Recognizing the many influences that shape how we read and obey the Bible can make us more aware of our limitations, lead us to interpret with greater care and skill, foster a humble posture of ongoing dialogue, and help preserve our unity. All readers are invited to respond and challenge what I have written. I will be grateful for your insights and for continuing the conversation.
NOTE: Chatgpt was used for editing, but not generative purposes.
Part 7: Addressing disputed verses on women in leadership through the hermeneutical lens
God created men and women to complement one another. Their differences are intended to meet and supplement each other’s needs, producing a unity and synergy that neither sex can fully embody alone. This complementarity is expressed most clearly in marriage, but it is also a vital dimension of life in the body of Christ. The church is meant to display the kingdom of God—an initial answer to the prayer, “your kingdom come on earth as it is in heaven.” Sexual difference, therefore, is a gift from God to be affirmed, protected, and celebrated in families and in the church, with the expectation that God’s kingdom vision—with full validation of that complementarian dimension—will one day be fulfilled throughout the earth.
This biblical vision of male–female complementarity is not disputed within our Fellowship of churches; it is strongly affirmed. What is disputed is how that complementarity should be expressed in ecclesial leadership, and how much diversity between churches should be permitted in the way men and women share responsibility as they work together to fulfill God’s purposes for his kingdom.
Three Complementarian Approaches
Within a complementarian framework, at least three approaches to ecclesial leadership are possible. All three affirm that God created men and women to complement one another; they differ in how they understand the relationship between gender and authority and in the contextual expressions they consider acceptable. All three perspectives are currently represented in Fellowship churches:
1. Hierarchical complementarianism (fixed pattern)
This position holds that complementarity includes a hierarchical order in which women are always under male authority, and that this order should be reflected in both church and family. The patterns and commands found in Scripture are understood as universally binding not culturally conditioned. Therefore, women are excluded from serving as pastors, elders, or leaders with spiritual oversight in any cultural context. Even if some women are gifted for pastoral ministry, God’s design reserves authoritative leadership roles for men in order to preserve distinct complementary roles and maintain stable ecclesial and family structures. Compromising this order is seen as undermining God’s purposes for both church and home.
2. Hierarchical complementarianism (contextual expression)
This approach also affirms male authority in church and family as part of God’s created intention and as a signpost toward the kingdom in its fullness. However, in contrast with the “fixed pattern” approach, it recognizes that cultures differ and therefore leadership structures need appropriate contextual expression in order to uphold both complementarity and the church’s mission. It therefore acknowledges the gifting and calling of women to serve in significant pastoral or ministry roles (for example, as associate pastors), while reserving the role of lead pastor or highest oversight for men. In this view, pastoral ministry is primarily functional—an act of service—while hierarchical order is maintained through male-only senior leadership.
3. Non-hierarchical complementarianism (the view advanced in these articles)
This position also affirms male–female complementarity as a created good that produces wholeness and shared strength. However, in contrast with hierarchical complementarianism, it argues that God-ordained gender differences do not include hierarchy or restrictions in leadership roles. Authority and decision-making based on male–female distinctions are understood as cultural expressions rather than timeless divine mandates. While women may, in many settings, pursue leadership less often than men, exceptions are not viewed as violations of God’s order. In the kingdom inaugurated by Christ, spiritual gifting, authority, and responsibility are not distributed according to gender.
The proposal of these articles is that complementarity in creation should be affirmed, protected, expressed, and celebrated in both church and home, while also believing that prohibiting women from ecclesial leadership is not required in order to remain complementarian. These articles seek to demonstrate that the full participation of both men and women in kingdom service—including ecclesial leadership—can be understood as biblically faithful and consistent with a complementarian reading of Scripture.
If this is accepted, unity within the Fellowship can be upheld by acknowledging that context legitimately shapes how complementarity is expressed. What follows is an application of the hermeneutical approach advocated in these articles, which points to the belief that hierarchy and authority based on gender is not part of God’s design for kingdom living. On that basis, excluding women from ecclesial leadership can be understood as a contextual expression in some settings, while other contexts may—without compromising biblical faithfulness and with God’s blessing—appoint women as pastors, leaders, and elders.
Applying the hermeneutic to explore the validity of non-hierarchical complementarianism
Cultural limitations that require the hermeneutic
As has been argued in previous articles, our interpretation of the culturally conditioned biblical text is inevitably shaped by our own cultural context.[1] The questions we bring to the text and the way we move from text to application are guided by our social location. Those living in settings where their culture is dominant may be less aware of how culture influences interpretation, but by learning from others with different perspectives we gain a deeper appreciation for how God uses his word to communicate his message and build his kingdom.
The biblical world was patriarchal, and the teachings of Scripture reflect that hierarchy. In our Western society, such patterns feel inappropriate or even offensive. The idea of Sarah calling Abraham her “lord” (1 Pet 3:6), or Paul’s instructions about head coverings based on the claims that “the head of every woman is man” and “woman is the glory of man” (1 Cor 11) are not practices commonly found in Canadian churches. Yet in New Testament times, these were accepted and meaningful cultural expressions of male–female relationships.
Are we, as Western evangelical Christians, required to adopt the cultural practices reflected in Scripture even when our own culture views them negatively or when they carry little or no significance? For example, head coverings today may be worn by either sex for warmth, protection from rain and sun, or fashion. In our low-context culture, they are seldom symbolic or invested with relational or theological meaning.
So, are the social patterns assumed in these passages transcultural—universal structures ordained by God—or do they represent one of several legitimate human social arrangements through which God can accomplish his purposes? Can God work through different cultural structures and priorities without endorsing the culturally conditioned hierarchies described in the biblical world? Is it possible to interpret texts that appear to limit women’s leadership through alternative social lenses, resulting in a biblically faithful yet non-patriarchal theology? Or is gender-based authoritative hierarchy part of God’s design for the church?
How do we faithfully move from the culturally embedded message in the New Testament context to appropriately contextualized obedience in our own without distorting the divine message?
At least three responses are possible, corresponding to the three approaches described above:
- Hierarchical complementarianism (fixed pattern): Patriarchy is accepted as God-ordained; women should relate to their husbands as Sarah did in her declaration of Abraham’s authority and wear head coverings to show submission. This reflects a diffusion approach[2] in which New Testament cultural structures are transplanted directly into our context.
- Hierarchical complementarianism (contextual expression): Gender hierarchy is viewed as God’s intended design, but the biblical expressions require adaptation in order to communicate the same message in culturally acceptable forms today.
- Non-hierarchical complementarianism: Patriarchy is understood not as God’s design but as a human cultural construct, unnecessary in other contexts. Nevertheless, God’s intentions for relationships between men and women can be discerned within these passages. These truths reveal kingdom values and should be expressed in ways that resonate within our own culture.
Although people may (and do) hold any of these positions, arguing for one over the others often has limited value because each begins with different assumptions. Accepting this frees us from beginning discussions focused on specific passages or even by considering our assumptions. Instead, we can acknowledge our shared limitations in understanding God’s Word: we can only obey after interpretation, we can only interpret through a cultural lens, and we can only do theology from a human perspective.[3]
For that reason, clarifying how we read the Bible provides the necessary foundation for evaluating our assumptions and for engaging thoughtfully with the passages at the center of the discussion. The hermeneutic proposed here reads Scripture as God’s revelation of His will, character, and mission so that we may be conformed to the likeness of Christ. By engaging the divine Author before anything else, we create space for grace toward others even as we evaluate our assumptions, convictions, and applications.
The hermeneutical process of reading the Bible as revelation addresses human limitations when determining how to be obedient to the word of God. These limitations were described in the article “Part 1: Reading the Bible as Revelation,” and duplicated here. When we read the Bible,
- We always interpret from a theological perspective, which is a human construct developed over time through exposure to God’s revelation and other influences.
- We always interpret from an enculturated position, using the language and concepts granted to us from our context.
- Communication is complex and requires dialogue within community to move to appropriate action and application.
- As fallen humans we are limited and prone to misunderstanding and inconsistency. Humility before God and openness to correction is required.
- Biblical concepts such as “authority” and the implications of “gender” should not be assumed when reading a verse. Rather, we need to recognize the influences and assumptions that shape our theology (faith) and then test them.
- We cannot assume that even a “clear” verse is properly understood. Because of the historical and conceptual distance between us and the original author/audience, there are contextual dilemmas and tensions that are not immediately obvious.
- Obedience is not about following rules and emulating biblical patterns, but conforming to God’s revealed will, character and mission.
- Conforming to God’s revealed will, character and mission requires expressions that are contextually meaningful.
- We are constantly engaging in a dialogical process between theology (faith), text (Scripture) and context (the influences that shape our thinking and understanding of reality).[4] This liminal reality is our human condition that encourages us not to establish practices based on a few verses, but on a robust theology[5] that reveals God’s deeper purposes. Only then can we confidently apply our conclusions to ecclesial contexts today.
Steps to examine disputed verses
The following steps taken from the summary of the hermeneutic of reading the Bible as revelation, also found in “Part 1: Reading the Bible as Revelation,”will be used in the consideration of the disputed verses:
1. Approach the passage as God’s self-revelation. Read Scripture primarily to know God, not as a manual of instructions to follow.
2. Recognize the differences between the biblical context and your own. Acknowledge the cultural, linguistic, and historical distance between the ancient world and today, and avoid assuming that biblical commands or practices can be applied directly to your setting.
3. Focus on the divine Author to avoid misapplying cultural forms. Discern God’s will, character, and mission in the passage and avoid treating culturally conditioned behaviors as timeless mandates.
4. Form a theological framework for the text. Asking what the passage reveals about who God is, what God desires, and what God is doing, requires consideration of a broader theological vision of Scripture in order to discern God’s kingdom purposes and gospel-shaped intentions.
5. Conform your life to God’s self-revelation in order to know him. Let the character, purposes, and mission of God—seen both in the passage and in Scripture as a whole—shape your response to the passage.
6. Develop a culturally appropriate expression of obedience. Live out the text in a way that
- Navigates cultural differences,
- Remains faithful to what Scripture reveals about God, and
- Embodies God’s purposes in the local body of Christ.
Applying the hermeneutic
The verses we will address with this hermeneutic are 1 Timothy 2:11–15
“Let a woman learn quietly with all submissiveness. I do not permit a woman to teach or to exercise authority over a man; rather, she is to remain quiet. For Adam was formed first, then Eve; and Adam was not deceived, but the woman was deceived and became a transgressor. Yet she will be saved through childbearing—if they continue in faith and love and holiness, with self-control” (ESV).
and 1 Corinthians 14:34–35
“The women should keep silent in the churches. For they are not permitted to speak, but should be in submission, as the Law also says. If there is anything they desire to learn, let them ask their husbands at home. For it is shameful for a woman to speak in church” (ESV).
