1

WHO CAN TEACH? REFLECTIONS ON WHO SHOULD BE PERMITTED TO TEACH IN A WHOLE-CHURCH SETTING

BY ANDREW SAMPSON, GRACE CHURCH TRURO, APRIL 2014 (2ND EDN.)

INTRODUCTION

Some theology papers talk about their subject matter with a high degree of detachment and objectivity. This is not one of them. It marks the culmination of an intensely personal process of reflection and study that began in earnest almost four years ago. Along the way, I have been particularly helped by two gatherings of friends consisting of astute theological thinkers (that’s how I see them, anyway) from the Commission churches in Cornwall and a number of other churches besides. Some of those men and women will hear their voices echoed in this document, but (as is customary for a writer to say at this point), any gaffes, clangers or forays into out-and-out heresy are solely my responsibility.

As I hope to make clear by the end, this paper marks a juncture in a process of study that is ongoing, rather than the end-point. The conclusions are somewhat provisional and relate to how I presently see things rather than to any official church policy. Having said that, I wouldn’t think this paper worth writing if I didn’t have something to say that I thought was worth hearing, and my hope is to challenge the reader to scrutinise his or her thinking at a number of points, and perhaps even to change his or her mind. My primary purpose is to serve the leadership teams of the churches belonging to the Commission group of Newfrontiers churches here in Cornwall, but if leaders elsewhere are also helped to reflect on their own positions on Who Can Teach, then I will be delighted.

To begin with, defining a couple of key terms is in order. ‘Egalitarian’ relates to those who believe – often very passionately and on the basis of an evangelical reading of Scripture – that all roles in church life are equally open to men and women. The term ‘egalitarian’ refers to a spectrum of belief rather than a fixed position but, in general, egalitarians would argue that someone’s gender should not preclude them from teaching in a whole-church setting, such as on a Sunday morning.

The term ‘complementarian’ relates to those who believe – often equally passionately and on the basis of an evangelical reading of Scripture – that men and women are equal in status, but God has created men and women to have different roles in church and family life. Again, there is a spectrum of complementarian belief but, historically, most people belonging to the complementarian camp would be uncomfortable with a woman bringing teaching to the whole church on a Sunday morning.

In this paper, my aim is not to provide a comprehensive overview of the egalitarian-complementarian debate. The literature is vast, the issues are legion, and it would be impossible to do justice to the nuances of the debate in a single project. What I wish to do is to consider the egalitarian- complementarian debate as it touches upon the question of who we should permit to teach in a mixed- gender (henceforth, simply ‘mixed’), whole-congregation setting. My particular focus will be on the issues that are pertinent to our context as members of the Newfrontiers family of churches. Consequently, I will skim over some of the issues that are contentious in the wider church but are largely taken for granted in Newfrontiers circles. Where some of these widely shared ‘Newfrontiers assumptions’ require special justification (e.g. male eldership), interested readers are pointed in the direction of other sources where they might start digging.

Given the vastness of the literature on this subject, not to mention the growing number of resources available online, I’ve decided to focus my attention particularly on the stated positions of thinkers in the Newfrontiers family. These are not always easy to find, but I have been helped by several unpublished papers from a number of thinkers who embark on a similar study to my own. Of course, due to their unpublished nature, it is not possible for the majority of readers to check some of my source material for themselves. In the spirit of generosity that I wish to celebrate in this paper, I hope 2 that this weakness will be tolerated, and that my representation of the views of my sparring partners will be trusted.

My reason for embarking on this study is because I believe that this issue of Who Can Teach matters now more than ever. Common sense tells us that it’s impossible to be neutral.1 This is because practice in every church implicitly reflects one view or another: you can’t both have and not have women teaching on a Sunday morning; nor can you both have and not have women elders (Ryland, 2011, p. 1). The fact is that every church has a position. The only question is whether that position is carefully considered and biblically informed. No local leadership team can afford not to take the issue seriously.

WHERE WE ARE TODAY IN NEWFRONTIERS

It may help to share some of my perceptions on where we are presently on the issue of Who Can Teach in the Newfrontiers family. Firstly, it is clear that Newfrontiers has no formal policy on this issue. Terry Virgo, the founder of the Newfrontiers movement, makes no mention of the subject in his list of seventeen values (Virgo, 2009-10; cf. Hosier, 2009-10).2 Having explained the common Newfrontiers practice that ‘women do not teach mixed congregations in our churches’, John Hosier adds, ‘However some take the view that it is possible for a woman to teach a mixed congregation as long as she does so under the oversight of the elders who therefore carry the final authority’ (2005, p. 179). Within a broadly complementarian atmosphere, there is currently a range in the theology and practice of Newfrontiers churches.

The lack of a clearly articulated ‘Newfrontiers position’ on Who Can Teach may be entirely appropriate (as I hope to show later), but we have to face up to the fact that one of the unintended consequences is that frequently there is a lack of clarity on the position adopted by different churches. This makes itself evident in two ways.

Firstly, what we say we believe is not always reflected in our practice. To be specific, we often default to a ‘hardline’ complementarian position in practice even when that is not our conviction. Andrew Ryland remarks that:

In general it is observed that churches which take [a complementarian] position have a practice that falls short of their theology. That is, women feel more restricted than the official policy allows (2011, p. 32).

The result is that many people labour under misconceptions about what we actually believe about women’s roles in church life. We may be quick to object when we are lumped together with more hardline complementarians, but it is hardly surprising that this happens when we don’t take the trouble to articulate clearly our position.

The second evidence of a lack of clarity in our movement is that our practice often looks inconsistent. I don’t mean that practice differs between local churches (as I shall argue later, this is to be expected and even applauded); rather, I’m pointing to inconsistency of practice within a local church. So we regularly have teaching from men who are not elders on a Sunday, but only very rarely (if ever) invite women to teach. Why is it fine for a mixed congregation to receive teaching from people who hold no governmental office in the church if they’re male, but not if they’re female? It may be that this practice is justifiable. My point here is simply that the situation requires special justification, but this is rarely forthcoming.

1 And not just common sense, as illustrated in the sorry tale of the Bristol University Christian Union (Huffington Post, 2012; Lewis, 2012). 2 It must be said, however, that elsewhere Terry Virgo does hint at his expectation that Newfrontiers churches will regard the ‘authoritative teaching and leading of men’ as ‘territory forbidden to women by Scripture’ (2001, p. 303). 3

A final remark about our current situation is extremely subjective but no less significant for that reason. Over the years, as I’ve spent time talking to women from both inside and outside the Newfrontiers family, I’ve observed that many of these women feel a level of exclusion. Andrew Ryland shares my perception when he writes:

A proportion of young women in complementarian churches do not aspire to learn theology, to be strong in faith, to grow in leadership skills, etc. simply because they have ‘picked up’ that these things are NOT for them. This is an issue of church culture that needs urgent attention (2011, p. 4).

This is tragic and should fill our hearts with sadness. Somehow or other, the message isn’t getting through that, far from boxing women in and shutting women up, when we adhere faithfully to complementarian principles, ‘we shall see women blossom and flourish into the beautiful potential God has for them’ (Virgo, 2001, p. 303). We are simply not doing well at convincing many women that complementarian theology is good to think.

THE WAY FORWARD

In this paper, I will be following two lines of inquiry, both of which address the question Who Can Teach? I hesitate to call these ‘parallel lines of inquiry’ because what I’m really looking for is convergence between them. In other words, I’m hoping that by beginning two separate inquiries3 in two separate places, I’ll end up finding myself at the same answer.

In the first section of my paper, I am concerned with what the Bible says about gender. My question is: in view of what the Bible teaches about men and women, can it ever be appropriate for a woman to teach in a whole-church setting?

The second section of my paper is concerned with what the Bible says about eldership. In this section, I’ll be addressing the question: in view of a biblically-informed theology of eldership, can it ever be appropriate for a non-elder (male or female) to teach in a whole-church setting?

I will conclude by drawing together my thoughts from these two lines of inquiry before sketching out a series of recommendations for the churches with which I am most closely involved.

INQUIRY ONE: BIBLICAL TEACHING ON GENDER

Biblical teaching on men and women can be grouped under three main headings: equality, complementarity and headship (Betts & Kemm, 2013).

Equality

The Bible repeatedly affirms that men and women are fully equal in status. Thus, men and women are equally created in God’s image (Gen 1:27), equally redeemed through Christ’s atoning death (2 Cor 5:14-15; Rev 5:9), equal recipients of God’s gracious gift of new life (1 Pet 3:7) and of the Spirit (Acts 2; 17-18, 38-39; 1 Cor 12:12-13), and equal members of the body of Christ (Gal 3:28).

The principle of equality is heartily affirmed by both complementarians and egalitarians, and consequently I will not dwell on it here (although the brevity of this section does not in any way imply its lack of ‘weightiness’ in the debate).

3 Though not, it must be said, wholly independent inquiries. 4

Complementarity

The Bible teaches that men and women are created differently and hence there is an asymmetry in their relationships with one another. Again, this is largely beyond dispute. Andrew Perriman, an egalitarian Bible scholar, remarks that ‘at the heart of Paul’s teaching are the basic creational data: man was created first [Gen 2:7], woman was created from the man [Gen 2:21-23] and for the sake of man [Gen 2:18-20]’ (1998, p. 194). Where complementarians and egalitarians do differ is in their understanding of the implications of this ‘basic creational data’ for church and family life today.

Headship

The writers of Scripture believe that one of the implications of men and women being created ‘equal but different’ is that men, not women, assume a position of spiritual headship in the church and home. Complementarians typically take the concept of ‘spiritual headship’ to be grounded in creation on the basis of the creation narrative in Genesis 2 and Paul’s teaching in 1 Corinthians 11:2-8 and 1 Timothy 2:12-13. Wives are called upon to submit to their husbands (Eph 5:22-23; Col 3:18; 1 Pet 3:1) and it is assumed in the New Testament that those holding positions of governmental authority will be male (1 Tim 3:1-7; Tit 1:5-9).

It is at this point that the debate between egalitarians and complementarians begins to get feisty. What does the term ‘headship’ actually mean? And is the biblical teaching on the subject context-specific or applicable to all times and cultures?

In this paper I am assuming the standard complementarian view which holds that (a) when Paul uses the term ‘head’, he is referring to the authority of a man over a woman, and (b) New Testament teaching on headship is directly applicable to our twenty-first century context. These assumptions are not widely shared outside of Newfrontiers and therefore require special justification4, but to do that here lies beyond the scope of my study.

The most disputed passages in the debate about Who Can Teach

It’s time that we turned our attention to two highly contentious passages which touch directly on the issue of Who Can Teach. In 1 Corinthians 14:33-34 and 1 Timothy 2:11-15, Paul explicitly teaches that women should be ‘in submission’ and refrain from speaking or teaching in whole-church settings. What are we to make of these passages?

Two rules of thumb

Before launching into an exegesis of these texts, it’s necessary for me to say a few words about the general approach that I take to the interpretation of contentious passages. The study of hermeneutics5 is a vast area in its own right, but here I want to say something about two rules of thumb which I tend to hold by.

