UNPUBLISHED BOOK: GOOD ORDER IN THE CHURCH

Leslie McFall

3. THE OFFICE OF ELDER AND ITS QUALIFICATIONS

Every family has its male head who "must manage his own family well and see that his children obey him with proper respect" (1 Tim 3:4). Paul taught that through the Holy Spirit the Lord Jesus Christ has committed the oversight of His Church (the aggregate of all the families) only to those heads of families who have managed their own house well, "If anyone does not know how to manage his own family, how can he take care of God's church?" (1 Tim 3:5). Certain men are excluded from managing the larger unit of the church on the grounds that they have not proved themselves to have the necessary skills to manage a smaller unit, namely, their own family. Since women are not permitted to be head of their own husband they can never be eligible to rule over other heads of families in the larger unit of the church. Only the head of a family is eligible to rule over the heads of other families.

The following diagram may help to illustrate God's authority structure.

[See Chart 2. Title: "Authority structure in Creation" and "Authority structure in the Church"]

No man can be the head of another man, since all men have Christ as their direct head. The Elders do not have a headship position over other heads of families, or single men. Their position is not comparable to the relation between Christ and the Father as might appear at first sight. Though Christ and the Father are equal in nature, as are men and Elders, yet God is the head of Christ whereas men and Elders are heads of wives/women. The Elders, therefore, manage Christ's household on His behalf because the office of Elder has been created by the Lord, and is a gift from Him. The Elders are to see that they exercise their authority correctly.

The Elder is to "lead" not to "rule" the Church according to 1 Timothy 3:5 where "to lead" is explained by "to take care of." The term "to lead" (proi?sthmi) occurs eight times (Rom 12:8; 1 Thess 5:12; 1 Tim 3:4, 5, 12; 5:17; Tit 3:8, 14). Romans 12:8 lists "leading" as one of the gifts of the Spirit: "And having gifts different according to the grace that was given to us, whether&emdash;

prophecy&emdash; "according to the proportion of faith;"

or ministration&emdash; "in the ministration;"

or he who is teaching&emdash; "in the teaching;"

or he who is exhorting&emdash; "in the exhortation;"

he who is sharing&emdash; "in simplicity;"

he who is leading (oJ proi?stavmeno")&emdash; "in diligence;"

he who is doing kindness&emdash; "in cheerfulness."

The other uses of "lead" convey the image of one who leads by personal example in good works (esp. Tit 3:8, 14). It suggests someone who is standing out in front of others as a pattern for them to follow. All the office bearers (Elders and Deacons) must be leaders of their own homes otherwise they are not eligible to lead their assemblies (1 Tim 3:4, 5, 12). Those who are recognised as leaders must be leaders "in word and teaching" (1 Tim 5:17) and be alert to admonish the church (1 Thess 5:12) as they would their own families (1 Tim 3:4, 12).

The male members need not accept any ruling of the Elders that is contrary to the relation that each man has toward his immediate Head&emdash;the Lord Jesus Christ. No Elder can override any man's headship with Christ. So while there may be a diagonal exercise of discipline between a man and his Elder, the vertical relation of headship with Christ is direct and not through Elders. Woman's duty of obedience to Christ is through her husband (vertical) or through her father (diagonal) if an unmarried daughter and still living with him. But the issue of covering and uncovering the head is gender-based, not headship based, and it applies only when males and females are engaged directly in "praying or prophesying." Paul leads off with a theological statement in 1 Cor 11:3 that at first glance seems like taking a sledgehammer to crack open a peanut. Its scope is so vast that it encompasses God, Christ, Man and Woman within it. Sandwiched between the headships of God and Christ is the disputed headship of Man. This is the theological issue at stake in 11:2-16. If there is no headship between men and their wives then they are equal, and so both should appear before God with an uncovered head. Paul's reply is to reaffirm the husband's God-ordained headship which points up the created differences between the genders at the root level. And these fundamental differences pervade all aspects of human life&emdash;physical and spiritual. All males, whether married or unmarried must leave their head uncovered: likewise all females, whether married or unmarried, must cover their heads when, and only when, they are engaged in spiritual activity.