The following description outlines the proposed hermeneutical process for considering these verses. Rather than an attempt to be comprehensive or even to consider all the questions, it provides examples and a framework within which a fuller exploration—including careful exegesis and ongoing dialogue—can take place.
1. Approach the passage as God’s self-revelation
Read the passage with the desire to discern God’s will, character, and mission that will guide us to participate more fully in His kingdom. We do not read the passage to extract directives (e.g., women must be silent, not teach, or refrain from authority), but to ask how it reveals God’s character, expresses His desire for the gathered church, and advances His mission. In other words, we ask the sincere question of a child seeking to fulfill the Father’s will, “Why was this command given?”[6]
2. Recognize the differences between the biblical context and our own
Because of the nine limitations outlined above and explored throughout these articles, the epistles should not be read as universal, normative instructions but as case studies of how the writers guided first-century believers to live out the gospel in their specific contexts. They were not written “to us,” but they were written “for us.” Therefore, they continue to guide us authoritatively as we submit to their teaching within the larger context of God’s purposes.
A rigid, literal application of Scripture without attention to differing contexts leads to conclusions that distort Jesus’ intentions for us. The universal intent of a command is realized only as we faithfully embody God’s kingdom and mission within our own context. In this, we follow the apostles’ example—discerning the way of the cross and expressing the gospel in concrete, contextually fitting ways.
3. Focus on the divine Author to avoid misapplying cultural forms
Submission to these passages is not fulfilled by adopting the practices of the early church or by following commands literally. We should avoid transplanting culturally conditioned first-century practices into our context as if they carry the same meaning or as if literal compliance constitutes obedience. Instead, we translate God’s intention into faithful and contextually appropriate expressions.
Appropriate translation occurs by discerning the kingdom purposes behind the practices described—how they reveal the will, character, and mission of God. We then conform ourselves to that vision and seek fitting ways to express God’s purposes within our own cultural setting. In this way, the congregation becomes “the hermeneutic of the gospel,”[7] following the apostolic pattern of engaging culture through the lens of the gospel and embodying it in forms that communicate God’s truth today.
4. Form a theological framework for the text.
We engage these passages theologically when we recognize that the commands they contain are not intended as universal, literal directives for all times and places. Rather, Paul was expressing the will, character, and mission of God in ways appropriate to a particular audience within its historical and cultural context. Our task, then, is to ask why Paul gave these instructions and how they helped believers live as God’s people in that situation.
We do this by considering Paul’s concerns and responses through the lens of our gospel-shaped theology—the faith by which we have learned to live and act as a Christ-centered community. Even as we come to these verses, we already hold theological convictions about leadership and gender grounded in Jesus’ teaching and expressed within our own cultural context. These form the lens through which we approach the text, even as the passages themselves refine our theology by revealing more of God’s will, character, and mission.
In short, these verses are not fixed rules to replicate but case studies that contribute to an ongoing dialogue through which we grow as God’s people. They are examples from which we learn how to embody redemption and cultivate Christ-centered relationships within our community. The following are examples of a prior theologies that we can bring to the text.
Kingdom theology as primary
Because we are Christians and believe that the coming of the kingdom overturns worldly values and priorities, placing them in their proper order under heavenly priorities, it is essential that any theology of gender and authority be developed within the framework of what it means to be “in Christ.” When we take Jesus’ kingdom priorities and values seriously, we begin by considering the shared status of all believers—men and women alike—as heirs and co-heirs with Christ (Rom 8:16-17). This shared status provides the primary theological context within which questions of gender roles in the church must be addressed.
For example, Jesus revealed kingdom priorities by (1) reworking the commands of the Law to disclose God’s intention (Mt 5)[8] and by (2) articulating God’s purpose for marriage as an indissoluble union (Mt 19:3–9). That is, Jesus did not reiterate the commands of the Laws; he emphasized the intent of those laws in a way that revealed God’s purpose and heart. Similarly, the revealed status of men and women within the kingdom must serve as the lens through which we engage the so-called prohibition passages and develop a theology of gender and authority.
We therefore begin by asking what it means for both men and women, as members of the kingdom, to be included as “brothers” (adelphoi; Rom 1:13; 8:12, 1 Co 1:10-11), counted among “sons of God” (huioi theou; Rom 8:14–16; Gal 3:26ff), named as “kings and priests” (1 Pet 2:9–10; Rev 1:5–6), receive the Spirit, see visions and prophesy (Acts 2), assigned to serve, make disciples, and build up the body of Christ (1 Co 12), called to reign (Rom 5:17, 2 Tim 2:12, Rev 5:9-10, 20:4), and crowned with authority to lay before the throne (Rev 4:10).
These kingdom realities provide a key theological foundation for our ecclesiology, since every contextual expression of the body of Christ should faithfully reflect the values, identity, and structures of the kingdom itself. Therefore, expressions of church ministry—for both men and women—should make room for the full range of what it means to live “in Christ.”
Creation as a guide towards a theology of gender
Beyond a consideration of gender status within the kingdom, we might also approach these passages through a theology of gender rooted in God’s intention for male–female and husband–wife relationships in Genesis. This is especially fitting in light of Paul’s reference to Adam and Eve in the passages we are considering. Adam is created first, and Eve is created as a “helper” (Gen 2:18). The Hebrew term ezer does not imply a secondary or inferior role within a hierarchy. Rather, it describes Eve’s role in completing what Adam lacks so that together they become one (Gen 2:21–24). Notably, ezer is most often used of God as our “helper” in times of need (Ex 18:4; Deut 33:7; Ps 70:5), indicating strength and essential support rather than subordination.
Thus, the biblical picture of husband–wife relationship is fundamentally complementary, rather than hierarchical. This complementary unity is presented as the basis of their shared purpose and life together. As George MacDonald[9] observes:
one of the great goods that come of having two parents, is that the one balances and rectifies the motions of the other. No one is good but God. No one holds the truth, or can hold it, in one and the same thought, but God. Our human life is often, at best, but an oscillation between the extremes which together make the truth; and it is not a bad thing in a family, that the pendulums of father and mother should differ in movement so far, that when the one is at one extremity of the swing, the other should be at the other, so that they meet only in the point of indifference, in the middle; that the predominant tendency of the one should not be the predominant tendency of the other.
Much more could be said in forming a robust theology of gender, but this illustrates why such theology matters when engaging disputed passages. We seek to live faithfully with the insight we have, while remaining open to continued refinement through dialogue with Scripture, with other believers, and with our cultural context.
A theology of authority
We can also consider a theology of authority in leadership as it relates to these verses: How does authority function in the kingdom according to Jesus’ teaching?
In the Gospels, the disciples frequently worried about rank and power—who would sit at Jesus’ right and left, who was greatest, who had authority over whom (Mt 18:1; 20:20–24; Mk 9:33–34; Lk 9:46; 22:24). Jesus rebuked such thinking and demonstrated the true nature of leadership in the kingdom by washing His disciples’ feet (John 13).
In the kingdom, those who lead are those who serve. Both women and men are called to serve one another and metaphorically wash each other’s feet—this is the true standard of leadership in the church. Jesus did not establish a human hierarchy of dominance. Authority rests not in status or position but in relationship to Jesus. God has not delegated authority for individuals to rule over others in the church (Jesus alone is head of the church – Eph 1:22-23; Col 1:18); authority remains in his Word and is exercised through His Spirit. The focus for leaders is that of responsibility for others for which they will give an account (Heb 13:17; Jas 3:1; 1 Pet 5:2-4).
Viewed through this lens, Paul’s concern in these verses about the exercise of authority can reasonably be interpreted as a condemnation of the misuse of authority—not the establishment of gender-specific authority.
When we approach these verses within a broader theology that understands women as full participants in the life of the church, we can affirm that the spiritual equality of men and women should be reflected in forms of servant leadership that embody the will, character, and mission of God. A well-formed theological framework enables us to discern God’s priorities and protects us from treating culturally conditioned biblical instructions as rigid rules to be replicated. As argued above, kingdom identity precedes and guides role differentiation, and the authority shared by all believers is exercised as worshipful participation in—and submission to—God’s rule.
5. Conform your life to God’s self-revelation in order to know him
The question remains: if the non-hierarchical complementarian theology presented here aligns with Paul’s own theology, what concern is driving these two verses that appear to restrict women’s leadership in the Corinthian and Ephesian churches? Many reasonable explanations—based on exegesis and historical context—suggest that Paul was addressing local rather than universal issues. Still, even if we set those possibilities aside, the hermeneutical approach proposed here invites us to discern how these verses express God’s will, character, and mission in ways that advance the kingdom and build up the community—rather than using them to restrict the freedom and calling believers—including women—have in Christ. Such actions may be elevating a perceived law above “doing good,” even as the Pharisees’ use of the Sabbath offended Jesus (Lu 6:6-11; 13:10-17; 14:1-6, Jn 5:1-18; Jn 9:1-41).
A robust ecclesial theology that reflects God’s will, character, and mission helps us understand Paul’s concern in these passages. His aim is not to impose universal restrictions but to address specific local issues recognizable to the original audience. Because those concerns arise from God’s purposes, they remain relevant for us—these teachings are “for us.” But faithfulness does not mean shortcutting interpretation or applying commands universally through our own cultural lens. Instead, we must discern God’s heart for the churches being addressed and then pursue contextually appropriate expressions of the same kingdom priorities in our setting.
Obedience as ultimately intended by the Father is not demonstrated by literal compliance to a command (although the spirit of submission in such compliance is pleasing to God), but by engaging each command within the broader theology of God’s purposes—developing a vision of the Father and a desire to live in a manner that pleases Him.
This paradigm for obedience is not contrived as if the motive is that we find these specific verses offensive and want to explain them away—that would be inappropriate and unfaithful. Instead, this hermeneutic applies consistently to all biblical commands. Jesus emphasized this in Matthew 5 by moving beyond rule-keeping to a deeper, transformative obedience: “Be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect.” We pursue that perfection not by rigidly following commands but by understanding God’s heart and aligning our lives with his character and purposes.[10]
As noted earlier,[11] biblical commands function like a parent saying to a child, “Don’t touch the stove!” Maturity involves discerning the loving intention behind the instruction. A grown child honors the parent’s heart—not by avoiding the stove forever, but by using it wisely. Likewise, as we grow in our understanding of God’s purposes, we learn how to live out His commands in ways that express the life he desires, not mere compliance.
As a caution to those who use these verses to rebuke women in their calling to ecclesial leadership, we should consider Jesus’ interaction with the Pharisees and teachers of the law in Matthew 15. They had elevated certain laws—specifically vows to God—above the biblical command to honor parents. Their issue was not ignorance of God’s law, but a misinterpretation shaped by human cultural assumptions. As a result, their application of Scripture harmed relationships and opposed God’s intention, and so Jesus rebuked them.