4 Here are some good places to start. Wilson (2012a) provides a useful overview of why, in his view, we should begin with the presumption of complementarianism rather than egalitarianism. As I shall show, I believe that what he writes about the ‘presumption of obedience’ needs tempering somewhat, and I feel that he resorts to special pleading with his ‘presumption of counterculturalism.’ These things aside, my views are broadly in line with his own. Hosier (2013a & b) provides a helpful domestic illustration to explain how equality can coincide with headship. Kathy Keller’s chapter on headship in marriage in Keller (2011, pp. 170-91) offers a helpful, sensitive explanation of how headship works out in a marriage relationship. 5 Hermeneutics is the study of the principles that we apply to the interpretation of biblical texts. 5

Rule 1 – Look for the timeless principle behind the cultural expression

All biblical teaching is rooted in a particular local context, and the main challenge for the interpreter is how to decide what is timeless and universal, and what is merely cultural and therefore not directly applicable to our situation today. There are essentially three different approaches taken by interpreters (following Stott, 1996, pp. 74-81) (Figure 1). The first is to recognise only one category of teaching and to fail to distinguish between the timeless principle and its cultural expression. This is a classic literalist approach. The second approach is to recognise two distinct categories of teaching – the first being timeless and normative; the second being transient and local – so that the latter can be dispensed with. This is the path of liberalism.

a) b) c)

Timeless Cultural Timeless Cultural expression principle expression principle Timeless principle

Figure 1 – three hermeneutical approaches. a) one category of teaching (classic literalism); b) two categories of teaching (classic liberalism); c) two levels of teaching (John Stott’s cultural transposition).

John Stott rejects both of these approaches in favour of a third, which he calls ‘cultural transposition’ (p. 78). According to this understanding, there aren’t two categories of teaching, but two levels of teaching. Once again, there is the ‘profound, fundamental word of God’ and the second level is understood to be ‘its surface cultural expression.’ Stott writes:

Then the former must be accepted as normative, while the latter is not be rejected on the ground of its ‘cultural relativity’, but rather to be transposed into a contemporary cultural form. The discernment we need, then, is not between texts (some normative, others disposable), but within each text (the eternal substance and the cultural expression) (p. 76 fn 59).

I am persuaded by Stott’s thesis and am broadly sympathetic to the way he applies his method to 1 Timothy 2. In what follows, therefore, I will seek to identify the timeless principles that were expressed in particular cultural forms in Paul’s day, but may well be expressed differently in our own.

Rule 2 – We should proportion our beliefs to the evidence

This rule of thumb, sometimes called the principle of proportionality, comes from the writings of the philosopher David Hume. Hume famously wrote, ‘A wise man … proportions his belief to the evidence’ (1748, Section 10 Pt 1). Before I’m decried for borrowing one of my fundamental hermeneutical principles from an atheistic philosopher, let me say that I think that this principle enshrines a piece of sound common sense. In my experience, the grandioseness of the claims made by some interpreters is often out of proportion with the quality of evidence contained in the text. I am committed to the belief that a proper respect for the authority of Scripture is outworked in two ways: we do not go against the clear teachings of Scripture and we do not go beyond them. Yet, commentators of all persuasions do frequently go beyond Scripture by making dogmatic pronouncements where Scripture is silent or less than clear. My second rule of thumb says that we should be conservative with respect to the scope of our conclusions and ensure that the level of our conviction is proportionate to the degree of clarity found in the text.

Our first contentious passage: 1 Corinthians 14:33b-34a

As in all the churches of the saints, the women should keep silent in the churches. For they are not permitted to speak, but should be in submission. 6

I shall begin by dismissing two suggestions outright: that these verses are not authentically Pauline (suggested by Fee, 1987, p. 708) and that they represent Paul’s prohibition against women weighing prophecies (see Grudem in Ryland, 2011, pp. 21-22) (Perriman, 1998, pp. 103-8, 111-12). What we’re left with is what Perriman calls a ‘comprehensive and unqualified prohibition’ on women speaking in whole-church gatherings (1998, p. 120).

But this cannot be an absolute prohibition. This is because, earlier in the letter, Paul makes clear his expectation that women will be involved in praying out and prophesying in mixed gatherings of the church (1 Corinthians 11:2-16). Moreover, a few verses earlier in chapter 14, Paul writes these words:

What then, brothers? When you come together, each one has a hymn, a lesson, a revelation, a tongue, or an interpretation. … For you can all prophesy one by one, so that all may learn and all be encouraged (vv. 26, 31, italics mine).

What are we to make of all this? There are two clues in verses 30 and 40. Paul’s overriding concern is that ‘all things should be done decently and in order’ (v. 40), and the general picture is that Paul was unhappy with women in the congregation chattering among themselves, asking questions of the speaker, offering unsolicited opinions and bringing spontaneous prophetic outbursts.

But why does Paul specifically focus his prohibition on women?6 Unlike in 1 Timothy 2, Paul does not rationalise his command by appealing to the order of creation, nor to a positive reason for women keeping silent. It’s up to us to work out why Paul might have issued this command by piecing together a few shreds of evidence scattered through the passage. Here, I follow Perriman (1998) in examining four pieces of evidence:

First piece of evidence: Paul appeals to custom (‘as in all the churches of the saints…’, v. 33b). This suggests that Paul’s intention is to bring practice in the Corinthian church into line with practice in other congregations. There are strong grounds for saying that when Paul appeals to common church practice in 1 Corinthians, he is not referring to ‘an absolute and incontestable ruling’ but to ‘well- established guidelines for dealing with a current situation’ (p. 125).

Second piece of evidence: Paul appeals to Law (‘For [the women] are not permitted to speak, but should be in submission, as the Law also says’, v. 34). Paul refers to ‘the Law’ in general rather than to any specific Mosaic command. This suggests that Paul may be wanting to bring Corinthian church practice into line with the practice of Jewish Christianity (possibly to promote harmony between the churches?) (pp. 125, 127-31).

Third piece of evidence: Paul appeals to shame (‘For it is shameful for a woman to speak in church’, v. 35b). The essence of shame is that it is marks deviation from an accepted social norm rather than necessarily transgressing an absolute moral command (pp. 131-3).

Fourth piece of evidence: Paul appeals to the Lord’s command (‘… acknowledge that the things I am writing to you are a command of the Lord’, v. 37). Some might argue that this statement makes it clear that Paul is issuing an absolute command rather than appealing to conformity with a cultural custom. However, as I have already said, Paul cannot be saying this, for in 1 Corinthians 11 and elsewhere in chapter 14 Paul takes it for granted that women will speak in public meetings. Perriman notes that Paul finishes with this rationale, rather than starts with it. This may suggest that Paul includes it only to reinforce a position that has already been established on other grounds. In other words, given that

6 Perriman observes: ‘It is difficult to mitigate the absoluteness of Paul’s command here. … We should probably assume, on the basis of these directives, that it would have been acceptable for a man to ask an irrelevant or trivial question but not for a woman to ask an intelligent one. Male chatter may have been no less inane than female, but the implication of Paul’s teaching is that what was prohibited for women was permissible for men’ (1998, p. 124).

7 it’s understood to be shameful for women to speak in church, then it is fitting for Paul to add that this prohibition is not based merely on human opinion, but comes with divine authority (pp. 133-4).

Conclusion: principles from 1 Corinthians 14

I think that it’s safe to conclude that this passage cannot be used to restrict women from teaching in mixed congregations. The passage is laden with references to the Corinthians’ and Paul’s immediate local situation, but I don’t believe we should jettison the passage on the basis that it is irrelevant to our situation today. Following Stott’s method of cultural transposition, I would suggest that this passage draws our attention to the following timeless principles:

 Contextualisation: Christian practice needs to be able to adapt to its cultural context. Of course, how we do that is precisely one the major points of debate between egalitarians and complementarians. As complementarians who are also part of a restorationist movement, we must be careful that our quest to restore the Church to God’s original intention doesn’t lock us into rigid models of church practice that are anachronistic.

 Harmony of practice: We may be going too far if we use this passage to insist on general harmony of practice between different churches. But the point that we should strive for harmony where that disharmony presents an obstacle to missional advance is surely pertinent.

 Avoiding shameful practice: We should avoid practice that is shameful in our cultural context. Of course, in a culture that has diverged so far from biblical principles, we need to be open to the possibility that our culture’s code of acceptable values may have become inverted. It is premature, therefore, to suppose that we can use Paul’s words in 1 Corinthians 14 to insist that women be allowed to teach to mixed congregations on the grounds that it is a shameful thing in our culture to prevent them from doing so.

Our second contentious passage: 1 Timothy 2:11-15

11 Let a woman learn quietly with all submissiveness. 12 I do not permit a woman to teach or to exercise authority over a man; rather, she is to remain quiet. 13 For Adam was formed first, then Eve; 14 and Adam was not deceived, but the woman was deceived and became a transgressor. 15 Yet she will be saved through childbearing – if they continue in faith and love and holiness, with self-control.

This is far and away the most important passage in the debate about Who Can Teach. Andrew Wilson (2012b) provides a helpful overview of twelve different perspectives on this contentious passage. Rather than getting bogged down in all aspects of the debate, I will focus on three of the perspectives outlined by Wilson that correspond with the positions most commonly adopted by Newfrontiers churches. i) This passage restricts women from being church elders, but not from anything else

According to this understanding, ‘“to teach or have authority” means to be an elder in a local church, since teaching and governing are the two main things elders do’ (Wilson, 2012b). This interpretation of 1 Timothy 2 is followed by David Devenish7 and forms part of the basis of a policy change at King’s Church, Catford, announced by Mick Taylor (2012). Andrew Ryland (2011) quotes Devenish with approval and finds further support for this interpretation in the work of the complementarian scholar Craig Blomberg.8 According to this view, 1 Timothy 2 is specifically prohibiting the ‘governmental teaching role’ to women which, in Newfrontiers churches at least, equates to eldership. That the

7 Paper written for Woodside Church, Bedford (1990) but not circulated widely in Newfrontiers. 8 Craig Blomberg (2005), A Complementarian Perspective, in Gundry, S.N. & Beck, J.R. (eds), Two Views on Women in Ministry, Grand Rapids: Zondervan, pp. 123-84. 8 subject of eldership was in Paul’s mind when he wrote chapter 2 is further supported by the fact that he goes on to address eldership specifically from 1 Timothy 3:1 onwards (Ryland, 2011, p. 29).

In response, I think it’s far from clear that Paul is specifically prohibiting women from being appointed to the office of elder in 1 Timothy 2. Even if we accept the idea that Paul is talking about one function rather than two, it is far from clear that he is talking about a governmental teaching role and not simply ‘authoritative teaching.’ In the final analysis, I agree with Andrew Wilson that the problem with this view is that it ‘involves talking about something Paul doesn’t (eldership) and not talking about something he does (teaching)’ (2012b). ii) This passage restricts women from teaching in whole-church settings

This position holds that ‘to teach or have authority’ relates specifically to women teaching in a whole- church setting where men are present. According to this view, ‘women may teach in all other areas of church life (seminars, books, conferences, downloads, articles, small groups, etc.), but not when the whole church comes together on Sundays.’ Wilson remarks that this is where a good many churches he knows (presumably Newfrontiers churches?) tend to sit (2012b).

