Sunday School | Foundations - The Roles of Men and Women from a Biblical Perspective

Morning. Thanks for coming back to Foundations. We're always glad to have you. I appreciate you giving us another hour of your Sunday morning.

What we're doing here in this hour for Foundations every week—we're at week six, something like that? Yes, week six sounds right. Basically, this is a combination new members class, old members class. We want to help the whole church get on board with what is the Church of the Holy Spirit. Sloop and I decided to break it down into essentially three sections.

The first section is straight biblical teaching—core doctrines of Christianity. We've talked about the scriptures and the spiritual life and what is the gospel, those sorts of things. We're transitioning into talking about what is Anglicanism and what it means to be part of this particular church, Church of the Holy Spirit. This week is somewhat of a transition. It has a foot in a couple different worlds as we transition from biblical teaching into particulars.

In Essentials Unity, In Non-Essentials Liberty

There's a well-known framework that you may have heard before. It's been repeated throughout Christian history for hundreds of years, but it's generally misattributed to people. The saying is this: In essentials unity, in non-essentials liberty, and in all things, charity.

I think the reason it has stuck is that it offers a really helpful way to think about theological issues that exist with varying levels of clarity and varying levels of importance.

If we could organize all theological claims within Christianity into a bull's-eye pattern, the center of that bull's-eye would be the things that are absolutely clear and absolutely important. In the second ring around that circle, we might have things that are still important and the scriptures still speak about, but they're not as important and they're not as clear. Then maybe you might even add a third level—a tertiary thing—of things you just don't really know. There's a range of these things.

In that first center circle, we might talk about the deity of Christ or salvation by grace through faith. Maybe we talk about the inspiration of the scriptures. These are the things upon which we absolutely must have unity because if we don't agree on those, we're no longer talking about Christianity but something else. Those things are the essentials.

In that outer circle, we might call them disputable. While they're still important and the scriptures may speak about them, it's just not the same as that center ring of absolute essentials. Then again, you have that third ring that goes further out. A lot of stuff fits in that third ring—it's more a matter of preference, things you're not going to fight about.

Not many things go into that center circle. The place where things get dicey is that middle ring. Because these are things that are important, just not as important. The Bible does speak about them, but not with the same perfect clarity that we might have or expect on essential things. That is where the disputes take place. That is where disagreements can happen.

Men and Women: Are They Interchangeable?

We're going to talk about something that fits into that second ring—something we think is important, just not as important. Something we think the scriptures speak about, but we have to acknowledge that there is a range of views on this. As we want to do in all things, we want to have this discussion with charity. It is possible—believe it or not—to love somebody with whom you have a disagreement.

The question we're going to address this morning is simply this: Are men and women interchangeable? Are the roles within Christianity that men can play and the roles within Christianity that women can play—are they just the same? Is everything reversible?

Broadly speaking, within Christianity there are two different ways that question gets answered. There is a viewpoint known as egalitarianism and an alternate viewpoint known as complementarianism. Both egalitarians and complementarians affirm that men and women have equal value. Men and women are both made in the image of God. There is no distinction in value.

So God created man in his own image. — Genesis 1

In the image of God he created him, male and female he created them. So the debate that exists between egalitarians and complementarians about the interchangeability of men and women is not a question of value. That has long since been settled. The question is about roles.

The position that says yes, men and women are interchangeable—that any role that a man can fill, a woman can fill, and any role that a woman can fill, a man can fill—is known as egalitarianism. You kind of hear the core word in egalitarian: equal. Equal roles. Egalitarian Christians believe that the scriptures teach that men and women can each do anything the other can do or are interchangeable.

The position that says no, men and women are not functionally interchangeable, is known as complementarianism. When you hear the word complementarian, don't hear compliment like "you look nice today," but hear compliment like "we compliment one another." Complementarians hold that while men and women have equal value, they are called to distinct, different, complementary roles—some roles, not all roles. Some roles for men and some roles for women are distinct from one another.