In that same passage, Jesus declared that strict adherence to food laws—clear biblical commands—does not determine a person’s purity before God. Instead, purity and acceptance by God is a matter of the heart. Insisting on rules that hinder a person’s desire to serve God may become a form of “quenching the Spirit” (1 Thess 5:19) undermining God’s desire for that person.
The purpose of this hermeneutical step is to allow these verses to play a role in shaping our theology and then to live according to that theology so that we may know Christ. Misapplication of commands arises when we fail to account for our contextual limitations and do not discern God’s heart behind those commands.
6. Develop a culturally appropriate expression of obedience
Understanding is not enough; we are called to act and to conform our lives to God’s will. Faithful obedience requires navigating the tension between the cultural values of our setting—many of which resist biblical teaching—and God’s contextually conditioned commands, which reveal His will, character, and mission and must be embodied appropriately in our own context. Jesus himself faced such a dilemma when asked about paying taxes to Rome (Mt 22:15–22). Rather than choosing between two rigid options, he redirected attention to the deeper reality: God’s image is stamped on humanity. Faithfulness begins by recognizing our identity and the One to whom we belong. We obey by using every passage to align our lives to his desires and purposes.
In response to my friend’s question[12]—“How can you believe that a woman can serve as a pastor or leader in the church when the Bible clearly commands otherwise?”—the issue is not whether we reject Scripture on one hand or adhere to it in only one acceptable way on the other. The deeper call is to ask, “Why was this command given?” That is not rebellion or worldly doubt, but the sincere posture of a child seeking the Father’s will. True obedience means discerning the gospel purpose behind the command and expressing it in contextually appropriate ways that reveal God’s will, character, and mission today.
Afterword: Appeal to Unity
We do not follow trends, nor do we cling to traditions—we follow Jesus. Whatever convictions churches have discerned from Scripture, we want to ensure freedom to apply those convictions with joy rather than compulsion. Obedience to God’s revelation is worship: a declaration that his kingdom purposes are good. We encourage churches to submit to God’s authority and trust his word, even when their conclusions are unpopular or others disagree.
No side of the debate over women in ecclesial leadership should be characterized as rebelling against God or as having capitulated to cultural pressures. Fears that those who hold a different position have been unduly influenced—or even seduced—by culture are misplaced. In the book of Revelation, John offers a vivid portrayal of the conflict between two kingdoms. As de Silva observes, “When John takes us to look even closer into the activity of the world in rebellion against God, we see a movement afoot to steal away the worship due the One God and to draw as many people as possible into a lie that leads them away from the true center.”[13] On every side of this debate within our Fellowship, there is admirable jealousy for the “worship due the One God,” a shared passion for the kingdom of God and a common prayer, offered with Jesus: “Thy kingdom come” (Matt 6:9 KJV).
Therefore, we must not reject churches that affirm women in ecclesial leadership as disobedient or rebellious. Nor should we shame as legalistic those who hold to male-only leadership. This is not a salvation issue, but a discipleship issue—a matter of conscience and of ordering our lives in ways we believe honor God. Whatever path is taken must arise from submission to God and joyful conformity to his purposes.
Our desire as members of Fellowship churches is to learn with humility, seeking to read and apply Scripture in ways that reflect God’s heart. Dialogue with those who hold different convictions is essential—marked by grace, patience, and openness—so that together we may see what we have not yet seen. Our brothers and sisters throughout the Fellowship love and serve God wholeheartedly; we are called to affirm that devotion and pursue unity in diversity as we seek to glorify God together.
Let us resist the temptation to relieve the tension through division. Instead, let us practice patience with those who differ, recognizing that we are all on a journey of theological growth—a journey shaped by love, clarity, gentleness, and reverence. Rather than shaming or dismissing one another, we shepherd one another as followers of Jesus.
Practically, all sides of this issue offer valuable perspectives and encourage healthy tension. We are tethered to each other, able to challenge, inform, and correct one another. If we divide, that tether is cut, and each side becomes more susceptible to extremes without the balancing influence of the other.
This is not an issue worth dividing over—nor should it be ignored. When we focus on what unites us and our service and obedience are sincerely directed toward honoring God, we can make space for contextualized expressions of faith that glorify his name and welcome differing perspectives that help us continue questioning and growing.
Soli Deo gloria.
[1] See Part 3: Why we ask “why”: The Limits of Culture and Language.
[2] Lamin Sanneh, Translating the Message (Maryknoll: Orbis, 1989), 7,8 (see Part 3: Why we ask “why”: The Limits of Culture and Language).
[3] See Part 5: Developing theology through the hermeneutic of reading the Bible as revelation.
[4] See Part 4: A Framework to guide the Process of Interpretation.
[5] A good friend challenged the idea of a “robust theology,” stating that “Even many in my acquaintance who have been believers for decades would hesitate to say that they have a robust Biblical theology.” As explained in Part 5: Developing theology through the hermeneutic of reading the Bible as revelation, “robust theology”refers to the ongoing development of sincere faith as believers—”children and adults, the literate and illiterate, believers and seekers alike”—live out their commitment to follow Jesus as they find him revealed in God’s word.
[6] See Part 5: Developing theology through the hermeneutic of reading the Bible as revelationfor a detailed explanation of how this interpretive process can be applied.
[7] This is based on the title of Chapter 18 in Lesslie Newbigin’s book, The Gospel in a Pluralist Society (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1989), 222.
[8] See Part 6: Biblical support for the proposed hermeneutic.
[9] George MacDonald. “The Seaboard Parish,” Chapter 2 in George MacDonald: The Complete Novels, (Kindle Edition 1869), 1496.
[10] See Part 6: Biblical support for the proposed hermeneutic for a further development of this argument.
[11] See Part 1: Reading the Bible as Revelation.
[12] See Part 2: True Obedience: Embracing the Heart of God.
[13] David A. deSilva, Unholy Allegiances: Heeding Revelation’s Warnings (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson Publishers, 2013), 43.
Thank you for taking the time to write these articles. Bravo, well done.
Through your humility and understanding of the scriptures you have portrayed a convincing argument that cannot be ignored. I hope and pray that once people see it, they will not be able to un-see what you have presented here. Those of a heart for Jesus will consider taking the time to discern their own cultural contexts and what they bring to their interpretation of scripture. Yes, scripture is ‘for us’ but it is also very tempting for people to believe in the inerrancy of their own interpretation of scripture, above the inerrancy of scripture. All of this must not be secluded to this topic alone.
Your ability to call people to unity is timely for tertiary matters in our Fellowship and I hope and pray it does not fall on deaf ears. Thanks again Mark, I thoroughly enjoyed these articles.
Thanks Wes,
Good comment about the temptation “to believe in the inerrancy of their own interpretation of scripture, above the inerrancy of scripture.” That speaks well to what I trying to say. Once we recognize our own limited cultural location and how that impacts interpretation, we are less likely to be dogmatic and more open to hearing other voices, believing that we are fallible and knowing that in some instances we will inevitably be mistaken.
Hi Wes, I want to respond to your comment and offer some questions. I wonder if the very caution you raise deserves to be applied more carefully and more evenly. At some point, every appeal to Scripture necessarily involves interpretation, and the question is not whether we interpret, but whether Scripture itself is allowed to speak clearly and authoritatively once interpreted. If every clear apostolic instruction can always be relativized by appeal to cultural context, then the problem is no longer pride in interpretation, but the loss of Scripture’s binding force altogether.
You note that Scripture is “for us” but also culturally situated. I agree. But historically, the church has recognized that some commands are grounded not merely in culture, but in creation, theology, and the gospel itself. In those cases, humility may look less like revisiting whether the text really means what it says, and more like submitting to it even when it presses against our own cultural instincts.
I’m also struck by the appeal to unity, especially when framed as a call for harmony around “tertiary matters.” Unity is indeed precious, but biblically, unity is the fruit of shared submission to God’s revealed Word, not the framework by which the meaning of that Word is decided. Declaring an issue tertiary before settling whether Scripture speaks clearly on it seems to put unity ahead of obedience, rather than letting obedience define the basis for unity.
Perhaps the deeper question is this: What kind of humility does Scripture itself commend? Is it the humility that keeps re-opening settled apostolic teaching in light of contemporary moral sensibilities, or the humility that allows God’s Word to correct our cultural assumptions, even when doing so is costly?
I offer that not as an accusation, but as a sincere question worth careful reflection—for all of us who want to handle the Word of God faithfully.
Hi BK, thank you for taking the time to comment on my comment. I typically have not engaged with online conversations or debates, so this is new for me. But I also want to challenge myself to think critically and carefully through this topic as well as respond respectively to your reply. My desire is to learn and continue learning.
What Mark is saying and I agree, is that everyone interprets Scripture through their cultural lens. Our current cultural lens is a Western North American culture and not an ancient Middle Eastern cultural context. And I agree, of course Scripture is allowed to speak clearly and authoritatively once interpreted, but we must consider interpretation as something human, not divine. I’m not saying that scripture is not divine, I believe it certainly is the Word of God. However to clarify what I said, if we risk treating our own interpretation as divine, we have more serious issues to consider.
Sure, submitting to Scripture even when it presses against our own cultural instincts is valid, especially when our culture celebrates sin (like pornography, for example). Also, yes, there are commands that are not merely grounded in culture, but I was referencing how all interpretation of commands is influenced by our own cultural contexts throughout time. Is Scripture for us? Yes, of course, it’s God’s Word. Is Scripture to us, no, it was not written to us in 2026. I hope that clarifies what I was saying.
In regard to the appeal to unity, obedience and clarity with Scripture; I assume we both know that we submit to Scripture and obedience to Christ. Yet, we will differ on (possibly many) tertiary matters (if that’s indeed where we agree this issues finds itself?), and I believe we can still be brothers in Christ, labouring together even though we differ. I humbly submit myself to the clear teachings in scripture and obedience to following Jesus, I’m confident you would say the same. Although, I’m unconvinced that you could consider different interpretations of Scripture than your own as still being authoritative. Could you clarify this for me?
I believe that the humility that Scripture itself commends is one of continual learning from Scripture in what it teaches. But let’s not forget how we cannot escape culture’s affect on how we view Scripture, including mine, including yours. Even mentioning ‘settled apostolic teaching’ admits cultural influence.
I really am fascinated by this discussion and I appreciate your care in response already to Mark and to myself. I hope and pray that dialogue can bring about understanding, unity and a shared love for Scripture. Thank you, BK.
Hi Wes,
Thank you for taking the time to respond so carefully and thoughtfully. I genuinely appreciate both the tone of your reply and your stated desire to keep learning. That posture matters, and I want to acknowledge it at the outset.
Let me try to respond clearly and directly, while also honouring the spirit of your questions.
First, I agree with you on several important points without hesitation. Interpretation is a human activity, not a divine one. None of us reads Scripture from a position of neutrality or omniscience, and we are all shaped, inevitably, by culture, language, history, and personal experience. Humility in interpretation is not optional; it is commanded by Scripture itself. I am entirely with you there.
