The totality of our awareness of this illustrious, illustrative servant of God and His people is limited to a mere two verses that appear near the very end of one of Paul’s most powerful epistles. Beyond these few words preserved by inspiration we know absolutely nothing of her life on this earth. As the apostle Paul brought his epistle to the Romans to a conclusion, he wrote, “I commend to you our sister Phoebe, who is a servant of the church which is at Cenchrea; that you receive her in the Lord in a manner worthy of the saints, and that you help her in whatever matter she may have need of you; for she herself has also been a helper of many, and of myself as well” [Romans 16:1-2, NASB]. Though this may seem like a rather simple passage, somewhat personal in nature, in which a dear sister in Christ is commended to a distant group of disciples, it is far from it. Indeed, this passage has been the cause of heated debate and division for centuries.

The primary concern, of course, has to do with the nature of this woman’s service to the church in Cenchrea, and what that may or may not suggest with respect to the role of women within the One Body of Christ Jesus. For those interested in examining previous articles I have written on various aspects of this challenging issue, please refer to those studies listed under the heading “Role of Women” in my Topical Index. Many biblical scholars, including a good number of highly respected leaders within our own Stone-Campbell Movement, firmly believe Phoebe was a recognized leader of the congregation — a deaconess. Others, however, almost go into a seizure at the thought. Frankly, there are dynamics at work here that go well beyond a simple exegesis of the text; this is far more about personal comfort zones engendered by centuries of cultural preferences and, yes, even prejudices. Whether we care to admit it or not, our interpretation of Scripture, even by those among us with only the very best of intentions, is influenced by our socio-economic status, cultural and traditional upbringing, educational attainments, and familial and denominational loyalties. You and I may read the exact same passage, both of us doing so with good, honest hearts, truly intent upon perceiving God’s will for our lives from the text, and yet our respective, resultant understandings may well be worlds apart. This dramatic disparity of discernment among disciples has been witnessed from the very beginning of our Lord’s walk among men, and it certainly is evidenced in the debate over the passage before us.

Phoebe — a Greek name meaning “pure, bright, radiant” — was, in the words of the apostle Paul, “our sister,” which simply signifies that she was a faithful disciple of our Lord Jesus; a cherished member of the family of Christ; a beloved daughter of the Father, and thus “our sister.” Before anything else is said about her in this brief passage, Paul seeks to establish the one fact that supersedes all others, and before which all other considerations considerably pale: Phoebe is a Christian. He also clearly establishes the reality that the parameters of the Father’s family are quite broad. Although Phoebe lived in Cenchrea, and Paul was originally from Tarsus, and the saints to whom he was writing lived in Rome, nevertheless she was “our sister.” There are no boundaries separating brethren; no walls of exclusion; we are all one in Christ Jesus, who tore down the dividing walls, extending a welcome to all who are willing to come to Him in simple, demonstrative faith. Thus, whether we be slave or free, rich or poor, white collar or blue collar, male or female, Jew or Gentile, liberal or conservative, or 31 different flavors in-between, we are still One Body. We are family. To the saints in Rome, who had never met Phoebe, Paul commends her as “our sister.” We need to cherish this love of the brethren, and, where it is absent, we need to recapture it and nurture it. Without that fervent love of the brethren, can we even truly claim to be the children of God?! The apostle John declares that whether we are children of God or children of the devil is conditioned upon our love for one another [1 John 3:10]. Indeed, the one who says he loves God, but does not love his brother, “is a liar” [1 John 4:20].

“The followers of Jesus learned to regard one another as brothers and sisters within the great spiritual family, of which God is the Father, and Christ the elder Brother and Savior. Coming from afar, even in the vast and populous city of Rome, this godly matron would find brethren in Christ, and would be recognized as a sister” [The Pulpit Commentary, vol. 18, p. 457]. “St. Paul uses the term ’sister’ here and calls Phoebe ‘our’ sister (i.e., ours and yours) to remind those to whom he would introduce her that all Christians, whether personally acquainted or not, are already members of the same great spiritual family, of which God is Father and Jesus Christ the Elder Brother, and that they only need to be made known to one another to realize their close relationship in mutual love and helpfulness” [Dr. James Hastings, Dictionary of the Apostolic Church, vol. 2, p. 232]. The Lord Jesus Himself laid the solid foundation for this close, intimate spiritual relationship when, after being told that His mother and siblings were there to see Him, He “stretched out His hand toward His disciples, and said, ‘Behold, My mother and My brothers! For whoever does the will of My Father who is in heaven, he is My brother and sister and mother’” [Matthew 12:49-50].
Our knowledge of this precious woman as a person is extremely limited, and is largely speculative in nature. Certain assumptions about Phoebe are generally drawn from these two verses near the end of Paul’s letter to the Roman brethren, but, as any good biblical interpreter knows, mere human assumptions can never rise to the level of absolute, objective certainty. Or, to put it another way: inferred “facts” are a far cry from that which is demonstrably factual. For example, the majority of biblical scholars infer that she was most likely a widow. The text also seems to suggest that she was about to make a long journey to another part of the empire, perhaps to transact some business, and that she was traveling unaccompanied (no husband is mentioned) and would thus perhaps require the assistance of the saints in Rome. Such freedom to move about the empire was normally not enjoyed by those married or with children at home. A few widows, however, especially if they had established themselves in some lucrative business (some see Lydia in this category), were known to travel rather extensively. She was also apparently a woman of some financial resources, as is inferred by the terms used to describe her assistance of others in Cenchrea.

