“Can the West be re-evangelized? Only if we unlearn our default ethnocentric assumptions about “real” Christianity (our own) and unlearn our blindness to the ways Western Christianity is infected by cultural idolatry. It may be more blessed to give than to receive, but it is often harder to receive than to give. That reverses the polarity of patron and client and makes us uncomfortably aware that what Jesus said to the Laodicean church might apply to us in the West: “You say, ‘I am rich; I have acquired wealth and do not need a thing.’ But you do not realize that you are wretched, pitiful, poor, blind and naked” (Rev. 3:17).”
Want to read more? You can find it here. This excellent piece by Christopher Wright would be an excellent discussion starter for any Bible class, small group, or leaders’ retreat. (Thanks, Jim, for telling me about it!)
Here’s another paragraph to whet your appetite:
“So another piece of unlearning we must do is breaking the habit of using the term mission field to refer to everywhere else in the world except our home country in the West. The language of home and mission field is still used by many churches and agencies, but it fundamentally misrepresents reality. Not only does it perpetuate a patronizing view of the rest of the world as always being on the receiving end of our missionary largesse, but it also fails to recognize the maturity of churches in many other lands.”
- - - -
And PLEASE, when you get a chance, read this book review of John Stackhouse’s new Finally Feminist: A Pragmatic Christian Understanding of Gender
Here, again, is just a taste:
Stackhouse finds, in the church’s changing attitude toward slavery, a proper model for the church’s changing attitude toward women. He points out that while women and homosexuals are never linked in the restrictive passages of the New Testament, women and slaves are. Women and slaves in the early church, freed in Christ, were nevertheless encouraged to observe cultural norms to keep the gospel from disrepute.
But slaves have been freed from that particular cultural norm—or such is the overwhelming consensus today. “In the case of slavery,” Stackhouse writes, “Christians worldwide have come to agree that the social conservatism of the New Testament was a temporary matter.” This was not an agreement reached without struggle; Stackhouse points out that theologians of the 19th century “marshalled powerful, Bible-based arguments” on both sides of the issue. “[A] straightforward interpretation of the passages regarding slavery conveys no obvious condemnation of the institution,” he concludes, “and seems instead to encourage Christians in both roles, master and slave, to stay right where they are and simply behave properly. Yet there is no important Christian leader anywhere in the modern world today who defends slavery.”
Stackhouse argues that the abolition of slavery provides us with a model for the Holy Spirit’s slow, ongoing work in doing away with a sinful, oppressive cultural norm—a change that doesn’t at all undercut the authority of Scripture. Many evangelicals point to thousands of years of patriarchy as proof that patriarchy is an essential part of God’s creation. Yet slavery, which we have now rejected, was as universal as patriarchy, and the Christian church has rightfully rejected it.
Well said!
“The distinguishing sign of slavery is to have a price, and to be bought for it.”
— John Ruskin
People have “strong” convictions but they will sacrifice them for a price. With regards to women in the church, we will change as pioneer churches work through the growing pains and begin growing. Growth is the carrot that 98% of churches are chasing. Once a trail is blazed, then settler churches will begin to creep toward change.
Thanks Mike for taking those arrows.
Test post. Couldn’t get your site to post earlier.
The first article reminds me of a piece called “Believing in the Global South” that was in First Things recently (December?). Anyone else read that?
Mike - You’re probably familiar with it, but predating Stackhouse’s work is the seminal work on the hermeneutical comparison of slavery, gender and sexuality by William Webb: Slaves, Women and Homosexuals. Found at Amazon.com here: http://www.amazon.com/Slaves-Women-Homosexuals-Exploring-Hermeneutics/dp/0830815619/sr=8-1/qid=1169610515/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1/002-7955429-2732850?ie=UTF8&s=books
You should definitely look into Oscar Muriu’s Message (which I learned a great deal from, and talked primarily about in my chapel speech) at Urbana this year…
http://www.urbana.org/u2006.session.info.cfm?session=3
This is one of the most impactful things in determining how I consider and respond to the world around me.
I personally do not want women to take leading rolls in public worship in the church I attend. To each his own I guess.
I can’t imagine a woman preaching a sermon comparable to our minister. They could probably make a good talk but it would probably put everyone to sleep:)
I agree Mike. My only worry is that we, as a church, will begin to put “social issues” over the Word and start to be too PC. I have seen it happen already in my churches with different things.
Let it begin with me, us, here, and now. Lord have mercy.
I think Stackhouse gets this part right (quoting from Susan Wise Bauer’s blog):
“Paul means just what he says about gender,” Stackhouse writes, “everything he says about gender, not just the favorite passages cited by one side or another. . . . He believes that women should keep silent in church and that they should pray and prophesy. How can they do both? By being silent at the right times, and by praying and prophesying at the right times.”
There is a scary amount of reading between the lines going on, and some of it is not well founded. For example, someone should point out to Susan that Andronicus was a man. Secondly, scholars are divided over whether Junias was a man or a woman. And thirdly, the scriptures do not tell us the roles that each played in their local congregation.
One final point: Paul writes unmistakeably that women are not permitted to teach men, or even to speak publicly. He recognized that this would be controversial, so he emphasized it with this:
“If anybody thinks he is a prophet or spiritually gifted, let him acknowledge that what I am writing to you is the Lord’s command.”
This was no more the cultural norm in first century Corinth than it is in 21st century Nashville. But nonetheless it was the command of God.
The West will be “re-evangelized” when the church stops chasing growth and starts chasing Jesus. But if we do this, we may find ourselves in some pretty precarious situations with some pretty controversial people. But at least Jesus will be there with us.
————
Women. Geez Louise. Not this topic again.
Did you see that? The body is built up and held together only “as each part does its work.” And I suppose the woman’s work is with the kids or making the coffee? Gimme a break …
Great words Mike - very encouraging!
Thank You, LORD for Highland!!
Steve, thanks for your words. I know that I am in a place that honors women and their gifts but it still feels like someone is stabbing me when I hear all the old stuff. I hate all the lines drawn and swords drawn and punches thrown. I have been injured by them and don’t truly intend to step into the battle again but I admit that I don’t understand it when a woman says that she thinks a woman preacher would be boring and put everyone to sleep. How does that woman feel about herself if she says those words?
