Expressions of Faith

an outlet of encouragement, explanation, and exhortation

Category: Theology (Page 3 of 5)

11. Practice and Experience

August 7, 2012 / / 0 Comments

Theoretically, allowing God to call people into the ministry He chooses without seeking to promote one’s own place or position will lead to the same results, whether one is a complementarian or an egalitarian or something in between. However, in practice, expectations matter. Examples matter. It is all too easy to conform to externalities, regardless of whether these externalities limit the possibilities for women’s ministry or encourage stretching the boundaries of tradition.

No one can deny that women have been vitally involved in leadership among God’s people and in the church over the years, beginning with Miriam and Deborah in scripture and continuing with others.

In the history of the church, one simply cannot deny that women have carried the lion’s share of the ministry and leadership on many mission fields, producing healthy national, regional, and local churches. This ministry on the mission field often required women missionaries to teach and disciple national leaders who were men.

Some complementarians explain these awkward facts by claiming the sometimes God will use women in leadership in situations where the church is weak, but that his ideal is that leadership should be carried by men. Therefore, they argue for maintaining limitations on the leadership of women in the church in spite of the numerous examples of God using women in ways that obviously exceed these limitations.

Let us assume for sake of argument here that these complementarians are correct, and that God has only used women in leadership and teaching positions under in circumstances where the church is not healthy or weak. If this is so, then would it not be improper to institute church regulations that prevented God from calling women to lead a weak or unhealthy church?

My own experience, however, stands against this claim. I’ve had the blessed experience of knowing some excellent leaders, both men and women. My own assessment of the various leaders I have served with at the denominational level, for example, is that the best board chairman that I served with was a woman. She did an excellent job of leading the board to listen to the Spirit of God and obey. It was a privilege to learn from her and see God glorified through her leadership. There was no shortage of gifted male leaders available on this board; and there were still other gifted men who could have served on this board. And yet God called this woman to lead. I could not say otherwise without denying God the glory He deserves from what He accomplished through this woman’s leadership.

And that’s just the point. When the church is operating as it should, God raises up leaders who are not self-serving but rather God-serving. They are not advancing a feminist or patriarchal agenda. They are faithfully serving as empowered by His Spirit, and it brings glory to God in magnificent ways that are a blessing to all involved. How can it be justified to set up barriers to what God has chosen to do, both in the history preserved for us in scripture and in the history of the church since? How could it be right to set up structures that would exclude the possibility of what God has already done?

Lastly, the harvest is plentiful but the laborers are few. I’ve been in ministry long enough to know that there is an overall serious shortage of leadership in the church. Leadership can be lacking because the wrong people are placed in positions of responsibility to which they are not called by God. However, when God calls, I’m delighted to serve alongside his chosen leaders no matter their gender. We need more leaders, and I’d guess that about half of them will be women!

My own wife, Susan, for example, is a gifted and excellent leader. She has been a leader all her life, in all sorts of situations, with all sorts of people. My profile is similar. For my whole life, I’ve naturally migrated into leadership in groups that I work with. I don’t think it has simply been a prideful thing of wanting to be the leader for either of us, generally speaking. (I should confess that I am sure, for my part, that it has sometimes been a matter of human striving or pride, more so when I was younger and (hopefully) less so as I have grown in Christ’s likeness. I don’t know any people with leadership gifts for whom this has never been an issue.)

Yet while both of us are accustomed to leadership, we are quite different in our natural and spiritual gifts for leadership. I am a starter and problem-solver who thinks strategically and likes to develop other leaders. Got a crisis? Call me; I thrive on them. I grow bored when leadership becomes more administrative, managing the details of a large organization. Susan is one who values having a plan and making it work, and is very gifted at making sure that all the details are planned and organized just as they should be. Which of us should be in charge of the checkbook in our home? Which of us would make the best COO? We’re both quite capable of doing a fine job, but it would be a fool who chose me over her for that sort of responsibility.

God handed out the gifts, and it is up to us to use them appropriately. It’s not a matter of me being a man and her being a woman! In fact, if I am to be a good leader, it is incumbent upon me to recognize her gifts and make space for them to flourish. God will be glorified in that. God would not be glorified by me insisting that I take roles in our relationship for which God did not suit me and for which he has created in her amazing gifts and talents.

(I do not mean to imply that God never chooses to stretch people by calling them into particular responsibilities of leadership for which others might seem more qualified. He seems to do this regularly. And then there is the small detail that God sees things that we don’t see; and Goliath falls to David, the son of Jesse that Samuel least expected to anoint as king. And even that is to say nothing of the times that God seems to choose leaders so as to leave no possibility of anyone mistaking that success came from anyone other than God; Jacob or Gideon come to mind. Dwight Moody positively reveled in the fact that people saw him and the ministry God was doing around him in this way.)

Another matter of practical experience is that there is a need for female leadership in every church, even those who sincerely believe that the place of women in leadership should be very limited. The practical issue is that we can expect roughly fifty percent of the church’s members to be women. These women need leadership and teaching and shepherding that is not best done by men. How will that be facilitated in the church if there are no women acting as elders?

There will be women with leadership abilities and gifts in the church. There should be a legitimate way for these gifts to be employed in service to God and his church. The alternative is that women with leadership gifts will grow frustrated with the lack of outlet for the gifts God has given them. The “natural” result of this is that there grows to be informal, unofficial, and sometimes unhealthy mechanisms for leadership and influence to be exercised by women. When these mechanisms are forced “underground”, everything about developing these gifts and talents is vastly complicated and subject to distortion and abuse. That seems a poor way to organize!

Next… 12. Constructively Moving Forward

10. Blessing the Church

August 7, 2012 / / 0 Comments

What motivates a Christian leader? Obedience to God and service to the church. We are not (or should not be) driven by personal ambition or social agendas. It’s that simple… at least in theory. We obey God and bless the church.

