Last week the Presbyterian Church in NSW and ACT (PCNSW) responded to a lengthy eight page overture on the office of eldership in the church, to rule, by 136 votes to 61, that:

“An elder must be a mature Christian man, who demonstrates exemplary Christ-like character as defined by the Scriptures (1 Timothy 3:1-7; Titus 1:5–9), and over 21 years of age.”

Though all this is still to be ratified by local presbyteries throughout the state, it has effectively brought to a conclusion a debate on whether women can serve as elders, that has been going on in PCNSW for at least the last ten years.[1]

Biblical Basis

The Biblical Basis for this change was capably presented in an accompanying four page, carefully researched submission: “The Case for Male-Only Eldership”. You can read the whole submission  here; but here is just one paragraph:

The Bible assigns the office of elder to godly men by explicit prescriptions. The two most important passages are the apostle Paul’s instructions regarding “elders” or “overseers” in 1 Timothy 3:1-7 and Titus 1:5-9. Paul makes three decisive points.

(1) An elder-overseer “must be … the husband of one wife” (1 Tim. 3:2; Tit. 1:6). This phrase uses the ordinary Greek terms for “man” and “woman” and could be translated “man of one woman”. The phrase is not gender inclusive or interchangeable with its opposite. Paul later applies the female equivalent to “a widow” supported by the church, who must have been “the wife of one husband” or “woman of one man” (1 Tim. 5:9). The phrase “husband of one wife” applies to men only, indicating that elder-overseers must be men.

(2) An elder-overseer “must be … able to teach” and “rule” (1 Tim. 3:2, 4-5). Since the immediate context prohibits women from “teaching” or “exercising authority” over men (1 Tim. 2:12), it follows that elder-oversees must be men.

(3) An elder-overseer must also “manage his own household well, with all dignity keeping his children submissive” (1 Tim. 3:4-5; cf. Tit. 1:6). Since Paul elsewhere specifically charges husbands and fathers with this responsibility (Eph. 5:21–33; 6:4; Col. 3:18-19, 21), he confirms that elder-overseers must be men.

It would be a mistake to think this is only about women; the vast majority of men are not called to the office of elder either. But this is not to downplay the importance of the ministry of either women, or the vast majority of men. The submission referred to above acknowledges this:

The Bible’s teaching that elders must be men also does not minimise the ministry of people who are not elders, whether they are women or men. Male-only eldership is not male-only ministry! In the Bible, “ministry” is simply “service”. This is a broad category and includes all we do to serve God, his people, and his world.

No one in the church should feel they are being overlooked, are second class members, simply because she, or he for that matter, can’t be an elder. Again:

The Bible’s teaching that elders must be men does not in any way diminish the dignity of people who are not elders, whether they are women or men. In God’s good design, men and women are fundamentally equal. We are equally created in the image of God (Gen. 1:26–28), equally fallen in sin (Rom. 3:23), equally redeemed by Christ (Gal. 3:28), and equal heirs of eternal life (1 Pet. 3:7). Alongside this fundamental equality, the Bible also teaches that men and women are different, complementary, and interdependent (e.g. Matt. 19:4; 1 Cor. 11:7–12; 1 Tim. 2:13). Men and women are not simply interchangeable, and so we need each other! Our sexed differences are part of God’s good and beautiful design. It’s true that sin sadly brings corruption and complexity to the relationships between men and women (Gen. 3:16). But God’s design for men and women working together remains good. When we recognise our fundamental equality, and rejoice in our God-given differences, we find that God’s good design brings blessing to those who embrace it.

A History

I grew up in the Presbyterian Church in Australia back in the ’50s and ’60s. Though initially, the Presbyterian Church had ordained only biblically qualified men, as both elders and ministers, by the middle of last century many elders and ministers no longer believed the Bible to be God’s inspired Word. (“You can no more inspire a book than you can inspire a cabbage” was the way one minister in the Presbytery I was part of in Sydney expressed it back then.)

Not surprisingly, in 1967 the Presbyterian Church ignored God’s Word and began ordaining women elders; then, in 1974, just three years before Church Union, the Church agreed to ordain women ministers. The Uniting Church was formed in 1977, and at length the Presbyterian Church sought to reform itself according to the Bible. In 1991 the Church returned to ordaining only men as ministers, but left the ordination of elders up to the individual states. One by one the Presbyterian Church in the various states: Queensland, Victoria, Tasmania, South Australia, and Western Australia, returned to ordaining only men as elders. The actions of the PCNSW last week now bring it into line with the rest of Australia.

And the whole Church in this country is now in line with more Biblically based Presbyterian churches throughout the world, such as: Grace Presbyterian Church of New Zealand, the Presbyterian Church of America, the Evangelical Presbyterian Church in England & Wales, the International Presbyterian Church across the UK, the European Union and South Korea.

The Response

Predictably the media response was generally negative and highlighted the grief of some women. Equally predictably the media by and large ignored the views of the many women who support male-only leadership – such as Lauren Riske; or Alison Smith.

Alison Smith identifies with other women who “believe the Bible teaches male-only eldership (1 Timothy 2-3; Titus 1)”:

“We are convinced God’s Word teaches a plurality of male-only eldership, and that this is the way God wills his church to be governed. We are here, serving in the Presbyterian church of NSW, because we are convicted this church most closely aligns with God’s word. We earnestly desire to belong to a denomination that is wholly and unapologetically obedient to God’s word.”