Where I think we begin to diverge is what follows from those shared observations.
You are absolutely right to say that Scripture was not written to us in 2026, but for us. That distinction is essential. However, historically and theologically, that very distinction is what grounds, not weakens, the authority of Scripture. The apostles wrote to real churches in real contexts, but they did so as authorized spokesmen of Christ, giving instruction that the New Testament itself repeatedly treats as binding beyond the immediate audience (cf. 1 Cor. 14:37; 2 Thess. 2:15; 2 Tim. 3:16–17).
So yes, interpretation is human, but the object being interpreted is divinely given, and Scripture itself claims to meaningfully communicate God’s will across time and culture. That means that while our interpretations may be fallible, Scripture’s authority is not provisional, negotiable, or perpetually unstable.
This is where I want to respond to your key question, which I appreciate you asking directly:
“Although, I’m unconvinced that you could consider different interpretations of Scripture than your own as still being authoritative.”
I want to be very clear here. I absolutely believe that my interpretations can be wrong and must always be tested, corrected, and refined by Scripture itself. What I do not believe is that contradictory interpretations can all carry equal authority once Scripture has been responsibly interpreted in accordance with its own literary, historical, and theological cues.
Authority does not rest in my interpretation. It rests in what Scripture actually teaches. When competing interpretations exist, humility does not require us to suspend judgment indefinitely; it requires us to do the hard work of discernment. The New Testament consistently assumes that false interpretations are possible, and that the church is responsible for rejecting them (Acts 17:11; Gal. 1:6–9; 2 Pet. 3:16).
Appeals to culture are necessary for understanding context, but they become dangerous when they begin functioning as a controlling principle that relativizes apostolic instruction. At that point, culture is no longer a tool for interpretation; it becomes a filter that decides in advance what Scripture cannot mean.
You mention that even the phrase “settled apostolic teaching” admits cultural influence. I would respond by saying that it admits historical transmission, not cultural relativism. The church has always confessed that certain teachings are settled not because culture froze them in place, but because Scripture itself speaks with clarity and consistency on those matters across genres, authors, and contexts.
There is one point I would like to clarify further, because I think it meaningfully affects how we frame both unity and disagreement. You suggest that this issue may be a tertiary matter. Respectfully, I do not believe that is an accurate classification.
Drawing on Al Mohler’s helpful framework, primary issues concern the gospel itself; secondary issues concern the ordering, governance, and worship of the church; tertiary issues are matters over which Christians may reasonably disagree while remaining in the same local fellowship (such as differing views on the end times).
The question of who may serve as an elder or pastor does not belong in the tertiary category. It directly concerns the structure of church leadership and obedience to apostolic instruction, placing it squarely in the realm of secondary matters. This is precisely why, for example, I could not pastor a Presbyterian church, despite affirming the same gospel, because I do not believe Scripture permits infant baptism. That disagreement does not break Christian fellowship, but it does prevent shared ecclesial life.
For those of us who are persuaded that the relevant apostolic commands regarding church leadership are clear and binding, violating them would not be a matter of preference or emphasis, but of obedience. On that basis, having a woman serve as an elder would be understood, not polemically, but sincerely, as acting contrary to Scripture’s instruction.
By contrast, truly tertiary matters, such as differing eschatological views, do not function this way. They may shape conviction and teaching, but they do not determine the faithfulness or ordering of a local church in the same sense.
I share your desire for unity and mutual respect. My concern is simply that unity must be grounded in a clear-eyed understanding of what kind of disagreement we are actually discussing.
Finally, on unity: I gladly affirm that unity among brothers and sisters in Christ is a biblical good and something to be pursued with care and humility. At the same time, Scripture never presents unity as a value that overrides obedience to apostolic instruction or clarity of teaching. Rather, unity is the fruit of shared submission to God’s Word; it serves the truth; it does not determine it.
I’m grateful for your willingness to engage this conversation seriously, and I genuinely respect the care you are taking with Scripture.
My hope, like yours, is not merely agreement, but faithfulness. Faithfulness to what God has actually said, even when that faithfulness proves costly or uncomfortable.
Thank you again for the spirit in which you’ve written. I’m glad for the opportunity to think these things through together.
I look forward to meeting you.
Mark, thank you for the care and tone you’ve tried to maintain in this series. I also appreciate your repeated emphasis that this is a hermeneutical conversation rather than a mere proof-text battle. I agree: how we read Scripture determines where we land.
I want to say up front: this is not primarily a debate about women’s value, gifting, or meaningful ministry. Faithful churches that restrict the office of elder to men should be the first to celebrate women who teach, disciple, evangelize, counsel, lead ministries, and build the church. If this conversation becomes “women are needed vs. women are not,” we will have missed the real issue entirely.
The real issue is this: what authority does Scripture have over the church today, especially when Scripture conflicts with contemporary moral instincts about justice, equality, or flourishing? That is the load-bearing question underneath the women-in-leadership discussion.
In Part 6 you state, “There is no command that applies directly and universally.”
That sentence is pivotal. If taken as written, it means the church does not receive apostolic directives as binding norms in their directive force. They become culturally situated “examples” which must be re-expressed in fresh forms as we discern the “why.”
But once we relocate authority from command to our discernment of intent, the center of gravity shifts from Scripture to the interpreter. The text no longer rules us; it informs a conversation in which our context becomes a co-author of application. The practical result is that the interpreter becomes the functional authority, not because anyone intends arrogance, but because the hermeneutic requires it.
This is why I’m hesitant to frame the discussion as “exegesis vs. hermeneutics.” The question is not whether context matters (it does), but whether context is a lens we must acknowledge or a lever we may use to relativize apostolic instruction.
Here I want to sound a warning drawn from the earliest pages of Scripture. The serpent did not begin by openly denying God. He began by destabilizing what God had said: “Did God really say…?” The modern form of the same move is often softer: “Did God really mean that as a binding instruction beyond that culture?” Once the binding force of God’s speech is perpetually in question, disobedience can be presented as maturity, and reinterpretation can be presented as faithfulness.
This connects to a second concern: the assumption that our contemporary cultural instincts are naturally Spirit-led. You emphasize how enculturation shapes interpretation, and I agree. But then the decisive question becomes: which culture is discipling whom? Our culture catechizes us constantly. It trains our reflexes about authority, hierarchy, identity, and what counts as “harm.” Those instincts are not neutral, and they are certainly not automatically sanctified.
The New Testament does not teach that the Spirit mainly confirms the moral judgments already plausible in a given society. The Spirit sanctifies by truth, and the church is repeatedly warned not to be conformed to the world’s patterns. The Spirit does not lead the church away from the authority of the Word the Spirit inspired; rather, the Spirit leads us into submission to Christ through that Word.
That brings me to unity. You call for unity amid diversity of practice, and I share the desire for fellowship rather than fragmentation. But unity must be defined biblically. In Scripture, unity is never an end in itself; it is unity in Christ, unity in truth, unity in the apostolic gospel. When unity becomes the controlling goal, the temptation is to widen the tent by loosening the claims of Scripture. That may preserve an institution, but it does not preserve the church’s fidelity.
So I want to ask plainly: Unity for what purpose? Unity to maintain an organization? Unity to reduce conflict? Unity to appear broad and welcoming? Or unity so that together we may confess and obey “the faith once delivered”? The answer matters. Unity at the expense of doctrine is not the unity Scripture commands; it is a peace treaty achieved by relocating authority from the apostles to the present.
In Part 7, the disputed texts are treated primarily as case studies whose concerns must be translated into culturally meaningful expressions today. I agree that translation is required whenever we move from ancient to modern settings. But translation is not the same as transformation. Translation preserves the authority and meaning of the message; transformation reshapes the message to fit the receiver. The first is faithfulness; the second is drift, often well-intended drift.
My plea is simple: let’s keep the conversation where it belongs. The question is not “How do we get to the outcome we believe is most just?” The question is: What did God say, through his apostles, and what does faithful obedience look like when our culture dislikes it? If we must invent a new hermeneutic in order to reach a “higher ethic,” we should at least admit what is happening: the ethic is functioning as an authority above the text.
I welcome discussion and charity. But charity must include clarity. If no apostolic command can bind the church when it conflicts with contemporary judgments, then the debate is already settled—not by Scripture, but by the hermeneutic we have placed over it.
My concern, Mark, is not ultimately about where you land on this particular issue, but about the hermeneutical path taken to get there. When obedience is reframed around a perceived “higher ethic” discerned through culture and context, rather than submission to what Scripture plainly teaches, the authority of God’s Word is inevitably displaced. My fear is that this approach—however well-intentioned—opens the door for Scripture to be continually reshaped by our moral instincts rather than standing in judgment over them. History suggests that this is not a neutral move, but one that carries serious and lasting consequences for the church.
For that reason, I think it is important to pause before moving further into applications or conclusions and ask a more fundamental set of questions. These are not questions about giftedness, ministry effectiveness, or even particular passages, but about how Scripture functions as authority in the life of the church. If the hermeneutical framework itself determines which commands bind us and which do not, then clarity at this level is essential. The following questions arise naturally from the approach you have outlined, and I offer them in a spirit of brotherly dialogue and genuine desire for understanding.
Ten Clarifying Questions
1. If no biblical command applies directly and universally, what category of apostolic instruction, if any, still binds the church across cultures and generations?
2. When obedience is defined primarily as discerning the ‘intent’ behind a command rather than submitting to the command itself, who has final authority when sincere believers discern that intent differently?
3. On what principled basis can some apostolic prohibitions be treated as culturally limited while others remain binding, without appealing to contemporary moral plausibility as the deciding factor?
4. If the epistles function mainly as contextual ‘case studies’ rather than normative instruction, what distinguishes their authority from later theological reflection or church tradition?
5. When Paul explicitly grounds instruction in creation (e.g., ‘Adam was formed first’), what hermeneutical rule allows that argument to be treated as non-binding without simultaneously relativizing other creation-grounded doctrines?
6. How do we distinguish between cultural instincts that are genuinely Spirit-led and cultural instincts that require correction by Scripture, especially when those instincts align closely with prevailing Western moral assumptions?
7. What safeguards prevent ‘reading Scripture as revelation rather than rule’ from becoming a method for setting aside any command that conflicts with contemporary judgments about justice, equality, or human flourishing?
8. If faithful obedience requires developing new expressions whenever contexts change, what prevents the church from continually revising its ethical conclusions in step with cultural evolution?
9. Why is unity treated as a controlling good in this discussion, and how is that unity biblically defined if churches may hold contradictory practices while remaining equally ‘obedient’?
10. Is the central disagreement here truly about women serving in ecclesial leadership, or is it about whether Scripture retains binding authority when its plain teaching conflicts with modern moral intuitions?
In Christ
Pastor BK Smith
Hi BK,
Note that I used Chapgpt for editing, not generative purposes.