The gifts of the Spirit are to bless the church and build it up. We belong to one another for the common good. We exercise our gifts in order and not chaos. (Consider Paul’s instruction to the church in Corinth is 1 Corinthians 12-14.)

There is no justification for a Christian to seize leadership or dominate people. We serve in leadership; we lead to serve – not for self-aggrandizement. As Christians, we have no right to anything other than to imitate Christ. Christ’s attitude is the Philippians 2 attitude. He serves as our example.

Do nothing out of selfish ambition or vain conceit, but in humility consider others better than yourselves. 4 Each of you should look not only to your own interests, but also to the interests of others.
5 Your attitude should be the same as that of Christ Jesus:
6 Who, being in very nature God,
did not consider equality with God something to be grasped,
7 but made himself nothing,
taking the very nature of a servant,
being made in human likeness.
8 And being found in appearance as a man,
he humbled himself
and became obedient to death-
even death on a cross!

– Philippians 2:3-8, NIV

Speaking to the whole church, Peter writes:

All of you, clothe yourselves with humility toward one another, because,
“God opposes the proud but gives grace to the humble.”
6 Humble yourselves, therefore, under God’s mighty hand, that he may lift you up in due time. 7 Cast all your anxiety on him because he cares for you.
8 Be self-controlled and alert. Your enemy the devil prowls around like a roaring lion looking for someone to devour. 9 Resist him, standing firm in the faith, because you know that your brothers throughout the world are undergoing the same kind of sufferings.
10 And the God of all grace, who called you to his eternal glory in Christ, after you have suffered a little while, will himself restore you and make you strong, firm and steadfast.

– 1 Peter 5:5, NIV

The temptation we face is the desire to escape suffering and receive what we believe is due us. The enemy uses these desires to tempt us away from humility and suffering. In a way that must seem foolish to many in the world, Peter encourages the believers to allow God to take us through times of suffering in order to grow to be strong and steadfast.

Of course, Peter was talking to Christians who were persecuted by pagan or Jewish authorities. What about those who are persecuted by those who present themselves as the church? This is often a more difficult kind of injustice to accept. We expect those without Jesus to act like they are not in him. But we expect those who are God’s people to act in love with justice and truth. However, while we are always called to speak the truth in love, persecution in the church is not fundamentally different from persecution by those outside in terms of how God’s persecuted people undergo it… except perhaps that we may be called to an even higher standard of love in order to clearly testify to our identity as God’s people.

There is much scriptural precedent and teaching about suffering under injustice and little for aggressively or coercively forcing others to change to what we believe is right and true. It is not so much that we are to silently bear or tolerate injustice. It is that we are to speak the truth in love from a posture of humility rather than a posture of condemnation. We love in the same manner that God loves; we speak as God guides us to speak with an attitude that honors the example of Christ. Thus, as followers of Jesus we disavow the use of violence, force, manipulation, humiliation, and coercion. The improper use of power and influence makes winners and losers rather than building the body of Christ into unity.

17 Nevertheless, each one should retain the place in life that the Lord assigned to him and to which God has called him. This is the rule I lay down in all the churches. 18 Was a man already circumcised when he was called? He should not become uncircumcised. Was a man uncircumcised when he was called? He should not be circumcised. 19 Circumcision is nothing and uncircumcision is nothing. Keeping God’s commands is what counts. 20 Each one should remain in the situation which he was in when God called him. 21 Were you a slave when you were called? Don’t let it trouble you, although if you can gain your freedom, do so. 22 For he who was a slave when he was called by the Lord is the Lord’s freedman; similarly, he who was a free man when he was called is Christ’s slave. 23 You were bought at a price; do not become slaves of men. 24 Brothers, each man, as responsible to God, should remain in the situation God called him to.

-1 Corinthians 7:17-24, NIV

It is not necessary for Christians living in societies and cultures in which women are not treated as equals or allowed ministry opportunities to change those cultures and societies overnight. This is particularly true when we are coming as an outsider to a foreign culture. Our priority is the gospel of Jesus Christ, and we must allow other cultures and societies to work out Jesus’ teaching in their own ways and time as they respond to Christ, generally speaking. However, we must also be willing to be prophetic voices for truth and justice as God leads us to speak. If we speak when it is not God telling us to speak – ahead of his time – we are being idolatrous, allowing something other than God to rule in our hearts. And yet there is no room for complacency in bringing justice. There is no call to legalism of any type. God will lead us to speak the truth in love.

Above all, the self-serving pursuit of power, position, or authority is always sin whether it is in a man or a woman. The self-serving pursuit of power and authority has occurred in the name of male authority in the church; and the self-serving pursuit of power and authority has been done in the name of feminism and egalitarianism. Neither is acceptable among God’s people. Instead, we lay down our lives for the sake of our brothers and sisters, and allow God to call into leadership whom He would, when He would.

This is how we know what love is: Jesus Christ laid down his life for us. And we ought to lay down our lives for our brothers.

-1 John 3:16

Love for others argues that we want them to exercise their gifts and callings under the Lordship of Christ. Gender is not the point. Calling, love, and obedience is the point. When God gives gifts and callings, he intends them to be used to bless the church.

Next… 11. Practice and Experience

9. Leadership and Spiritual Authority

July 27, 2012 / / 0 Comments

In Christ, as taught through the Bible, there is a strong personal/spiritual dimension to leadership and relationships of authority. That is, leadership is exercised from a foundation of spiritual authority. This is the type of authority that Christ teaches to His disciples.

Loosely adopting Robert Clinton’s typology of authority, one can identify a number of types of authority. There is authority that is coercive, wherein one essentially forces another against their will. There is “induced” authority, which is based upon external reward, payment, or even bribery. There is positional authority, in which one has authority by virtue of having a particular position in society or a family or an organization. None of these three types of authority require a personal relationship; the parties involved need not know one another well or at all.

