What You Need to Know About ARC

A Biblical Evaluation of the Association of Related Churches

Introduction

In the last twenty years, the Association of Related Churches (ARC) has emerged as a leading church-planting network in North America. By providing coaching, financial assistance, leadership training, and resources for church planting, ARC has successfully launched hundreds of churches and has impacted numerous pastors and ministry leaders. Many individuals have found faith in Jesus Christ through ARC-affiliated churches, and this is a cause for true celebration. Whenever the gospel is shared faithfully and lives are changed, God is worthy of all glory. However, this growth has also sparked heightened discussion and scrutiny. Issues related to church governance, pastoral accountability, leadership culture, preaching philosophy, discipleship, and the impact of contemporary church-growth strategies have prompted many believers to pose a crucial question: Does the ARC model align with the principles of the New Testament church? That question warrants more than just emotional responses or allegiance to a denomination. It requires a careful, thoughtful, and biblical analysis. Before proceeding, I want to clarify something important. This post does not serve as an indictment against all ARC churches, nor does it seek to undermine the sincerity, love for Christ, or dedication of every pastor within the network. God has consistently worked through flawed individuals and imperfect organizations. Similarly, no denomination, fellowship, or independent church is exempt from the necessity of ongoing reformation in alignment with God's Word. The issues discussed in this article are not exclusive to ARC; they mirror wider trends that have influenced much of contemporary evangelicalism over the last few decades. My intention is not to criticize merely for its own sake. The Scriptures caution against a contentious spirit just as firmly as they warn against false teachings and unhealthy leadership. Rather, I aim to promote discernment. As followers of Jesus, we are called to assess every ministry not based on its popularity, size, innovation, influence, or reputation, but rather on its faithfulness to the Word of God. The Bereans were praised for eagerly receiving the apostles' teachings while also diligently examining the Scriptures each day to verify the truth of what they heard (Acts 17:11). This same attitude should define every believer today. Throughout the history of the Church, it has consistently faced the temptation to embrace the values and practices of the surrounding culture. At different points in time, it has been lured by political authority, institutional reputation, philosophical sway, material riches, or societal approval. Each generation is challenged to consider whether it is constructing Christ's Church in alignment with Christ's blueprint or merely conforming to the world's standards of success. This inquiry is not directed only at ARC; it is a question that every pastor, elder, ministry leader, and congregation should sincerely reflect upon. As you read through this post, I encourage you to resist the impulse to either defend or condemn too hastily. Rather, open your Bible. Assess every observation in light of Scripture. If something is in harmony with God's Word, cling to it firmly. If it contradicts, possess the humility to let Scripture alter your mindset. Our ultimate loyalty does not lie with a church network, a denomination, a favored preacher, or a ministry philosophy. Our allegiance is exclusively to Jesus Christ, the Head of the Church (Colossians 1:18). Keeping that in mind, we will start by exploring what ARC is, its achievements, and then thoroughly analyze its ministry philosophy in light of Scripture.

A Note on Fairness and Biblical Evaluation

Assessing any church network necessitates a careful differentiation between historical facts, publicly available information, and theological interpretations. In this post, I have deliberately aimed to clarify that distinction. In examining the history of ARC, its stated mission, organizational framework, and publicly accessible information, I prioritize primary sources, particularly ARC's own published documents. Events reported in the media concerning churches or leaders linked to the network are based on documented accounts and should not be interpreted as indicative of all ARC churches or pastors. The biblical assessment provided in this post stands apart. It does not center on isolated disputes or specific personalities; instead, it evaluates ministry philosophy and practices in relation to the model outlined in Scripture. It addresses issues concerning church leadership, preaching, discipleship, accountability, and ecclesiology, referencing the teachings of the New Testament, particularly the examples provided by Christ, the apostles, and the early church. In the end, every church, denomination, and ministry, even those we hold in high regard, must be prepared to align its beliefs and practices with the authority of Scripture. This is the benchmark against which every movement should be evaluated.

What Is ARC?

Founded in 2000, the Association of Related Churches (ARC) is a church-planting network with the mission of planting "life-giving churches." Instead of functioning as a denomination, ARC operates as a cooperative network that offers assessment, coaching, financial support, leadership development, and continuous assistance to pastors looking to establish new churches. The philosophy behind ARC is rooted in the belief that healthy and growing churches are among the most effective ways to reach people with the gospel and bring about community transformation. ARC was established by a collective of pastors, such as Greg Surratt, Billy Hornsby, Rick Bezet, Dino Rizzo, and others, who were united by a shared enthusiasm for church planting. Since its founding, the network has grown considerably, assisting in the launch of more than one thousand churches both in the United States and around the globe. Numerous churches within this network have seen swift growth, evolving into significant congregations that impact their local communities and beyond. One of ARC's defining characteristics is its commitment to building churches that are friendly, accessible, and relevant for those with little or no church history. New church planters are encouraged to focus on achieving excellence in hospitality, children's ministry, worship, communication, leadership development, and community outreach. The objective is to remove any barriers that could prevent individuals from encountering the gospel and becoming part of a local church. In contrast to numerous traditional denominations, ARC does not impose direct control over the daily operations of its affiliated churches. Each congregation is governed independently, choosing to engage with the network for coaching, relationship building, training, and access to shared resources. This structure grants churches significant autonomy while allowing them to benefit from the insights and support of pastors who have effectively established and managed thriving congregations. Each church retains its independence, yet opts into the network for various forms of support, including coaching and training, which enhances their operational capabilities. This model fosters a high degree of independence for each church, while simultaneously providing access to the valuable experience and guidance of successful pastors. A significant portion of ARC's ministry philosophy embodies principles linked to the wider church-growth movement that rose to prominence in the late twentieth century. This methodology strongly focuses on deliberate leadership development, strategic planning, effective communication, community involvement, and fostering welcoming environments for those not affiliated with the church. Advocates highlight the network's swift expansion of churches and numerous accounts of changed lives as proof that this model has successfully contributed to the advancement of the Great Commission. These achievements should not be downplayed. Church planting has its foundations in the New Testament. Jesus instructed His disciples to spread the gospel to all nations (Matthew 28:19–20), and the book of Acts details how the apostles founded churches across the Roman Empire. The Apostle Paul dedicated a significant portion of his ministry to establishing churches, appointing capable elders, fortifying believers, and motivating local congregations to stay true to the gospel. Any organization dedicated to planting churches that adhere to biblical principles merits recognition for its role in this mission. Acknowledging the significance of church planting does not absolve us from the duty to assess the philosophy, methods, and priorities that define those churches. Each ministry model must be scrutinized against Scripture. Although methods may evolve with cultural and contextual shifts, the Church's mission and the framework set by Christ and His apostles continue to serve as the benchmark. Thus, the inquiry is not about whether ARC has successfully planted churches or impacted individuals for Christ. The more crucial question is whether the guiding principles of the network consistently align with the biblical model of the local church. As we move forward, it is crucial to assess ARC not through individual success stories or public critiques, but by posing a more fundamental question: How does its ministry philosophy align with the model of the New Testament church? This question will provide the framework for the rest of this post.

Want to know if your church is affiliated with ARC?
ARC maintains an official Find a Church directory that includes churches planted through ARC as well as network churches that partner with its mission. You can search by church name or location using ARC's official directory:
ARC Find a Church Directory. According to ARC, the churches listed are legally autonomous, independently led, and reviewed annually for inclusion in the directory.