She has “walked alongside women who have been hurt, mistreated and abused by men in their lives, and men in church leadership. I absolutely have skin in this game. For a woman to be safe, loved and valued is of utmost importance.”

Her answer? “The antidote to women being hurt by men in leadership is not to add women to the eldership; it’s to ensure the eldership is populated with strong, godly men who are qualified according to the Scriptures to shepherd and protect their flock. God has designed his church in such a way that women can flourish. I wholly reject the spirit of this age that says male-only eldership inherently harms women; on the contrary, we must affirm that a woman’s safety is found in a church governed by God’ s Word.”

What It Means – and Doesn’t Mean

I firmly believe both men and women are equal in God’s eyes and equally valuable in the different contributions each makes in God’s church. I personally seek to encourage women who “serve” in the church as “co-workers” with me, who “strive with me” for the gospel, who teach women or children (eg. in a Children’s Talk in church), or who contribute in a Bible study, in a home or at church – all of which we observe women in the New Testament graciously doing (eg. Phoebe, Priscilla, Junia(s?), Euodia and Syntyche) without “teaching or assuming authority over a man”.

Also, to dispel the caricatures sometimes hurled at us, I affirm:

• All women are not called to submit to all men in the church, only to those called to teach and exercise authority. All men are also to submit to those called to teach and exercise authority.
• Not all men are to teach and exercise authority in the church, only those called by Christ as pastor-teachers. (Ephesians 4:11)
• Those who exercise authority are to do so in a Biblical way, as themselves under the authority of Christ and answerable to Him (1 Peter 5:1-4). The exercise of authority is NEVER an excuse to abuse, oppress or disrespect those under authority. See further here.
• Submission to authority is Biblical, though no adult should ever be required to submit without question to another adult in authority. (Acts 4:19, 5:29) See further here.
• Submission in this context is to God-ordained leaders and teachers in the church in their leadership role. It is not talking about informal occasions where, eg. a husband and wife together might be sharing their Biblical insights with another, male or female. (Acts 18:24-26)

Attempts to Ignore the Scriptures

The Scriptures contain multiple warnings against taking office when not called – see, eg. Numbers 12:2ff; Numbers 16:3ff; 2 Chronicles 26:16ff; Hebrews 5:4. But under increasing pressure from the surrounding culture there have been many attempts to bypass what the Scriptures teach on this matter.

1) Early in the piece, in the PCNSW, while it was accepted that the Bible taught male-only eldership, it was argued that the office of “elder” in the Presbyterian Church was something different from the Biblical office and so women could “occupy the office without violating the church’s confessional commitments.”

2) Another ploy introduced into the debate, that for a time threw a spanner in the works, was when a letter was received threatening the church with state legislation under the Work, Health and Safety Act since such a change would cause psychosocial harm. See here.

3) A third argument is that the prohibition of 1 Timothy 2:12 applied only at the time and in the local situation. It is argued that it does not apply today because:

“(1) the reason for Paul’s command was that women were teaching false doctrine in Ephesus; or (2) Paul said this because women in that culture were not educated enough to teach; or (3) this was a temporary command for that culture only.”

“But Paul’s appeal to the creation of Adam and Eve argues against those explanations. In addition, the only false teachers named in connection with Ephesus are men (1:19–20; 2 Tim. 2:17–18; cf. Acts 20:30), and no historical evidence exists of women teaching false doctrine in first-century Ephesus. Moreover, ancient inscriptions and literature speak of a number of well-educated women in that area of Asia Minor at that time (cf. also Luke 8:1–3; 10:38–41; John 11:21–27; Acts 18:2–3, 11, 18–19, 26; 2 Tim. 4:19).” (ESV Study Bible)

4) William J. Webb, in his book, “Slaves, Women & Homosexuals” accepts that 1 Timothy 2:12-13 does in fact teach exactly what it says. But he explains it away by asserting there is a trajectory in Scripture that points to something different. So, we must not only look at what Scripture is saying, but where it is implying truth will end up in the future. I have dealt with this more fully here.

5) Then there are those who pit the Spirit of God against the Word of God. Ignoring the Word of God, Murry Evans asks, “whether Christians truly believe the Holy Spirit still moves freely through people regardless of gender, or whether institutions reserve the right to override what God may already be doing.” By appealing to his version of the Spirit in this way he overrides the Word of God and asserts: “No denominational vote can erase what the Holy Spirit is already doing.” Like Zedekiah of old, who rejected the word of God in the mouth of the prophet of God, with the words: “Which way did the spirit from the Lord go from me to speak to you?” (2 Chronicles 18:23)

6) Finally there are those who simply come right out and say the Bible is wrong. This is the path that Fuller Theological Seminary trod, as formulated by Paul K. Jewett, professor of systematic theology there for 36 years until his death in 1991. In 1975 he wrote “Man as Male and Female” in which he claims the apostle Paul was mistaken to “base his argument exclusively on the second creation narrative”, which he sees “as religious ‘myth’ or ‘saga’”, and which he claims is “palpably inconsistent with the first creation narrative.”  For Jewett, the problem is that “all of the Pauline texts supporting female subordination, both those that are directly from the apostle’s pen and those that are indirectly so, appeal to the second creation narrative, Genesis 2:18-23, never to the first.” This is not saying it is a matter of different ways to interpret Paul. He is saying Paul himself was wrong because he based his theology on Genesis 2 which is wrong.

[1] The ruling included a grandfather clause that allows currently serving “female elders to continue to hold the office of elder.”