For example, Paul says Phoebe “has been a helper of many, and of myself as well” [vs. 2]. The word translated “helper” is the Greek word prostatis, a very rare word found only here in the NT writings, and never found in either the papyri or the Septuagint. This word “means ‘patroness’ or ‘protectress,’ suggesting she was a wealthy woman who looked after the needs of less fortunate persons. In Athens the masculine term designated the office of a man who represented people without civic rights. Under Roman law such a patron or patroness could even represent foreigners” [The Wycliffe Bible Encyclopedia, vol. 2, p. 1328]. The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia concurs, stating that this particular Greek word was “a technical term for a legal representative of a foreigner, which would suggest a person of wealth and status” [vol. 3, p. 853]. Dr. Kenneth S. Wuest, in his classic Word Studies from the Greek NT, saw Phoebe as “a woman set over others, a protectress, a patroness, caring for the affairs of others and aiding them with her resources” [vol. 1, p. 258]. This word “means a great deal. It seems to suggest one who has been the patroness of the unprotected and despised, one who has come to the aid of … and fought the battles of those who were oppressed” [Edith Deen, All of the Women of the Bible, p. 231]. Apparently even Paul benefited from her aid on occasion, although no specific incident is ever mentioned. Some speculate a connection between Phoebe’s aid to Paul and the statement in Acts 18:18 — “In Cenchrea he had his hair cut, for he was keeping a vow.” It is thought by several scholars that Paul may have become gravely ill, or was facing some dangerous physical or legal challenge, and made an impassioned appeal to God for relief. That relief may have come in the form of Phoebe, and Paul then, in gratitude, fulfilled his vow to God.

“The fact that Phoebe had been a ‘helper of many,’ constituted the ground of her claim for help on the brethren in Rome; for as we do to others, so others are under obligation to do to us. The probability seems to be that Phoebe was wealthy; hence her ability to be a ‘helper of many;’ while the fact that no mention is made of her husband, justifies, in a low degree, the conclusion that she had none. She was probably a widow. She was doubtless also a woman of age, for a young woman could hardly have attained the distinction she enjoyed at the time” [Moses E. Lard, Commentary on Paul's Letter to the Romans, p. 453]. She who had so graciously helped others, was now potentially in need of such help herself during her business in Rome, and who more worthy of receiving such aid than those who have extended it?! “This is the lex talionis in its benignant form. Who is such a proper recipient of charity as the man who had done good according to his means? With the merciful does God show Himself merciful. ‘Give, and it shall be given unto you!’” [The Pulpit Commentary, vol. 18, p. 471].

There has also been some speculation as to the nature of the “matter” [vs. 2] that was necessitating her trip to Rome. Paul employs the Greek word pragma, which was a legal term signifying some “matter of dispute,” which could have reference to either a civil or business transaction that was in need of review by some higher authority than existed in Cenchrea. This was the same word used by Paul in 1 Cor. 6:1 when he speaks of brethren having “a matter” of dispute with other brethren that they then take to court before unbelievers. If indeed Phoebe was some recognized legal representative in Cenchrea of the rights of those persons, even foreigners, who were being overlooked or oppressed, then she may have been journeying to Rome on behalf of some case that needed to be appealed to a higher court. Paul urges the saints in Rome to “help her” (literally: “stand alongside of her”] as she deals with this “matter,” which has led some scholars to speculate she may have been representing a Christian in some matter before higher authorities. Thus, the support and encouragement of her spiritual family would be all the more important for her. Paul, at the end of his own life, would lament this lack of support from brethren — “At my first defense no one was alongside of me, but all deserted me; may it not be counted against them. But the Lord stood alongside of me, and strengthened me” [2 Tim. 4:16-17].
It is rather evident, therefore, that “our sister” Phoebe was a woman of some prominence in Cenchrea, which was a port city located on the Saronic Gulf about nine miles SE of Corinth. “According to Pausanius the name derives from Cenchreas, son of Poseidon and Peirene (in Greek mythology). During the NT period a temple to Aphrodite lay on one side of the harbor, and there were sanctuaries of Asklepios and Isis on the other, while a bronze image of Poseidon was located on a mole extending into the sea” [International Standard Bible Encyclopedia, vol. 1, p. 628]. Biblical scholars almost unanimously agree that Phoebe was the person Paul chose to transport to the saints in Rome this epistle in which she is mentioned and commended, which shows even further Paul’s great confidence in her as a trusted disciple of Christ. Perhaps his most important theological work was given into the hands of a woman for preservation and delivery. Such speaks highly of Phoebe!

