A Noble Task (Part 2)

Really pick up where we left off last Sunday night. Consider the qualifications set forth in Scripture for the offices of elder and deacon were specifically again to be looking tonight at what Paul says regarding the relationship between a man's calling the church and his calling in the home and the work in the take some time to look at what the Bible says regarding the ordination of women, kind of a hot button issue in our culture and our day and age.

Last time he read the passage from first Timothy three suits and I misread the parallel passage from Titus chapter 1 verses five through nine, Titus 1539. The apostle Paul says this is why I left you in Crete so that you might put what remained into order, and appoint elders in every town as I directed you.

If anyone is above reproach, the husband of one wife and his children are believers and not open to the charge of debauchery or insubordination for an overseer, as God's steward must be above reproach. You must not be arrogant or quick-tempered or a drunkard or violent or greedy for gain, but hospitable, a lover of good self-control upright, holy indiscipline, he must hold firm to the trustworthy word as taught, so that he may be able to give instruction in sound doctrine and also to rebuke those who contradict prey by the we come again to your holy word asking that you make sense of it for us and even more than than just that. We ask that you give us a willingness to listen and believe and obey what you say Lord what we will be looking at tonight in large measure flies in the face of what the culture around us believes so pray that you would guard us from taking our cue from the world protect us from the.

The constant danger of letting some path of least resistance be a motivation to compromise or water down or neglect any part of your word.

When we submit ourselves to your truth. The grass withers, the flower fades, but your word of God stands forever Holy Spirit, please accompany the word of God. Now with your illuminating and convicting power. We prayed on Jesus name, amen. You can be seated. A large portion of Paul's discussion on qualifications for elders and deacons revolves around what a man is in his home.

There are many arenas in which you can observe a man and evaluate his gifting's qualification for holy office in the church, but no arena is more telling than the home. What a man is at home is what he will be at church and so Paul says in first Timothy 35. If someone does not know how to manage his own household. How will he care for God's church, if a man is called to the office of elder or deacon. What should his home look like what should be the state of his family all tells us first Timothy three for an elder must manage his own household well in verse 12 he says deacons must manage their children and their own households. Well word manage simply means to rule over to give direction to to be at the head off to lead the officer must do these things well in his own home.

If he's going to be capable of doing them well in the church. It's an argument from the lesser to the greater as goes the man over the little church in his in his home so will go the man over the big church. And Paul says that he is to exercise this rule this headship well and with all dignity. In other words, he's to leave in such a way as to be worthy of all respect to some men in their homes leave no doubt in everyone's mind that they wear the proverbial pants in the house but they also leave no doubt in how they wear the pants that they really don't deserve the pants wearing they they possess the checkbook of authority if you will the title the position you can't argue with that because that's biblical but they don't have sufficient money in the account to cash the checks they writes the exercise headship, but they lack the requisite dignity, the respect and love and humility that ought to accompany that headship.

I love how one commentator described a sense of dignity. He said the father who manages his household well is a father who exercises his authority in such a manner that his firmness makes it advisable for his child to obey his wisdom makes it natural for a child to obey and his love makes it a pleasure for a child to obey this qualification isn't just about whether or not he leads in the home.

It's about how he leads in the home so the proof or evidence of a man's household management evidence that he he manages his household well is the submissiveness of his children. Submissive children are children that obey that respect and follow the godly leadership of their father and Paul would have us acknowledge a relationship here between the ability of the father to parent and the outcome of that parenting in the lives of his children is not a perfect litmus test but it's a reliably accurate one look at a man's children and realize that in time, their character will be replicated over and over again in the church for good or for bad. Now let's compare this to the parallel passage over and Titus 164 Mullet Titus 16 says numb read from the ESV that the elders children are to be believers and not open to the charge of debauchery or insubordination. So the question then arises, would read that that requirement do the children of elders have to be Christians.

Some say yes, some say no. So which is it was Russell through this for just a moment to the elders of the children of elders have to be believers today have to be converted Christians. When Paul says that an elders children are believers.