What ARC Does Well

Prior to addressing areas of concern, it is essential to acknowledge that ARC has significantly contributed to church planting and evangelism. A balanced biblical assessment recognizes both the strengths and weaknesses present. When there is clear evidence of God's grace in action, Christians ought to express gratitude, while also diligently evaluating each ministry in light of Scripture. One of ARC's most significant strengths lies in its steadfast dedication to planting new churches. In the New Testament, church planting was a fundamental aspect of the apostles' mission. The Apostle Paul journeyed across the Roman Empire, spreading the gospel, making disciples, appointing elders, and founding local congregations. ARC embodies this same belief that thriving churches should focus on multiplication rather than mere self-preservation. In an environment where numerous churches are facing decline or shutting down, ARC has continually devoted substantial resources to training and supporting individuals who aspire to create new gospel-centered congregations. Another notable strength is its emphasis on evangelism and reaching people who are far from God. Many ARC churches intentionally seek to remove unnecessary barriers that might prevent someone from hearing the gospel. Whether through community outreach, hospitality, children's ministries, or intentional guest experiences, these churches often demonstrate a genuine desire to engage their communities with the hope found in Jesus Christ. Scripture calls believers to proclaim the gospel to every nation and every generation, and any sincere effort to reach the lost should be recognized as a worthy pursuit. ARC has made significant investments in cultivating leadership. By utilizing assessment, coaching, mentoring, conferences, and hands-on training, the network provides pastors and ministry leaders with essential resources for founding and managing local churches. Effective leadership is crucial for the vitality of any congregation, and offering encouragement and practical assistance to church planters embodies the biblical principle of empowering those who serve in ministry. Furthermore, numerous ARC churches exhibit a significant degree of organizational excellence. They are typically deliberate in their approach to hospitality, communication, volunteer training, children's ministry, and fostering environments where visitors feel appreciated and welcomed. Although excellence does not equate to spiritual maturity, Scripture instructs believers to perform their tasks wholeheartedly as if for the Lord (Colossians 3:23). Careful planning and effective stewardship can serve as essential tools when they align with the Church's mission rather than overshadowing it. Additionally, many ARC churches actively engage in serving their local communities. Initiatives such as food distributions, disaster relief, foster care programs, partnerships with schools, addiction recovery ministries, and local outreach projects have become vital expressions of ministry for numerous congregations. These activities embody Christ's command to love our neighbors and showcase the compassion of the gospel through concrete acts of service. Throughout the Gospels, Jesus consistently intertwined the declaration of truth with acts of mercy, reminding the Church that faithful ministry often encompasses both words and actions. These strengths warrant recognition and appreciation. Church planting, evangelism, leadership development, organizational stewardship, and compassionate outreach align with significant biblical priorities. They have played a vital role in the growth of numerous congregations and have positively influenced countless lives for Christ. Nevertheless, each strength has the potential to turn into a weakness if it starts to supplant rather than support the priorities outlined in Scripture. A zeal for growth should never eclipse the mission to cultivate mature disciples. The pursuit of organizational excellence must not take precedence over spiritual faithfulness. Leadership development should always be rooted in biblical character, not just leadership skills. While methods are useful tools, they should not be allowed to dominate. For this reason, the remainder of this article is not meant to disregard the positive outcomes achieved through ARC. Instead, it seeks to explore a more vital question: How does the ministry philosophy of ARC compare to the model laid out by Christ and His apostles? Where does it truly reflect the New Testament church, and where could it benefit from scriptural correction? Every church, including ours, should be prepared to ask this question with humility, since the ultimate purpose is not to create successful ministries, but to build Christ's Church according to His intended design.

Five Biblical Concerns

Recognizing the numerous positive impacts ARC has had on church planting and evangelism, we must now pose a more critical question: Does the ministry philosophy typically linked with ARC consistently align with the biblical model of the local church? Although methods and strategies may evolve over generations, Scripture lays down enduring principles that should guide every church, irrespective of its size, influence, or effectiveness. This section aims to compare prevalent ministry philosophies with the framework set forth by Christ and His apostles.

1. From Making Converts to Making Disciples

Jesus did not instruct His followers to construct large churches or establish prominent ministries. His directive was explicit: "Go therefore and make disciples of all nations" (Matthew 28:19–20). The New Testament consistently prioritizes spiritual growth over numerical expansion. The early church committed itself to "the apostles' teaching and the fellowship, to the breaking of bread and the prayers" (Acts 2:42). These believers were not simply attending meetings; they were being shaped into the image of Christ. Similarly, Paul characterized his ministry as presenting "everyone mature in Christ" (Colossians 1:28). One concern voiced by critics of the contemporary church-growth movement is that success is frequently gauged primarily through metrics such as attendance, baptisms, campuses, volunteer involvement, and financial increases. While these metrics are not insignificant and can indicate a healthy ministry, they do not represent the primary criteria outlined in the New Testament. The biblical standard for a healthy church is the transformation of lives, increasing holiness, doctrinal integrity, perseverance, and believers who increasingly reflect Christ. While numbers are important because people are important, Scripture consistently emphasizes the spiritual maturity of individuals over the size of the congregation.

2. From Expository Preaching to Practical Messages

The New Testament places significant importance on the faithful proclamation of God's Word. Paul's instruction to Timothy was both straightforward and profound: "Preach the word; be prepared in season and out of season; reprove, rebuke, and encourage, with complete patience and teaching" (2 Timothy 4:2). Numerous churches influenced by modern ministry approaches, including some within ARC, often employ topical sermon series focused on themes such as relationships, finances, emotional well-being, leadership, or personal purpose. While these subjects are indeed found in Scripture, preaching on them is not inherently problematic. The issue arises when sermons start with a predetermined topic and then search for biblical passages to back that topic, rather than allowing the biblical text to shape the message. Expository preaching begins with the question, "What did the Holy Spirit intend to convey through this passage?" Application should follow interpretation, not the reverse. The apostles consistently interpreted Scripture within its historical, literary, and theological context. When practical application becomes disconnected from thorough exegesis, the church risks delivering inspirational messages that are informed by the Bible but not governed by it.

3. From Shepherds to CEOs

One of the most vivid metaphors employed throughout the New Testament to depict church leaders is that of a shepherd. Jesus referred to Himself as the Good Shepherd who sacrifices His life for the sheep (John 10:11). Peter urged elders to "shepherd the flock of God that is among you... not domineering over those in your charge, but being examples to the flock" (1 Peter 5:2–3). In today's ministry environment, there is often a significant emphasis on visionary leadership, organizational expansion, strategic planning, and executive decision-making. While these skills hold practical importance, they are not portrayed in Scripture as the essential traits of pastoral ministry. Paul placed greater emphasis on a leader's character rather than their leadership skills. First Timothy 3 and Titus 1 highlight qualities such as humility, self-control, hospitality, sound doctrine, faithfulness in the home, and spiritual maturity. The primary duty of a pastor is not to build an organization but to shepherd souls. When pastors are primarily recognized as CEOs, visionaries, or brand developers instead of shepherds and teachers of God's Word, the biblical understanding of pastoral ministry begins to change.

4. From the Local Church to a Ministry Brand

The New Testament depicts each local church as a distinct group of believers united by the gospel, yet influenced by the specific needs of their community. While Paul established many churches, he did not aim for them to be culturally uniform. Corinth faced issues of division, Galatia dealt with legalism, Ephesus confronted false teachings, Philippi focused on partnership and joy, and Thessalonica experienced persecution. Each congregation was guided according to its unique context while remaining true to the same gospel. Contemporary church networks frequently promote shared ministry approaches, leadership frameworks, branding, communication methods, and organizational designs. Learning from each other is both prudent and scriptural. Paul himself urged churches to follow the examples of those who were faithful. Nevertheless, when branding overshadows biblical identity, it warrants careful consideration. Scripture describes the Church as a family, a body, a temple, and a flock, but never as a franchise. The unity that Christ prayed for was based on truth and love, rather than uniformity in presentation or organizational practices. The risk does not lie in striving for excellence or consistency. The real danger is when recognizable systems and ministry models take precedence over the ordinary means of grace that God has provided for His Church: faithful preaching, prayer, the ordinances, discipleship, and shepherding.

5. Accountability Must Be Stronger Than Influence

One of the most crucial questions that any church should consider is this: Who oversees the shepherds? The New Testament sets exceptionally high expectations for those who hold spiritual leadership roles. James cautions that teachers will face stricter judgment (James 3:1). Paul advises Timothy against hastily appointing leaders and outlines specific qualifications that emphasize character over charisma (1 Timothy 3:1–7; Titus 1:5–9). In recent years, many discussions within evangelical circles, including those involving churches linked to ARC, have brought to light significant issues regarding pastoral accountability, elder autonomy, leadership restoration, and governance. While each case should be assessed on its own merits, these conversations serve as a reminder to the Church of a timeless biblical truth: giftedness can never replace godliness. Effective accountability goes beyond mere trusted friendships or organizational ties. It necessitates leaders who are truly open to biblical correction, transparent governance, qualified and independent elders, and a culture that prioritizes truth over reputation. The credibility of the Church has always depended not on the talents of its leaders but on their faithfulness to Christ.