The question that concerns disciples of Christ the most, however, is the nature of Phoebe’s relationship to the church in Cenchrea. Obviously, she possessed some degree of respect and authority within the city itself, and perhaps even beyond. But did she possess any such authority within the church? In other words, did she “hold office,” as some believe? The basis of this belief, and the many disputes and debates that have arisen from it, is Paul’s statement that Phoebe “is a servant of the church which is at Cenchrea” [Rom. 16:1, NASB]. What exactly did Paul mean by that term? Notice several other translations of this phrase:

A leader in the church — CEV

A minister of the congregation — NWT

Who holds office in the congregation — NEB

A special helper in the church — Easy-to-Read Version

A key representative of the church — The Message

Who is minister of the assembly — Darby Translation

A ministrant of the assembly — Young’s Literal Translation

A servant of the congregation — Hugo McCord’s Translation

A servant of the church — NASB, HCSB, ESV, KJV, NKJV, NIV, ASV

A deaconess of the church — NAB, RSV, Amplified Bible, Williams’ NT, J. B. Phillips’ Modern Translation
As one can see just from these few versions and translations, there is no small disparity of perception as to the nature of Phoebe’s relationship to her fellow believers in the port town of Cenchrea. She is said to be a servant, minister, deaconess, leader, special helper, key representative, and/or office holder. And this diversity of opinion is encountered even more when one begins examining the writings of the biblical scholars and commentators over the past several centuries; views that line up very clearly behind partisan perceptions as to the role of women in the church, and what authority, if any, a woman is believed to possess. Although some struggle greatly with the notion that a woman could ever do much more than “sit silently in the presence of her spiritual superiors (men)” in the assembly, nevertheless it was certainly not unusual for God to use women in very prominent roles among His people, and we find this revealed in both OT and NT historical writings. Athaliah, for example, the daughter of Ahab and Jezebel, reigned as queen over Judah for six years (2 Kings 11:3; 2 Chron. 22:12). Deborah, who was a prophetess of God, served as a judge over Israel for 40 years (Judges 4:4-5). We find several female prophets of God mentioned — Miriam (Ex. 15:20), Huldah (2 Kings 22:14; 2 Chron. 34:22), Noadiah (Neh. 6:14), Anna (Luke 2:36), and the four daughters of Philip (Acts 21:9). We also see a husband and wife team of prophets — Isaiah and his wife (Is. 8:3), and of evangelists — Priscilla and Aquila. Joel 2:28-29 even foresaw a time, during the Christian dispensation, when both “your sons and daughters will prophesy … and even on the male and female servants I will pour out My Spirit in those days.” Thus, it shouldn’t overly surprise us to find a woman deacon (Phoebe — Rom. 16:1-2), a woman apostle (Junia — Rom. 16:7; see: Reflections #201), and women prophets (Philip’s daughters) in the church.

Nevertheless, scholarship is still considerably divided as to Phoebe’s actual role in the church at Cenchrea, and the significance of the term Paul used to describe that role. The Greek word in question is diakonos, which may take either a masculine or feminine form depending on the gender of the person thusly described. Phoebe is characterized as a female deacon (or: deaconess). The word itself simply means “servant, minister; one who renders service to or ministers to another.” One need not be an “office holder” to render service to another, although there clearly appears to be a specific group within the larger community of believers who have been set apart as special servants (”deacons”), just as there are specific persons set apart from the larger community of believers as “shepherds” [1 Tim. 3; Philp. 1:1]. The question, then, is whether Phoebe (or any woman, for that matter) could ever be considered as part of this set apart group of servants, or whether her service was more generic (in the sense that we are all to be “servants of the church”). There is simply no question that Phoebe served the church in Cenchrea. Certainly, all the members should have been doing so! But, was she recognized by them as a servant-leader in some capacity?

It should probably be noted at this particular juncture in our reflective study of this matter that many disciples of Christ Jesus believe the apostle Paul himself authorized women to serve as appointed special servants in 1 Tim. 3:11. This passage has long been debated. Was he referring to the wives of deacons, or was he in fact referring to the position of a deaconess. There are good arguments on both sides, but the view of most biblical scholars is that Paul had female deacons in mind when he penned that passage. If so, then it would have come as no surprise to anyone in the first century when Paul commended “our sister Phoebe,” who is then characterized “a deaconess of the church at Cenchrea.” Indeed, would it not be somewhat surprising for him to even mention this fact of her service if all members in Cenchrea were expected to be “servants of the church”? It is perceived as significant by most scholars that Paul mentions she is a “servant,” thereby, in their view, setting her service apart from, in some special way, that service which would be expected of all disciples.
Dr. James D. Bales, Professor of Christian Doctrine for a good many years at Harding University, in 1967 wrote a marvelous little book (111 pages) titled “The Deacon and His Work” in which he devoted the entire 7th chapter (pages 73-85) to the topic of deaconesses. I would personally concur with Bro. Bales, who believed Phoebe was most definitely appointed to a position of special service to the congregation of believers in Cenchrea, but that she was not an “office holder.” Indeed, this concept of elders, deacons and evangelists being “office holders” is one I oppose quite strongly. Yes, these are special servants who provide special service, but they are not “office holders” in the same sense that one might find in politics or business. Dr. Bales writes, “I am not convinced that there was an office of deaconess in the church, but it is clear that there were female servants of the church. It is not necessary to prove that there was an office of deaconess in order to prove that there were women whom the church selected to do special work for the church. Thus, it is unnecessary to settle the question as to whether technically there is such an office (of deaconess); for surely there is such a work” [p. 79]. Frankly, I believe the church has for too long fallen into the “titles” trap. It’s not about what we’re called, but rather what we’re called to be and to do. We are functionaries, not dignitaries. There are too many “politicians” in the church “running for office;” too many lords, and not nearly enough laborers. These men, and, yes, even women, need to recapture that heart of a servant that is the hallmark of all genuine discipleship and servant-leadership.