However, some important questions need to be asked. What is so special about the Sunday meeting? There no mention of Sunday gatherings in the passage. How do we balance this passage with Paul’s expectation that women will prophesy and bring lessons of instruction in mixed gatherings (1 Corinthians 11:2-17; 14:26)? Does his command relate specifically to a talk delivered from a stage? Is it at all likely that that is how teaching was done in the early church? These are the kinds of problems that lead one of the apostolic leaders in Newfrontiers, Mike Betts, to suggest that when we ask the question, ‘can a woman teach on Sunday?’ it’s not clear that Paul would have even recognised the question (Betts & Kemm, 2013). iii) This passage restricts women from defining doctrine for the church

According to this view, women are permitted to ‘speak publicly, instruct, exhort, explain Scripture [and] preach the gospel’ but defining doctrine for the church by explaining ‘this is what must be believed, and this is what must be done’ are for male elders (Wilson, 2012b). This is where Wilson finally lands. But he remarks that, in the final analysis, there may not be much practical difference between this view and the previous one:

Defining doctrine, exercising spiritual authority and serving as elders/overseers are all part of the same package (1 Tim 5:17), and Paul limits both this function and this office to men (see also 1 Tim 3:1-7; Titus 1:5-9). Outside of this restriction, all other people in the church, whether male or female, can function and flourish in all other areas of ministry (Wilson, 2012b).

This is in agreement with John Hosier’s take on the passage, which he summarises as follows:

My argument is this – that where the Bible would restrain a woman from a teaching ministry it is not to create difficulties, but it is to act with mercy. In other words, women in the church are not to be put in a position where they carry an ultimate responsibility in matters of exercising authority.

Neither are they made vulnerable to criticism by giving the public teaching of doctrine. Rather the men are called to take the lead in carrying the weight of these burdens and the women are to be cared for, secure and honoured, so they can minister with spiritual authority within the church (2005, p. 179).

Three ‘Newfrontiers assumptions’

The views outlined above have common currency in Newfrontiers and are based on a thoughtful reading of 1 Timothy 2. However, before we can accept them, we do need to consider some of the 9 assumptions on which they’re based. Thankfully, Andrew Wilson does us the great service of making explicit his primary assumptions:

[I]t is a good rule of thumb to do what the New Testament says, unless there are clear reasons not to – as well as exegetical and historical ones. Exegetically, Paul’s argument is not grounded in the culture of the day, the quirks of Ephesus or the lack of educated women, but in creation (2:13-14), and it therefore seems that whatever Paul is restricting, he is restricting on the basis of the way men and women were created (which would correspond to the way he invokes Genesis 1-3 throughout his letters) (2012b).

Three assumptions are mentioned here, and I will analyse each one in turn: i) ‘Do what the New Testament says, unless there are clear reasons not to’

On the face of things, it seems very reasonable to take a text at face value, unless we have strong exegetical, historical or moral reasons not to do so (cf. Wilson, 2012a). It is problematic in this case, however, as the ‘plain meaning’ of the text is precisely one of the major points of dispute. Whose ‘plain meaning’ should we take? [The scholarly debate over the meaning of the term authentein – ‘to take authority’ – is relevant here.9] Moreover, given the vast temporal and cultural distance between our own context and the context of the original text, we often find that there are many aspects of Scripture that are not immediately plain (Perriman, 1998, p. 11). There is the real danger that we could jump to conclusions which are based more on the unquestioned assumptions that we bring to text rather than allowing the text to speak on its own terms. ii) Paul’s argument is not grounded in the culture of the day

A major point of dispute between egalitarians and complementarians is precisely how much weight to place on the immediate cultural context in which Paul’s letters were written. Two questions are pertinent here, and how one answers them is likely to control one’s overall approach to the text.

Question one: to what extent was Paul a ‘man of his time’?

It is common for egalitarians to argue that Paul was very much a ‘man of his time’ and therefore powerless to escape from the limitations of a first-century cultural perspective. For example, William Barclay remarks in connection with the 1 Corinthians 14 passage that we considered earlier: ‘no man ever rose completely above the ideas and the background of the age in which he lived and the society in which he grew up, and Paul, in his conception of the place of women within the Church, was unable to rise above the ideas which he had known all his life’ (1971, p. 151; cf. Perriman, 1998, p. 195). According to this view, Paul was just as susceptible as we are today of confusing God’s timeless, normative principles with transient values that are embedded in culture. When it comes to his teaching on gender, Paul did his best, but he was wrong – just plain wrong.

Complementarians, on the other hand, typically argue that Paul (and Jesus as well) were radical for their time in breaking away from prevailing social norms. Thus John Hosier writes: ‘contrary to what is often said, Paul was not a man of his time with reference to women. Paul taught in his day that which would have been understood as the liberation of women’ (2005, pp. 167-8).

Who is right? My own view is that the correct position lies somewhere between these two extremes.10 I see Paul as a contextualiser of God’s Word par excellence, whose incisive mind was

9 See the comments on Wilson’s (2012b) post and Perriman, 1998, pp. 144-57 10 The problem with the extreme egalitarian position is that it smacks of a kind of intellectual snobbery – ‘Of course, Paul was limited by his immediate cultural and historical context, but today we can see everything with piercing clarity and know that he was wrong.’ Moreover, it runs against the grain of an evangelical 10 able to distinguish clearly between timeless principle and cultural expression, but who frequently chose to ‘go with the grain of culture’ for the sake of guarding the credibility of the church and the gospel (e.g. 1 Tim 6:1; Ti 2:5; cf. 1 Cor 9:22). In other words, Paul was uncompromising when fundamental principles were at stake, but when it came to secondary matters, he was always sensitive to the manner in which the church was likely to be perceived by the wider community. I have already touched on this point in relation to the 1 Corinthians 14 passage above, and feel that we also need to be open to the possibility that it lies in the background to his instructions to Timothy.

Question two: to what extent are Paul’s words in this particular letter universally binding?

It’s not difficult to appreciate the attractiveness of insisting that Paul’s words in 1 Timothy 2 constitute a command that is normative and permanent, rather than a command that is limited to an immediate local situation in Ephesus. John Stott puts it well: ‘The danger of declaring any passage of Scripture to have only local (not universal), and only transient (not perpetual) validity is that it opens the door to a wholesale rejection of apostolic teaching, since virtually the whole of the New Testament was addressed to specific situations’ (1996, p. 77).

However, in my view, Newfrontiers commentators on this passage typically don’t put sufficient weight on the immediate, local context of 1 Timothy 2. While it is true that Paul doesn’t give any indication of the context-specific nature of his command in 2:11-12 (for example, by qualifying it in some way), I find myself agreeing with Emma Ineson that ‘the whole flavour of the letter is corrective’ (2009, p. 1). Timothy is charged with remaining in Ephesus to deal with those who were bringing false teaching (1:3) which had already resulted in the ‘shipwrecking’ of the faith of some (1:19-20; cf. 4:1; 6:21). Much of the correction in the letter is directed at women (2:10-15; 3:11; 5:3-16) which implies that there was a particular problem with women in Ephesus.

Douglas Moo acknowledges that the problems in Ephesus provide Paul with the occasion of addressing the problem of women teaching or assuming authority over men, but denies that what Paul says here is relevant only to the Ephesian context. In his view, 1 Timothy 2 provides us with Paul’s ‘customary position’ which he taught ‘in every church’ (1991, p. 184). Moo supports this contention by pointing to what Paul says in verse 13 about the order of creation. He explains: ‘by citing creation rather than a local situation or cultural circumstance as his basis for the prohibitions, Paul makes it clear that, while these local or cultural issues may have provided the context of the issue, they do not provide the reason for his advice’ (p. 185). It is clear, then, that the second of our ‘Newfrontiers assumptions’ cannot be considered in isolation from assumption number three. iii) Paul’s argument is grounded in creation

Complementarians often understand Paul’s argument in 1 Timothy 2:13 to parallel his flow of thought in 1 Corinthians 11:8-9 (e.g., Moo, 1991, pp. 185-6; Hosier, 2005, pp. 178-9; Larkin, 2013, pp. 16-17). In both places, Paul apparently appeals to the order of creation to justify the priority of the man in some way.

What does this priority consist in? Let’s start by looking at verses 12 and 13.

12 I do not permit a woman to teach or to exercise authority over a man; rather, she is to remain quiet. 13 For Adam was formed first, then Eve.

understanding of the authority of Scripture and God’s providence in supplying us with exactly the texts that he intended to leave us ‘equipped for every good work’ (2 Tim 3:17). The problem with the extreme complementarian position, on the other hand, is that it downplays ‘the principle of history’ (Stott, 1996, p. 74) which requires us to come to terms with the fact that every part of God’s Word is enculturated in some way. 11

Taken together, these verses seem to be connecting the order of formation with the ideas of authority and subordination. Moo sets out a common complementarian reading of these verses when he writes:

Both the logic of this passage and the parallel in 1 Corinthians 11:3-10 make this clear: for Paul, the man’s priority in the order of creation is indicative of the headship that man is to have over woman. The woman’s being created after man, as his helper, shows the position of submission that God intended as inherent in the woman’s relation to the man, a submission that is violated if a woman teaches doctrine or exercises authority over a man (1991, p. 185).

This seems to be where Hosier (2005) and Wilson (2012b) are coming from. Presumably, in Ephesus, there was a problem with women trying to usurp men’s authority, and Paul wrote his letter in an attempt to restore male-female relationships to God’s original creation design.

But what if we read verse 13 in the light of verse 14?

13 For Adam was formed first, then Eve; 14 and Adam was not deceived, but the woman was deceived and became a transgressor.

Interestingly, Wilson (2012b) takes verses 11-12 in isolation without making any reference to the section that follows. Yet, surely verse 14 is relevant to the question of how we interpret the verses that immediately precede it? Here, Paul does not make a connection between order of formation and authority/subordination; he makes a connection between order of formation and deception. In other words, he expressly links Eve’s transgression with her being deceived, not with usurping Adam’s authority.

Could it be that Paul is citing the Genesis text not because it establishes the principles of male authority and female submission as grounded in creation, but because it bears a certain resemblance to the situation in Ephesus where women are more likely to be deceived by the proponents of false teaching? Perhaps Paul remarks on the prior formation of Adam because it prefigures the ‘historical dominance of the man’ which results in women being socially disadvantaged relative to men (Perriman, 1998, p. 196). Moreover, the general thrust of the passage seems to be more concerned with right learning than with right teaching, with Paul’s main focus being the manner in which women are to learn rather than with the question ‘Who Can Teach?’ (Ryland, 2011, p. 23).11

My purpose here is not to enter into a detailed discussion of the argumentative structure of the text but to make a simple point: the assumption that Paul’s teaching is grounded in creation with respect to male authority and female submission does not go unchallenged. How one responds to this debate is likely to be coloured, in large part, by how much weight one chooses to place on the immediate cultural context. In other words, Paul’s citing of creation in verse 13 does not compel the reader to reject a ‘cultural understanding’ of 1 Timothy 2; rather, the reader will interpret verse 13 in the light of whether or he or she has already embraced a cultural understanding of 1 Timothy 2 on other grounds. Any clear resolution to the debate is looking increasingly (and frustratingly) elusive.

1 Timothy 2 and the principle of proportionality

In the previous section, I tried to show how three of the assumptions undergirding a particular approach to 1 Timothy 2 which has popular currency in Newfrontiers are all open to question. But what if we accept those assumptions as they are? What are the implications of holding the view that Paul is, in fact, issuing an absolute, permanent command that restricts women from teaching men, and that any situation in which a man is subordinate to a woman by sitting under her teaching represents an inversion of God’s creation order?

