at least be taken seriously as it compromises the convictions of the congregation. There is more to say to justify my frustration, but for the sake of my message, I won’t appeal to them as it is unhelpful for the overall purpose of why I’m doing this. So I write this as my last attempt to clarify these issues, and after many unfruitful meetings, especially with the leadership.

In the near future, my plan is to edit this letter accordingly, to serve as a starting point to reach more members with biblical truth, so they can ﬁnd the answer to the question – “Why do you believe what you believe?” in regards our church’s doctrines.

1. Doctrine of the Holy Spirit/Does God still speak?

There is no doubt that we place a big emphasis on the work of the Holy Spirit in our church. In a way this is encouraging to see, but there are times the church put an excessive degree of intensity than is appropriate to something then the members blindly perceive it to be true. In terms of the Doctrine of the Holy Spirit (Pneumatology), the pastors have put a lot of misplaced weight on the view of what the Holy Spirit can do, especially when it comes to His function as our ‘helper’, more speciﬁcally, receiving divine messages and revelations if we just focus in order to ‘hear’ His voice. Don’t misunderstand, we learn from scripture that God can do whatever He wants and He works everything according to His will, for the good of those who love Him, so I believe if God wishes to speak to someone, He will. However, the expectations we have, and the messages we claim are from God, should never contradict what is in His written word.

My understanding from what I gathered from sermons/church members on the Doctrine of the Holy Spirit and how it’s taught here, is that He is…

– The third person of the Trinity

– The one who gives us the spiritual gifts

– Dwells inside us as believers

– Speaks to us with a “still small voice”

– Our counsellor, guides us in daily decision making

Although I would agree with some of these characterisations, I would push back in how you see the ‘function’ of the Holy Spirit as someone who we turn to in order to ‘hear’ the voice of God and how He is invoked to help us make decisions/choices in our daily lives.

Hearing the voice of God is a never-ending debate in the Church, although openly practised in Charismatic settngs. I understand the desire to hear from God, the one we worship and one we revere as sovereign and Lord of all. If this God is so powerful, shouldn’t He be able to talk us whenever he wants? Is He hiding from us? Are we lacking in faith if we can’t hear Him? All these questions can be summed up by a common phrase that I hear too often quoted as a means to end the discussion – Don’t put God in a box. This has been used to suggest that if you take the view that we don’t hear from God today that you are limiting God to the pages of scripture.

However, let me appeal to your common sense – what if God limited Himself? Surely, we can’t limit our all-powerful God, so if you understand why the scriptures were written in the ﬁrst place you’ll see that it is God’s gift to us as a means of communicating with us. A means by which we can get truths as to who He is and an infallible narrative as to how we are to honour and worship Him. The theology we study now does in a way box God in, as it only describes what He has CHOSEN to reveal to us at this time. He sets the limits not us. There will come a time when we will know all truth, the day of the resurrection when we are to put on our gloriﬁed bodies and dwell in His presence forever.

If God were to intervene at all times, guiding us in every decision making, how are we as Christians able to grow in character and endurance when faced with persecution and indiﬀerence from the world? Scripture instead gives us the wisdom to build each other up, pursue godliness and make wise decisions that honour God. In a way, the continuous pursuit of ‘hearing from God’ undermines the purpose of scripture, the only objective, infallible method we have of God speaking, in contrast to the subjective and easily falsiﬁed revelations people claim to have. The devil is said to appear to us as an angel of light, our hearts can be so clouded with a false sense of pride that we take this as a revelation from God when it can be something else entirely. Remember that almost every false religion that was born from a twisted understanding of Christianity like Mormonism, Jehovah’s Witnesses and in some ways Islam, started because of a misguided individual claiming to have divine revelation or a visit from an angel of the Lord.

Dreams and visions are becoming more common in the church too, I haven’t heard much on this from church members but just thought I’d mention it as some of the churches we associate with in some way (their pastors speak at conferences, their songs are sung during worship, their material used in study groups etc) practise it openly. I look at testimonies of people who were aggressively against Christianity, who claim to have had a vision or a dream that caused them to believe (predominantly from atheists & muslims), I can’t just discount that as false claims. It doesn’t compromise the revelation of Jesus’ physical second coming, and testing it proves that these are favourable outcomes for the body of Christ as it adds to it rather than taking away from it. I will say this though, God can do whatever He wants, He can speak to us in whatever way He wants, but He wouldn’t do it in a way that violates His written Word. Which means we can’t just teach whatever we want, assuming special revelation supersedes scripture. I have yet to hear a biblical argument that suggests this is the case.

The Bible is God’s written Word, so we see it as Him ‘speaking’ to us. It is ‘God breathed’ meaning the very text itself was written under His guidance and inﬂuence. If we as Christians believe this is so, then we know that God in His inﬁnite wisdom has compiled a series of writings that puts His Will, His intentions for our lives and His commands in a way that it can be passed down over time. If we believe this is God breathed, then we must also believe that what this book contains are objective truths, separate from what we can conjure up at times from our own hearts, and to pass that oﬀ as ‘hearing from God’. As we learn from Jeremiah 17 – “the heart is deceidul and desperately wicked, who can know it?”.

I want to address something that was brought up in a conversation with one of the pastors, that there are two ways God speaks to us. ‘Logos’ which the wri

From my research, the leadership somewhat teaches this as God’s spoken word, through the Holy Spirit and manifesting as impressions or little nudges in our hearts that guides our decision making and experiences. In other words, it’s God directly interacting to each one of us individually or through others as messengers to impart a ‘word from God’ to us. We must always have discernment, recognising that rhema and logos essentially are synonymous, where one doesn’t contradict the other. One who isn’t accustomed with the logos or scripture will always misunderstand what they identify as rhema, to the point where it can be elevated over the former, causing confusion in their own hearts.

I have seen something similar in services, after a sermon or during the time of giving. It saddens me every time the preacher calls for a moment of silence so we can try and ‘hear’ the voice of God, mostly because I know this is misleading for some as there is no BIBLICAL JUSTIFICATION of this as a practise for us today. Another important point to make is that ‘God doesn’t try’, meaning if the idea is that God wants to communicate with us somehow, we have to really focus to hear Him. Nowhere in scripture does it have a verse that shows God trying to speak to someone but he/she can’t hear Him. To admit this is to say God tried and God failed.

Now is faith a factor? Not according to Acts 9, where we see Saul, a persecutor of the Church encountering Jesus and clearly hearing His voice which led to his conversion. Although regarded a zealous Pharisee, faith in Jesus deﬁnitely wasn’t a factor for Saul, and if a clear example we see in scripture pushes against that idea, why do we ignore it? Or worse construct an overcomplicated interpretation to make it mean something that the Bible clearly isn’t saying?

As I eluded to earlier, God’s spoken word would never contradict His written word.

And that’s my point, when deciding on how we go about leading in terms of worship, church practises or lifestyle, we must ALWAYS ﬁrst ask ourselves – What does the Bible REALLY say about

this?

So, here’s a few examples I’ve heard (and my push back) on the commonly used verses used to justify this idea of God speaking to us through our thoughts, through signs or through messages from

others:

• John 10:27

My sheep hear My voice, and I know them, and they follow Me.

A proof text I hear many times, always out of context and misunderstanding Jesus’ words, taking it as an indication that we can ‘hear’ His voice, clearly now as it was the day He uttered the statement.

Looking at John 10 in it’s proper context, we see Jesus addressing a Jewish gathering. He speaks about those who believe in His message and choose to follow Him, as those who will attain eternal life. We learn this from the story of Him being the good shepherd, (v1-6) who calls His sheep by name and they recognise it, and leads them out the door as opposed to the thief who enters another way. Those who are true followers of Christ will enter through Him to ﬁnd salvation.

Jesus uses another illustration (v11-18) to further get His point across, comparing the shepherd to the hired hand, one who lays down His life for the ﬂock and the other who ﬂees in the face of danger.

The key to understanding v27 is to look all the way back to v6, where John speciﬁcally describes Jesus’ sayings as a ‘ﬁgure of speech’. A metaphor, used to describe something else. Understanding this, the ‘voice’ described in v27 is not an actual voice, but how God draws those who draw near to Him, with an oﬀer of salvation that leads to eternal life.

The Jews who were present had no problem ‘hearing’ him. But there is a big diﬀerence in knowing what Jesus is ‘saying’, and ‘understanding’ then ‘responding’ to what He is saying. This is the call of the Holy Spirit that draws us to Him when we hear the message of the Gospel being preached. To then take this as ‘hearing’ the voice of God in our day to day is forcing a meaning in John 10 that isn’t there.

• Romans 8:14

For as many as are led by the Spirit of God, these are sons of God

• Galatians 5:18

But if you are led by the Spirit, you are not under the law

These two verses are often quoted as justiﬁcation for God’s part to play in our daily decision making. The view is that the HS leads us to make the right choices, guides us when facing hardship and gives us a sense of assurance that everything will be ok.

The context of this Romans passage, when understood rightly, is Paul addressing how the law of the

Spirit of life in Christ now sets us free from the law of sin and death. The Law given to the Jews had a purpose for it’s time, to set them apart from the nations around them. However it wasn’t perfect, it didn’t bring life to redeem the fallenness of man, something that Jesus’ time on earth, leading up to His death, fulﬁlling that very Law, ultimately achieved. Then comes the giving of the HS to dwell inside believers, to set our minds on things of the Spirit to please God, as opposed to living according to the ﬂesh which is hostile to God.

Here’s the key section of the passage:

Romans 8:12-14:

So then, brothers, we are debtors, not to the ﬂesh, to live according to the ﬂesh. For if you live according to the ﬂesh you will die, but if by the Spirit you put to death the deeds of the body, you will live. For all who are led by the Spirit of God are sons of God.

To state the obvious, this passage highlights the problem and then the solution for Christians to understand how to overcome our fallen nature, always pulling us to submit to our sinful desires. The HS convicts us of our sin, guides/leads us away from the bondage of that sin and into a life of freedom and peace in pursuit of godliness.

Nowhere in Paul’s ﬂow of thought, is he referring to any promptings, nudges or impressions in our hearts to follow that which might be from God. An inserted interpretation that’s foreign to the passage.

In Galatians 5 we see the same use of ‘being led by the Spirit’.

Galatians 5:17-18

For the desires of the ﬂesh are against the Spirit, and the desires of the Spirit are against the ﬂesh, for these are opposed to each other, to keep you from doing the things you want to do. But if you are led by the Spirit, you are not under the law

Again, not a hint in the context of ‘hearing, feeling or sensing’ the voice of God. Similar reasoning as Romans 8, the never ending battle between our ﬂesh and the Spirit that dwells within us.

So ask yourself this, if the straightforward context of a passage makes the author’s intended meaning clear to the reader, why are we twisting it to mean something else? Here’s a good rule to follow so we don’t fall into the trap of inventing our own interpretation, offered by Christian Evangelist D L Moody: “If the plain sense makes perfect sense, seek no other sense”.

There is no justification or excuse to use these passages to support an interpretation that feels forced onto scripture. Nowhere in the whole NT will you find this, unless you dissect a verse and take it out of context. It’s a low view of scripture, and a rebellion against God who inspired it.