Looking Ahead

None of these issues indicate that every ARC church has forsaken biblical ministry, nor do they suggest that every non-ARC church accurately embodies the New Testament model. The matter extends beyond a single organization. These inquiries confront every pastor, elder, and congregation, including our own. The intention is not to disparage thriving churches. Rather, the aim is to align our understanding of success with God's definition. Before we consider whether a ministry is innovative, influential, or experiencing rapid growth, we must first determine if it is faithfully constructing the Church in accordance with the design set forth by its Head, Jesus Christ.

What Does the New Testament Church Look Like?

Upon reviewing the advantages of ARC alongside various biblical issues related to contemporary church-growth strategies, one crucial question persists: What vision did Jesus and the apostles have for the local church? The answer lies not in modern leadership seminars, business tactics, or societal trends, but within the Scriptures themselves. Although the New Testament does not lay out a strict ministry blueprint or specific worship style, it does outline essential priorities that should characterize every local church, irrespective of its size, denomination, or ministry approach. The most vivid depiction can be found in Acts 2. After the Holy Spirit was poured out at Pentecost, Luke chronicles the experiences of the early church:

"And they devoted themselves to the apostles' teaching and the fellowship, to the breaking of bread and the prayers... And the Lord added to their number day by day those who were being saved." (Acts 2:42, 47)

Observe the emphasis placed by Luke. Prior to discussing numerical growth, he highlights spiritual commitment. The church was dedicated to biblical teachings, genuine fellowship, collective worship, prayer, generosity, and the witness of the gospel. Growth was not artificially created through strategies; rather, it was a natural outcome of faithful obedience, empowered by the Holy Spirit. This trend persists throughout the New Testament. Paul's epistles illustrate churches that are committed to sound doctrine, mutual accountability, prayer, selfless love, and endurance in the face of suffering. The apostles consistently evaluated a church's health not by its attendance or influence, but by its faithfulness to Christ.

A Church Devoted to God's Word

The primary focus of the early church was the teaching of the apostles. Scripture was not just one of many ministries; it served as the cornerstone for all other ministries. Paul instructed Timothy to "preach the word" (2 Timothy 4:2), understanding that the Church is sustained, corrected, and equipped through the faithful exposition of Scripture. Similarly, the Bereans were praised for their diligence in examining the Scriptures daily to confirm the teachings they received (Acts 17:11). A thriving church does not merely utilize Scripture to back its ideas; it allows Scripture to influence its theology, worship, leadership, and mission. The authority of God's Word must always take precedence over cultural relevance, ministry trends, and personal preferences.

A Church That Makes Disciples

Jesus did not instruct His followers to organize grand gatherings. Instead, He commanded them to make disciples (Matthew 28:19–20). Discipleship transcends merely attending services or participating in ministry teams. It is a lifelong journey of being transformed into the image of Christ. Paul characterized his ministry as "presenting everyone mature in Christ" (Colossians 1:28), and Ephesians 4 explains that church leaders are meant to equip the saints until they reach maturity in Christ. While healthy churches celebrate conversions, they are also deeply committed to spiritual growth. The objective is not just to fill pews but to cultivate believers who understand God's Word, strive for holiness, serve others, and faithfully share the gospel.

A Church Led by Shepherds

The New Testament consistently depicts pastors as shepherds responsible for the well-being of Christ's flock. Peter urged elders to shepherd God's people with willingness, eagerness, and by setting a good example, rather than for personal gain or influence (1 Peter 5:1–4). Jesus Himself stated that the Good Shepherd sacrifices His life for the sheep (John 10:11). Biblical leadership is characterized by humility, a servant's heart, and selfless love. Although effective administration and organizational skills are important, they can never substitute the shepherd's duty to know, protect, nourish, and care for God's people.

A Church Marked by Genuine Community

The early church represented much more than just a weekly meeting. Believers lived life in community. They prayed collectively, supported each other through challenges, practiced hospitality, looked after those in need, confessed their sins, and provided daily encouragement to one another. Christian fellowship extends beyond merely attending an event. The Church functions as a family, embraced by the Father, united through Christ, and strengthened by the Holy Spirit. A true biblical community fosters accountability, encouragement, and spiritual development that cannot be achieved through programs alone.

A Church That Pursues Holiness

One often overlooked aspect in conversations about church vitality is holiness. The apostles consistently urged believers to lead lives that reflect the gospel (Philippians 1:27), to seek sanctification (1 Thessalonians 4:3), and to eradicate sin through the Holy Spirit's power (Romans 8:13). Churches are not merely tasked with drawing people in but with guiding them to become more like Christ. Grace does not diminish God's standard of holiness; rather, it enables believers to strive for it. A thriving church proclaims both the forgiveness available in Christ and the transformative work of the Holy Spirit that follows true repentance.

A Church Empowered by the Holy Spirit

The extraordinary expansion of the book of Acts cannot be credited to creative strategies or charismatic leaders. Time and again, Luke emphasizes the role of the Holy Spirit. The Spirit enabled courageous preaching, transformed hearts, brought believers together, provided the Church with spiritual gifts, and upheld steadfast witness even amidst persecution. While programs can structure ministry, it is solely the Holy Spirit that can generate spiritual vitality. The Church has consistently thrived when its trust was placed not in human strength but in divine power.

Christ Must Remain the Head of the Church

Ultimately, the key feature of the New Testament church is not its organizational structure, size, style of worship, or ministry approach. Rather, it is its submission to Jesus Christ. Paul states that Christ "is the head of the body, the church" (Colossians 1:18). Every decision, ministry, sermon, leadership framework, and success metric must operate under His authority. The Church is owned by Christ. It was redeemed by His blood, established by His power, and upheld by His Spirit. When the Church loses sight of this truth, it tends to replace divine design with human reasoning. As we assess any ministry, be it ARC, a denomination, an independent church, or our own congregation, the fundamental question is not whether it is innovative, influential, or experiencing rapid growth. Instead, we must ask if it increasingly embodies the priorities of the New Testament church: steadfast commitment to God's Word, dedicated discipleship, humble leadership, genuine community, holy living, reliance on the Holy Spirit, and unwavering loyalty to Jesus Christ. While these priorities may not always lead to the largest congregations, they will foster faithful churches. Ultimately, it is faithfulness, not popularity, that Christ will use to evaluate His Church.

Final Thoughts

In this post, we have explored the Association of Related Churches (ARC) through a biblical perspective rather than an emotional one. We have recognized the network's authentic contributions to church planting, evangelism, leadership development, and community outreach. Simultaneously, we have examined several aspects where the philosophy often linked to the contemporary church-growth movement warrants thorough biblical scrutiny. If there is one key takeaway from this discussion, it is this: the focus is not solely on ARC. ARC serves merely as a case study within a broader dialogue occurring across evangelical Christianity. The inquiries presented here should extend beyond a single network, denomination, or movement. They ought to prompt every pastor, elder, ministry leader, and church member to confront challenging yet vital questions about their own church. Are we truly making disciples, or are we just drawing in attendees? Are our sermons grounded in Scripture, or do we mainly utilize Scripture to back the topics we wish to discuss? Do our leaders act as shepherds who know, nurture, protect, and love the flock, or have we inadvertently embraced leadership models that prioritize influence over spiritual care? Is our success gauged by transformed lives and increasing holiness, or is it primarily based on attendance, campuses, budgets, and social media presence? Are we constructing Christ's Church according to His blueprint, or are we trying to create successful organizations using any methods that appear effective? These questions are not simple, but they are crucial. One of the most significant threats to the Church has never stemmed from external persecution. Historically, the more pressing danger has often been the insidious temptation to let culture alter the Church from within. Each generation confronts this same issue. We are perpetually lured to trade faithfulness for effectiveness, depth for breadth, discipleship for popularity, and reliance on the Holy Spirit for trust in human strategies. This struggle is not a recent phenomenon. The Corinthian church grappled with worldly wisdom and division. The Galatians veered towards legalism. The Laodicean church grew complacent and self-reliant. Throughout Revelation 2–3, Jesus consistently urged His churches to repent, not out of abandonment, but out of love. That same call persists today. The intention of this post has never been to dishearten those who serve diligently within ARC churches or to imply that God cannot work through flawed individuals and organizations. Every church has its blind spots. Every denomination has its shortcomings. Every pastor, including the writer of this post, is in constant need of God's grace and the guidance of His Word. The issue has never been whether God can utilize a ministry. God has always worked through imperfect individuals. The real question is whether we are prepared to let Scripture, rather than success, tradition, personality, or culture, continually reshape our understanding of the Church. The Reformers upheld the principle of Ecclesia reformata, semper reformanda, meaning "the church reformed, always being reformed according to the Word of God." This principle remains as vital today as it was five centuries ago. No movement, network, denomination, or independent church should ever assume it has reached its destination. We are all accountable to the Head of the Church, Jesus Christ. If this post has prompted you to reflect critically on your own church, start not with criticism but with prayer. Pray for your pastors. Pray for your elders. Pray for wisdom and discernment. Pray that Christ would purify His Church, empower faithful shepherds, reveal any unhealthy practices, and cultivate believers who cherish His Word above all trends and prioritize His glory over any earthly standard of success. Above all, keep in mind this truth: Jesus promised to build His Church (Matthew 16:18). That promise is not contingent upon a network, a denomination, a celebrity pastor, or a specific ministry model. It is solely founded on Christ Himself. Our mission is not to create the largest church. Our mission is not to establish the most influential church. Our mission is not to innovate the most cutting-edge church. Our mission is to remain faithful. One day, every pastor, elder, ministry leader, and church member will find themselves before the Chief Shepherd (1 Peter 5:4). On that day, attendance figures, budgets, platforms, and influence will become insignificant. The only question that will hold weight is whether we have faithfully managed what Christ has entrusted to us. Let us never mistake success for faithfulness. Let us never replace methods with the gospel. Let us never place personalities above Christ. And may the Church, in every generation, continually return to the simple, beautiful, and powerful pattern outlined in Scripture, for the glory of God, the welfare of His people, and the progress of His Kingdom.