11 Perriman goes further and suggests that verse 12 is parenthetical and therefore incidental to the flow of Paul’s argument. He provides a number of grounds of tying verse 13 with verses 14 and 11, rather than with verse 12 (1998, pp. 157-61). 12

I think we would have to admit that it would be extraordinary if Paul were calling female church members in general to submit to their male counterparts, regardless of whether those men have been appointed to governmental office in the church. The New Testament clearly expects church members to be subject to the authority of their leaders (Heb 13:17). Similarly, wives are called upon to submit to their husbands (Eph 5:22; Col 3:18; 1 Pet 3:1), but women in the church are never commanded to submit to men in general.

What about 1 Corinthians 11? This text is important, because it often lies in the background to a complementarian reading of 1 Timothy 2.12 In this passage, Paul directly teaches about male headship with reference to the order of creation (vv. 2-16). The first thing to say is that even a cursory reading of these two texts shows that Paul is addressing very different problems in Corinth and Ephesus. The practice of using 1 Corinthians 11 to interpret Paul’s words in 1 Timothy 2 is therefore highly questionable exegetically. A second point is that it’s not completely clear that Paul is addressing male- female relations in general in 1 Corinthians, as the words that he uses for ‘man’ and ‘woman’ can also be translated ‘husband’ and ‘wife’, depending on the context (e.g., Kistemaker, 1993, p. 366; Prior, 1993, p. 183). What this means is that, even if we were justified in using 1 Corinthians 11 to interpret 1 Timothy 2, the Corinthians passage does not provide unambiguous support for the position that women in the congregation should submit to men in the congregation who are neither their elders nor their husbands. The principle of proportionality should prevail, and in my view it’s unwise to use 1 Corinthians 11 to press this particular meaning on to 1 Timothy 2.

It’s still possible, of course, that Paul is calling for women in general to submit to men in Ephesus, and that he never repeats this command elsewhere because he did not have occasion to do so. But then the uniqueness of this passage requires us to proceed with extra caution when drawing conclusions that shape our practice today. We should proportion our beliefs to the evidence, and not stretch the meaning of the passage beyond where the text itself allows us to go.

What do we know for certain from 1 Timothy 2? That there was a problem with women in Ephesus which prompted Paul to bring corrective teaching to bear on that situation. Let’s be clear: going further than that by saying that we’re dealing with Paul’s ‘customary teaching’ (Douglas Moo) or that Scripture issues an absolute prohibition against women teaching doctrine (cf. John Hosier) is going further than the text will allow. This is not to say that these positions are unsupported by 1 Timothy 2. Paul’s teaching in this passage is certainly consistent with them. But these kinds of hardline complementarian conclusions are far from one hundred per cent sure, and should be held tentatively and not dogmatically.

Conclusion: principles from 1 Timothy 2

How, then, shall we proceed? The main challenge for the interpreter is to steer a course between two extremes, namely, giving the immediate context of 1 Timothy 2 too much weight, and failing it to give it sufficient weight. There have been plenty of moments during the course of preparing this study when I’ve felt inclined to throw up my hands in despair and say, ‘I give up! There is no way through the confusion of claims and counter-claims made by Paul’s interpreters!’

However, I do feel that John Stott points us to the right kind of interpretive approach with respect to this passage. Stott begins with the observation that 1 Timothy 2:11-12 includes two antitheses: women are instructed to learn quietly and not teach; and women are to be submissive and not exercise authority. He then poses the question:

What is the relation between these two antitheses? Are they simply parallel and therefore equally normative? Is a woman both to be silent and not teach, and to be submissive and not wield authority, with no distinction between these instructions? This is what may commentators assume. But must submission always be expressed in silence, and ‘not exercising authority’ in ‘not teaching’? Or could it be legitimate to see the submission-authority antithesis as permanent and

12 As I have said above, Moo (1991), Hosier (2005) and Larkin (2013) make this explicit. 13

universal (because grounded in creation, see verse 13), while seeing the silence-teaching antithesis as a first-century cultural expression of it, which is therefore not necessarily applicable to every culture, but open to transposition into each? (1996, p.79)13

In other words, Stott is proposing a complementarian reading of 1 Timothy 2 in which the authority- submission antithesis is regarded as timeless (because it is creational, although it is possible to accept Stott’s conclusions without accepting this assumption) and the teaching-silence antithesis is cultural. Stott asks:

May not the requirement of silence, like the requirement of veils [1 Cor 11:10], have been a first- century cultural symbol of masculine headship, which is not necessarily appropriate today? For silence is not an essential ingredient of submission; submission is expressed in different ways in different cultures. Similarly, women teaching men does not necessarily symbolise taking authority over them.14 Teaching can be given in different styles, with different meanings. Thus public prophesying by women was not regarded as an improper exercise of authority of authority over men, presumably because it took place under the direct inspiration and authority of God [1 Cor 11:5; cf. Acts 2:17; 21:9]. Nor was Priscilla’s teaching of Apollos inappropriate, because she gave him private instruction in the home, and Aquila was present, sharing in the instruction [Acts 18:26] (1996, p. 80).

What are the timeless principles to be found in this passage? If Stott’s views are accepted, this passage can be used to teach the principles of male authority and female submission, but the ways in which these principles will be worked out will differ from situation to situation. 1 Timothy 2 should not be used to issue an absolute prohibition on women teaching on a Sunday, although this prohibition may indeed be appropriate for certain local contexts.15

What I like most about Stott’s analysis is that it is presented in carefully measured language and with a degree of tentativeness. While he writes with conviction, I do believe that he is taking care to proportion his degree of confidence about what the passage is saying to the degree of clarity that he finds in the text itself. Hence, Stott frames his hypothesis as a series of questions, rather than resorting to bold, absolutist statements about what the text is or isn’t saying.

Stott follows his exegesis with the remark that, ‘in the end, our decision whether women may ever teach men, or be ordained to the pastorate, or exercise other leadership roles in the church, will depend on our understanding of the nature of pastoral leadership’ (1996, p. 81). I’m certain that he is right. We’ve come as far as textual analysis alone can take us. It’s now time to open up another route of inquiry.

13 To those who would argue that the distinction between timeless principle and cultural expression has no grounding in the text, Stott argues that we routinely make this distinction when interpreting verses 8 (holiness and love are timeless and normative; hand-lifting is cultural) and 9-10 (decency and modesty and timeless and normative; hairstyles and jewellery are cultural). ‘Why then should we not anticipate that the same distinction between the ethical and the cultural is to be found in verses 11 and 12? The context …. should at least make us open to this possibility’ (1996, p. 79). 14 Moo (1991) disputes this point, arguing that ‘in 1 Timothy 2:12-18, the principle [of women being forbidden to have authority over men] cannot be separated from the form of behaviour [of teaching a mixed congregation]’ (p. 186). Moo’s analysis is accepted by Larkin (2013), who refers to Moo’s paper to respond to Stott. I think that Moo is wrong, on the basis of an argument about authority that I will come to in the second section of this paper. 15 Mike Betts (Betts & Kemm, 2013) is driving at the same point when he suggests that the expression of appropriate equality and complementarity between the sexes does not necessitate adherence to rigid principles. What we’re looking for in our churches in an ‘atmosphere’ or ‘dynamic’ in which women are encouraged to use their teaching gifts, but not in a way that is unseemly. When a local church is situated in an urban environment where militant feminism is extremely influential, the elders may feel it appropriate to restrict women from teaching in whole-church gatherings. However, if a local church is in a different kind of cultural context, the practices in the church may look quite different. 14

INQUIRY TWO: BIBLICAL TEACHING ON ELDERSHIP

My second line of inquiry is quite different from the first. Rather than beginning with the exegesis of certain disputed passages in the New Testament, this approach takes our theology of eldership as its starting point. For those of us who quickly tire of the endless debates around the correct interpretation of a handful of Greek words in the New Testament, the approach feels refreshingly different and full of promise. Our focus now shifts from the question of what Paul does or doesn’t say about women teaching men. We don’t need to talk about women at all! Now our question becomes: in view of a biblically-informed theology of eldership, is it ever appropriate for a non-elder to teach in a whole-church setting?

Where our egalitarian friends are lumpers, we complementarians are splitters. Lines have to be drawn somewhere. Our second inquiry considers whether it might be time to reframe the whole debate about what men and women can or can’t do in church life. Perhaps the proper line to be drawn is not between men and women at all, but between elders and non-elders?

We have to admit: this approach certainly feels a lot nicer. It changes the whole atmosphere of the debate. No longer are we singling out women in the congregation and giving them special attention on the basis that they have two X chromosomes, an approach that (to me, at least) can feel somewhat demeaning. We shift from the practice of proof texting to explain why women can’t teach (‘Well, this is what Paul writes to Timothy, and this is God’s Word, so that’s that’) and point people to a broader understanding of how authority functions in church life. The debate has shifted from an exegetical footing to an ecclesiological one. What a blessed relief!

I shall begin my inquiry with three convictions about leadership which are widely shared in Newfrontiers.

Three more ‘Newfrontiers assumptions’ i) God gifts both women and men to lead and teach

The New Testament contains abundant evidence that both women and men were involved in teaching and leadership ministry in the early church. Priscilla is regularly referred to in the New Testament and is nearly always named before her husband, Aquila (Acts 18:18, 26; Rom 16:3; 2 Tim 4:19), leading some to suggest that she was the more prominent of the two in Christian ministry. Paul identifies Priscilla and Aquila as outstanding ‘co-workers’ in Romans 16:3-4, and two other women, Euodia and Syntyche, are also referred to in Philippians 4:2-3 as having been members of Paul’s team. There is evidence that women were appointed as deacons in the early church (Rom 16:1-2, but see Perriman, 1998, pp. 66-67) and possibly involved in the leadership of house congregations (Priscilla and Aquila in Rom 16:4-5 & 1 Cor 16:19; Nympha in Col 4:15; Apphia in Phlm 1-2). Andronicus and Junia, who were possibly a husband and wife missionary team, are singled out for special mention in Romans 16:7 (Perriman, 1998, pp. 68-70).

There is no doubt that women prophesied in public (1 Cor 11:5; cf. Acts 2:17-18; 21:9) and that the gift of prophecy often had considerable weight in the early church (Acts 11:27-30; 13:1-2; 21:10-11; cf. 1 Cor 12:31; 14:1, 39; Eph 2:19-20). Women are also referred to in connection with the practice of teaching in 2 Timothy 1:5 and 3:14-15 and, more directly, in Titus 2:3-5.

In Newfrontiers, we are clear that there are no biblical reasons for supposing that God’s gifts of leadership and teaching are restricted to men. However, in the modern world, any church or group of churches that holds to a complementarian position is vulnerable to misunderstanding. Where there is so much high-octane debate about the question of male and female roles in church life, it is necessary for us to shout our conviction just to make ourselves heard over the din: we believe in women in leadership! 15 ii) Churches should be led by elders who are male

I have already touched on this point above. This assumption would, of course, be completely unacceptable to an egalitarian although it is generally accepted in the Newfrontiers family of churches. While it is important that we’re able to justify this assumption on biblical grounds, to do so here would be to detract from the focus of this paper. iii) There is a distinction between government and gifting

It’s often pointed out that the qualifications for eldership listed in 1 Timothy 3 and Titus 1 and 2 consist almost entirely of character qualities rather than spiritual or natural gifts. While Paul does specify that an elder should be ‘able to teach’ (1 Timothy 3:2), it is generally understood in Newfrontiers circles that a well-developed ability to teach in a whole-church setting is not a necessary qualification for eldership.16

What this means in practice is that the elders may not be the most gifted teachers in the church. Hosier explains: ‘Elders are not appointed simply because they are the most knowledgeable, engaging or compelling teachers, but because of the overall quality of their character and gift and their ability to father the congregation’ (Hosier, 2013a, p. 5).

The distinction between government and gifting matters because God gives the gift of leadership to many people, both men and women, but having this gift does not automatically qualify someone to be appointed to a governmental role in the church. Equally, if it could be shown that teaching in a whole- church setting is a governmental function and therefore properly restricted to the elders, then it would never be appropriate for a non-elder to perform that role, no matter how gifted a teacher they may be.

While the distinction between government and gifting is widely accepted in Newfrontiers circles, there is often confusion on this point. It’s not difficult to see why. Government and gifting clearly overlap at certain points (we wouldn’t wish to see people appointed to eldership if they weren’t gifted in certain respects, after all) so they are often treated as if they were two aspects of the same thing.

Leadership GOVERNMENT GIFTING APPOINTMENT EQUIPPING FOR Teaching TO AN OFFICE MINISTRY

Figure 2 – illustrating the conceptual distinctiveness, and overlap, between government and gifting in Christian ministry

Confusion about the government-gifting distinction results in people thinking: ‘God has gifted me as a leader. Why shouldn’t I be an elder?’ or even: ‘I’m a more gifted teacher than that elder, so why does he get to teach on a Sunday morning and I don’t?’17 Leadership teams, take note! It’s important that we take the effort to ensure that our church congregations are clear on the distinction between government and gifting.

16 Hence some Newfrontiers churches differentiate between ‘teaching elders’ (who are especially gifted at teaching the gathered congregation and do the lion’s share of teaching on a Sunday morning) and other members of the eldership team who may only teach very occasionally (or not at all) on a Sunday morning. 17 Ryland includes a helpful section in which he responds to the common claim from female egalitarians that ‘I’ve been called to be a position of governmental leadership.’ In response, we should ask, ‘Does Scripture teach that a feeling of being called trumps all other considerations and every other source of authority? Is calling rather to do with gifting than government? Can anyone say for themselves “God has told me that I am to be in charge!”? Doesn’t a sense of call have to be weighed and confirmed by others?’ (2011, p. 41) 16

Two positions, two sets of problems

I have stated that, if it could be shown that teaching in a whole-church setting is a governmental function, then this activity should be restricted to the elders. It is now time to examine that ‘if’ by considering whether there are strong reasons to suppose that only elders should be permitted to bring teaching to the whole church.

Position one: non-elders should not be allowed to teach

People who argue that it’s inappropriate for a non-elder to teach the whole church when it’s gathered on a Sunday typically begin by saying that there are good grounds for distinguishing between two different kinds of teaching. On the one hand, the New Testament talks about a kind of everyday teaching which happens across the church as the various members of the community instruct one another (e.g. Col 3:16, Heb 5:12, Tit 2:1). Then there is a second type of teaching which is restricted to certain members of the church and is authoritative in a special sense (see Jas 3:1, Tit 2:1). Matthew Hosier (2013a & b) refers to these different kinds of teaching as ‘small-t’ and ‘big-t’ teaching respectively. He argues that the latter is associated with the office of elder as it constitutes ‘authoritative doctrinal teaching’ which serves the express purpose of ‘guarding, governing and guiding’18 the church (p. 6).19

It does seem reasonable to say that there is a type of teaching which is particular to, and restricted to, the elders in the church. This ‘big-t’ teaching carries particular weight in a local context as it comes with governmental authority. Now the question needs to be asked: are there particular contexts in which only this kind of elder-teaching is appropriate? Is there something ‘special’ about the Sunday morning gathering?

Those who answer ‘yes’ typically make their case on two grounds. Firstly, there is the biblical argument. The early Christians apparently began the practice of gathering the whole church together on the ‘Lord’s Day’ at a relatively early stage in its history (Acts 20:7; 1 Co 16:2; Rev 1:10) and the pastoral epistles imply that it was the elders who were recognised as having a crucial role to play in teaching authoritative doctrine in these settings (Hosier, 2013a, p. 7; cf. fn 19 above).20 The second argument is a practical one. Times when the whole church gathers together are precious and few, and these provide the main opportunities for the elders to care for the flock by bringing teaching that guides, guards and governs the church. Moreover, we live in an age where there is just as much false doctrine around as there was in the first century, and the need for the church to receive ‘authoritative’ teaching is as important now as it has ever been (Hosier, 2013a, p. 7). Those who would argue that it is not necessary to restrict Sunday teaching to the church elders invite the response: why would we wish to settle for anything less than elder-led teaching in this context?

Reflections on the ‘women should not teach’ position

This kind of argument is intuitively attractive to those who hold complementarian convictions. Rather than drawing a line between men and women with respect to Sunday teaching, it draws a line between elders and non-elders. It neatly sidesteps the exegetical problems associated with 1 Timothy 2:12. In

18 This is how Matthew Hosier helpfully sums up the role of church elders, based on Acts 20:28, 1 Ti 4:16, 1 Pet 5:2 and 1 Ti 3:4-5. 19 This idea is reinforced by the pastoral epistles which connect authoritative teaching with the ministry of specific individuals in the church who have responsibility for pastoral oversight. For example: teaching is the responsibility of elders and overseers (1 Ti 3:2; 5:17; Tit 1:9); Timothy and Titus are specifically commissioned to teach in order to defend the church against false doctrine (1 Ti 4:11, 16; 6:2; 2 Ti 4:2; Tit 2:1, 7); apostolic traditions are to be entrusted to ‘faithful men’ who will continue the work of teaching (2 Ti 2:2); faithful elders who ‘labour in preaching and teaching’ are ‘worthy of double honour’ (1 Ti 5:17) (cf. Perriman, 1998, p. 81). 20 Hosier also suggests that this ties in with biblical theology, as the story of God’s people tells us that it was always the head of the household who was responsible for teaching when the people of God were gathered together (Hosier, 2013a, p. 6). 17

Hosier’s words, ‘we do not have to perform “ninja moves” to explain it away nor see it as preventing women from doing any teaching’ (Hosier 2013a, p. 6).

The argument will also appeal to those who are drawn to a restorationist way of reading and applying biblical texts. It appeals to practice in the early church and says, in effect, ‘as in the first-century church, so today.’

The argument is not without its problems, however. A first problem relates to the attempt to distinguish between the existence of two different kinds of teaching in church life. Is this a meaningful distinction? Is there clear, blue water between them? And even if we do accept a distinction between two types of teaching in church life, is there an exclusive connection between what Hosier calls ‘big-t’ teaching and the office of elder? The problem is that, even if we allow the pastoral epistles to establish a link between eldership and ‘big-t’ teaching, nowhere is it stated that this kind of teaching should be the exclusive preserve of the eldership. In other words, linking ‘big-t’ teaching with eldership does not preclude the possibility that ‘big-t’ teaching may also be delivered by non-elders, as long as this is done at the invitation of the elders and under their authority.

Let’s suppose that we are justified in (a) distinguishing between two different kinds of teaching and (b) saying that there is a particular type of teaching that only elders should bring. Are we then justified in saying that only elder-led teaching should be permitted on a Sunday? Not necessarily. The problem with arguing the point on biblical grounds is that Scripture gives us so few details about corporate gatherings in the early church.21 The point that, in a world that has strayed so far from the tenets of the Christian faith, it would be foolish for any eldership team to settle for non-elder teaching on a Sunday, may well be reasonable to accept (I will return to this point below). But let’s be clear on what we are dealing with here: this is essentially a pragmatic argument rather than an argument based on sound biblical or theological principles.

A further problem relates to the charge of inconsistency. How many Newfrontiers churches who believe in restricting Sunday preaching to members of the eldership team abide consistently by this principle? In fact, most Newfrontiers churches regularly invite people who are not members of the local eldership team to teach on a Sunday. Matthew Hosier (2013a, p. 7) and Andrew Larkin (2013, pp. 18-19) argue that this practice is entirely justified with reference to male non-elders who are ‘on the track to eldership’, maintaining that it is important to provide these individuals with opportunities to develop their teaching gifts in whole-church contexts as part of their preparation for eldership.

The main problem comes, however, when a congregation is addressed by a visiting speaker on a Sunday who neither holds governmental authority in that local context nor is on course to do so. That person may well be a member of the apostolic team who can speak with appropriate authority to the gathered church. But often the visiting speaker is simply an elder from another congregation, who possesses no more authority to speak into that church than any non-elder. We need to be clear on the fact that if we abide rigidly by the ‘women can’t teach’ position, then this discounts the possibility of a visiting elder (who is not an apostle) bringing teaching to a congregation on a Sunday.22

I recognise that it might be argued that the practice of inviting elders to address congregations other than their own represents a special case. After all, these are men who have been formally ‘set in’ by

21 Arguing the point on the grounds that Scripture points to the responsibility of the head of the household to pass on teaching to other members of the family is also problematic as the gathering of members of a household is not exactly parallel to the gathering of members of the church. I believe that the arguments from Scripture and biblical theology can only serve as supporting arguments at best: neither are sufficiently strong to function as load-bearing arguments. 22 We may try to justify the practice on the grounds that ‘Ephesians 4 ministries’ should be welcomed with open arms in a whole-church context (hinted at in Taylor, 2012). However, I am persuaded that there are no grounds for recognising Ephesians 4 ministries as having any special status (e.g. there are not ‘Ephesians 4 prophets’ and ‘non-Ephesians 4 prophets’). John Hosier has been making this point in Newfrontiers circles for a number of years. 18 their home church and apostolic team. They have a track record of teaching sound doctrine in their home congregation and can be relied upon to do the same in a congregation that is not their own. Moreover, they are known to and have the trust of the eldership team that has issued them with an invitation to address their church.

These considerations may be important, but they do not alter the crucial point: members of their receiving church are under no more obligation to submit to their authority than to the authority of any other church member. It may be argued that what is really being asked of the receiving church is that they submit to their own elders by receiving authoritative teaching from someone who has the complete trust of the local eldership team. But then this raises the question: could not a gifted non- elder also have the trust of the local eldership team to bring teaching that is timely, edifying and doctrinally sound?

It might be argued that there are numerous advantages to a local church occasionally receiving guest teachers from elsewhere. While it is true that the teaching of the visitor will be less ‘authoritative’ than the teaching of the local elders, the elders of the receiving church might be happy to bear this cost for all the benefits that an outside voice will bring. Receiving teachers from outside the congregation exposes the church to different kinds of leadership gifts and to preaching from highly gifted individuals. It expresses partnership in the gospel and helps to forge familial bonds between different churches. Sometimes a new voice and teaching style can serve to communicate an old, familiar message with fresh force. Many leaders would say that the cumulative effect of these advantages justifies the practice of inviting guests to address the gathered church. They may argue that the visiting speaker comes at the invitation of the eldership team and addresses the congregation under the authority of the local elders. But let’s be clear that exactly the same kinds of arguments could be used to justify having non-elders from the local congregation in the pulpit.23

As I shall argue below, I do not think that any of these arguments are fatal to the general thrust of position one. However, I do believe that it is weakened substantially. It is time to see how an alternative position might fare.