In saying that let’s look at the OT as there are verses people love to use to say God speaks ‘in many ways’

• 1 Samuel 3:4-10

Then the LORD called Samuel, and he said, “Here I am!” and ran to Eli and said, “Here I am, for you called me.” But he said, “I did not call; lie down again.” So he went and lay down. And the LORD called again, “Samuel!” and Samuel arose and went to Eli and said, “Here I am, for you called me.” But he said, “I did not call, my son; lie down again.” Now Samuel did not yet know the LORD, and the word of the LORD had not yet been revealed to him. And the LORD called Samuel again the third time. And he arose and went to Eli and said, “Here I am, for you called me.” Then Eli perceived that the LORD was calling the young man. Therefore Eli said to Samuel, “Go, lie down, and if he calls you, you shall say, ‘Speak, LORD, for your servant hears.'” So Samuel went and lay down in his place. And the LORD came and stood, calling as at other times, “Samuel! Samuel!” And Samuel said, “Speak, for your servant hears.”

Here’s another go to passage to support this idea of hearing God’s voice. The claim is that it teaches us how to ‘recognise’ the voice of God and it also backs the view that with enough faith, you too can hear His voice. They’ll say that Eli, a man of God, guides young Samuel to be able to recognise the voice of God. I have seen a mild version of this at our church as I’ve pointed our earlier, especially after a sermon, everyone’s emotions are being heightened and manipulated by the slow worship music, then the pastor steps up and tells everyone to close their eyes, focus, and try to ‘hear’ the voice of God. Similar principle with a musical twist.

Let’s look if this passage supports this view. First off, Eli wasn’t a godly man, in fact the only time we see him getting a message from God is thorough a prophet, who curses him and his family due to their immorality (2:27-36). Samuel wasn’t in relationship with God as well, stated in 3:7, that ‘he did not yet know the Lord’. So the idea that faith is a factor goes out the window. This can be further corroborated with Saul’s account in the book of Acts as I referenced to earlier.

The voice Samuel heard was clearly audible. Otherwise he would not have mistaken it for Eli who was in the next room. No mention of it being an inner voice or impression. Eli then advises him to answer after the third time, but note, there is no ‘teaching’ or ‘counselling’ being done here, just an instruction to affirm the voice that he hears.

It goes onto to say that Samuel grew and the Lord was with him and let none of his words fail, referring to accurate prophecy that can only be from God. Remember this was the birth of one of the greatest prophets of the OT, hardly a parallel we can use to compare ourselves to when it comes to hearing God’s voice.

• 1 Kings 19:12

and after the earthquake a fire, but the Lord was not in the fire; and after the fire a still small voice.

This verse is probably the most used and abused verses for this view. “The still small voice” (gentle or low whisper/gentle blowing in other translations) can be that little inner voice in your head or an impression on your heart. This was literally cited in a sermon I heard not long ago.

As always we should ask, what’s the context?

1 Kings 19:11-13

And he said, “Go out and stand on the mount before the LORD.” And behold, the LORD passed by, and a great and strong wind tore the mountains and broke in pieces the rocks before the LORD, but the LORD was not in the wind. And after the wind an earthquake, but the LORD was not in the earthquake. And after the earthquake a fire, but the LORD was not in the fire. And after the fire the sound of a low whisper. And when Elijah heard it, he wrapped his face in his cloak and went out and stood at the entrance of the cave. And behold, there came a voice to him and said, “What are you doing here, Elijah?”

I’ve highlighted the key word in this passage, Elijah HEARD it. This means it was audible, clear and distinct from the other sounds mentioned. If it was an ‘inner impression’, he would not have had the need to do what he did directly after he heard it, which was wrapping his face and walking out of the cave to have a direct conversation with God. He would have been ok just staying where he was, focusing on the inner voice and receive the message without having to move an inch. It is so clear, nothing forced onto the passage and the meaning still makes perfect sense

Listening Prayer

Another idea I hear about is this concept of ‘listening prayer’. I’ll be straightforward as this is a concern I see a lot in the church, there is absolutely NO BIBLICAL EVIDENCE to support this view, at all. When we see prayer being addressed in scripture there is no indication that we are to expect God to talk back to us. No where in the Psalms, which is our book of prayer, does it take a pause and tells us to wait for a response. When Jesus taught His disciples to pray we don’t see this. We do see examples of God speaking in response to a request but when He does it’s always audible, clear and understood by the person. Again, this is rare and mostly through people appointed by God, such as prophets of the OT and the Apostles of the NT, those who had the AUTHORITY to speak for God.

One danger of this false expectation is that we take it as divine revelation, when it possibly is a direction from our own hearts. I emphasise this point again because it’s important to understand biblically. We learn in Mark 7 that from the heart of man comes evil thoughts, the Jeremiah passage I mentioned before says the heart is desperately wicked. Furthermore, Chapter 23 in the same book, it talks about false prophets who lie and prophesy the deceit of their own hearts. Does this mean the heart is inherently evil, not at all, but the natural pull of our hearts is towards evil things and highlights the importance of daily discipline in the Word.

It’s why we read in Proverbs 4:23 to ‘guard our hearts for everything we do flows from it’.

We must be cautious and aware of not only the physical but the spiritual dangers that surrounds us as believers. The condition of our hearts can be the deciding factor for us drawing close to God or rejecting Him and submitting our hearts to sin. I always think about my life before I came to know God, it was easy in a way, because I wouldn’t worry about about what my spiritual health looked like. I just gave in to any desire, good or bad. As Christians, our journey through sanctification is something we persevere with, until the day we die. Life is harder as a Christian, and scripture tells us it’s to be expected.

God was wrong

The other danger, and something I’ve heard too many stories of, is that if we claim to hear from God about our decisions and it doesn’t end well, who’s to blame? Here’s something to consider, did God get it wrong? Did he give us a revelation on what choice to make and it failed? Surely this becomes an issue on completely being ignorant of God’s eternal attributes. To put it simply, it’s a twisted view of His nature and again, a low view of scripture.

God does not make mistakes, humans do. The perfect and holy god that we worship, His word is flawless as described in Psalm 18.30, cannot speak words that fail. We really misunderstand God if we choose to ignore what He has already said to be true through scripture, relying on our own thoughts and understanding, deceiving others by declaring things in his name.

Final thoughts on Hearing the voice of God

To sum up, this is a practise that has major implications to how we can view of scripture, and essentially how we see God’s will for our lives. I don’t deny that God can still speak to people today, I can’t discount that biblically speaking, considering the people He has brought into the faith as a result. However, the way it’s being taught in our church in regards to how it functions has no biblical foundation to support it.

It has some concerning consequences, especially when we depict God as some kind of genie, which we appeal to grant some selfish notion we have about the problems in our lives, instead of using biblical wisdom and discernment to flesh out a solution. We honour God by doing this, respecting the authority of His Holy Word and realising the power of objective truth, over subjective suggestions.

I would love to be proven wrong on this, but God’s word is God’s word. My biases and false expectations don’t supersede what is written.

2. Spiritual Gifts (Focus is on Gift of Tongues, Healing & Prophecy)

I will say out right that Spiritual Gifts are taught in scripture. However, how the modern church has viewed this as being “normative” is somehow misguided. The desire to attain these “gifts” has shifted the people’s focus from scripture, to special revelations through prophecies, tongues and signs and wonders. I make this claim because I’m witnessing it first hand by the fruits of the people attending our church. There is this habit of ‘over spiritualising’ everything. The basis of their decision-making process is to consult an ‘inner voice’ or a ‘check in the spirit’ for every area of their lives. I don’t fully disagree, and I’ll aim to break down why that is in this section.

Surprisingly, from my conversations and from other’s second-hand information, I’ve learned that even though they agree that the gifts are valid for today, they differ on how they are to function. This is telling in regards to their lack of awareness of what scripture says about it and their own ignorance on how our church practises it. I’ve seen first-hand the ecstatic tongues (gibberish) being done on a Sunday service, during giving or worship, and also at a conference. Yet some rejected the idea that our church practises this. It begs the question I eluded to before, do the people attending know their own theology? Or are they just going along with the flow and unintentionally ignoring the signs that what they might be following is contrary to biblical teachings? I can fully confirm one thing though; their biblical knowledge is overshadowed by their ‘experiences’.

We really undermine scripture and it seems we’re chasing that rush instead of honouring what God has already revealed to us through the text.

In regards to the gifts ceasing as told in 1 Corinthians 13, the common interpretation for those who see them as something that’s not needed in the church today, (Cessationists) is that these passed away with the completion of the Bible, more specifically the New Testament. I don’t hold that view. What I am pushing back on mostly is that if you strongly hold to the interpretation that the gifts are still active and common, then the gifts should at least be practiced biblically.

Although I disagree with the Cessationists and their arguments relating to the ‘timing’ in which these gifts will cease to function, I do wholeheartedly agree with their stance on an important aspect of their case and one that any true Christian should affirm. The “SUFFICIENCY OF SCRIPTURE”.

2 Timothy 3:16-17

All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, equipped for every good work.

We all believe in the inerrancy and the inspiration of scripture but why not the sufficiency? Scripture is enough. When Jesus in the Gospel accounts reasoned with the Jews about who He was, he often would reference scripture, what we now know now as the Old Testament. When the Apostles were implementing the beginning of the church age and preaching who Jesus was they would harken back to the messianic prophecies found in scripture. In the same way, we should always refer back to the word to give a defence for our faith, and to acknowledge that Jesus was the Messiah who fulfilled the Law and the acts of the apostles that followed were inspired and true.

Scripture is our final authority, sufficient for the building up of the body of Christ to fulfil God’s will. All areas of our journey of Sanctification, to honour Him by living godly lives can be found and understood through the pages of scripture. Although we can say the spiritual gifts can play a role in that, we have to acknowledge the time in which the church was founded compared to us now in modern times, who have something they didn’t have, a complete New Testament.

The question is, what was the purpose of the spiritual/apostolic gifts? I think we can conclude that the gifts had a purpose for its time. Although you can say that there is a purpose for it today, and in specific, limited circumstances I can agree, the Bible still takes precedence over it. Paul mentions this in 1 Corinthians 14:12: to build up the church.

Keep in mind, the misuse and abuse of the gifts was exactly why Paul wrote 1 Corinthians, as a rebuke to the church in Corinth and to set things right in regards to their practices of said gifts, particularly tongues.

Similarly, I’ll focus on that gift for this section as it’s an issue that’s often misunderstood and misapplied in the church and probably the gift I see misused the most in church. We still have to strive to understand these verses biblically, regardless if you disagree they are still active or not. I acknowledge that previous verses talk about us as believers each have been given a gift but we need to harmonise it with other verses that state not all speak in tongues etc (1 Corinthians 12). We can’t just take a verse, pluck it out of it’s context and not acknowledge the other verses that speak in relation to it.

We’ll look at 1 Corinthians 14 for this breakdown.

1 Corinthians 14 context:

Paul is correcting the abuse of spiritual gifts within the church at Corinth – tongues in particular.

It’s hard to miss in Paul’s letter that the reason of the spiritual gifts were to edify the church – not for private use. It defeats the entire purpose of the gifts. It was to build up the church which has just started without scripture yet to be received, they only had the OT at the time.

1 Corinthians 14:2 – For one who speaks in a tongue speaks not to men but to God; for no one understands him, but he utters mysteries in the Spirit.

‘No one’ here in context refers to the congregation at Corinth who are hearing an unknown tongue and don’t understand it. (More on the Greek use of ‘tongue’ later on and why it’s understood to be real languages). Knowing that they were talking in a foreign language (not gibberish) that the people in that church didn’t understand, he would be talking only to God. Because only God will understand, He knows all languages. This is exactly why Paul writes that there needs to be an ‘interpreter’ or in other words a ‘translator’. Otherwise the speaker only edifies himself since no one can be blessed with what he’s saying.