Other forms of authority involve a deeper relationship between the parties involved. For example, a fourth type of authority is competent authority. One gains this type of authority by virtue of being recognized as having special expertise or competence. Those who recognize this type of authority must have enough of a relationship to be aware of the particular expertise or competence. Sometimes, an educational degree or certification substitutes for the relational knowledge of competence. A fifth type of authority is personal authority. This type of authority comes from personal charisma or personal connections. This type of authority is very dependent upon a relationship through which the authority is gained.

Similarly, a last type of authority, spiritual authority, also depends upon the existence of a relationship through which the authority is gained. Spiritual authority is gained by virtue of a follower’s perception of spirituality or spiritual maturity in a leader. For example, it is gained as others see a leader living in a Christ-like manner, being guided and used by God to bless and lead others in truth and love, and displaying the fruit of the Spirit. This spiritual authority is what makes for recognition of a leader among God’s people. This is the type of authority that Christ was teaching His followers to depend on in John 13:12-17:

12 When he had finished washing their feet, he put on his clothes and returned to his place. “Do you understand what I have done for you?” he asked them. 13 “You call me ‘Teacher’ and ‘Lord,’ and rightly so, for that is what I am. 14 Now that I, your Lord and Teacher, have washed your feet, you also should wash one another’s feet. 15 I have set you an example that you should do as I have done for you. 16 I tell you the truth, no servant is greater than his master, nor is a messenger greater than the one who sent him. 17 Now that you know these things, you will be blessed if you do them.”

Other, lesser forms of authority cannot substitute for the spiritual authority upon which legitimate leadership in the church depends. In fact, some forms of authority are generally illegitimate in the context of the church, such as coercive or induced authority. In addition, some forms of authority are inferior to the spiritual authority that Jesus exemplified and taught: positional authority, competent authority, and personal authority fit this category. They are not in essence evil or illegitimate, and may even be extremely helpful God-given gifts for use in ministry, but they do not form the foundation for church leadership.

There is nothing about spiritual authority that is limited by gender. It is not gained by virtue of being one gender or another; neither is it thereby lost. In fact, spiritual authority may be earned and exercised completely outside formal structures and without formal recognition. Therefore, it is available to women on the same terms as it is available to men, though improper formal structures can inhibit the exercise of spiritual authority.

One might argue that if spiritual authority is not dependent upon the formal structure of the church or positional authority granted or recognized by the church that the issue of women being in formal positions of leadership is therefore moot. However, it seems more likely that a healthy church should seek to align its formal structures of leadership to be commensurate with the spiritual authority that those among God’s people have earned and demonstrated. This seems only wise. One certainly could not argue that positional authority can be assigned in ways that demonstrate disrespect of God-given spiritual authority! The teaching of scripture on how to choose elders and other leaders dwells much on matters of spiritual authority.

Secondly, formal authority structures, when not aligned with spiritual authority, can be a hindrance to its exercise. Those in positions of authority may come into conflict with those having spiritual authority; there are many tragic instances of this in the history of the church! There really is nothing we could hope for in our church structure that is better than aligning formal structures of authority with the spiritual authority that come from God.

Spiritual authority cannot be rightly denied or ignored; the nature of spiritual authority makes it impossible to ignore with wisdom, love, or truth.

Next… 10. Blessing the Church

8. Jesus’ Teaching or Dysfunctional Situations?

July 26, 2012 / / 0 Comments

I believe the most important teaching for family and church relationships comes from Jesus. I believe that my way of relating as a man to women and as a husband to my wife should meet the standards Jesus taught for all relationships. I expect to treat women the way I would want to be treated if I were in their place. These attitudes must take precedence over less Christ-honoring ways. I love God first, and then I love my neighbor – including those who are women – as myself. I treat women the way I would want to be treated. I should see women as sons of God with full rights of inheritance. At least I should do all of these things; though undoubtedly I fail much.

Here are some of the scripture passages that inform my understanding.

Matthew 22:34-39

34 Hearing that Jesus had silenced the Sadducees, the Pharisees got together. 35 One of them, an expert in the law, tested him with this question: 36 “Teacher, which is the greatest commandment in the Law?”

37 Jesus replied: “‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.’ 38 This is the first and greatest commandment. 39 And the second is like it:’Love your neighbor as yourself.’ 40 All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments.”

Matthew 7:12

So in everything, do to others what you would have them do to you, for this sums up the Law and the Prophets.

Galatians 3:26-29

26 You are all sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus, 27 for all of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ. 28 There is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus. 29 If you belong to Christ, then you are Abraham’s seed, and heirs according to the promise.

When it came to how Jesus himself related to women, it is clear that he did not respect all the boundaries of his Jewish culture. For example, in his culture the students of a rabbi were all male. Women were not expected to sit at the feet of a rabbi; that was a man’s place. So what is Jesus teaching by his example in the following passage?

Luke 10:38-42

38 As Jesus and his disciples were on their way, he came to a village where a woman named Martha opened her home to him. 39 She had a sister called Mary, who sat at the Lord’s feet listening to what he said. 40 But Martha was distracted by all the preparations that had to be made. She came to him and asked, “Lord, don’t you care that my sister has left me to do the work by myself? Tell her to help me!”

41 “Martha, Martha,” the Lord answered, “you are worried and upset about many things, 42 but only one thing is needed. Mary has chosen what is better, and it will not be taken away from her.”

Jesus did not send Mary to the kitchen (or wherever women were expected to be by Martha and her society). Ignoring the conventions of his day, He allowed her to remain as a student at his feet. This was not an isolated incident. Jesus interacted with people in a Galatians 3 way. He stretched or ignored the conventions of his day with regard to Jew and Greek and Samaritan, slave and free, pure and impure, or male and female when it suited his purposes. In addition to Mary and Martha, I immediately think of the Samaritan woman at the well and Mary Magdalene, particularly Mary Magdalene being the first to see him alive after his resurrection. There are others.