There tend to be two spheres where this debate plays out: one is in the church and the second is in the home. The central role in question is that of primary leadership. I emphasize primary leadership because both sides agree that women and men each have opportunities and obligations to lead in both the church and the home.

What I mean by that is that women and men in both settings are called by God to give influence, to plan, to decide, to teach, to train, to serve. There is an enormous amount of things that we can do with and for one another that we must do in one another's lives. But egalitarians believe that that opportunity for leadership extends to the highest level of both a church and a family. Whereas complementarians believe that the primary leadership in each of those spheres is reserved for men—that husbands have a primary duty and primary leadership in their families, and that elders, who must be men, have a particular office of primary leadership in a church.

Each side of this debate claims that scriptures support their view. And I want to say this as an aside, but this is an incredibly important aside: both views—egalitarians and complementarians—are held by people who love the scriptures, who are surrendered to the scriptures, who really earnestly want to know what God has revealed, what he says, and how we live in light of that. There are Christians on both sides of this debate who really seek to draw their views from the word of God.

But there are also people on both sides of this debate who don't care at all what the scriptures say. Maybe they're Christians, maybe they're not. Maybe they pretend to be with varying degrees of effectiveness. Some of them might use the Bible as a cudgel just to argue their view and draw from it. But truly, I've heard people on both sides of this debate who are pretty self-evidently not people of the book. They're motivated by culture. They're motivated by their own personal preferences. And then maybe they will selectively trot out a Bible verse or two in support of the view that they hold because they want to.

I would suggest from my experience that most—not all, but most—of the people that fit into that category are aping a version of complementarianism that honestly thinks that women are inferior. They don't know what the Bible actually says and are not that interested in what the Bible actually says. They just have some random sound bite that they don't understand, that perhaps they take out of context.

And I would imagine that some of you in this room have been injured by people whose view of this is, if we're just being honest, a very unbiblical, self-serving posture that just says men should get what they want. If that is your experience of what you think I'm talking about, then that's going to be a problem. If that resonates with you, then this is going to be tough.

So I hope that by the mercies of God, I might be able to communicate with sufficient clarity that that's not what I'm talking about. That's not what the scriptures teach. And I hope that you might be willing to lean in, and God in his mercy will help you here.

That what I'm saying is significantly distinct from that. I would never advocate for that and I really do hope that I can make it plain that that's not the view, that is not my view, that's not the view of this church. And that there is a huge difference between humankind's ability to sin and to ruin a good thing and God's plan which is good and beautiful and which we could embrace fully.

So back to the biblical argument. If you just accept logically, when two people are saying alternate things, they can't both be right. Right? One side is right and the other side is wrong or possibly everybody's wrong. But we can't both be right about this. Right? Either the complementarian case accurately captures what God wants us to understand or the egalitarian case does. Dave believes, I believe, and the Diocese of Christ our hope, which is our diocese, believes that the complementarian position is the one that is best supported by scripture. That is the view of this church.

And so what I'd like to try to do this morning is briefly explain to you what that view is, what the biblical grounding is for that, and then offer some thoughts about how we apply that in our particular context. I've already burned a bunch of my time, so I've got less than thirty minutes to finish this. So given the number of things that I want to try to say and that I want to say clearly, I'm going to be less generous with the mic than I usually am in this setting. But I do hope that I'll be able to get through enough of this that we can stop and at the end have some Q and A, have a little bit of discussion.

So bear with me, sit on your hands for just a little bit and hope that we'll have some time at the end we can process through it. But if we fail to do that, if I talk too long and there's not enough time for this, I would be more than happy to engage with you about this. These are important things. They're not as important as that center circle. But I know there's a lot of tenderness that can arise around this. And so if I can be helpful to you, that is always my pleasure. I know this church has the same posture.

Okay. So I will ask your grace, I can't say everything first. I can't even say everything there is to say. The name of this class is Foundations, not 100-story skyscrapers. Right? So I can only lay the base of this argument. We could do this for hours, but we've only got thirty minutes.