‘Mysteries in the Spirit’ has varying views as to how it should be understood, which makes sense since there is no other part in the NT that clearly parallels this statement. However, we know that the tongues were a gift of the ‘Spirit’, and if someone speaks it without interpretation, can be viewed as a ‘mystery’ to others, as they don’t ’understand’ what’s being said. As I make my way though the chapter this will make more sense in context.

1 Corinthians 14:4 – The one who speaks in a tongue builds up himself, but the one who prophesies builds up the church.

This refers to those who choose to still speak in a tongue despite no clarity in what they’re saying. A selfish way of using the gift, for self edification instead of building up believers.

1 Corinthians 14:6-8 – Now, brothers, if I come to you speaking in tongues, how will I benefit you unless I bring you some revelation or knowledge or prophecy or teaching? If even lifeless instruments, such as the flute or the harp, do not give distinct notes, how will anyone know what is played? And if the bugle gives an indistinct sound, who will get ready for battle?

A bugle is a trumpet used for war that gives instructions to the people on your side on any changes during battle. So if we hear a sound that isn’t clear, we don’t understand it, how do we know what to do, how do we get edified? Communication in the church setting demands clarity. Otherwise, who is getting built up if no one understands what’s being said?

Interesting that Paul uses an instrument illustration, we all know people who, without any knowledge of playing instruments, attempt to play, and failing, producing an irritating sound. Instruments used rightly, according to the purpose it was made for, makes wonderful music that stirs emotions and can bring peace to the soul. This is how we should look at the gifts, that when used for the purpose it was given to us for, brings encouragement and peace, not chaos and confusion.

1 Corinthians 14:9-11 – So with yourselves, if with your tongue you utter speech that is not intelligible, how will anyone know what is said? For you will be speaking into the air. There are doubtless many different languages in the world, and none is without meaning, but if I do not know the meaning of the language, I will be a foreigner to the speaker and the speaker a foreigner to me.

Paul makes a clear reference to a tongue that is unintelligible, opting instead for a ‘known language’. A real language or a foreign language. The Greek words used for tongues here and in Acts are glossa (where we get glossary from) and dialektos (dialect – a certain known language). Will expand on this in more detail later on.

1 Corinthians 14:12 –

So with yourselves, since you are eager for manifestations of the Spirit, strive to excel in building up the church.

Paul brings the focus back yet again to ‘edification’ of the body of Christ, not an eagerness for manifestations with wrong intentions or motives.

1 Corinthians 14:13-17 – Therefore, one who speaks in a tongue should pray for the power to interpret. For if I pray in a tongue, my spirit prays but my mind is unfruitful. What am I to do? I will pray with my spirit, but I will pray with my mind also; I will sing praise with my spirit, but I will sing with my mind also. Otherwise, if you give thanks with your spirit, how can anyone in the position of an outsider say “Amen” to your thanksgiving when he does not know what you are saying? For you may be giving thanks well enough, but the other person is not being built up.

Paul highlights a problem with praying in tongues. For someone who prays this way, can put themselves in a trance where the spirit prays but they don’t know what they themselves are saying. Their brain can’t comprehend what their mouth is communicating. In other words, it’s unhelpful to pray this way unless you first pray for the gift to interpret. Therefore, you don’t uplift anyone, including yourself.

1 Corinthians 14:18-19 – I thank God that I speak in tongues more than all of you. I would rather speak five words with my mind in order to instruct others, than ten thousand words in a tongue

Paul knows that speaking unintelligible words and language edifies no one, just the person speaking if they understand what they are saying themselves. He repeats the importance of speaking from the mind in these interactions, using your own language that you and your group all understand. He would rather teach in a clear way that people understand than speak in a ‘tongue’. Again, he addresses the abuse, then gives a reason why it’s unhelpful to those you claim to be building up.

1 Corinthians 14: 20-22 – Brothers, do not be children in your thinking. Be infants in evil, but in your thinking be mature. In the Law it is written, “By people of strange tongues and by the lips of foreigners will I speak to this people, and even then they will not listen to me, says the Lord.” Thus tongues are a sign not for believers but for unbelievers, while prophecy is a sign not for unbelievers but for believers.

Paul appeals to their potential to be critical thinkers, to be mature in their attitude towards rejecting evil. To not act like children but really think about the purpose and meaning of the gifts.

He then harkens back to Isaiah 28:11-12 to make a point. This Isaiah passage refers to when God declares He will use a nation with a different tongue that the Jewish people do not understand, to enact judgement due to their unbelief. Tongues in this context is talking about judgement for the unbeliever.

In the same way, the use of tongues at Pentecost was a sign of this very judgement. This time however for their rejection of Christ as the Messiah.

1 Corinthians 14: 23-25 – If, therefore, the whole church comes together and all speak in tongues, and outsiders or unbelievers enter, will they not say that you are out of your minds? But if all prophesy, and an unbeliever or outsider enters, he is convicted by all, he is called to account by all the secrets of his heart are disclosed, and so, falling on his face, he will worship God and declare that God is really among you.

Paul seems to contradict what he states before this section. Is the tongue for believers or unbelievers? The notion that unbelievers will think that the church is full of crazy people makes it sound like it’s not for them. This is still however in the context of the previous verses – as a sign to unbelievers of the impending judgment if they stay in their unbelief. It’s a statement that shows this act of tongues that is heard by the unbeliever becomes a sign of their own judgement, to expose their own unbelief, and we know it’s a continuation due to his use of ‘thus’ in the beginning of the verse (‘therefore’ in some translations).

This is also part of what it means to use the tongues how it’s meant to be used. It hurts our evangelism, since the new attendants at church will come looking for answers and find people speaking random syllables with no interpretation.

1 Corinthians 14:27-28: “If any speak in a tongue, let there be only two or at most three, and each in turn, and let someone interpret. But if there is no one to interpret, let each of them keep silent in church and speak to himself and to God.”

Paul sets the guidelines for how the gift is to be used. If you speak in a tongue there has to be interpretation. Otherwise the words spoken and the message said cannot be translated for others to understand and be edified. If this criteria isn’t met, then no one should speak in tongues until they follow the guidelines Paul lays out.

Basically he’s saying, if you have a message in tongues but the criteria aren’t met, better to sit down and be quiet, rather than blurting it out and bringing confusion as no one will understand.

1 Corinthians 14:39: So, my brothers, earnestly desire to prophesy, and do not forbid speaking in tongues.

When the gifts were highly active in the early church, Paul encouraged them to put it into practice but as he outlined throughout the whole chapter, it had to be done with limitations to keep order within the gatherings.

Prophecy was more appropriate in the church setting as opposed to tongues, due to it’s ability to edify and bring encouragement to the church, as long as it was done rightly and grounded in truth.

1 Corinthians 14:40: “All things should be done decently and in order”

God is not a God of confusion (1 Corinthians 14:33) meaning what he reveals to us isn’t meant to cause confusion and chaos within the church which I see happening with the spiritual gifts. To sort of side step that confusion, we are taught to believe and accept what that person says ‘God’ has revealed to them, (which is kind of like ‘blind faith’) but we have something better, something we KNOW God has definitely revealed to us to test all things – the Bible.

My point is that if you just read that whole chapter, it tells us how the gift is used, and good Bible study will let you compliment it to other verses that speak on the issue. They won’t contradict each other if we apply good proper bible study to it.

Not to miss the overall message of this passage, something people often overlook, which is love. To pursue love, in the context of practising spiritual gifts, is to bring clarity to the church. To build up others by bringing a clear message that can be tested, interpreted and bring much spiritual benefit to the body of Christ. In contrast, the unloving thing to do, and Paul speaks to it many times in his letter, is to misuse the spiritual gifts in a way the edifies just the person who practices it. This is a picture of what I see at church, whether intentional or not, is a compete disregard of the biblical guidance we have as to how the gifts properly function in the church.

Remember, I’m not coming against the use of gifts in the church today, although I don’t see the value in it in regards to having scripture as our authority. The message Paul is conveying in his letter is still instructive for us today, regardless of your position on the matter.

The way I see it, understanding how it functions will lead anyone to see that this is not as normative as everyone thinks. The natural reaction for any Christian then will be to honour scripture that teaches us how to recognise it in the first place, and have the awareness of any false assumptions we can draw from our own interpretation of it to justify our own biases.

Different types of tongues

There is a belief that the tongues mentioned in 1 Corinthians 14 are different than the ones in Acts 2:4. In the Greek, the word used for tongues, glōssa (γλῶσσα) for both books, is talking about the same thing – a known language. This is supported by the Greek word used for ‘language’ just a couple of verses down, in Acts 2:6. The word dialektos (διάλεκτος), indicates a grammatical code, a dialect, not random syllables strung together as we commonly see in the church today. It’s a bit of a stretch to say it’s two different kinds, considering the fact that Luke wrote Acts 5-10 years after Paul writes 1 Corinthians. If it was a different kind of tongue Paul writes about, he would’ve used a different Greek word for that, which is glossolalia (γλωσσολαλία), literally means ‘ecstatic utterances’ and found no where in the NT. Luke should’ve been aware of this distinction, and he rightly described the ‘real language’ of tongues mentioned in Acts to corroborate what we see in 1 Corinthians. Luke was a careful scribe and Paul’s travelling companion, in his writings he wouldn’t make an easy mistake like this. From what we know, we can conclude it’s the same gift, functioning the same way, as known languages.

The 1 Corinthians 13:1 passage is often used to support that there are different types of tongues.

1 Corinthians 13:1

If I speak in the tongues of men and of angels, but have not love, I am a noisy gong or a clanging cymbal.

However, we shouldn’t draw conclusions that can lead to error, based on an unclear passage that can be interpreted a number of ways. I’ll break it down because regardless of a view, good bible study doesn’t avoid difficult passages but harmonises it with the rest of scripture.

‘Tongues of men’ obviously refers to the various human languages that people of different ethnicities speak. We see this clearly in Acts, as the gospel reached the foreigners who heard and understood in their own tongue.

‘Tongues of angels’ is the section that there is much debate over. Before I get into the differences in interpretations for that part, I want us to notice an important point Paul is making in the very same verse. As I mentioned before, if we practice these gifts without love, which in the context of the letter is clarity for the building up of believers, then we’re just a noisy instrument that’s producing an annoying sound rather than a beautiful melody.

In saying that, the common Charismatic view, is that this is proof there is a godly language that only certain Christians can understand and vocalise. This can somehow separate believers into different ranks, those who have access to a heavenly language and those who only hear it as gibberish. Of course, this violates what we read about in 1 Corinthians 14 and as a result, goes against Paul’s exhortation to bring clarity when we speak, or else we edify ourselves and not others.

The opposing view is that this is simply hyperbole, which makes perfect sense considering the context of the very next verse shows an over exaggeration of biblical principles to prove a point. Paul is simply using this literary device to say that you can be the most spiritual person in the church, speaking the presumed holy language, but without love for your fellow believers, it’s meaningless.

1 Corinthians 13.1-2

If I speak in the tongues of men and of angels, but have not love, I am a noisy gong or a clanging cymbal.

And if I have prophetic powers, and understand all mysteries and all knowledge, and if I have all faith, so as to remove mountains, but have not love, I am nothing.