Each male member is responsible to his own Head&emdash;Christ&emdash;directly and he should not accept any other headship from among men, this includes his own Teaching Elder/Leader or Minister, Pastors, Bishops, Archbishops, Popes, or Kings. Rather, every man is to look upon Christ's under-shepherds as gifted leaders to help them to order themselves under Christ and bring maximum glory to their Head.

The relation of the Elders to the men is comparable to the relation between a father and his son. The father's experience, advice, and instruction should never be lightly turned aside by the son. The son's head is not his earthly father, but Christ&emdash;and that from birth. Every man in the Church has only one Head. Every married woman in the Church has Man as her head in the Lord.

The following chart sets out the biblical teaching on the office and qualifications for leadership in Christ's Church. The following observations are worth noting. First, only the male members are eligible to take on the oversight of the church.

Second, the choice of suitable candidates is further restricted to those heads of families who have managed their own house well, and restricted further to those who, not only have managed their own house well but, "whose children believe and are not open to the charge of being wild and disobedient." Where the candidate is not a husband, or a husband who has no children, it is doubtful if he is eligible to be an Elder because he lacks the evidence that he can take care of a smaller unit&emdash;the family. However, if Paul means that should a man be married and should he have a family then he should be able to demonstrate that he is capable of taking care of the church; and if he has a family and does not demonstrate that he can lead it then this is positive evidence that he is not likely to led the church well. However, the unmarried or childless husband cannot be positively tested in this way. But should negative evidence disqualify him? Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Paul points out that "the unmarried man is anxious for the things of the Lord, how he shall please the Lord; and the married man is anxious for the things of the world, how he shall please the wife" (1 Cor 7:32-33). The unmarried man is in a better position to lead "in word and teaching" because he is less distracted (7:35). Does the Spirit give the gift of leading only to fathers? Is it a father-specific gift? Jesus was not married. Paul may not have been either. But who can doubt that they had this gift in abundance? Thus the unmarried man (or childless husband) may qualify if in other spheres he shows he has leadership qualities (in youth work, as an employer, or in a position of responsibility in the work place, etc.). If the gift of leadership is given only to fathers then it would seem like a penalty against the unmarried man (or childless husband) if they are debarred from all church offices on the grounds of their greater devotion to Christ! Such men (and childless husbands) must be "blameless" in character&emdash;morally and spiritually, as the married candidates are required to be.

Third, the stipulation that the prospective Elder must be living with only one wife (when the culture of those times countenanced two or more) has behind it the teaching that the Elder's family ought to be a model example for all other families in the church to emulate and follow.

Fourth, he must be "apt to teach" and this in the public assembly of God's people. He has to be fit spiritually in order to exhort publicly and to confute those who contradict the teaching delivered to him. Such a public ministry can only fall&emdash;by its nature&emdash;to the male members of the Christian community, and mature ones at that.

[See Chart 16. Title: "The qualifications for public office in the Church--Elders and Deacons."]

"For the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church, his body, of which he is the Saviour. Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit to their husbands in everything" (Eph 5:23-24, NIV).

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION

We have examined so far the biblical grounds for the headship relation between Man and Woman, and between wife and husband, and found that it fitted into the much broader picture of delegated authorities that pervade all of God's creation.

Every aspect of God's creation has delegated authority or hierarchies built into it. This can be seen in the animal world, the human family, the angelic orders, and the Divine Family. Every head is subject to a higher head with God head over all. It turns out, therefore, that the terms subordination, subjection, and submission are not so alien to Christian theology, or offensive to Christian ethics, as some have made them out to be. The lover of God and Christ would find these terms far too weak to express their deepest desires to throw themselves utterly and completely at their feet in utter devotion to them: "His yoke is easy and His burden is light," would be their testimony.