God's Design in Creating Male and Female

At a foundational level, I believe that the scriptures reveal that when God made man and woman, he did so for a reason. He could have made us genderless, neuter, that reproduces asexually, but he didn't. He specifically chose to make two kinds of human beings. And I'm not sure of all the reasons that he did that. I imagine that some things he just kept to himself on that. But there are some things that he has revealed that I think we can draw from that can help us make sense of at least part of what he has done and why he has done it.

And chiefly, I think it is this: God made two kinds of human beings so that our lives could be a living play that would demonstrate his relationship to us. And in this play, there would be one sort of creature that represents himself and one sort of creature that represents the people that he loves.

This shows up repeatedly in the Old Testament. God over and over, countless times, refers to himself in the language of father and never does he ever call himself mother. When he is doing this, it is not because he is male. Do you understand this? I know this is going to be jarring to some of you, but God does not have a penis. He is not male in that regard. And we are both males and females, fully made in his image. There is absolutely no dispute in that. But in the relationships that he has created, men and women are both feminine in relationship to him. Both of us are.

He has created this concept of masculinity, of maleness. Not because he is male, but because some of us—roughly half of us—are meant to represent him. He represents himself as a father, never as a mother.

Not only that, but the second person of the trinity is ontologically, meaning in his very nature, known as the Son of God. Not as the daughter of God, and not as even a more neutral child of God. From all eternity, the second person of the trinity is known as the Son. And then, incarnationally, when he became a human being dressed up like one of us, he was born a baby boy who became a man.

And perhaps most vividly, the Old Testament is replete with declarations that God is a husband who loves his bride. And never that God is a bride who loves her groom. That revelation—that marriage is meant to be a picture that represents redeemed humanity's relationship with God—is unpacked most vividly in Ephesians five.

This would be probably familiar to you if you flip there, but I'll put it on the screen.

Wives submit to your husbands as to the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church, his body of which he is the savior. Now, as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit to their husbands in everything. — Ephesians 5:22-24

Then he goes on to talk to the husbands.

Husbands, love your wives just as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her to make her holy, cleansing her by the washing with water through the word, and to present her to himself as a radiant church without stain or wrinkle or any other blemish, but holy and blameless. In the same way, husbands ought to love their wives as their own bodies. He who loves his wife loves himself. — Ephesians 5:25-28

And then finally:

This is a profound mystery, but I am talking about Christ and the church. However, each one of you must also love his wife as he loves himself and the wife must respect her husband. — Ephesians 5:32-33

There's a lot in there. Again, this is Foundations. We're just going to touch and go on this. But I just want you to notice—indisputably, the roles for wives and the roles for husbands are distinct. There's not the interchangeability there. And the model for each is clear. Wives portray a humble responsive church and husbands portray a loving sacrificial Christ.

What Paul is framing out in Ephesians 5, I think, is indisputably that the primary leadership in the family is reserved for husbands. And that we are all actors in a play, that it's important that we play our role.

Now, a couple really important caveats even here that I just can't resist saying. We look at Ephesians 5 and we see this clarity. A couple things to notice. When we say that women are to be the imitators of or the portrayers of the church, it doesn't follow that the men are to be dissimilar from the way the church responds to Christ. Right? Men, there are countless places where men are called to submit to their authorities. Men must submit to their bosses, to the government, and chiefly to God himself. We are all men and women—subordinate beings. Every one of us has spheres, lots of spheres, where we are obligated to surrender our will to the will of the one who has an authority position above us.

Not only that, but Jesus is not only the model for the men, but Jesus is also the model for the women. And this I want to hear me. Hear this. This is incredibly important because I really want you to feel the weight of this.

There is a common perception for some people that if a person has a subordinate role, it's necessarily the case that they have subordinate value. But that's not true. It can't be true. Just think about Jesus. Is Jesus subordinate to the Father in his role? Yes, 100%. Is he subordinate to the Father in his value? Not at all.