Rikk Watts comments on this aspect of Jesus’ character in Christian Perspectives on Gender, Sexuality, and Community:

When the occasion arises where he must choose between personhood and traditional behaviour, he always chooses personhood by affirming the faith, love, understanding, and wit of various women, showing compassion and even on occasion rebuking them just as he would a misunderstanding male. In the meantime, his interest in teaching woman cannot help but eventually precipitate change. In Acts, along the same lines and generally in keeping with cultural mores but with an ultimately liberating although not deliberately polemically or confrontational cast, the Spirit uses both men and women to continue the proclamation of the gospel.

In other words, Jesus’ agenda is not gender driven. It reflects instead the earliest words of Genesis: “God created humankind in his image, in the image of God he created them; male and female he created them” (Gen 1:27, NIVI). Women are not objects, nor are men the enemy: both are made in God’s image and as such the reconstitution of humanity by the Son of Man begins with their mutual restoration and continues with the mutual co-operation in the announcement and extension of that reign.

But what are we to do with the passages in Paul and Peter that seem to confirm patriarchy and a limited role for women in marriage and the church? There are numerous books and articles that explain these passages from various perspectives. I have found some to be very helpful – particularly more modern treatments that consider the historical context. While there are many other books and articles (more than I can recall), here is a list of resources that I have found most helpful on these subjects:

  1. Listening to the Spirit of the Text, chapter six.
  2. Christian Perspectives on Gender, Sexuality, and Community
  3. The First Epistle to the Corinthians (New International Commentary on the New Testament) by Gordon Fee. The commentary on First Corinthians is very thorough and fairly academic. No other commentary on First Corinthians has been so helpful to me.
  4. After Paul left Corinth by Bruce Winter. This is an excellent resource for understanding the historical context of Roman Corinth in the time of Paul.
  5. Women’s Service in the Church, a conference paper by N. T. Wright.
  6. The Hard Sayings of Paul by Manfred Brauch, which is also included in the larger work Hard Sayings of the Bible.
  7. Slavery, Sabbath, War, and Women: Case Issues in Biblical Interpretation by Willard Swartley. This resource is fairly dense. Be prepared. It gives a very interesting and thorough historical discussion of biblical interpretation of four topics, including views of women.
  8. Roman Wives, Roman Widows: The Appearance of New Women and the Pauline Communities by Bruce Winter is another book on the historical context of Paul’s letters as it relates to women in ministry in Paul’s time.

The overall approach I take to these passages is to consider carefully the historical context and (as best as we can discern it) the reason for writing. We must be careful about generalizing for today from corrective passages written to dysfunctional groups of people in the first century. When Paul taught slaves how to be Christ-honoring slaves, he didn’t mean to endorse slavery as a Christian imperative. When Paul taught men and women how to be Christ-honoring husbands and wives in marriage as it was practiced at the time in Asia Minor, he didn’t mean to endorse a form of marriage in which women were considered hardly more than property as a Christian imperative. Jesus’ (and Paul’s) teaching on human relationships and the nature of life in Christ argues strongly for reworking our lives and cultures into forms that honor God’s intentions in Christ. As Jesus preached:

“The Spirit of the Lord is on me,
because he has anointed me
to preach good news to the poor.
He has sent me to proclaim freedom for the prisoners
and recovery of sight for the blind,
to release the oppressed,
to proclaim the year of the Lord’s favor.”

Then he rolled up the scroll, gave it back to the attendant and sat down. The eyes of everyone in the synagogue were fastened on him, and he began by saying to them, “Today this scripture is fulfilled in your hearing.”

-Luke 4:18-21, NIV

Paul worked within the structures of the day without endorsing them as normative for all Christians for all time. Gordon Fee summarizes the approach I believe we must take in Christian Perspectives on Gender, Sexuality, and Community:

The net result of all this seems clear enough: that Paul does not tear down existing structures, but neither does he sanctify them. Everything for him begins with Christ, his death and resurrection, whereby he established the new order, the new creation. In the new creation, two things happen: the relationship between man and woman in the first creation is restored, but that relationship must be lived out under the paradigm of the cross. In Christ Jesus there is neither male nor female, not meaning that differentiation has ceased, but that both alike enter the new creation on the same footing, and thus serve one another and the rest of the church in the same way their Lord did — by giving themselves to the other(s) out of love. Ministry is thus the result of God’s gifting and has nothing to do with being male or female, any more than it has to do with being Jew or Gentile, or slave or free.

In love, I desire the best for others. I hope that they will be free to fulfill the purpose for which God created them – exercising the gifts that God has given. That means I desire women to be free to exercise their gifts and callings as God gives and calls.

I believe God has been stretching the church beyond patriarchy, but not stretching in a way that “breaks” us. His goal in this time is not to set all things right immediately, but to restore human beings into a relationship with him out of which the kingdom of heaven grows in and around and through us, His body. Our role is to be Christ’s ambassadors to those who need him, laying aside our cultural habits and preferences for the sake of reaching others in whatever manner will speak to them – at least as it is consistent with forsaking sin and maintaining clear conscience. The priority is the good news of the kingdom of heaven breaking into our lives here and now. It is freedom for the prisoners, sight for the blind, and hope for the hopeless.

Christ’s impact on society is revolutionary more than scandalous or chaotic: we are called to rework society under the guidance of the Spirit but also to live within cultural forms to promote the gospel. How one knows whether to revolutionize or to submit to a culture’s forms is not simple! The only reliable answer is to follow the leading of the Spirit of God; he sets our agenda. Timing for cultural change rests with him. It is beyond question that the kingdom of heaven will bring cultural change and justice. And yet it will not destroy culture or erase all cultural differences.

