You are all sons of God through Faith in Christ Jesus, for all of you who were baptized into Christ have been clothed with Christ. There is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus. (Gal. 3:26–28; NIV, italics added).
A Text Becomes a Slogan
The above passage, and especially the last two verses, has been heralded by many as the “basis” for the new women’s movement within the Christian Reformed Church. Over the past few years the familiar slogan “Gal. 3:27–28” has appeared in numerous ads, announcements, Newsletters of the Committee for Women, and in sundry articles. I say “slogan” deliberately because all too often the text itself has not been quoted. Sometimes the select phrase “neither . . . male nor female” has been quoted and used as a sledge hammer to drive forward the movement, implying, too, that the creational distinctions between the sexes is no longer operative.
The Text’s Interest
The text in question, however, seems to be a rather inappropriate and poorly chosen foundation on which to build a movement. A passage that is supposed to lay the groundwork for the election of women to the offices of deacon and elder should say something about church polity and office. This one is totally silent on that matter. No matter how one twists and turns the text, it simply does not address the issue.
Paul’s third chapter in his letter to the Galatians is a lengthy treatise about salvation by faith, based largely on Old Testament quotations expressing the same theme. At the conclusion he reminds his readers of another theme so prominent in his epistles and so crucial to living in the heavily Greek culture in which his primary readers lived. That theme is the oneness or unity of the church. Knowing full well how Greek philosophers had mistakenly limited “one” to its numerical meaning, Paul here is using the word to refer to unity.
Related Passages
If we are to understand Gal. 3:28 correctly, we must see it in relation to such other Pauline passages as Romans 12:3-8, I Corinthians 12:1–31, and Ephesians 4:1–16. These are beautiful passages, powerfully and clearly illustrating how the church must function. In each case Paul uses the analogy of the human body, describing how the many parts all have different functions and yet perform as one harmonious whole. If we were to paraphrase the passage in I Cor.12:14 & ff., forgetting the analogy, and inserting terms from the church about which Paul was really writing, it would sound something like this:
If the usher should say, ‘Because I am not the choir director, I do not belong to the church,’ he would not for that reason cease to be part of the church. And if the secretary should say, ‘Because I am not the clerk of consistory, I do not belong to the church,’ she would not for that reason cease to be part of the church. If the whole church were clerks, where would the deacons be?
The consistory cannot say to the hospital visitors, ‘We don’t need you,’ or the minister to the children, ‘We don’t need you.’ God has united the members of the church and has given greater honor to the persons that lacked it (those that bear the burden of decision-making, perhaps?) so that there should be no division in the church.
Later in that same passage Paul asks, rhetorically, whether all members are to be apostles, teachers, healers, or prophets. The answer, set in the context of his detailed analogy from the human body, is obvious. Although Paul did not specifically mention elders or deacons in these addresses, the answer would again be obvious if we should ask, Are all deacons? Are all elders?
In order to see how elders and deacons fit into that corporate entity which He calls His Body, we need to turn to some of Paul’s other letters, notably I Timothy 3 and Titus 1. Scripture, the Reformers have long said, must be interpreted by Scripture. Understanding Timothy and Titus in the light of Romans 12, I Cor. 12, and Ephesians 4, then, is both appropriate and necessary if we are to avoid conformity with this present society.
Biblical Qualifications for Elders
In I Tim. 3 Paul lays down a number of very specific criteria for those who would be an overseer, or bishop, or elder. Persons performing that function must be “the husband of but one wife” (v. 2); “he must manage his own family well and see that his children obey him with proper respect” (v. 4); “he must not be a recent convert” (v. 6), and “he must also have a good reputation with outsiders” (v. 7). The list of qualifications goes on, with the explicit implications that the office is to be reserved not only for adult males, but more particularly for adult males who are husbands, fathers , respected, and mature in the faith. For emphasis, it would seem, God inspired Paul to repeat the same limitations in the first chapter of the epistle to Titus, adding there a number of reasons (vs. 10–16) why these criteria were so important.
But these are not the only passages where references are made to “elders” and their role in the church. In Acts 15:23 & 25, Acts 20:30, I Tim. 5:1 & 22, Rev. 4:4, and in Rev. 7:13-14 there are other statements about the elders, all of them using male nouns and pronouns. This usage, of course, was no accident or reflection of situational ethics, for the office had originated well back in the Old Testament and had been reserved then, too, for male adults.
Biblical Qualifications for Deacons
In contrast with the office of elder, that of the deacon has been more problematic within the Reformed churches in the late 1970’s. Since the office of deacon was a New Testament institution, and since Scripture has not spoken as frequently to that role, it is understandable that most of the debate should center there. The answer to our quest, nevertheless, should be equally clear. In I Timothy 3:8–13 the Apostle Paul, still writing under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, also spells out with unmistakeable clarity the criteria for that office. Not surprisingly, the qualifications are very similar to those enunciated for elders. The deacons must be “men worthy of respect” (v. 8); he “must manage his children and his household well” (v. 12). Furthermore, “their wives are to be women worthy of respect, not malicious talkers but temperate and trustworthy in everything” (v. 11).
Did Paul conjure up these qualifications from the recesses of a chauvinistic mind or borrow them from Jewish tradition? Anyone who knows how frequently and how comprehensively Paul sparred with the Jews after his conversion would know that such were not his sources. Paul did not need such unreliable guides, for he had the precedent of the early Christian church as his guide. Because of the growing complexity and increasing needs of the early Christian church after Pentecost, the Apostles gathered all the disciples together and instructed them to “choose seven men from among you who are known to be full of the Spirit and wisdom” (Acts 6:3). Blessed by prayer and the laying on of hands (v. 6), these men became the model for the later church to follow. Paul’s instructions to Timothy, then, were not only divinely inspired, but also in full harmony with the early Christian church’s practice.
Follow Christ, Not Current Culture
Just in case there are those who would still want to charge Paul with chauvinism and cultural conditioning, the argument is not done. Where did the Apostles and the church in Acts get their guidelines? Is it possible that they were functioning on less than firm footing? Were they merely perpetuating a practice borrowed from their culture? Hardly. Unequivocally, No, for their Lord and Master had clearly demonstrated the same practice in choosing the Twelve Apostles. After a whole night of prayer and communication with His Father in Heaven, Jesus called all his disciples and chose twelve men from among them, specifying them for particular functions and special duties (Luke 6:12–16). With such a divine example to follow, dare we accuse the Apostle Paul of error in judgment? Dare we say that the early Christian church was misguided and lacking the enlightenment that is ours today? The answer for us should be clear if we wish to be called followers of Christ.
Is Galatians 3 out of synch with I Timothy 3 or with acts 6 or with Luke 6? Are there contradictions in Scripture? There aren’t if we will only let the Spirit show us the beautiful harmony that comes through the Word. Looking at Scripture in the light of other passages gives us, not the discordant notes of the current liberation movement, but the glorious unity of the body, with each part and each person fittingly joined together so that we can say with new meaning and fervor: “We are all one in the Spirit.”
Does that mean that we no longer have difficulties in interpretation as we read the Bible? No, there are still those troubling passages about wearing veils and having the head covered. Instead of thrashing out those problems in the next Synod, however, maybe we should call for a joint conference with the Mennonites and others who still adhere to those Scriptural injunctions. A discussion with them might prove mutually enlightening, as I recently discovered.
Norman De Jong is a professor at Trinity College at Palos Heights, Fl. As a delegate to last year’s C.R. Synod which devoted a good deal of attention to the issue of women in church office he offers some observations on the women’s movements attempted appeal to Scripture, especially to Galatians 3:26–28.