In the Apostolic Constitutions, which was “a fourth-century pseudo-Apostolic collection, in 8 books, of independent, though closely related, treatises on Christian discipline, worship, and doctrine, intended to serve as a manual of guidance for the clergy, and to some extent for the laity” [The Catholic Encyclopedia], one will find a great many allusions to deaconesses in the church and the nature of their duties, which predominantly were focused on ministry to women’s needs. “The strict separation of the sexes made something like deaconesses necessary for baptism, visiting the women, etc.” [Robertson's Word Pictures, e-Sword]. I would refer you to Reflections #239 on the issue of women baptizing. Vincent, in his Word Studies, says that “their duties were to take care of the sick and poor, to minister to martyrs and confessors in prison, to assist at the baptism of women, and to exercise a general supervision over the female church-members” [e-Sword]. Book #3 of the Apostolic Constitutions, for example, reads: “Ordain a deaconess who is faithful and holy, for the ministries toward the women.” The historical records of the time clearly depict such functionaries in the early church. A good example of this is found in the letters of Pliny the Younger, whose actual name was Gaius Plinius Caecilius Secundus [62-115 A.D.], who was a Roman senator, and later the governor of Bithynia and Pontus [109-111 A.D.]. He wrote a series of now famous letters to Trajan, the emperor of the Roman Empire. In one of those many letters he described how he had tortured a couple of Christian women in order to try and discern the exact nature of what it was these “Christians” believed and practiced. Notice the following heart-wrenching statement from the pen of Pliny the Younger: “Accordingly, I judged it all the more necessary to find out what the truth was by torturing two female slaves who were called deaconesses. But I discovered nothing else but depraved, excessive superstition.” There are many other such secular references to this group of women servants in the early church to which Phoebe clearly belonged.

“That in the earliest churches there were deaconesses, to attend to the wants of the female members, there is no good reason to doubt. Indeed, from the relation in which the sexes then stood to each other, something of this sort would seem to have been a necessity” [Jamieson, Fausset and Brown Commentary, e-Sword]. John Wesley [1703-1791], the great English evangelist and founder of Methodism, wrote in his Explanatory Notes, “In the apostolic age, some grave and pious women were appointed deaconesses in every church. It was their office, not to teach publicly, but to visit the sick, the women in particular, and to minister to them both in their temporal and spiritual necessities.” I find it rather unfortunate that Wesley chose to use the word “office” in his statement, for “Paul is not stressing office but service” [The Expositor's Bible Commentary, vol. 10, p. 161].

Moses E. Lard [1818-1880], one of the more renowned leaders within the Stone-Campbell Movement, wrote in his classic commentary on the book of Romans, “I am of the opinion that Phoebe was a deaconess in the official sense of that word. What the special duties were of this order of women it would seem not difficult to conjecture — their work consisted in serving the sisterhood. Indeed, even in the present day, wherever the necessities of the churches are such as to demand it, then the order of the deaconesses should be re-established. They are often of as much importance to a church as the deacons, if not even more” [p. 452]. “Was Phoebe appointed to the service by the church, or did she assume it of herself? The question is not even material. For whether she assumed the service of her own accord, or was appointed to it, she performed it with the Apostle’s sanction. This stamps it as right. If the church appointed her to the service, then other churches may do likewise; for the action of that church, being sanctioned by the Apostle, becomes a precedent” [p. 451].

Over the years, some have criticized Paul for what they perceived to be a low estimate of women in the church. I have actually had women approach me in three different congregations and declare, in the words of one of those women, “Paul was nothing but a male chauvinist pig!” Such castigation simply shows these women had no clue as to the actual teaching of Paul. If anything, Paul was ahead of his time in his defense and elevation of women in the church. A sister in Christ by the name of Lena Rea penned a marvelous book titled “Romans — From A Woman’s Point Of View.” In this book she wrote, “By his recommending Phoebe, Paul shows his high esteem for woman’s work in the church” [p. 156]. I couldn’t agree more! Phoebe was a very special Christian lady, with a very special “heart for service” in the church of our Lord Jesus Christ. She was a servant; a deaconess. As a servant-leader in the One Body, her example serves as an enduring tribute to all other women who have served, and continue to serve, their Lord in whatever ministries to which they have been individually called and given ability by the Holy Spirit. I’m sure Paul thanked God many times for his “sister Phoebe.” May you and I thank God daily for the Phoebes in the church today. Brothers, without our sisters we would be a pitiful lot indeed. Cherish them and honor them as they so rightly deserve! We have neglected them for too long!

