| PRAY TO GOD RIGHT NOW AND ASK JESUS TO BE YOUR SAVIOR! |
| What The Bible Says About
The Role of Women Isa 3:12 — As for my people, children are their oppressors, and women rule over them. O my people, they which lead thee cause thee to err, and destroy the way of thy paths. 1 Tim 2:8-11 — I will therefore that men pray every where, lifting up holy hands, without wrath and doubting. In like manner also, that women adorn themselves in modest apparel, with shamefacedness and sobriety; not with broided hair, or gold, or pearls, or costly array; But (which becometh women professing godliness) with good works. Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection. [Men are to lead; women are to be modest, learning quietly, and in submission; in this way, they prove their claim to godliness.] 1 Tim 3:14,15; 2:11-15 — These things write I unto thee, hoping to come unto thee shortly: But if I tarry long, that thou mayest know how thou oughtest to behave thyself in the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth. [What follows are God’s instructions for a woman’s functioning in the formal services of the local church, which would include Sunday School] ... Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection. But I [Paul, as an Apostle of Jesus Christ, with full authority of one inspired by God] suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence. [A woman cannot teach with authority; e.g., in Sunday School classes, Bible conferences, etc. When a woman stands before a mixed crowd that includes men and opens the Bible and preaches or teaches, she is taking authority.] For Adam was first formed, then Eve. [The woman was created after the man to be his helpmeet, not his head. Obviously, this is NOT a cultural matter, but is based upon the order of creation; this establishment of the principle of order transcends culture!] And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived [“quite deceived” (Gen. 3:13)] was in the transgression. [Therefore, the woman was not spiritually qualified to teach because of (1) the order of creation, and (2) the facts of the Fall.] Notwithstanding she shall be saved in childbearing, [i.e., she will be occupying herself with the duties of the home and family (as evidence of her salvation given through the birth of the Messiah), and will receive her fulfillment/purpose in life in that arena] if they continue in faith and charity and holiness with sobriety [“self-restraint”)]. 1 Tim 5:9,10,14 — Let not a widow be taken into the number under threescore years old, having been the wife of one man, Well reported of for good works; if she have brought up children, if she have lodged strangers, if she have washed the saints’ feet, if she have relieved the afflicted, if she have diligently followed every good work. [Faithful service in “home-related” activities necessary to qualify widows to receive church support.] … I will therefore that the younger women marry, bear children, guide the house, [be the “ruler” or “despot” of the home, but under the leadership of her husband] give none occasion to the adversary to speak reproachfully. Titus 2:3-5 —The aged women likewise, that they be in behaviour as becometh holiness, not false accusers, not given to much wine, teachers of good things; [See further: women teaching “home-related” activities to younger women, not Biblical doctrine.] That they may teach [“encourage” NASB] the young women to be sober, to love their husbands, to love their children [agape love, since a person can not be “taught” to have “feelings”], To be discreet, chaste, keepers [“workers” NASB] at home, good, obedient to their own husbands, [this alone would preclude a married woman from working outside the home, because outside work necessitates her to be under someone else’s authority, man or woman, other than her own husband] that the word of God be not blasphemed. Prov 6:20; 2 Tim 1:5; 3:15 — My son, keep thy father’s commandment, and forsake not the law of thy mother: … When I call to remembrance the unfeigned faith that is in thee, which dwelt first in thy grandmother Lois, and thy mother Eunice; and I am persuaded that in thee also. … And that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus. [The person teaching becomes the authority; since the parent is already the authority, as God intended it to be from creation, there is no problem in women teaching doctrine to their own children.] 1 Cor 14:33b-35,37 — As in all churches of the saints. Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience, as also saith the law. [Not a cultural factor, but established by God thousands of years ago.] And if they will learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame [“improper” (NASB)] for women to speak in the church. [Women are to look for input and leadership from the man.] … If any man think himself to be a prophet, or spiritual, let him acknowledge that the things that I write unto you are the commandments of the Lord. Eph 5:18, 22-24 — And be not drunk with wine, wherein is excess; but be filled with the Spirit; ... Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord. [Can’t submit to husband if don’t submit to Christ.] For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church: and he is the saviour of the body. Therefore as the church is subject unto Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in every thing. 1 Pet 3:1-6 — Likewise, ye wives, [same as in submissiveness to government authorities (1 Pe 2:13-17)] be in subjection to your own husbands; that, if any obey not the word, they also may without the word be won by the conversation of the wives; [God is saying that even for an unbeliever, submissiveness to God-supported authority is a hard and fast rule, not situational, circumstantial, or cultural.] ... Whose adorning let it not be that outward adorning of plaiting the hair, and of wearing of gold, or of putting on of apparel; But let it be the hidden man of the heart, in that which is not corruptible, even the ornament of a meek and quiet spirit, which is in the sight of God of great price. For after this manner in the old time [i.e., not “cultural”] the holy women also, who trusted in God, adorned themselves, [Outward adornment should not be the focal point of a woman’s life—rather her life is to emphasize godliness.] being in subjection unto their own husbands: Even as Sara obeyed Abraham, calling him lord (Gen. 18:12) [2000 years earlier; therefore, not cultural]: whose daughters ye are, as long as ye do well, and are not afraid with any amazement. 1 Cor 11:3-10 — But I would have you know, that the head [i.e., authority (Jdg. 11:10; Eph. 1:22)] of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God. [Therefore, no inferiority is implied in submissiveness, only different God-ordained roles.] Every man praying or prophesying, having his head covered, dishonoureth his head. But every woman that prayeth or prophesieth [direct revelation (which is no longer an active gift for anyone, men or women), not normal preaching/teaching (prophesying and teaching were two distinct gifts—Eph. 4:11)] with her head uncovered dishonoureth her head [an abnormal situation for woman to pray or prophesy in public, and therefore, she must have a visible sign of authority over her]: for that is even all one as if she were shaven. For if the woman be not covered, let her also be shorn: but if it be a shame for a woman to be shorn or shaven, let her be covered. For a man indeed ought not to cover his head, forasmuch as he is the image and glory of God: but the woman is the glory of the man. For the man is not of the woman; but the woman of the man. Neither was the man created for the woman; but the woman for the man. For this cause [the created order] ought the woman to have power on her head because of the angels. [Paul again refers back to the order of creation, and that the angels are watching (Eph, 3:10), for his authority, not because of the curse of the Fall as some so-called “Biblical feminists” contend.] [Paul is speaking here of conduct in meetings outside the church; he doesn’t speak to church conduct until verse 18; 1 Cor. 6:12-11:17 deals with personal conduct outside of corporate church meetings.] Prov 12:4; 14:1 — A virtuous woman is a crown to her husband: but she that maketh ashamed is as rottenness in his bones. ... Every wise woman buildeth her house: but the foolish plucketh it down with her hands. Prov 31:10-31 — Who can find a virtuous woman? for her price is far above rubies. The heart of her husband doth safely trust in her, so that he shall have no need of spoil. She will do him good and not evil all the days of her life. She seeketh wool, and flax, and worketh willingly with her hands. She is like the merchants’ ships; she bringeth her food from afar. She riseth also while it is yet night, and giveth meat to her household, and a portion to her maidens. She considereth