The word believers is the Greek word pit stops at this word can refer to saving faith, but it can also refer to faithfulness. It can be describing someone who is trusting in Christ for their Savior, or someone who is trustworthy like Christ.

So depending on the nuance depending on the context.

It it refers to someone who is a Christian by virtue of their belief in Jesus or to someone who acts like a Christian by virtue of their obedience to Jesus, there's an interpretive principle that we need to keep in mind whenever trying to understand what a particular verse in the Bible, means, and the principle is this the words and grammar give us the valid options. They give us the valid range of meaning, but the context tells us what is intended by the writer, a Greek word like this word pit stops, which is translated as as faith for faithfulness has a range of possible meaning it can mean saving faith or it can mean faithful obedience figuring out whether it means faith or faithfulness in any given verse, then it is not a matter of doing word studies or looking at the grammar. It's a matter of understanding how a particular use of the word is functioning in that particular context, and in a context would include the immediate sentence.

The surrounding paragraphs of the epistle or book that the word appears in, and even the context of the whole Bible. We do ask what is the rest of the Bible say that would inform our interpretation of this use of this word before us to show you how this works.

Take the parable of the talents in Matthew 25, 21 were all familiar with this story of how a master entrusted various amounts of money to three different servants and that he left on a on a long trip when he returned two of the servants had wisely invested the money they made a profit and they were praised by the master, but the third servant had buried his talent in the ground for fear of the master. At the end of the story. The master says to the profitable servants. Well done good and faithful to stops. There's that same word. Well done good and faithful servant. You have been faithful to stops over little, I will set you over much enter into the joy of your master the context of the story makes it clear that the master isn't talking about saving faith when he uses that faith word. He's talking about faithfulness in relation to money he's talking about good financial stewardship is what the story is about context helps us define that Greek word, another well-known example of this word is found in Romans 43 in which Paul is talking about the faith of Abraham, and he famously says Abraham believed God to stops that the verb form with this DOS and it was counted to him as righteousness. So we asked does Paul mean that Abraham's faith saved him or that Abraham's faithfulness, his faithful obedience saved him. The context tells us. Romans four is all about not being justified by works, so we know that Paul doesn't mean this DOS in in this context as it, in the sense of faithfulness as obedience but as faith, belief, trust in Christ.

So, words and grammar give us the range of legitimate options, but the context determines the meaning the Vectra question does Paul require that the children of officers be of the faith or that they merely be faithful obedience think Paul defines what he means and what he says next. He says that an elders children are this DOS, but then he adds not open to the charge of debauchery or insubordination. In other words, whatever pit stops means here. It looks like not being accused of debauchery, which is just reckless prodigal living or of insubordination, so the context would suggest that Paul has the idea of faithfulness rather than faith in view is children are faithful to their father's management, his leadership, his authority in the home.

They respect him and that respect is exhibited through faithful obedience to his headship over the family only quickly add that Christian fathers whether there elders and deacons are not are commanded to bring up their children in the discipline and instruction of the Lord. We ought to be making disciples of our children. That's the goal of Christian parenting rights and not not raising children that are merely externally compliant to us. But children who were followers of Christ there plenty of obedient children in non-Christian homes. Nothing magical about that near obedience is in the goal.

Remember that the parallel to a man's leadership in the home and this and this passage is his leadership in the church, a Christian fathers goal is not the mere compliance of his children anymore than an elders goal is the mere compliance of church members. The goal that came the desire is for there to be genuine love for Christ in the hearts of those we lead a love.

It certainly spills over into faithful living good conduct obedient submission and all that but who cares if my child takes out the trash when I tell them to.

If at the end of the day they don't love Christ. The goal is to make disciples, followers of Christ. I say all that for the purpose of making sure we don't think to ourselves as fathers and mothers. Well, it doesn't matter that my children aren't believers. I'm just glad they turned out to be good, respectable adults, parents, our goal isn't the financial dependence independence of our our children or a solid career path are attractive spouses. Those are the goals in Christian parenting. Our goal is that they know and love Jesus Christ and serve him with their whole heart.