Position two: non-elders should be allowed to teach

In some ways, this position is more straightforward than the one above as it does not require its advocates to nail every point. For example, the distinction between two different kinds of teaching may or may not be accepted. If it is maintained that there is no difference between elder-led teaching and non-elder-led teaching, then anyone who is gifted to teach (male or female) may be invited to address the gathered church. If, on the other hand, the distinction between elder-led and non-elder-led teaching is recognised, then a church may still feel that, from time to time, it is appropriate to receive non-elder-led teaching on a Sunday.

Why might this happen? There are lots of reasons. As mentioned above, a local eldership team may wish to invite a non-elder (or an elder from a different church) to address the congregation for the purposes of building partnership or exposing their people to a different kind of leadership gift. At other times, they may wish for someone to teach the church because that person is able to communicate something more effectively than the elders themselves. Andrew Wilson (2012b) points to an analogy with marriage:

[I]t’s not inconsistent for a husband to be head of his family, but to defer to his wife on all sorts of issues where she knows more than he does. In fact, when Paul talks about the role of women at home, he uses the strong verb oikodespotein (to rule the household), which he does not see as incompatible with submitting to their husbands. By analogy, we might suggest, elders/overseers

23 We need to admit that, in general, a predominant reason for inviting a particular leader from elsewhere to address the local congregation is because that individual is a highly gifted teacher. Are we prepared to maintain the distinction between government and gifting, and to consistently abide by the principle that giftedness-to- teach, in and of itself, does not justify someone addressing the gathered congregation on a Sunday morning? 19

can define doctrine for and exercise authority over the church, but still release women to instruct the church on pretty much any topic where they are more qualified or gifted to speak. I find that argument fairly compelling.

We can imagine a whole range of reasons why elders may wish to make use of the teaching gifts of non-elders. In each case, we are acknowledging that the principle of restricting Sunday teaching to elders may well be a good rule of thumb, but it is far from being an absolute.

It’s important to understand that advocates of position two typically argue that the practice of elders inviting non-elders to address the whole church does not represent an abdication of eldership responsibility. This is because any teaching on a Sunday happens at the invitation of the elders and under their authority. In other words, the teaching is understood to be validated by the elders so that the guest speaker is ministering under the oversight of the local eldership team rather than with an authority all of their own.

Reflections on the ‘women can teach’ position

Position two is also not without its problems. Critics may challenge it on the basis that, compared to position one, it does not appear to have as ‘high’ a view of the eldership office or the importance of elders exercising their God-given authority through teaching that guides, guards and governs the church. Opening the pulpit to non-elders seems a waste of a key opportunity for members of the eldership team to speak authoritatively into the life of the church. Hosier poses the question: ‘When our people are living in a hostile world and there is so little opportunity for authoritative teaching into their lives, is it not folly to give up what little opportunity there is for something less authoritative?’ (2013a, p. 7)

Then there is the risk that the non-elder may ‘veer into elder-type teaching’ (Hosier, 2013a, p. 7). What happens if a non-elder shifts from bringing teaching that is universally applicable to bringing specific words about what God is saying to a local church in the here and now? Shouldn’t this kind of teaching come from the elders alone? We must admit that, in practice, it is very difficult for elders to guard against guest speakers moving into the territory of teaching that is particular in application to the local situation.

Finally, there is a danger of the slippery slope. It might be argued that once a church starts receiving teaching from women on a Sunday, then it makes itself vulnerable to the immense cultural pressure to compromise its stance on additional matters like male-only eldership (Hosier, 2013a, p. 8 & pers. comm., Feb 2014).

Where does this leave us? In light of the analysis of the two positions outlined above, there are essentially three different ways in which we can proceed:

i) We can argue that all Sunday teaching should be restricted to elders. In a Newfrontiers setting, this means that only men will deliver teaching in this context.

ii) We can say that, in general, only elders will teach on Sunday, but non-elders should be allowed to teach if they have the potential to become elders in that local church. Again, this restricts teaching in a whole-church context to men.

iii) We can allow non-elders to teach on the basis that they are gifted to teach. This opens the door to women as well as men.

In my experience, options (i) and (ii) are rarely (never?) adhered to consistently. But it’s also rare for option (iii) to be adhered to consistently as most Newfrontiers churches allow non-elders to preach, but only if they are male. Why should this be? I have a suspicion that there are two reasons for this. The first is cultural. As a movement that is broadly complementarian, we have grown up with a certain way of doing things which is only rarely subjected to any kind of scrutiny. A general atmosphere pervades 20 the Newfrontiers movement which predisposes us to hold back from issuing invitations to teach to women. The other reason is biblical. The spectre of 1 Timothy 2 hangs over our whole discussion like the haunting presence of Banquo’s ghost. Perhaps it’s our fear of going against this text which, more than anything else, prevents us from being completely consistent in our teaching and practice.

I will return to 1 Timothy 2 for one final time below, but first we need to give some consideration to some fundamental presuppositions which, in the final analysis, will determine where we ‘land’ on the issue of eldership and teaching.

Three questions

Anyone used to shouldering any kind of leadership responsibility in church life will know that leadership decisions aren’t made in a vacuum. We are never neutral. The way we interpret and apply biblical teaching, the style with which we lead, the language we use, the strategies we develop, the teams we build, the pastoral conversations we have – all these things are informed to a greater or lesser extent by our philosophy of ministry.

By ‘philosophy of ministry’ I mean our fundamental presuppositions about ministry which are the product of influences as varied as Scripture, our upbringing, experience, role models, personality type and context. Nature, nurture and divine providence combine in the most subtle of ways to forge a person’s philosophy of ministry. It determines a person’s system of values and the relative weighting they place on those values. It enables a leader to distinguish between something that would be great to do and something that would be merely good to do. Differing philosophies of ministry explain most of the misunderstandings, awkward conversations and relational tension which we observe in church life, where you can’t escape the feeling that well-meaning brothers and sisters in Christ are talking past one another rather than directly to one another.

I am convinced that philosophy of ministry questions, such as the ones below, will determine whether a leadership team feels justified in inviting a female non-elder to address the congregation on a Sunday.24 Addressing these three questions will help a team of elders uncover and scrutinise the fundamental presuppositions that inform the way they ‘do ministry.’ There may well be further questions that I’ve not thought of.

Question one: do we presume permission or restriction?

In his paper written for the Chertsey eldership team, Andrew Ryland (2011) follows David Devenish25 in suggesting that function should match status unless Scripture specifically restricts function. By this he means that the equality of status between the sexes finds its natural expression in men and women carrying out the same roles in church life. Women can perform all the same kinds of functions as men unless the Bible specifically says otherwise. Ryland spells out the implication:

We must have a clear mandate to restrict people from serving God. The principle that ‘function should match status unless Scripture specifically restricts function’ is therefore important because it presumes permission rather than restriction (p. 9, italics original).

This principle is listed in a section entitled ‘a summary of relevant biblical principles’. We need to be honest – this principle is not clearly ‘biblical’ and Ryland himself doesn’t offer any scriptural grounding beyond Galatians 3:28. However, I believe that he does draw our attention to an important philosophy of ministry question.

24 Matthew Hosier agrees when he writes: ‘For something as contentious as the roles of men and women it is highly likely that our conclusions will be shaped as much by our cultural perspective and “politics” as by our theology. The things we feel matter as much as the things we think’ (2013a, p. 2). 25 Paper written for Woodside Church, Bedford (1990) but not circulated widely in Newfrontiers. 21

In response to the controversy surrounding the topic of women teachers, uncertainty over how to interpret 1 Timothy 2, a cultural pressure to conform to the Newfrontiers norm and a host of other factors, some church leaders will naturally incline towards restriction. I’m conscious that, put that way, it may sound as if I’m accusing them of weak leadership, but I don’t believe that to be the case. The simple fact is that someone’s philosophy of ministry may lead them to presume restriction in this sense. The decision is made from a place of integrity and conviction.

Other leaders will tend to incline towards permission. Again, the milieu of biblical, cultural, contextual and historical factors that inform their philosophy of ministry will convince them that women should be permitted to teach in their local church setting. This may seem to some like wishy-washy leadership or a capitulation to secular culture, but it may simply be the outworking of a different kind of philosophy of ministry that provides that leader with a set of convictions that he’s learned to trust.

Which way are we to lean? Towards permission or restriction? Generosity or caution? To put the question another way, if mistakes are to be made, in which direction would we rather make them? Would we prefer to be too conservative or not conservative enough? These are the kinds of questions that cannot be answered by a ‘proof text’ or two. They relate to the deep-rooted convictions of a leader’s heart, and we should not be surprised if different leaders come to different conclusions.

As for me, I will tend to presume permission rather than restriction in relation to the question of Who Can Teach. If I pause for a moment of introspection, and subject that predisposition to analysis, I can see how my presumption of permission is a consequence of me having a high view of the grace of God, an optimistic assessment of the Christian community and the fact that, over the years, plenty of people have dared to take a chance on me. These and a myriad other factors inform my philosophy of ministry which, in turns, influences the leadership decisions that I make.

Of course, one person’s generosity is another person’s recklessness. Someone may bring the charge that proceeding with the presumption of generosity can have the effect of landing a leader such as myself on a slippery slope. As we saw above, Matthew Hosier makes this point in relation to the ‘women should not teach’ position. Hosier makes a point of placing little weight on this argument and I will not dwell on the point here. Suffice to say, the idea that permitting women to teach in a whole- church gathering risks putting a church on a slippery slope is not so much an argument against women teaching, as an argument for ensuring that the elders are clear on Who Can Teach and taking the trouble to explain their convictions clearly to the congregation.

Our first philosophy of ministry question and the government-gifting distinction

An interesting feature of this discussion about the question of whether we presume permission or restriction, is that how we answer this question will affect how we think about the government-gifting distinction.

Recall that the government-gifting distinction is the principle that government and gifting constitute two different, though overlapping, spheres. The interesting thing about this principle is that it can be interpreted in two different ways, either negatively or positively:

 Negatively: giftedness-to-teach by itself does not mean that someone should be appointed to a governmental role in the church, or allowed to perform functions that are restricted to the elders.

 Positively: giftedness-to-teach means that someone can perform certain functions that are shared by the elders, without necessarily having a governmental role in the church.

Both statements are true and consistent with one another. Yet, the particular emphasis we choose to place on this principle will influence where we end up on the question of Who Can Teach. When cast in a negative light (as in Hosier, 2013a, p. 5), the government-gifting distinction is used to justify what a 22 person can’t do. When cast in a postive light, it is used to justify what a person can do, as in Ryland (2011):

Since gifting is different to government, we can release anyone into a teaching role without feeling that questions of government are necessarily at stake (p. 9, italics original).

I believe that how a leader responds to the first philosophy of ministry question, above, will influence how he intuitively interprets the government-gifting distinction. This is why I’m with Ryland on this principle. When we are clear on the distinction between government and gifting, then we can invite a non-elder to bring teaching on a Sunday without any hint that the congregation is somehow coming under that person’s authority. Teaching from a non-elder is different from elder-led teaching in this important respect: when an elder stands in the pulpit, the church is receiving teaching from an individual who is both gifted to teach and serves the church with governmental authority; when the church receives teaching from a non-elder, it is understood that governmental authority resides elsewhere.

Question two: how does authority function in contexts where teaching is being brought to the whole church?

By now it should be obvious that the concept of authority is fundamental to the whole discussion of Who Can Teach. But how are we to understand how it relates to teaching in whole-church contexts? Is all teaching equally authoritative, or are some kinds of teaching more authoritative than others? And what makes teaching authoritative? Is it the content of the message (e.g. doctrinal versus non- doctrinal) or the office of the speaker (e.g. elder versus non-elder)?

