There was a popular video and meme trend that circulated the internet within the last few years. In these videos and memes, mothers lamented the seemingly inevitable and less-than-desirable evolution in the names by which their children addressed them. These women state some version of the following: “No one prepares you for the transition from ‘Mama’ to ‘Mommy’ to ‘Mom’ and then to ‘Bruh.” At least one mother added the tagline, “Motherhood is wild!”
This viral trend reflects two realities. First, it highlights the transition that takes place in the parent-child relationship as reflected in the nomenclature children use to address their parents. Second, it reveals a reality of modern vernacular English. “Bruh” has become a commonly used word among emerging generations. It is a derivative of the word “bro,” which is, of course, a more traditional abbreviation of the word “brother.” By the dictionary definition, “bruh” is masculine. But, in its common usage, “bruh” is gender inclusive. It is used equally by boys and girls to refer to everybody, including one’s mother.
While there are moments when the use of masculine terminology is referring exclusively to biological men, there are countless others when they are used as placeholders for all people.
For generations, it was common, when generalizing, to use the masculine. “Bruh” is simply the most recent iteration in a long line of masculine terms that have been used to refer to both genders. It’s only been fairly recently that we have transitioned to using truly gender-neutral or gender-inclusive terms when referring to a mixed-gender audience. In older writings, there are many instances in which references to man, men, he, him, etc. are actually gender-inclusive rather than exclusively male. In The Declaration of Independence, it declares “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal…” We naturally and rightly understand “men” as being gender inclusive; that both men and women are created equal with divinely endowed rights. In the old Christmas carol, Hark the Herald, we sing, “…pleased as man with men to dwell, Jesus our Emmanuel…” We correctly understand both man and men as referring to humanity as a whole, not just biological men. Examples such as these are legion, including within the texts of Scripture. While there are moments when the use of masculine terminology is referring exclusively to biological men, there are countless others when they are used as placeholders for all people. The task of discerning the difference falls to us.
Biblical authors often utilize masculine terminology to refer to mixed-gender audiences. One study of the Greek manuscripts of the New Testament found between 7500-8000 masculine words or phrases that included women.[1] Many important truths and teachings for the church as a whole are included in this number. We believe this includes teachings on the qualifications for those who preach, teach, and lead in the church. (As an aside, it is interesting that the church is often referred to as the bride of Christ, but nobody uses that as rationale for male exclusion.)
1 Timothy 3 and Titus 1 provide qualifications for the roles of overseer, elder, and deacon. Overseer and elder are understood to be what we today would call a pastor. These were those charged to lead a congregation and maintain accurate teaching of the Word of God. There is quite a bit of overlap in the qualifications for these positions. They center on one’s character. They require the person to be holy, disciplined, blameless, respectable, not violent, not prone to drunkenness, not quarrelsome, and not reckless with money. But there is one other qualification that many believe extends beyond one’s character to their gender. The qualification in question is the requirement that one be “faithful to his wife” (NIV) or “the husband of one wife” (ESV). This leads many to believe that the roles of overseer/elder/pastor and deacon are exclusively male as only a man can fulfill such a qualification. But, is that what Paul is intending to communicate? Did he suddenly make a shift from qualities of character that apply to all to a gender-specific detail? Or, is Paul still focused on character qualities?
It seems both sensible and logical to understand the phrase “husband of one wife” in a general sense, much like we often understand “guys” or “bruh.”
The literal translation of the phrase is that the person is to be a “one woman man.” In the context of a list of qualifications that focus on character, it seems more likely that Paul is focused on marital fidelity rather than gender specificity. The requirement, then, is that a leader in the church must be faithful to the marriage covenant. If one can’t be trusted to be faithful in their relationship with their spouse, it is difficult to trust that they will be anymore faithful in their relationship with Christ and His church. It seems both sensible and logical to understand the phrase “husband of one wife” in a general sense, much like we often understand “guys” or “bruh.”
Paul does specifically address women in these passages. He does so using the words “similarly” or “in the same way.” In 1 Timothy 3:11 we read, “…in the same way, the women are to be worthy of respect, not malicious talkers but temperate and trustworthy in everything.” And, in Titus 2, Paul encourages women to “likewise” avoid slanderous talk and drunkenness. These are not special instructions for the wives of overseers/elders and deacons. Rather, they are teachings to guide Christian women as they endeavor to teach and lead others in the ways of the Lord as overseers/elders and deacons. Paul condenses things down and basically says, “The same goes for you guys, ladies.”
What mattered to Paul, and what matters to the Lord, is character.
One glaring piece of evidence is the fact that Paul himself recognized women who held these positions. As we noted in an earlier article, in Romans 16, Paul provides a list of notable church leaders. Among them is a commendable deacon, a woman named Phoebe, and a “co-worker in Christ” named Priscilla, who, along with her husband, oversaw a church that met in her home. It is clear to us that gender was not a relevant factor in Romans 16, nor in other places in which he lauds female church leaders. What mattered to Paul, and what matters to the Lord, is character.
It is interesting that we don’t take the same strict approach to the wording of these verses in our application to men. For instance, I have known many pastors and deacons who were not “the husband of one wife.” Some were single and had not yet found someone to marry. Others, sadly, were widowers whose wives had passed away. Others still were divorced and/or remarried. If we take a “plain reading of the text” approach, these men failed to meet the qualifications to serve as an overseer/elder or deacon. Almost nobody understands these passages in such a restrictive way, though. The common understanding is that, if a person is married, they need to be completely faithful to their spouse. A woman is perfectly capable of meeting that qualification.
1 Timothy 3:1 tells us, “Here is a trustworthy saying: WHOEVER aspires to be an overseer desires a noble task.” Whoever is a wonderfully inclusive word. It brings to mind the call of Jesus when He declared, “WHOEVER would come after me…” The call of Christ is open to everyone. And, our walk with Christ is meant to develop in us character qualities that prepare and qualify us to serve Him and His church. Men and women alike would do well to develop these character traits in the testing ground of their own homes in order that they might live them out for the good of the gospel in the midst of a watching world. And if any of you guys (see what we did there?) meet the character qualifications Paul provides, whether male or female, you are eligible to serve as overseers/elders and deacons.
[1] https://pbpayne.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/08/Overseer-Qualifications-1-Timothy-3.pdf, P. 3