Don't make the world's measure of success. Your parenting goal go after the hearts and minds of your children through prayer and evangelism and discipleship baptize them and then teach them to make good on that baptism by following hard after the Lord all the days of their life.

Even if Paul is not requiring that the children of elders and deacons be believers. We we do want that ideal. That's a given. Right we should be striving for that ideal and not just for the pastors kids but for all the covenant children in our church. They may know the Lord and walk with the Lord all the days of their life. Both point here is that there is a connection between how a man leads in his home and how he will lead in the church do his wife and children respect him. Do they acknowledge his position of authority in the home and demonstrate that acknowledgment through submission and obedience to him and, ultimately, we hope to the Lord. I want to just stop and remind us of something that I said last week one of the principles that I laid out at the beginning of the message last week was that Wiley's qualifications will not be perfectly met by anyone.

They will be imperfectly visible in those who are called to hold office in the church but not perfectly met by anyone, but they will be imperfectly visible and those who are called to this office. This is perhaps a true or of no other qualifications and then this one a.

Christian fathers are charged by God to do something that, in reality, they are quite incapable of doing God's word puts the burden of discipling my children squarely on my shoulders and yet I cannot change the hearts of my children. I cannot produce faith and repentance in the lives of my children.

I cannot save my children at the same time I must recognize that ability on this case. Inability does not define responsibility.

I'm responsible for something that I am unable to do so or does is leave me folks will easily utterly dependent on God. It leaves me without any right to brag or boast, if and when God chooses to work in the hearts of my children. But it doesn't leave me without the responsibility to use the means that God has provided to make disciples of my children so I think the question with regard to this qualification has to be whether a man is using the means that God has given him to leave his home is he using those means faithfully as he using those means well.

A good measure of whether or not he is faithful in this responsibility is the character and behavior of his children. But it's not a perfect measure. Abraham had Ishmael, Isaac had and Esau and Jacob had all kinds of messed up sons Joseph had an E from Aaron had an a dab and abide to David had an Absalom Solomon had a rebel. We could go on. Could these men have been better fathers sure can we should we be better fathers than we are absolutely there will not be in this fallen world a perfect father who produces perfect children. The standard we find in first Timothy three and Titus one, then, does not require perfection at home. It requires faithfulness and faithfulness will produce a certain visible result. Paul is telling us to look for that fruit of faithfulness and a man's management of his home and when you find it, you found the man who will lead well in the church. The only thing left to address that in these two passages pertains to the wives of officers in the church. The management that a man is to have over his children extends to his wife says he is to manage his entire household. Well, however.

In first Timothy 311. It lists some specific qualities that will be characteristic of the wife of a man who manages his house hold well. Verse 11 says their wives. Likewise, and and even though this immediately follows the list for deacons.

I believe it refers to the wives of both deacons and elders verse 11 refers to wives of both deacons and elders. John Calvin agrees it must be right there. Wives likewise must be dignified, not slanderous but sober minded, faithful in all things.

So, for character qualities are mentioned here, I first used to be dignified. We saw this quality.

Last week it was given for the deacon in first Timothy 38.

A similar qualification is given for elders in first Timothy three to where it says that elders are to be respectable kind of sentiment to this dignified, it means that she has a sense of decorum and propriety because Christianity is all about putting on airs about because it's all about drawing attention to the gospel, but the dignified woman is a woman who is modest about herself, rather than outlandish so that the gospel shines through without distraction.

But secondly, Paul says she's not a slanderer.

This is the Greek word, the Avalos she's literally not a devil devilish wives of pastors and deacons would be a bad thing.

There's a specific way in which she is not to be devilish and that is in her speech. Revelation 1210 calls the devil, the accuser of the brethren.

So many times and we encounter Satan in the Bible. What is he doing.

He's standing around casting accusations that everyone think of the opening chapter of Job, when Satan accuses Job of being nothing more than a paid servant says the God take away your blessing from Job and that the see what what is true colors all are he will curse you to your face.