TMS: As my mother (an ordained minister) often says - it’s not a matter of authority - it’s a matter of service. She serves God as he leads her to serve Him. There have been men in congregations who were a little resistent to a woman minister until they got to know her and saw her humbleness, her hard work, her attitude of service - and they saw how God was able to work through her. She’s 84 years old now and about to retire for the second time. She has been through many physical problems the last few years, but she has never declined the opportunity to preach because of the strength and depth of her calling of service to Jesus Christ.

All the years that I was in ministry in the coC, I always made it plain to everyone in the church, including the elders, that Kathy was my wife, not “the preacher’s wife.” I never expected anything more from my wife than I expected from myself, or any other woman it the congregation. This is one reason I had to leave the coC. It became evident that I was being led down a different path. Kathy and I miss, terribly, many of the things associated with the coC. Having a musical background, I really do love four part harmony, sung a capella. I miss that from time to time. However, there are few things that sound more beautiful than a string ensemble playing praise and worship music; or Michael W. Smith singing, “Forever.”

It is a shame that some believe they are immune to sin just because they attend a church with a particular name. As a child, we had elders and deacons who would go outside and smoke between Sunday School and worship, and even throw their butts on the ground of the church parking lot. However, don’t even think about trying to get instrumental music in the worship. How hypocritical.

I hope you have found a place to live out your Christian life with great support and harmony. There are many churches and fellowships which provide just that. May God bless you.

TMS: I belong to a wonderful and small God-led and God-filled church. The minister’s wife teaches our adult Sunday School class and she also plays an incredible piano accompaniment to hymn-singing in church. My own mother (84-years old) is an ordained minister. Having grown up hearing and seeing women ministers and women participate fully in worship, I just don’t understand why people would believe something that is so limiting. I’d hate to think of the people who would not have found Jesus if it weren’t for women ministers and teachers in the church. It’s not a matter of women having “authority” - it’s a matter of women serving God.

Thanks again for commenting. I really appreciate your input.

You have probably figured it out by now but you will never “win” these arguments with the coC folks. I was educated at a coC University and spent 20 years in coC ministry. I finally had to ask myself a very critical question, “Do I believe what I believe because it is what I have been taught all my life (my father was also a coC minister), both by my parents and my University, or do I believe what I believe because it is really what is presented in God’s Word?” This was a very painful question but was necessary. Through my continued study of God’s Word, I was freed from many of the small, petty, mis-guided teachings of the coC, many of which have been mentioned in this blog. Having said this, I agree with Cindy above, in that we are not all the same. There are many people in the coC whom I continue to love and have great relationships with. We differ on our interpretation of some passages of scripture (and, yes, they are interpretations, although the di-hard coC folks who believe they are, somehow, the only ones capable of truly understanding scriptures) I continue to have great relationships with them. We both understand that the issues we differ on are not salvation issues. The ONE church which Christ died for is not the red brick building with the church of Christ sign in front. Christ’s church is one composed of those who have recognized they are sinners, cannot “earn” salvation on their own, have repented of sins, and sealed the deal through baptism into the death, burial and resurrection of Jesus Christ. Outside of that, we are all lost. Thanks for allowing me bo address this here.
TMS: Yes, I knew from the beginning that I wasn’t going to “win” an argument, and that no one was going to change their mind because of what I wrote. I keep responding to comments because I feel strongly about it. From my own experiences and from watching others I see the potential danger of such beliefs about women - despite the fact that there are many wonderful Christian people in the COC would never dream of abusing women. The biggest reason is because of one particular young woman I knew - I’m not related to her and I’m not at all in her life now. However, I hurt for the limits she has on her life and her relationship with God because of her COC upbringing

Thanks for commenting.

Also in 1 Timmothy 2:11-14 the bible reads-” Let a woman learn in silence with all submission. And I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man, but to be in silence. For Adam was formed first then Eve And Adam was not deceived, but the women being deceived fell into transgression.

The bible is right and God is the authority on whom should preach in the Lord’s Church1

Do appreciate your observations… however, I believe you are exagerrating the problem with regard to my love for Carol. I truly hope that Carol (and others) would read through all the posts and follow the discussion… if nothing more than for a single reason: that people will be motivated to consider their own beliefs in comparison with God’s inspired word.