This use of hyperbole is also found in the Gospels, like when Jesus taught how to enact righteous judgment (Matthew 7) or when he talks about the destructive nature of sin in relation to how we should overcome it (Matthew 5). So it is not unlikely we find these literary elements throughout the bible when the writer wants to emphasise an important message.

Another point on this view, is that every time we see an angel as a messenger of God, it’s never stated that they converse with the recipient in a special language. We shouldn’t jump to conclusions and say that one mention in all Scripture of ‘tongues of angels’ can now justify the gibberish we hear in church. Again poor bible study and an embarrassment to God’s word.

Tongues for messages

I’ve heard an argument that tongues can be used to bring messages to others who might understand it as being for them, a message from God through another Christian. This can be true, acknowledging Paul’s writings in 1 Corinthians, to build up the church. I only offer this point based on the view presented to me by common charismatic writings, which says that the message can be understood by the other person because it’s in his or her language. In other words, it’s not an unknown angelic language but an actual dialect. If you say it’s still under the guise of an angelic language, then the measures issued in scripture should still be applied, to have an interpreter present to give clarity on the message. Again, an ambiguous interpretation that only causes confusion with no solid biblical support.

This is the elder’s role, to test these signs according to the guidelines set by Paul in 1 Corinthians 14, to confirm it’s authenticity, and if proven false, to deal out the appropriate rebuke to those who practice it.

Praying in tongues

People who say that we pray in tongues tries to justify it by stating it’s so that the enemy can’t eavesdrop on our conversation with God and somehow hinder it from being answered. The enemy I assume is the devil. I ‘assume’ this because this view has no biblical support.

There is an assumption here that Satan can do this to a degree where any Christian who doesn’t pray in tongues is at risk of having their prayers intercepted. There is a key element that needs to be true for this view to be possible, that the devil is omnipresent. That is, he can be present in all places at all times, listening to the multitude of Christians who supposedly pray in tongues. God alone is omnipresent, an attribute that is incommunicable to us as created beings, just as the devil is. Now you can say that Satan has a horde of demons at his beck and call that does the work for him, which is true but you will have to really stretch the text to find evidence to support this view as it is not taught in scripture.

The same can be said if you claim that the Spirit gives us the secret code words to use at that moment, manifesting our speech as an unintelligible string of words. There is no support for this in scripture. The verses often used as justification for this (Matthew 10:19-20, Luke 12:11-12, 21:14-15, John 14:26, 1 Corinthians 2:13 etc) are always used out of context, and doesn’t prove their case.

There is a passage in Daniel 10 that people refer to as well as proof that the devil can delay or possibly stop our prayers from reaching God.

Daniel 10:11-12

And he said to me, “O Daniel, man greatly loved, understand the words that I speak to you, and stand upright, for now I have been sent to you.” And when he had spoken this word to me, I stood up trembling. Then he said to me, “Fear not, Daniel, for from the first day that you set your heart to understand and humbled yourself before your God, your words have been heard, and I have come because of your words.

The argument is that the devil heard Daniel’s prayer and intercepted it, if only he prayed in tongues, the devil would have been confused and this never would’ve happened. Let’s address the obvious, that God HEARD Daniel the moment he prayed.

My question is – if we have to use a ‘heavenly language’ to pray to God, does the devil have the power to somehow ‘stop’ our prayer from being answered? Or more specifically, that our Almighty God won’t be able to hear us?

Just reading the verse carefully offers clarity to this.

One important thing to add, if this heavenly language is the language of angels, then it fails to do the thing people claim it does, which is to confuse the devil. Remember, Satan is a fallen ANGEL.

It’s having a really low view of the Holy Spirit and the Father at this point. The devil can only do what he wants if God ‘allows’ him to, we see one example of this in Job when God allows Satan to bring calamity to Job’s life, ONLY after God allows it. So are you saying that the devil has the power to override our prayers and trick God into not hearing it?

Prophecy

I want to touch on prophecy just for clarification, I do see it practiced in a way at church that really is an insult to biblical prophecy. I acknowledge prophecy as a valid spiritual gift, however the countless false prophecies coming out of the wider Charismatic church today clearly indicates this gift is being abused.

A common description people tend to fall back on is that the NT prophecies differ from OT prophecies in terms of its nature. Instead of being more about predicting what is to come, it focuses on encouraging and building up believers for what they have the potential to achieve. I affirm this as Paul states in 1 Corinthians 14:3, so we can assert the purpose of the gift from this, but not the nature of it.

I have seen both used in church, that is hard to deny. If your view is the latter, to encourage others, then don’t call it prophecy. This is what we as members of the body of Christ are commanded to do. To lift up our brothers and sisters in Christ, to admonish one another and pursue godliness.

It’s possible that prophecy can be a broad category, but I find it suspicious that the only prophecies we hear are ‘positive’ ones. It’s always uplifting, always something to look forward to. We see in the bible prophecies of famine, drought and death so if we try to be biblical, why not embrace this side of prophetic utterances as well? In our modern age there are events that might put biblical catastrophes to shame but why isn’t the church speaking out on them? To warn others of coming dangers or calamity?

For this ‘future predictions’ view, I always hear prophecies uttered in conferences, during the annual offerings etc with the same message always defined – ‘we will enter a new year of blessings’ or ‘We will see God move in ways like never before’, really generic, wishful thinking statements from the heart, that gives us some false sense of ‘blessed’ assurance that can come true in a number of ways, if we just wait and see what happens.

Healing:

I think it’s important to address healing. I agree God still works miracles, every Christian should affirm that. It’s hard to deny miraculous healing even today, there are a number of books written (some more reliable factually than others) that document recent miracles with evidence to support it. So understanding that God is the one doing the healing, not us, is important. He heals according to His will not ours. The point I want to focus on though is the ‘gift of healing’.

In church I haven’t seen anything too concerning, however the language used often gives the idea that healing ‘always’ happens. Not particularly from the pulpit, but from members in discussions and overhearing it in their prayers. Using the correct language and terminology is crucial, failing to do so can give people a sense of false assurance. During my research I have found that the dangers of this line of thinking has lead many to abandon the faith altogether, when they don’t get their healing. It’s the thought that God hasn’t kept His promises to heal, therefore God must not be real. People cite proof texts that state healing always happens if we have faith, pray continuously etc however as diligent Christians we have to harmonise these texts with the rest of scripture.

The overarching theme we see then in the case of miracles, blessings, healings is that God does it, all according to His will. We need to think clearly again about the ‘purpose’ of these gifts, to help with out discernment in realising if what we are seeing are real miracles or parlour tricks.

The expectation that the gift of healing still exists today is troubling, it elevates someone to be more special than others, driving people to idolise them out of their desperation. The amount of false teachings around healing, propelled by people like Benny Hinn, Bill Johnson etc, performing ‘healings’ that have already been proven false, have really put a blot on the faith and unbelievers who see these people as the face of Christianity walk away with the wrong image of what Christianity really is.

We live in a fallen world, where disease and sickness are a part of our everyday life, now until the resurrection, where we put on the imperishable and dwell with our Lord for eternity. However, there is a selfishness problem with the church, where we want blessings and healing now, ignoring that Christians are expected to go through trials and hardship, building our endurance and character, realising our need for Him in our lives. This expectation that everything is supposed to go well for us, is prevalent in church from my conversations, there’s this notion that we’re always supposed to be happy and enjoy good times, and the easy going attitude of the members makes them likely to avoid confrontation when sharing their faith. I have yet to have a fruitful spiritual conversation with anyone at church, where we actually talk about our convictions, our brokenness as fallen human beings, to realise how depraved we are because of our sin, why God had to send His Son to suffer and die for us on the cross, as a sacrifice, a propitiation for the wrath of God, so it won’t be heaped onto us. The lack of understanding and conviction for the hard to swallow topics have lead some to easily accept these teachings, such as the gift of healing.

An important point I want to make is that, throughout the Gospels and the book of Acts, their was no mistaken assumptions if someone was healed by Jesus or the apostles. Even the Pharisees acknowledged that the healing was genuine, despite their unbelief in the Messiah and His followers. I make this point to highlight that when someone claims to have the gift, we are to test it according to scripture as many are falsely declaring this in the name of Jesus but doing so in a way that doesn’t line up with scripture. We are all told to pray with supplication for our brethren who need healing, and God will heal if He chooses to. I think that should always be in the back of our mind, the laying on of hands, being slain in the spirit (which I have seen at church) and other dramatic ways that have been done ultimately amounts to nothing, if we don’t first align our own will with God’s will. Trusting in Him that our ultimate healing comes in the last days according to His promises.

Final Thoughts on the Sign Gifts

The very fact that we’re still debating the gifts in the church today is evident that what we are seeing isn’t real, or at least a spiritual manifestation of the biblical principles we read about in scripture. In the 1st century church, there was no doubt in everyone’s mind, with the writings of the apostles to support it, that what they saw were miraculous gifts of the spirit. Similar to healings, miracles and signs and wonders Jesus and the Apostles did as a testament of their authority. Even the Pharisees and unbelievers knew they were true and legit miracles. If this were still the case, it would be clear to us as well. There would be no debate.

Our church may be ‘mild’ in comparison to other Charismatic churches that are going crazy on these gifts, nevertheless, the church definitely doesn’t shy away from practising some form of these gifts when we gather. We can be open to the gifts but not without discernment. From what I can assume from the leadership they definitely are capable and aware of this. However the same can’t be said of our wider church community, at least from the small group leaders and other members I’ve spoken to.

I affirm that the gifts have a purpose as it did in the early church, however, the gullibility of the church to accept any artificial manifestations of the gifts as true gives rise to a generation of Christians who easily fall into spiritual deception.

3. Women in church ministry

This is a topic I wish I didn’t have to talk about. There is a lot of info to cover on this topic, mostly due to the misconceptions surrounding it, so I’m going to spend a bit of time on this section. During my studies on this issue, I found overwhelming biblical evidence that suggest the office of elder (overseer, pastor etc) is reserved only for men. The Egalitarian (those who say the role are for both genders) arguments are built on mostly hasty assumptions, inaccurate historical accounts and poor hermeneutics that sadly lead to bad bible study. Because of this realisation, I now hold to the view of Complementarianism, that states although men and women have equal value and worth in Christ, when it comes to marriage and in the church setting, they are called to different roles and functions, and they “complement” each other in these differences.

I think that part of our reluctance to approach the issue is because the church is being influenced by current culture. Feminism has subtly creeped into the church, causing confusion and disorder. I’m not saying everyone who endorses Egalitarianism is a feminist or advocates for feminism, but the overwhelming push in recent history for women to be ‘equal’ to men has definitely made its way into the church setting.

Now I admit there are those who are more patriarchal with their approach. Advocating for total silence in the churches, workplaces and home. This is not biblical. Women can and have been used by God for amazing things, as shown in scripture, and this stance can lead to genuine oppression. These two extremes to my understanding of scripture is not something practiced in the 1st century church. One view of complete restriction and another without any limitations.

