	AllExperts > Churches Of Christ
	Search

About John Fields
Expertise
I can intelligently and respectfully discuss MOST thoughtful questions pertaining to doctrinal issues within the Churches of Christ. I feel myself to be especially adept when answering questions regarding the Gospel of Christ and baptism. I always strive to be humble, realizing that there are some issues that are respectfully and honorably debatable. I realize that the Bible is perfect and able to provide any truth that the seeker of truth is after. At the same time I realize that though I am very conscientious about pointing people in the right direction, I am still a fallible human being and certainly capable of making mistakes. I will always give my opinion AS my opinion and strive not to state as fact something which cannot be supported by good logic or a good thorough study through the scriptures.

Experience
I am a minister within the Churches of Christ. I have been preaching for 14 years and have been on five separate mission trips to the Volta Region of Ghana, West Africa. I have preached the Gospel to literally thousands of people and it is my passion to do so.

Education/Credentials
I graduated with honors from Atkins High School in Atkins, AR in 1984. I went on to get my Bible degree at Harding University in Searcy, AR where I graduated Cum Laude.

You are here: Experts > Religion/Spirituality > Christianity - Restorationism > Churches Of Christ > Women in Authority

Churches Of Christ - Women in Authority

Expert: John Fields - 11/4/2009

Question
QUESTION: Recently, my husband who is Catholic,which is to say that his mode of baptism was accomplished through pouring was told that he could not be an active member of my church. I am a member of the Church of Christ and was baptized at the age of 10. My husband has been attending the Church of Christ for the past fifteen years. He had been asked to do a closing prayer during a worship service which he did but was told that he was in error due to his mode of baptism. The Church of Christ baptizes by immersion only therefore he was not considered a member thus he had no right to serve during worship. If the Lord knows our heart at the time of baptism is it correct to say that a person's baptism is invalid simply because their mode of baptism is different than what the bible has to say about baptism or doctrine? Who has the authority to make that call other than the Lord himself?

ANSWER: Debra, I'm sorry to hear that your husband was placed in that embarrassing position. He was not wrong to pray, it was inappropriate for them to have asked him to pray when it could put him in such an awkward position.

The prevention of someone from participating in worship activities is not just an issue within churches of Christ. For instance, my understanding is that if I wished to receive communion within the Catholic church I would be refused because I'm not Catholic. Their reasoning is similar to ours, that only known kingdom followers are participants in kingdom activities.

I will expand further by zooming in on your last sentence. "Who has the authority to make that call other than the Lord himself?" You are EXACTLY right. Only the Lord has the authority. His is the ONLY authority for what we can and cannot do within HIS church. When the Lord speaks, we listen closely. If we are repeating what He has taught it's still Him doing the teaching.

Jesus said "Why do you call me Lord and do not do what I say?" (Luke 6:46) This shows us that since He is Lord we are obligated to do what He says. If we do not do what He says, we have no right to call Him Lord. Jesus knows the hearts of His sheep because His sheep hear His voice and follow Him. (John 10:27) He also says that if we substitute men's teachings for His own we are worshiping Him in vain? (Mark 7:7) So if we do something different than what He has said He knows our heart is not where it needs to be. That does not have to be a guess on our part. If a person has not done what is clearly shown in scripture, we know how Jesus feels about it.

So what has Jesus commanded us and what have we been shown? Debra, think back to your own baptism. He commanded that you be baptized in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. (Matthew 28:19) He showed that baptism was a complete immersion. In John 3:23 it say that John was baptizing in Aenon near Salim because there was MUCH water there. What takes MUCH water a burial with water or a sprinkling of it? A burial. Concerning burials, Colossians 2:12 says that we are buried with Jesus in baptism. So baptism is a burial. But it is not just ANY burial. We are buried WITH HIM in baptism. Jesus died, was buried in a tomb, and was resurrected. We too must experience this with Jesus. In Romans 6:3-6 it shows that we are baptized into Jesus. His death, burial and resurrection become ours as well. Baptism is a reenactment of and joining to the events of the cross.

I've heard some say that pouring or sprinkling is a symbol of baptism. This is likely well intentioned but VERY ill advised. Baptism is not a symbol of burial. It is an actual temporary burial. Just as Jesus was shortly in the tomb, so we too are very shortly in ours at our baptism. Just as men at sea who die and are dropped into the water are said to be buried we are too in baptism. Jesus commanded the ACT of baptism not a symbol for the act. If we know what baptism was back then (and we do) we know what it is today. In Ephesians 4:4-6 it says that there is one baptism. It stands to reason that whatever baptism was back then it would be the same today since there is only one baptism. Since Jesus' authority is supreme and cannot be changed and since baptism was commanded by Him and demonstrated to be a burial and immersion we must bear fruit in teaching that and in following the command.

