In the Stone-Campbell movement, the authority of scripture was paramount. This connects to the prohibition on women leaders in Churches of Christ because the authority of scripture is what Churches of Christ call on today in order to continue these prohibitions. In the last two posts, I have reflected on the role of women leaders in Churches of Christ. You can catch up here.

https://www.christianitytoday.com/scot-mcknight/2020/march/kelly-edmiston-and-women-in-churches-of-christ.html

https://www.christianitytoday.com/scot-mcknight/2020/march/fundamentalism-in-churches-of-christ.html

The authority of scripture leads Churches of Christ today to prohibit women leading in the church. They have used Ephesians 5:22, 1 Timothy 2:11, and 1 Corinthians 14:34-45 to determine that “the bible says it and that settles it.” But why have CofC’s chosen these select verses to interpret literally and not others? Why are some commandments deemed as “authoritative” for how we live and others are culturally mandated and safely discarded?

For example, how do CofC’s faithfully live these scriptures out today?

“God…said to [Adam and Eve], ‘Be fruitful and increase in number.’” (Genesis 1:28)
“Women should remain silent in the churches.” (I Corinthians 14:34)

“Greet one another with a holy kiss.” (2 Corinthians 13:12)
“Heal the sick, raise the dead,…drive out demons.” (Matthew 10:8)
“Sell your possessions and give to the poor.” (Luke 12:33)
“A woman should cover her head. A man ought not to cover his head.” (1 Cor. 11:6)
“If a man has long hair, it is a disgrace to him.” (1 Cor. 11:14)

“Do not turn away from the one who wants to borrow from you.” (Matthew 5;42)
“Slaves, submit to your masters with all respect, not only to those who are good and considerate, but also to those who are harsh.” (1 Peter 2:18)

(William Webb uses this list in his book “Slaves, Women, and Homosexuals”).

If the bible says it and that settles it” is the mentality behind biblical interpretation, then CofC’s have some changes that need to be made regarding church practice.

Historically, Campbell deviated from the traditional view of biblical authority. He “understood the biblical texts to be the words and ideas of human authors through which the divine word came. He acknowledged that these texts could contain human errors, but were infallibly inspired so far as the saving message was concerned” (The Encyclopedia of the Stone-Campbell Movement, p. 83).

In addition to this, Campbell knew that the bible alone was not enough for proper interpretation. As one Church of Christ historian points out, Campbell “knew that the bible is of ‘no value’ without fixed and certain principles of interpretation. He assumed that by following the same rules of interpretation, everyone would arrive at a uniform understanding of the ‘plain meaning of the text.’ (Ibid, p. 82)

I have summarized Campbell’s rules of interpretation here (Ibid, p. 82) :

Ascertain the historical circumstances of the scripture. There are the order, the title, the author, the date, the place, and the occasion of it. In regards to commandments, promises and exhortations: determine who is speaking and what dispensation he officiates in. To understand what has been promised or taught, use the same laws of interpretation that you would any other book. Use logical principles to deduce the nature of language, etc. Common usage, which can only be ascertained by testimony, must always decide the meaning of any word. In figurative language, find a point of resemblance. In interpreting symbols, allegories and parables, find the point that it being illustrated. Do the best you can to get close to understanding, acknowledging that the closer you are to God the more likely you are to understand the scriptures.

Campbell sought out to put these rules and the interpretive authority in the hands of the common church member and not in the hands of the clergy/creeds.

The problem with Churches of Christ today is that they have been unfaithful to this founding principle. They have created a new clergy and put all of the interpretative power in their hands.

The “clergy” in Churches of Christ today do not represent the congregation or the common church member. This is why the prohibition on women leaders continues to stand in Churches of Christ today.

The only people in Churches of Christ who are doing any interpretative work on behalf of the church are men of a certain age who serve as elders. (And sometimes ministers, who are almost always only men). In allowing only men of a certain age to interpret and make decisions based on scripture, CofC’s have done the very thing that Campbell rebelled from in the early days of the Restoration Movement. In this, they have denied the vast majority of the congregation the opportunity to come to a “plain meaning” of the text.

It is not that this group of elder men do not have the best interest of the congregation. It is simply that a “clergy” of only men is not representative of the congregation. CofC’s elders do not represent the congregation in age, gender, socio-economic status, education, or in race. The truth is, the vast majority of CofC’s elders are wealthy, white business-men who have no theological education or ministry experience.

What if CofC’s began to believe what they set out believing. What if they returned to the foundational belief that the common person can interpret the bible and that the interpretative authority must lie in the hands of the community of faith. What if they believed that a representative (i.e. diverse) group of voices could arrive at a “plain meaning” of the text and live out this meaning for their place and time. I bet we would have a lot more diversity in the elder’s meetings.