a field, and buyeth it [in order to plant and grow food for her family]: with the fruit of her hands she planteth a vineyard. [providing wine part of the provisions of the home, just as is providing of the food; i.e., she was not a “real estate lady” as the so-called Biblical feminists teach today—she barters food, wine, garments, and sashes (vs. 24)] She girdeth her loins with strength, and strengtheneth her arms. She perceiveth that her merchandise is good [bartering food and drink, not real estate speculation]: her candle goeth not out by night. She layeth her hands to the spindle, and her hands hold the distaff. She stretcheth out her hand to the poor; yea, she reacheth forth her hands to the needy. She is not afraid of the snow for her household: for all her household are clothed with scarlet. She maketh herself coverings of tapestry; her clothing is silk and purple [a wealthy household, yet she works hard—no idleness]. Her husband is known in the gates, when he sitteth among the elders of the land. [Her faithfulness in the home and with the home is very significant in her husband’s success.] She maketh fine linen, and selleth it; and delivereth girdles unto the merchant. [The issue of working women is not income; the focus must be the home, and income generated through the home, not outside of it.] Strength and honour are her clothing; and she shall rejoice in time to come. [She has made provision for the future.] She openeth her mouth with wisdom; and in her tongue is the law of kindness. She looketh well to the ways of her household, and eateth not the bread of idleness. Her children arise up, and call her blessed; her husband also, and he praiseth her. Many daughters have done virtuously, but thou excellest them all. [The real credit comes to a woman from her children and from her husband.] Favour is deceitful, and beauty is vain: but a woman that feareth the LORD, she shall be praised. Give her of the fruit of her hands; and let her own works praise her in the gates. Does God’s Word Allow a Woman to Serve as a Pastor in the Church? A Study in the Pastoral Epistles A Brief Historical Look at Views Concerning the Role of Women in the Local Church In their simplest form, the views concerning the role of women in local church ministry are most often broken down by scholars into two distinct groups: those who believe women should be permitted to hold positions of pastoral authority in the church and those who believe that only men are permitted to hold such positions in the local church. Those who believe women should be restricted from holding an authoritative, pastoral role in the church embrace what is known as the "historic" or "traditional" view. On the other hand, those who believe women should possess the ability to occupy all positions of leadership within the church embrace what is referred to as the "egalitarian" or "progressive" view. Obviously, pastors and theologians do not always subscribe solely to all aspects of one view or the other. Various nuances of these views exist among those who have studied the issue. For example, some might hold to the position that women cannot serve in the local church as senior pastors, but are permitted to serve as assistant or associate pastors. Others might believe that women should not serve in any form of pastoral role in the local church, but are free to teach men and women in an adult Sunday school class. In any case, for the purpose of clarification within this article, and due to the limitations of space and content, this article will simply define those who permit women to hold any form of pastoral role within the local church as ones who hold the progressive or egalitarian view, and any who forbid women to hold a position of teaching authority over men as those who hold to the historic or traditional view. According to author Daniel Doriani, those who hold to the historic view of women in ministry can claim the support of traditional Christian thought and teaching throughout church history. In fact, one author, Robert Yarbrough, has conducted an insightful study on the hermeneutics of 1 Timothy 2:9-15, in which he concludes that the "progressive" view has been shaped more by the social climate of the mid-20th century rather than the Biblical text itself. He cites, "It strains credulity to the breaking point to maintain that it is mere coincidence that 'progressive' readings of I Timothy 2, which were virtually unheard of in church history prior to the women's movement of the 1960s, are not indebted to that movement in fundamental respects for their plausibility." Although Doriani did cite three feminist writers from the 19th century who pioneered a progressive understanding of women's role in the church (Catherine Booth, Frances Willard, and Katherine Bushnell), clearly the majority of the shift from traditionalist to progressive writings and beliefs concerning the woman's role in the church appeared during the 20th century. The Biblical View of Women's Role in the Local Church While a variety of arguments promoting the progressive view exist, the scope of this article does not allow room for an extensive examination of each view, nor will it attempt to provide a rebuttal for every argument. Rather, this section of the article will simply, but carefully, determine the intent of 1 Timothy 2:9-15 within the confines of the Pastoral Epistles (First and Second Timothy and Titus) while referring, as necessary, to other New Testament texts regarding the Bible's teaching concerning the role of women within the local church setting. Several principles will be set forth and supported by the Biblical text, as well as by theologians who have carefully studied the Biblical text and arrived at what the writer believes to be a sound conclusion. Yet before noticing what God's Word says about this important issue, the reader must decide whether or not he or she will accept the very words of Scripture as the inspired and inerrant words of God. Many who espouse a progressive view of women in ministry hold a low view of Scripture, viewing the Biblical text as the ideas, philosophies and musings of men (such as the Apostle Paul) rather than the very words of God given to men by the direct act of inspiration by the Holy Spirit. If one concludes that the words of the text under consideration simply reflect the cultural milieu of the apostle Paul and therefore cannot be considered authoritative for the 21st century, then no other argument or investigation into the topic can proceed, for one's beliefs are subject to the conclusions and judgments of men rather than the absolute and unchanging truth of God Himself. However, if one accepts the Bible as inerrant, authoritative and "God-breathed," then he will know that all Scripture is profitable for doctrine and he will refrain from discarding those portions he does not believe to be relevant or applicable to his own situation. Principle #1: Women Are to Teach Other Women Paul's New Testament epistle to Titus contains instruction concerning Titus' need to "set in order the things that [were] wanting" (Titus1:5) in the local church and his need to "ordain elders in every city" on the island of Crete. Paul specifically instructed Titus to "speak thou the things which become sound doctrine" (Titus 2: 1), the very "things" that were being perverted by the false teachers influencing the church at Crete. Within the confines of the local church ministry, one area of "sound doctrine" that Titus was to emphasize was the truth that the older women of the congregation were to be "teachers of good things" (Titus 2:3). Specifically, these women were to "teach the young women to be sober, to love their husbands, to love their children, to be discreet, chaste, keepers at home, good, obedient to their own husbands" (Titus 2:4-5). Such teaching concerning obedience and morality was vitally important to the health of the body of Christ. Why? So the Word of God would not be "blasphemed" or reproached (Titus 2:5). From this text, it is evident that women are to teach other women and that God has prescribed an order of conduct for women which, if followed, glorifies Him and causes His name to be glorified rather than reproached or blasphemed. The exact nature of this "teaching" ministry of women is not explicitly stated, but certainly this ministry could be advanced in either a classroom setting or on a personal discipleship arrangement. Thomas Oden, one who holds an egalitarian view of women in ministry, notes, "Mature women were specifically designated in Titus 2:3 as teachers (kalodidaskalous, teachers of what is good). Mature women are the natural counselors of the young. Their teaching of virtue is best done by example." Whether women teach other women at the local church (as is the case in many of today's Sunday school class arrangements) or whether they teach them outside the confines of the local church, the