Tears came this morning as I read all these comments. Yes, sometimes the wounds still feel fresh and yes, it scares me when I hear the arguments. Steve, thanks again for the encouraging scripture…I was in tears from the other remarks but yours put me over the edge emotionally because you get it. Thanks.
julie … Thanks. When I think of valuable voices that would be lost if we were to stifle the giftings of women, yours comes to mind. (sorry for your tears…)
Roland - Doesn’t the Word deal with “social issues?” Followers of Jesus can’t escape dealing with “social issues,” because Jesus didn’t.
I’m with you on being “too PC.” The gospel sure isn’t PC.
Amen Christine. I don’t want to see Women in leadership roles either. I feel uncomfortable~ to each his own~
We use to attend a church where women served communion~ fine~ I just wouldn’t want to. As a 38 year old woman myself I worry about the issue being “forced” on women. Those who feel comfortable serving great, just please don’t make those of us who feel uneasy and that maybe it isn’t our “gift” do so.
I am personally worried about the homosexual issue in the church. I hear people say the following about divorced Christians (not textual divorce) “everyone needs God”. What is next ? Homosexuals need God too~ true they do, but they need to realize “living” in a homosexual lifestyle is sin and not accepted by God.
We can all have our own opinions, but need to respect those who may not be “exactly” as your own. I have always felt like a minority on certain issues on this board, but I study my bible daily like you do and feel this is the stance God is telling me is correct.
In him
lee
Well said, indeed. This is one of the best worded arguments regarding the parallel between slavery and women’s participation (as they are treated by Paul’s writing) that I have seen.
Note about posting:
I found out from a regular reader that some of his comments (and presumably others) aren’t getting through.
Here’s what I think is happening: if you include a link in your comment, it’s liable to put it in either moderation (where I can later rescue it) or spam (where I haven’t had much luck).
I’m sorry about this. But let me say this: 99.99% of what it’s catching in moderation and spam is absolutely horrible. The porno sites are doing everything they can to grab people. I think that there are about 600 spams being caught every day on this site alone! It says there have been 26,200 caught since I started on this site.
If you have trouble getting through, see if you’ve included a link. If that’s what is keeping you out (and, as you can see above, it doesn’t always seem to — HOW DOES IT KNOW?), then try sending the comment again without the link — or maybe with the link revised like this: preachermikeDOTcom.
Also let me add that there were several comments on today’s blog that were in the spam which shouldn’t have been. I marked them as “not spam,” but I’m afraid they didn’t make it. Richard, ZZ, and others — please send again.
Steve - Thanks for those words to our dear friend Julie.
If we planted a church in Afghanistan, we’d probably ask the women to act appropriately for that culture. (This is what we see working in a couple NT passages where Paul doesn’t want anything to hinder the hearing of the gospel.)
But in this culture? No. It’s actually a hindrance to the hearing of the gospel for us to put up these walls.
lee — Let me ask you this. Do you know any homosexual people? I’m not talking about some loose acquaintance … I’m talking about someone you really know. I too believe that romantic relationships are intended to be between a man and a woman, but I also recognize the complexity of the issue. (in other words, it’s not as easy as saying to the homosexual person, “Just change,” as the church has been so apt to do). That may make the church person feel good in the short-term, but it does nothing productive for the homosexual person in the long-term.
Lee, my guess is that if a homosexual person came into your life in a meaningful way (maybe a co-worker, maybe the person you buy your coffee from in the morning, maybe a neighbor), you’d be patient with them. You’d gently show them the love of Christ in the context of a long-term relationship, as you would with anyone who isn’t following the Way of Jesus. You’d abstain from moralizing to them. You’d basically be different from every Christian they’ve ever met. The “homosexual issue in the church” begins and ends outside of the assembly, outside of our buildings, in our everyday interactions with those the church considers “unclean.” Might homosexuality be the leprosy of the 21st century?
[side note: In my experience, we're much harder in the church on "the homosexuality issue" than we are on "the greed issue" or "the gossip issue." Maybe the last two hit a little too close to home with most of us.]
Mike, thanks for these words this morning. Interesting enough, I was sitting in the barber/salon chair this morning and the guy next to me was being rather “macho” towards his hair stylist. That’s a nice way to put it. He was actually quite rude and demeaning while trying to put on a good show. All the hair stylists (all women) in the shop were seeing right through his performance. These women knew who they were and were proud of their identity.
However, it just goes to show that we still live in a culture where women are treated as second class. That is why the gospel must speak into our culture with a redeeming word and that is why a group of gathered gospel followers must show by their actions that the gospel has spoken into their life.
I guess we need to keep talking about this subject until Christ returns because the gospel is still speaking.
Mike,
Adapting the teaching to the culture is a slippery slope. Some folks are using that argument to eliminate teachings against homosexuality. I dont think you would support that. But where do you draw the line, and how do you justify drawing it where you do?
Steve Jr.
Yes, a cousin of my husband. We have all had very meaningful “heartfelt” spiritual conversations over the last 5-6 years. Email upon email of scripture and he basically thinks it’s ok to live in a homosexual relationship. So, to answer your question~yes I do know someone and our entire family loves him and he knows it. However, we stand our ground on believing God does not approve of his relationships with other men. At one point he was even seeing a married man with children and found a way to justify that. He has his Phd and is extremely intellegent in God’s word. We just differ in interpreting the scripture. Can we ever draw a line Steve? Do we as a church allow homosexuals involved in a gay lifestyle to continue to do so without drawing a line in the sand? Again, several members of his family continue weekly conversations with him and are very loving to him. Mike, where is that line?
lee
by the way… if there is no line, then the values of the church become the same as those of the culture. Romans 12:1-2 tells me that is not acceptable. Our values must be different from those of the secular culture. So we must draw a line somewhere.
There must be something the culture accepts that we do not. Will we compromise on abortion? adultery? lying? cheating on taxes? homosexuality?