If patriarchy is not God’s plan… if, in fact, it is a sinful denial of the image of God in women that stands in the way of bringing glory to God and having the abundant life God desires us all to have, do we need to fight it and speak out against it wherever it may be found? I believe the experience of Christians in cross-cultural mission and the testimony of scripture indicates that we are not necessarily called to take this approach. And yet we are not called to complacency either; we are to prophetically speak the truth in love.

In scripture, we see examples of patriarchal societies being reached by God’s people. God’s people did not make patriarchy the number one issue to speak against. In scripture concessions are made to patriarchal social patterns a number of times. While the direction of change among people who come to God has consistently been to improve the lot of women from what it was before they became God’s people, it is clear that the abolition of all patriarchal patterns in a particular society has not been the only or even the leading priority. And yet those living in these societies were called to justice and the way of love, particularly those who had power. God’s messengers have not necessarily been called to scandalize societies or force into positions of responsibility women who are not called and qualified for the sake of “equality”, but rather to promote the good news of the kingdom of heaven. This good news leads to Jesus being in charge. He will lead his people into healthy change that brings peace and joy and justice to both men and women without complacency. A bruised reed he will not break.

At the same time, God’s messengers to a society have often confronted evil so great that it could not wait another day to be addressed. The Christian missionaries who campaigned to abolish wife burning and enslavement of women in the sex trade are good examples of this. Those of us who go as God’s ambassadors must seek His guidance and embody His character. He is in charge; we are not. John Stackhouse’s book Finally Feminist is a helpful consideration of the idea that God’s agenda is not gender-driven.

Have God’s people been more a force to conserve evil or unjust social patterns or more a force for change leading to justice? We can say this: God’s people have not been ideal stewards of the kingdom of heaven, but God has accomplished through his people dramatic change for the betterment of society and justice for the powerless, including women. To the extent that we are faithful, God will lead us to be agents of change in the right places at the right times and in the right ways to bring about change that pleases God without bringing chaos to the societies in which we live. The coming of the good news of Jesus has consistently been good news for both women and men and leads any society that takes it seriously into great change.

Next… 9. Leadership and Spiritual Authority.

So near, so very near to God, I cannot nearer be…

April 30, 2012 / / 1 Comment

So near, so very near to God, I cannot nearer be. For in the person of His Son, I am as near as He. So dear, so very dear to God, I cannot dearer be. The love with which He loves His son – such is His love for me.

This is what I remember of a quote by James Houston in the fifth lecture of the Christian Thought and Culture series from Regent College. I was listening today as I was working out and walking home and making lunch. The lecture was on the Trinity, and Houston was urging his believing listeners to understand the privileges we are granted in the divine life of God. Striking, is it not?

So I looked up the hymn from which he was quoting:

A MIND at perfect peace with God
by Catesby Paget (19th Century)
sung to Evan
by W. H. Havergal (1793-1870)
(C.M.)

428: A MIND at perfect peace with God:
Oh, what a word is this!
A sinner reconciled through blood:
This, this indeed is peace.

By nature and by practice far,
How very far from God!
Yet now by grace brought nigh to Him
Through faith in Jesus’ blood.

So nigh, so very nigh to God,
I cannot nearer be;
For in the person of His Son,
I am as near as He.

So dear, so very dear to God,
More dear I cannot be;
The love wherewith He loves the Son,
Such is His love to me.

Why should I ever anxious be
Since such a God is mine?
He watches o’er me night and day,
And tells me, “Thou art Mine”.

Peace with God means conflict with the world…

February 24, 2012 / / 0 Comments

I’m not really trying to get into deep theological controversies and discourse around Moltmann. I don’t think I’m up to speed on the modern theological scene. However, I find this quote from him to be something worth chewing on.

But on the other hand, all this must inevitably mean that the man who thus hopes will never be able to reconcile himself with the laws and constraints of this earth, neither with the inevitability of death nor with the evil that constantly bears further evil. The raising of Christ is not merely a consolation to him in a life that is full of distress and doomed to die, but it is also God’s contradiction of suffering and death, of humiliation and offence, and of the wickedness of evil. Hope finds in Christ not only a consolation in suffering, but also the protest of the divine promise against suffering. If Paul calls death the ‘last enemy’ (1 Cor. 15:26), then the opposite is also true: that the risen Christ, and with him the resurrection hope, must be declared to be the enemy of death and of a world that puts up with death. Faith takes up this contradiction and thus becomes itself a contradiction to the world of death. That is why faith, wherever it develops into hope, causes not rest but unrest, not patience but impatience. It does not calm the unquiet heart, but is itself this unquiet heart in man. Those who hope in Christ can no longer put up with reality as it is, but begin to suffer under it, to contradict it. Peace with God means conflict with the world, for the goad of the promised future stabs inexorably into the flesh of every unfulfilled present.

Jürgen Moltmann. Theology of Hope

7. Beginnings

November 24, 2011 / / 0 Comments

While the precise relationship between the original creation and the new heaven and new earth of biblical prophecy is a matter deserving more extended consideration, it seems clear that in the kingdom of God there is a sense of “undoing” the results of sin – of living the ways of the kingdom of God today in advance of its coming in fullness. There is restoration. There is redemption. The parallels between the new Jerusalem and the original Eden prior to the fall of mankind are unmistakable.

Considering what the new creation implies for the ideal of marriage and the relationship between men and women is also complicated by Jesus’ declaration that in the resurrection humans will “will neither marry nor be given in marriage.” It seems that the new heaven and new earth will differ from the original Eden in at least some ways.

Nevertheless, Christians today live according to the new creation and the principles of the kingdom of heaven as taught by Jesus. What does this imply about the relationship of men and women in society, in the church, and in marriage? At the very least, in the kingdom of heaven we should not be living out the curse of sin in our relationships. The curse is, among other things, a curse on the relationship between men and women.