I want to clarify something, because I know a natural reaction by most people upon reading this is to get offended. If you’re reading this and that’s your response, then no biblical argument will change your mind. I am not saying: women are inferior to men, women can never be as good as men, women are not as valuable as men or women don’t deserve the same respect as men. Here’s what I’m saying: Women are a blessing, co-heirs with men to the promises God made and to place them in a function and see it as some sort of pedestal, in a role that was reserved by God specifically for men, brings dishonour and shows a sign of rebellion against God’s word. The Bible is clear on this issue and the seed of confusion plagues the church when it comes to this matter. God is not a God of chaos and confusion but of peace and clarity. He outlines clearly how the church is to function, assigning roles to specific people so order can be maintained in the body of Christ. In a way, it prevents the church from looking like the world, and lukewarm Christians and churches who affirm this looks very much like the world during my observations and research into understanding what the bible says about it and reconciling that with how we practice it. It comes down to some key factors as I eluded to before – bad bible study, faulty hermeneutics, poor scholarship and overall a disregard for the clear teaching in scripture.

So let me offer support for my claims.

First, I want to address the common push back I hear people use to support this view that women can be in an office or function of a biblical elder.

Old Testament

People would often reference influential women in the OT to justify this view. While I agree women were used by God to accomplish many amazing feats in the OT we need to remember there is always order to what God ordains. Prophetesses like Miriam, Huldah and Deborah (who was also the only female judge), were certainly influential and important in God’s plan. There is no debate that they were God’s messengers, but they weren’t exceeding the scope of that message, in the context of having the authority to teach or provide nuances in interpreting the information given. I will elaborate on this point more later on.

The fact that women had roles of leadership in the OT, is irrelevant to the debate on elders in the NT. One reason is that there are no equivalent roles for church elders in the OT.

We can’t with all certainty draw assumptions that God using these women for a specific purpose automatically carries over to the NT, this is building a bridge where there is no foundation to build on. It’s a dangerous way to interpret scripture, as it blurs the lines between topics that don’t relate, forming a connection to justify a belief that isn’t biblical.

In saying that, let’s look at the NT examples to further explore the pattern some use to justify the inclusivity of the elder role.

New Testament

In the NT, people often use examples of godly women to say women can now be elders, and disregard the actual verses that teach the qualifications to hold said role. The correct way to look at the issue is to let the text speak, not assume and use ‘examples’ as a way to prove the claim. Remember examples cannot be the only rule of interpreting the Bible, it’s easy to do so and leads to a distorted understanding of the clear meaning of scripture. These are all points I’ve heard from our members and leaders.

Mary and Martha (Luke 10)

An example often used, the view is that when Jesus rebuked Martha and accepted Mary to sit at His feet, that this was Him approving of women to be taught with the expectation of being a rabbi/elder. A few points about this view:

The church structure hasn’t been implemented yet, so the training to be an elder bridge doesn’t work

· If anything, this is an example of discipleship, not elder ordination. It’s a beautiful picture that shows us there are no restrictions for women to ‘learn’ theology, going against the culture at the time.

· Quite a number of egalitarian sources I found claim the phrase, ‘sitting at His feet’, is used in reference to Mary learning with the intention of being a rabbi. They quote another use of the phrase in Acts 22:3 which references Paul ‘sitting at feet of Gamaliel’, who trained him to be a rabbi.

· Looks convincing at first, but note that Luke, who wrote the same passage about Mary & Martha, penned the same phrase, ‘sitting at the feet of Jesus’ in Luke 8, talking about the demon possessed man. Following the above logic, would you see this then as him being taught to be a rabbi? The same man who was possessed by demons just before, spent a brief moment with Jesus then gets sent back into the town?

· It’s a stretch to make that argument with no historical and biblical evidence to corroborate it. This is an assumption and not a good solid case to support it.

· It’s a distraction from the actual important message of that section of scripture, which was to know what to prioritise in our journey, to labour in the Word, focus on things that are eternal, and not worry over the busyness of life in this world which won’t last.

· Women at tomb (Luke 24)

The argument goes that the women upon seeing the empty tomb, rushing to tell the disciples what has transpired, was a picture of them ‘preaching the Gospel’, and being the very first to do so. Yet another stretch to mean something else than what a straightforward reading shows.

· I don’t deny that they were among the first to share the good news that Jesus has risen. That is not debated.

· If anything, this is a picture of ‘evangelism’ as they were just relaying a message, not engaging in an authoritative role to ‘teach’ the theology relating to the resurrection. There is no biblical support for that idea so we shouldn’t extend it beyond what was written.

· Women can be missionaries, to spread the good news is not limited to a Christian because of their gender, as stipulated in Matthew 28 regarding the Great Commission.

· Priscilla (Acts 18)

Priscilla is mentioned a few times in the NT, but not really clear as to what her role is in the church, so we shouldn’t place everything on her being a leader based on very little info. We know she was a fellow tentmaker with Paul and seems she hosted a church gathering in her home. Priscilla, together with her husband Aquila, filled in the gaps of Apollo’s theology as seen in Acts 18. She was also regarded a co-labourer in the word according to Paul in Acts 8. People then make the implication that this means she was an elder.

· In regards to Apollos, notice that the scripture says he was pulled aside before they spoke to him. This is important, as it shows Priscilla didn’t publicly correct, in front of a mixed audience of men and women.

· Some egalitarians make a big deal about Priscilla’s name being before Aquila the majority of the times they are mentioned. While it was customary for the husband’s name to come first in the culture at the time, this is then interpreted as Priscilla having more authority than her husband, thus implying she was a leader of sorts in the church.

· This is a bit irresponsible to assume, as there is no clear explanation that this is the case. Note that Luke and Paul who both mention them in their writings, also swap the name order in other verses.

· This might mean she played a more active role during each time her name came first, but again, this is speculation. There is no legitimate reason whatsoever to form a connection from name order to being an elder.

· Phoebe (Romans 16)

Phoebe is regarded a deacon in Romans 16, being called a servant ‘of the church’ at Canchrea. She was the letter carrier to Rome on behalf of Paul. There is a view that this very verse proves she was a deacon, serving in the church in a leadership role, therefore, although I don’t see the connection, women can be elders.

• We need to understand the Greek used here, diakonos – διάκονος, is where we get the English word deacon from. It’s used in a number of ways in the NT, but usually translated as ‘servant’.

• Understanding the role of deacons is important. I think there is agreement in the church that deacons play a part in running the practical affairs of the church. Although not clearly described to us exactly how the role is to function, we have an outline of it’s qualifications in 1 Timothy 3. It is assumed that the deacon’s role is associated with serving the church in ways that allows the elder to focus on their own role, to preach the word and oversee the spiritual health of the congregation. Knowing this, we can assert that the deacon and elder role do not operate in a similar way in terms of having authority over the flock.

• In the case of Phoebe, I don’t think the argument whether she was a deacon in the official sense matters in the debate of women elders, based on our understanding of the difference in their respective roles. Important to note though that the feminine version of the Greek for deacon (deaconess), didn’t come into play until much later in history.

Egalitarians argue that she is evidence that deacons might hold some kind of ‘special’ authority, particularly to read or even teach the letter to the Romans. Egalitarian scholars will say that culturally speaking, letter carriers have the authority to read and exposit a letter they were delivering. There is no historical or biblical evidence to support this.

Probably the only clear example we have might be in Ephesians 6:21, which tells of Tychuicus who most likely delivered the letter to the Ephesians. You’ll see from the passage that there is no mention of him to be the reader, interpreter or teacher of said letter. However, it says to ask him to tell them everything pertaining to how Paul is doing. So Tychicus was asked to provide an update on Paul’s health and condition, since he was a prisoner at the time in Rome. I don’t know how to stretch this role to mean more than what it is, to become the same as an elder role and therefore say women can be pastors. You’ll really have to do biblical gymnastics to get that far.

· Junia (Romans 16)

The phrase ‘well known to the apostles’ has been a hotly debated topic for this issue. The egalitarians will favour the translation being ‘well known among the apostles’ instead to make their case.

The idea is that if Junia was an apostle, being the highest role you can have as a believer in biblical times, then women can definitely become elders. We need to define and understand what the word apostle means first, before we conclude how it relates to this verse.

· Apostolos – ἀπόστολος, is a Greek word that has more than one meaning

· It can specifically refer to the office of Apostle, the twelve sent out by Christ

· It’s other usage is understanding it’s literal meaning, as one who is sent out, a messenger or a delegate.

· We can legitimately assert that this verse might be referring to Junia as an apostle, not one that holds the same authority as the 12 apostles, but in the sense that she was a messenger or in modern language, a missionary.

· Culturally speaking, it makes sense that men wouldn’t have access to certain settings, so having women missionaries would be effective to evangelism in those spaces.

· Since this is the only time Junia is mentioned, don’t you think it’s rather odd, if you take the interpretation that she was well know ‘among’ the apostles, that there aren’t anymore mentions of her after this.

· If you hold to the view that Junia was well known among them, stating she held a role that exercises authority over men, the burden of proof is on you to provide evidence to corroborate this claim, seeing as there is little to go off.

· As with the other points I’ve made already, this is a vague passage, not worth building a whole doctrine around it, as the egalitarians have done.

· There has been research into this verse, particularly for the Greek usage of ‘en’, that the proper translation is ‘to’ not ‘among’. This would back the claim that Junia was just well known TO Paul and the other Apostles, as fellow servants on the church.

· The research gets into the use of the Greek in the exclusive sense, taking into account the syntactical structure of the verse, with examples in writing from around the time of Paul, and it supports that this should be read as ‘to’ not ‘among’. This is significant.

· Another important point to note as well, because complementarians bring it up a lot, is that the 12 apostles personally chosen by Jesus were all men. I don’t use that example as an argument against women apostles but I use it to corroborate what we see in scripture. This is the proper use of examples, typology etc

· The language used in 1 Corinthians 9:5, much like what we see in 1 Timothy 3, implies that the apostles would take their believing ‘wife’ with them on their mission trips. This is gender specific language. There are other words Paul should’ve used to convey ‘husbands or wives’ like spouses, etc. Therefore implying that apostles were always referring to men as opposed to women taking their husbands.

· Phillips daughters (Acts 21)

This is another example I’ve heard used. The view is that women are seen prophesying in the NT particularly the book of Acts, therefore, if they speak for God surely they can be elders.

· Again, an assumption arrived at without proper consideration of what the text teaches.

· Women prophesied in mixed gatherings, there is debate on that but looking at 1 Corinthians on how men and women are to prophesy, it’s in the context of church gatherings, with both men and women present.

· However, and this is key, prophecy is not the same as teaching.

· We don’t want to blur the clear distinctions on the different offices outlines in scripture, there’s a reason for doing so – to avoid confusion in the church.

· As mentioned earlier, the prophets generally do not speak beyond the words God gave them.

· No authority outside their message.

· We see a picture of this in 2 Samuel 7, where the Prophet Nathan gives an affirmation to King David to build the temple, however God rebukes Nathan a couple verses down that this wasn’t His command. Instead to tell David that this task is not for him but for his offspring. Nathan basically authorised something God did not approve, and was rebuked for it.

· In contrast to those in elder roles, who are given the authority to test/judge prophecies.

Gifting

The common pushback that people say is that if God has gifted women with the gift of teaching, then we are limiting them by not allowing them to use that gift. We are ignoring the sovereignty of the spirit by holding them back from ministry.

· I agree, however we should be careful on how we acknowledge and apply their gift, within the limitations provided by scripture. These are godly limitations, and we honour those limitations outlined by the same spirit that influenced Paul to write these qualifications.

· There are a number of ways to do this without forcing them into an elder role.