If we agree that our values are supposed to be different from the surrounding culture, then we just need to figure out how we decide what the differences should be. Some of us think the scriptures answer that question very clearly.
I guess maybe you have to hear a young Christian lady, an a+ student studying the scriptues and then speaking to a teen class made up of other women to understand just how good our youth really are and how committed. It is us in our unholy ways that would not permit her to to speak to men listeners and learn Christ through her heartfelt sermon. We suddenly become the Taliban! Do you think the first century church that met in homes kept the women from speaking or serving the bread? I have so been changed in the last 8 years. Satan wins by default when 50% of us are held back from teaching the Good News.
Christine, You’re kidding, right? And, it’s women’s ROLES, not rolls—-though that is pretty much what we’ve been allowed to be a part of in our congregations. Serve the rolls. And, you’re a really good Christian LADY if you can actually make the rolls & not buy them.
And, some of the BEST speakers I’ve heard were WOMEN (God made “woman”–not “LADY”, BTW) Men & women both can be eloquent speakers of God’s Word.
My favorite section:
“Most of all, we need to go back to the Cross and relearn its comprehensive glory. For if we persist in a narrow, individualistic view of the Cross as a personal exit strategy to heaven, we fall short of its biblical connection to the mission purpose of God for the whole of creation and thereby lose the Cross-centered core of holistic mission. It is vital that we see the Cross as central to every aspect of holistic, biblical mission – that is, of all we do in the name of the crucified and risen Jesus. It is a mistake, in my view, to think that while our evangelism must be centered on the Cross (as of course it has to be), our social engagement has some other theological foundation or justification.”
Now for my editorial (I usually wouldn’t, and I tried to restrain myself – but what the heck, I suggested the topic and I’ll take some liberty with it):
Maybe it would be useful if we had a moratorium on the word salvation and substituted the word reconciliation to describe the purpose of God’s mission. Did anybody even read the Wright article? Do we even believe in the In-breaking Kingdom of God in this world? I would go even further than Wright and suggest that is ungodly to separate our evangelism from our social engagement. They have to be one and the same.
It makes me sad – we’re challenged to rethink our whole participation in the mission of God and we would rather re-argue the role of women in our churches. I’m with Steve Jr. – Geez Louise!
Love you Jules!
I still have so many questions about the Question of this post. It still strikes me as odd that Paul and the Holy Spirit would take an accomodationist, give-it-time approach while throwing around language like “full submission” because “Adam was formed first, then Eve. And Adam was not the one deceived; it was the woman who was deceived and became a sinner.”
When I read interpretations designed to neutralize those words, they almost invariably tell me about some highly-conjectural, unproven situation on the ground at Ephesus that Paul is arguing against. I’m not convinced. And if the same interpreters started making similar arguments in other texts, we’d say they were off.
Also, I think there’s some irony in pointing to the significance of the Global South and East while arguing for gender-inclusiveness. Maybe we should bequeath our old commentaries to our grandchildren.
I posted early this morning and it is not there. I was writing to disagree, and now I have not a clue what I was going to say. Oh well.
First, I think it needs to be stated clearly that the issue with women and the issue of homosexuality are two very different issues. “Solutions” or “methods” for dealing with them are not interchangeable, though I’m sure they share similar principles.
Second, I would say this, lee. It is not — nor has it ever been — our responsibility to convict others of their sin. It’s just not. That’s the Holy Spirit’s job. If we take it upon ourselves to make sure we highlight and address others’ sin (regardless of our motives, even if it for the “other person’s good”), we’re in serious error and will drive ourselves crazy. Like I said, we seem to be more obsessed with drawing a line in the sand on issues pertaining to sex than we are with many other equally destructive sins.
My suggestion is to stop. Just stop. Stop trying to convict your husband’s cousin. It hasn’t worked to this point, has it? All the scripture … the conversations — my guess is that he may feel loved, but he doesn’t feel “at ease” around a bunch of people who disapprove of what he feels is his core identity. Pray for him. Love him, extravagantly. Unabashedly. Speak truth when appropriate, but for goodness sake, give him a break. I’d be more interested in inviting him into the adventure that is God’s story. A story that gives life but doesn’t create guilt. A story that calls each of us — even the greedy and the gossipers — to become “less” so that Christ can become more. To give up everything we’re holding onto, our base desires, our entire lives — for the sake of The Way.
NOTE TO HIGHLAND MEMBERS: Randy Harris begins a three-week series tonight in Oasis. Diane and I will be attending the “Faith Decisions” class with Chris (a class we have every year for 8th graders and their parents). What a blessing that Randy does for his own home church each fall and spring what he does on weekends all over the country.
Christine and Lee,
I think I understand your feelings—in fact I have had some of the feelings you describe myself.
But I do wonder what you mean when you say “to each his own?”
I only ask because (and I may be misinterpreting your words) it sounds as if you are saying “my way is the right way.”
As someone who may be older than you are and as someone who has been in a similar (but not exactly the same) place that your words describe, I can only say that frequent and ongoing prayer asking God to have mercy on me and to remove my own filters and blinders that I was unwilling to remove and often unwilling or unable to even recognize in myself, is what has given me an openness to let the Word speak to me as if from God Himself. That and some loving words and teaching from friends and family far and near. Depending upon the very Word of God and reading it fresh and new has changed my life. And while I still have a lot of baggage, I can now, at this later time in my life, understand the freedom in Christ in ways that bring me great joy and peace. -Kathy S
By saying “to each his own” I am certainly not judging but rather saying I’m not comfortable doing it, but if you are fine. Just don’t judge me because I don’t choose to lead communion, etc.
This is my third attempt to post. In my second attempt I said that I had already forgotten what I said in the first post which I thought was pretty good. If it doesn’t go through this time I will take it as a sign to stay out of the conversation for today. The whole women’s role stuff has perplexed me for a long time. I am preaching in a semi-rural area just north of Memphis. I believe that the women in this church would go nuts if we used women in a more public way. I could be wrong, but I doubt it. Mike, I am not sure of the logic of joining the issue of slavery and women together. It seems to me that you could take slavery and join it with almost anything and make the same argument that you wrote about. I try to keep an open mind and I am willing to read what others write. I have enjoyed reading the other posts.