In the practical outworking of these terms Paul presents Christ Jesus as the supreme example of what true submission means. The Woman is called upon to follow His example. Man, as her head, is called upon to follow His Head's example of love and care for her as Christ loved the Church and gave Himself for her. Once again there is nothing offensive or unbecoming in such love and submission. The Holy Spirit makes no provision for female Elders. Scripture teaches that "the elder must be the husband of one wife" (1 Tim 3:2), never ". . . the wife of one husband." As Bruce Waltke noted: "One cannot appoint a wife as a leader of the church without upsetting this government for if a wife were an elder her husband would be subject to her authority: "Obey your leaders and submit to their authority" (Heb 13:17)."

The next section will deal the issue of the visible signs on the head to denote the different powers that God has given to men and women. Here we give a summary of that discussion in order that the reader may have a clear understanding and preview of how this topic relates to the preceding before engaging with the details themselves.

Concerning women covering their heads in the presence of God it will be shown that it is misleading to make it the sign of subjection to her husband when in fact its counterpart in the natural world is the woman's own hair&emdash;her glory. If it were the sign of her subjection to her husband then she would have to wear an artificial covering on her head from the moment she was born to the moment she died.

As woman's natural covering of hair was designed to bring her glory (doxa) and acceptance among men in the natural world, and make her acceptable/desirable to be in their presence, so her artificial covering was also designed by God to bring her authority (exousia) and acceptance among spirit beings in the spiritual world, and make her acceptable to be in their presence ("because of the angels" ).

In covering her head in the presence of God and His angels, the woman (married and unmarried) is accepting her place in His authority structures, which involves her relationship toward Man. Man in uncovering his head in the presence of God and His angels is likewise acknowledging and accepting his relationship toward God. There is no alternative to these God-ordained symbols. They provide a visible distinction between male and female worshippers.

Most commentators quickly got lost in expounding 1 Corinthians 11:2-16 because they looked among the customs of those times for an explanation for the significance of the covering. Once the "covering" (to be more precise the text reads, "having down [from the] head"; kata; kefalh'" e1xwn) was mistakenly identified with the cultural veil (kavlumma), it was given a cultural meaning. Once the false identification was set up it was just a matter of time before it was discarded because its cultural significance was judged to be incompatible with the Gospel.

Lastly, that the Head of the Church has committed the government of his Church to those who bear "the image and glory of God," that is, to gifted male members who are clearly in control of their own house, reflecting God's control of His house (Num 12:8). Both Man and God share the common distinction of beings Heads; Woman is not a head in her own right.

The Christian woman may find no difficulty in accepting this if she wants to please her Lord and Saviour who has begun to transform her former unrestrained spirit into a "gentle and quiet spirit, which is of great worth in God's sight." She may recognise that the family structure was not intended to be a democracy where the wife and children could out-vote their father and impose their will on the head of the family. She may recognise that she belongs to an hierarchical structure, and that she does have God-given authority over her children, and they are to honour their father and mother because of this God-given authority. She may recognise that the family is not only hierarchical but patriarchal. Similarly, she may recognise the same form of government in Christ's Church.

Man is still her head and Christ is still the Head of Man. There is no question of democracy where the men may out-vote the Head of the Church (for example, by allowing something which He has disallowed). They are called upon to carry out the will of their Head, not to formulate it for him. What Christ is to the Church, the husband should be to his family.

In conclusion, Elisabeth Elliot's sums up one popular anti-ordination viewpoint in "Why I Oppose the Ordination of Women":

The fruit of the Spirit which is called meekness is, I believe, the ability to see one's proper place in the scheme of things. If I as a woman have been endowed with certain gifts that may be good for the "use of edifying," let me use them within the boundaries set, recognizing that the Spirit of God does not contradict himself. Any attempt to obfuscate the lines drawn will not only impoverish the one who makes the attempt but also deprive the Body of Christ of depth, of variety, and of that maturity which is described as "the measure of the stature of the fullness of Christ."

Her assessment of the situation could not be put more starkly: "The Church must choose between the ordination and the subordination of women. Which does God command? If subordination is the command of God, ordination is excluded. It is a contradiction." The theological choice would be better stated as being between abolishing or establishing Man's headship.

END OF SECTION