Now, regarding sarcasm, I do point out the fact that there are a number of unfair comments that Carol has posted about all of the churches of Christ (i.e. see title of the thread, you just believe things that have been drummed in your head). You are correct… I used sarcasm… I did so to communicate the idea of “I am glad that you have a corner of the market of truth.”
While I may be somewhat different, sarcasm doesn’t turn me off in a discussion… it makes me realize that someone is trying to communicate their strong disagreement… and that’s OK. In her earlier posts, Carol seems to enjoy using it (see the idea of why she said churches of Christ don’t use instruments)… I do not see harm in responding in similar manner… unless I am going to fill my entire post with that type of writing. Note, if you will, the different approaches that Jesus used in many of His discussions… you might find some things falling into the category of “sarcasm” (i.e. Matthew 16:1-4).

With that said, I will say a few things that readers possibly may be interested in regarding the Winkler situation that are lost in the knowledge of many people. First, I knew both of the Winklers… I went to school with both/took classes with them. While I did not know them intimately (we were casual friends), I do know several things. First, unless he made a major change in his life, he was not domineering toward her. In fact, in every situation I can remember, he was more than considerate in his treatment of her. Second, Mary has a long history with a mental difficulty that could have been one of the contributors to this situation. If you’ve ever lived in a relationship with someone who battles things like depression & being bi-polar, you realize the complications it brings into a relationship.

Everywhere I look on internet discussion boards, I find numbers of people who quickly judge Matthew and Mary based solely upon what has been reported in the media. And, it seems that there are a great number of people who have taken delight in pointing out beliefs of “the church of Christ” as being a contributor to this tragic situation. Some obviously have an agenda… others simply love bashing religion in general… some just love being able to find fault with others. Every time, however, there is an illusion to the “church thing,” an attack in being made on the church that I love so dear. No, as others have said, this church is not perfect… as long as there are human beings who are involved, it will never be. However, despite imperfections in attitude or other such problems, we are the bride of Christ. Every time someone criticizes the church, he/she is criticizing the spiritual “spouse” of the Lord… it’s as if people look at Jesus and say “you have an ugly, sick wife.” At some point in time, love demands an answer… love for the lost of the world. But… (even more so) a love for the bride of Jesus Christ.

I want to say that I am amazed at your great restraint and kind responses to Wendy and Charles. As I stated previously, I too am a member of the Church of Christ. In fact, I am probably 4th or fifth generation from both sides of my parents and if I worked really hard I could probably trace my spiritual heritage back to the Stone/Campbell restoration movement. Last time, I wrote to you, but this time I would like to write to Wendy and Charles, my sister and brother in the body of Christ.

Hi Wendy and Charles,

Your sincere love and passion for the truth of God’s Word is highly commendable and I believe you will receive what I have to say in love and with a desire to grow in wisdom and knowledge as all members of the body of Christ strive to do. If you’ve not studied the history of the COC in the United States, I encourage you to do so. If you’ve not studied the history of how the church began in the book of Acts, I encourage you to do so too.

I tend to agree with much of the criticism Carol has for the Church of Christ as an institution. I am embarrassed by how we use the Word of God with such legalism and ignorance that we send precious souls like Carol running as fast as they can away from us, looking for the grace, mercy and freedom in Christ, (God promised throughout the Old Testament) to other groups of believers.

Wendy, I am hard pressed to find the scripture that says precisely the role of women in the church during worship. Being quiet in worship is not a woman’s role or a salvation issue. If this is considered a role that crosses all barriers throughout all time, to be adhered to in worship, how do we reconcile women singing out loud in the worship? I personally cannot. Submitting to ones husband is not a role in the worship or a legalistic rule to be followed. It is an attitude we are to have in love and reverence to God as we live our lives daily as Christian wives. Paul is giving instructions that, when lived out with the same attitude Christ had, would cause unbelievers to recognize something so beautiful and desirable in the lives of Christians, that they would want to be a part of it too. I know too many Christian women who follow the submit rule in the confines of the church building, but run rough shot over their husbands on the way home from worship in their cars or in their everyday lives at home or anywhere away from the building that the name of Christ is publicly smeared and dishonored by their actions. These are issues of faith! The measure of our faith in God is determined by how we live our lives. And our lives as Christians must be lived from the inside out, from a heart given over to Christ through faith.

The controversial subject of instrumental music in or for worship continues to be a tool of Satan to cause believers to fight amongst ourselves. The only salvation issue connected with this topic is how unloving and unChrist like our attitudes become when we try to bind our preferences or traditions on other believers. Which causes unbelievers to wonder why in the world they would ever want to become as we are! Truly a salvation issue. Acapella worship is a rich heritage of the non-instrumental Churches of Christ. Praising God with our voices in four-part harmony is truly a blessing. When I invite an unbeliever to worship I let them know our preference in worship is to sing acapella. I cannot find the actual scripture that says using an instrument for worship is unauthorized. Sorry. I do know all the scriptures that are used to try to force this into being unauthorized, but, when I honestly read what was written, ‘singing and making melody in your heart to the Lord Jesus Christ’ does not translate into using musical instruments to worship is unauthorized. How many times as we are singing in the worship do we let our minds slip somewhere other than in the moment? The songs we sing over and over and over again can become just rote and not be sung from the heart whether an instrument is used or not. Where our hearts and minds are as we worship the Lord, not, musical instruments are unauthorized .

