I cannot speak for the SBC, which has their own doctrinal issues but even this notion of pastorates being somehow acceptable but not elderships makes little sense. Listen beloved, this is not a matter of somehow thinking lesser of women. Those are lies the world sells women. There is nothing wrong with having proper roles and giftings. The advocates like Hyatt speak at great length about how positive Paul was about the women who helped him in his ministry efforts. They count beloved. Their efforts count. What Eddie ends up doing is devaluing the actual roles that many women play in the kingdom today by whispering in their ear that they are somehow being cheated or held back. It is the literal causing of division. I thank God for all of the faithful women in ministries that have been there in my walk. I do not think less of them and one can make the sound argument that I think more of them by speaking the truth about what God has said.
"This authority myth is, however, dispelled when we take a closer look at Paul's words in 1 Timothy 2:12 and when we look at what Jesus said about authority in the church. The Greek word for "authority" in the New Testament is exousia. It is found 102 times in the Greek New Testament, and numerous other times in its verb and other cognate forms. For example, Matthew 7:28 says the people were astonished at the teaching of Jesus, "For He taught them as one having authority (exousia) and not as the scribes" (Matt. 7:29). Not once in the entire New Testament is a woman told she cannot exercise exousia. Those who would ban women from the pastorate immediately point to 1 Timothy 2:12, which says, "I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man." However, the word translated "authority" in this verse is not exousia. It is the word authentein and is found only here in the entire New Testament. The fact that it is used only here should cause us to pause and question why that would be the case. Why would Paul use this strange Greek word that neither he nor any New Testament writer ever uses? It certainly indicates that Paul is not addressing the normal exercise of authority in the church. Paul is obviously using this strange word to address the unique situation Timothy is confronting in Ephesus (Hyatt, "Who Says Women Can't Pastor," 16-31)." - Eddie Hyatt
Ah-hah! So, it must have been Professor Plum with the candlestick in the conservatory! Notice the logical sleight of hand Eddie plays here. Granting he is correct about exousia and authentein, Hyatt openly wonders why Paul would use a different word for authority in this particular passage. It may be perfectly fair to wonder such but the conclusion Hyatt draws conveniently fits his narrative. The truth is we have zero idea or proof as to why Paul used a different word. Hyatt concludes he must have used it because he was addressing a specific problem for Timothy at Ephesus. This local cultural argument is central to the pro-women in leadership crowd. Except that is a very dangerous slippery slope we find ourselves on when we start to parse the word of God based on assumptions that destroy divine inspiration. Yes, the letter was written by Paul for Timothy but the spiritual context is that God was writing it for His church for the next millennia and beyond. Why would God include something for our viewing today, that was only meant for Ephesus in Paul's time? Additionally, why all the subterfuge? Why not specifically say, "Timothy, regarding Ephesus, I do would not permit the women to speak? He even said "would" instead of "do." Saying I would not permit might indicate specific directions to Timothy about his reality but Paul said - I do not, indicating a more generalized instruction. Perhaps this was because God was divinely inspiring the words and knew they had to stand for all time, not just for Timothy's time in Ephesus. These are the games Eddie plays, as he again cites himself. He presents a linguistic fact and then draws conclusions from it that fits the outcome he desires. It is not a serious argument whatsoever and it completely ignores the context! Why would Paul say "I do not permit" only for Ephesus and then present Adam and Eve as the reason! So, the argument of Eve being the transgressor and Adam being created first only applies to this random church in Paul's day? That makes absolutely no sense.
"Jesus made it clear that leadership in His kingdom is not about authority. He made this clear when James and John asked for the two most prominent seats in His kingdom"one on His right hand and the other on His left. When the 10 heard about it they were angry, for they wanted those positions of authority. As strife erupted among them over the issue of "authority," Jesus rebuked them and told them they were thinking like the heathen. He said, "You know that the rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them and those who are great exercise authority (exousia) over them and their great ones lord it over them. Yet it shall not be so among you; but whoever desires to become great among you, let him be your servant (diakonos)" (Matt. 20:25b-26)." - Eddie Hyatt
Once again, Eddie playing games. The ask from the sons of thunder was regarding the eternal kingdom of God, not the mortal church here on earth. This pretense that God somehow eschews authority is ridiculous. Why then are those who labor in the word held to higher account and deserving of double honor? The point God is making here is about lording one's authority over people not that there should not be people in authority. Now, I have written against the false authority paradigm for over a decade now but that is not what this is about. Christ shepherds the church and His pastors are His under-shepherds. A true under-shepherd would never lord their authority over their sheep. That is the point of being a servant first. God is not saying here that there should not be people in authority but rather that those who are should be servants first. I know my pastor has always been a servant first. I also know local pastors who are really hirelings and they are far from a servant first. Do not be deceived beloved.
"The word that Jesus said must characterize leaders in His movement is the Greek noun diakonos. In first century Israel, a diakonos was a household servant who did the bidding of his/her master. Thayer's Greek-English Lexicon defines diakonos as "those who advance other's interests even at the sacrifice of their own." In other words, diakonos designates one who is a servant and is the very antithesis of "office," "authority" and "power." Jesus thus steers the Twelve away from thinking of their ministry in terms of hierarchy and authority to thinking of it in terms of humble service. The late Catholic reformer, Dr. Hans Kung, wrote, In the New Testament, not only is the word 'hierarchy' consistently and deliberately avoided, but so too are all secular words for 'office' in connection with church functions, as they express a relationship of power. Instead of this, an all-encompassing term, diakonia, service (really 'serving at table'), is used, which can nowhere evoke associations with any authority, control or position of dignity and power (Hyatt, 41)." - Eddie Hyatt
It is interesting to watch how we deceive ourselves to make innocuous things agree with our pre-biased conclusions. As I just surmised, God is probably just explaining the true expectation of authority within His church is to be a servant first. Eddie essentially agrees with this but then takes the extra leap to pretend it somehow agrees with his overall stance, which it does not. The fact that servant is the opposite of authority is the exact point God is making here! It does not mean however that He was steering them away from thinking of authority but rather that the think about it as He wants them to. We are all servants in God's church. Some of us however, have different roles. That does not diminish anyone. Stop listening to the arguments made during the women's liberation movement. They do not apply to God's design.
Perhaps the most ironic thing here is Hyatt using diakonos correctly as a household servant. It is ironic because Hyatt and his ilk are fond of pointing to Phoebe as some kind of church leader, or even a deaconess in the early church. The problem with that argument of course is that the word deacon as a church elder would not originate for another thousand years. Phoebe was a very important person to Paul but the word used for her was diakonos, which did not mean deaconess but rather, "helper." Hyatt inadvertently agrees with that here by trying to leverage diakonos in a different way. I love how God exposes false teaching by using the false teacher themselves.