---

Footnotes and Recommended Resources

The intention of this post is not to conduct an in-depth study of the Association of Related Churches (ARC) or modern evangelical church movements. Instead, it aims to inspire readers to evaluate ministry philosophies against the backdrop of Scripture. For those who want to explore these topics further, the following resources are provided.

Primary Sources

Association of Related Churches (ARC)

• Association of Related Churches. About ARC.https://www.arcchurches.com/about/

• Association of Related Churches. Our Story.https://www.arcchurches.com/our-story/

• Association of Related Churches. Statement of Faith.https://www.arcchurches.com/about/

• Association of Related Churches. Find a Church.https://www.arcchurches.com/find-a-church/

Biblical Passages Referenced

• Matthew 16:18

• Matthew 28:18–20

• John 10:1–18

• Acts 2:42–47

• Acts 17:11

• Romans 12

• 1 Corinthians 3

• Colossians 1:18, 28

• Ephesians 4:11–16

• Philippians 1:27

• 1 Thessalonians 4:3

• 1 Timothy 3:1–7

• 2 Timothy 4:1–5

• Titus 1:5–9

• Hebrews 13:17

• James 3:1

• 1 Peter 5:1–4

• Revelation 2–3

Recommended Books on the Church

Allison, Gregg R. Sojourners and Strangers: The Doctrine of the Church. Crossway, 2012.

Dever, Mark. Nine Marks of a Healthy Church. Crossway, 4th Edition, 2021.

Leeman, Jonathan. One Assembly: Rethinking the Multisite and Multiservice Church Models. Crossway, 2020.

Stott, John R. W. The Living Church: Convictions of a Lifelong Pastor. IVP, 2007.

Strauch, Alexander. Biblical Eldership: An Urgent Call to Restore Biblical Church Leadership. Lewis and Roth, Revised Edition, 2017.

Recommended Books on Biblical Interpretation

Klein, William W., Craig L. Blomberg, and Robert L. Hubbard Jr. Introduction to Biblical Interpretation. Zondervan.

Fee, Gordon D., and Douglas Stuart. How to Read the Bible for All Its Worth. Zondervan.

Kaiser, Walter C., Jr., and Moisés Silva. An Introduction to Biblical Hermeneutics. Zondervan.

Church History

González, Justo L. The Story of Christianity (2 Volumes). HarperOne.

Bruce, F. F. Paul: Apostle of the Heart Set Free. Eerdmans.

Articles and Research

For readers interested in researching both praise and criticism of ARC and the broader church-growth movement, consider reading from a variety of perspectives:

• The Roys Report (investigative journalism on church accountability)

• Christianity Today

• 9Marks Ministries

• The Gospel Coalition

• Ligonier Ministries

• Christianity Today podcasts and investigative reports on church leadership and accountability

When reading investigative reports or opinion pieces, compare all claims with primary sources whenever possible and evaluate every conclusion through the teaching of Scripture.

Final Encouragement

No ministry, denomination, network, or pastor should be above biblical examination. Likewise, no criticism should be accepted uncritically. As Luke records concerning the Bereans:

"Now these Jews were more noble than those in Thessalonica; they received the word with all eagerness, examining the Scriptures daily to see if these things were so." — Acts 17:11 (ESV)

May that same spirit characterize every believer as we seek to love Christ, cherish His Church, and remain faithful to His Word.

Returning to the Way (Part 3): Rediscovering the Church Jesus Intended

---

Series: Returning to the Way

A three-part series exploring how the Church can rediscover biblical discipleship, servant leadership, and the mission Jesus entrusted to His people.

You are reading: Part 3 of 3

---

If the first two parts of this series have posed tough questions, this last article aims to tackle one of the most crucial ones.

So, where do we go from here?

Recognizing that the Church has strayed in some areas is one thing. Figuring out how to react is a whole different ball game.

The easy choice might be to think that the solution is to walk away.

Walk away from the church.

Walk away from the denomination.

Walk away from organized Christianity.

Walk away from leadership.

Walk away from ministry altogether.

Many people have taken that route, believing that if the institution is flawed, then Christ must be sought outside of it.

But that’s not the message we get from the New Testament.

Jesus didn’t promise to establish a denomination.

He promised to build His Church.

The Church has never been owned by pastors, movements, traditions, or institutions. It belongs to Christ. This means that our reaction to brokenness isn't to walk away, it’s to actively engage in Christ's ongoing work of renewal.

Historically, whenever God has sparked revival among His people, He seldom begins by replacing the Church.

He starts by renewing it.

The prophets called Israel back.

Jesus called God's people back.

The apostles called the churches back.

Time and again, Scripture shows that God is all about restoring what has strayed rather than tossing it aside.

That truth should inspire hope in us.

The Church's most significant moments have never hinged on its perfection.

They have always relied on Christ's faithfulness.

If that’s the case, maybe our first question shouldn’t be, "How do we fix the Church?"

Maybe it should be,

"How do we become the kind of disciples Jesus can use to renew His Church?"

Renewal has always started with everyday people who fully surrender to God.

Before revival sweeps through cities, it starts in individual hearts.

Before churches transform, people must transform.

Before ministries thrive, leaders need to humble themselves before Christ.

Every enduring movement of God has followed this pattern.

So where do we kick things off?

We start with repentance.

Repentance is one of the most misinterpreted terms in modern Christianity. Many hear it and instantly think of shame or judgment. Biblically, repentance is something much more beautiful. It’s a gracious invitation to turn away from whatever has taken hold of our hearts and return to the God who has never stopped chasing after us.

Repentance isn’t just about admitting our sins.

It’s about reorienting our lives around Christ once more.

Maybe churches need to rethink measuring success by attendance rather than by discipleship.

Maybe pastors should rethink their focus on building platforms instead of nurturing people.

Maybe church members ought to reconsider their role as consumers rather than contributors.

Perhaps we all need to reflect on how we've let politics, personalities, traditions, or preferences take the place that should be reserved for Christ alone.

Repentance isn’t a sign of weakness.

It’s actually the gateway to renewal.

From repentance springs a fresh commitment to discipleship.

One of the most remarkable aspects of Jesus' ministry is how ordinary it often seemed.

He spent years walking along dusty paths.

He shared meals with others.

He responded to questions.

He posed questions.

He offered corrections.

He provided encouragement.

He listened intently.

He prayed fervently.

He poured himself into a relatively small group of individuals who would go on to change the world.

Jesus never seemed hurried.

He never mistook busyness for productivity.

He recognized that the Kingdom of God grows mainly through transformed individuals.

At some point, many churches became skilled at attracting crowds while unintentionally overlooking the slower, often hidden work of disciple-making.

Discipleship isn't usually about the spotlight.

It unfolds at dinner tables.

In cozy living rooms.

Over steaming cups of coffee.

During visits to the hospital.

In prayer gatherings.

Through genuine conversations.

By diving into the Scriptures together.