Wow! What a discussion.
Since I don’t have time to write a dissertation, I’ll say just a few things.
One, regarding homosexuality. Homosexuality is no worse a sin (if it’s even a sin) than greed or gossip. Lying. Consumerism. Being judgemental. etc etc etc. Why do we have to have interventions for people who are homosexual, and we do absolutely nothing to the people in our churches who slander their brethren, or who horde things and ignore the plight of the poor?
Is it cause its easier to point out the speck in our brothers eye, than to pull the plank from our own?
And in regards to the women’s role in the church:
What happened to “there is no jew or greek, male or female, all are one in Christ Jesus”? Oh, right, Paul wasn’t really being serious.
Paul knew that if Christians went out of their way to flaunt equality of men, women, and slaves, that they would face even more persecution than they all ready faced. They were to treat everyon equally, but respect the times in which they lived. That, in and of itself was revolutionary.
Our culture is vastly different from that in bible times. Just as slavery is now culturally unacceptable, making women second class citizens is also. Should the church be more or less accepting of new gender roles than the culture? If we follow the path of the NT church, we should be more accepting than the culture, because everyone is the same in the eyes of God.
On one side are people whose experiences, feelings and instincts lead them to their belief. On the other are people whose understanding of scripture leads them to the opposite belief.
Regardless of which side is right (or neither!), the discussion cannot make progress unless we agree upon the standard.
So far the discussion has mostly avoided the scriptures.
Speaking just about myself: it is impossible for arguments based on people’s experience and human reasoning to persuade me to take a position that I believe contradicts scripture. For me, the scriptures are the standard and that is not negotiable. Sorry if that is narrow-minded. The discussion needs to begin and end with scripture. If that conversation is not acceptable then we cannot come to agreement.
For a well reasoned argument on women serving in equal roles with men in the Kingdom, see Sarah Sumner’s Men and Women in the Church: Building Consensus on Leadership.
I heard her speak at the National Pastors Convention last year and she is a scholarly, humble follower of Jesus.
Peace.
AAAAAAAAAAAAArrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrgh!
No, Alan — I’m with you. Here’s a scripture for you: 1 Timothy 2. Often used as ammo against female participation in the worship assembly. But may I (drawing on prior scholarship, of course) propose that the header we see in most of our Bibles — “Instructions on Worship” — is misleading? What if chapter 2 is simply a continuation of Paul’s instructions in Chapter 1, pertaining to all of life? What if we’ve narrowed Chapter 2 down to the hour-a-week worship service, when it was originally intended to be an instruction for Christian living? (maybe there’s a Greek scholar out there who can either back me up or shoot me down — either would be accepted gracefully!)
Women in the Christian community were given freedoms in Christ that they were certainly not used to in the larger culture. A spirit of equality was present within the body of Christ, in all likelihood. 1 Tim. 2 seems to be a “reining in” of the Christian women who were extending this newfound freedom outside the walls of the house churches, likely attempting to teach their male neighbors and friends. This would have been quite the taboo in the culture at large, so Paul is saying, “Hold it. Nuh-uh. Let’s not get too crazy here.”
Yes, this reading of 1 Tim. takes into account history and context. It’s not a black-and-white, no interpretation needed reading. It’s more complex than that. But so is the rest of God’s word. It must be read first through the lens of the culture to which it was written, applied then and only then to our own culture. Reversing this is a poor treatment of scripture.
Stackhouse’s book sounds similar to William Webb’s work titled “Slaves, Women & Homosexuals: Exploring the Hermeneutics of Cultural Analysis”. I haven’t read either book, but have enjoyed Scot McKnight’s take on Webb’s book over at jesuscreedDOTorg. Look for his posts labeled “Women in Ministry: Redemptive Trend”.
Don’t be mislead by the title of Webb’s book. If I understand correctly, Webb draws a distinction between the issues of slavery and women and that of homosexuality.
I think an understanding of the Redemptive Trend relative to Slavery and Women in the Church, coupled with a sense of the context within which Paul spoke to the church at Corinth is vital to a healthy view of a woman’s role in the church today. To put it simply, there is no role/function in the church that a woman should be excluded from in our culture today.
Justin,
The difference between slavery and the women’s role in scripture is vast.
In 1 Cor 7:21 Paul instructs slaves who can gain their freedom to do so. In other places, he tells them how they should live as long as they are slaves. The scriptures do not specifically command masters to free their slaves, but I think practically everyone agrees that Christian principles would lead a person who had slaves to set them free. That even seems to be implied (but not stated) when Paul sent Onesimus back to Philemon (”I know that you will do even more than I ask.”)
When Paul addressed propriety for women in worship (1 Cor 11, 1 Cor 14, and 1 Tim 2), his reasons were not cultural (1 Tim 2: woman not created first, woman deceived; 1 Cor 11: woman came from man and for man; 1 Cor 14: the word did not originate with women, nor did it come only to the women. Note I am merely restating what is in the scriptures…) None of those reasons ceases to be true depending on the culture. And there is no hint in the context that his conclusions were a cultural concession.
To compare the two: A slave was to obey the teaching for slaves as long as they were slaves. If they could gain their freedom, they were to do so. A woman was to obey the teaching for women whether it was popular or not. And she was not offered the option to cease to be a woman.
Today Christians do not have slaves (worldwide, as far as I know). Yet, by not having slaves we are not in violation of any command in scripture. However, some churches are appointing women to teach and have authority over men. In those cases they are in direct conflict with a biblical command.
Steve, the “social issues” I was referring to are things such as you and Lee are discussing. I feel that many churches see the world being more and more “accepting” of homosexual life style and, thus, they must be accepting of it.
I think you have a good point in how we are somewhat harder on this issue then things like greed and gossip however that is because it is clearer. You can preach about greed but that is something that is more personal and not out in the open as much as homosexuality can be.
Am I being clear? Maybe not. Just typing really fast at work.
One short comment on women serving communion.
They have always served if you think about it. How is that you asked?
