Ecclesiology: A Look at the Offices of the Church and the Role of Women

            In all institutions that the LORD set up there are roles and responsibilities that are orchestrated and structured based off of God’s perfect plan and care for His elect.  As such the topic of roles in the Church, such as the elder and deacon/deaconess, as well as the structure of these roles are import to the Church.  There is debate on both the offices and structure, but these debates are warranted as there are major concerns when God’s structure is ignored, or deemed culturally irrelevant.

            The role of the deacon/deaconess is a great responsibility and blessing.  The heart of the deacon/deaconess is a heart of service.  Those who take this role seek to serve God and His people.  They serve as a great reminder of the heart of Jesus Christ “who came not to be served, but to serve”.[1]  Therefore according to Scripture we see that the role of the deacon/deaconess is a role of service (Acts 6:1-7).

            Deacons are introduced in Acts 6 in the choosing of the seven.  Burge notes this concerning deacons in the first century: “Luke’s intimate knowledge of Paul’s church organization and his extended interest in this passage no doubt suggest that he is here introducing what was for Paul an important office”.[2]   In the New Testament only Paul discusses the requirements of the deacon/deaconess.[3] Burge notes “Romans 16:1” and “1 Timothy 3:11”and states “women served actively as deacons” [4] These Scriptures mentioned are why most Churches agree; there is a place for women in the ministry of deaconess.

            The next role in the Church is that of the elder.  Throughout Scripture the role of the elder has been demonstrated.  One occurrence in the Old Testament is when Jethro encouraged Moses to “appoint godly men to judge the people”.[5]  Dr. Wallace notes this regarding the elders in the Old Testament “They later administer local government and have a hand in national affairs even after the institution of the monarchy.”[6]

            In the New Testament we are given two qualification regarding elders by the Apostle Paul.  These qualifications are given to Timothy[7] and Titus[8].  A lot of debate surfaces on the issue of the qualifications, and one question that has to be answered is, did Paul intend women to serve as elders? Of the many debates in ecclesiology, this is probably the greatest.

            Egalitarians will stand in support of women in all roles of ministry.  Roger Nicole points out a supposed contradiction of Paul; “1 Corinthians 14:33-36: This passage has often been construed as forbidding women to speak in the public gathering of the church.  This understanding would put the passage in direct contradiction with 11:5, 13”.[9]  Nicole also notes that Christ did not appoint women to apostles for the following:

It is true that our Lord appointed only males as his apostles, but this does not necessarily represent a discrimination, since the ministry of the apostles needed to be readily received and for that purpose the attitude of some of those to whom it would be addressed needed to be considered.[10]

This brings up the argument of culture that many egalitarians argue is the reason why Paul forbade women to “teach or usurp authority over a man”.[11]  Dr. Hoggard-Creegan argues “…the Great Commission was given without distinctions of gender.”[12]  The final argument used in support of this position is Galatians 3:28 and how “there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus.”

            These are valid arguments, but complementarianism has Biblical responses to these arguments. First, 1 Corinthians 11 the context is general council and not related to the gathering of the Church.  Chapter 14 however, references the public gathering of the Church.  In relation to the culture argument: When it comes to the explanation that Paul gives he does not reference culture, but creation.  Finally, Galatians 3 has a specific focus of sanctification.  Paul is not addressing the structure of roles, but a doctrinal concern.  These are just some of the responses and reasoning in support of complementarianism.

            In conclusion, the theology of complementarianism continues to show the most Biblical support; however, this in no way discriminatory.  When one considers the responsibility of a man to “love his wife as Christ loved the Church”[13] and to “live with his wife in an understanding way”[14] God desires a man to lift up his wife, and certainly God is a savior of both men and women.  An important note that must also be made is in relation to the majority of denominations who have ordained women.  Ordination of women has led to greater doctrinal concern such as questioning the inerrancy of Scripture, and the ordination of individuals who engage in sin contrary to Scripture.  

Bibliography

Burge, Gary. "Deacon, Deaconess." In Evangelical Dictionary of Theology. 2nd ed, edited by Walter A. Elwell, 320.-21. Grand Rapids: Baker, 2001.

Hoggard-Creegan, Nicola. "Ordination of Women." In Evangelical Dictionary of Theology. 2nd ed, edited by Walter A. Elwell, 1286-89. Grand Rapids: Baker, 2001.