I've not come to do my will, but the will of him who sent me. I say nothing on my own, but I only speak what the Father has told me to say. Not my will, but yours be done. — John 5:30, 8:28, Luke 22:42

He is radically submitted to the Father, even to the point of death on a cross. And it is not because he is stupid or weak or less glorious or less capable or less worthy. He is worthy to receive power and wealth, wisdom, strength, honor, glory, and praise. He is unmistakably of equal value to the Father, but he has a subordinate role.

And therefore, we must conclude that a subordinate role does not imply subordinate value. Not for Jesus, not for wives, not for any of us who are subordinate to our authorities. You smarter than your boss? Many of you are. Right? It's just not the way that it works. The distinction in roles here does not imply distinction in value. And it was not an arbitrary afterthought. That is not a response to some imagined inferiority in women or to some supposed superiority in men. It was simply the plan, and it's a good plan. He meant something when he made us male and female.

The Church and Leadership

Here's a brief touch of the biblical framework for how this works out in a family. And again, there are countless things that we could chase and say. But let me transition from the family to the church. How does this apply to the church? What is the biblical basis for this? What is the Ephesians 5 of this for the church? I would argue that in the church we see a similar reservation of primary leadership—not all leadership, but primary leadership—to men.

And that the primary place you'd want to go to understand this would be the pastoral epistles. Most of the New Testament is a collection of letters that are written to church congregations. But there are just a couple of letters—First Timothy, Second Timothy, and Titus—that aren't written to churches; they're written to pastors. Thus, we call them the pastoral epistles. And those pastoral epistles—First Timothy, Second Timothy, and Titus—are where we find the descriptions of the rules for the leadership in a church.

Let me read you a sample here from Titus. We're going to be reading about the description of what must be true of an elder. Biblically speaking, the leaders of churches are called elders. That's the translation from the Greek, which is presbyters. The Greek word presbyters basically just means old men. So that's what we are. Thank you for that. If you have presbyopia, it's because you're old and your eyes don't work anymore. The presbyters are old men. And in an Anglican context, we abbreviate presbyter as priest. When you call us priests, we are not anything like a Levitical priest. It's an easy misunderstanding to have. Priest is just a short, lazy way to say presbyter—which in this church is David and Brian and myself.

So here's how it sounds. I want to take you to Titus 1:

An elder, a presbyter, a priest must be blameless. The husband of but one wife, a man whose children believe and are not open to the charge of being wild and disobedient. Since an overseer is entrusted with God's work, he must be blameless. Not overbearing, not quick tempered, not given to drunkenness, not violent, not pursuing dishonest gain. Rather, he must be hospitable. One who loves what is good, who is self controlled, upright, holy, and disciplined. He must hold firmly to the trustworthy message as it has been taught so that he can encourage others by sound doctrine and refute those who oppose it. — Titus 1

You find very similar language in First Timothy. Paul is writing to Timothy's church in Ephesus to frame out who must be the leaders. And in both places, I think it's very clear that we're talking about male persons who God has called to the primary leadership in the church.

C.S. Lewis on Priesthood

C.S. Lewis wrote an essay called "Priestesses in the Church," and it is brilliant. I reread it this week and wanted to pull out a passage from it. I would really recommend you look it up—I'm sure it's somewhere online. If you can't find it, I'll give it to you. "Priestesses in the Church" by C.S. Lewis is a very thoughtful engagement with this topic.

Here's a passage from that essay:

It is painful being a man to have to assert the privilege or the burden which Christianity lays upon my own sex. I am crushingly aware how inadequate most of us are in our actual and historical individualities to fill the place prepared for us. But it is an old saying in the army that you salute the uniform not the wearer. And only one wearing the masculine uniform can represent the Lord to the church. For we are all corporately and individually feminine to him. We men may often make very bad priests. That is because we are insufficiently masculine. It is no cure to call in those who are not masculine at all. A given man may make a very bad husband. But you cannot mend matters by trying to reverse the roles. He may make a bad male partner in a dance and the cure for that is that men should more diligently attend dancing classes. Not that the ballroom should henceforth ignore distinctions of sex and treat all dancers as neuter. — C.S. Lewis

Before we switch into some hopefully some Q and A, I have one final and very important thought. You may have noticed that I cited Ephesians, Timothy, Titus—we're looking at Paul's writings. Paul, I don't know how anybody could credibly claim that Paul was not a complementarian. You might disagree with him, and that'd be fine. He is generally understood to be a complementarian, and the people who don't like that just excoriate him for it.

But Paul who wrote Timothy, who wrote Titus, who wrote Ephesians—he also wrote Romans. In particular, he wrote Romans 16. And I think it's really important to understand what Paul means when he says this, and how this played out in Paul's life.

When we read Romans, the first eight chapters are deep theology. Then there's chapters nine, ten, eleven, which is this transitional period where we understand the relationship with election and Israel. Then chapter twelve through fifteen is all the application. I wouldn't be surprised if some churches teach Romans and just stop at the end of chapter fifteen. Because chapter sixteen is like a bunch of greetings. But that's a terrible mistake. Look at Romans 16 and listen.

I just want you to see how important this is. Paul, the same guy that wrote everything that I'm quoting to you—how prominent, how important, how engaged women are in the life of the church as Paul narrates it.

I commend to you our sister Phoebe, a servant of the church in Cenchrea. And I ask you to receive her in the Lord in a way worthy of the saints, and to give her any help she may need from you. For she has been a great help to many people including me. — Romans 16:1-2

Now, this might not be obvious, but does anybody know why he leads with Phoebe in his list of greetings to the church? She delivers the letter. Bob is exactly right. You guys, Phoebe is the person who delivered the letter of Romans to the church at Rome. I've told you countless times, Romans is literally the most important thing that has ever been written down. And it was entrusted to and delivered to the Roman church by a woman. And she would have not only delivered the mail, but she would be the person who almost certainly read it to the church. I've got a letter from Paul. May I read it to you? The very first time that the most important thing that was ever written in the history of the world was heard by human ears, it rang forth in soprano tones. Paul entrusted this letter of all things to Phoebe.

He continues:

Greet Priscilla and Aquila, my fellow workers in Christ Jesus. They risked their lives for me. Not only I, but all the churches of the Gentiles are grateful to them. — Romans 16:3-4

Priscilla and Aquila are this famous married couple, probably the most famous married couple in the early church. They show up repeatedly in Acts. They were instrumental in Paul's ministry. And Priscilla was one of the two people that trained the great Apollos to help him do a better job in the calling that he had.

He continues:

Greet Mary who worked very hard for you. Greet Andronicus and Junius, my relatives who have been imprisoned with me. They are outstanding among the apostles and they were in Christ before I was. — Romans 16:6-7

Now, it's unclear if Junius is female or not, but it's very possible that she was. Mary is certainly—these women deeply loved, deeply admired. They are activated in ministry and used to great effect.

Greet Tryphena and Tryphosa, those women who worked hard in the Lord. Greet my dear friend Persis, another woman who has worked very hard in the Lord. Greet Rufus, chosen in the Lord and his mother, who has been a mother to me too. — Romans 16:12-13

Again, hardworking, influential, deep contributors. Can you imagine a higher praise than the Apostle Paul singling you out in Romans? She was like a mother to me. I would accept that. What high praise.

Greet Philologus and Julia and Nerius and his sister and Olympus and all the saints with them. — Romans 16:15

The Church's Structure

Paul clearly believed the primary leadership in the church was reserved for men. It's very explicit in his pastoral epistles. And he also clearly believed that there are countless important needful roles for men and women to play. That the church is enriched. We are better when we are all on the field, when we are all engaged, and that none of us are left out.

So the Church of the Holy Spirit is a complementarian congregation. What that means in a practical working out is that our priests are men. The presbyters, the elders are men. And it means that our deacons are comprised of both men and women. First Timothy lays out not only the rules for the elders, but also lays out the rules for the deacons.

