This post is part of a series on the roles of men and women in the Church and the Home. This particular post answers some of the common arguments made by egalitarians before addressing the wider corner related to biblical epistemology and gender roles. How can we stand against the LGBTQ mob if we don’t stand on Scripture consistently?
Not an Essential?
How important is the topic of gender roles in the Church? If it’s not an essential doctrine for salvation, is it important at all?
Limiting the Importance of the Issue: “Not An Essential”
Another common argument is that women should be allowed to be pastors simply because the issue is not directly essential to salvation. While an essential issue is Christ and the gospel of His atoning death and resurrection, issues of gender roles cannot be relegated to the unimportant. Adultery is not an essential issue as it relates to salvation, but it is indeed important. So it is with the complementarian vs. egalitarian issue.
God has built male headship and female glory into the order of creation (Genesis 1:26-27, 1 Cor. 11). It is no small issue. Notably, if we do not take seriously God’s design as it relates to gender roles, we make ourselves susceptible to all manner of gender degrasions. The issue of homosexuality and transgenderism is certainly a serious issue (Rom. 1:18ff) and is directly tied to the question of gender roles. If we lay aside the clear teaching of Scripture related to gender, there will be no consistent way to stand against the wave of LGBTQ+ ideology sweeping through the culture.
Thus, it is because of the essential nature of the gospel that this issue is so important. Hermeneutically, if we allow this issue to be treated as a "gray" area, we open up the door for everything else to be treated as such too, including the gospel. There are issues in Scripture that are less clear. This is not one of them.
While the issue of female "pastors" is not as critical as the doctrine of Christ, it is far more important than many realize
Denying Perspicuity: “the Bible Is Not Clear”
Some egalitarians argue that the fact that there is disagreement on the issue means that it is not clear and thus cannot be understood. The doctrine of perspicuity is helpful here. There are those that argue that Scripture doesn’t teach the deity of Christ, though it clearly does. Disagreement does not imply a lack of clarity.
Further, Deuteronomy 6:6-7 commands parents to teach Scripture to their children, indicating that it can be understood, even by young children. Further, Psalm 19:7 states that “testimony of the Lord is sure, making wise the simple.” While 2 Peter 3:16 mentions that some parts of Scripture are harder to understand and can be twisted, the implication is that they are still understandable and that the issue is that they are being intentionally twisted.
Gender Roles and Standing Against Cultural Sins
If we don't stand for biblical commands related to gender roles in the Church and the home, we will have nothing to stand on when we respond to the Drag Queens grooming children. Hold the line now.
Concluding Thoughts
As I mentioned, none of the verses put forth by egalitarians provide any reference to women leading men or to leading house churches. Believing women are leading house churches in those passages can only be concluded based on presumptions eisegeted into the text while simultaneously ignoring the clear teaching of 1 Timothy 2, 3, 1 Cor. 11, Titus 2, etc. Faithful hermeneutics requires interpreting less clear passages with clear passages, not the opposite. The deeper issue here is that it is not divisive to hold to the historically orthodox, biblical position. The charge of division rests on the brothers/sisters who diverge from the plain teaching of the text, especially when the whole of church history supports the complementarian position.
The hermeneutical method being applied by egalitarians on this issue is an approach that has been taken many times across church history, though it has been applied to this issue only in the last century or so. When the hermeneutic was applied to revelation by classical liberals such as Schleiermacher, it resulted in apostasy. When it was applied to the person of Christ by the Arians, it resulted in a denial of salvation. When it was applied to the issue of slavery by the slavers, it resulted in widespread oppression. In every case, it led to a denial of the gospel.
Following the more recent history of the UCC, the UMC, and the Evangelical Lutherans, you will see that the hermeneutic applied to the very issue at hand quickly led to the affirmation of abomination as the very foundations of biblical anthropology had already been abandoned. Even the first woman pastor, Antoinette Brown Blackwell quickly abandoned biblical orthodoxy and her “pastoral” role to become a Unitarian. Without proper adherence to God’s revelation on the nature of man, the doctrine of sin and subsequently the doctrine of the atonement and the gospel as a whole are jettisoned in short order. This is absolutely an issue worth picking sides over as it is an issue God has spoken authoritatively on. I’ve picked a side. I trust you brothers will join me.