In the latter portion of Genesis 3:16, while pronouncing the curse that has come upon the earth from Adam and Eve’s sin, God says, “Your desire will be for your husband, and he will rule over you.” It is clear that the husband will dominate or command the wife under the curse, but what is meant by “desire”? One clue is that the same Hebrew word is translated “desire” in the latter half of Genesis 4:7 when God speaks to Cain about his anger toward Abel: “But if you do not do what is right, sin is crouching at your door; it desires to have you, but you must master it.” From the use of “desire” in Genesis 4:7, it seems likely that the intended meaning of “desire” in Genesis 3:16 has to do with control and mastery. In other words, it complements the statement about the husband’s “rule.” Thus marriage under the curse becomes a struggle for control and domination, each fallen “partner” attempting to control and dominate the other.

Many cultures recognize this sinful tendency. In the west, we refer to “the battle of the sexes.” In some eastern marriage rites, the bride and groom kneel for an extended period of spoken blessings. When the blessings are completed, the marriage is accomplished, and the bride and groom rise to begin the marriage. As the last spoken blessing is completed, relatives of both the bride and groom rush forward to help their relative to his or her feet. The folklore is that whichever one rises to their feet first will be the one who dominates in the marriage!

In Christ, marriage is something better than this struggle for domination and control. Christians must think in terms of restoring marriage among God’s people to the relationship God intended prior to the fall of mankind. Thus, it is appropriate to consider marriage as originally designed and created by God in order to learn something of God’s ideal for marriage. In addition, one must consider that Jesus’ teaching about relationships among Christ’s followers will apply in marriages, families, and between men and women in general. Those born from above who inherit the kingdom of heaven are expected to live according to its principles. In Christ, the marriage relationship is nearly restored to the glory it had in God’s unspoiled creation, prior to the corruption of the Fall and many cultural adaptations influenced by generations of sin. (We say that marriage is “nearly” restored because as in Christian life prior to death and resurrection, Christians remain subject to bodily sickness and death, and also struggle to put to death their sin nature. These aspects of the Christian life today differ from life prior to the Fall.)

There are two major passages of scripture that are relevant when considering marriage prior to the Fall and the curse. One is from the first creation account, in the first chapter of Genesis. This account of creation considers creation as a whole, and mankind’s relationship to creation and to God. From Genesis 1:26-28, and 31a:

26 Then God said, “Let us make man in our image, in our likeness, and let them rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air, over the livestock, over all the earth, and over all the creatures that move along the ground.”
27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them.
28 God blessed them and said to them, “Be fruitful and increase in number; fill the earth and subdue it. Rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air and over every living creature that moves on the ground.”
31 God saw all that he had made, and it was very good.

In this record of God’s creation, no details of the creation of the woman from the man are given, but God creates in his image both the male and the female. All other references to the humans created by God are to both the male and the female. They are to jointly rule, jointly bear God’s image, are jointly blessed, and jointly commanded to be “fruitful.” This state of affairs God proclaims to be “very good”. There is no hierarchy of male responsibility over or for the female described in this creation narrative; rather, it seems that the image of God, responsibilities, commands, and blessings are symmetrical, applying equally to the man and the woman.

Genesis 2 gives another more detailed creation story, this time focusing on the creation of the woman from the man and their relationship in marriage, in addition to man’s place in the Garden of Eden. Genesis 2:18-25 is the portion relevant to our discussion of men and women:

18 The LORD God said, “It is not good for the man to be alone. I will make a helper suitable for him.”
19 Now the LORD God had formed out of the ground all the beasts of the field and all the birds of the air. He brought them to the man to see what he would name them; and whatever the man called each living creature, that was its name. 20 So the man gave names to all the livestock, the birds of the air and all the beasts of the field.
But for Adam no suitable helper was found. 21 So the LORD God caused the man to fall into a deep sleep; and while he was sleeping, he took one of the man’s ribs and closed up the place with flesh. 22 Then the LORD God made a woman from the rib he had taken out of the man, and he brought her to the man.
23 The man said,
“This is now bone of my bones
and flesh of my flesh;
she shall be called ‘woman,’
for she was taken out of man.”
24 For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and they will become one flesh.
25 The man and his wife were both naked, and they felt no shame.

In this passage, God notes that it is not good for the human to be alone. Intending to bless the human, God determines to make a “suitable helper” for him. The Hebrew words translated into English as “suitable helper” are vital to understanding this passage. What do they mean? According to Hebrew scholars, the word translated “suitable” means “corresponding to” or face-to-face. They are fitted for one another. This “fitted-ness” indicates the two are of similar nature; some commentators indicate that this word implies equality. The word translated “helper” in English is used primarily in scripture of God in relation to man. For example, David writes,

“I lift up my eyes to the hills-
where does my help come from?
My help comes from the LORD,
the Maker of heaven and earth.”

“Help” in David’s song refers to God. Thus this word is not a word that implies an assistant or someone over whom David is the authority or leader. Walter C. Kaiser believes this word should be translated as “power” or “strength,” as in “I will make a power [or strength] corresponding to man.”

Interestingly, according to The JPS Torah Commentary remarks on Genesis 1:18, the Genesis Rabba explains the “good” of a “suitable helper” like this: “Whoever has no wife exists without goodness, without a helpmate, without joy, without blessing, without atonement – without well-being, without a full life; indeed, such a one reduces the representation of the divine image [on earth].”

Thus, a proper understanding of “suitable helper” leads one to see the man and woman as corresponding to one another in a deeply intentional manner that does not set one above the other. God intends to bless both the man and the woman by the presence of, and indeed by marriage to, the other. Together, they are able to embody the image of God in a way that neither could alone.