By supporting someone through their failures instead of walking away from them.

Discipleship isn't just another program in the Church.

It's the very heart of the Church.

When we put discipleship back at the center, leadership starts to change too.

Jesus redefined what greatness really means.

In a society where leadership often equates to power, influence, and fame, Jesus took a towel, wrapped it around His waist, and washed His disciples' feet.

The King became a servant.

That moment should always influence how Christians view leadership.

Biblical leaders aren't here to create their own empires.

They're here to help others thrive.

Their success isn't about how many people recognize their name, but about how many people grow closer to Christ because of their impact.

Healthy leadership leads to mature disciples.

It empowers instead of controlling.

It nurtures rather than overpowers.

It values faithfulness more than popularity.

One of the biggest changes the Church needs today is shifting from a performance-driven culture to one focused on presence.

Performance questions, "How impressive was Sunday?"

Presence questions, "Did we meet Christ?"

Performance wonders, "How many showed up?"

Presence wonders, "How many are growing closer to Jesus?"

Performance fills up schedules.

Presence changes hearts.

The early Church grasped something we really need to get back to.

Christianity was never meant to be just a weekly event.

It was a communal way of living.

Believers gathered for worship, but they also shared meals.

They prayed together.

They supported each other through tough times.

They looked after widows.

They were generous givers.

They welcomed newcomers.

Their faith reached far beyond the buildings where they met.

Maybe that’s why the Church grew with such incredible strength.

People didn’t just listen to sermons.

They saw a completely different lifestyle in action.

Just think about what could happen if churches were known for that again.

Picture communities where lonely individuals instantly found a family.

Where struggling marriages discovered mentors.

Where young believers found spiritual parents.

Where pastors saw their greatest achievement as raising new leaders rather than making themselves irreplaceable.

Where everyone realized that ministry is for every follower of Jesus, not just those with titles.

Imagine a place where disagreements are approached with humility.

Where repentance is something to celebrate.

Where forgiveness is a regular practice.

Where truth and love go hand in hand.

Would that make all problems vanish?

Not at all.

The New Testament clearly shows that churches will grapple with sin until Christ comes back.

But maybe our witness would start to resemble the Church that Jesus envisioned.

As I think about everything we've discussed in this series, one question keeps popping up in my mind.

If Jesus walked into our churches this Sunday, what would make Him rejoice?

I believe He would be joyful wherever people are truly worshiping Him.

Where the Scriptures are shared faithfully.

Where kids are learning the gospel.

Where the hungry are fed.

Where missionaries are sent out.

Where those in pain find comfort.

Where believers help each other with humility.

There’s so much good happening in the Church that social media often overlooks.

But I also think He would gently challenge us with tough questions.

Have you kept your first love alive?

Are you making disciples?

Are you serving others or just chasing status?

Are your traditions helping people follow Me?

Are you recognized for your love?

These questions aren’t threats.

They’re invitations.

Invitations to come back.

Invitations to remember.

Invitations to realign our lives with the One who called us.

The Church doesn’t need another celebrity.

It needs shepherds.

The Church doesn’t need another marketing strategy.

It needs disciples.

The Church doesn’t need more cultural influence if it compromises biblical faithfulness.

It needs greater surrender.

Long before the Church was recognized for cathedrals, conferences, publishing houses, podcasts, or denominations, it was known for something much simpler.

A group of everyday people had met the risen Christ.

They loved each other deeply.

They committed themselves to the apostles' teaching.

They shared meals.

They prayed together.

They served together.

They took the hope of the gospel to every corner of the world.

That’s still the mission.

It hasn’t changed.

The solution to the challenges the Church faces today isn’t to create a new version of Christianity.

It’s to rediscover the One who has always been at its core.

Let’s never get so focused on protecting our institutions that we forget the mission Christ gave us.

Let’s never get so caught up in winning arguments that we overlook the importance of loving people.

Let’s never get so busy building ministries that we forget to make disciples.

And let’s always remember that the hope of the Church has never depended on its buildings, budgets, traditions, or leaders.

Its hope has always been, and always will be, in Jesus Christ.

Maybe the greatest revival our generation could see wouldn’t start with bigger churches or louder voices.

Maybe it would start with believers quietly opening their Bibles again, humbly kneeling in repentance, faithfully loving their neighbors, boldly sharing the gospel, and intentionally making disciples one life at a time.

That kind of Church might never make the news.

But it will resemble exactly what Jesus intended.

---

Rooted Reflection

Throughout this series, we've tackled some tough questions about the Church, our priorities, and how we present ourselves to the world. But as we wrap things up, let's keep this in mind: the Church isn't just 'them'; it's us.

It's pretty easy to criticize the Church from afar. The real challenge is letting God take a good look at our own hearts. Renewal doesn’t kick off in church buildings, denominational offices, or on conference stages. It starts when everyday followers of Jesus decide to surrender their lives to Him.

The Church has never been transformed by people waiting for someone else to step up. It has always been revitalized by believers who quietly dedicated themselves to prayer, repentance, faithful obedience, and making disciples wherever God has placed them. You might never lead a massive church, start a movement, or write a bestseller, but each of us has the same calling: to follow Jesus and help others do the same faithfully.

As you wrap up this series, don’t just ponder what needs to change in the Church. Consider what Christ is inviting you to do next. Revival has never begun with large crowds; it has always started with individuals willing to say, 'Lord, start with me.'

Let’s strive to be people who are deeply grounded in God’s Word, constantly growing in Christ, and dedicated to reflecting His truth, love, and mission in every aspect of our lives.

---

Questions for Reflection

• After reading this series, what has challenged me the most about my own walk with Christ?

• Am I actively making disciples, or have I unintentionally settled into simply attending church?

• In what areas of my life is Jesus calling me to greater humility, repentance, or obedience?

• How can I better reflect both the truth and the love of Christ in my home, workplace, church, and community?

• What gifts, experiences, or opportunities has God entrusted to me that I can use to strengthen His Church rather than simply consume it?

• If every believer lived out their faith the way I do, what kind of church would we become?

• What is one specific step I will take this week to intentionally invest in someone else's spiritual growth?

---

A Prayer for the Church

Father, thank You for the gift of Your Church. Forgive us for the times we have allowed our traditions, preferences, or agendas to take priority over Your mission. Teach us to love as Christ loved, to speak the truth with grace, and to faithfully make disciples wherever You have placed us. Begin Your work of renewal in our own hearts, and use us to strengthen Your Church for the glory of Your name. May everything we build point people to Jesus, and may our lives reflect the hope of the gospel until He returns. Amen.

Why I Believe The SBC Is Getting This Wrong

Women, Ministry, and the Cost of Selective Literalism (Part 2B)

Women in Pastoral Ministry Series

When Universal Application Becomes a Hermeneutical Fallacy

At the conclusion of Part 2A, we arrived at what I believe is the central issue in this debate. The question is not merely whether women can serve as pastors. The deeper question is whether we are interpreting Scripture consistently.

Biblical scholars have long recognized the danger of what is sometimes called the fallacy of universalizing. Universalizing occurs when instructions given to specific people in specific circumstances are automatically extended to all people in all circumstances without sufficient evidence that such an extension was intended.

Every Christian engages in this kind of interpretive work whether they realize it or not.

When Paul tells Timothy to bring the cloak he left in Troas (2 Timothy 4:13), no one assumes this is a universal command. When Paul instructs believers to greet one another with a holy kiss (Romans 16:16), most churches recognize the principle of Christian affection while adapting the practice to their cultural setting. When Jesus tells the rich young ruler to sell all he possesses and give to the poor (Mark 10:21), Christians understand that the command addressed a specific spiritual issue in a particular individual's life.

In each case, we distinguish between the principle and the application. The same question must be asked of 1 Timothy 2 and 1 Corinthians 14. Are these passages expressing timeless moral principles that transcend culture? Or are they contextual applications of broader theological concerns? This distinction matters because the New Testament frequently addresses local situations. Paul's letters were not originally written as abstract theological treatises detached from real life. They were written to churches experiencing specific challenges, conflicts, false teachings, and cultural pressures. If the restrictions in 1 Timothy 2 arose from the Ephesian context, then treating them as universally binding may represent precisely the kind of hermeneutical error scholars caution against. This does not mean the passage lacks authority. Rather, it means the authority of the passage must be understood according to its intended purpose. A command can be fully authoritative while still being contextual. The challenge is determining where the timeless principle ends and the cultural application begins.