Thank you very much for your reply. I hope our exchange will help clarify what I was seeking to communicate in my articles—for you and for others—and further illuminate the hermeneutical dimension of the question of women in leadership that we are addressing within our Fellowship of churches. I am grateful for your willingness to engage this discussion at the hermeneutical level and for maintaining an irenic and respectful tone, which helps us as brothers in Christ to understand one another more clearly.
You identify the central issue as the question of “what authority Scripture has over the church today, especially when Scripture conflicts with contemporary moral instincts about justice, equality, or human flourishing.” I would respectfully suggest that this is not where our disagreement lies. We both affirm without reservation that Scripture has full authority over the church in all matters. Our shared posture is one of humility, submission, and obedience, seeking to conform our lives joyfully to the Father’s will, character, and mission as revealed in his word.
Because we agree at this foundational level, the real point of divergence concerns interpretation and application rather than authority itself. The question before us is how God’s revelation in Scripture is to be understood and expressed faithfully within our own contexts, and what legitimate pathway leads from the biblical text to those contextualized expressions that fulfill God’s purposes for his church. It is this question of pathway—from text to lived obedience—that makes the issue fundamentally hermeneutical.
The issue, then, is not whether Scripture is authoritative, but how Scripture—given in a particular historical and cultural context—is rightly read and applied in a different historical and cultural setting. In my articles, I have attempted to articulate a consistent and faithful hermeneutical approach by which kingdom life, and the will, character, and mission of God, can be expressed under the full authority of Scripture. God’s revelation in Scripture must never be compromised, revised, or undermined.
The goal is not to alter or deviate from God’s Word—which stands forever—but to recognize the cultural location in which God has placed us and how that location shapes our reading and application of Scripture. Because our context differs from the biblical contexts, faithful obedience requires careful attention to those differences. Only by doing so can we submit rightly to God’s authority, discovering local expressions of kingdom living that genuinely reflect biblical teaching.
I hope this clarifies the crucial distinction between what you are assuming I am arguing and what I am actually proposing. If any ambiguity remains, I trust that as I respond to your specific questions, it will become clear that the approach I am commending is not a retreat from biblical authority, but a pathway toward fuller obedience and deeper submission to God’s authoritative Word.
You suggest that my statement in part 6—“There is no command that applies directly and universally”—implies that “the church does not receive apostolic directives as binding norms in their directive force. They become culturally situated ‘examples’ which must be re-expressed in fresh forms as we discern the ‘why.’” On this point, I agree that you have accurately represented the substance of my argument.
However, you then conclude that this position necessarily entails a relocation of authority “from command to our discernment of intent,” such that “the center of gravity shifts from Scripture to the interpreter,” and that “the text no longer rules us… the interpreter becomes the functional authority.” This is the central misunderstanding, and it arises from a categorical confusion. Interpretation does not usurp authority. Rather, the purpose of interpretation is precisely to enable us to live under the authority of Scripture, not to replace it. Indeed, obedience and submission to Scripture are only possible through interpretation; without interpretation, there can be no understanding, and without understanding, no obedience.
Once we acknowledge that interpretation and communication always occur within culture—through cultural lenses, and by means of culturally embedded concepts and language, a major theme of my argument throughout these articles—it becomes clear that the issue at stake is not the authority of Scripture, but our capacity to understand and apply Scripture faithfully. Our cultural embeddedness, to which we are all subject without exception, is both a limitation on our understanding and the means God has given us to grasp and live out the message of his Word.
With that clarification in place, I would like to address the remainder of your argument and questions with this hermeneutical orientation clearly in view: authority resides in Scripture; interpretation and application are our responsibility. You also raise a “second concern,” which I will not address here because it rests on a misreading of my position—namely, the claim that I assume our contemporary cultural instincts are naturally Spirit-led. That assumption is not one I hold, nor is it argued in the articles.
You write, “The question is not whether context matters (it does), but whether context is a lens we must acknowledge or a lever we may use to relativize apostolic instruction.” The aim of interpretation, however, is not to relativize apostolic instruction—as though we were seeking to evade it—but to disclose the meaning and purpose of that instruction in relation to the concrete, contextual issue the biblical author is addressing. Because apostolic instruction was not written “to us,” but to particular communities facing particular circumstances, it cannot be applied directly and uncritically to our own, very different contexts. Nevertheless, it remains authoritatively “for us.” As Scripture reveals God’s will, character, and mission, we are called to conform our lives to that revelation through faithful local expressions.
You also write, “Once the binding force of God’s speech is perpetually in question.” This again reflects the same misunderstanding—namely, that the issue under discussion is the authority of Scripture. The binding force of God’s speech is never in question. What is rightly in question is our interpretation of that speech, which is inevitable (because understanding always requires interpretation) and humanly situated (because interpretation always occurs within our enculturation). Given our limitations and propensity toward error, such interpretation must always be open to examination and correction.
You further write, “Translation preserves the authority and meaning of the message; transformation reshapes the message to fit the receiver. The first is faithfulness; the second is drift, often well-intended drift.” The difficulty here lies in the assumption that “reshaping” necessarily stands in tension with the authority and meaning of the message. The argument of these articles is that reshaping is not only inevitable but is, in fact, intrinsic to translation itself. Moreover, such reshaping is necessary if the message is to be communicated in forms that are intelligible and meaningful to a particular audience. This need not result in “drift,” though it certainly can if interpretation is poorly done. The central point, however, is that interpretation—and therefore contextual re-expression—is unavoidable if we are to understand and faithfully communicate the meaning of the text.
You state that “the question is: What did God say, through his apostles, and what does faithful obedience look like when our culture dislikes it?” This question is already addressed in the articles. We cannot know what God has said apart from interpretation, and we cannot interpret apart from acknowledging both the cultural embeddedness of the biblical text and our own cultural location.
The articles argue that faithful obedience consists in conforming our lives to the Father’s will, character, and mission as revealed in Scripture. This does not represent a “new hermeneutic,” but rather reflects the consistent pattern of God’s self-revelation throughout the biblical witness, as Part 6 seeks to demonstrate.
You write, “If no apostolic command can bind the church when it conflicts with contemporary judgments, then the debate is already settled—not by Scripture, but by the hermeneutic we have placed over it.” This reflects another categorical error, driven by the desire for to preserve one’s own interpretation in the name of biblical authority. Hermeneutics is not a method imposed over Scripture, but the disciplined effort to engage Scripture rightly so that its authoritative message may speak faithfully and powerfully within our context.
You also write, “When obedience is reframed around a perceived ‘higher ethic’ discerned through culture and context, rather than submission to what Scripture plainly teaches, the authority of God’s Word is inevitably displaced.” No such “higher ethic” is proposed in these articles—unless the reference is to obedience understood as conformity to the Father’s will, character, and mission. If so, I can conceive of no higher ethic than this, one which Scripture itself consistently presents.
The appeal to “submission to what Scripture plainly teaches” rests on an assumption that the articles are intentionally challenging. It presumes an unmediated reading of a text addressed to another audience in another historical and cultural context, while remaining unaware of the interpreter’s own cultural lenses and enculturated assumptions. Such a claim reflects a lack of recognition that interpretation is always taking place when we read Scripture. The question is not whether we interpret, but whether we do so carefully and self-critically, or whether we simply assume that our initial sense of what seems “clear” is equivalent to God’s authoritative Word, to be applied directly and uniformly within our own setting.
At the conclusion of your response, you present “Ten Clarifying Questions,” introducing them as questions “about how Scripture functions as authority in the life of the church. If the hermeneutical framework itself determines which commands bind us and which do not, then clarity at this level is essential.” I want to reiterate that the issue under discussion is not the authority of Scripture, but its interpretation.
Moreover, a hermeneutic does not “determine which commands bind us and which do not.” A faithful hermeneutic—one that fully recognizes the authority of Scripture—does not filter out or set aside any command. Rather, it treats all commands as binding, provided they have been responsibly interpreted and appropriately applied within their historical and cultural contexts.
I have copied your questions and responded briefly to each.
Ten Clarifying Questions
1. If no biblical command applies directly and universally, what category of apostolic instruction, if any, still binds the church across cultures and generations?
MN: All instruction binds the church, when adequately interpreted and appropriately applied.
2. When obedience is defined primarily as discerning the ‘intent’ behind a command rather than submitting to the command itself, who has final authority when sincere believers discern that intent differently?
MN: Without interpretation, it is impossible to submit “to the command itself.” Understanding necessarily precedes obedience. It is not the case that I am interpreting Scripture while you are simply obeying it without interpretation. We are in the same position: all of us interpret Scripture, and then we apply that interpretation. The real question is not whether interpretation is taking place, but whether it is being carried out carefully, faithfully, and with appropriate sensitivity.
Only God possesses final authority. Sincere believers may arrive at different interpretations for a variety of reasons. Given our limitations, the best we can do is to seek, with humility, the most faithful expression of a biblical command within our particular context. Here, “best” means that which most faithfully reflects God’s will, character, and mission as revealed in Scripture.
3. On what principled basis can some apostolic prohibitions be treated as culturally limited while others remain binding, without appealing to contemporary moral plausibility as the deciding factor?
MN: All apostolic prohibitions are contextually located, all remain binding. When properly interpreted and applied in a different context that is an expression of conformity and obedience.
4. If the epistles function mainly as contextual ‘case studies’ rather than normative instruction, what distinguishes their authority from later theological reflection or church tradition?
MN: As evangelicals, our aim is to understand and apply Scripture as the final authority. At the same time, we must remain attentive to the limits of our own interpretive capacity. For this reason, it is wise to remain in ongoing dialogue with the church throughout history, allowing the broader Christian tradition to inform and test our interpretations.
The apostles themselves modelled Holy Spirit–inspired improvisation in the application of God’s Word, and these biblical case studies provide both our foundation and our guide. Likewise, the witness of Christians throughout history can illuminate how the gospel has been faithfully expressed in diverse contexts. Such historical insight is instructive and clarifying, though it does not carry biblical authority.
5. When Paul explicitly grounds instruction in creation (e.g., ‘Adam was formed first’), what hermeneutical rule allows that argument to be treated as non-binding without simultaneously relativizing other creation-grounded doctrines?
MN: No part of Scripture is “non-binding,” and any so-called “hermeneutical rule” that promotes such a claim is misplaced. We stand fully under the authority of Scripture. The question, therefore, is not whether Paul’s words bind us, but how they are to be rightly understood and faithfully applied.
The central issue is this: What was Paul’s purpose in invoking this creation event within this particular context? How does Paul elsewhere employ Old Testament Scripture, and for what ends? Is Paul’s appeal to Adam and Eve intended to elevate his preceding instruction to the level of a fixed, divine hierarchical order, or is it instead illustrative—warning against the dangers of human-imposed authority and its consequences?
6. How do we distinguish between cultural instincts that are genuinely Spirit-led and cultural instincts that require correction by Scripture, especially when those instincts align closely with prevailing Western moral assumptions?
