Is Complementarianism a Test of Fellowship?

[TadQueasy]

One of the issues in todays theological world that is very concerning to me is those who seem to make complementarianism a test of fellowship, and want to pigeon hole anyone who holds to an egalitarian position as a liberal.

 

[Herald]

As a test of fellowship? The answer depends on the depth of fellowship. Let's say that we're friends and your egalitarian worldview effects how we look at the Christian life. In that case there would be a certain degree of disconnect between us. We may be able to function quite well together socially but not necessarily in ministry.

 

[TCGreek]

One of the issues in todays theological world that is very concerning to me is those who seem to make complementarianism a test of fellowship, and want to pigeon hole anyone who holds to an egalitarian position as a liberal.

It some circles it's a test of fellowship indeed?

 

[Tom Butler]

It some circles it's a test of fellowship indeed?

It would be for me, and I pretty sure it would be for my church.

 

[TadQueasy]

It would be for me, and I pretty sure it would be for my church.

Why would it be though? It has nothing to do with salvation.

 

[TCGreek]

It would be for me, and I pretty sure it would be for my church.

I do not see it as such, but I do respect your position on the matter.

 

[preachinjesus]

It some circles it's a test of fellowship indeed(.)

I agree, I know plenty of folks who make it such. Of course, I also know plenty of egalitarians who make their position a test for fellowship as well. It cuts both ways.

So how do I handle it? Well, I'm glad you asked. We are complimentarian in teaching and leadership at the church where I serve. Some would consider us weak complimentarians for a number of reasons, but we believe pastoral leadership is exclusive to male headship. Our deacons, who are not funcitonal leaders but servant leaders (i.e. they don't vote as a body) are all male. Our ordained pastoral staff is all male. However we have a number of director level personnel who are female and have a voice in the direction of the church.

We are happy to partner with egaliatarian churches in the area for the advancement of the Gospel.

 

[mandym]

Neither myself nor my church would allow anyone in leadership who held to this position. Neither would we cooperate in any way with a church that did. The reason is that the church has no legitimate pastor and is presenting a false pastor. I will not cooperate with an illegitimate pastor. To do so mocks God's clear command for leadership in the church. The scripture is clear on this issue. There is no room for debate.

 

[TCGreek]

I agree, I know plenty of folks who make it such. Of course, I also know plenty of egalitarians who make their position a test for fellowship as well. It cuts both ways.

So how do I handle it? Well, I'm glad you asked. We are complimentarian in teaching and leadership at the church where I serve. Some would consider us weak complimentarians for a number of reasons, but we believe pastoral leadership is exclusive to male headship. Our deacons, who are not funcitonal leaders but servant leaders (i.e. they don't vote as a body) are all male. Our ordained pastoral staff is all male. However we have a number of director level personnel who are female and have a voice in the direction of the church.

We are happy to partner with egaliatarian churches in the area for the advancement of the Gospel.

Ah, nice, though I will respectfully disagree with some of your applications.

 

[preachinjesus]

Ah, nice, though I will respectfully disagree with some of your applications.

Now, now...we all know you just can't leave it at that! :thumbs:

 

[agedman]

Why would it be though? It has nothing to do with salvation.

Not all determination of fellowship or not is shackled to the view of salvation.

If a church is faithful to what it has determined as their statement of faith and their constitution, it is a violation of some point in those documents that would determine association and fellowship separation.

 

[Herald]

Why would it be though? It has nothing to do with salvation.

Some, like myself, look to the Scriptures for instruction on ecclesiology, polity, ministerial qualifications, and worship. These are issues worth dividing over because they reflect God's nature.

 

[TCGreek]

Now, now...we all know you just can't leave it at that! :thumbs:

Well, well... I also consider myself a complementarian, but a soft one. I'm swayed by the team of Aquila and Priscilla, the women who worked alongside Paul (Phil 4), Romans 16 Phoebe, and the women who prayed and prophesied in the gathered worship of the church (1 Cor. 11:5).

I too see elders as men of wisdom and the like, growing out of the OT custom and so on. But like Mark Dever of Capitol Hill Baptist, I see women serving as deacons (Rom. 16:1ff).

 

[Jerome]

CHBC's pastoral staff currently includes a woman; for many years the church welcomed evangelist Amy Stockton to its pulpit for a week of preaching, and the church has always been doctrinally conservative, per its website.

 

[AresMan]

Well, well... I also consider myself a complementarian, but a soft one. I'm swayed by the team of Aquila and Priscilla, the women who worked alongside Paul (Phil 4), Romans 16 Phoebe, and the women who prayed and prophesied in the gathered worship of the church (1 Cor. 11:5).

I too see elders as men of wisdom and the like, growing out of the OT custom and so on. But like Mark Dever of Capitol Hill Baptist, I see women serving as deacons (Rom. 16:1ff).

I agree with this because I also believe that the position of deacon in the early church was not membership in a leadership board like in many Baptist churches today. A deacon was a "servant" who "waited on tables." A deacon was not an "elder" who exercised power over the congregation. There are two positions in the church: (1)elder/bishop/overseer/pastor/shepherd and (2)deacon/servant. Only elders led churches. The deacons served.

However, deacons exercised power from the Holy Spirit. Some, like Stephen, preached in the streets. They were still not "pastors" of their church.