Nicole, Roger. "Biblical Concept of Woman." In Evangelical Dictionary of Theology. 2nd ed, edited by Walter A. Elwell, 1281-86. Grand Rapids: Baker, 2001.

Wallace, Ronald. "Elder." In Evangelical Dictionary of Theology. 2nd ed, edited by Walter A. Elwell, 369-70. Grand Rapids: Baker, 2001.

---

[1] Mark 10:45 New American Standard Bible

[2] Gary Burge, “Deacon, Deaconess,” in Evangelical Dictionary of Theology, 2nd ed., ed. Walter A. Elwell (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2001), 320.-21.

[3] 1 Timothy 3:8-13

[4] [4] Gary Burge, “Deacon, Deaconess,” in Evangelical Dictionary of Theology, 2nd ed., ed. Walter A. Elwell (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2001), 320.-21.

[5] Exodus 18:13-26

[6] Ronald Wallace, “Elder,” in Evangelical Dictionary of Theology, 2nd ed., ed. Walter A. Elwell (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2001), 369-70.

[7] 1 Timothy 3:1-7

[8] Titus 1:5-9

[9] Roger Nicole, “Biblical Concept of Woman,” in Evangelical Dictionary of Theology, 2nd ed., ed. Walter A. Elwell (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2001), 1281-86.

[10] Ibid, 1283

[11] 1 Timothy 2:11, New American Standard Bible

[12] Nicola Hoggard-Creegan, “Ordination of Women,” in Evangelical Dictionary of Theology, 2nd ed., ed. Walter A. Elwell (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2001), 1286-89.

[13] Ephesians 5:25, NASB

[14] 1 Peter 3:7, NASB

A Look at the Heart of God in Marriage and Divorce: A Look at Anthropology

In Genesis 1 and Genesis 2 Moses recorded the creation account.  In these two chapters people are given the first institution ordained by God. “This is why a man leaves his father and mother and bonds with his wife, and they become one flesh.”[1]  At the end of His sixth day of creation God instituted the sacred union between a man and woman known as marriage.  It is unfortunate that marriage has constantly been treated with disdain, even in religious circles, as marriage impacts not just society, but also represents the relationship between Christ and the Church.

It is important to understand the purpose of marriage before one begins to sort through the challenges to the theology of marriage.  Hazel Perkin said:  “Marriage is established by God for the good of mankind.”[2] Dr. Granberg and Mr. Root explain “To be made in the image of God is to be made as a social being capable of relationship.”[3] They go on to explain that marriage is the “most significant expression” of relationship.[4]  The Bible provides great teaching on the issue of marriage, although in the New Testament the focus is more on how the husband and wife should respond to each other.  In the Old Testament the children of Israel were provided requirements and limitations, although in a very limited sense.  The restrictions included whom you should marry based off of closeness of family, and in relation to those not of Israel.  Restrictions also included the issue of divorce, adultery, homosexuality, just to name a few.

There are at least two perspectives in the Church about what constitutes marriage.  Although not necessarily debated, they are very distinct views and both have some defense in Scripture.  “Some, arguing from 1 Corinthians 6:16, maintain that marriage is effected through sexual intercourse.  A person is considered in the eyes of God to be married to that member of the opposite sex with whom he or she first had sex relations.”[5] This view is not supported in society today, and not even necessarily in the Church.  There are some who might argue that this would be the correct view, however there is another view that has equal support.  Granberg and Root provide a second perspective, and one also supported by Scripture.  “Others consider marriage to be brought about as the result of a declaration of desire to be married,”[6] Even at the Old Testament Law there is a support for this view.  Exodus 22:15-16 the issue is brought up about a man seducing a virgin.  In verse 15 there seems to be the support that he is to pay the bride price and then take her as his wife, however, verse 16 puts that choice upon the father of the virgin who can chose not to let her be taken as the man’s wife, but the man who seduced her must still pay a penalty for his sin and no restriction is placed upon him, or the virgin in regards to marriage.