MN: A central argument of these articles is that all of us approach Scripture with cultural instincts, because we inevitably read Scripture through cultural lenses. We are, in this sense, like fish in water. When we fail to recognize how deeply our context shapes our reading, we risk deceiving ourselves. This caution is especially necessary when our moral conclusions align closely with those of the surrounding culture. Such alignment does not mean our conclusions are necessarily wrong, but it does require careful discernment lest we mistake cultural resonance for biblical faithfulness.
The same caution applies to those who hold firmly to traditional interpretations. Here too, we must be alert to the possibility of self-deception. The challenge cuts both ways.
Faithful translation and interpretation of Scripture must preserve the integrity of the original message while expressing it in ways that are culturally intelligible and compelling. If a passage of Scripture does not appear relevant or does not resonate with the concerns of its hearers, the deficiency lies not in Scripture itself, but in our interpretation of it. All Scripture is “God-breathed” and reveals God’s will, character, and mission. As our minds are continually transformed by this revelation (Rom. 12:2), we increasingly learn how to live in ways that are pleasing to God.
7. What safeguards prevent ‘reading Scripture as revelation rather than rule’ from becoming a method for setting aside any command that conflicts with contemporary judgments about justice, equality, or human flourishing?
MN: Faithful obedience involves a continual desire and commitment to die to self and live for Jesus—to hunger for the kingdom, to love what God loves, and to reject what God rejects. It is a call to conform our lives to our heavenly Father. There is, ultimately, no other true “safeguard.”
When a brother or sister is being deceived and is following the ways of the world rather than the way of Christ, this must be named with humility and love, so that they may be redirected toward the right path.
8. If faithful obedience requires developing new expressions whenever contexts change, what prevents the church from continually revising its ethical conclusions in step with cultural evolution?
MN: A constant pursuit of conforming our lives to God’s will, character and mission. This is what Newbigin means by the congregation being the “hermeneutic of the gospel.” Our loyalty is with God’s kingdom, not our culture.
Furthermore, to NOT develop new expressions when contexts change means that the message will likely be miscommunicated and misapplied.
9. Why is unity treated as a controlling good in this discussion, and how is that unity biblically defined if churches may hold contradictory practices while remaining equally ‘obedient’?
MN: Jesus prayed for unity among his disciples. The question, then, is how that unity is to be lived out in practice. One helpful way forward is to distinguish between primary, secondary, and tertiary issues.
Primary issues concern the core doctrines of the Christian faith—those that determine whether one is genuinely “of the faith.” Secondary issues are those over which denominations divide, because continued fellowship is no longer possible. Tertiary issues are doctrinal matters on which believers may disagree without breaking fellowship.
10. Is the central disagreement here truly about women serving in ecclesial leadership, or is it about whether Scripture retains binding authority when its plain teaching conflicts with modern moral intuitions?
MN: I believe the difficulty lies with those who equate women serving in ecclesial leadership with a compromise of Scripture’s authority, on the grounds that “its plain teaching conflicts with modern moral intuitions.” This reflects a significant misunderstanding. The issue is not one of biblical authority—on that point, we are in agreement—nor is it a matter of capitulating to “modern moral intuitions.” Rather, the question before us is fundamentally one of interpretation.
Hi Mark,
Thank you again for your engagement and for the care you’ve taken in articulating your position.
Rather than continuing with extended back-and-forth responses, I want to focus our discussion around a single, clarifying question that I believe gets to the heart of the hermeneutical issue we’re circling:
What apostolic command, if any, remains binding on the church when it conflicts with contemporary cultural judgments about justice, equality, or human flourishing?
I’m not asking if there is one, or you believe there is one, I would like to know what that apostolic command is.
I’m asking this not rhetorically, but sincerely. How that question is answered determines whether Scripture functions as an authority that judges us, or a witness that must itself be judged by external criteria.
I believe this question deserves a clear answer, and I’m content to let our dialogue move forward—or conclude—on that basis.
Grace,
BK
Hi BK
You have presented what you consider to be
“a single, clarifying question that I believe gets to the heart of the hermeneutical issue we’re circling: What apostolic command, if any, remains binding on the church when it conflicts with contemporary cultural judgments about justice, equality, or human flourishing?”
I will attempt to answer your question, but I cannot do so meaningfully without further clarification. If I understand you correctly, you are asking me to identify an apostolic command in Scripture (chapter and verse) that is directly applicable today—“to us” and not merely “for us”—and that meets the following criteria:
1. It is transcultural, unaffected by cultural factors either in the New Testament context or in our context today.
2. It is clear, requiring no interpretation in order to be understood.
3. It is directly applicable, such that no contextualization is needed—we simply obey.
The argument in my articles is that all three criteria are unattainable. We cannot step outside of culture, for it is the very medium through which communication occurs. Interpretation is necessary for understanding, and application can only take place through contextualization.
As I see it, all apostolic commands reveal God’s will, character, and mission, and as God’s people we are called to live kingdom lives in the setting he has placed us. When contemporary cultural judgments come into conflict with this calling, what is required is not a specific chapter-and-verse command to counter them, but a wholehearted commitment to love God with all our heart, soul, mind, and strength, and to bow to Jesus as Lord of all.
For example, in our context of modern technology and shifting values, a woman may obtain an abortion with little or no social condemnation. There is no single chapter-and-verse apostolic command that addresses such a situation directly. However, when we acknowledge God as the Lord of life and recognize that children are sacred—created in his image and received as a blessing—our hermeneutic enables us to form a consistent theology that resists a culture of death and instead affirms the value of life, whatever the cost.
God has not made the world, language, culture, or even the Bible to function in the way your question assumes. Throughout my articles (see especially Part 3), I have argued that we must take our cultural situation seriously, because applying biblical commands directly, without sensitivity to context, can lead to misunderstanding and misapplication. I believe that prohibiting women from participating in ecclesial leadership is one example of this error.
In your response to Wes, you made a comment that I think may help clarify where the misunderstanding between us lies. You wrote,
“Appeals to culture are necessary for understanding context, but they become dangerous when they begin functioning as a controlling principle that relativizes apostolic instruction. At that point, culture is no longer a tool for interpretation; it becomes a filter that decides in advance what Scripture cannot mean.”
There is a categorical misunderstanding here regarding the meaning of “culture” that, if clarified, may help us focus more directly on the central hermeneutical question. One helpful way to think about culture is as a means of communication, similar to language. Culture provides the shared framework through which people make sense of their surroundings and define the contours of their relationships.
Part of the difficulty, I believe, is that when I speak of culture, you are hearing “narrative” or “worldview”—that is, belief systems and competing plausibility structures. What may be more helpful is to understand culture primarily as the medium through which we communicate, rather than the content of what we communicate. In other words, it is important to distinguish between the medium and the message. (Again, see Part 3.)
I would like to restate your paragraph in two different ways to illustrate what I mean. In the first, I substitute “culture” with “cultural narratives and worldviews.” In the second, I substitute it with “language” and “communication.” I believe your focus is on the former, while mine is on the latter. Here is what I mean:
First rephrasing:
Understanding of cultural narratives and worldviews are necessary for understanding context, but they become dangerous when they begin functioning as a controlling principle that relativizes apostolic instruction. At that point, an embracing of cultural narratives and worldviews do not help us in the interpretation of apostolic instruction; it becomes a filter that decides in advance what Scripture cannot mean.
For example, in Acts 17 Paul refers to the altar dedicated to the “unknown god.” Exploring the cultural narrative of that setting helps us understand what the people believed. However, if we were to assume that Paul’s use of that reference meant he was affirming those beliefs, we would indeed be “relativizing apostolic instruction.” Paul used that concept to point people to the gospel, not to dilute or compromise it. I am confident that we can agree at this point.
This appears to reflect your concern—that kingdom values might be compromised by contemporary cultural judgments about justice, equality, or human flourishing. We can both agree that our allegiance must remain firmly with the gospel and the values of God’s kingdom.
My next rephrasing:
Communication through language is necessary for understanding context, but language becomes dangerous when it begins functioning as a controlling principle that relativizes apostolic instruction. At that point, language is no longer a tool for interpretation; it becomes a filter that decides in advance what Scripture cannot mean.
In this understanding of culture—as a means of communication—a categorical confusion emerges that renders the statement incoherent. Language is the medium through which meaning is conveyed; it is necessary for communication but remains distinct from the message itself. Language does not function as a “controlling principle” in the way narratives and worldviews can.
Thus, when I speak of “culture” in my articles, I am referring to the medium through which meaning is communicated, not to worldly narratives. Language is one part of that cultural reality, but culture itself communicates in ways that extend beyond words.
So when I say the Bible is 100% cultural, I mean that its concepts, references, assumptions, priorities, values, and words are cultural aspects that function as the means by which the author’s message is communicated. Without appropriating these cultural forms, the message itself cannot be properly conveyed. And without filtering that message through our cultural lens, we cannot access it.
The implication is that any apostolic command must be read in and through the cultural lens employed by its author. The authority of Scripture lies in the way its message reveals God’s character, will, and mission. As we develop a clear theology—grounded in our relationship and covenant with God—we are then able to apply that theology with the same intent expressed in Scripture, while using forms of expression that faithfully reflect it within our own context.
For example, Paul writes, “When you come, bring the cloak that I left with Carpus at Troas, and my scrolls, especially the parchments” (2 Tim. 4:13). This is clearly a command, and Paul writes as an apostle. By obeying this instruction, Timothy would be advancing the cause of the gospel through his support of Paul. It is therefore not merely historical detail, nor is it written “to us,” but it is something that has theological meaning “for us.”
This illustrates that there are not separate categories of commands—some we must obey and others we can dismiss as merely “cultural.” Rather, we stand under the authority of the whole of Scripture as it reveals God’s will, character, and mission.
This may not have provided the answer you were hoping for, but I trust that it does clarify the hermeneutical issue we are dealing with.
Hi again BK,
This morning while doing my devotions, I think God gave me a verse that may help bridge the gap between our concerns by identifying an “apostolic command” – Rom 12:1,2.
So then, my brothers and sisters, because of God’s great mercy to us I appeal to you: offer yourselves as a living sacrifice to God, dedicated to his service and pleasing to him. This is the true worship that you should offer. Do not conform yourselves to the standards of this world, but let God transform you inwardly by a complete change of your mind. Then you will be able to know the will of God—what is good and is pleasing to him and is perfect (NIV).
This is truly a binding apostolic command, and one that conflicts with contemporary cultural judgments about justice, equality, or human flourishing. The hermeneutic remains consistent, because Paul doesn’t exhort us to search out commands in order to know God’s will. Rather, it is through the transformation of offering ourselves as living sacrifices, dedicated to his service and pleasing to him that we participate in true worship. Through this embodied relationship with Christ we are able to know the will (and character and mission) of God.