And I believe that what First Timothy is showing us—and by the way, if you didn't notice it—Romans 16:1 says:

I commend to you our sister Phoebe, a servant of the church. — Romans 16:1

That word for servant is diaconos—it's deacon. Phoebe was a deacon.

We have male priests and we have male and female deacons. The distinction there is important because elders biblically have the primary role of direction setting and teaching, and deacons have the primary role of service. But of course, if you understand Christianity, the essence of leadership is service. We are to be humble. We are to wash one another's feet. Jesus says that we don't lord our authority like the Gentiles do, but that we serve one another in love.

And so the office of deacon, which is open to both men and women, is an incredibly significant role. In our church, our priests are Sloop and Brian and myself, and our deacons are Barbara and Bob and Laura—men and women who both serve in that role, and we need all of them.

So I have about seven minutes. What I'd like to do is give you an opportunity. If there's something you want to respond to or questions you want to ask, you can do that right now. You're also welcome to email me to talk about this, and I'd be more than happy. My email is tim@andthenurch.roanoke.com. So feel free to write any of us.

You're David or Dave. Dave. Dave@brianatchsroanoke.com. And we'd love to talk about that. But if you have questions now, I'd love to hear it. And I would ask this: I'm going to ask—come to the front of the line if you disagree. Come to the front of the line if you're confused. If you want to agree with me, don't bother. But if you've got questions like "what about this" or "what is this passage," whatever you want to say, I won't direct you, but if you want to take a few minutes now, I'll always be more than happy to engage and hear your thoughts.

Gil, I don't know if this is more just an observation from one of my classes at Regent. I don't know if that's alright?

As long as you're brief, because I don't have to repeat everything you say. So you can't repeat a paragraph. Why don't you just ask the question rather than make an observation? Then I'll talk to you after that. That's great. Alright, I really want to prioritize questions rather than observations.

Chris, go ahead.

The Holy Spirit gives men and women lots of gifts. I'm wondering where does that go with complementarianism or the other side—egalitarianism. Women could be given great roles. I've known lots of them. They're great speakers, great thinkers. They're obviously great at all these things, much better than myself. So therefore, should they not use those gifts, and wouldn't that be potentially God-dishonoring to the Lord if they're saying, "Hey, this is a great gift, Dad, and darn it, I'm not gonna do it because scripture tells me not to"?

Great. So Chris is saying: if the Holy Spirit gives broad gifts to men and to women, and we think there's strong biblical evidence that he does, then wouldn't it dishonor the Lord for people to have a God-given gift and then deny the use of it?

I agree with everything you're saying. God gives broad gifts to men and women. Let's pick maybe what is the most obvious constraint on this: teaching. Does God give women the gift of teaching? And if we don't allow women to preach at church, are we thwarting the work that the Holy Spirit would otherwise have done?

So 100%, obviously God gives women the capacity to teach, and absolutely they should use that gift without question. The question, or what Paul would constrain us on, is the context in which that happens. Women have countless opportunities and places where they can teach, where they should teach, where they must teach—including in a formal, teaching way. It would literally be impossible if we say that women can't teach men, because that would necessarily mean that men can't learn from women. And that would be impossible to enforce. I learn stuff from my wife all the time. Every single week in this class, women say things that are insightful and helpful and that bless everyone in the room.

But even at a more fundamental level, Jesus says,

Consider the lilies.

If we can learn from the flowers, how could it ever be possible that we wouldn't be able to learn from one another? And there are countless places where we want this to happen. Go to the well, and what we want to have happen at the well is competent, gifted, talented women expounding on the scriptures and helping to bless. Go to any of our life groups. Go to Aaron Love's Bible studies. Go to any of these things that we do. We must have women that are competent teachers. As I mentioned, Priscilla of the Priscilla and Aquila pair—she was one of the two people in the world that most thoroughly taught, trained, and helped Apollos. So I would richly affirm that women can teach, they should teach, they must teach.