Unfortunately the Church is plagued by the issue of divorce just as much as society in a whole.  Of course people will point to the issue of adultery as an acceptable cause of divorce as shown in 1 Corinthians 7, Matthew 5:31-31, and Matthew 19:3-9.  Although divorce is allowed it is not commanded.  Dr. Atkinson takes a view that many believe is more in-line with the heart of God. “However, taking the divine covenant as our guide, divorce is never obligatory, even the sin of sexual unfaithfulness can be an occasion for forgiveness and reconciliation.”[7]

In general I believe that marriage is not based off of sex.  Those who hold to a different position would use 1 Corinthians 6:16 their response.  I point out that fornication is a sin equal with all sins.  I then argue that if one is going to hold to a verse that is not in the context of marriage between a man and a woman, but instead as a picture of our relationship with Christ that we need to look at the whole teaching on marriage and a man or woman is bound by a choice of who they will marry as they are bound by a choice to be united with Christ.

In the issue of remarriage I think that the Word of God does cover this issue in great detail, and that those who divorce due to sexual sins in their marriage, people who are divorced from an unbeliever, and those who are widowed are all allowed in Scripture to remarry.

Marriage and divorce are issues of great importance.  The impact of divorce in society is very evident in how people relate to each other, and to God.  People should not enter into the covenant of marriage lightly, but with a heart of obedience to the LORD Jesus Christ, because marriage is the greatest picture of God’s relationship to His people.

Bibliography

Atkinson, David. "Divorce." In Evangelical Dictionary of Theology. 2nd ed, edited by Walter A. Elwell, 345.-48. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker Academic, 2001.

Granberg, Lars, and Jerry Root. "Theology of Marriage." In Evangelical Dictionary of Theology. 2nd ed, edited by Walter A. Elwell, 743-45. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker Academic, 2001.

Perkin, Hazel. "Marriage, Marriage Customs in Bible Times." In Evangelical Dictionary of Theology. 2nd ed, edited by Walter A. Elwell, 740-43. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker Academic, 2001.

---

[1] Genesis 2:24; Holman Christian Standard Bible

[2] Hazel Perkin, “Marriage, Marriage Customs in Bible Times,” in Evangelical Dictionary of Theology, 2nd ed., ed. Walter A. Elwell (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker Academic, 2001), 740-43.

[3] Lars Granberg and Jerry Root, “Theology of Marriage,” in Evangelical Dictionary of Theology, 2nd ed., ed. Walter A. Elwell (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker Academic, 2001), 743-45.

[4] Ibid.

[5] Ibid

[6] Ibid

[7] David Atkinson, “Divorce,” in Evangelical Dictionary of Theology, 2nd ed., ed. Walter A. Elwell (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker Academic, 2001), 345.-48.

How Can a Loving God Allow Evil to Exist? A Look at Hamartiology

Hamartiology and theodicy are some of the most discussed theologies both by theists and atheists.  Theists discuss these as they derive and discuss understandings of God’s grace, mercy, justice, holiness, and other attributes and His creation; whereas, the atheists discuss these as a way of supporting their view that there cannot be a God because of the inconsistencies, which they argue, must exist because if there is an all-powerful God why is there also evil in the world.  It is important for these topics to be deliberated because the Word of God does provide answers to the study of sin as well as the doctrine of God’s justice, and as believers there is a need to “always be ready to give a defense”.[1] 

J.S. Feinberg says that “a successful theodicy resolves the problem of evil for a theological system and demonstrates that God is all-powerful, all-loving, and just despite evil’s existence.”[2]   The problem of evil is a great challenge believers face in defending their faith.  In his article on the problem of evil, Dr. Feinberg argues there are many problems with evil, there is “religious”, “philosophical/theological”, as well as the “intensity and gratuitousness of evil” just to mention a few.[3]  Evil does exist in the world, one simply turns on the news and sees the many atrocities that mankind commits, yet it is very mistaken to attribute this evil to God.  Evil exists as a result of man’s heart and mind being twisted away from the holiness of God towards his/her own thoughts and desires.

Evil is evident both in moral and natural aspects.  Dr. John Gerstner describes these two aspects of evil as “bad (moral evil) or the harmful (natural evil).”[4] An example of moral evil would be a person making the conscious choice to kill a fellow person.  Natural evil would be when there are unintended victims as a result of poor choices, for instance the person who drinks alcohol and then drives and as a result kills or injures another individual.