Each woman in the row passes the bread and cup to her neighbor thereby serving that individual. Ok two comments. I don’t think I have ever heard of a church family who “forces” any one to serve in any capacity he or she feels unsuited for.
Just my two cents
Roland - Yep. You’re being completely clear. And for the record, I am not advocating an “accepting” attitude from the church toward homosexuality. Some may do that, but not me. I am simply suggesting a different approach than the ones we’ve used in the past, which have usually been moralizing people in a demeaning way, quoting scripture (which, to the non-Christian person, holds zero authority), or — perhaps worst of all — ignoring that entire segment of our society. Let’s be salt and light to those who are in the darkness in the context of relationships — authentic friendships — rather than looking down from some moral high place.
Before that, though, let’s work on those planks in our own eyes, and ask our gay friends to pray for us!
Steve Jr,
Just a thought…. My husband’s cousin quotes far more scripture to us than we do to him. I think we will have to nicely agree to disagree.
Please don’t assume to understand the way in which we “talk to him”~ you have no idea. The family has a fine relationship. You make it sound as if they are hounding him with scripture, not approaching him in love. That assumption is far from the truth.
Thank you again for healthy dialogue.
God loves homosexuals as much as he loves me~~I know that. We love him enough to not want him to lead a sinful life……. enough said.
Women preaching in the worship assembly of the church is a clear violation of scripture ( I Cor. 14 : 33 and 34 ; I Timothy 2 : 11- 14. ). It has nothing to do with culture, it goes all the way back to creation and the fall and Paul wrote by the inspiration Of God.
This does not make women slaves , they are also free in Christ but God in His word has set the restrictions. The women in the congregation I attend are very active in teaching , evangelism, counseling, works of compassion, etc. and do not consider themselves as oppressed. Gal. 3 : 26- 28 speaks to the unity of salvation for all who have put their faith in Jesus and have obeyed the gospel.
Left this out…
The difference is this. When I sin and recognize it is sin~ I pray, I pray for forgiveness and to be relieved of that sin.
Homosexuals do not realize a gay lifestyle as sin…………………
Do you see where I’m coming from now?
Someone has to see this.
Fair enough, Lee
God bless.
Thanks for the article link, Mike. I read Wright’s piece and have now copied it to several friends and colleagues. I like the general idea of what he is saying, but I wish it went further into the details.
He makes the great point (and well-said, too) that Western Christianity has treated the majority world with a bit of snobbery. Much of it unintended, but most of it blind and unwilling to see.
Then he makes the point that our center of faith is the Cross and God’s reconciliation (a beautiful reminder), so that no country, culture or church is meant to be a more important center of faith than any other. But then he stops. I felt hungry for more. I wanted to see the details of where this realization sends us. What does that look like at the local church level in our Western culture?
I will be looking forward to the future articles from the Christian Vision Project, and I so appreciate you mentioning this one to peak interest. Is there anybody that has more comments on this subject?
I have not thought on this issue NEAR as much as most of you posting….but was wondering if anyone has read “Created To Be His Help Meet” by Debi Pearl? (www.NoGreaterJoy.org)
Steve Jr,
I’ll go this far with you. 1 Tim 2 might address life in general, not just the worship service (though it does specify how she should learn, and that she should not teach men). That understanding creates a difficulty with Priscilla, Aquilla, and Apollos. But that might not be an insurmountable difficulty.
1 Cor 14, on the other hand, addresses the assembly of the church (see verse 26). Paul’s instruction in that context would not have been ambiguous to a first century woman. She clearly was prohibited from speaking in the assembly.
Won’t anyone discuss the human-animal hybrids?
Yes, there is great hope.
GKB - I’m pretty sure human-animal hybrids are forbidden from participation in public worship. Especially gay ones.
Wow. I discussed something a little similar weeks ago. Unfortunately, we forget why Jesus came. Luke 4:18-19 states:
“The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because he has anointed me to bring good news to the poor. He has sent me to proclaim release to the captives and recovery of sight to the blind, to let the oppressed go free, to proclaim the year of the Lord’s favor.” Jesus was all for turning the status quo upside down (and not just in a political sense). As I said in one of my posts at http://wisdomwalking.net/2007/01/03/christian-spiritual-growth-without-the-church/
“It seems some churches are so busy trying to establish and implement effective marketing strategies and institute profitable fund raising programs to build bigger buildings at the expense of helping people face their fears, turn around, and truly meet God so that they might truly heal…the church has a wonderful opportunity these days to be God’s agents who would help ‘heal the brokenhearted and bind up their wounds’ (Psalm 147:3).” We’re so busy trying to maintain a status quo that doesn’t apply to our own culture and society that people are dying in the streets moment by moment.
If we all would concentrate on loving Jesus, and sharing Jesus with others, and not worry so much about who is doing what, where and why. Jesus’ church, not our church, would be better for it.
I am a woman, I am a Christ follower, I am a sinner. I am glad that my salvation is in Jesus, and not attached to where I go to church, what kind of music I sing (or play) or what gender the person speaking, serving communion, praying etc. is.
In 1987, in response to somewhat similar difficulties in an Orthodox Jewish community in the U.S., a jewish woman steeped in Jewish tradition, and learning, wrote this,
“The halakhic scholars…must make it possible for women to claim their share in the Torah and begin to do the things a Jew was created to do. If necessary we must agitate until the scholars are willing to see us as Jewish souls in disttress rather than as tools with which men do mitzvot…There is no time to waste. For too many centuries, the Jewish woman has been the golem, created by Jewish society. She cooked and bore and did her master’s will, and when her tasks were done, the Divine Name was removed from her mouth. It is time for the golem to demand a soul.
The half truth of ‘God of Abraham, God of Isaac, God of Jacob, can only be a whole truth if we add ‘God of Sarah, God of Rebecca, God of Rachel, God of Leah.’ The half truth ‘magen Avraham’ is only a whole truth if we add ‘u foked Sarah,’ ‘Rememberer of Sarah.’ Unless we acknowledge both men and women as parts of the historic Jewish community, just as we must acknowledge both as contributing members of our community, we will be making our female community members invisible and punishing our foremothers with the ultimate Jewish curse–erasing their names.”