command remains the same: Women are to teach other women [and then only in godiliness, NOT doctrine], at the very least by their own example, if not also by verbal instruction as well. Principle #2: Women Are to Adorn Themselves With Good Works In 1 Timothy 2:1-15, Paul gives instructions for public worship by believers. Within this context, Paul instructs women in the congregation to dress modestly rather than in an ostentatious or ornate manner (vv. 9-10). But rather than writing simply a legalistic style manual for women, Paul penned these verses by inspiration of the Holy Spirit in an effort to lay down a Biblical principle for corporate worship in the local church. The principle is this: A woman's character is more important than her apparel. Homer Kent writes, "She is to adorn herself with good works. Her adorning, that which gives her attractiveness, is not to be costly array but exhibitions of Christian character ... Every Christian woman should prize more highly a testimony to her Christian labors than a reputation as the best-dressed woman in the congregation." Kent cites the Scriptural examples of Phoebe, Lydia and Dorcas as those whose works were edifying to the body of Christ and left lasting impressions, not only on those with whom they came into contact, but also upon the entire church unto this very day. Even today, women have a responsibility within the local church to minister to others through their good works and to be known for who they truly are through their Godly Christian character. Women can demonstrate their good works within the local church body through a variety of ways. Showing hospitality, encouraging others, teaching other women and keeping believers up-to-date on the ministries of the church and the church's missionaries, are just a few ways in which good works and Godly character can be revealed in the local assembly on the part of Christian women. Principle #3: Women Are to Be Active Learners Not only are women in the local church to teach other women and maintain good works and Godly character, but Paul also commands them to be learners. In his second epistle to Timothy, Paul states that the false teachers had influenced some of the women in the Ephesian church (2 Tim. 3:6-7). Ann Bowman notes that "it seems [Paul] knew it was important that they be well grounded in the Scriptures." Of course, in order to be grounded in the Scriptures, it was imperative that the women learn sound doctrine and obey that which they had learned. First Timothy 2:11 delineates how the women were to learn in the local assembly: "Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection." It is important to note that this statement does not imply that the woman is to completely keep silent within the entire public worship service of the local church. Rather, the woman is to keep silent only in the process of learning, that is, when the male leader of the church is authoritatively teaching the doctrine found in the Word of God. Schreiner says, "The focus of the command is not on women learning, but the manner and mode of their learning." Bowman describes the manner of learning as having two parts: First, women are to learn in silence, or quietness, which denotes outward manner. Second, they are to learn in all submissiveness, which denotes the attitude of the heart that must accompany leaming. This injunction demonstrates Christianity's high regard for women in contrast to much of the New Testament culture, as well as the Judaic tradition. In many cultures, women were prohibited even from learning, much less teaching or reading in public. Donald Guthrie writes that "the equality of the sexes ... received little recognition in ancient times. Not only was the prevailing Greek attitude against it, but Hebrew thought was equally unsympathetic." For example, Guthrie states that "Rabbinic prohibitions were much more severe than the Christian prohibitions," for women were not even allowed to teach small children. In contrast, the apostle Paul commands women in the local assembly to listen attentively and to quietly submit their thoughts and hearts to the teaching of the Word of God. It is evident from the aforementioned principles that women possess a role and function in the church that brings glory to God and benefits the entire body of Christ. In his book, What's a Woman to Do … In the Church?, David Nicholas lists a variety of ministries that women could fulfill, not only in the church, but also in the community as they teach other women, learn God's Word, and adorn themselves with good works. Such roles could include: • A Ministry in Christian Education • A Ministry in Personal Evangelism and Discipleship • A Ministry of Child Evangelism • A Ministry in Missions • A Ministry to Women Certainly a woman can fill a variety of roles that would bring honor to God and would edify the entire body of Christ. Yet while women can serve in a variety of areas in the church, the Word of God sets forth a final principle that forbids women to exercise one particular function in the church. Principle #4: Women Are Prohibited From Exercising Authoritative Leadership or Teaching of the Word of God Over Men in the Local Assembly An accurate understanding of 1Timothy 2:12-14 is the key to a proper understanding of a woman's role in the local church. Verse 12 states, "But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence." At this point it is necessary to note two prevalent, but inadequate, arguments that promote an egalitarian view of women in the local church. First, some claim that this verse is simply an opinion of the apostle rather than an authoritative proclamation of God for all ages. However, as previously noted, such a view falls short and must not be tolerated by those who accept the inerrancy and inspiration of Scripture. Nicholas does a superb job addressing this issue in his book, What’s a Woman to Do … In the Church?, and concludes by stating that "what really is at stake in the evangelical egalitarian controversy is not women's liberation" but, rather, "the trustworthiness of the Scriptures, since the most ardent advocates of egalitarianism in marriage and the church reach their conclusions by denying the infallibility and inerrancy of the Bible." A second argument prevalent among egalitarians is that Paul was simply giving a temporal, local command only for the church at Ephesus, due to the culture in which this church was enveloped. In other words, this injunction only applied to the local church at Ephesus. Some argue that Paul's command was issued to the church as a result of the status of women within the Ephesian culture and the prominence of the pagan fertility cult within the city. S. M. Baugh answers this argument in an article entirely devoted to the question of whether or not Ephesus was as "feminist" as many think. He compellingly debunks this view of Ephesus and the egalitarian argument by concluding, Paul's injunctions throughout 1 Timothy 2:9-15, then, are not temporary measures in a unique social setting. Ephesus's society and religion -- even the cult of Artemis Ephesia -- shared typical features with many other contemporary Greco-Roman cities. ... Hence, we have every reason to expect Paul to apply the restriction of women from teaching and exercising official rule over a man to "every place" (v. 8). ... Exegetical treatments can proceed with the assumption that Ephesus was not a unique society as we read today .... Another author agrees and notes that the context itself reveals that Paul's statement is not directed only to a local assembly, for Paul supports his command regarding a woman's role in the church by way of a universal principle. T. David Gordon writes, It is crucial to note the causal relation of verses 13 and 14 to the preceding verses. Paul grounds his comments in a reality that exists outside of Ephesus: "For Adam was first formed, then Eve; and Adam was not deceived, but the woman was deceived and became a transgressor." This is sufficient reason to recognize that some enduring principle is applied to this specific situation. The convergence of norm and occasion that we expect to find in Paul's letters is expressly communicated in the present passage. There is a command, and there is a norm, and these are connected by a causal particle (gar). So what does 1 Timothy 2:12 mean? The answer lies in the word teach (didaskein). Bowen writes that the word "refers almost exclusively to public instruction or teaching of groups." She cites a study by Roy B. Zuck in which he found that out of approximately 100 occurrences of the word in the New Testament, only three times does the word refer to the teaching of individuals (Jn. 8:28; Rom. 2:21; Rev. 2:14). So in this instance, to "teach" involves the public pronouncement of the Word of God. Yet the word teach is even further confined to its meaning within the Pastoral Epistles. Robert