Distinguishing Between Principle and Application

One of the most important tasks in biblical interpretation is distinguishing between the underlying principle and the specific form through which that principle was expressed. For example, when Paul instructs believers to greet one another with a holy kiss, the principle is Christian love and fellowship. The cultural expression is the kiss itself. When Paul instructs women to avoid elaborate hairstyles and expensive jewelry, the principle is modesty and godly character. The cultural expression involves specific forms of adornment common within the Greco-Roman world.

Likewise, when Paul tells men to lift holy hands in prayer, the principle is reverent worship. The physical posture is one possible expression of that principle.

The question then becomes whether the restrictions in 1 Timothy 2 function similarly.

Could Paul's deeper concern be sound doctrine, orderly worship, and proper instruction rather than the permanent exclusion of women from pastoral ministry?

Many egalitarian scholars believe this is precisely what is happening.

Under this view, the principle remains timeless. The church should ensure that those who teach are properly grounded in sound doctrine. The church should guard against false teaching. The church should maintain order within worship.

The application, however, may vary depending upon the circumstances being addressed.

Whether one ultimately agrees with this conclusion or not, it is difficult to deny that Christians already employ this interpretive method throughout Scripture. The question is whether we are willing to apply the same hermeneutical consistency to passages involving women in ministry.

Why I Believe the SBC Is Getting This Wrong

This brings me to my concerns regarding the Southern Baptist Convention.

I want to state clearly that I do not question the sincerity of SBC pastors, theologians, or church leaders. Many are deeply committed to Scripture, passionate about the gospel, and devoted to serving Christ faithfully. My disagreement is not with their motives.

My disagreement is with the conclusions they have drawn from the biblical evidence.

The SBC has chosen to make complementarianism a defining doctrinal boundary. In practice, this means that women are categorically excluded from pastoral ministry regardless of their gifting, calling, theological training, ministry effectiveness, or spiritual maturity.

The issue is not whether a woman demonstrates pastoral ability.

The issue is that her gender functions as a disqualifier before any other qualification is even considered.

This is where I believe the SBC's position becomes problematic.

Throughout the New Testament, ministry qualification is consistently tied to character, doctrine, spiritual maturity, and gifting. The emphasis repeatedly falls upon evidence of God's work in a person's life.

Yet within the SBC's framework, gender becomes the primary determining factor.

A woman may possess extensive theological education. She may demonstrate extraordinary leadership ability. She may have spent years faithfully serving the church. She may show clear evidence of God's calling upon her life.

None of those things ultimately matter.

The restriction remains.

For me, that raises an important question: Is gender functioning as a biblical qualification, or has it become a denominational requirement imposed upon the text?

When Gender Becomes the Defining Qualification

This concern becomes even more significant when viewed through the lens of spiritual gifts. The New Testament consistently teaches that God equips His people for ministry. The Holy Spirit distributes gifts according to His will. Christ gives leaders to His church. Believers are called to steward the gifts they have received. Nowhere does Scripture explicitly teach that certain ministry gifts are distributed exclusively to men.

If God grants a woman the ability to preach, teach, shepherd, counsel, disciple, lead, and build up the church, then the burden of proof should rest upon those who seek to prohibit her from exercising those gifts. Restrictions require justification. Permission is the default assumption throughout the New Testament whenever God has clearly gifted and called an individual.

This is one of the reasons I find the complementarian position difficult to sustain. The argument often begins with a restriction and then attempts to explain away evidence of gifting. The New Testament frequently begins with gifting and calling and then seeks to discern how God intends those gifts to be used.

Those are very different starting points.

The Cost of Disenfranchising Women

The consequences of this debate extend far beyond theology textbooks and denominational statements.

Real people are affected by these decisions.

Women who sense a genuine call to ministry often find themselves caught between what they believe God is asking them to do and what their denomination will permit them to do.

Some spend years questioning their calling.

Others suppress gifts they believe God has given them.

Still others leave denominations altogether because they cannot reconcile their sense of calling with institutional restrictions.

Whether one agrees with their conclusions or not, these experiences should not be dismissed lightly.

The issue is deeply personal for many faithful believers.

But the consequences extend beyond women themselves.

The church also bears the cost.

If God genuinely calls and equips women for pastoral ministry, then excluding them does not merely affect women, it affects the entire body of Christ. The church loses teachers. The church loses shepherds. The church loses leaders. The church loses gifted servants whom God may have intended to use for the edification of His people. Whenever gifted individuals are prevented from serving according to their calling, the entire church becomes poorer as a result.

What the Church Loses

One of the recurring themes throughout Scripture is that God often works through people whom others overlook. David was overlooked by his own family. The disciples were overlooked by religious elites. The Gentiles were initially overlooked by many Jewish believers. Again and again, God demonstrates His willingness to work through unexpected people.

This should make the church cautious whenever it creates categorical restrictions that extend beyond what Scripture clearly teaches.

The question is not whether God can use women. Scripture has already answered that question. The question is whether the church is willing to recognize the people God chooses to use.

If we are not careful, we may find ourselves creating barriers where God has created opportunities.

A Word to My Complementarian Friends

Before concluding, I want to speak directly to those who disagree with me. I recognize that many complementarians arrive at their position through sincere study of Scripture. They are not attempting to suppress women. They are not attempting to diminish women's value. They are attempting to be faithful to what they believe the Bible teaches.

For that reason, I do not view this as a debate between those who love Scripture and those who do not. Both sides affirm biblical authority. Both sides desire to honor Christ. Both sides seek to follow God's Word.

The disagreement concerns interpretation.

My hope is not to win an argument. My hope is to encourage careful reflection.

If the restrictions in 1 Timothy 2 and 1 Corinthians 14 are indeed universal, then the church should uphold them faithfully, but if they are contextual, then the church should be equally willing to acknowledge that reality. Faithfulness requires courage in both directions.

Conclusion: The Question the Church Must Answer

Ultimately, my concern is not whether women can do the job. History has already answered that question. Women have faithfully led ministries, planted churches, served on mission fields, taught Scripture, shepherded congregations, and influenced generations of believers around the world.

My concern is whether we have created restrictions that God Himself never intended.

If Scripture does not clearly and universally prohibit women from pastoral ministry, then we should be very careful before telling someone "no" when God may be saying "yes." The church should never prohibit what God permits, nor should it restrict whom God calls.

In the end, the question is not whether we are being faithful to tradition. The question is whether we are being faithful to Scripture. And if our interpretation has universalized what Paul intended to be contextual, then faithfulness may require us to reconsider long-held assumptions in light of the whole counsel of God's Word.

That conversation may be uncomfortable. It may challenge traditions that many of us have inherited and deeply valued. But if our ultimate allegiance is to Christ and His Word, then we should be willing to follow the evidence wherever it leads.

The church is strongest when it submits itself not merely to its traditions, but to Scripture rightly interpreted, and that is a conversation worth having.

Why I Believe The SBC Is Getting This Wrong

Women, Ministry, and the Cost of Selective Literalism (Part 2A)

Women in Pastoral Ministry Series

Moving from Interpretation to Application

In Part 1, we examined the biblical texts most often cited to prohibit women from serving as pastors and considered whether those passages should be understood as universal commands or contextual instructions. We explored the historical setting of Ephesus, the challenges surrounding 1 Corinthians 14, the debate over the Greek word authentein, and the examples of women exercising significant ministry influence throughout Scripture. My argument was not that Scripture lacks authority or that these passages should be dismissed. Rather, my argument was that faithful Christians should be willing to ask whether these texts have been interpreted according to their intended purpose and historical context.

If those passages are contextual rather than universal, then important implications follow. The question is no longer simply whether women can serve as pastors. The question becomes whether the church has built restrictions upon a particular interpretation of Scripture that may not be as certain as many assume. This is where the conversation moves from exegesis to application.

Before proceeding, I want to be clear about something. I do not believe those who disagree with me are acting in bad faith. Many complementarians are deeply committed to Scripture and sincerely desire to honor God's design for the church. My concern is not with their motives but with the conclusions they draw from the biblical evidence. The issue is not whether Scripture should be obeyed. The issue is what Scripture actually teaches.

The Strongest Complementarian Arguments Deserve a Fair Hearing

One of the weaknesses of many discussions surrounding women in ministry is that each side often caricatures the other. Egalitarians sometimes portray complementarians as misogynistic traditionalists, while complementarians sometimes portray egalitarians as capitulating to modern culture. Neither approach is helpful.