Some argue from the fact that Adam was created first that man has precedence in relationships with women. However, it is clear that a part of Adam was removed and that Eve was fashioned from that part, which was created at the same time as what remained of Adam after the creation of Eve. Some commentators say that Adam was “divided” into Adam and Eve. (Contrast the comments in 1 Timothy 2:13 and 1 Corinthians 11:8, 12 on being first.)

Some commentators indicate significance in God taking a part from which to create Eve from Adam’s side rather than from Adam’s foot or head. A common technique in ancient literature concerning origins of people or beings was to have the part of the body from which a group or a being was created imply something about the function of the one created with respect to the one from whom they were taken. Taking from his head would have implied Eve was over Adam, and from his feet that Eve was under Adam. Thus, taking the part from Adam’s side from which to fashion Eve is seen to denote equality. Most all commentators agree that there is at least the intention to imply that Adam and Eve are beings “of like kind” in distinction from other creatures. It is difficult to see any clear teaching of the priority of Adam over Eve in the creation accounts based on the order of creation.

Rather, Genesis 2:23-24 proclaims a unity in marriage as God created it; the two leave others, unite together and become one. It is not as if the woman becomes the man’s property or comes under his supervision. It is that two formerly separate beings come out from their family of origin to give priority to a relationship of being united as one – forming a new unit, or family.

Another argument for Adam being senior in his relationship with Eve comes from Genesis 2:23, in which Adam names Eve. It is pointed out that this parallels Adam naming other creatures of the earth in Genesis 2:19-20. Naming “woman” by Adam is thus said to imply his authority over her as it is seen that his naming the animals implies authority of man over the animals. However, in Genesis 1:28, God tells both Adam and Eve to rule over the animals. Consider that Adam named the creatures of the earth prior to a part being taken from him from which to form Eve. In a very real sense, the “like kind” aspect of this symbolic action would seem to indicate that whatever it was that made it appropriate for Adam to name these creatures was also true of Eve. Genesis 1:28 confirms that view. And yet the fact remains that the man named the woman. Is this a reason to see men as having authority over women?

Note the name that the man gives to the woman. In The Five Books of Moses, Everett Fox translates the Hebrew into English as below:

The human said:
This-time, she-is-it!
Bone from my bones,
flesh from my flesh!
She shall be called Woman/Isha,
for from Man/Ish she was taken!

The Hebrew for Man sounds like the Hebrew for Woman, with a suffix difference. In addition, in his words explaining the name, the man acknowledges that the woman is of like kind with him – bone of bone and flesh of flesh. Then, in the name, there is sameness and also difference. There is appropriate paralleling of name with relationship. While there may be significance in the man’s naming of the woman, there is also an acknowledgement of like kind. The woman was not given a completely different name, but an adaptation of the name for Man.

Finally, rounding out our consideration of how things were in the beginning between men and women, we must consider Genesis 3. Adam and Eve are together when temptation comes (see Genesis 3:6), yet Eve apparently does not consult Adam as if he were supposed to be in charge. Adam says nothing, allowing Eve to act on her impulse, showing no sign of having responsibility for her. (We might be critical of Adam’s lack of action or words, seeing in his inaction a lack of love even if he was not responsible for Eve as her head.)

Afterwards, if there was a relationship of leadership or headship between the man and the woman prior to the Fall, would there not have been some acknowledgement of this in God’s handling of their sin? Yet when God reprimanded Adam and Eve after they sinned, there is no trace of a complaint that the man did not exercise his leadership over the woman, as if she were under his supervision. After the man blames the woman for giving him the fruit, and God for giving him the woman, the woman answers straightforwardly that she had been deceived. Neither Adam nor Eve respond in a way that indicates that the man did not fulfill his responsibilities as “leader” in their marriage relationship, and God makes no mention of this in his comments or in the curse that follows. It is hard to imagine that God’s reprimand would take the form that it does if the man were responsible as the head or leader of the pair.

Judging from the Genesis creation and fall accounts, there seems little that would compel one to see the marriage relationship between Adam and Eve as one in which Adam was supposed to be the leader and Eve the follower. This is the scripture that tells us what we know of “the beginning”.

Next: 8. Jesus’ Teaching or Dysfunctional Situations?

6. Cultural and Social Norms and Scripture

November 22, 2011 / / 1 Comment

Some have found it helpful, when seeking to understand the scripture passages that speak of the place of women in the church and in marriage, to consider also those passages that speak of Christians in the context of slavery. These passages assume that there is slavery, and describe how to live the life of Christ within the context of a society that includes slavery. In the past, these passages were used by some to justify the institution of slavery. This type of argument for slavery is rarely heard today – and rightly so. We can appreciate a Christ-like attitude in the social context of slavery while understanding that slavery is a social institution that God does not endorse as his ideal. It is an evil of a fallen world; slavery is a form that cannot remain intact as the kingdom of God comes in its fullness.

Therefore, we interpret passages that teach about the behavior of masters and slaves to be culturally or socially conditioned rather than as establishing the institution of slavery as God’s plan for human relationships. We can learn how to live in testimony to Christ when embedded in the social context of slavery. We can see how living the radical life of love and truth embodied by Christ would begin to bring into question the underlying assumptions upon which distorted social structures of a fallen world are founded. We extrapolate from these teachings to other similar but different contexts such as the relationship between employees and employers. We understand that these scripture passages teach us Christ-like relational attitudes toward work and authority in the context of slavery, while not teaching slavery as a Christian social ideal.

Texts about women in ministry roles and about marriage often parallel texts about Christians in the context of slavery. So, many see a parallel between the social context of marriage and the social context of slavery in scripture. Could there be some parallel between women in patriarchal societies and slaves in a social context of slavery? However, we know that marriage is not parallel to slavery in that marriage is a creation of God. And yet scripture testifies to the effect of the fall and the resulting curse upon marriage relationships: “Your desire will be for your husband, and he will rule over you.” This effect can be seen in the roles to which women have been relegated in fallen human society. We cannot help but see the corruption brought by the fall in our marriages and in our society’s attitudes toward marriage. It is important to work towards views of the place of women in society and marriage that honor God’s creative goodness in giving us the gift of marriage. It is important that we seek to move beyond that which is less than God intended.