This issue cannot come down to prooftexts, such strategies have a tendency of leading merely to mutual escalation. Nor can this be an issue of ‘missing out on the treasure-trove of gospel material that is available from the female members of our churches.’ Though the no one could plumb their depths.
There was a similar barrier when women like Julian of Norwich and Hildegaard of Bingen emerged as clear and fitting teachers of the church in the middle ages. After some struggle, the church finally had to acknowledge that what they were offering was truly God-sent. But this cannot be about what we can ‘get’ out of gender-inclusive practice.
This is an issue of giving truly holistic, just and holy acknowledgement to all those around us. We do harm when this is not done.
I, for one, am glad they still let sinners go to church where I attend…
Susan, I agree that the focus must be on loving Jesus. But Jesus did say that if we love him we will obey his commands. You cannot separate the two.
Steve Jr., I’ll take the bait and disagree. I think that 1 Tim. 2 is specifically talking about assemblies. Several years ago, Everett Ferguson (in Restoration Quarterly) as well as some other NT scholars pointed out that “in every place” in 1 Tim. 2:8 basically means “in every synagogue.” Jewish folks called their synagogue “the place.” Compare CofC people calling their church “the building.” It’s not so easy to get any of this from the NIV which has “everywhere.” If Ferguson and the others are correct (and I think they’re on solid ground), then “everywhere” is not a particularly good rendering.
I think the 7 churches of Asia (rev 2-3) might be the most relevant texts for the american church today. lot of painful truth in there
thanks
brian
joel,
i don’t know how you meant it so I may have misunderstood, but
“growth is the carrot that 98% of churches are chasing”
is a great quote and the THE problem, imo
Frank - That may be right … I’m not even in the same stratosphere as Ferguson, somehow escaping seminary without even one Greek class …
What about Caroll Osburn’s assessment of Paul’s instructions to women as being contextual and non-binding for the contemporary church? (as I recall)
This thing can turn into a “you’ve got your Greek scholar…I’ve got mine” thingamadoo really quickly. Sort of like both sides of the global warming debate have their scientists with their own “conclusive evidence.”
As Mike has said many times on this blog, I thank God that my “life to the full” (which began when I took the plunge) is not dependant on my getting everything right. Let’s search for the truth together, but only insomuch as it illuminates our Savior and his mission.
For a totally unhermeneutical anecdote, we have just left our c of c because of the women in the church issue. It has gnawed at me for over a decade, and my husband and I have just decided to put it to rest by changing denominations. How I wished we lived in Abilene so we could attend Highland! The complete silencing of the feminine voice in service, which is only invited in most churches of christ and baptist churches in a choral environment, is something I refuse to expose my daugther to or myself to, for that matter, for one more day. At one christian church we’ve visited, women help serve communion, and I’ve been told…gasp…they let a mother talk last mother’s day. I believe this discrimination probably turns away many, however, I feel the need to point out that the Disciples of Christ offer complete equality for women. The last word I ever uttered on my own in a Church of Christ service was when I was 10, and I said the books of the Old Testament at the end of a Wednesday night service. I remember watching the boys go up to lead songs, and wondering why I wasn’t allowed to pick a song, too. I remember all the sermons about women’s roles in church of christ, and how heavy I felt after hearing there was no place for my interpretations or prayers in the worship service. While it is true I might freak if I was asked to say a prayer, it is because I’ve never seen an example of this in my life! I do not want this for my daugther.
I understand that much of this discussion is directed towards issues around homosexuality and the place of women in the church. I have not read the article yet, but what if we, meaning the church, became more involved in activities outside of the church and on days other than Sunday morning. Is there a place within us that we could serve in the name of Jesus that would enable us to place these issues to the side while still moving forward? Could we not fight for orphans, widows, and other people God cares about?
The issues being discussed are important and relevant to me and many other people, but there are also many other things of importance to God and Christians that if we fail to act upon will haunt us. (i.e. Darfur and the 300,000 child soldiers in the world to name a few)
1 Timothy 2:11-15 (TNIV)
“A woman should learn in quietness and full submission. I do not permit a woman to teach or to assume authority over a man; she must be quiet. For Adam was formed first, then Eve. And Adam was not the one deceived; it was the woman who was deceived and became a sinner. But women will be saved through childbearing—if they continue in faith, love and holiness with propriety.”
Isn’t it clear that more is going on here than easily meets our contemporary, English-speaking eyes? If we want to be legalistic about this decontextualied verse, we might say that clearly this gives evidence that Eve sinned… not Adam, and that Eve was deceived… but not Adam, and that women (contrary to our traditional 5-step plan) are “saved” by giving birth… not by faith, grace, obedience, baptism or anything else….
This is all, of course, ludicrous and points to the fact that some complex stuff is at work in this passage that was not originally rendered in English to contemporary Americans. We look at OTHER passages to say that, yes, Adam sinned too… Adam was deceived as well… and women are “saved” in the same way that men are… Can’t we also bring other passages concerning the equality of men and women IN CHRIST to bear on our reading of this? It seems there is a dear CULTURAL pet doctrine that we feel compelled to cling to. We fear losing it. It feels like home… like apple pie… like grandma’s cooking… it feels so down home and “churchy”
Can the dearness of a pet doctrine close our ears to hearing God’s Word… even as we read scripture? I think so…
If my words are not enough, then hear the voices of the children themselves.
ray,
if your argument about assigned gender roles and creation is correct, then God created me to be inferior…good to know. sure makes me jump for joy about my limited opportunities to serve him.
kelly
Alan - the real debate or rub is our cultural upbringing often dictates which “commandments” we keep and which we toss out. Do all men (people) in your church life “holy hands” in prayer as so instructed in I Timothy 2? I concur with the decision made by the ministers and elders at the Highland church of Christ, the Manhattan church of Christ and others that offer a more inclusive role for women in the church. The Bible-based presentations made by Tom Robinson, Mike Cope and a host of others ring true with me.