I’ll begin by considering the suggestion that there are two different kinds of teaching in church life, one relating to church members instructing one another, the other relating to elders leading and pastoring the church. As we have seen, Matthew Hosier calls the first ‘small-t’ teaching and the latter ‘big-t’ teaching. Hosier never defines ‘big-t’ teaching beyond saying that it is ‘authoritative’, ‘doctrinal’ and serves the purpose of guarding, guiding and governing the church (2013a, p. 6). In his article on 1 Timothy 2, Andrew Wilson (2012b) toys with the idea that there might be special category of Teaching (capital ‘T’) that involves ‘defining doctrine’ for the church. The problem with these definitions is that they are extremely vague, making it difficult to identify any clear criteria that might help us distinguish between the two different kinds of teaching. In the absence of any clear biblical criteria to help us distinguish between them, we might ask whether the distinction is really a useful one.26

While it’s true that the suggested distinction between two kinds of teaching does not receive a huge amount of scriptural backing, this does not necessarily make it unreasonable to accept. Broadly speaking, there are two main ways in which we might defend a belief in different categories of teaching. On the one hand, it might be argued that different kinds of teaching can be distinguished on the basis of content. Authority is then a function of content (the ‘what’). On the other hand, it might be argued that different kinds of teaching can be distinguished on the basis of who is delivering the teaching. Authority is then a function of the office of the speaker (the ‘who’).

26 This is the point made by Stephen Harris (2012) in his response to Andrew Wilson’s article: ‘I appreciate the logic of the argument to allow women to get away with some “teaching” (small *t*) and yet prohibit them from the Teaching (big *T*), yet I really find this a hard distinction to identify in scripture and [it] seems forced at best. In my mind, all teaching is essentially doctrinal in its basis, and it should be taking place throughout every context of church life. … Picking and choosing which topic a women can teach seems to imply that you need another set of criteria to evaluate what is ‘teaching’ and what is ‘Teaching’ ... and if that’s what Paul was instructing, it would have been helpful to have had his list to go on!’

23

Is authority a function of the ‘what’ or the ‘who’?

To deal with the ‘what’ first: for many complementarians, authority is directly linked with the content of what is being taught. Hence ‘doctrinal teaching’ is often considered more authoritative than other forms of teaching such as exhortation, evangelistic preaching or teaching on practical subjects, and therefore prohibited to women (e.g. Moo, 1991, p. 181). It’s interesting to note in passing that both Hosier (2013a) and Wilson (2012b) apply the word ‘doctrinal’ to the kind of teaching that one might expect to be the exclusive preserve of the elders (although I’m not suggesting that they would necessarily agree with all the details of Moo’s argument).

Other complementarians would maintain that the content of the teaching is irrelevant to any consideration of authority. What marks teaching out as being authoritative is the office of the person who is delivering it. Authority is a function of the ‘who’ rather than ‘what.’ Andrew Ryland explains:

[W]hen we ask questions of the governmental impact of a given talk, then that does not depend on who is listening, and while authority does derive from the God behind the message of Scripture, at that moment it is the office of the speaker, if he is an elder, that makes that teaching governmental in that context. The same differentiation might be drawn when a visiting speaker comes to a church, or a preacher is speaking who is not an elder. In both those cases their ‘preaching’ is understood NOT to be governmental – i.e. it is not announcing the policy of the church (Ryland, 2011, p. 35).

I agree that there is something distinctive about elder-led teaching, and that what marks it out as having special authority is its connection with the eldership office. What marks out elder-led teaching as being especially authoritative is therefore so much its content (the ‘what’) as the fact that it is an elder who is saying it (the ‘who’). Along with Ryland, I’m happiest with the language of ‘governmental authority’ to refer to the special status of this kind of teaching.

However, I don’t think that considerations of content are irrelevant. When a non-elder stands in the pulpit, I do believe that there are certain ‘no go’ areas in terms of what is taught, or at least certain areas where a non-elder should proceed with caution. These areas of teaching belong so closely with the governmental office that it would nearly always be inappropriate for anyone other than an elder in that local setting to bring them. I don’t think it makes sense to single out ‘doctrinal teaching’ in this regard, distinguishing it from teaching that is ‘non-doctrinal, because I find it difficult to conceive of how anyone could bring a message from the Bible which is not ‘doctrinal’ in some sense. I’m thinking particularly of teaching which is directional, that is, teaching which sets the course for a church by explaining ‘this is where we’re going’. I think that a case could also be made for expanding the category of ‘elder-only’ teaching to include teaching that is concerned with embedding a particular culture in the life of the church (‘this is the way we do things around here’), but this is far from clear cut, and a local eldership team may well be happy for a non-elder to bring teaching that moves into this territory. Once again, a leader’s philosophy of ministry will determine how he responds to this issue.

In summary, what I’m saying is that the ‘who’ of teaching is ultimately determinative of how much ‘weight’ the teaching has, but the ‘what’ is not irrelevant. All teaching is authoritative insofar as it accords with the Word of God, but elder-led teaching comes with additional governmental authority which is a function of the elder’s office. If a non-elder is invited to teach, that person is free to teach on any theme, but they should steer clear of teaching that is directional for the church, and should be cautious about bringing a message that aims to shape or reshape an aspect of that fellowship’s culture.

Elder authority and non-elder teaching

All this might imply that, if a non-elder is invited to address the whole-church on a Sunday, then their teaching is less authoritative than that of the elders. If this were true, then it’s natural to ask, why would we settle for teaching that is ‘authority-lite’ when the church could be receiving teaching from its elders?

24

To answer this question, let’s consider what’s going on in three different teaching situations:

Situation one: two members of the church are meeting up for coffee and a chat. Neither holds a governmental office in the church or has been appointed to any other leadership role in the church. One of these Christians opens her Bible and teaches God’s truth into the life of her friend. Is her teaching authoritative? Yes, certainly. Assuming that the instruction is doctrinally sound, she is teaching with the authority that God has invested in his Word.

Situation two: an elder is addressing his local church on a Sunday. Is his teaching authoritative? Of course. But now his teaching is authoritative not only because he speaking with the authority of God’s Word, but because he holds a governmental office in the church.

Situation three: an elder from another congregation is addressing a congregation at the invitation of the eldership. He has been asked to speak on a particular theme, and a few days prior to delivering the talk he spoke to the leader of the local eldership team to outline the main points of his message. In what sense is his teaching authoritative? Is it authoritative in the same kind of sense as situation one or situation two? How can we decide?

I would argue that the teaching of this non-elder falls between the teaching in situations one and two. In other words, the visiting speaker is not only teaching with Word of God authority, but with a degree of authority akin to governmental authority. That governmental authority is not his own, of course; it resides with the local eldership. But the key points here are that he has been (a) invited by the eldership team and (b) they have validated his message.

It’s important for a local congregation to understand that governmental authority resides with their elders and that any guest speaker who addresses them does so at their elders’ invitation and with their blessing. That puts Sunday teaching from a non-elder in a different category to mere ‘exhortation’ or the kind of instruction that God’s people are inputting into one another’s lives on a daily basis. This teaching has more ‘clout’ than that, even if it is less authoritative than elder-led teaching.

Let me spell out an important implication of my view. It means that there is no reason why a local congregation ever needs to settle for teaching on a Sunday that is ‘unauthoritative’. It seems obvious to me from my reading of 1 Timothy 3:2 and Titus 1:9 that elders should be doing the lion’s share of the Sunday teaching, for to relinquish the pulpit to others would represent a failure on their part to discharge their responsibilities to guard, guide and govern the church. However, an eldership team may well have good reasons to invite others to address the local congregation, and even though these visiting speakers don’t hold governmental office in the life of the church, they can still speak with a significant degree of authority if their message has been validated by the elders.

This means that a congregation can receive a message from a non-elder – male or female – as if it were coming from the elders themselves. In a sense, it is coming from the elders, even though the elders themselves aren’t directly delivering the message. The important point to note is that, in receiving the teaching from a non-elder, the congregation is not submitting to the authority of that individual; it is submitting to the elders. The kind of reception that the message receives will therefore be a measure, not only of how highly the church regards the giftedness of the speaker, but of the level of trust that the church has in its eldership.

I have spent a long time on the question of authority, but there is one final philosophy of ministry question that is worth considering.

Question three: are Sunday gatherings mainly for the believer or the unbeliever?

Throughout the discussion, we’ve been taking it for granted that Sunday morning provides the main context in the week for the elders to speak authoritatively into the lives of church members. But what if Sunday gatherings aren’t primarily for the believer? What if they are primarily evangelistic in intent, 25 and the main opportunities for the discipleship of church members are being provided elsewhere? These questions have the potential to reframe our whole discussion about what elders and non-elders should and shouldn’t be bringing to the congregation on a Sunday.

A full consideration of these issues lies beyond the scope of this essay, but for anyone interested in taking this further, Keller (2001 & 2012, pp. 301-9) are good places to start.

CONCLUSION

The experience of doing this study has cemented two convictions in me, each of which pulls in a different direction. On the one hand, I’m more convinced than ever of the importance of the office of eldership for the health and vitality of the local church. A key way in which elders shepherd the church is through their teaching, and I am therefore convinced that, in any local church, it should be the elders who deliver more of the Sunday teaching than anyone else (cf. Ryland, 2011, p. 39).

On the other hand, I am equally convinced that Sunday teaching need not be restricted to the elders of the church. On occasion, elders may have good reason to invite non-elders from both inside and outside the local congregation to bring high-quality teaching that is authoritative, timely and doctrinally sound. Because I see no justification for the practice of treating women who are gifted to teach any differently to male non-elders who are gifted to teach, I don’t believe that women should be prohibited from teaching a mixed congregation.

To summarise my response to the question of whether it is appropriate for women to use and develop their teaching gifts in whole-church gatherings, my answer is ‘yes’, although in practice most of the teaching in this setting will come from men because the lion’s share of the teaching should come from the elders.

This is a complementarian perspective, but it’s a far cry from the complementarian teachings promulgated in such texts as Recovering Biblical Manhood and Womanhood (Piper & Grudem, 1991). The ‘moderate’ (e.g. Ryland, 2011) or ‘soft’ (e.g. Betts, 2013) complementarianism argued for in this paper differs from its more hardline counterparts by starting with the presumption of permission rather than restriction. Where there is less than one hundred per cent certainty in people’s minds about the appropriateness of a woman teaching a mixed-congregation, this position says that it’s better to err on the side of generosity than caution. It is committed to sending a strong message that we deeply value the contribution of women to church life and are equally committed to helping every member of the church publicly develop their God-given gifts.

My position also recognises that there will always be a range of opinions on this issue (cf. Wilson’s, 2012b, ‘flashpoint question’). As we have seen, an individual’s convictions on Who Can Teach will be a product, not only of the hard data of what’s written in God’s Word, but of a wide range of influences that work together to shape their particular philosophy of ministry. This means that, in a movement as diverse as Newfrontiers, we should not expect complete uniformity in belief and practice when it comes to the question of Who Can Teach on a Sunday. We should not even expect everyone to agree on this question in a local church (or, for that matter, in a leadership team). Enormous generosity of spirit is called for when we discuss and debate this issue. We must resist the temptation to vilify people who don’t agree with our position, or set up one particular position as the touchstone of biblical orthodoxy (cf. Ryland 2011, p. 1).

Ultimately, however, I believe that it’s incumbent on any eldership team to seek to agree on and clearly articulate their position on Who Can Teach on a Sunday. As I said in my Introduction, it is impossible for any church to be neutral on this issue, and settling for vagueness on the basis that ‘this church allows for a range of views’ does nobody any favours. Too many Newfrontiers churches are fudging the issue at present. Elders need to be prepared to grasp the nettle and teach into the subject with the courage of their convictions. This needs to be done with grace, sensitivity and humility.

26

If the main features of my argument are accepted, it means that eldership teams need to be continually aware of two equal and opposite errors, namely, being woolly on the one hand and overstating a position on the other (Betts & Kemm, 2013). This is a difficult path to navigate and the effect should be to drive us onto our knees in prayer. In fact, if a team of elders isn’t approaching this area with an element of fear and trembling, then I would suggest that it’s probably not yet ready to teach into it.

Ultimately, I believe that how we navigate this issue is more important than the conclusions that we reach. I am indebted to Mike Betts and Angela Kemm (2013) who have helped me more than anyone to appreciate this point. In his wisdom, God has not laid down the law on whether a woman can or can’t teach on a Sunday. Given the intense sensitivity of the issues surrounding gender, gifting, vocation and identity, Betts suggests that this may be a deliberate strategy on God’s part. The lack of any clear biblical command forces us on our knees before God and into dialogue with one another. It saves us from using the Bible as a kind of arsenal of proof verses with which we can hammer the opposition. It compels us to reflect on the values, convictions and ideals that are most deeply rooted in our hearts. Coming to any resolution on the question of Who Can Teach is truly ‘a journey you have to go through in your heart rather than through your head’ (Betts & Kemm, 2013). I admit, there are times when I wish that God had been clearer on gender roles in his Word. It would save me considerable trouble and inconvenience as a pastor. But when I stop and reflect on the unhappy consequences that would ensue if God had ‘nailed the issue’, I find myself being led to a profound appreciation of the wisdom that has left the issue just as it is, and that makes me glad.

What about 1 Timothy 2? As it presently stands, my discussion of this text is inconclusive. For reasons stated earlier, I can’t sweep the passage to one side on the basis that Paul is clearly prohibiting women from eldership. I also can’t accept the view that Paul’s command represents an absolute, universal prohibition on women bringing teaching when men are present. I think that Newfrontiers thinkers often put insufficient weight on the context-specific nature of Paul’s command, but I can’t prove that point and I don’t suppose that anyone ever will. It remains the niggling stone in my shoe, the point that prevents me from having the whole issue sewn up.

What I am clear on is that I’m not prepared to allow one text to trump the fundamental New Testament insistence on the equality of the sexes and the clear evidence that women led, taught and contributed to public worship in the early church. In other words, 1 Timothy 2 must take its place among the other arguments rather than have pride of place over them. This is unlikely to satisfy my critics, but I hope they will at least recognise that my ambiguity on this point is the result of wrestling with the text rather than a failure to take it seriously. While I set out at the beginning with high hopes of finding convergence between two lines of inquiry, it must be said that I haven’t quite found the perfect convergence that I was looking for. But I think I can live with that.

27

POSTSCRIPT: RECOMMENDATIONS FOR THE ELDERSHIP TEAMS OF THE COMMISSION CHURCHES IN CORNWALL

This paper represents the conclusion of a process of reflection and review in the Cornwall Commission Churches Theology Focus Group, the purpose of which is to assist me as I seek to serve our eldership teams in navigating a difficult or contentious area. Therefore, I humbly submit the following recommendations for consideration by my fellow elders in our sister churches: i) Most teaching on a Sunday comes from the church elders. The government-gifting distinction is clearly taught, so that church members are left in no doubt that what qualifies the elders to do the lion’s share of the teaching is not their well-developed teaching gifts, but the governmental office that they hold. ii) Non-elders and elders from other churches are occasionally invited to address the home congregation. When this happens, the local elders are clear on their reasons for inviting that person, and take the trouble to explain these reasons to the church. In other words, a guest speaker isn’t invited merely to fill a gap in the teaching rota. iii) Elders consider how they can help a congregation understand that guest teachers speak under the authority of the elders. What this will generally mean in practice is that the message from a guest speaker is validated by the church eldership in advance of its delivery, and the congregation is made aware of the fact. iv) This means that elders need to brief guest speakers thoroughly and ensure that they are satisfied with the content of a guest speaker’s message at a relatively early stage in its preparation. Elders need to be proactive in this and the church needs to know that this process is taking place. For their part, teachers coming from outside the receiving church need to be understanding and welcoming of the input from the local eldership team. v) Elders help the congregation understand that the issue of who can teach is a secondary matter, and that there is room for a range of opinions in the church. Where members of the eldership team disagree among themselves, this is shared with the church as it provides a valuable opportunity for the elders to model how to manage disagreement well. vi) Elders present their position on women teaching as ‘the position that is embraced by the elders and outworked in this church’ rather than ‘the position of this church’. This ensures that anyone who doesn’t share the elders’ convictions isn’t made to feel ‘there isn’t a place for me here.’ vii) Recognising that there is room for a range of opinions on the question of Who Can Teach means that elders do not make this a ‘membership issue.’ Put simply, there isn’t an issue with bringing someone into membership who earnestly and humbly disagrees with the eldership team but is prepared to submit to their authority. However, there is an issue with bringing someone into membership if they stand to be a disgruntled member and stir up dissension in the fellowship. viii) Elders do not hold back from seeking to persuade people to accept their views on male and female gender roles. Elders should be unapologetic with respect to their deeply-held convictions that have been subjected to close scrutiny in the light of God’s Word. The task of persuasion means that elders should be prepared to set out their reasons for their convictions rather than simply relying on summary statements. This should always be done with gentleness, sensitivity and humility and elders should be accountable to one another in this respect.

28

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Newfrontiers sources

Mike BETTS and Angela KEMM (2013), Roles of Men and Women Serving in the Local Church: An Attempt at a Biblical Framework for Serving the Future Mission Ahead of Us, talk delivered at the Relational Mission Prayer and Equipping Days, May 2013 http://vimeo.com/66900264 [accessed 12 Feb 2014]

John HOSIER (2005), Christ’s Radiant Church, Oxford: Monarch

Matthew HOSIER (2009-10), Elders: A Team With a Leader in Terry Virgo, Vision and Values (booklet first published in instalments in the Newfrontiers magazine), pp. 27-30 http://www.commission-together.org/media/997/Newfrontiers-Vision-Values-Booklet.pdf [accessed 20 March 2014]

Matthew HOSIER (2013a), The Role of Men and Women in the Church, Especially in Relation to the Question of Teaching, Paper presented to the group once known as the Newfrontiers Theology Forum, March 2013 (unpublished)

Matthew HOSIER (2013b), Preaching and Teaching at Gateway Church (16 May 2013) http://www.gatewaychurch.me/resources/downloads.php [accessed 12 Feb 2014]

Andrew LARKIN (2013), Women in the Church, paper commissioned by the leadership of Waterfront City Church, Plymouth (unpublished)

Andrew RYLAND (2011), Distinctions in the Release of Men and Women into God-given Service: An Exploration of a Moderate Complementarian Approach (unpublished paper prepared for the eldership team of Beacon Church, Chertsey)

Mick TAYLOR (2012), Teaching And Women, Message preached at King’s Church Catford, 4 Nov 2012 https://www.kingschurchlondon.org/resources/audiosearch.php?page=4&filter=mick taylor [accessed 31 March 2014]

Terry VIRGO (2001), No Well-Worn Paths, Eastborne: Kingsway

Terry VIRGO (2009-10), Vision and Values (booklet first published in instalments in the Newfrontiers magazine) http://www.commission-together.org/media/997/Newfrontiers-Vision-Values-Booklet.pdf [accessed 20 March 2014]

Andrew WILSON (2012a), The Presumption of Complementarianism, 25 Jan 2012 http://thinktheology.co.uk/blog/article/the-presumption-of-complementarianism [accessed 21 March 2014]

Andrew WILSON (2012b), Twelve Words, Twelve Interpretations: 1 Timothy 2:12, 1 Feb 2012 http://thinktheology.co.uk/blog/article/twelve-words-twelve-interpretations-1-timothy-212 [accessed 12 Feb 2014]

Other sources

William BARCLAY (1971), Letters to Corinthians, The Daily Study Bible, Edinburgh: St Andrew Press 29

Gordon FEE (1987), The First Epistle to the Corinthians, Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company

Stephen HARRIS (2012), comment on Wilson, A., Twelve Words, Twelve Interpretations: 1 Timothy 2:12, 1 Feb 2012 http://thinktheology.co.uk/blog/article/twelve-words-twelve-interpretations-1-timothy-212 [accessed 12 Feb 2014]

David HUME (1748), An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding, available from http://www.davidhume.org/texts/ehu.html [accessed 21 March 2014]

HUFFINGTON POST (2012), Bristol University's Christian Union To Allow Women Speakers, After Campaign, 5 Dec 2012 http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2012/12/05/bristol-universitys-chris_n_2246489.html [accessed 20 March 2014]

Emma INESON (2009), The Bible and Gender http://reform.org.uk/download-file/downloads/1-3A-Awesome-Reform-Paper-1-Tim-paper-2- Emma-Ineson.pdf [accessed 21 March 2014]

Tim KELLER (2001), Evangelistic Worship (paper for the Redeemer Church Planting Center) http://theresurgence.com/files/pdf/tim_keller_2001-06_evangelistic_worship.pdf [accessed 19 March 2014]

Timothy KELLER (2012), Center Church: Doing Balanced, Gospel-Centered Ministry in Your City (Grand Rapids: Zondervan)

Timothy and Kathy KELLER (2011), The Meaning of Marriage: Facing the Complexities of Commitment with the Wisdom of God, London: Hodder & Stoughton

Simon J. KISTEMAKER (1993), Exposition of the First Epistle to the Corinthians, New Testament Commentary, Grand Rapids: Baker Books

Joel LEWIS (2012), Bristol University's Christian Union Has Long Been Anti-Women in The Guardian, 7 Dec 2012 http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/belief/2012/dec/07/bristol-university-christian- union-anti-women [accessed 20 March 2014]

Douglas MOO (1991), What Does it Mean Not to Teach or Have Authority Over Men? In Piper, J. & Grudem, W. (eds), Recovering Biblical Manhood and Womanhood, Ch. 9, pp. 176-193

Andrew PERRIMAN (1998), Speaking of Women: Interpreting Paul, Leicester: Apollos

John PIPER & Wayne GRUDEM, eds (1991), Recovering Biblical Manhood and Womanhood: A Response to Evangelical Feminism (Wheaton: Crossway), Available online at http://cdn.desiringgod.org/pdf/books_bbmw/bbmw.pdf [accessed 20 March 2014]

David PRIOR (1993), The Message of 1 Corinthians, BST, Leicester: Inter-Varsity Press

John STOTT (1996), The Message of 1 Timothy & Titus, BST, Leicester: Inter-Varsity Press

The Council on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood (1988), The Danvers Statement in Piper, J. & Grudem W. (eds) Recovering Biblical Manhood and Womanhood: A Response to Evangelical Feminism, Wheaton: Crossway, Appendix 2, pp. 477-82