A deacon, obviously, could not be a novice because he or she would need to be familiar with the church to perform duties. A woman secretary could be considered a deacon. A janitor could be considered a deacon. Each person involved in making sure the church runs smoothly should also have knowledge in the faith and be able to share it. They are part of the identity and face of the church.

 

[Herald]

Well, the great thing about a Baptist church is that it can do what it wants. The bad thing about a Baptist church is that it can do what it wants. This debate, like so many others, has pockets of support and dissent.

 

[agedman]

Well, well... I also consider myself a complementarian, but a soft one. I'm swayed by the team of Aquila and Priscilla, the women who worked alongside Paul (Phil 4), Romans 16 Phoebe, and the women who prayed and prophesied in the gathered worship of the church (1 Cor. 11:5).

I too see elders as men of wisdom and the like, growing out of the OT custom and so on. But like Mark Dever of Capitol Hill Baptist, I see women serving as deacons (Rom. 16:1ff).

One assuming that custom and OT practice that is verified in the NT (as is the place of men and women in the spiritual leading of the assembly) is an option and no longer authoritative to the modern church is at best misguided and at worse heretical.

Each of the folks in the above post were not pastors of the church.

Certainly, they were important and along with many others some suffered for their belief.

I think if the 1 Corinthians 11 passage is to be any guide, one must not neglect:

"7 A man ought not to cover his head, since he is the image and glory of God; but woman is the glory of man. 8 For man did not come from woman, but woman from man; 9 neither was man created for woman, but woman for man. 10 It is for this reason that a woman ought to have authority over her own[c] head, because of the angels. 11 Nevertheless, in the Lord woman is not independent of man, nor is man independent of woman. 12 For as woman came from man, so also man is born of woman. But everything comes from God." ​

The principle of "in the Lord" equality is mentioned in the latter half; this does not promote any authority of a woman assuming a leadership role as a pastor of the church.

In the first half of the text, it is clear the flow of authority is through man to woman. To ignore that part in placing the latter half as superior is not correct.

There is a huge Scriptural difference between pastors and that of deacons or any other gift/appointment.

Baptists generally consider the pastor the elder; in that position, Scriptures teach that it must be filled by a male only. As such, there is never a time a woman is to teach and/or lead adult men in worship. This does NOT preclude the woman from teaching in other than worship times - seminary classes, seminars, ... anyplace/time which is not worship and the assembly is gathered as a worship body to conduct assembly matters - for instance a business meeting; at those times, the women are to be silent and inquire from their own husbands at home.

 

[Iconoclast]

Well, the great thing about a Baptist church is that it can do what it wants. The bad thing about a Baptist church is that it can do what it wants. This debate, like so many others, has pockets of support and dissent.

It would seem wise to stay as far away from sin as possible, not see how close we can get to it and still believe we are okay.:thumbs:

 

[TCGreek]

One assuming that custom and OT practice that is verified in the NT (as is the place of men and women in the spiritual leading of the assembly) is an option and no longer authoritative to the modern church is at best misguided and at worse heretical.

Each of the folks in the above post were not pastors of the church.

Certainly, they were important and along with many others some suffered for their belief.

I think if the 1 Corinthians 11 passage is to be any guide, one must not neglect:

"7 A man ought not to cover his head, since he is the image and glory of God; but woman is the glory of man. 8 For man did not come from woman, but woman from man; 9 neither was man created for woman, but woman for man. 10 It is for this reason that a woman ought to have authority over her own[c] head, because of the angels. 11 Nevertheless, in the Lord woman is not independent of man, nor is man independent of woman. 12 For as woman came from man, so also man is born of woman. But everything comes from God." ​

The principle of "in the Lord" equality is mentioned in the latter half; this does not promote any authority of a woman assuming a leadership role as a pastor of the church.

In the first half of the text, it is clear the flow of authority is through man to woman. To ignore that part in placing the latter half as superior is not correct.

There is a huge Scriptural difference between pastors and that of deacons or any other gift/appointment.

Baptists generally consider the pastor the elder; in that position, Scriptures teach that it must be filled by a male only. As such, there is never a time a woman is to teach and/or lead adult men in worship. This does NOT preclude the woman from teaching in other than worship times - seminary classes, seminars, ... anyplace/time which is not worship and the assembly is gathered as a worship body to conduct assembly matters - for instance a business meeting; at those times, the women are to be silent and inquire from their own husbands at home.

What is a heresy, my friend?

All of Scripture is authoritative, both Old and New Testaments. What Scripture do you think Paul had in mind in Romans 15:4 and 2 Tim. 3:16-17?

And please do not be anachronistic in your reading of Scripture. Our modern architectures and approach to doing church are not the same as in NT times. Be careful.

 

[TCGreek]

I agree with this because I also believe that the position of deacon in the early church was not membership in a leadership board like in many Baptist churches today. A deacon was a "servant" who "waited on tables." A deacon was not an "elder" who exercised power over the congregation. There are two positions in the church: (1)elder/bishop/overseer/pastor/shepherd and (2)deacon/servant. Only elders led churches. The deacons served.

However, deacons exercised power from the Holy Spirit. Some, like Stephen, preached in the streets. They were still not "pastors" of their church.

A deacon, obviously, could not be a novice because he or she would need to be familiar with the church to perform duties. A woman secretary could be considered a deacon. A janitor could be considered a deacon. Each person involved in making sure the church runs smoothly should also have knowledge in the faith and be able to share it. They are part of the identity and face of the church.

Yes, a deacon was not an elder.