The devil is a slanderer and accuser. A fault finder he's critical of everything an officer's wife is not to be characterized by these things. She's not to be given to speaking evil to speaking gospel gossip saying slanderous things about people.

Now why would that well because it's wrong, but also because it would be particularly damaging to the church. If those closest to the leaders, their wives who are often made privy to much more than they probably care to know more prone to being loose tongue. It could very quickly undermine her husbands calling in ministry and it could damage so many people in the church in the process so she's not to be a slanderer. Thirdly, Paul says the wives are to be sober minded and again we've seen this qualification before given in verse two. It refers to temperance of mind. She's not a hothead but rather is thoughtful, deliberate, restrained in her convictions and opinions in the last quality that pertains to the wife is that she is faithful in all things. And again we see that same WordPress stocks. We looked at earlier, it could mean of the faith.

It could mean faithful. As with the children.

I think it refers to being faithful.

She is obedient she is submissive to her husband's leadership and in this way, she's really a model for the whole church is a sheet she exemplifies in her conduct and attitude what the church's conduct and attitudes toward its leaders ought to be. Hebrews 1317 admonishes the church to obey its leaders and submit to them for their keeping watch over your souls, as those who will have to give an account. Let them do this with joy and not with groaning for that would be of no advantage to you, the wives of elders and deacons can model that submissiveness by being faithful in all things or they can undermine that authority and respectability of those who leave the church to their disobedience and lack of submission to their husbands. A man then who is qualified and call to hold office of leadership in the church is identified by the presence of certain character traits in his life and those character traits are made evident most visibly in his home in the lives of his wife and children as goes the man, so goes his home as goes his home so will go to church. That's Paul's logic in these lists, let's turn now to the matter of ordination of women, and I should just say up front in case you don't know. I don't believe the practice of ordaining women to office in the church is biblically defensible now, nor does our denomination. The PCA so I'll be arguing for that position tonight as we as we walk through these things of this debate. Of course, is not new. It's been raging long before I was born, but as I see it.

The debate is argued mainly on two fronts. One is the cultural front and the other is an exegetical fund of biblical interpretation front, the cultural argument comes in the form of pressure to get with the times as some would have us ordain women because it's 2020. After all of the day of the feminist is here. Stop acting like a Neanderthal. In your view of women in leadership. I call it the cultural front because it describes what is considered by large to be normative in the culture you go out and talk to the man on the street you turn on the news you read social media. The position of the day is one of unqualified gender equality.

That's normal. And so the argument goes, get with it church be normal. Stop being so Victorian, so backward, so ignorant, so unfair in denying women the same rights and privileges as men.

Besides a lot of women were actually a lot better at leaving than their male counterparts to get out of the way your holding everyone back as the cultural argument.

Surely we heard that before. And surely we see that this argument is not just arguing for a particular view of women's role in the church is really arguing for a certain worldview, a worldview that replaces one ultimate source of authority with another ultimate source of authority.

It seeks to displace the authority of Scripture by claiming that common practice or majority opinion rather than the Bible are what determine whether something is true or false, good or evil, beautiful or ugly.

The cultural argument is largely an attack against the word of God. But there are those who disagree with us on the issue of women in ministry and do so not on cultural grounds, but on scriptural grounds. In other words, there are those who accept the Bible as being inerrant and authoritative, and yet believe that the Bible itself allows the ordination of women for women to hold office in the church. I want to walk through their argument tonight just so that we can be aware of what they believe and how they intellectually get their buttons and explain the reasoning I want to just make two quick observations.

First of all, just because someone has a sincere commitment to the authority of Scripture and makes a case from Scripture for some belief or practice doesn't mean that their argument is correct, we may both be on the same side religiously were on the same team and they may be a Christian brother or sister who believes the Bible. That's fine that's great.