Yes Houston… it’s embarrassing isn’t it. We shore up our doctrinal borders while children are dying…
To address the title of this post: “Is there any hope for Western Christianity?”
All Christianity, East and West, is doomed if it does not cast out pagan doctrines and return to the Hebrew Christianity expressed in the New Testament.
The ONLY doctrine preached by Jesus and the apostles was love - love of God and love of fellow humans. Not a weak, sentimental love but the meek love which is the sign of a truly great character, the only kind of love whereby it is possible to ‘love your enemies’. It was the outward revelation of this inner depth of character which demonstrated that the Kingdom of God “cometh not with observation…for, lo, the Kingdom of God is within you.” (Luke 17:21)
The simplicity and purity of this teaching did not prove sufficient to the Graeco-Roman church ‘fathers’ and still does not prove sufficient today.
The minds of the said ‘fathers’ were set in the key of a different structure to that of the Hebrew apostles and the doctrines built up around the person of Jesus are a reflection of their gentile theology.
The major church doctrines are ‘unscriptural’ - demonstrably so. The Trinity, Virgin Birth, and the various ‘divinity’ teachings focus completely upon the personality of Jesus and the effect which it is assumed he produced upon his contemporaries.
To accept this, is to accept that the issues for which he lived and died were issues applicable only to that time and those circumstances.
Many theologians reason that because these doctrines have been taught for so many years, they are somehow thus endowed with weight, with truth.
The only truth in this view is that they have been taught long enough to become ‘traditional’. Jesus himself told the Pharisees that they made ‘void the word of God’ by their tradition. (Mark 7:13). Those who rely on ‘tradition’ to bolster their arguments stand in precisely the same position as their intellectual ancestors.
After almost two millennia, the ‘gospel of the Kingdom’ spoken of by Jesus has not yet been preached. Christianity will wander further into the wilderness until that day arrives.
KentF,
You are right that our cultural upbringing is a major influence. Neither of us is immune. What “rings true” to either of us is influenced by our upbringing. Thank God for his grace. Thank God our salvation does not hang on our ability to eliminate all our biases.
But we cannot just presume upon God’s grace. We need to find out what pleases the Lord. And we need to obey.
vynette,
You have too low a view of tradition, I think. And too simplistic a view of Christianity, as a result.
First of all, it is tradition that is responsible for the establishment of the Scriptures you are using to support your belief that love is the only doctrine that Jesus preached (and therefore we need to return to this simplicity). In denying the authority of tradition, you also deny the authority of Scripture, since it is tradition that ultimately led to scripture becoming what it is.
Tradition is what puts the meat on the bones of Christianity. Based on your simplistic Christian view, you could easily ignore Paul’s arguments to the gentiles about them not having to keep Jewish Law. This was one of the first conflicts the early church faced. The tradition of Christians being separate from Jews in their observance of Jewish Law was the result. Most every other tradition, e.g. the trinity, divinity/humanity of Jesus etc. is the result of the church authorities trying to resolve conflict within the church and between the church and the culture. Ignoring the wisdom others brought to bear on these issues seems extremely perilous to me.
Thanks Houston.
Careless soul why do you linger
wan’dring from the fold of God
Hear you now the invitation
O PREPARE TO MEET THY GOD!
Careless soul, o heed the warning
For your life will soon be gone
Oh how sad to face the judgement
O PREPARE TO MEET THY GOD
Don’t let women talk in service
Don’t let gays too near you trod
Cause we men have the Lord’s favor
O PREPARE TO MEET THY GOD
Elton John, will soon be burning
Duct tape works to quiet your wife
Make sure we’ve got the right doctrine
OR YOU’LL FORFEIT ETERNAL LIFE
Pecs, you said: “In denying the authority of tradition, you also deny the authority of Scripture, since it is tradition that ultimately led to scripture becoming what it is.”
I do not deny “the authority of Scripture.” I do deny, however, that “tradition led to scripture becoming what it is”.
The early churches in Jerusalem, Samaria, Lydda, Caesarea, Antioch etc. were all separate entities and from the earliest times were in possession of the various letters and ‘gospels’ which form our present canon.
The formation of the canon was due to a growing grass-roots consensus rather than a decision that was handed down by ecclesiastical authorities. The canon was not imposed by church leaders or by councils. They stand at the end of the process rather than at the beginning.
No action of a council or a synod was early enough to have had a decisive influence on the course of events. The council decrees have the form: “This council declares that these are the books which have always been held to be canonical”.
It would therefore be more accurate to say that the canon selected itself, through the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, than that the Church selected it.
The point of my original argument is simply that when the scriptures fell into Greek, and subsequently Latin, hands, the Hebrew concepts underlying the writings were lost.
Ignorance of Hebrew monotheism, the Hebrew God and the Hebrew Messiah, led the non-Hebrew fathers to superimpose layers of ‘gentile’ interpretation onto the texts. This process was underway as early as Ignatius.
It is indeed sublime that an otherwise obscure Jew was thrust onto the world stage precisely because the fathers created a ‘Jesus Christ’
holding universal and substitutionary appeal for the gentile world.
Doh! Every time a post like this pops up I’m convinced that you guys will resolve the whole thing… Maybe next time. Although, personally, I am getting tired of listening to the whole thing - and I’m actually convicted (and extreme) in my views. I’m still tired of it…
I’m guessing that we’ll hit 100 comments without much problem. Be nice if half that many people were getting involved over at Larry James’ corner of the web. Why not go argue about whether or not the poor brought it on themselves, whether God loves them as much as he does us, or some other question where we should be equally convicted and passionate?
Nevermind - we should probably resolve this first… let me know when it’s over and who won - thanks.
Thank you Scott, for your comment posted at 3:53pm. I want to be more like the Bereans and search the entire Word of God on this issue-as I think many of us in the CofC have done with other issues. I want that same intellectual honesty and hunger for God’s will in this issue too. I cannot settle for isolated texts and pat answers anymore.