1. Older women are to teach younger women

Titus 2:3-5

Older women likewise are to be reverent in behaviour, not slanderers or slaves to much wine. They are to teach what is good, and so train the young women to love their husbands and children, to be self-controlled, pure, working at home, kind, and submissive to their own husbands, that the word of God may not be reviled.

Women more mature in the faith are to teach the younger ones, to understand and comprehend the message of the gospel and how to be a God-fearing wife to their husbands. Paul making this statement may also be related to the cultural fact that men aren’t always expected to get access to areas where women often gather, as I mentioned in my section on Junia.

2. Women/Mothers are to teach their children

Proverbs 6:20

My son, keep your father’s commandment, and forsake not your mother’s teaching.

There’s an indication here that the mother has a role in the teaching of her children, not just the father. They work together to speak truth into their lives, to have the same hope in Christ that they have and to honour God in how they live their lives.

2 Timothy 1:5

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.

It’s obvious that Timothy’s grandmother and mother played a big role in his upbringing in the faith as they were highly regarded by Paul, it is also likely that they taught him scripture as referenced in 2 Timothy 3:14-15.

3. Women’s Ministry

There are churches that honour this distinction in roles, and have developed women only ministries which do conferences, get togethers, and study groups specifically for women, by women. It’s a beautiful picture, God honouring women still teaching and learning from one another, building each other up within the context of biblical leadership, being submissive to the authority of the elders of their respective churches.

Here’s a verse that’s normally quoted to support the idea that you HAVE to use your gift of teaching

1 Peter 4:10-11

As each has received a gift, use it to serve one another, as good stewards of God’s varied grace: whoever speaks, as one who speaks oracles of God; whoever serves, as one who serves by the strength that God supplies–in order that in everything God may be glorified through Jesus Christ. To him belong glory and dominion forever and ever. Amen.

If we have a gift we should use it, I agree. But the end of this passage explains why we do it, to bring glory to God. We are to use our grifts to edify one another, but glorifying God in how we do it is to harmonise what we read here with the rest of scripture. Glorifying God means honouring the godly limitations He has established, for how we are to function as a church. There are a multitude of people that have gifts that are not being used, myself included, but we rightly submit to the authority of the elders by continuing to learn until the day comes when they can use it for God’s glory. We can still use said gifts in other ways, reaching out to family, colleagues and other loved ones.

The beauty of evangelism is that it’s not limited to just being behind the pulpit, it’s witnessing to the people you meet, wherever you are, fulfilling the great commission and bringing the lost to Christ.

The mindset of making a role in ministry a goal or dream is a perversion of the noble task that it’s described to be in scripture. I have heard this very idea from one of our leaders. The lack of wisdom when stepping into ministry will make it seem like a career rather than a calling, and it’s a dangerous place to be. Teachers are accountable for what they teach, and we will all stand before God in the end, and give an account for what we have knowingly taught to mislead others.

Men and Women are equal

Galatians 3:28 was quoted to me by a leader as a defence for this view, so I think it’s worth looking into. It seems to indicate that this verse removes boundaries between role differences. It’s become the one verse that overrides all other verses that relate to the issue, and that’s the problem. A proof text is only a proof text if it’s clear and interpreted correctly, usually with other verses to corroborate the claim.

Galatians 3:28

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

The interpretation is that this verse claims that if we are in Christ, we are now all equal in role and function as Christians. This leads to the roles in church leadership being open to anyone regardless of gender.

I’ll offer some pushback as I think this is a distorted approach and application for the verse. It’s become the rule that interprets the rest of the verses that speak on the issue, and a way to ignore hard verses like 1 Timothy 2:12. I say this because one of the leaders used this very reason, that if Galatians says this then why should we take one or two verses that speak against it as evidence women can’t be pastors? This worries me, as it shows the undermining of the text in favour of preference, to suit a biased position on an issue.

· What is the CONTEXT? This verse is part of a larger section of Galatians that Paul talks about the relation of the Mosaic Law to Christians, being part of the new covenant, and how faith is a deciding factor in our salvation.

· “We are all one in Christ Jesus” refers to this, as we are all united in our salvation according to the promises made by God

· Under the Mosaic Law, men usually inherit the family land or fortune, ( Deuteronomy 21:16-23) and women sometimes have to marry a circumcised Jewish man to be able to keep or have some sort of share in this inheritance. (Numbers 36:5-12)

· In the book of Galatians, Paul writes to the church to avoid associating with certain groups of Judaizers that were infiltrating the church, pushing members to still follow this tradition, particularly circumcision, in order to earn the grace of God, whether you were a Jew or a Gentile. Paul openly rejects this when he opposes Peter (Galatians 2:14)

· So Paul by stating that ‘there is no male and female’ means that they both inherit the status of being heirs to the promise, it shows that this old tradition is done with, and continues the flow of the context of the chapter in showing us how we are justified, going against this notion that they had to convert to Judaism to be saved

· It is clear he is making a case for our value and nature as God’s children, how we are equally justified by our faith (Galatians 3:24) and this is what sets us apart from those who reject Jesus.

· To then stretch this from our value in Christ to gender roles is assuming an issue Paul clearly wasn’t talking about in the whole book. It’s a common methodology I see some use when reading scripture, it influences how we interpret other verses to support a specific bias they have, maybe because of cultural pressures or fear of rejection.

Male Headship

This is a concept that many reject, citing it as oppressive and not taught in scripture. Now I’m going to cover it because as part of mainstream egalitarianism, the idea that the husband being the ‘head’ of their wives in the context of a marriage, is interpreted in a different way than it has always been historically speaking. The Greek word translated for the metaphorical use of ‘head’ (kephalé – κεφαλή), can either mean ‘source’ (in the sense of spiritual nourishment) or in the context of someone in ‘leadership/authority’. Obviously they opt for the former.

The interpretation of this word matters, as it influences how a church talks about marriage hierarchy and those who are qualified to be in pastoral ministry. It’s an essential teaching if we are to understand this debate about women in ministry, specifically how God sees men and women are to function in a church setting.

1 Corinthians 11:3

But I want you to understand that the head (kephale) of every man is Christ, the head (kephale) of a wife is her husband, and the head (kephale) of Christ is God.

Egalitarians will argue that ‘kephale’ means source, however they have different ways of arriving at this conclusion. Some say that it refers to how Eve was made from another source – Adam, but it doesn’t fit the context of the passage. They also cite that common medical practices at the time of writing stated was that the heart was the governing source of the body, not the head/mind, so early Greek philosophers simply never saw this meaning authority or leadership over women/wife.

I’ll quickly show contrary examples to these claims. Most egalitarians will use Plato as their reference, saying that he implies that the psyche/heart is the ruler of the body not the head. However, clearly described in his writings, this is not the case.

The divine revolutions, which are two, they bound within a sphere-shaped body, in imitation of the spherical form of the All, which body we now call the “head,” it being the most divine part and reigning over all the parts within us. To it the gods delivered over the whole of the body they had assembled to be its servant, having formed the notion that it should partake in all the motions which were to be.

1 Cf. 73 C, 81 D. Plato. Plato in Twelve Volumes, Vol. 9

For further support of the head being believed to be the governing part of the body, here’s a view from the medical writer Galen, who lived closer to the time of the apostles

Nor is it necessary that because the brain, like the great King, dwells in the head as in an acropolis, for that reason the ruling part of the soul is in the brain, or because the brain has the senses stationed around it like body guards, or even if one should go so far as to say that as heaven is to the whole universe, so the head is to man and that therefore as the former is the home of the gods, so the brain is the home of the rational faculty”

Galen, On the Doctrines of Hippocrates and Plato, 120.1-10

To most people the head seems to have been formed on account of the encephalon and for that reason to contain all the sense, like the servants and guards of a great king”

Galen, On the Usefulness of the Parts of the Body

I found this to be the common view so I wanted to show some counter examples, however the view that the head in these passages simply mean ‘authority’, can be arrived at by simply doing good bible study.

Ephesians 5:22–24

Wives, submit to your own husbands, as to the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife even as Christ is the head of the church, his body, and is himself its Savior. Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit in everything to their husbands.

This verse without any doubt uses kephale in the context of the relationship between a husband and wife. To understand it’s use to imply leadership or authority, we simply look to other scripture and see that Paul likens it to the relationship between the church to Christ, being the head of the church.

In modern times, the view on ‘submission’ is seen as an oppressive and evil idea. Biblical submission is far from it. It doesn’t mean women are outlawed from having opinions, giving advice or just do whatever the husbands/men say. It’s a picture of respect for the husband and his God given authority.

This is seen as appropriate even if he doesn’t lead his home well or loves the Lord as he should, the respect is still there to honour the godly roles they have committed themselves to. The love and respect the wife shows in honouring her husband, is a beautiful form of evangelism not many people acknowledge.

1 Peter 3:1–7

Likewise, wives, be subject to your own husbands, so that even if some do not obey the word, they may be won without a word by the conduct of their wives, when they see your respectful and pure conduct. Do not let your adorning be external—the braiding of hair and the putting on of gold jewellery, or the clothing you wear—but let your adorning be the hidden person of the heart with the imperishable beauty of a gentle and quiet spirit, which in God’s sight is very precious. For this is how the holy women who hoped in God used to adorn themselves, by submitting to their own husbands, as Sarah obeyed Abraham, calling him lord. And you are her children, if you do good and do not fear anything that is frightening. Likewise, husbands, live with your wives in an understanding way, showing honour to the woman as the weaker vessel, since they are heirs with you of the grace of life, so that your prayers may not be hindered.

This idea is considered offensive in today’s culture, stipulating that women are the ‘weaker vessel’. The truth is, that’s exactly how God created us. The fact that men are stronger than women is labelled sexist, however common sense tells us otherwise.

Think of how some of the careers which involve physical strength to ensure it is carried out effectively. Police, Firefighters, Army etc. In most of these options, if not all, the requirements for women are substantially lowered to accomodate the knowledge that they are not as blessed as men when it comes to physical endurance and strength. (I’m not ignorant that there are exceptions, but that’s not the rule or the nature of our design)

Say you were stuck in a burning building, pinned under a beam and not able to move at all to save yourself, would you rather a female firefighter be the one to save you or her male counterpart? If a woman was inducted into the job by ensuring they can carry a certain weight, well under what men can carry, and the average male weighs more than what she carried to be qualified, would you trust her to save your life? Now this is a hypothetical, but I’m trying to illustrate a point, just because women desire to be equal to men in all aspects of life, doesn’t mean we have to affirm their request, ignoring the laws of nature to satisfy a worldview, quota or for the sake of equality, putting lives at risk in the process. Just as men are better suited for certain roles, so are women. In fact most jobs in modern society are probably more suitable for women than men, but we always apply critical theory to these discussions, blinding us to the obvious truth. Men honour women by acknowledging them as weaker vessels, aiming to provide and protect. Again, these differences, physical strength being one of them, are godly and true. We are designed this way. Yet they work together so well, when understood biblically.

For submission in some cases, I do agree that it can lead to abuse, but this is a no brainer, that you should use common sense and biblical wisdom to make a judgement on your situation and get help. This goes into the understanding of how to handle this as Christians, whether by divorce or church discipline, which are both biblical teachings, but a topic for another day.

My point is that submission rightly understood, is a beautiful thing. Just as we as the church submit to Christ, with respect and reverence, in response to His show of love for us, by willingly taking upon Himself the punishment on the cross for our salvation.