The strongest complementarian arguments deserve to be taken seriously.

Scholars such as Wayne Grudem, Thomas Schreiner, Andreas Köstenberger, and others have spent decades defending the position that the office of pastor or elder is reserved for qualified men. They argue that Scripture consistently establishes a pattern of male leadership in both the home and the church. Their position is not based upon a single verse but upon what they see as the cumulative witness of Scripture.

They point to Paul's prohibition in 1 Timothy 2:12, his appeal to Adam and Eve in verses 13–14, the qualifications for overseers in 1 Timothy 3 and Titus 1, and the relationship between teaching authority and church governance. Together, they believe these texts establish a permanent distinction between the ministry roles available to men and women.

Whether one agrees with this conclusion or not, it is important to acknowledge that it represents a serious attempt to interpret Scripture faithfully.

The question is whether the evidence actually supports the conclusion being drawn.

Does Creation Establish a Permanent Restriction?

Perhaps the strongest complementarian argument centers on Paul's appeal to creation in 1 Timothy 2:13–14.

After instructing women not to teach or exercise authority over men, Paul writes:

"For Adam was formed first, then Eve. And Adam was not deceived, but the woman was deceived and became a transgressor."

For complementarians, this is the decisive point.

If Paul were merely addressing a local problem in Ephesus, why would he appeal to events that occurred long before Ephesus existed? Why would he reach all the way back to creation itself?

The logic is understandable. If Paul's argument is rooted in creation, then many conclude it must transcend culture.

However, that conclusion may move too quickly.

Appealing to creation does not automatically establish universal application. Throughout the New Testament, biblical authors frequently draw upon Old Testament narratives to address contemporary concerns. The question is not whether Paul references creation. The question is why he references creation.

If the primary problem in Ephesus involved false teaching and deception, then Eve may function as an illustrative example rather than the basis for a universal hierarchy. Just as Eve was deceived, certain individuals in Ephesus had become vulnerable to false teaching. Paul's appeal to Genesis may therefore explain why he was issuing a temporary restriction rather than establishing a permanent prohibition.

Even among scholars who affirm biblical authority, there remains significant disagreement over whether Paul's appeal to creation establishes an eternal role distinction or a contextual application of a broader principle.

The principle itself is not difficult to identify: the church must protect sound doctrine and ensure that those who teach are properly instructed.

The debate concerns whether that principle necessarily requires the permanent exclusion of women from pastoral ministry.

But What About the Lead Pastor?

At this point, many complementarians would readily agree that women can serve in ministry. They may acknowledge women as missionaries, ministry directors, professors, counselors, worship leaders, theologians, and teachers. Their objection is not to women serving. Their objection is specifically to women serving as pastors or elders.

This distinction has become increasingly common in complementarian churches.

Women are encouraged to exercise many gifts and serve in numerous leadership capacities. The line is drawn specifically at the office of pastor.

Yet this raises an important question: Does Scripture actually distinguish between ministry leadership and pastoral leadership in the way complementarians claim?

One challenge is that the New Testament never describes the modern office of a "lead pastor" as it exists in many churches today.

The early church was generally led by a plurality of elders rather than a single senior pastor. Acts 14:23 speaks of elders being appointed in every church. Titus 1:5 refers to elders being established in every town. Acts 20 describes the elders of Ephesus collectively.

The modern concept of a lead pastor functioning as the chief authority figure within a congregation developed much later in church history.

This observation does not settle the debate, but it does complicate the claim that Scripture explicitly prohibits women from occupying a role the New Testament itself never clearly defines.

Furthermore, if women are permitted to perform nearly every pastoral function, the distinction becomes increasingly difficult to explain.

In many complementarian churches, women teach theology, disciple believers, counsel individuals, lead ministries, direct mission organizations, and exercise significant spiritual influence. They may oversee large staffs, lead complex ministries, and shepherd people effectively.

If a woman can perform nearly every function associated with pastoral ministry, why is the office itself prohibited?

What biblical principle is actually being protected?

This is where many egalitarians begin to question whether the restriction is rooted more in tradition than in the explicit teaching of Scripture.

The Spiritual Gifts Question

Perhaps the most challenging issue for complementarianism is the doctrine of spiritual gifts.

The New Testament consistently teaches that ministry flows from God's calling and gifting.

Romans 12 describes gifts distributed among believers for the edification of the church.

First Corinthians 12 teaches that the Holy Spirit distributes gifts "to each one individually as He wills."

Ephesians 4 identifies pastor-teachers as gifts Christ gives to the church.

Nowhere in these discussions does Scripture explicitly teach that teaching, leadership, shepherding, exhortation, wisdom, or pastoral gifting are distributed exclusively to men.

Instead, the emphasis consistently falls upon the sovereign work of God.

The Spirit gives gifts.

Christ equips His church.

Believers steward what they have received.

This creates an important theological question.

If Christ gives a woman the gifts necessary to teach, shepherd, lead, disciple, and care for a congregation, does the church possess the authority to permanently prohibit her from exercising those gifts?

This question does not automatically resolve the debate. However, it shifts the burden of proof.

Rather than asking whether women can demonstrate pastoral gifting, the question becomes whether Scripture clearly and universally prohibits women from exercising gifts God Himself appears to have bestowed.

For many egalitarians, this question lies at the very heart of the issue.

The Problem of Selective Literalism

The discussion surrounding women in ministry ultimately raises a larger hermeneutical concern.

Why are some biblical commands treated as culturally conditioned while others are treated as universally binding?

This question is especially important when reading 1 Timothy 2.

Within the same chapter, Paul instructs men to pray while lifting holy hands. He instructs women not to adorn themselves with braided hair, gold, pearls, or expensive clothing. He speaks about modesty, learning, authority, and worship practices.

Most churches recognize that at least some of these instructions are culturally expressed applications of broader principles. Few churches insist that every man must physically raise his hands whenever he prays. Few prohibit women from wearing jewelry or braiding their hair.

Instead, churches seek to apply the underlying principles rather than the exact cultural expression.

Yet when the discussion reaches verses 11 and 12, many interpreters suddenly insist that these verses alone must be treated as timeless and universally binding.

Why?

What objective hermeneutical principle allows some instructions within the chapter to be contextual while elevating others to universal status?

That question forms the heart of the discussion we will continue in Part 2B, where we will examine the problem of universalizing contextual commands, why I believe the SBC's position ultimately disenfranchises women whom God has gifted and called, and what the church stands to lose when spiritual gifts are restricted on the basis of gender alone.

---

Continue Reading the Series

➡️ Why I Believe The SBC Is Getting This Wrong (Part 2B)

Have We Universalized What Paul Intended To Be Contextual?

Women in Pastoral Ministry Series

Rethinking 1 Timothy 2 and 1 Corinthians 14

Few issues in modern Christianity generate as much debate as the question of women serving as pastors. For many churches, particularly within conservative evangelical traditions, the discussion is considered settled. The argument is often presented as straightforward: Paul instructed women not to teach or exercise authority over men (1 Timothy 2:11–12), and he commanded women to remain silent in the churches (1 Corinthians 14:34–35). Therefore, women cannot serve as pastors.

At first glance, the conclusion appears simple. However, closer examination reveals that the argument depends upon a significant hermeneutical assumption, namely, that Paul's instructions were intended as universal, perpetual commands for every church, culture, and generation. The issue is not whether Paul wrote these words. The issue is whether Paul intended these words to function as timeless restrictions or whether he was addressing specific problems within specific congregations.

The answer to that question fundamentally shapes how these passages should be understood and applied today.

To be clear from the outset, this discussion is not about rejecting biblical authority. Both complementarians and egalitarians affirm the authority and inspiration of Scripture. The disagreement concerns interpretation. How should these passages be read within their historical, literary, and theological contexts? Have we interpreted Paul's words as he intended them, or have we universalized instructions that may have been given to address particular circumstances?

These questions deserve careful consideration.

The Assumption Behind the Traditional View

The complementarian position, which reserves the office of pastor or elder exclusively for men, is built largely upon two passages: 1 Timothy 2:11–12 and 1 Corinthians 14:34–35.

In 1 Timothy 2, Paul writes:

"Let a woman learn quietly with all submissiveness. I do not permit a woman to teach or to exercise authority over a man; rather, she is to remain quiet."