I was greatly encouraged by this meditation this morning. Hope this helps.
I want to respond to Dr. BK Smith’s concerns about the slippery slope or “theological drift” or theological trajectory he witnessed at Fuller that subtly “reshaped the church’s understanding of obedience, authority, and truth.” It seems like a really polite way of saying that false teaching is leading the church “to hell in a handbasket.” It’s a serious accusation – no matter how politely it is phrased – and one that must be taken seriously.
It seems to me, that after a lengthy dissertation and voluminous back and forth discussions, the core of Dr. Smith’s argument is entailed in his final question to Dr. Naylor.
“Is the central disagreement here truly about women serving in ecclesial leadership, or is it about whether Scripture retains binding authority when its plain teaching conflicts with modern moral intuitions?”
It’s a loaded question of course. Wikipedia defines a loaded question as a complex question that contains a controversial assumption (e.g. a presumption of guilt). In this case, the controversial assumption is that the Scriptural teaching on women’s leadership roles is so clearly defined that it trumps any modern moral intuitions regardless of cultural context.
Dr. Naylor’s fairly succinct answer is that the question is erroneous because Biblical “truth” can be open to interpretation. In other words, the assumption that women serving in ecclesial leadership compromise Scriptural authority is wrong, for the reasons laid out in his thesis. Dr. Smith holds a different interpretation and implies that his position is plainly taught in Scripture.
Now, I’m not a doctor and I may have missed much of the nuanced and more granular arguments in this debate, but as I was contemplating this issue, I thought of other acrimonious divisions in church history. I wanted to examine Dr. Smith’s contention that issues relating to modern moral intuitions viewed in cultural contexts can result in theological drift when they “elevate human tradition over divine command.”
Were there any other “truths” plainly taught in Scripture that have been challenged and did these “new” ideas reshape church thinking resulting in a defiled theological trajectory?
The first example I came up with was the issue of slavery. So, I did a little research and found this wonderful article by Dr. Michael Pahl provocatively entitled “The Bible is clear: God endorses slavery.”
In the article – which I encourage you to read – Dr. Pahl outlines all the Biblical passages in the Old and New Testaments that support slavery. He concludes that…
“the Bible is clear on this: the institution of slavery is permitted by God, endorsed by God, and owning slaves can even be a sign of God’s blessing. This has in fact been the Christian view through history: it’s only in the last 150-200 years that the tide of Christian opinion has shifted on slavery.”
He continues his article by asking the question. What has changed? Why does the church no longer support slavery?
Dr. Pahl outlines two reasons that I think are pertinent to this discussion.
“The first reason is simply that our society has shifted on this. The reasons for this are complex, but in basic terms this shift has happened because 1) a vocal minority first called for the abolition of slavery, which 2) eventually prompted governments to enact legislation abolishing slavery, and 3) the simple passage of time has normalized this disapproval of slavery among us as a western society.”
Dr. Pahl briefly discusses the fragmenting of the church and society at large over this issue as white landowners pointed to all the Scriptural texts in support of slavery, while the opposing side sought support in biblical teachings like “love of neighbour” and the Golden Rule and all people created in God’s image and “there is no longer slave or free in Christ.”
Pahl continues and I will quote him at length because he says it so well…
“… the second main reason Christians today believe slavery is wrong in spite of the clear biblical passages that permit or endorse slavery: we have developed a different hermeneutic, a different way of reading the biblical texts on slavery.
The early Christian abolitionists paved the way. Rather than emphasizing the specific Bible passages that directly approve of slavery, they looked at other biblical texts and themes that they saw as more big-picture, more transcultural and timeless: the creation of humanity in the “image of God,” the “liberation” and “redemption” themes of the Exodus, the love teachings of Jesus, and the salvation vision of Paul. That is, they set the stage for a way of reading the Bible that was not grounded in specific texts of Scripture, but in a trajectory of “Exodus to New Exodus centred on Christ,” or “Creation to New Creation centred on Christ”—a larger biblical narrative with Jesus at its heart.
In other words, we no longer take the slavery-approval passages as direct and straightforward teaching for all times and places. Rather we take these as instances of the way things were done in the past but not the way God really wants things to be. They are descriptive of what once was; they are not prescriptive of what is to be.”
Dr. Pahl concludes with this…
“So the next time we hear someone talk about the “clear teaching of Scripture” on women’s roles, or saying that “the Bible is clear” on homosexuality, or whatever the topic might be, think about this: the Bible is at least as clear on slavery, yet thank God we no longer believe that slavery is God’s will. We’ve read the Bible, and we’re following Jesus.”
It seems to me that Dr. Naylor and Dr. Pahl are pretty much in sync here. Again, I’m not a doctor, but I wonder if sometimes theological drift is a good thing.
Thanks Ken,
I think that you have caught the essence of my thesis in the comment about the “big picture” of the Bible setting “the stage for a way of reading the Bible that was not grounded in specific texts of Scripture, but in a trajectory of “Exodus to New Exodus centred on Christ,” or “Creation to New Creation centred on Christ”—a larger biblical narrative with Jesus at its heart”
I would not call that “theological drift,” but theological centering on Christ. This image of Christ is not a culturally invented Jesus that abandons the authority of the text, but a biblical orientation that discovers in and through the text God’s will, character and mission so we can learn to live out that message with cultural relevance and resonance.
Hi Ken. Thank you for carefully engaging with the issues raised and for taking the time to respond at length.
In discussions of this nature, especially those that touch on biblical authority and hermeneutics, I believe it is important that we accurately represent one another’s stated positions before responding.
Before turning to the substance of your argument, I want to clarify one point where my position appears to have been unintentionally mischaracterized. You summarize my reference to Fuller as a “polite way of saying that false teaching is leading the church to hell in a handbasket.” That is not what I said, nor what I intended to communicate. In fact, my article explicitly states the opposite: “theological drift in the church often enters not through open rejection of Scripture, but through well-intentioned attempts to reinterpret biblical authority.” My observation concerned the mechanism by which drift occurs, not a judgment about the sincerity, motives, or eternal destiny of individuals or institutions. This distinction matters because my concern is structural and hermeneutical, not rhetorical or accusatory.
With that clarification in place, I want to respond to the substance of your argument, particularly the analogy drawn between slavery and ecclesial authority.
You are right to observe that my concern is not merely about women serving in ecclesial leadership, but also about how Scripture functions as authority when its teaching collides with contemporary moral intuitions. That concern does not assume interpretive infallibility on anyone’s part, nor does it deny the need for interpretation.
Rather, it asks whether Scripture itself provides internal signals, textual, theological, and canonical indicators, that some commands are grounded more deeply than others, and therefore should not be relativized by appeals to culture, historical trajectory, or contemporary moral intuition.
This is why the analogy to slavery, though commonly raised, ultimately does not fit or work for this discussion.
The fact is, Scripture never grounds slavery in creation. It is never presented as a moral good, never commanded as an ideal, and never tied to God’s design for humanity. Rather, it is consistently treated as a fallen social reality, regulated but not endorsed. Even where slavery is addressed directly, the trajectory within Scripture is destabilizing rather than reinforcing: the Exodus narrative (Exod. 1–15) frames liberation as a redemptive act of God; the image of God applies equally to all humans (Gen. 1:26–27); Israel is repeatedly reminded that they were once slaves and therefore must not perpetuate oppression (Deut. 15:12–15); and Paul’s letter to Philemon quietly but unmistakably undermines the institution by reframing Onesimus not as property but as a “beloved brother” (Philem. 15–16).
By contrast, the New Testament’s teaching on church leadership and teaching authority is explicitly grounded in creation and theology. Paul grounds his instruction not in local conditions but in the order of creation itself: “For Adam was formed first, then Eve” (1 Tim. 2:13), and he links this argument back to Genesis 2 rather than to first-century cultural norms. Similarly, in 1 Corinthians 11:8–9, Paul again appeals to creation order as the basis for his instruction, not to social convention. Importantly, these appeals occur in diverse contexts, Corinth and Ephesus, suggesting that Paul understands them as transcultural, not situational.
Moreover, when Scripture intends to mark something as temporary or concessive, it often does so explicitly. Jesus speaks this way about divorce, attributing Mosaic allowance to human hardness of heart rather than to God’s creational intent (Matt. 19:8). No such language appears in the passages addressing church leadership. There is no indication that these instructions are remedial, provisional, or awaiting later moral development.
This distinction matters because Scripture itself models different kinds of commands. Some regulate fallen realities; others articulate creational design. Treating those categories as interchangeable requires importing an external hermeneutic that Scripture itself does not authorize.
When Paul instructs slaves to obey their masters (Eph. 6:5; Col. 3:22), he does so within a fallen social structure that the gospel is already undermining at a deeper level (Gal. 3:28). When he instructs churches regarding qualified leadership (1 Tim. 3; Titus 1), he does so by appealing to God’s ordering of creation and the nature of Christ’s relationship to the church (Eph. 5:22–33). These are not parallel cases.
This is why I resist framing the issue as “theological drift that turned out to be good.” Scripture consistently warns against drift, not commends it. We are urged to “hold fast the pattern of sound words” (2 Tim. 1:13), to “guard the good deposit entrusted to you” (2 Tim. 1:14), and to “contend for the faith that was once for all delivered to the saints” (Jude 3). Faithfulness, in the biblical sense, is measured not by moral innovation but by fidelity.
None of this denies the need for careful interpretation, humility, or charity toward those who disagree. But it does suggest that not all biblical instructions stand on the same footing, and that Scripture itself teaches us how to recognize the difference.
At this point, it is worth noting that this way of reasoning, appealing to a “larger biblical trajectory” or a perceived Christ-centred ethic to relativize specific apostolic instructions, is not new, nor is it limited to this particular debate. It has been articulated with remarkable consistency by influential voices such as Rob Bell and Brian McLaren, particularly in discussions surrounding authority, sexuality, and doctrinal boundaries. In each case, the pattern is similar: texts once received as binding are reclassified as culturally situated, while interpretive authority shifts, often unintentionally, from Scripture itself to a moral framework external to it.
The New Testament repeatedly cautions the church against precisely this move. Paul warns of those who are “always learning and never able to arrive at a knowledge of the truth” (2 Tim. 3:7), and later of a time when people “will not endure sound teaching, but having itching ears they will accumulate for themselves teachers to suit their own passions” (2 Tim. 4:3). Jude similarly exhorts believers to “contend for the faith that was once for all delivered to the saints” (Jude 3), language that leaves little room for doctrinal reclassification driven by cultural maturation. Even Paul’s most severe warning is framed not against obvious unbelief, but against subtle alteration: “I am astonished that you are so quickly deserting him who called you… and turning to a different gospel” (Gal. 1:6).