It’s a relationship that consists of one as a lover and another who is loved, not a distinction between master and slave. Jesus sacrificed His life for His bride – the church, and this is likened to how a husband is to lay down his life, his desires and his needs for his wife.

Understanding this can make the Ephesians passage easier to comprehend. The same theme is seen in the next verse, talking about not exercising authority over men. Despite the clear differences in our functions, the bible is clear on the equality of men and women in the sense of value and worth in the sight of God. This is shown in verses like Galatians 3:28 I discussed previously, and why Paul prefaces this in the verse just before the submission passage above.

Ephesians 5:20-21

giving thanks always and for everything to God the Father in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, submitting to one another out of reverence for Christ.

It refers to our relationship towards each other, as members of the body of Christ. Not to confuse the ‘submitting’ in this verse with what follows, you simply need to read the whole section to get the context as this is often used to say we all just submit to one another and so that there is now no hierarchy. Remember, context is key.

There is responsibility in headship but there is also punishment when abused. God created us equal in value and worth, but different in role and function, for us to complement each other and flourish in the process.

Colossians 2:9-10

For in him the whole fullness of deity dwells bodily, and you have been filled in him, who is the head of all rule and authority

Here’s another verse that supports the use of kephale as holding the position of ruler or having authority over something. In this case Christ over the church and as Paul compares earlier on, a husband to the wife. This is Male Headship. A God ordained function that serves to bring order into marriages and essentially the church.

It is also key to note that this idea of male headship has been taught from the very beginning, in Genesis. Now egalitarians will say that the difference in roles really came about post-fall. However, if we are to be diligent students of the text, we read the context of the first two chapters and see how God established this from the moment of creation.

The creation order matters. This wasn’t lost to the early Jewish readers, as their understanding from the Law around the benefits and responsibilities of the first born male. During the time of the writing of the New Testament, this understanding was still seen as godly, as referenced by Paul in 1 Timothy 2:3, a case for why God ordains men in the role of leadership but not women.

With this responsibility, the men are also held accountable for what they do with this role of headship. An obvious example can be seen in the differences of the curses heaped onto Adam and Eve, which also implied that male headship was pre-fall, and the repercussions that resulted from Adam failing to do his duty in protecting his wife from the snake, brought difficulty to their already established roles. The punishment was more severe for Adam as the head, as highlighted by his curse being a general affliction for the whole world, as opposed to Eve whose curse was limited only to women.

Genesis 3:16-19

To the woman he said, “I will surely multiply your pain in childbearing; in pain you shall bring forth children. Your desire shall be for your husband, and he shall rule over you.” And to Adam he said, “Because you have listened to the voice of your wife and have eaten of the tree of which I commanded you, ‘You shall not eat of it,’ cursed is the ground because of you; in pain you shall eat of it all the days of your life; thorns and thistles it shall bring forth for you; and you shall eat the plants of the field. By the sweat of your face you shall eat bread, till you return to the ground, for out of it you were taken; for you are dust, and to dust you shall return.”

We see that the snake bypassed Adam’s authority by going through Eve, realising that she was the ‘helper’ and knowingly going against the hierarchy that God has ordained.

This is how God created us. Their unity in marriage really puts the beauty of these differences on display, and how they compliment each other in these differences. The husband protects and excels in strength while the wife nurtures and excels in caring for her household.

So how does this relate to the function of the church roles? You simply need to take the whole context of the times this issue is addressed to fully see the harmony of the passages, some of which I have already addressed here. Paul harkens back to the timeless laws of the creation account (1 Timothy 2:13-14, 1 Corinthians 11:7-12), the relationship of Christ to the church (Ephesians 5:23-27) and understanding the church’s stance on the practices and teachings they adhere to (1 Corinthians 11:16)

This is an essential teaching regarding the understanding of our difference in function and role, and the text shows that despite these differences, we are all equal in our value as those made in His image. So this shouldn’t be controversial, however it is clear that modern culture are major influences in these areas, polluting the beauty of how God has created us to be.

Qualifications for Overseers

The qualification to be an elder, fortunately, are laid out explicitly by scripture. Explained clearly in 1 Timothy 3 and echoed in Titus 1. I’ll use the 1 Timothy passage for the following breakdown.

1 Timothy 3:1-5

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, sober-minded, self-controlled, respectable, hospitable, able to teach, not a drunkard, not violent but gentle, not quarrelsome, not a lover of money. He must manage his own household well, with all dignity keeping his children submissive, for if someone does not know how to manage his own household, how will he care for God’s church?

Titus 1:5-9

This is why I left you in Crete, so that you might put what remained into order, and appoint elders in every town as I directed you–if anyone is above reproach, the husband of one wife, and his children are believers and not open to the charge of debauchery or insubordination. For an overseer, as God’s steward, must be above reproach. He must not be arrogant or quick-tempered or a drunkard or violent or greedy for gain, but hospitable, a lover of good, self-controlled, upright, holy, and disciplined. He must hold firm to the trustworthy word as taught, so that he may be able to give instruction in sound doctrine and also to rebuke those who contradict it.

Right off the bat, we see the role describes as being a noble task. It’s not a dream, a career or a goal. The Greek can be translated to mean ‘good work’, something the bible speaks much about, especially around the context of how we show evidence of our salvation. The responsibility of caring, discipling and the building up of the flock demands someone who’s willing to be held accountable for the work he has committed himself to.

For an overseer to be above reproach, is to be blameless, hard to fault and held to a higher moral standard than the members of the congregation he is responsible for. They can’t bring shame to the local body of Christ, and is a crucial qualification in becoming an elder. Of course this doesn’t mean they can’t sin, as we are all in our fallen state until the resurrection. However, they are esteemed highly by the community he cares for, has lived a life of integrity, someone of good character and an untainted reputation. Then the rest of the section focuses on the traits they should have and avoid.

I want to clarify something to clear up a misunderstanding. The English translations we have now uses the masculine pronoun ‘he’ to describe the elder throughout this passage. However, the pronoun doesn’t show up at all in these verses in the original language. The Greek language can get complicated, and misinterpretations arise from it. Acknowledging that this can limit our understanding of a passage, we still have to do bible study to arrive at the most likely conclusion, having the closest meaning to the context of scripture.

The fact is, biblical Koine Greek doesn’t have a word for ‘he’. How we know the gender people refer to in writings however is to look at other words that describe masculine traits.

So here’s what’s interesting, the noun ‘overseer’ in verse 1 is in the feminine form, (episkopē – ἐπισκοπή) however considering the overall context of the passage, the ‘office of overseer’ might be described in it’s feminine form, but the one who occupies it is in the masculine. This is supported by the word ‘anyone’ just before it that describes a masculine trait (tis – τις) and the phrase ‘husband of one wife’ in the next verse.

‘Husband of one wife’ cannot be literally interpreted any other way, there are other words Paul could have used to make this statement cover both genders, but he didn’t. The phrase (mias gynaikos anēr – μιᾶς γυναικὸς ἀνήρ) tells us that an elder should only have one wife, be loyal in his marriage so as not to bring condemnation upon himself. This same sentence structure is used in other verses, having the same meaning and the use of these words to indicate the gendered pronoun of the subject.

One is in the book of Acts.

Acts 1:20

“For it is written in the Book of Psalms, “‘May his camp become desolate, and let there be no one to dwell in it’;and “‘Let another take his office.’

The word ‘office’ here is the same Greek word used in 1 Timothy 3 – episkopē, which is in it’s feminine form. However Luke, who didn’t write 1 Timothy, uses the adjective heteros (ἕτερος), which is the masculine form of ‘another’, to describe who takes that office.

So we see the harmony of scripture in this breakdown. It’s sad to see that some force a meaning into it without careful consideration of the context and the use of the original language.

The Big Two

I’ll finish this part of the section with the two main verses that egalitarians seem to avoid, or completely misinterpret. As I mentioned earlier, the view that the examples in the NT of godly women was enough to ignore these passages, really serve to hinder people’s understanding of how the bible is in harmony, and without contradictions. I’m not saying all egalitarians ignore them, some have explanation for why they hold the view. As there are a variety of ways they argue their point, I’ve chosen the ones I’ve noticed are the most used. Again, I’m open to that discussion.

1 Corinthians 14:33-35

For God is not a God of confusion but of peace. 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.

The common view I saw as a misinterpretation of this passage is that Paul writes this to address the women in the church in Corinth, because they weren’t as educated as the men, therefore they should not speak out and cause disruptions during the services. They would say that the women weren’t educated because of the culture they were in. They were most likely recent converts from the Cult of Dionysus, which were known to be loud and disruptive during church gatherings.

This is due to their cult practices, which included screaming and convulsing as part of their standard worship. So Paul writes this to control how they were to act during worship, until they were educated on how to conduct themselves in a manner befitting the circumstances. This shows that this was a temporary ban, and since we live in a more civilised society now, where women are well educated, this doesn’t apply to us anymore.

Corinthians in the church Paul writes to largely consisted of Gentiles, and these Greco-Roman men and women were both considered to have some form of basic education. However we’re not talking here about the generic form of education, this doesn’t matter in a church setting. What matters is biblical education in Christian doctrines.

· In this sense, both the gentile women AND men were uneducated, in contrast to the Jewish members who had some knowledge of the scriptures due to the teachings from the OT.

· Remember, Paul spent a bit of time there In Corinth, disciplining and teaching doctrine to men and women. Paul met Priscilla in Corinth, (Acts 18:1-4) and seems to be where she got her education from, the bible clearly shows she was knowledgeable enough to correct Apollo’s theology. Priscilla was obviously well educated, being in Corinth with Paul, and bringing correction to Apollos while in Ephesus. It’s not a stretch to say Paul also taught others while in Corinth, staying there for a year and a half, a lot of time to educate both men and women, Priscilla being mentioned as one of them. So the education view fails to realise these important facts, and not looking at the whole bible in it’s context to realise that hard to understand verses can be understood by simply reading other relating verses.

· For the point that these were just for that time and not for us today, simply reading the verse carefully makes it clear this is not the case. ‘As in all the churches of the saints’ implies that this applies to all churches, not just the Corinth gathering. If the Cult of Dionysus was the reason given for the limitation of women speaking, it doesn’t make sense for Paul to declare this to be the practise for all other churches, as not all were influenced by the cult.

· As stipulated in the verse 33, this was to bring order to the church, not chaos, as God wills the gatherings to be. It didn’t mean that women couldn’t speak at all, as seen in previous verses, women were to prophesy in a church setting as long as they followed the guidelines laid out for them. This is highlighting the authoritative nature of speaking in a mixed gathering through the preaching of the word, and women were to submit to that proper authority held by the elders.

2. 1 Timothy 2:11-14

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.

This is probably the most argued over verse in the whole debate. The egalitarians view varies, often contradicting each other and heavily relying on falsified historical events rather than biblical context. Their common claim states that this isn’t talking about elder roles at all, instead shifting the focus to yet another cult, the Cult of Diana/Artemis, which had a prominent presence in Ephesus.

According to egalitarian scholars, the cult was founded, controlled and populated entirely by women. This led to a feministic society in Ephesus, looking to usurp authority over men and egalitarians will relate this to recent converts in the church, stating that they were all women, causing chaos during gatherings. Please don’t let this distract you from the overall context of the whole book, which was to teach the proper ways to behave in the church gathering, corrections for all false teaching and practices in general, not specific to the cult influence.