But that doesn't mean their exegesis of the Bible is right a believer's perspective is not necessarily the biblical perspective you must hold every view our own included up to the scrutiny of God's word. Secondly, I want to point out that those who believe that Scripture allows for the ordination of women tend to be sufficiently theologically aware to know that they have to make their case from the Bible but they don't seem to be sufficiently self-aware to realize how swayed they are by the cultural argument folks. Feminism is the cultural water we swim in, and for that very reason it's it's extremely difficult for us to notice where and when it has begun creeping into our thought processes and biases that being the case, I think there's value in addressing the issue, both from Scripture and from nature. I would want to inoculate ourselves against both the exegetical argument and the cultural argument. So start with the exegetical argument tonight. How does a person who affirms the inerrancy and authority of Scripture arrive at a position that allows for the ordination of women, often times there starting point is Galatians 328 probably heard this before it says there is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is no male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus, so they make the point that if we are all one in Christ, even males and females than to draw any sort of distinction is imposing something on the church that God himself never imposes only just point out the Galatians 3 has to do with justification. That's what Paul is talking about when he when he says what we just read the point he's making is that with regard to justification the house where, what, why, when of it. There is no distinction between male and female the same Paul who said there is no distinction between male and female in terms of their justification also said women should keep silent in the churches. They are not permitted to speak, but should be in submission. If there's anything they desire to learn. Let them ask their husbands at home for it is shameful for a woman to speak in church and that of course is first Corinthians 14, regardless of how you understand Paul's instruction in prescriptions 14 it's very clear is in it that he draws a significant distinction between men and women.

Galatians 328 is no proof text for women's ordination because Galatians 3 isn't about gender roles in the church. It's about justification. Context matters I need to hurry along.

So for the sake of timely, just briefly describe and comment on four views of the role of women in the church. The first few says that women may be ordained in function as elders or deacons in the church, so there's no qualification. They can be ordain the can serve as pastors, elders, deacons, whatever to hold this view, one must interpret certain commands in the New Testament as being culturally relative. Example 1st Timothy 212 where Paul says I do not permit a woman to teach or exercise authority over man. Rather she is remain quiet. Those who believe the ordination of women is fine insisted Paul's command here is relative that that Paul gave the command in a time when women teachers would've been unheard of in so that the church shouldn't upset the apple cart with ideas and practices that were too progressive for their time now, but times have changed. It's okay for women to hold office in the last two years of gone to Kenya without with Bruce Brown and we we taught the issue. Ordination of women has always come up because they freely ordain women and this is the argument that they have articulated to us that any prohibition in the in the New Testament is is just culturally relative.

They affirm the authority of Scripture. That's a good thing but they have chosen somewhat arbitrarily. I think to make parts of the Bible culturally relative and therefore not binding. You think about it. By the same hermeneutic of the same rule of interpretation, one could justify fornication, homosexuality, atheism, simply on the grounds that those things are normal now and acceptable practices in our society today. The second view is this that women may be ordained, but can function only as deacons in the church, not as elders, they can be ordained as deacons, not as elders. The argument here is that Paul prohibits women from being elders in first Timothy 212. Since at the teaching ministry. He says women can't teach men, but not from being deacons ball doesn't prohibit women from being deacons they would then be quick to point out that Paul even roof first to a woman deacon at Deaconess in Romans 16 one. Her name was Phoebe and sure enough Paul's letter to Rome refers to her as a Deaconess briefly address this reference to feeding the Deaconess certain words in Greek have a technical meaning and the generic meaning we might say they have a capital letter, meaning a lowercase meaning. So for example the word apostle means generically a messenger. As someone who was sent with the message that same word apostle took on a technical meaning when it began referring to us 12 specific apostles messengers the 12 apostles with the A of Jesus Christ.

Many people are called apostles in the Bible, Barnabas, James Pepper died us. They were apostles, in the sense that they were messengers, but they weren't apostles, in the sense of being one of the 12 called by Jesus same word but with the technical use and the generic use something very similar happens with the Greek word for deacon.

The word in a generic sense means a servant, one who serves. And in this sense every Christian is a deacon right. We ought to be. All of us, deacon meeting all the time about. There's also a technical meaning of the word that indicates an official position of authority and service in the church, a position that, in other words, requires a calling and a vote from the congregation to be official. Not everybody is a deacon in that sense.