My concern, then, is not hypothetical. We have ample historical and contemporary evidence of where this hermeneutic leads, and Scripture itself anticipates the pattern. That reality explains why I am cautious about adopting an interpretive approach that, however sincerely motivated, requires us to move past clear apostolic instruction rather than submit to it. The question before us is not whether such an approach can be expressed winsomely, but whether it can be reconciled with the biblical call to “hold fast the pattern of sound words” (2 Tim. 1:13) and to guard what has been entrusted to the church (2 Tim. 1:14). For these reasons, I believe the matter ultimately returns us—not to trajectory, but to fidelity.
It may also be important to clarify what Sola Scriptura means, as the term is often misunderstood. Sola Scriptura does not mean “Scripture in isolation,” nor does it mean that individual scholars, academics, or cultural commentators function as the final arbiters of biblical meaning. Rather, it affirms that Scripture alone is the supreme and final authority for faith and practice, and that this Scripture has been entrusted to the church, not to pundits operating outside its accountability structures. Paul describes the church, not the academy, as “the household of God… the pillar and buttress of the truth” (1 Tim. 3:15). This is why the apostolic letters are addressed primarily to churches, not to detached interpreters, and why elders are charged to “hold firm to the trustworthy word as taught” so that they may “give instruction in sound doctrine and also rebuke those who contradict it” (Titus 1:9).
Within this framework, interpretation is not a free-floating enterprise guided by evolving moral consensus, but a communal act of submission, one that occurs within the bounds of the church, under shepherds who will give an account (Heb. 13:17), and in continuity with what has been received. This is why Paul urges Timothy not to innovate but to “follow the pattern of sound words” and to “guard the good deposit entrusted to you” (2 Tim. 1:13–14). Scripture governs the church, but Scripture is also preserved, proclaimed, and protected through the church. Any hermeneutic that effectively relocates that authority elsewhere, however sophisticated or well-intentioned, represents not reform, but displacement.
Hi Dr. Smith.
Thanks for responding to my critique of your position. First, let me acknowledge that my interpretation of your concern about theological drift as “leading the church to hell in a handbasket” was hyperbolic. The point that I was seeking to make was and remains is that you characterize what you witnessed at Fuller (and what you are warning against in your discussion with Dr. Naylor) as an erosion of Scriptural integrity – however well intentioned. It seems clear that your primary concern is not with the mechanism leading to that outcome, but rather that the outcome is heretical.
You go on to state that your “concern does not assume interpretative infallibility.” However, you then assert throughout that your interpretation is authoritative because
“Scripture itself provides internal signals, textual, theological, and canonical indicators that some commands are grounded more deeply than others and therefore should not be relativized.” You reiterate that “I am cautious about adopting an interpretive approach that, however sincerely motivated, requires us to move past clear apostolic instruction rather than submit to it.”
In other words, it seems clear that what you are saying is that the Scripture so clearly articulates apostolic instruction relating to the issue of ecclesial leadership that it dare not be questioned. Any deviation from your interpretation – however, well intentioned – is unbiblical and opposed to the created order established by God. It does not “represent reform – but displacement.”
I’d like to offer a well-intentioned rebuttal to your certitude by offering an alternative analysis of your assertions. You dismissed my analogy to slavery because it was never grounded in creation, but you concurred that the trajectory within Scripture concerning slavery is destabilizing rather than reinforcing. My only comment on this is that it seems remarkably convenient for church leaders century upon century to ignore this trajectory and embrace servitude for the sake of societal norms and economic expediency. Even less controversial egalitarian initiatives like achieving voting rights for women and blacks were met with resistance from church leaders. In fact, many of the same Pauline passages used to prevent women leadership in the church today were used to deny them access to the polling booth. Even today, some Christian nationalists in the United States are targeting women’s right to vote.
It seems to me that if you are going to deny women equal ecclesial rights based on 1 Corinthians 11:8–9, it would be difficult to argue in favour of women’s suffrage as the same rationale of created order would apply.
So let’s address 1 Timothy 2. Verse 12 is the only verse in the entire Bible that explicitly prohibits women from teaching men. Verse 13 which you quote : “For Adam was formed first, then Eve” seems to tie this prohibition to the order of creation. But, as Margaret Mowczko points out…
“If the created order of man first, woman second, somehow signifies a divine, universal, and incontrovertible principle of male leadership, why are there many examples of women in the Bible who had authority, and who taught and directed certain men?”
There are many instances of prominent women in the Old Testament held in high esteem despite defying the predominantly patriarchal culture of their time. Deborah, Esther, Miriam, Abigail, Huldah and Rahab to name some.
In the New Testament, the prophetess Anna was highly respected. Moreover, Paul himself mentions over a dozen women as ministry colleagues in his letters including Priscilla, Junia, Evodia, Syntyche, Phoebe and Persis. And according to Euebius, church historian, Philip’s four daughters were famous prophets who ministered in the early church.
So is there something else going on in Ephesus that could clarify Paul’s limitation on ecclesial leadership? Are his suggestions to Timothy truly universal and transcultural or are there unique factors at play?
The church at Ephesus was badly in need of reform. It was plagued by false doctrine and false teachers. Paul was writing Timothy to provide guidance on leadership, doctrine and conduct.
Paul speaks to the problem of angry quarrelling men in 1 Timothy 2 verse 8.
In verses 9–10, he focuses on the issue of overdressed rich women.
According to many scholars, in verses 11 and 12, Paul is addressing a woman who was being domineering over a man (probably her husband) and needed to be quiet and learn, rather than teach.
12 I do not permit a woman to teach or to assume authority over a man;[a] she must be quiet.
NIV version
Margaret Mowczko notes that…
“As well as being the only verse in the Bible that prohibits a woman from teaching, 1 Timothy 2:12 is also the only Bible verse where the Greek verb authenteō is used. This word is not related to the usual Greek word (or English word) that means “to have authority.” 1 Timothy 2:12 is not about prohibiting an ordinary or healthy kind of authority.”
After studying ancient texts containing the verb authenteō, Dr. Cynthia Westfall has concluded that…
“the people who are targets of these actions are harmed, forced against their will (compelled), or at least their self-interest is being overridden because the actions involve an imposition of the subject’s will, ranging from dishonour to lethal force.”
Perhaps 1 Timothy 2:12 is better understood as understood as, “I would not allow a woman to teach, nor to dominate a man.”
In regards to his emphasis on creation order in verse 13 it is entirely plausible that Paul was focused on the cultural context of Ephesus. Based on Biblical scholarship it is likely that some people in the church were influenced by the local Artemis cult believing that Eve was created first and was superior to Adam. Verses 13 and 14 were perhaps correcting this heresy and were an example of why the woman referenced in verse 12 needed to be quiet and learn – rather than continuing to teach false doctrine.
Margaret Mowczko concludes that
“1 Timothy 2:8–15 does not contain Paul’s general teaching on ministry. Rather, it refers to specific people and specific problems in the Ephesian church. Likewise, in 1 Corinthians 14:26–40, Paul silences three groups of unruly speakers in Corinthian assemblies, not just wives who wanted to learn but should keep their questions for home.”
“We should be cautious about applying 1 Timothy 2:12―the only verse in the Bible that restricts a woman from teaching―to all women for all time, especially to gifted women who have learned and are not domineering (cf. 1 Tim. 2:11). Using one verse as the basis for prohibiting women from teaching, when men are present, is unwise.”
You also mention 1 Corinthians 11: 8 – 9.
8 For man did not come from woman, but woman from man; 9 neither was man created for woman, but woman for man. NIV version
Again, you assert that Paul’s reference to created order here reveals the transcultural nature of his instruction about church leadership and the role of women.
However, it is important to put these verses in the context of the entire chapter. Paul is clearly referencing the Genesis 2 creation account in these verses. Woman was created as a helper for man (Genesis 2:18). The Hebrew word for helper here is ezer. This word is used 21 times in the Old Testament – twice referring to Eve, three times referencing powerful nations coming alongside Israel and sixteen times identifying God as our helper. As God is not subordinate to his creatures, it is untenable to use this word to imply any kind of lesser role for women from this passage. Rather, woman was created to come alongside man and serve with him – not in service to him.
However, in 1 Corinthians 11: 11,12 Paul goes on to further clarify the relationship between men and women.
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. NIV version
Paul points out that even though the first woman came from man, every subsequent man came from a woman and ultimately everything comes from God. He notes that in the Lord there is an interdependency not a hierarchical relationship between the sexes.
Paul further clarifies this principle in Galatians 3:28…
28 There is neither Jew nor Gentile, neither slave nor free, nor is there male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus. NIV version
As Mowczko comments…
“When we are in Christ, we have a new identity; gender distinctions remain but they lose their social significance.”
Again in Ephesians 5:21, Paul emphasizes that submission is not gender dependant.
21 Submit to one another out of reverence for Christ. NIV version
Given Paul’s revolutionary egalitarian viewpoint expressed in a highly patriarchal society, it is surprising to me that Christians have not been at the forefront of the battle for women’s rights.
It was interesting that when you referenced Ephesians 5 you noted verses 22-33, leaving aside the principle of mutual submission Paul begins with in verse 21 at the very beginning to his instructions to households.
Rather than creating an even longer discourse here on Ephesians 5, I’ll let Mowczko’s brief summary suffice followed by a link to a more detailed discussion…
“In Ephesians 5:22–33, Paul makes several statements about the relationship between first-century husbands and wives who typically had an unequal relationship. Paul presents the relationship between Jesus and the Church as a model or example for marriage. Some think Jesus’s authority is given here as an example for husbands to follow. Rather, unity is the example, and Paul uses a head-body metaphor to illustrate this… Paul was not telling husbands to be leaders and wives to be followers. Instead, he urged husbands to love and nurture their wives, and he urged wives to be submissive as well as respectful, to their husbands.” https://margmowczko.com/ephesians-522-33-in-a-nutshell/
Finally, a quick comment on your reference to qualifications for leadership in 1 Timothy 3 and Titus 1.
Even well-known complementarians like Douglas Moo and Tom Schreiner admit that these passages do not preclude women from serving as elders.
Again, dissecting those passages would entail a much longer discussion and I’m sure that I’ve droned on enough.
If you would like more insight into the egalitarian interpretation of these passages, they can be found here.
https://terranwilliams.com/do-the-elder-qualifications-in-1-timothy-31-7-and-titus-15-9-exclude-women/
https://margmowczko.com/pauls-qualifications-for-church-leaders/
As an aside, growing up in a complementarian church culture, I was always bemused by the overwhelming endorsement given to single women missionaries who were tasked to preach and teach the gospel in other cultural settings. The same restrictive rules apparently did not apply outside the North American environment.
The last thing I would say is that given society’s increasing access to learning through both mainstream and social media, the forum for instruction by and interaction with godly women is more available than ever. I have been blessed in my Christian journey equally by teachers of either sex.
I would say that even if complementarians wanted to keep the horse in the barn, it’s too late.
Allowing women to fully express their gifting is a freedom that benefits all.