L. Saucy penned a helpful article detailing the meaning of teach in 1 Timothy 2:12, and its meaning within the entire context of the Pastoral Epistles . Although Saucy falls short of actually concluding that women should refrain from any pastoral role in the church, he aptly argues that to "teach" in this verse involves the passing down, guarding and keeping of the doctrine that had been entrusted to the church. That which was to be taught is described in the Pastorals as "doctrine" (1 Tim. 1:3; 2 Tim. 3:10), a "faithful saying" 1 Tim. 1:15; 4:9; 2 Tim. 2:11; Titus 3:8), a "true saying" (1 Tim. 3:1), "faith" (1 Tim. 4:6; Titus 1:13), "sound doctrine" or "good doctrine" (1 Tim. 4:6; Titus 1:9; 2:1), "wholesome words" or "sound words" (1 Tim. 6:3; 2 Tim. 1:13), "the truth" (2 Tim. 2:18; 4:4), "the word" (2 Tim. 4:2) and "the faithful word" (Titus 1:9). It is important to note that these vital truths from God Himself were to be taught "with all authority" (1 Tim. 3:2; Titus 2:15). Saucy writes, "The emphasis on teaching and the vital importance of its function in maintaining true Christian doctrine already suggest that considerable authority is attached to this ministry in the pastoral letters." He adds, "The strong relationship of the function of teaching to the leaders in the pastorals clearly suggests that there is an authoritative element attached to it." Kent agrees, yet broadens the scope of the term to relate to its context within the entire New Testament. He writes, "The role of teacher in New Testament days was an authoritative office." This understanding of "teaching" in the pastoral epistles is tied to the further injunction to refrain from "[usurping] authority over the man." It is evident, then, that women are prohibited from preaching, that is, exercising the ministry of authoritative proclamation of the Word of God over men in the local worship assembly. This would, however, allow for women to fulfill a variety of ministry opportunities in the church as long as they did not authoritatively teach the Word of God to men. First Timothy 2:13-14 gives the reason why this command is set forth and necessary in the local church: "For Adam was first formed, then Eve. And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression." The Divine command in no way denotes any form of inferiority of women. Rather, this text reminds the reader that God has determined an order for the institutions that He has established. Paul's reasons for prohibiting a woman from authoritatively teaching the Word of God to men in the local assembly were based upon two historical events: the creation and the fall. Concerning creation, Kent writes, "The very chronological order of creation proves that Eve was not intended to direct Adam."29 Bowen agrees, noting that Adam's "chronological primacy in creation carried with it some degree of authority." Notice Brown's observation concerning the theology of the Progressives in relation to their view of women in the church: The rejection of the special and separate creation of man and of woman is so common in our day that many may not even notice the ... pressure placed on them to deny every principle of order derived from it. It is in this climate that rejects (or ignores) the fundamental doctrine of creation in which egalitarian (re)interpretations of 1 Timothy 2:12 have flourished. It seems hardly promising to dispute the details, for it is often the fundamental principles that effectively control the outcome of one's interpretation. Such is certainly the case! If the Progressives do not even accept the literal, special, and separate creation of man and women, then the very underlying principle of why men hold a position of authority within the home and church is worthless, and no practical implications can be built from it. Yet, not only are women to refrain from authoritatively proclaiming the Word of God to men due to the very order established by God from the time of creation, but they also must heed God's order as a result of the very nature of the fall. Again, verse 14 does not in any way denote the idea that women are less intelligent or even more easily deceived than men. Such is obviously not always the case, for men and women are equal as individuals in the sight of God, though each has been entrusted with a differing function or role. Rather, this verse relates the fact that Eve usurped authority over her husband by partaking of the fruit in disobedience to the clear command of God. Kent writes, "Thus the fall was caused, not only by disobeying God's command not to eat, but also by violating the divinely appointed relation between the sexes. Woman assumed headship, and man with full knowledge of the act, subordinated himself to her leadership and ate of the fruit (Rom. 5: 19)."32 Bowen calls this the "reversal of roles" and says that "Paul's point is that this role reversal that caused such devastation at the beginning must not be repeated in the church."33 While such a standard of male headship might not be popular or politically correct within today's culture, such are the norms God has established for His church, and those who are His children will only honor and glorify Him by subscribing to His standards with a willing heart and mind. Conclusion If one accepts the inerrancy and historical accuracy of Scripture and correctly interprets 1 Timothy 2:9-15, then all portions of New Testament Scripture that address the role of women in the local assembly will fall into place. For example, one will understand what Paul meant when he commanded women to "keep silence" in the local church (1 Cor. 14:33-34). One will also understand why the proscriptive nature of the Pastoral Epistles declares that a pastor/bishop/elder must be "the husband of one wife" (1 Tim. 3:2). The reader of the Pastoral Epistles must understand that Paul is giving direct, divine revelation concerning the roles and behavior of men and women in the local church, and women and men both possess certain ministries and responsibilities to fulfill. However, the woman is forbidden from preaching, or authoritatively proclaiming the truth of the Word of God, to men in a local assembly of believers. Today, this authoritative proclamation of the Word of God would include any form of pastoral ministry or the holding of any ordained office. The reasons for this divine injunction stem from God's prescribed order in creation, in the family and in the local church. |
| Ten Rules to Revival or Ruination?
Or “How to Develop a Cult Mentality in Your Congregation” Some churches are publishing and promoting from the pulpit “Ten Rules” to follow when confronted by “facts” or “rumors” in a church setting. The fact that the word “rule” has so many definitions is the first drawback of having “Ten Rules.” Are the Ten Rules authoritative regulations, guidelines, or merely suggestions? They sound more like regulations than guidelines or suggestions. A second drawback of promulgating the Ten Rules by church leadership is that most Christians are reluctant to be Bereans and too readily leave discernment to the church leaders. The Ten Rules taught by the church leadership will sound like ex cathedra pronouncements to be followed rather than teachings to be tried by the Word of God. There is already too much unbiblical leadership/laity division. The Ten Rules will exacerbate that chasm and further intimidate those Christians who are not in the inner circle of “leadership.” Additionally, the Ten Rules contain serious errors both in what is said and what is implied—serious questions about leadership versus rulership and about serving versus intimidating. These Rules are pontifically promulgated without one Bible verse presented to support any of them. This is because there are no Bible verses to support any of them. These Ten Rules are a sure way to quash questions rather than to open dialogue. Having the need to promote these Rules in a church is a sure sign of weakness in the leadership ranks and an indication that there may be trouble in the church that the leadership is not able to handle. This response to the Ten Rules is predicated upon certain Scriptures. If one accepts these Scriptures and what they reveal, then the Ten Rules will be rejected as a viable means of leading the church: The first Scripture is Acts 17:10-11, where we see that the Bereans “received the word with all readiness of mind,” but they “searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so.” For this reason, the Bereans were said to be “more noble than those in Thessalonica.” Christians need to be encouraged to be like Bereans and not to follow blindly what is taught or what is thought just because it comes from the leadership of the church. The second Scripture is from the Apostle Peter, in which he says, “But ye are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, an holy nation, a peculiar people; that ye should shew forth the praises of him who hath called you out of darkness into his marvellous light” (1 Peter 2:9). The Reformers referred to this as the priesthood of all believers. A third Scripture is from 1 John 4:1: “Beloved, believe not every spirit, but try the spirits whether they are of God: because many false prophets are gone out into the world.” Believers must discern according to the Scriptures whether the source is Biblical or not, and every pastor should encourage believers to do so. A fourth Scripture exhorts Christians to “Prove all things; hold fast that which is good” (1 Thess. 