You are sadly correct when you stated that there are many churches that do not commit to the study of Scripture in an effort to find truth. This is true even in the Churches of Christ. Many have become nothing more than social clubs with ritualistic rules of entry followed with dogmatic rules and regulations for continued strict compliance in order to be considered a member in good standing. Jesus was appalled and angered by many of the scribes, Pharisees and other religious leaders who made their own laws and practiced their own traditions making God’s laws null and void and creating undue burdens on their own people. Don’t we do the same? I know I have been guilty of doing so. So we should study as you say, but not to prove our own point to someone else, but to be assured of right standing before God. Paul, in his second letter to Timothy, chapter 2, gives us great guidance in handling or rightly dividing the word of truth and goes on to instruct Timothy in verse 24-25 as follows “and a servant of the Lord must not quarrel but be gentle to all, able to teach, patient, in humility correcting those who are in opposition, if God perhaps will grant them repentance, so they may know the truth.”

We are all guilty at one time or another of using the Word of God to lash out at those who do not agree with our understanding of what Scripture teaches. May we all take better care in the future to prayerfully seek guidance in gentleness and patience as we share God’s Word.

Charles, I agree with some of your statements as follows:

Fundamentally, the problem under discussion is not about the role of women… or instrumental music… it’s about how one chooses to interpret scripture.

And:

The tough thing for us to do in resolving the issue is… do I have the courage to put aside experience, respect for others, words of other people, etc. and try to work through the passages to determine truth.

But I’m not so sure that your response to Carol in regards to her explanation of her understanding of salvation, which you asked for her to explain, was in the spirit of love. You have a great gift of logic, knowledge and understanding of scripture, but as 1 Corinthians 13 tells us “Though I speak with the tongues of men and of angels but have not love… And though I have the gift of prophecy, and understand all knowledge, and though I have all faith, so that I could remove mountains, but have not love…

I understand many of the issues and problems of the Churches of Christ that Carol found fault with during her tour of duty with the group she was involved with and whole-heartedly agree with many of her observations of the way women are viewed and over looked and over worked. Truly women are the backbone, physically and spiritually of the church, but are often times treated as subservient by not just men but by other women. I am so thankful to be in a fellowship where this is not the case. The one thing that continues to trouble me about Carol’s view of Churches of Christ, is that we are all alike. Some of us are making great strides to think outside of the box and to open our hearts and minds (without letting our brains fall out) to the truth of freedom in Christ.

In regards to the Old Testament, it is the first place I go when studying with an unbeliever. We could never understand why Christ died the death He died for our sins without starting in Genesis. We could never know about our great and glorious God without reading what He tells us about Himself in page after page of Old Testament Scriptures. We could never appreciate or understand the gift we have of the indwelling Holy Spirit if we didn’t have chapters from the Old Testament like Leviticus 21 that gives detailed instruction on who could or could not approach to offer the bread of his God vs. 17, or go in to the veil or come near the altar vs. 23. Yet now as Christians our bodies, though sick, weak, deformed, male or female are the temple of the Holy Spirit. (1 Corinthians 6:19)

Foremost, our public responses (or private responses for that matter) to those who do not interpret scripture as we do, will certainly never be received well or maybe even considered as a possible way to view scripture, when we use sarcasm or profess to know what or how that person thinks. The most effective way to be a defender of the faith is in how we live our faith so as not to bring reproach upon the body of Christ, but in a way that will bring honor and glory to Him.

As we all continue to search the Scriptures I pray as Paul did for the Philippians that our love may abound still more and more in knowledge and discernment that we may approve the things that are excellent, that we may be sincere and without offense till the day of Christ, being filled with the fruits of righteousness which are by Jesus Christ, to the glory and praise of God. (Philippians 1:9-11)

p.s.
2 Timothy 3:16-17 “All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work.”

Appreciate your responses… especially the one regarding the roles of women in the church. In reading your comments, I am becoming aware of your thought process in regards to religion.

You asked the question, “Do I believe all non-church of Christ are damned?” I will answer not with my words, but with words of my Lord and Savior. In Matthew 7:21-23, Jesus claimed that everyone who callled Him “Lord, Lord” would enter the kingdom of heaven. Instead, it would be “he who does the will of My Father in heaven.” Their sin (lawlessness)… the things they did in Christ’s name was not according to His will (22-23). I find it amazing, in light of passages such as this, that many claim that simply believing in Jesus/acting on His behalf will lead us to salvation. Who, then, will be saved? I suggest to you that it is only the people who “do Christ’s will.” Now, a sticking point with many people… the terms of entrance into God’s kingdom. If you will look at Christ’s words in John 3:3-5 and in Mark 16:15-16, you will see that people are saved at the point of baptism. When you begin talking about the various ways people teach our salvation today, you find that many (for reasons unknown to me… I can’t know motives) teach otherwise. Just like any organization/institution, there are requirements for entrance… those who haven’t submitted to Christ’s command to be baptized for forgiveness of sins are lost. However, I’ll also remind you that there is more to the story… 1 John 1:7-9 teaches us that Christians must continue to “walk in the light” as our Lord is light in order to continue to enjoy the benefits of Christ’s blood in our lives. Again, as I said in an earlier post, you might want to examine this idea of “sincerity.” You cannot have “acceptable religion” without sincerity (see places like John 4:24)… but simply having sincerity doesn’t mean I’m correct in my theology (see people in Matthew 7:21-23; Paul in Acts 23:1; Jews in Romans 10:1-2).