The philosophical problem of moral evil is a result of the choice of Adam to sin by partaking of the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.[5]  Because of Adam’s choice to violate the only provision that God had given Adam missed the mark, and brought about sin upon all mankind.[6] The philosophical problem of natural evil is in part a result of Adam’s choice to sin, and so man’s free-will cannot be dismissed in conjunction with natural evil.  Because of Adam’s sin “The ground is cursed because of you.”[7]  This is also validated in the Flood in Genesis 6 because of the evil of man God extinguished all life on earth save Noah and his family. 

 Dr. Feinberg discusses three particular theodicies, the “extreme rationalistic theological system” best demonstrated by Gottfried Leibniz, the “modified rationalistic system” seen in the Augustinian tradition, and the “soul-building theodicy” in the Irenaean tradition best represented by John Hick.[8]   

Each of the theodicies provides a consistency in dealing with the problem of evil.  This is necessary in order to provide the answer that people desire when it comes to understanding the complex aspect of an all-powerful and all-loving God while also dealing with evil in the world.  In regards to the theodicy presented in this paper, a reasonable defense is also available, but a few other things need considered.  People are finite in their understanding and will always be perplexed by an infinite God.  A look at theodicy would be incomplete without considering Job.  Ultimately Job was never provided an answer regarding his suffering.  In the last three chapters God basically informs Job that as God, He does not have to provide rhyme or reason to the finite mind, however, when one considers the outcome in Job’s life his wealth and family were doubled.  Romans 8:28 is a verse that should be carefully considered when looking at the issue of God’s justice.  Thus evil exists as a result of man and man’s choices and desires, yet even man’s evil can be used for God’s good.  When one considers the Scriptures mentioned, evil is a result of the choice of Adam to sin, thus bringing evil into what was a perfect world.

It is imperative to realize that personal experiences of evil can affect the lives of an individual and their relationship with God.  When it comes to evil occurring in a person’s life they are responsible for how they handle the pain and grief caused by evil.  Many people will chose to look at God unjustly, they will argue that they are a good person evil should not happen to them.  There are two flaws with this supposition; first is the supposition that they are a good person, “all have sinned and fall short of God’s glory”.[9]  Secondly, even if a person is saved we still live in a fallen world, and God makes it clear that “rain on the righteous and the unrighteous”.[10]  The other opportunity is for people to look at the trials and tribulations through the lens of James 1:2-4.

In conclusion, as believers we need to understand both the doctrine of sin and God’s justice.  We live in a fallen world, as a result of Adam’s sin, yet there is hope through the death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus to overcome sin.  Someday all evil will be eradicated, and those who have Christ as their savior and LORD will again be restored to the perfection God has intended.

Bibliography

Feinberg, John. "Evil, Problem of." In Evangelical Dictionary of Theolgoy. 2nd ed, edited by Walter Elwell, 413-15. Grand Rapids: Baker Academics, 2001.

Feinberg, John. "Theodicy." In Evangelical Dictionary of Theology. 2nd ed, edited by Walter Elwell, 1184-87. Grand Rapids: Baker Academics, 2001.

Gerstner, John. "Evil." In Evangelical Dictionary of Theology. 2nd ed, edited by Walter Elwell, 412-13. Grand Rapids: Baker Academics, 2001.

---

[1] 1 Peter 3:15 Holman Christian Standard Bible

[2] John Feinberg, “Theodicy,” in Evangelical Dictionary of Theology, 2nd ed., ed. Walter Elwell (Grand Rapids: Baker Academics, 2001), 1184-87.

[3] John Feinberg, “Evil, Problem of,” in Evangelical Dictionary of Theology, 2nd ed., ed. Walter Elwell (Grand Rapids: Baker Academics, 2001), 413-15.

[4] John Gerstner, “Evil,” in Evangelical Dictionary of Theology, 2nd ed., ed. Walter Elwell (Grand Rapids: Baker Academics, 2001), 412-13

[5] Genesis 3:6 Holman Christian Standard Bible

[6] Romans 5:12-21 HCSB

[7] Genesis 3:17

[8] John Feinberg, “Theodicy,” in Evangelical Dictionary of Theology, 2nd ed., ed. Walter Elwell (Grand Rapids: Baker Academics, 2001), 1184-87.

[9] Romans 3:23, HCSB

[10] Matthew 5:45, HCSB