Monday, April 30, 2007

Some Good Q & A on Male Leadership

Jim Hamilton has some good questions and answers on male leadership in the church posted on his blog. He deals with some major objections to the notion of a male only leadership in the church.

This issue, to me, is a little different than differing views on eschatology. I even have an easier time with those who hold differing views on spiritual gifts. As long as someone recognizes the error of the hyper-charismatic movement and the outright abuses of the “sign” gifts, and in particular, the error of the Word-Faith movement, I really don’t have a problem with the view of the possibility of the miraculous sign gifts being active in the church today. Even though I believe that they are not normative for the church today.

But the biblical evidence to support male leadership within the church is overwhelming. It is abundantly clear, and the only way someone can deny the evidence is by warping the text of Scripture to mean something that it simply does not mean.

If we just dismiss this issue as no big deal, then what else can we let slide? The same line of reasoning is utilized by the homosexual groups in their argumentation to justify the toleration of the homosexual life style. If we allow the convoluted teaching of the pro feminists to pervade the church unchallenged, what will we allow the door to swing open to accommodate? Will this allow pro homosexual groups an opportunity to use the same logic and reasoning to gain a foot hold?

The post on Hamilton’s blog mentions this in question # 10. He rightly points out that "what is at stake is the authority of Scripture to determine what Christians believe and do." This may ultimately determine our views such as whether we say that homosexuality is sinful since "many of the same arguments used for the view that women can teach men are used by those who want to legitimate 'alternate lifestyles'".

Strauch also points this out in "Biblical Eldership".

"Biblical feminists misuse the Galatians 3:28 passage by pressing the text far beyond its intended meaning and declaring the plain, literal interpretation of the headship-submission passages to be simplistic. Following the same methodology of interpretation as the biblical feminists, so-called Christian homosexuals claim the right to same-sex relationships. Because the Bible says "neither male nor female," they claim that all the specific biblical passages prohibiting homosexuality must be understood culturally and in the light of Galatians 3:28. But does Galatians 3:28 truly abolish all sexual distinctions? Can men now marry men, or women marry women? The conclusions that those who hold an egalitarian viewpoint draw from Galatians 3:28 are plainly at odds with numerous portions of Scripture."
("Biblical Eldership: An Urgent Call To Restore Biblical Church Leadership", p. 65)

I believe there is more at stake here than many may think.

No comments: