By Jim Putman
As I shared in Part 1, I am skeptical of any new view of original things. My reasons are twofold. First, when speaking about something historical in nature, eyewitnesses and their contemporaries are more likely to have it right. Second, Scripture warns that people will come seeking to change views that were once well understood.
Thomas Campbell, a Restoration Movement founder, coined the phrase, “Where the Bible speaks, we speak, and where it is silent, we are silent.” It captures the spirit of Romans 14 and resonates with me. Freedom exists where Scripture is silent, but we must not refuse to speak (or believe) where Scripture speaks on matters that have been understood from the beginning.
How Do We Evaluate New Ideas?
When someone dreams up a new way of interpreting Scripture, we must be familiar enough with the New Testament to discern and evaluate that change. We must ask such questions as, “What does Scripture say on the subject?” and “How has this been understood since the early church?”
In the Old Testament, God’s prophets pointed people back to the writings of Moses as the standard of righteousness without adding to it or taking away from it. The Jews were judged for not living out what was written in that standard. In the same way, New Testament writers pointed back to what had been written and understood from the beginning without adding to or taking away from it. All of this was for our good—the Word was given by a good God who created us and always wants the best for us.
As I stated in Part 1, two people can read Scripture differently even if they use many of the same hermeneutical tools. Personal experiences impact the choice of the tools we use. The culture we live in, the meaning of words handed down to us, and the passages we use for context impact our conclusions. Established understandings provide a basis for what we believe about Scripture, its writers, and its purpose.
The world was created with purpose and perfection, and Jesus pointed to this when answering questions about divorce. Likewise, Paul shared reasons that pointed to creation, not culture, when he gave his commands concerning women in leadership. So, when we consider a new interpretation that challenges an established idea concerning a Scripture’s meaning, we must ask several questions:
1. What new information have we received that would cause us to reexamine this?
2. What motive is behind this new idea? Is it cultural? Is it based on an experience that is causing the Scripture to be read in a different light? Is it a result of some misuse of Scripture that has caused harm? Is it because our world has changed and now views things differently because of “science” or popularity?
3. How old or new is this new idea? Can I find it in the early church (that is, among those who lived just after the apostles?)
If the challenge to the original scriptural interpretation is being advocated by people who have an unbiblical agenda, the new interpretation is not the answer; rather, Christians should live out Scripture using the long-established interpretation.
Does ‘Nonessential’ Mean Unimportant?
Barton Stone and Alexander Campbell understood that not all truths were equally important. They sought to focus on agreement to bring unity rather than being divided by secondary issues. This created such a stir that the Restoration Movement exploded, but it didn’t mean that nonsalvation issues were unimportant.
The Restoration Movement developed distinctives that sought to restore the original model found in Acts 2 and the rest of the New Testament. For example, many views of baptism existed at that time (the early 1800s), but since baptism was originally by immersion and included a public confession of faith, the movement’s leaders decided to follow that pattern. Their conviction was the early church had done things in a specific way, and that way was worth repeating. Alignment around those distinctives keeps us unified so we can attack the real enemy without fighting amongst ourselves.
Not every truth is equally important, but just because something is nonessential does not mean it is unimportant. These days I’m hearing some in the Restoration Movement saying things like, “It’s not a salvation issue so it doesn’t matter.” I disagree.
Discipleship involves much more than just sharing the gospel. While it should start with declaring the truth about our sin and that we must accept Jesus as our Savior and Lord, it must not end there. Since all authority is his, we are to teach all Jesus commanded in Scripture, through his apostles, in every sphere of our lives. Every part of our lives has been tainted by sin, and that sin has affected God’s design for marriage, the church, parenting, and leadership, just to name a few areas of concern.
God has expressed his design for restoration and re-creation in Scripture. So, when the storms of life hit us, we can stand strong because our lives are built on the solid foundation of his Word.
Is It ‘No Big Deal’ to Redefine Church Leadership in a More Culturally Accepting Way?
Can you be saved and yet not understand what it means to be a good leader? I certainly hope so because far too often I have been poor at leading. I am a work in progress, but I should continue to work toward the definition of a good leader found in God’s Word until the day I die.
But what if someone challenges what God’s Word says about good leadership by redefining it in a more culturally acceptable way? Should I say, “No big deal”? (After all, it’s not a salvation issue.) What happens if I do? As I see it, I will have allowed the world (ultimately the enemy of our souls) to redefine a biblical concept; in doing this, I will have allowed that part of my life to be less godly than it could have been.
Many have sought to improve church leadership by taking cues from business leaders rather than Scripture. This leads to businesses that call themselves churches rather than churches that use Jesus’ methods of leading his people toward his goals. Winning souls becomes more about gathering crowds than making disciples. People become employees rather than brothers and sisters and children in the faith. If I were to adopt those ideas and practices, then those I lead will undoubtedly experience something “less than” what New Testament believers experienced.
If I had accepted such unbiblical views at Real Life, where I serve, I would have been either willfully ignorant of Scripture or willfully disobedient to Scripture.
I know many Restoration Movement leaders who have allowed their ideas about church to be formed by those who are seemingly wise in the business world. How did this happen? A hallmark of the Restoration Movement is to go back to the purity of the beginning.
What About Redefining Women’s Roles?
A hot topic in churches today is men’s and women’s roles, particularly in leadership. I have heard from many in the Restoration Movement about a new way to look at this subject, and because it’s not a salvation issue, it shouldn’t matter.
A new view about women’s roles is pushed at conferences and other platforms. I should note, to those folks who are pushing the new view, it seems to matter a great deal!
Thirty-five years ago, when I started full-time ministry, I was shocked to find many Restoration Movement scholars, professors, and pastors joining with a minority of liberal churches that were creating new ways to disregard the clear historical understandings of Scripture pertaining to men’s and women’s roles in the church. Back then, it was a small percentage. Problem was, many of these scholars held prominent positions in our colleges and seminaries, where they were influencing future pastors.
These Christian church “scholars” echoed a strain of Christianity (e.g., the Disciples of Christ) that had already made that jump years earlier to mainline denominationalism. Those who had led the way pushing for female leadership in the church didn’t stop there but moved to affirming homosexuality in the church and in leadership.
Early in this process, most pastors and scholars did not agree with those espousing new ways to look at women’s roles, but they didn’t think it was that big of a deal. “It’s not a salvation issue,” they said then. But was it unimportant? Was it not an issue the enemy used as a stepping stone to create a new way of understanding and then dismissing Scripture? If it was an issue important enough to be clearly spoken about in Scripture, then it is an issue that could cause us great trouble if we get it wrong.
The early church clearly understood this teaching, so utilizing women as pastors with newfound authority and responsibility is a new phenomenon. If it wasn’t, the tension wouldn’t be there.
For nearly 2,000 years, the church has maintained a consistent view on the issue of women pastors and teachers. To be clear, women did teach women and children and they have long been an essential part of the ministry of the church. No one I know is questioning that, but in what roles and what conditions?
When it came to the gathering of all the believers for teaching and leadership authority, there is no single example where a woman led the gathered church as an elder, pastor, or teacher in early Christianity. I know of no early church example where a woman was the central teacher or even a minor one when the church gathered.
I am aware of the arguments concerning women and prophecy, and I think there are right answers given by scholars today, but they fit with what we know about history. The clear reading of Scripture directed to “the gathering of the believers” tells us they are not to do that. The early church understood it that way and the only women who sought that role or were given it were in the early Gnostic cults.
I cannot take on every objection here, but I do provide a clear principle: the best people to tell us what a passage meant are those who were there in the beginning. If a modern scholar tells me they have a new understanding of something, I am immediately skeptical. Frankly, I should be skeptical, because the Scriptures tell me that some will come as false teachers. I am told to hold to the faith—once for all entrusted—and the role of men and women are included in that.
One might argue that the original model of male-only church leadership won’t help us win people in the world we live in today. I would respond, however, that in discipleship, we become the family of God as we grow in our knowledge and application of the Scriptures. Leaders lead humbly and sacrificially—like Jesus did. Followers are submissive and humble—like Jesus was. And as we become ordered around God’s design and filled with his love, we become something altogether different in the world.
The enemy will seek to divide and infiltrate us so that we cannot win against him, but as we are transformed by the renewing of our minds and become mature, we will become the body of Christ, which functions completely differently from those who live in the world. Then the Lord adds to our number daily.
If it is true that the wisdom of the world is foolishness to God and the wisdom of God is foolishness to the world, then we must ask, “Am I looking more (or less) like what the world would see as acceptable?” If I lead like those at Microsoft, am I seeking to be approved by the world? If my view of men and women, sex, and marriage is more acceptable and understandable to the world, should I worry or not?
Is It Time for a Restart?
Recently, I have been watching many national Christian leaders fail morally. Some are falling because they have rejected God’s version of submission and authority within the structure of a church. A person’s ability to attract a crowd can be more important than their character. Another famous and influential pastor just told me that homosexuality is not sin.
The percentage of pastors in the Restoration Movement who now dismiss Scripture’s roles for men and women is growing incredibly. These shifting views seek to reshape the church . . . but for what purpose? Is it feminism, a rejection of patriarchy, a desire for inclusion, or a desire to gain status, money, or power? At what cost? Why do it? Rejecting God’s plans for worldly things may get us more of the world but it results in less of God’s blessing. How many times will we ignore God’s counsel and suffer before we learn?
Maybe it’s time for a new Restoration Movement. Most of us were handed something, but it has become something we take for granted. Maybe it’s time to remember the problem the Restoration Movement faced . . . a bunch of opinions not found in the Scriptures and not endorsed by New Testament church practice. The Restoration Movement’s founders decided to disregard those opinions and rely, instead, on the first practices of the first church.
Let’s make our stand—not to be the only Christians, but to be Christians only. Let’s define that by going back to the Scriptures as understood by the early church, for this is precisely what the founders of our movement did. Let’s not just use the name Christian, but let’s also live out its principles.
Jim Putman serves as senior pastor of Real Life Ministries in Post Falls, Idaho. He is the author or coauthor of several discipleship books, including Church Is a Team Sport, Real-Life Discipleship, and DiscipleShift.
“These shifting views seek to reshape the church . . . but for what purpose? Is it feminism, a rejection of patriarchy, a desire for inclusion, or a desire to gain status, money, or power? ” It is merely to be able to use the gifts of the Holy Spirit as given, without any human telling us it is un-Godly to do so. There are four books in the gospels, yet Jesus did not tell women where they were to stay or what Spiritual gifts were for males or females. Not once did he silence women or tell them what they could not do in his Kingdom. He told all to GO and make disciples. You make a point of tradition, but in Acts there were no traditions, just Holy Spirit led worship and service by men and women in mutuality. Women are named all through the NT as disciples, and the words “women’s roles” is never used. There were women prophets, householders, pray-ers, and fellow workers in the Lord, even a female deacon named by Paul (Romans 16) using the same word used for the males. Taking a few verses written for specific purposes and people and trying to put them on all women for all time just doesn’t add up with all of the women that God used to glorify his Name. There has to be a lot of talking in round-abouts to look away from all of the women God used in scripture to fulfill his purposes, and he never silenced them. So to be called by God into ministry, leadership, and teaching by the Spirit is not to be put into a box of human making, but to be free to use what we’ve been given in all aspects of the church, even in the Restoration Movement, to glorify God and bring more into his family. Women and men are both blessed by God in their callings as they seek to do God’s will within their ministries.
Thank you for your desire to hold up the authority of Scripture and the ideals of the Restoration Movement.
There are a few things I would like to push back on (not at all pushing back on the authority of Scripture!). First, you observe that the New Testament practice of baptism is observed through immersion and included a public profession of faith. While the evidence for immersion is quite prevalent (for example, Philip and the Ethiopian eunuch went DOWN into the water), where are the examples of a public profession? We don’t see it on the day of Pentecost, with Philip in Samaria, with the Philippian jailer, or with the Ethiopian eunuch. In fact, it seems that the act of baptism was equated with calling on the name of the Lord. In Peter’s sermon on the day of Pentecost he quotes the prophet Joel, “And it shall come to pass that everyone who calls upon the name of the Lord shall be saved” (Acts 2:21, ESV). It’s interesting then that when the people ask what they need to do, his response does not include a profession but rather the action of baptism. Also to this point, note that the third account of Paul’s conversion, “And now why do you wait? Rise and be baptized and wash away your sins, calling on his name” (Acts 22:16, ESV). I bring this up because the focus of this article is about new teachings and interpretations and practices making their way into the church while overlooking an apparent example of the same.
Along the same line, here is this quote from the article. “When it came to the gathering of all the believers for teaching and leadership authority, there is no single example where a woman led the gathered church as an elder, pastor, or teacher in early Christianity. I know of no early church example where a woman was the central teacher or even a minor one when the church gathered.” Churches of all denominations, including the churches of Christ, have accepted a model where there is a central teacher for the church. Where is the support, the examples, for a central teacher model in the New Testament Scriptures? Rather, it appears that the model for the assembly that Paul supported was of congregational contribution — “What then, brothers? When you come together, each one has a hymn, a lesson, a revelation, a tongue, or an interpretation. Let all things be done for building up” (1 Corinthians 14:26, ESV).
It’s interesting how certain statements made by Paul are applied without consideration for the cultural/historical context of the situation or the original language/word meanings while others are disregarded. Paul says, “I do not permit a woman to teach or to exercise authority over a man; rather, she is to remain quiet” (1 Timothy 2:12, ESV); and also, “For God is not a God of confusion but of peace. As in all the churches of the saints, the women should keep silent in the churches” (1 Corinthians 14:33-34, ESV). Why do some enforce women not teaching but don’t enforce women being silent (this would include responsive readings, singing, or anything really). The context of the text around the 1 Corinthians passage, the cultural or specific church situation, and the Greek work and its tense used in that passage inform us that Paul isn’t saying women should be completely silent in the assembly. For some reason. though, we do not apply the same use of contexts and language study to properly understand Paul’s direction in 1 Timothy.
Hopefully, this comment is taken in the spirit of encouraging an open mind and willingness to continue to study and grow in our understanding of Scripture. I believe it is possible for two individuals to have the same respect and view of the authority of Scripture yet reach different conclusions. This is possible because everyone does not have access to the same scholarship in both language use and cultural and historical information. Also, the reality is that our individual paradigms, influenced by the environments and culture we were raised in, absolutely impact our reading and interpretation of Scripture.
I agree with Jim. There is a push for a great falling away as we approach the end. That is not saying when the end will come. It is just acknowledging what Scripture says. Paul warned the Ephesians that false teachers would come, and there seems to be a general warning that false teaching will increase with the majority of the Ekklasia accepting it. All it takes is fudging in one area.
I know women in ministry is a hot topic right now. Unfortunately, a picture is being painted that is not accurate. Those who are for women pastors/elders and teachers/preachers act like the Ekklasia has been completely limiting women’s involvement in ministry throughout its life. This is simply not true. Women are, and have been, highly valued in ministry.
What is sad is the intentional ignoring of what the word of God says. I’m sorry if it hurts women’s feelings that Paul said that women cannot be elders/pastors or teach men within the setting of the assembled ekklasia. Should we teach Scripture in a historical context? Absolutely! However, when we use a cultural argument in this case to try and justify women pastors and preachers we are blatantly ignoring what God has revealed. The problem with the cultural argument, in this case, is that it doesn’t have a leg to stand on.
Paul wrote to Timothy in Ephesus. He was not present with Timothy in Ephesus, and he told Timothy “I do not allow (verb, active, present, indicative) a woman to teach or exercise authority over man.” The Greek is pretty clear. He does not say to Timothy, “While I was in Ephesus I did not allow…” or “In Ephesus do not allow…” He said, “I do not allow…” That is wherever Paul was, whatever assembly he was in, he did not allow women to teach or have authority. Period! This has nothing to do with the culture of Ephesus.
Second, he gives the reason. It is not a cultural reason. It is a biblical reason. “For it was Adam who was first formed, and then Eve. And it was not Adam who was deceived, but the woman being deceived, fell into trespass. ” (1 Timothy 2:13–14). There is no hint of any other reason outside of what happened during the Fall.
Just because it doesn’t fit human reason (which is often influenced by culture) doesn’t mean it’s wrong. That is what has been the real problem for a long time. It doesn’t fit human reason and therefore it must be wrong. In this article, Jim reminded readers of the fact that man’s wisdom is foolishness to God. When in doubt, just do what God says. We have to believe He knows what is best. We didn’t create ourselves. We were created by Him. He gets to make the rules.
Following Jesus means submitting to Him and trusting Him even when it doesn’t make human sense. If we get to pick and choose what to believe and what to trust then it doesn’t make any sense to submit to Him. There must be 100% submission or none at all.
I agree that we should look to what the early Church did as we navigate present circumstances, but with that principle in mind how will we approach the concept of the Trinity, the traditions of Christmas and Easter, the phenomenon of pluralistic democracy and the freedom to participate in it, and other things we take for granted?
Going back to the imitation of the early Church would imply quite a renovation of contemporary practice. But I agree that we should do it.
Commentator Victor Galaviz makes a very good point. If we are talking a true Restoration, all the way back to the book of Acts, that would also include the purging of traditions and observances that have roots from the pagan practices of Catholicism, i.e. Easter and Christmas; neither of which were practiced by the first church. Some church leaders have expressed that these two culturally popular observances alone are so deeply ingrained in our American society and religious fiber that if these were removed many congregations would immediately see half of their congregations go right out the front doors. And would possibly be the case no matter how gently and with love the need to purge is presented. Sadly, even within church bodies, tradition, at times, trumps truth.
Regarding male and female roles within the church body, The New Testament clearly explains the qualifications for elders and deacons in the church. A preacher being basically a preaching elder. The husband of one wife. A deaconess could simply be the wife of a deacon.
Kudos to Mr. Putman for having the courage to stand on the truth and pattern of God’s Word at a time when so many are abandoning God’s eternal Word for the passing approval of a post-Christian culture. I applaud his challenge to return to the clear practices of the 1st Century church and the founders of the Restoration Movement. Perhaps if we invested the energy and resources to learning how to best implement those 1st Century principles into the 21st Century church rather than looking for another “get-rich-and-get-large-quick” passing trend, we would find that God’s Word truly does contain everything that we need for life and godliness in every generation and culture. Praise God for brave voices like his.
I submit that practice is beneficial but it does not make perfect. The elementary doctrines of Christ lead to the Doctrine of the Apostles being a foundation built upon the Cornerstone of Christ. It is a personal, individual, relationship of love to Christ alone that allows Spiritual growth of Christ likeness. Methodology has a scriptural value of direction not perfection. Sin is missing the mark of allowing the plan and purpose of God for our lives replace all of our concepts of having a plan and purpose that pleases him. The word or God, the Spirit of God, and the Covenant of God’s promises of us the Church being created in the image and Likeness of God without sin is the principal for which we strive.