5:21). A fifth Scripture is found in Galatians 2:11-14, where we read Paul rebuked Peter “to the face” and “before them all.” Pastors and church leaders do serve in church offices designated in the Bible. That is not in question here. How these leaders function in these Biblically designated offices is the issue. Those in church offices must be servants to those whom they lead and not tyrants, whether benevolent or not. Every Christian has certain Scriptural obligations, but too many avoid their Biblically mandated responsibilities and permit the pastors and other leaders to function like a priestly class between God and the people. While the promoters of the Ten Rules may say that they are about the operation of the church and not about doctrine or Biblical principles, the fact is that one cannot separate the two. Note also in Acts 6 that the Grecians brought up an issue “because their widows were neglected.” This was a legitimate complaint that had Biblical implications and was Biblically resolved to the satisfaction of all. The Grecians were not intimidated into silence by a leadership allowing no questions. While in a few churches the use of these Rules may result in Biblical conduct in the operation of the church, and may even result in solving internal issues and preventing apostasy from entering the church, such Rules, whether stated or not, function in the overwhelming majority of churches to block the needed involvement of its most discerning members by intimidating them into silence. These Ten Rules (whether printed or not) operating in a church are often a wide doorway to apostasy, heresy, and aberrant teachings. Churches operating under the Ten Rules will, in the main, sooner or later be infected with ecumenism and lack of Biblical separation from the world and false doctrines. Keep the preceding in mind while reading the Ten Rules along with comments and suggested rule replacements for leadership: Rule 1: “Do not believe all that you hear, no matter how credible the purported source. If you have not heard the ‘information’ from the pulpit or read about it in church publications, withhold judgment. If there is necessary news for the congregation, it will be shared at the appropriate time.” Rule 1 Comment: This rule sounds eerily like one that would come from a cult leader, not an evangelical pastor. The words “from the pulpit,” “church publications,” and “shared at the appropriate time” are keys to this rule. If Christians in a local church body are hearing news, and particularly from a credible source, it’s already an indication that the leadership has functioned too slowly. The appropriate time for leadership to share news is before it gets spread around, and especially from credible sources. The church is a body that should be functioning together, not two or more separate entities divided according to position or influence. All Christians who are part of a fellowship are responsible for what goes on in that fellowship. Rule 1 Replacement: To prevent misinformation and stories from occurring, leadership should provide factual information about important matters regarding the church as immediately as possible. Rule 2: “Understand that only a few people should know all the facts. These people are the Board of Elders and the Senior Pastor. They are therefore also in the position to explain the church’s position.” Rule 2 Comment: Again, this smacks of cult mentality, not true Christian leadership. If “all the facts” refer to private, unrelated-to-the-church business (i.e., personal information that should be kept confidential to protect certain persons), then having “only a few” people “know all the facts” would be understandable. However, the congregation must be given as much available information as possible so that they can exercise discernment regarding a matter. Too little shared information is the rule in most churches and gives the aura of a clandestine operation. Rule 2 Replacement: The leadership should provide as many of the facts as possible to all in the congregation and do it as rapidly as possible so that believers can Biblically consider and evaluate church matters and not be in the dark or blind-sided if a serious matter becomes public. Rule 3: “Accept the fact that just because all the facts are not made known, that does not mean the leaders are conspiring to protect themselves.” Rule 3 Comment: If there is a failure to reveal “all the facts,” then explain the reasons why, or suspicions of conspiracy or underhandedness will naturally arise. Rule 3 Replacement: Leadership should explain why some of the facts are not being made known. Logical reasons explained to the congregation will prevent suspicions of the leaders “conspiring to protect themselves.” Rule 4:“Understand that details (or pressed-for information) regarding a given situation may be interesting, but it does nothing to change reality and may in fact increase the difficulty for others. Therefore, do not expect the nitty-gritty to be publicly discussed.” Rule 4 Comment:The leadership needs to explain why details are omitted and how such details “may in fact increase the difficulty for others.” Also, an explanation is needed for why the “nitty-gritty” cannot be “publicly discussed.” Rule 4 Replacement:Unless a rational and clear reason can be given to the contrary, all details, including the nitty-gritty ones, should be provided to the congregation by the leadership. Too often leadership arbitrarily decides to withhold more than is necessary, resulting in questions and confusion leading to suspicion. Rule 5:“Understand that financial matters are always a concern to the leadership. Long-term solutions are usually chosen over short-term ones, and it does little good to instill panic or distress in the people over matters that are beyond their responsibility.” Rule 5 Comment:This “it’s none of your business” attitude is also typical of cult leadership that attempts to control what is thought, when it is thought, or if it is to be thought at all. Because many in the congregation tithe and wish to be good stewards of what the Lord has given them, a position of full disclosure and open financial ledgers it absolutely essential to encourage confidence in what the leadership is doing. The continual practice of withholding information and financial secrecy will logically lead to suspicion and withholding of tithes. Rule 5 Replacement:Understand that financial matters are always a concern to members of a local body of believers. In order to avoid “panic or distress,” leadership should demonstrate to the congregation how the long-term solutions are chosen and the short-term ones ignored. Share the financial responsibility with the congregation. Instilling trust in the area of finances will encourage believers to trust the leadership and cooperate with their decisions. Rule 6:“Accept the fact that there are many ways of doing something, whether it be how finances are managed, or how difficult changes in the ministry are accomplished.” Rule 6 Comment:For those who ask, an explanation of the many ways of financing and why one way was selected over another and of the difficulties of changes in the ministry related to the finances should be available. Rule 6 Replacement:Explanations for the complexities of finances and the reasons for selecting one way or another should be openly available. Changes in the ministry affect programs, staff, and participants and should be announced in advance, thereby permitting those in the congregation who are affected to ask questions and receive answers. Rule 7:“The leadership, over the years, has spent much time ascertaining the facts in many situations. When the staff is divided the facts become supremely elusive. Therefore, do not believe the ‘facts’ from any source, unless the leadership confirms them.” Rule 7 Comment:Again, this sounds like a rule designed by a cult leader in order to keep his flock in total dependence and in complete subjection. The idea that only the leadership can ascertain the facts and is the final source of confirming them communicates an extreme lack of confidence in many in the congregation who are as spiritually mature as those in leadership and who may have better experience in the areas where decisions are made. Rule 7 Replacement:Avoid giving the congregation