We can readily see that not all attitudes and beliefs about marriage honor the teaching of scripture about human relationships and love. Similarly, Christians have realized that not all attitudes and beliefs about the place of women in society honor the teaching of scripture regarding human relationships and love. Might it be that some scriptures that speak of the relationship between men and women are speaking from within and to the social context of the time without endorsing the patriarchal order of that social context? Might they be speaking into that context regarding how to live in it as a follower of Jesus? Judging by the precedent of texts speaking in the context of slavery, it could be so. It seems to me that it certainly is so! For an example of this approach, see Gordon Fee’s article The Cultural Context of Ephesians 5:18 to 6:9.

Of course, the key is discerning what is inherent in God’s pattern for marriage and the relationship between men and women. God is author of the difference between men and women. What in our culture reflects God-created difference and what is a refection of sinful humans living in a fallen world? Do any of the scriptures that discuss the place of women in the church or in marriage teach within a context of cultural patterns that are less than ideal? Might these scriptures in some ways be similar to the scriptures that discuss how a follower of Christ is to live as a slave or a master of slaves – not teaching the cultural pattern of slavery or patriarchal marriage but rather teaching how one lives as a Christian faced with an imperfect or unjust pattern in one’s culture?

Most cultures at the time of the early church were strongly patriarchal, with some instances of local reaction against patriarchy. Women were generally not well-educated or formally prepared for leadership. Women were not allowed to be the disciples of rabbis who taught young men to understand and apply the Hebrew scripture they had memorized as boys.

Other parallels may also be helpful. Moses was given laws governing divorce. And yet Jesus taught that these laws were not a reflection that divorce was pleasing to God, but rather a concession to the hard hearts of men. There is a clue that may help us from Jesus’ response when questioned about divorce. Consider Matthew 19:3-8 [niv]:

3 Some Pharisees came to him to test him. They asked, “Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for any and every reason?”
4 “Haven’t you read,” he replied, “that at the beginning the Creator ‘made them male and female,’ 5 and said, ‘For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh’? 6 So they are no longer two, but one. Therefore what God has joined together, let man not separate.”
7 “Why then,” they asked, “did Moses command that a man give his wife a certificate of divorce and send her away?”
8 Jesus replied, “Moses permitted you to divorce your wives because your hearts were hard. But it was not this way from the beginning. 9 I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for marital unfaithfulness, and marries another woman commits adultery.”

In verses four and eight, Jesus refers to “the beginning.” Marriage since the fall is not as it was “in the beginning.” The relationship between men and women in general is not as it was “in the beginning.” What was it like in the beginning?

Next: 7. Beginnings

13. Further Reading – Links and References

November 22, 2011 / / 0 Comments

The main evangelical organizations formed to support particular views on women in family and ministry are good sources of references and information. The complementarian organization is the Council on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood. The egalitarian organization is Christians for Biblical Equality. Both of these organizations are God-honoring and Bible-honoring.

There are many books and articles on the topics of women in ministry and marriage, here is a list of some resources that I have found most helpful to explain the contrasting perspectives that prevail in evangelical Christianity today.

5. Christian Feminism?

October 8, 2011 / / 1 Comment

Feminism is not a movement well-regarded by many evangelical Christians today. Most feminist writers today portray religion in general and Christianity in particular as inherently patriarchal and unfair to women. Often Christianity is cast in the role of serving in the past and the present as a tool for the subjugation of women. This is, in my view, a great and grave misinterpretation of Christian teaching and thought.

The early pioneers to advocate for equal rights for women were nearly all Christian women (or men), in recent centuries often influenced by Quakerism. They sought political equality for women to vote and hold public office, the right for women to own property, and for the end of “chattel marriage” – all on Christian grounds. In the late 19th and 20th century, most were also ardent prohibitionists who saw alcohol abuse as a great social evil that primarily served to undermine the responsibility of men toward their families. They did not advocate for some of the issues associated with feminism today. Susan B. Anthony for example, an early feminist Christian, even referred to abortion as “child murder” and as a “noxious weed.”

John G. Stackhouse, Jr., a Christian writer and professor of theology formerly at Regent College and now at Crandall University, defines himself as a feminist today. Of course, he has his own definition of “feminist” that he uses to clarify what he means by the label. His definition of a feminist is this: Someone who champions the dignity, rights, responsibilities, and glories of women as equal to in importance to those of men and who therefore refuses discrimination against women.

Of course, we are still strapped with the baggage of meaning attached to the word “feminism” by the wider society. Whether or not it is helpful for a Christian to refer to himself or herself as a feminist will have to remain a discussion for another day. However, giving Stackhouse a chance to explain his perspective is useful:

Yes, women and men are biologically different, and so some sex-specific zones are real and therefore not arbitrary. I expect that the folk wisdom is true that men and women differ also in other essential ways, although there is currently nothing approaching a cultural consensus as to what those ways are. Feminists, therefore, do not have to be blind to real differences and their implications. In fact, many feminists emphasize that women and men are indeed different and that a large part of the feminist concern is that those differences be acknowledged and incorporated into our life together. Feminists of the sort I represent are those who resist what they judge to be arbitrary, ungrounded distinctions between men and women and the discrimination that attends such distinctions.

Interestingly, given Stackhouse’s definition and perspective, many Christians might consider themselves feminists, even (with qualification) some complementarians! I expect many egalitarians agree with his perspective, if not Stackhouse’s terminology.

Next: 6. Cultural and Social Norms and Scripture

« Older posts Newer posts »

© 2024 Expressions of Faith

Theme by Anders Noren — Up ↑