You ask about women using the gift of prophecy in Acts 21… I will gladly answer. Philip did have four daughters who served as “prophets of God.” It’s obvious, in your response, that you believe they exercised this gift in an unlimited manner… that is, to all people (including men). Yet, when you read from the 1 Corinthians 14 passage, you find that Paul claims that these mandates (pertaining to tongues, prophets, women) were done in all the churches of the saints. Included in the “all” would be the church at Caesarea. Therefore, we ask the question… “Is there any way that the perceived disagreement in the 2 passages can be resolved. In 1 Corinthians 14, Paul claimes that these teachings are “the commandments of the Lord” (37; evidently, he anticipated opposition from those who were spiritual/prophets). Therefore, we can’t “throw out” the teachings in this passage as “irrelevant.” Thus, the only thing we are left to do is go back to Acts 21 and say, “how can we look at this passage in a way that will agree with 1 Corinthians 14?” The easy answer is that the four daughters of Philip did not exercise their gifts of prophecy in a mixed setting (women/men present). I clearly believe there were women prophets in the early church… it is wrong to teach/believe otherwise. However, their function is not always what many would assume to be the case.

Last, I would also happily address (since you keep mentioning it) the idea of microphones/projection screens. You are right, they are not mentioned in the New Testament. However, the NT teaches us that we should worship (John 4:23)… microphones assist people in worshipping (note this word) without changing the worship itself. Just as a song book helps people to sing (without changing the singing itself), microphones help those who lead in worship to be heard. Therefore, it is an aid that helps us in obeying a command of Christ (without changing the nature of the command). A good parallel is using a plane for the purpose of evangelism. Someone might say, “I don’t see it in the New Testament.” Correct, but Jesus did say “go” in the command of Matthew 28:18-20. And, in saying “go,” He implied that we must use some means of transportation. A projection screen cannot be acceptably used to show movies in worship… because that changes what worship to God is… but it can be used in such a way that teaching/singing/etc. is more easily done under the same idea as the “going” of Matthew 28.

As I conclude (and it seems as if you do not desire to continue the discussion), I hope you realize I do consider the times of the NT in our interpretation today. However, in regards to an idea like women’s role, I don’t simply look to discount Jesus’ teachings because we “live in a different culture today” (the truth of the matter is that Corinth/Ephesus both enjoyed much the same freedom for women as we do today… in Palestine, it might have become a factor). Under that reason, I could find a reason to disobey every command of the Bible… because every command was given to a certain person/church in a certain place and I am neither that person nor a member of that church. As I pointed out earlier, our disagreement comes from a difference in how we choose to interpret the Bible. All methods that are used for interpretation are not right (see Matthew 15:1-20 and notice how the Pharisees interpreted the law of Moses). I have enjoyed the discussion and I pray God will bless you as desire to seek the truth of His word.

The New Testament also talks about slaves obeying their masters, and yet I’m sure you don’t believe in slavery.  However, in NT days there were slaves.  So we should interpret the Bible by taking into consideration the times and circumstances in which it was written.  Do Church of Christ women cover their heads?  Not any that I met - yet that’s in the NT.

The Bible is there for us to read and interpet as accurately as possible and then to follow as closely as possible.  I’ve written this before but I’ll do it again - the New Testament doesn’t instruct us to use microphones and projection screens in church - and yet each COC I’ve attended (4 different churches) used them.  If you can’t use instrumental music because the Bible didn’t instruct you to, then why do you use other things that the NT doesn’t instruct  you to use?  Did the NT mention hymnals?  The NT does instruct us to praise and glorify God.  One way that I choose to do that is through singing with instrumental accompaniment.   

I hope that if I am right in this debate - that God will look at the sincerity of your beliefs about women’s place in the church and not judge you harshly - just as I hope that if you are right, he would not judge me harshly. We both are doing what we feel the Bible tells us to do. The only difference is that I’m taking into consideration the times and circumstances in which the NT was written.
.
While this is an interesting discussion, I have no desire or need or time to continue to debate the issue here. I only spent a year attending a Church of Christ, and I tried my best to understand their beliefs. However, to me it felt fundamentally wrong and was contrary to what I read in the Bible.

One curious question: Do you believe that all non-Church of Christ (Jews, Buddhists, Presbyterians, Methodists, Baptists, Catholics, etc.) are damned?