Finally, in baptism being commanded we meet another problem with many groups which practice sprinkling and pouring. They more often than not sprinkle and pour on their infants. This does not work scripturally. First a baby cannot obey a command since they cannot comprehend it. We are told to repent (of sin) and be baptized for remission of our sins. A baby cannot obey that command and secondly, as well, babies have no sins to remit or repent of anyway. Ezekiel 18:20 says that the son SHALL NOT bear the punishment for the father's sin. This means that the doctrine of original sin, which says that the child inherits the guilt of the fathers, cannot be correct without canceling out the scripture.

I hope this helps. If you have any further questions I would be happy to help further if I can. God bless you and your husband in your spiritual walk.

To Follow up Debra:
Thanks for the kind words. Prayer is the BEST thing you can do. I will put you in my daily prayers as well. It is great that he sees that he needed to be baptized at an older age so as to understand that one is a sinner who needs to repent by coming to God through His Son. That seems to be an acknowledgment that he agrees that a baptism of a baby is a false baptism, in other words, no baptism at all. But here are two additional points to ponder if I may. First, if he believes that infant baptism is illegitimate, considering that he is in a very small minority who is NOT baptized as an infant, what is the implication? Wouldn't that mean that since the Catholic church is chiefly comprised of those who have received sprinkling as infants that the majority of that church is still unwashed by Jesus blood? Would one want to remain a part of that?

Secondly, the fact that babies have no sin and cannot obey the sacrament is only one part of the difficulty. There are other ways for baptism to be performed which can make it illegitimate. Sprinkling is NOT the baptism that was practiced in the Bible. If your husband was immersed at 12 years old he is a Christian, regardless of where it happened or who performed it. If he was sprinkled, he received a baptism that is unproven and has no precedent in the scriptures. I am writing a book on this very thing and have done an extreme amount of research on this.

I have my contact info available. Please contact me if you'd like indisputable biblical proof that what I am sharing is so. This proof involves the Old Testament.

I know I may seem intense about this. It is not because I feel the need to be proven right only that there is so much on the line. It is so much better traveling through life with an exclamation point rather than a question mark. If he disagrees that's his prerogative, but I always try to be gentle, kind and respectful. I hope you'll write me. God bless you both.

---------- FOLLOW-UP ----------

QUESTION: One other question that comes to mind is women's roles in the church and what your feelings are about it. Currently, we have some women in our church serving in such roles as call to worship, passing communion, reading communion thoughts in the pulpit and announcements. I have been reading 1Corinthians 14:34-35 and 1Timothy 2:11-12 but there seems to be a lot of contraversy over these two passages and what they really mean in the greek language and exegetical study. I've been taught that if the bible says it (not depending on who says it or what time period it was, etc.) that we ought to do it. If you have some thoughts about this I would appreciate hearing from.

Thank you and God Bless You,
Debra

Answer
This is a good question and one I have personally struggled with. It is an especially difficult subject in light of our cultural upbringing.

Our country's women as a whole are accustomed to equality in every imaginable way. Women here have had unprecedented authority and the blessings of leadership in positions like politics, business, education and across the broad spectrum. What is dangerous is when ANY of us approach God's Word with this same rights based mentality. God's Word is about God's rights and our obligation to follow Him no matter where that takes us or what it costs. Nowhere is the desire to firmly follow the scriptures more costly or difficult than the area properly understanding and applying the teaching concerning women's roles in the body of Christ.

The scriptures you brought up are especially useful here. It says in 1 Corinthians 14:34-38 (34) The women are to keep silent in the churches; for they are not permitted to speak, but are to subject themselves, just as the Law also says. 35 If they desire to learn anything, let them ask their own husbands at home; for it is improper for a woman to speak in church. 36 Was it from you that the word of God first went forth? Or has it come to you only? 37 If anyone thinks he is a prophet or spiritual, let him recognize that the things which I write to you are the Lord's commandment. 38 But if anyone does not recognize this, he is not recognized.

There is a clear (and HIGHLY unpopular) teaching here. Women may not speak out in the assembly. While I have seen many different applications of what people claim need to be enforced here, the one that most comes to mind for me is preaching. Whatever else women may be allowed in scripture it seems a big stretch that a woman ends up in the pulpit and claims biblical authority to do so. Many have thought that the Greek for the word women here is speaking only of married women. Yet, considering how much trouble Paul took to spell out the different womens' roles in 1 Timothy I somehow doubt that it would be left up to whether or not we can properly parse the Greek here.