a choice between believing the staff and the leadership and avoid making the leadership the sole true source of information. Rule 8:“When there is disunity on the church staff, there will be confusion in the church body. In these cases, simply follow the Senior Pastor.” Rule 8 Comment: Wow! “Give me some of that Kool-Aid, Mr. Jim Jones.” “Please tell me what to believe, Mr. Koresh.” To “simply follow the Senior Pastor” without question and without information would require believers to set aside their own discernment and their own spiritually maturing experiences, which would be an abrogation of responsibility on their part. Rule 8 Replacement: When there is “disunity on the church staff” do not “simply follow the Senior Pastor,” but rather gather information, pray, and fast if necessary to discern what God would have you do. Remember, when you stand at the Judgment Seat of Christ, you will NOT be able to blame your actions (or inaction, as the case may be) on the leadership of your local church. Rule 9: “Perhaps this should be the first rule: Make an unqualified commitment to the church, its leadership and trust the Lord to work out things that are not understood.” Rule 9 Comment: At best, this sounds like what the Roman Catholic church would have their parishioners do. At worst, this sounds like the group commitment required of cult members. In addition, many times “things ... are not understood” precisely because the leadership has not only withheld the information necessary for understanding, but it has intimidated the flock into silence by implying that anyone asking questions is being disloyal (see Rule 10). Rule 9 Replacement: Leadership should make an unqualified commitment to God and His Word and trust Him to bring discernment though prayer so that “things that are not understood” will become clear, and then fully explain the reasons for an action to the congregation so that they can commit to the church and its leadership. Rule 10: “Lastly, pray that your contribution would be to ‘build up,’ not ‘destroy’ this local body. Commit to and trust the leaders, believe in God’s watchful care and discount the rumors.” Rule 10 Comment: A connection is made between “‘build up’ and not ‘destroy’ this local body” and “Commit to trust the leaders.” Once again, cults often associate any questioning of leadership with disloyalty. Many times, though, blindly committing to and trusting the leaders would be contrary to God’s Word and clear doctrinal teachings, not evidence of building up and submitting to “God’s watchful care.” Rule 10 Replacement: Put God and His Word first, follow the doctrines of Scripture, and make sure the leadership is doing likewise so that God can be glorified among His people and His church can be built up. Conclusion: If pastors train people to follow without information and knowledge, they are training them to shirk their responsibility to grow in wisdom, discernment, and understanding. Who knows where the next person in the pulpit may lead them, if they are accustomed to following the leader because the leader says so. These Rules will encourage Christians to remain babes, letting someone else be responsible for their thinking and acting. Is this not the stuff that cults are made of? In contrast, Jesus said to make disciples—learners. Each believer has the Holy Spirit in him to guide him with the Word of God. Believers are to grow through having “their senses exercised to discern both good and evil” (Hebrews 5:15). While the early church had offices (elders and deacons) and gifts (apostles, prophets, evangelists, pastors, and teachers), an example of the extremity can be seen in the unbiblical hierarchy of the Roman Catholic church—the ultimate in cult-like thinking. Although the Roman Catholic hierarchy would be criticized by those in the professing evangelical church of today, it is often subtly duplicated. While the offices and gifts must function in the church, there is an overriding need for the church to be a priesthood of all believers. The thinking implied in the “Ten Rules” is the antithesis of the Biblical model. Pastors and church leaders are familiar with Romans 12 and other Scriptures in regard to members having “differing” gifts and in regard to their use in the church. However, too many pastors and too many churches function dogmatically according to a version of the Ten Rules. These Ten Rules in most churches are Ten Rules to ruination of the church rather than revival, and will more often lead to the development of a cult mentality in the congregation that follows them. One must seriously question the wisdom of any pastor who would promote the “Ten Rules.” It is a sign of weakness in leadership, not strength, that would require God’s people to blindly follow—asking no questions, receiving no answers. |
| Church Debt
Is It Biblical? For the most part, Christians are not aware of the serious consequences that follow when churches and we as individual Christians go into debt. We are culturally so accustomed to debt that we feel no resistance to getting a loan for a house, a new car, a new washer and dryer, or a new TV set. Everywhere in the world around us are people taking out loans. Our whole economy would collapse without credit. Government is borrowing, industrial corporations are borrowing, and private individuals are borrowing. Credit has been used in this country to the extent that the USA, the richest country in the world, is now the biggest debtor among all nations. Because of our cultural background, we find it quite natural to borrow money. If we lack the funds for a certain project, we believe that it is not wrong to get a loan, as long as we can make the monthly payments. This is what credit institutions have told us all along. Most churches, unfortunately, have no different attitude towards debt. In this matter, even “Bible believing churches” go with the cultural flow. Church leaders think that they do God’s will when they finance building projects through loans. Usually, church members do not question this practice, because the individual members have taken out loans themselves to buy a house or a car. Often, a building project is presented to the church body in this way: “Christ has given us the Great Commission to go into whole world to preach the gospel; therefore, we need to reach out to the people in our city. People will not come to our church if there is not a space left in our parking lot, and if the buildings are already crowded. We cannot turn away anyone who wants to come to our church to worship with us and participate in the study of God’s Word. We need more space in order to reach more people for Christ. Nobody likes debt, but if we have to assume a debt in order to reach out for Christ, then we should be willing to make this sacrifice.” After hearing a presentation like this, church members feel guilty to vote against the new building project. The members think that if they would vote against the proposed project, they would oppose God’s will for their local church (as revealed through the church’s leadership), and they would, thus, be showing a lack of commitment to Christ and to the church. Another aspect of building new Sunday School space or a new auditorium is usually not mentioned in promotional presentations. Church leaders calculate that as the congregation grows, the increased giving will soon equal or even exceed the monthly payments on the new debt. In this way, the new project will “pay for itself”; this makes good business sense. “Therefore,” they reason, “it would even be wrong not to follow through with the new project, because without the new buildings, the church would not be able to grow.” This all sounds very plausible. However, we need to reexamine our attitude toward and our understanding of debt. But some say, “Since there is no command from God that forbids churches to borrow money, it is permissible to go into debt. And since it is permissible, it is wrong to take an exclusive, extreme position in this matter.” But what do the Scriptures really say about the matter of debt? Can it be God’s will for any church to acquire debt? The Motive Does Not Justify the Means The Machiavellian principle that the end justifies the means is certainly not taught in the Word of God. If this principle were true, then we could go and steal money or deal drugs and, thereby, boost our outreach program with these newly found resources. The motive, however noble and good, does not justify the means of financing. The debt issue has to be examined on its own. If a church going into debt is wrong in itself, then no good purpose can make it right. This is not to deny that our motives are important. The Bible certainly teaches that in addition to doing the right thing, we also need to have the right motivation. However, we also find in the Bible that we may not do a wrong thing for whatever right reason. In 2 Sam. 