I would not affirm that it follows from that, that the authoritative preaching of the word in a local church context must include that particular expression of it. There are countless opportunities to teach, but the primary leadership—the way Paul frames it more in 1 Timothy than in Titus—is that the primary authoritative teaching of the scriptures, I believe, is reserved for men.

So that's my answer to that question. Probably one more. Do I have another question? Yeah, go ahead, Mr. Pope.

Paul, I agree with you, but I want to understand the distinction. The language in Timothy when it says deacons must also be husbands of one wife, and then specifically calls out that their wives must be dignified, not slanderers.

How is that language different than when it talks about elders? That's a great question. If you go to 1 Timothy chapter 3, after Paul describes what must be true of the presbyters, he goes on to talk about what must be true about the deacons. He says, "Deacons likewise are to be men worthy of respect," and then he continues with various qualifications. But then he says this in verse 11, and this is where it gets weird.

In the same way, their wives are to be women worthy of respect. — 1 Timothy 3:11 (NIV)

The ESV says, "their wives likewise must be dignified." If we double click on that word "wives" to see what word is actually there, it's not actually the word "wife." It basically says "in the same way, the female counterparts," which would be the most fair and neutral way to translate that.

So some people believe what we see right there is literally the wife of a deacon. Like, it's talking about how Teresa must meet certain qualifications for Bob to be a deacon. Could that be what it means? It could. And I might be mistaken on this. This is why we put this in that second tier where there's not perfect clarity. However, I think that is a more restrictive reading than the text requires.

What really does push me over the edge is that there are other places, including Romans 16:1, where an unmistakably female person is unmistakably called by this exact same language. Phoebe is granted the title of deacon, of diakonos. So I think the best way—and it's possible that I'm wrong—but from the way I see women teaching and what I understand to be true of the office of deacon in the first place, I think it's perfectly appropriate for women to be in that role. And I don't think that Paul would disagree with that.

Maybe I've got time for one more, but it's going to have to be short.

The Protective Purpose of Complementarian Structure

Lily asks: might it be said that reserving the primary teaching roles for men specifically in the context of church gathering—to what degree is the importance of that? That it protects our understanding of the reality that men are portraying Christ and that women are portraying the church, and that we're playing this out? Would you say that there's a protective factor?

Yes, Lily. I appreciate your framing that. Your question is: if that's the case, then isn't the idea that primary authoritative teaching of Scripture is reserved for men meant to be protective of women? I think all of God's laws are meant to provide for us and to protect us, all of the time. And I think that is true here.

It's striking. Very often people want more leadership. They want more authority. But if you just think about whatever sphere you have more authority in—whether it's at work, in your family, in whatever context—more authority is generally more burden. Because now the buck stops with you. When Eve takes the apple, God comes to Adam. We hang the entire breaking of the world around the neck of Adam. In Adam's fall we sinned all, because he was chiefly responsible. To be in that primary place of leadership is a more vulnerable place to be. And God, I think in his mercy, has asked some of us—but not all of us—to take that on in certain contexts. And a very, very few of us in particular contexts to bear the weight of it.

Dave is the lead pastor at Church of the Holy Spirit. We spend countless hours every week talking about all sorts of things. And it's my pleasure to help Dave, to lead with Dave, to be as valuable as I can possibly be to Dave. But at the end of the day, it's his problem.

I also notice that some of you are smarter than your boss. Some of them, yeah. Right? And so the primary role of leadership—be careful. James is going to say, "Not many of you should presume to be teachers, because we who teach will be judged more severely." And so there is something about that which I think we should be very circumspect about. Grasping for more power—with more power comes more responsibility.

Now, we are going long. I've got to stop. But as I said, really this isn't as important as the sins we've covered the last four or five weeks, but it's not unimportant. And if we can be helpful to you to think biblically and to gladly accept what the Lord has revealed in his word, it would really be our pleasure.

Feel free to email me if you need to do any follow-up on that. Good enough? Alright. Thanks for coming.