• I won’t waste time listing out all the push back on this point, as there is too much information to sift through but the basic refutation goes like this. There is no historical evidence at all that the cult were only women as the egalitarians claim. The historical records actually show that there were often male high priests, leading the cult which consisted of both genders.

The tendency to overlook the plain Greek meaning for the words ‘submit, quiet and authority’ used in this passage, causes a lot of confusion even amongst their own camp. You are welcome to look into these in detail yourself, however let me offer some advice. Don’t pick one source and run with it. Unbiased research requires you look at both sides of the argument, to get a clear sense of the issue and examine the facts and claims for yourself. This is what I see at our church, as the members seem to be sheltered from opposing views, growing more clueless in their own ignorance. Going against this habit myself, painstakingly over a long period of time, has opened my eyes and caused me to arrive at what I now see as a biblical view, that fits the context and harmonises well with the rest of scripture. So here’s an brief explanation for the verse.

• This section begins by talking about women and submission. People tend to focus on that part and neglect the first half, which acknowledges women can learn theology. Extreme patriarchal views deny this and sadly ban women from furthering their knowledge on biblical doctrines.

• The reason Paul gives this directive, is explained by the last part of this passage, referencing the creation order. As I’ve stated in the earlier point I made about Male Headship, creation order matters. It shapes how we are to function in our roles, not only in a God ordained concept like marriage but also in His church. Note that this is specifically pointed out in the context of the passages I have already mentioned, as the ideal in those two areas, marriage and church. It doesn’t seem to affect roles outside of those settings, such as a boss at work or a female prime minister, however it is still up for debate in certain circles. Deborah couldn’t have been a judge if this was the case, and that’s using her example in the right way to support an idea, established from the very beginning during creation.

• It flows so well, the directive for women to be submissive, for men to take on the responsibilities and the accountability of the leading role and the creation account as the reason for this hierarchy. The correct way to read these passages is not to force a meaning onto it, that satisfies our modern culture, misinterpreting the meaning of text in the process as Paul intended to convey.

I won’t break this verse down in the Greek as I have done to the previous ones, as the meaning is quite clear by looking at the context of the entire writing. It’s also because I don’t feel I need to. I have laboured to make my case in this whole section of my letter, prior to this verse. You can take this verse out of the bible and it won’t affect the complementarian view.

This is not an isolated teaching in 1 Timothy 2, it matches what we see in other passages related to the topic. (1 Corinthians 11:2–16, 14:33–38, Ephesians 5:22–33, Colossians 3:18–19, Titus 2:4–5) It also conforms to the overall teaching of scripture.

This is how confident I am in my stance, a view that follows the flow of thought of the authors, has perfect harmony with the rest of scripture and doesn’t depend on historical events to determine it’s meaning. Don’t misunderstand, historical evidence is essential to proper bible study, it’s part of good hermeneutics to relate historical writings and archaeological finds to support biblical accounts. However, the false usage of said events is a different story, likely done to push a narrative and agenda the bible is clearly not talking about by simply making the bible seem patriarchal and demeaning towards women. However we learn through careful study, that this isn’t the case at all.

Blue Parakeet

I want to touch on a book that was recommended to me. At first I was glad I was directed to a resource that I can finally look into that’s endorsed by our leadership. Sadly, I was disappointed. The author clearly had an agenda, the book was written through the lens of someone who relied on the emotional aspect coupled by his experiences on the topic, just happened to be sprinkled with some bible verses.

He constantly uses examples of women who he knew and met over the years, and feared that the church was ‘holding them back’ from their calling, labelling them caged Blue Parakeets.

Although he attempts to make a biblical case, the author fails on one important aspect. He completely mischaracterises the view of complimentarianism camp. Throughout the whole section on women in church ministry, he references the opposing view, misrepresents it, misleading his readers into thinking that the contrary view is oppressive and misinterpreting the verses relating to it.

This is called a ‘Straw-man Fallacy’. It’s when you make up a fake view, with fake arguments, then make attempts at dismantling it to prove it doesn’t hold up. Of course it fools those who don’t do their research, and it’s a very deceiving way to control the narrative and get people on your side.

He continuously makes the assertion that complimentarians stem their arguments about the differences in function from the fall account, relating it to what we see in Genesis 3. However, there is no self respecting complimentarian I know of that bases their view on that text. The correct view has always been based on the creation order, in Genesis 2.

It shows his assumptions and misconceptions in the view he’s trying to refute, hence why I deemed it a straw-man argument. This is very misleading, possibly bringing people into believing a false premise, based on false data and false claims. It’s sad to say but it’s bad scholarship and bad authorship on his part. Although he makes several good points in other parts of the book that lines up with biblical concepts, I wouldn’t recommend this book to anyone searching for truth.

Final thoughts on Women in Church Ministry

By saying all this I don’t at all question that the women are not sincere in their desire to serve God in this space. I applaud women who stand up and be proactive in serving the Lord. However that doesn’t always mean their actions and intentions are biblical or ordained by God. Our sincerity doesn’t mean we’re always biblical in a view. Our sincerity amounts to nothing is we are blindly going against what is written.

Remember that teachers and leaders are commanded in scripture to be biblical, there are repercussions for them if they don’t. They are accountable for what they teach. The bible says that we will all be judged according to our deeds. There will come a time when they will stand before God and give an account of what they’ve taught. It’s not a far cry from the truth to say that part of this is how faithful we are to the text of scripture.

To be honest, in a certain sense, I don’t even like my own view. I have strong women in my life that are capable of leadership and so much more than most men I know. However, this is not a reason to go against what God has commanded us to obey on how to implement these roles in the church and marriage. To go against our own preferences, count the cost of following Him, losing people we admire along the way who may disagree, and simply choosing to submit to God’s will.

So ask yourself this, are you willing to take that risk, relying on poor exegesis on scripture, and placing our women in a function God hasn’t designed them for? Do we put them in harms way for the sake of ‘equality’, when scripture speaks on us having different roles and functions, that we compliment each other in those differences? That the differences are godly? That this minimises confusion and chaos in the home and the church? If I make an enemy of my family, friends desert me and my church disfellowships me, I will still choose to honour the truths in God’s word even if it inconveniences me. I can be hated by my brethren, but the Christians goal is to run our race well and be told in the end “well done my faithful servant” and not “I never knew you”.

I don’t deny that there are areas of doctrine that are unclear and that I hold very loosely. We are not meant to know all truth now but there will come a time when we will. However, these issues I’ve highlighted are clear, straightforward and well documented. The pushback against it has only begun because people decided to push an agenda that became common place and blindly accepted in the church.

– In conclusion

I urge you to please consider what’s been said in this letter. My hope is as least, this material spurs our church to be more biblical. I am not setting out to attack the leadership or change all it’s problematic doctrines. However, I am trying to honour God and His word in bringing correction to an obvious problem in the church. We as Christians are commanded to do so. Jesus throughout the gospels did this, the apostles, particularly Paul, even names those who teach false theology in his epistles. The unloving thing is to be silent. Please look at this from a biblical perspective not an emotional lens we tend to fall back on. Theology matters, and the common theme I see at church is that the proper practicing of biblical commands, especially pushing back on leadership, is frowned upon and the person is labelled as hateful or mean spirited. Our testimony and experiences, how good we are at imitating the love of Christ to encourage people to come to church are all good things for the purpose of evangelism, but it should never stop there.

If I have misrepresented the church’s beliefs in any way I am open to having that discussion. This is also why I methodically crafted a list of questions that I sent to the leadership, to get clarity on certain areas of theology. My frustration from not getting clear answers have led me to write this letter as an appeal to you all to rethink your position on certain doctrines, for your own sake.

My appeal is for the church to shift it’s focus to keeping to what the church is really called to do, biblical discipleship, proper exegesis in Sunday sermons, and a proper approach to sound doctrines. How this looks for the church is up to you, the leadership, and your willingness to look past the pride as one of the biggest church in Aotearoa to risk shrinking in size, in pursuit of being faithful in honouring God with what really matters. In saying that I applaud the church for their work in the community, however that’s not the only role of the church, and that being the focus makes the church look just like any charity organisation, who can do exactly the same thing minus the spiritual cause behind it.

I would liken this situation our church has put itself in to the Pharisaical traditions Jesus rebuked in the Gospels.

Matthew 23:23

“Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you tithe mint and dill and cumin, and have neglected the weightier matters of the law: justice and mercy and faithfulness. These you ought to have done, without neglecting the others.

The failure to keep the main thing the main thing, instead a big focus on the minor responsibilities of the church, one instance being an appeal to the social health of the congregation instead of their spiritual maturity. The relationship between church members is definitely an important factor, but should not be the main focus of a church. With diligent bible study and discipleship, you will find that it comes naturally to a gathering of believers who exhort one another from their knowledge of scripture. I’ve heard people state that we are a ‘hangout church’. Honestly, with respect, I have no idea what that means, biblically speaking.

The opposite effect has actually eventuated in my opinion, which is summed up in a quote by preacher and author Voddie Baucham that has stuck with me for a while now during my time here. “The modern church is raising a generation of passionate people, with empty heads, who love a Jesus that they know little about”. I am repeatedly saddened and disappointed at the carefree attitude of the church members, where they say theology doesn’t matter, as long as you show love and affection for the people you come across, hopefully attracting them to church.

Here’s a thought on how churches should approach their teachings, especially being aware of what’s being said from the pulpit, and acknowledging that not every single member, for good reason, can be part of a life group. Evangelism brings people to church, Discipleship makes them stay. We need to build up true followers who attend to hear the meat of the Word but not for some misguided watered down version of it. The high turnover of members and leaders during my time at Arise serves to make my point for me. In my opinion, we have it backwards. Discipleship should be the main focus, evangelism automatically follows from the fruit of the disciples you make.

I often think about 2 Timothy 4:3-4, a statement that seems appropriate for the direction the church is heading towards as we see it.

2 Timothy 4:3

For the time is coming when people will not endure sound teaching, but having itching ears they will accumulate for themselves teachers to suit their own passions, and will turn away from listening to the truth and wander off into myths.

The negligence of the church in terms of discipleship, leading to false epistemology, where people come to get their ears tickled and hear motivational speeches from the pulpit, has definitely created an environment where we’re building up a generation of confused Christians who can’t even defend the faith they claim to have, let alone have any discernment to tell fibs from biblical fact. I have witnessed this first hand numerous times so it’s not an empty statement. The church should talk and preach about all the characteristics of God not just the ones that make us feel good. God is not just a God of Love – He is a God of Judgement, not just a God of Mercy – but also of Wrath and not just a God of Grace – but also the One who Punishes Evil.

It has been a depressing thing to see, more so to write about, but in the heart of being a loving brother, I chose to write this letter to at least reach you with truth. I’m not setting out to prove anything about myself or disparage the church, even though obviously I strongly speak against the teachings. This might be a pointless attempt at correction, but I pray that the Holy Spirit open your hearts and minds to realise that something isn’t right. Our God is sovereign over all things, and He works everything according to His will, for the benefit of those who love Him. I have no doubts that you all have a tremendous love for God, and my hope is that this is shown by your consideration of the issues I’ve raised and starting a healthy dialogue around it. For the betterment of our own spiritual journeys, but most importantly to honour our Father in Heaven, who loved us enough to send His Son to be a substitute for us on the cross, a propitiation, a sinless offering as an atonement of our sins, so that whoever believes in Him and accepts His free gift of grace, will attain eternal life, to dwell in His presence for all eternity.