6:6-7, we read the story of how a man died when the people of Israel moved the ark of the Covenant: “And when they came to the threshing floor of Nacon, Uzzah put out his hand to the ark of God and took hold of it, for the oxen stumbled. And the anger of the Lord was kindled against Uzzah; and God smote him there because he put forth his hand to the ark; and he died there beside the ark of God.” Here was a man who wanted to protect the ark of God, and that was a good reason; but he died because he did the wrong thing. He touched the ark. Even David was quite upset that God killed Uzzah (6:8). In Exodus 25:12-15 and in Numbers 4:5-6,15, instructions are given on how the ark of God was to be moved: “And when Aaron and his sons have made an end of covering the sanctuary, and all the vessels of the sanctuary, as the camp is to set forward; after that, the sons of Kohath shall come to bear [it]: but they shall not touch [any] holy thing, lest they die” (Num 4:15). Those instructions were not followed. The ark should not have been placed on a cart. The Levites should have carried it with the staves on their shoulders. The priests and Levites should have known the Word of God. Lack of knowledge and good intentions did not protect Uzzah. He died because he touched the ark itself, even though he meant to keep the ark from sliding off the cart. We read in 1 Chr. 15:1-15 that David learned his lesson through this experience. Later, when the ark was moved another time, “the children of the Levites bare the ark of God upon their shoulders with the staves thereon, as Moses commanded according to the word of the Lord.” Along with the right motive, we also have to do the right thing. Again, we have to examine what the Word of God teaches about debt itself. This question cannot be decided by pointing to the right motives for a building project. Debt Does Not Glorify God The Apostle Paul writes to the Romans (1:18-21): “For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness; ... Because that, when they knew God, they glorified [Him] not as God, neither were thankful.” If God condemns the unbelievers for not glorifying Him, then certainly the church needs to glorify Him. Church debts are not glorifying to God. God has promised that he will provide for all the needs of His people (Philip. 4:19). God does not supply for our need through another need—the need to repay a debt. Debt is a burden, not a provision. Saying that God can provide material needs in the form of debt, would be the same as saying that God provides forgiveness of our sins through sin. Saying that God could provide the funds for a church building through a loan, is grossly distorting the teaching of God’s grace; because it is out of His grace that God provides for all of our needs. Already the Old Testament testifies to the fact that God is the Provider: “And Abraham called the name of that place Jehovahjireh: as it is said [to] this day, In the mount of the Lord it shall be seen” [Jehovahjireh: that is, The Lord will see, or, provide] (Gen. 22:14). Abraham experienced God’s provision when God supplied the lamb for the sacrifice on mount Moriah, foreshadowing Christ as the Lamb of God. Paul, describing God’s character, writes about God’s provision in Christ: “He that spared not His own Son, but delivered him up for us all, how shall he not with him also freely give us all things?” Jesus says, “I am the door: by me if any man enter in, he shall be saved, and shall go in and out, and find pasture” (John 10:9). This picture that Jesus paints shows us again that He is the provider for His flock, for His people. Most every Christian can quote from memory: “The Lord is my shepherd; I shall not want.” God does not only supply our personal needs, he also supplies what we need to serve him. The apostle Peter writes: “Grace and peace be multiplied unto you through the knowledge of God, and of Jesus our Lord, according as His divine power hath given unto us all things that [pertain] unto life and godliness, through the knowledge of him that hath called us to glory and virtue” (2 Peter 1:2-3). If God has given us “all things that pertain unto life and godliness,” then all that the church needs to do His will is included in His provision. The apostle Paul confirms this when he writes: “And God [is] able to make all grace abound toward you; that ye, always having all sufficiency in all [things], may abound to every good work” (2 Cor. 9:8). Paul specifically mentions here that God is able to give us enough of everything that we need to do every good work. Having “all sufficiency” and being able to do “every good work” is specifically tied here to God’s grace. Therefore, it is impossible to say that God could provide for the needs of the church through leading His people into debt. To the Philippians Paul writes: “But my God shall supply all your need according to His riches in glory by Christ Jesus. Now unto God and our Father [be] glory for ever and ever. Amen” (Philp. 4:19-20). God supplies “according to His riches in glory.” If we go into debt, then we are damaging His image before the world, and we deny that out of His grace we will always have “all sufficiency in all things.” If we go into debt we are in effect saying that God was not able or did not care to provide what His people would need to do His will. Debt does not glorify God. If we try to reach out to the people in our cities that do not know God in a way that is not glorifying God, we lose our message and we become nothing more than a social club. Some say that if we borrow the money from our own denominational agency (or even from the members of the church itself), then at least the interest that we pay for the loan will be used for the Lord’s work. But there is a problem with this practice also. God forbids taking interest from brethren: “Thou shalt not lend upon usury to thy brother; usury of money, usury of victuals, usury of any thing that is lent upon usury” (Deut. 23:19). I do not know of any Christian organization that loans money to churches without taking interest. This is clearly contrary to God’s Word. As well as denying His sufficient provision, disobedience does not glorify God. The New Testament Forbids Believers to Have Debts The Apostle Paul wrote: “Owe no man any thing, but to love one another: for he that loveth another hath fulfilled the law” (Rom. 13:8). Some would say that this one verse is not sufficient to keep us from using credit or from acquiring a debt. But the wording of this verse is clear; it does say that we should NOT owe anything to anybody. This certainly includes money. The same word that is used here in the Greek text for “owing” is also used in Matthew 18:25-26. There the word is directly tied to owing money. The Apostle Paul is saying that we should not owe anybody anything, including money; the meaning is clear. Why do we not find any other passage in the New Testament that speaks to the question of borrowing and debt? The answer to this is quite simple. From the viewpoint of the New Testament, there is no need to speak much about debt, because the New Testament speaks many times about the opposite of borrowing. The opposite of borrowing is GIVING. Giving is one important side of love: “For God so LOVED the world, that he GAVE His only begotten Son” (John 3:16). Paul says that our only debt should be that we love one another. Therefore, the only debt that we can have is the obligation to give. God the Father did not borrow a son somewhere and give a borrowed sacrifice for our redemption. The New Testament does not speak much about borrowing, because it has so much to say about giving. Acquiring a debt is certainly not giving. It is the opposite of giving; it’s taking! Our obligation is to love, and love consists always of some form of giving. We can only give what we have. “Sharing” our debt with new members is certainly not love. The New Testament has higher standards than the Old Testament. The Sermon on the Mount shows this very clearly. In the Old Testament, divorce was allowed; in the New Testament it is forbidden, with one exception, for reason of fornication. The Old Testament does not forbid borrowing or lending. The New Testament tells us that we should not even expect to be paid back if we lend (Luke 6:34). The Lord upgraded lending; it becomes, in effect, giving. If we are told to lend, and to consider the money already as given away, how can we do the opposite? — How can we borrow and go into debt? Saying that the Bible does not forbid the New Testament church to go into debt, is not taking seriously what the Bible, and especially the New Testament, teaches about giving. Is it not significant that we do not find in the Bible that the Lord’s work was ever funded through debt? If a church lacks the funds to pay for a building project, then God’s time for that project has not come, or it was never God’s will in the first