So yes, Phoebe was a Deaconess we can call her that. That's a fine word, but that's a little the deacon. She was a lady who served, not an officer who was entrusted with formal authority. Through ordination, but in a second strand of evidence that the proponents of this view, I would point us to is actually the verse that we just looked at in first Timothy 311, where Paul says their wives likewise must be dignified, not slanderous but sober minded faithful all things, they would say Paul is talking about women deacons rather than the wives of deacons. This is another example where the word gives us the possible interpretations.

But the context determines which one is correct, the word for wives there in first Timothy 311 can mean women it's a legitimate translation or it can mean wives that's also a legitimate translation. Some people translated as women. They claim that Paul is laying down the qualifications for women deacons. I think that's a stretch here for several reasons. First of all if if Paul is delineating between men deacons and women deacons.

Why wouldn't he just say, but the men deacons be this let the women deacons be that as of Artie mentioned there is a word for woman deacon Paul doesn't use that word here is that he uses the word woman. There is an office of woman and so it seems natural to assume Paul is speaking of the wives of the officers that he's just been talking about. Also one of the qualifications for both Elder and Deacon, is that they be the husband of one wife not the spouse of one spouse not the wife of one husband. This seems this is an implications not stated but it seems to indicate an implied assumption that these officers are men of third view asserts that women may not be ordained but may function as elders or deacons as long as it occurs outside of corporate worship known ordain women but they can teach they can exercise authority outside of this context of corporate worship, the argument here goes something like this. All of these passages, in which Paul limits the freedom of a woman to speak or teach or exercise authority over man are passages that are referring specifically to what happens in corporate worship of the formal gathering of the church. So as long as a woman does her teaching and authority exercising outside of the context of corporate worship is perfectly acceptable so woman, for example, teaching women's, men's Sunday school class is fine south side of the worship service, a woman leading a committee with men on it is fine, and so on. RC Sproul, I believe held to this view, there are some PCA churches who hold to this view, I don't hold to this view, I don't think any of the elders on the session would hold this view, the reason I would reject the sort of middle-of-the-road view is that Paul in in asserting that women ought not to exercise authority over men in corporate worship gives as his basis of reality that extends all the way back to the creation of the world. These things ought not to be. Paul says, and why, because that's not how God created men and women. First Timothy 212. He says I do not permit a woman to teach or exercise authority over man. Why verse 13. Because Adam was formed first, then Eve. This order this structure. These roles and functions originated at creation. They were built into the fabric of how the world works. There were not some later add-on that was necessitated by corporate worship, becoming a thing, and all of human history testifies to the normalcy of how God originally established this relationship between men and women sure there are exceptions. Deborah judged Israel during the time of the judges, Priscilla helped the policy hone his theology. Mary Magdalene was the first person to bear witness to the resurrection.

We don't have time to look at each of these examples, but we need to recognize these exceptions don't establish a new norm. They merely prove the rule glass you will mention in the wobbly to be scriptural is that women may neither be ordained nor function as elders or deacons. Let me just pause here for minute and acknowledge this is not a sermon about what the role of women is it's about what it's not. As of the sounds very negative. I just want to qualify that what were doing is laying out the qualifications for Elder. Another sermon for another day would be the role and function positively of women in the church.

There certainly is a very important and crucial role. So you just say that, but I believe with regard to the ordination of women. The biblical view is that women may need to be ordained nor function as elders or deacons. The scriptural argument arguments come down to the passages where Scripture limits the function of women to non-ordained roles.

We've Artie looked at first Timothy 212 and 13 first Corinthians 1434 and two passages where the Bible assumes that once filling these leadership roles in the church are men. The references like them being the husband of one wife, or to the fact that every reference to those who hold office in the church is in the masculine gender rather than the feminine, and as I mentioned earlier, this principle of male leadership in the church is really just a part of the broader creation principal of male headship. Adam was created first and then Eve. First Timothy 213 man was not made from woman but woman from man for spending 11 eight the head of every man is Christ and head of every wife is her husband strengthens 11 three wives, submit to your own husbands, as to the Lord. Ephesians 522.