Some people think that Paul is just condemning the actions of some Christian women who had come out of paganism and had kept some their bad practices. Supposedly they were being insubordinate and were causing disorderly things to happen in the worship. This line of reasoning states that Paul was only addressing 1 Corinthians 14:34-38 to the women in Corinth. In other words they believe Paul was addressing a specific problem in one locale and that it did not include other congregations nor was it intended to be a universal law for all women of all times.

But Paul DOES seem to be doing EXACTLY that. Paul says, "as the Law also says", which ties the situation to the way it had been done under Moses. So it had not been tied to just this one event. In other words he was saying that practice should be done at that present time just as it has always been done under the Law. Also he says that the women are to be silent in the CHURCHES. The problem Paul addressed was with the CHURCH (singular) in Corinth. Yet he said the women were to be silent in the CHURCHES (plural). This seems to indicate that the law Paul was enforcing and appealing to was church-wide not just applicable to this one situation. The abuse was an occasion for the law on this to be made known.

Another layer is added with the scripture you presented, to which I'll add a couple of verses. 1 Timothy 2:11-14 (11) A woman must quietly receive instruction with entire submissiveness. 12 But I do not allow a woman to teach or exercise authority over a man, but to remain quiet. 13 For it was Adam who was first created, and then Eve. 14 And it was not Adam who was deceived, but the woman being deceived, fell into transgression.

Paul was teaching Timothy to be an effective minister. The advice he was receiving was applicable to wherever he found himself preaching. This blows some holes in the limited locale theory. Also, here he tied the women being under authority not to prevailing cultural norms, nor even to the Law of Moses. Here he said that the woman was to be under authority because of Eve in the Garden. Adam and Eve had NOTHING in common with the culture of Paul's time. So what was Paul tying it to that had anything to do with Eve? If you look at the curse's that fell on the woman after the disobedience in the garden it said in Genesis 3:16 To the woman He said, "I will greatly multiply Your pain in childbirth, In pain you will bring forth children; Yet your desire will be for your husband, And he will rule over you." Pain in child-birth is until the end of time. There is nothing to indicate that any of these curses were to bee seen any differently. They would ALL be until the end of time. So part of the curse was that the woman was to be ruled over. It was during this time that death entered the picture as well. I assume that the curse over the woman will last as long as death. It will be over when we go to Heaven.

Now some other things to consider. In Romans 16:1 it speaks of Phoebe who was a servant (deaconess) of the church in Cenchrea. This scripture is debated as to whether this was intended to communicate the official office or not. Personally, I don't know whether the office of Deacon should essentially be thought of as a leadership role anyway. A deacon was a servant. A servant is not a leader but is lead, subordinate and not head. I would not be surprised to find out that this is an allowable exercise for women (although it is seldom if EVER done).

There is the case of Priscilla and Aquila. In Acts 18:26 they BOTH took Apollos aside and taught him the word of God more accurately. This was clearly a woman at the very least CO-teaching a man. So I do not think that there is a prohibition against men being taught by women, only one against women teaching over and overruling a man.

How far one goes in the application of this I do not know. I have to admit that though I am personally uncomfortable with women getting up at the Lord's table I really don't know that it is wrong. Prayers or readings are on the edge since they smack of leadership.

Other than that though I have to relate a story that really resonated with me. A secretary for a church of Christ was called by a person who was "checking them out" who was from an obviously conservative disposition. After asking them a number of doctrinal questions he asked, "And do your women serve at the Lord's Table?" The woman replied, "No sir, but it is the only table we women don't serve at." I have to admit that made me laugh as well as think. Is SERVING at the Lord's Table LEADING? If we find the appropriate answer to that question we know whether it is allowed or not.

Would I let women have unfettered access to teaching and preaching and would that be my preference? Absolutely I would. But GOD DID NOT ASK me (or Paul) what our thoughts were on the matter. I think Paul gets a raw deal. He gets blamed for being cold and chauvinistic when he was not making law but rather laying it down as God desired for God's own reasons. You have to be strong to stand up and tell this truth because it is VERY unpopular, running COMPLETELY counter to the spirit of our times.

Finally, when in doubt, any of us, should submit. The body of Christ is not the pace to strut our rights, it is a place to subordinate them for the benefit of others and God. When any of our family falls because we lift ourselves up we are all brought low.

Add to this Answer Ask a Question