place. The Practice of Procuring Loans Encourages Irresponsibility In Psalm 37:21 we read: “The Wicked borroweth and payeth not again, but the Righteous sheweth mercy, and giveth.” Notice again that God’s Word uses the terms “borrowing” and “giving” as opposites. The way in which churches are getting loans today encourages irresponsibility. A church member can vote today during a church business meeting for the church to assume a debt, but that same church member can leave the church tomorrow and not be personally responsible for this debt. A church leader can lead the church into debt today, but he can take on a new position in another church and be gone within two weeks, but he will not be personally responsible for the debt that he leaves behind. The church might be burdened with debts for decades to come, and the people who incurred the debt are long gone. The repayment of the loan will be pushed on people who will join the church in the future. In most cases, those people are not even told when they join that there is a debt. Who of the members that voted for the loan can promise to stay around for the next five, ten, twenty, or thirty years until the last penny is paid off? To vote for a debt, and then let others pay for it, is irresponsible; the Bible calls it wickedness. If every church member who votes for a debt would be held personally responsible and liable, church leaders would not so easily get consenting votes from the church body. A Church in Debt Loses its Light Jesus says: “You are the salt of the earth. ... You are the light of the world” (Matt. 5:13-14). The United States of America has been destroyed by debt. It has become a giant slave to the financial institutions that have pushed easy credit on everyone. The greatest credit bubble in the history of mankind exists in the U.S. today. The church needs to be a light in the darkness of the financial world. The church should teach responsibility; the church should demonstrate how to live within its means. But since churches and the individuals in the churches are in debt, we have given up being light in the darkness to the financial world around us. Waste of God’s Money The interest paid on a thirty-year loan amounts to approximately twice the amount of the principal that was originally borrowed. Much money that was faithfully given to God for the Lord’s work ends up in the coffers of bankers. If we would look at church borrowing over a period of decades, we would see that a huge amount of capital has been lost from the Lord’s work because of interest payments. If all the money that churches have wasted on interest payments had been given to the missions effort, no missionary would ever have to beg for support! Contrary to the Character of Christ The character of Jesus is contrary to debt. Jesus says: “I am the good shepherd: the good shepherd giveth His life for the sheep” (John 10:11). The good shepherd does not mortgage the flock, he gives; he even gives His own life for the flock. If a church acquires a loan, she not only mortgages the presently existing flock, she also mortgages away the little lambs that the Father wants to add to the flock. A Church in Debt Denies the Holiness of God Where does the money come from when a church gets a loan “to do God’s work”? The money ultimately comes from the world—from unbelievers. True Christians give to the Lord’s work; true believers will not enslave the church to themselves through debt. But if the church asks the world to provide funding for the buildings that she “needs” to worship God and to teach His Word, then she is denying the holiness of God. Has God ever gone to an unbeliever and begged for money so that His work can be done? The apostle John writes about “brethren” that the church sent out to preach the gospel. He says about them: “Because that for His name’s sake they went forth, taking nothing of the Gentiles” (3 John 7). To maintain the integrity of His Name, Christian leaders today should trust God and His people alone to supply their needs. A church’s understanding of God’s holiness must be very faint if she has no problem begging the world for loans. Church Debts are Contrary to the Gospel If we look into the Old Testament, the matter of church debt does not look any better. The Old Testament teaches that the borrower becomes a slave to the lender (Proverbs 22:21). Looking at debt from this viewpoint, burdening the church with debt is totally contrary to the gospel. The Apostle Paul wrote to the Galatians: “Stand fast therefore in the liberty wherewith Christ hath made us free, and be not entangled again with the yoke of bondage” (5:1). Anyone who preaches a “gospel” of debt, and how it supposedly is God’s will to do His work with debt, preaches falsely. Debt is not freedom; it is bondage! Promoting bondage in the church is a severe matter. Servitude to Another Master The most damaging aspect of church debt is the spiritual bondage (servanthood) that comes with the debt. Proverb 22:7 states: “The borrower is servant to the lender.” Debt puts any person, any church, into bondage. Some might say: “We can handle the monthly payments easily, so what’s wrong?” In addition to the obvious obligation to service the debt, a church also takes on a spiritual bondage. We started out to serve Christ, and Christ alone; now suddenly we have to also serve another master. We might not be aware of the fact that we now have two masters, we might play it down, we might even deny it, but the Scripture cannot be broken (John 10:35): “The borrower is servant to the lender.” By signing a mortgage contract, the church has agreed to be servant to another master. The ministry of the church is now divided between two masters: the bank and Christ. The church’s finances become divided. The interest that is paid on a thirty-year loan accumulates over the years to about twice the amount that was originally borrowed. If $1 million has been borrowed, then about $2 million will be paid in interest. Two thirds of the total payments go to the lender, the new master. One third pays for the building project that the church believed the Lord wanted her to engage. Mortgage payments are so structured that at the beginning of a thirty-year loan, 95% to 98% of the monthly payment consists of the interest portion, and only 2% to 5% of the monthly payment pays off the debt. When the church goes into debt, she definitely is serving two masters. The church’s motives also become divided. Yes, the church wants new people to join the church, but why? Certainly there can be many good motives why a local church invites new people to join. But the church has now come under pressure to keep up the monthly mortgage payments. Because of that obligation, the single-mindedness of purpose and the purity of heart are gone. The church has to have new people join. There are always members moving away or joining other churches in town. A drop in attendance could mean financial difficulties. Therefore, attendance not only has to be kept up, but newcomers cannot be offended and thus driven away. (And since sound doctrine is always a dividing force, the tendency is also to compromise on doctrine.) The single-mindedness is lost because the people in the church have changed; the pureness of heart is lost because the situation has changed—the church now has to satisfy two masters. The monthly payments are very real. The church’s loyalty becomes divided. At one point in His ministry, Jesus had a steep drop in attendance. Jesus gave a message that His disciples did not like; the result was that most of His disciples left Him: “From that time many of His disciples went back, and walked no more with him. Then Jesus said unto the twelve, Will ye also go away?” (John 6:66-67). A church in debt cannot afford to lose attendance that drastically. If the truth will hurt church attendance, then the truth has to be held back. The monthly payments have to be met! The Lord Himself lost attendance, and there was nothing wrong with Him or His preaching. Why do churches think that over the next five, ten, twenty, or thirty years there will never be a drop in attendance? The danger of compromising the truth becomes very real. One cannot be loyal to Christ and at the same time not be loyal to the truth, because Jesus says, “I am the truth.” A church in debt becomes a church of divided loyalty. She tries to stay loyal to the truth, but she also has to meet her financial obligations and, therefore, will do all that is necessary to please the people, so that they will continue to attend and give. Conclusion The apostle Paul states simply and plainly that we should not owe anything to anybody, but love. Yes, this is only one verse in the whole Bible. But once we begin looking at the implications of debt, we find an overwhelming support in God’s Word for this seemingly insignificant statement: “Owe no man any thing, but to love one another.” |