It's an all encompassing creation principal, you know, I don't think I've ever heard a preacher, myself included, talk about the biblical view of the role of women without having to bend over backwards to qualify what he means and what he doesn't mean. In fact, I just did it did not. It's like we can't say a woman has a God-given role that's distinct from man's God-given role without quickly adding something like now that doesn't mean she's any less important role distinction doesn't mean value distinction and instruct me the other day that are compulsive need to qualify this every time we talk about it might be just might be exposing an underlying well hidden attitude problem that we have with God's created order.

Couple years ago my family and I were walking around the Cabarrus County fair and we walked by a booth political booth of some sort. Fellows running for the Cabarrus County school board and he saw me walk around with my slew of children, so he stopped me and asked where your kids go to school is run for school board and asked that we homeschool and his response was pause pause pause there's nothing wrong with that and I wanted to say who said there was something wrong with that.

You see his need to qualify his need to say there's nothing wrong with that exposed his assumptions, his bias, his attitude and so when a, hilariously ironic way. His attempt to affirm actually revealed what he really thought we say the role of a woman is to be a helpmeet and encourage her and nurture one who strengthens others and we quickly add there's nothing wrong with that. I wonder if our need to explicitly affirm the value of women.

Every time we talk about generals in the church isn't just exposing a hidden underlying rejection of that value. Feminism claims to value and promote femininity by demanding equality between the sexes, but then they pursue that equality by demeaning every trait that is feminine. Were going to elevate women in society.

They say and within a do it by making them more like men.

It's as if of a bunch of cats decided there's far too much inequality between cats and dogs. Dogs get to do all the barking is not fair.

So the cats go on a crusade to fight for cats rights to be more darkish. What they don't seem to notice is how demeaning that is to meowing Nelly. That's a silly analogy, but I think it's a true analogy folks God made men to be masculine.

God made women to be feminine and both are beautiful insofar as they reflect God's ideal.

Yes, there are unhelpful distortions and stereotypes of each. But what we need to be cautious of is it in our irritation over the distortions and stereotypes. We don't begin rejecting or demeaning the ideal that God has established. While my sermon on the qualifications of elders and deacons has morphed into a sermon on gender distinctions that there's so much more that could be said villas stop here for now, the whole reason I want to bring these text to our attention is because were beginning the very important process of nominating and training and installing elders and deacons at Grace Church as we enter this process. I want to make sure were all informed from God's word what the criteria are so that we don't take this weighty responsibility lightly, so as we conclude tonight and just remind us of Ephesians 411, which tells us that Jesus Christ, the head of the church is the one who distributes gifting's and callings of these very gifting's and callings that we've been talking about these past two Sunday night. He's the one who makes elders, elders, he's the one who makes deacons, deacons and women. Women and men, men he gives to the Saints spiritual gifts and end personality events and gender distinctions and puts it all together in a local congregation like this for one purpose. Paul tells us what that purpose is. It is so that we might grow up in every way into him who is the head into Christ, from whom the whole body, joined and held together by every joint with which it is equipped when each part is working properly makes the body grow so that it builds itself up in love, may we be this kind of church that is steadily growing. Progressing toward that unity of faith for that maturity in Christ that can only come from Christ was praying. Would you been so good to Grace Church you have faithfully provided leaders who love you and love the word you have distributed the perfect balance your intended balance of spiritual gifting's and personalities you given us men who know how to lead and who want to lead to given us women who know how to nurture and encourage and strengthen if you want to nurture and encourage and strengthen you given us children and teenagers and single adults in married couples in elderly Saints who love you and want your name to be praised. Don't deserve any of this, and even the gifting's and callings that you given to us. We perform imperfectly, but Lord please keep blessing us and maturing us into the likeness of Christ in such a way that Harrisburg North Carolina will never lack for people who worship and serve you do it all for your glory.

We pray in Jesus name, amen