Complementarians understand this prohibition as describing the primary functions of pastors and elders, teaching and governing the church. Because these functions are restricted, they conclude that the office itself must also be restricted.

Likewise, in 1 Corinthians 14, Paul writes:

"The women should keep silent in the churches."

Complementarians acknowledge that women prayed and prophesied in the early church, but they argue that Paul is prohibiting women from exercising authoritative speech within the gathered congregation. Combined with the qualifications for overseers in 1 Timothy 3 and Titus 1, they conclude that Scripture establishes a pattern of male pastoral leadership.

The strength of this position depends largely upon one assumption: that these instructions were intended as universal and perpetual commands rather than contextual responses to specific situations.

This is where the debate begins.

Why Context Matters

The context of 1 Timothy is especially important because Paul explicitly states why he left Timothy in Ephesus.

"I urged you when I was going to Macedonia, remain at Ephesus so that you may charge certain persons not to teach any different doctrine" (1 Timothy 1:3).

False teaching is the dominant concern throughout the letter. Paul repeatedly warns Timothy about teachers spreading error, myths, genealogies, speculation, and doctrines contrary to the gospel (1 Timothy 1:3–7; 4:1–3; 6:3–5).

This context matters because the instructions in Chapter 2 do not appear in a vacuum. They are part of Paul's broader effort to restore sound doctrine within a troubled church.

Several passages suggest that women may have been particularly vulnerable to the false teaching circulating in Ephesus. In 2 Timothy 3:6–7, Paul describes false teachers who were "capturing weak women, burdened with sins and led astray by various passions, always learning and never able to arrive at a knowledge of the truth."

Whether these were the same women referenced in 1 Timothy cannot be proven with certainty, but the connection is difficult to ignore.

Against this backdrop, Paul's first command becomes particularly significant:

"Let a woman learn."

Modern readers often focus on the prohibition in verse 12 and overlook the command in verse 11. Yet in the first-century world, where women were often excluded from formal theological instruction, Paul's command was remarkably progressive.

Before restricting teaching, Paul insists that women be taught.

That observation raises an important question. If the Ephesian church was struggling with false teaching, and if some women had become entangled in that teaching, is Paul prohibiting all women from teaching for all time? Or is he temporarily restricting untrained individuals from positions of instruction until they are properly grounded in sound doctrine?

The answer to that question changes how the entire passage is read.

The Meaning of "Authority" May Not Be So Simple

Another reason scholars disagree about 1 Timothy 2 is the language Paul uses.

The phrase "exercise authority" translates the Greek word authentein. Unlike other Greek words commonly used for legitimate authority, authentein is extraordinarily rare.

In fact, it appears nowhere else in the New Testament.

Because the word is so uncommon, scholars continue debating its precise meaning. Some argue it simply means "to exercise authority." Others suggest it carries the idea of domineering, controlling, usurping authority, or exercising authority in an abusive manner.

What makes this significant is that Paul had access to more common Greek words if his intention was merely to prohibit legitimate authority. Instead, he chose a term that has generated centuries of debate.

This does not automatically prove the egalitarian position. However, it should caution us against building an entire doctrine of permanent pastoral exclusion upon a single disputed word.

At the very least, the lexical uncertainty suggests the passage may not be as straightforward as it is often presented.

The Challenge of 1 Corinthians 14

The second major text used to prohibit women pastors is 1 Corinthians 14:34–35.

At first glance, the passage seems definitive:

"The women should keep silent in the churches."

Yet a serious problem immediately emerges.

Earlier in the same letter, Paul explicitly acknowledges women praying and prophesying publicly in worship (1 Corinthians 11:5).

Prophecy was one of the most visible and influential spiritual gifts in the early church. It involved speaking publicly before the congregation. Therefore, Paul cannot mean that women were forbidden from speaking altogether.

The immediate context of chapter 14 helps resolve the tension.

Throughout the chapter, Paul addresses disorderly worship.

Tongue speakers are told to be silent if no interpreter is present (14:28).

Prophets are told to be silent when another receives revelation (14:30).

Women are told to be silent under certain circumstances (14:34).

The repeated commands for silence are situational and aimed at preserving order.

Paul's concern throughout the chapter is not gender hierarchy but orderly worship. Everything is to be done "decently and in order" (14:40).

This contextual reading makes better sense of Paul's earlier affirmation of women praying and prophesying publicly. Rather than issuing a universal prohibition, Paul appears to be addressing a specific disruption occurring within the Corinthian gathering.

Paul's Ministry Included Women Leaders

Perhaps the greatest challenge to the universal prohibition view is Paul's own ministry practice.

Romans 16 provides a remarkable glimpse into the diversity of leadership within the early church.

Paul commends Phoebe as a deacon of the church in Cenchreae and describes her as a benefactor of many, including himself (Romans 16:1–2).

He praises Priscilla and Aquila as fellow workers in Christ and elsewhere records how Priscilla participated in instructing Apollos, one of the most gifted teachers in the New Testament (Acts 18:24–26).

Most notably, Paul refers to Junia as being "outstanding among the apostles" (Romans 16:7).

Regardless of how one interprets Junia's exact role, the passage demonstrates that women occupied positions of significant influence within the early church.

Nor is this pattern limited to the New Testament.

Deborah served as a judge over Israel (Judges 4–5).

Huldah functioned as a prophet whose words were sought by kings and priests (2 Kings 22:14–20).

Miriam exercised leadership alongside Moses and Aaron.

The daughters of Philip prophesied.

Women were the first witnesses of the resurrection and among the first proclaimers of the risen Christ.

Taken together, these examples reveal a consistent pattern: God repeatedly raises up women to serve His purposes in meaningful leadership capacities.

While no single example settles the debate over pastoral ministry, they create a significant challenge for interpretations that suggest God universally prohibits women from spiritual leadership.

What About Creation?

At this point, many complementarians point to what is arguably their strongest argument.

Paul does not merely prohibit women from teaching in 1 Timothy 2. He grounds his reasoning in creation itself:

"For Adam was formed first, then Eve. And Adam was not deceived, but the woman was deceived and became a transgressor" (1 Timothy 2:13–14).

Complementarians argue that because Paul appeals to events before the Fall, he is establishing a creation-based principle rather than addressing a local issue. If the command is rooted in creation, they argue, then it transcends culture and remains binding on all churches.

This argument deserves serious consideration.

However, the mere use of a creation narrative does not automatically establish universal application.

Throughout the New Testament, biblical authors regularly appeal to Old Testament events to illuminate contemporary concerns. The question is not whether Paul references creation, but why he does.

If deception was central to the Ephesian crisis, as the pastoral epistles repeatedly suggest, Paul may be drawing a parallel between Eve's deception and the dangers posed by false teaching in Ephesus.

Under this interpretation, the principle remains timeless. The church must guard against false teaching and ensure that those who teach are properly grounded in sound doctrine.

The application, however, may be contextual.

In other words, Paul may be using the creation narrative to explain a pastoral concern rather than establish a permanent prohibition.

This does not settle the debate. But it demonstrates that complementarian interpretations are not the only plausible reading of the text.

Have We Universalized What Paul Intended to Be Contextual?

The deeper issue in this debate is not ultimately about women.

It is about hermeneutics.

How do we determine whether a biblical command is universal or contextual?

How do we distinguish between timeless principles and temporary applications?

Every Christian engages in this process. We recognize that some biblical instructions transcend culture while others reflect the circumstances in which they were given. The challenge is determining which category a particular command belongs to.

When it comes to 1 Timothy 2 and 1 Corinthians 14, many Christians assume the answer is obvious. Yet the historical context, linguistic complexities, and broader witness of Scripture suggest the issue may be far more nuanced than is often acknowledged.

If these passages are contextual rather than universal, then the foundation upon which many churches prohibit women from pastoral ministry deserves closer examination.

At the very least, the debate should be approached with humility.

Faithful Christians who affirm the authority of Scripture have reached different conclusions because they are asking different hermeneutical questions. The issue is not whether Scripture should be obeyed. The issue is determining what Scripture intended to teach.

In Part 2, we will examine the strongest complementarian arguments in greater detail, explore the problem of selective literalism, and consider why I believe denominations such as the Southern Baptist Convention may be unintentionally disenfranchising women whom God has gifted and called for ministry.

---

Continue Reading the Series

➡️ Why I Believe The SBC Is Getting This Wrong (Part 2A)