Justin, I agree that as far as judgment is concerned, one sin is no worse than the other; however, the earthly consequences for some sins are much greater than others thus making the sin a much bigger deal. You might want to read post #5 at the website below to see the medical consequences of homosexuality.
http://philaletheia.thetruthtree.com/2007/01/14/under-pressure/
I have hope for western christianity. However, the hope I have lies on the other side of a bitter divorce. Christianity needs to divorce itself from the flow and power of politcal allegiance. I am not saying Christians can’t be political, but I am saying that politics is not the Christian’s strongest play.
Jesus entered a culture, engaged it with wisdom and courage, and made choices that shocked the culture without flatly condemning it. Apparently for Jesus, engaging the culture (not embracing or condemning) was more powerful than either of the other two ways.
Western christianity seems compelled to either embrace culture or condemn it. We need to be a part of it without being infected by it.
The church is infected.
Western Christianity is probably doomed–too irrelevant. We are entering a world of genetical, nanotechnological, and computorial breakthroughs never witnessed before by humans and some Christians are still arguing about whether or not a human who goes to the bathroom sitting down can speak up in a large group. (A friend of mine stopped going to the Christian assembly and he no longer has that problem to worry about.) It is time for new prophets to point the way for a new humanity.
God has ordained the order He wants when it comes to gender and the church. It is not a put down or teaching women that they are unimportant. There are no unimportant members of the church. We all have our responsibilities in the kingdom and the Lord of the kingdom has set the order.
Ray,The order is that “the last shall be first, & the first shall be last”.
vynette,
How does the fact that cannonization was a process, rather than a decisive moment, make it any less a tradition? It certainly isn’t scriptural, i.e. the Bible is not self validating in what books should be in it and what books should not. What are you left with? Tradition. Why don’t most Protestant Bibles have the Apocryapha? If the canon “selected itself” then why is there such a difference in Bibles between Catholic, Protestant, EO, Syriac, Ethiopian Christian groups? Denying the role of history (i.e. tradition) is like looking at the Bible with rose-colored glasses. Not as it is.
Annie,
I am not sure what you mean by your response. All I know from scripture is that God has so designed the church where He desires for men to provide the leadership. He has set the deisgn. I have not.
God in His design for gender differences has not made women unimportant but just provided a guide for how He wants His church to function in a way that gives Him glory.
Do you really think that, after sending Jesus to die for our sins, God would leave the message about that in the unreliable hands of men? No way! Man did not decide what books are in the Bible.
And here I thought one of the foundational premises to Christianity was just that: God uses men/women, unreliable as they are, to communicate his message.
Alan,
Jesus left his ministry in the unreliable hands of men. Moses had unreliable hands… and David, so did Paul for that matter. But someone else was and is still at work–God’s Spirit. Is it possible that God’s Spirit is what enables us to have the scripture we need?
Is it also possible that the lack of God’s Spirit is also what enables us to miss the point of the scripture we have?
It seems to me that the work of the Spirit is the central defining factor that makes or breaks scripture, tradition, interpretation, and everything else we try to put ahead of God. Could it be that, as Paul points out, with the Spirit’s guidance I can even grasp large chunks of God’s “invisible nature” in the creation around me? We can bicker about hermanuetics and canonization all we want, but if we aren’t being “in-Spired” today in our approach then scripture is just as succeptable to the human slight of hand as any other bit of literature is.
Let’s pray for humility and guidance from God at every point along the way– no matter what we are reading. The spirit helps us to discern truth–in the Bible, in Sports Illustrated, on Cope’s blog, in the works of Chaucer, in the pulpit, in the Firm Foundation, in New Wineskins, in the Koran, the works of Budda, Donald Miller or Brian McLaren.
Oops… I may have said too much…
Sorry…. “hermeneutics”
Scott,
Hmmm. I have some trouble accepting this Spirit business. Sounds good, but not sure I see it working in practice. I’ve seen plenty of “spirit-led” people or groups of people come to different conclusions on interpretation of Scripture or any number of issues. I think if you make the Spirit your primary access to truth, you’ll get just as many variations of that “truth” as “Spirit-filled” people you consult.
I would have an easier time accepting the Catholic position, where when decisions are being made that are binding on church, the Spirit is speaking to the authority of the church, and they are in effect carrying out God’s will.
I have a harder time believing that we all have access to this kind of authority. Christianity, in its present state, certainly doesn’t appear as if God works that way.
Pecs, the bottom line is that the ’scriptures’ we now have were in existence before the imposition of the doctrines of Trinity, Miraculous Incarnation, Pre-existence, Original Sin etc.
These doctrines were crystallised by the disputes among early Gentile church fathers who looked into the Pool of Narcissus (the scriptures),
saw themselves imaged there, and then projected this, their own image, upon the world through the medium of ecclesiastical councils called by Roman Emperors from 325AD onwards.
Christendom bears the image, not of the mind of Jesus and the character of the Supreme Being, but of early Gentile theology.
Of Jesus the apostles taught:
That he was God’s ‘anointed’ who would one day sit on the throne of David and rule over the Kingdom of God on earth.
That he was ‘anointed’ with full power and authority to speak and act in the name of the YHVH and to perform the specific tasks spoken of by Isaiah the prophet (Is.61).
That he was the ’son’ of God by human parentage (John 1:34, 45, 49) though not the son of Joseph as commonly supposed at the time (Matt. 1:25).
That he was a ‘god’ in the sense in which he used it himself, that is, a man “unto whom the word of God came.” (John 10:34) On his reasoning, Moses and the prophets were also ‘gods’.
That he was the ‘only-begotten’ of God because he was the only-resurrected, not because he was born to a virgin.
That his ’sonship’ of God refers to a purely ‘ethical’ relationship.
Eternal life is to be found in spirit, not doctrines. Jesus’ true message, unfettered by doctrines, brings hope and a sense of human dignity to the despised and rejected of the Earth.
The New Testament writers enumerate principles to follow in order that Christians living many centuries later may become one with Jesus. Where John preached the gospel of love, Paul announced redemption by a inner and spiritual identification with Jesus, with a self-imposed crucifixion and resurrection.
Church doctrines can deliver no such message. If Jesus of Nazareth walked the earth today, he would be unidentifiable in terms of doctrines and would most likely be subjected to the same treatment he received the first time.