Expressions of Faith

an outlet of encouragement, explanation, and exhortation

Category: Theology (Page 4 of 5)

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

4. Oppression

October 8, 2011 / / 1 Comment

Oppression (according to Dictionary.com):

  1. the exercise of authority or power in a burdensome, cruel, or unjust manner.
  2. an act or instance of oppressing.
  3. the state of being oppressed.
  4. the feeling of being heavily burdened, mentally or physically, by troubles, adverse conditions, anxiety, etc.

For our purposes, definitions one and four are helpful to consider. The first definition assumes some standard by which to define what is burdensome, cruel, or unjust. This definition is particularly relevant for a follower of Christ. The standard by which we evaluate what ought to be in the life of one created by God is God. That is, what ought to be is what God intends. Anything or anyone who restricts a human being from fulfilling the purpose intended for that person by God is oppressing that human being. The normal result of this sort of oppression is a feeling of being burdened by troubles and adverse conditions, bringing us to the fourth definition.

Of course, one must start with the first definition and a reliable standard in order to accurately assess oppression. It is possible for human beings to feel oppression when there is none, or otherwise be incorrect in assessing oppression according to feelings. In a fallen world, humans often have inappropriate expectations that, when unfulfilled, lead to a feeling of oppression. While such feelings are worthy of concern, they are not the definition of oppression that we will use here.

But what about suffering under oppression? Is it right to dismiss the suffering that comes from oppression and consider only oppression in the abstract? Of course, Jesus cares not only about actual oppression, but also about suffering under oppression – and so should his followers. Any proper consideration of oppression will consider the suffering that occurs in those oppressed. The point is that we must begin with a standard of life by which oppression can be noted and defined rather than with feelings of oppression. So, to repeat, anything or anyone who restricts a human being from fulfilling the purpose intended by God for that person is oppressing that person.

Next: 5. Christian Feminism?

3. Observations on the Two Positions

October 8, 2011 / / 1 Comment

There are a number of observations that are important in setting a context for considering the matter of women’s leadership in the church.

Let’s begin with one of the most striking. The observation is this: both today’s complementarians and today’s egalitarians are radical reformers compared to nearly every traditional position in the history of the church on the nature and role of women. Church tradition has been nearly uniform in affirming patriarchy as the God-ordained order of things in all areas of life, including home, society and the church. (While Quakers, among others, have been a notable exception, one can observe areas of Quaker practice that differ substantially today from practice in centuries past.)

Complementarians are careful today to argue that women are of equal value before God – a proposition that directly contradicts teaching in church tradition. Egalitarians tend to focus on the idea that women should be eligible to minister in official capacities in a manner equal to how men are eligible for those same ministries. This idea also contradicts nearly all teaching in church tradition. No matter which position one holds, it is surely an innovation compared to the traditional patriarchal practice of the church through most of the course of Christian history. The writings of the church fathers and other leading figures in the history of the church are often so biased in favor of men and against women that they are embarrassing to read today.

Consider Thomas Aquinas, in Summa Theologica, First Part, Question 92, Article 1, Reply to Objection 1:

“As regards the individual nature, woman is defective and misbegotten, for the active force in the male seed tends to the production of a perfect likeness in the masculine sex; while the production of woman comes from defect in the active force or from some material indisposition, or even from some external influence; such as that of a south wind, which is moist, as the Philosopher observes.”

Or, read Tertullian’s “On the Apparel of Women”. (This is the writing in which he infamously refers to women as “the devil’s gateway”.) There are, in addition to these, many unsubstantiated quotations of Christian leaders on websites intending to decry the attitude of the church or Christians toward women. It is unsafe to trust in the truth of quotes for which no primary source attribution is given; some seem to be fabricated and repeated for shock value. (That is, if the site does not tell you how to find the quote in the original writing of the author who is quoted, don’t trust it.) And yet the attitude of historical leaders of the church toward women is easily shown to be compatible with neither complementarian nor egalitarian positions of today. Rather, a rather condescending patriarchy was the norm; women have generally been considered inferior to men even in the church.

I do not write to denigrate those who have held such opinions in the past, but rather to show that deeply significant and beneficial change has occurred. The prevailing attitudes of the past have not always been biblical. The attitudes of great leaders in the Christian tradition were bound up in their time and culture.

We must consider that all are bound in some ways as prisoners of culture and society, accepting with little question attitudes and opinions that will someday prove to us that God’s ways and thoughts are indeed higher than our own. In fact, we must be grateful that God does us the grace of not revealing to us all at once the full extent of our entanglement with sin and ignorance that give rise to thoughts, habits, and attitudes that make us (to be diplomatic) not as good as God designed us to be. A bruised reed he will not break, indeed – and let us give praise for God’s love and mercy that it is so!

In addition, I would argue, that in spite of embarrassing attitudes expressed at times by many of our Christian forefathers, that the place Christians have played in improving the lot of women in the world has been of vital and central importance, leading societies and cultures toward what Helen Barrett Montgomery termed “the emancipation of women through the gospel of Jesus Christ”. Christians have led in changing society toward attitudes and opportunities that more fully honor the image of God in women. Today, both egalitarians and complementarians take for granted attitudes toward women and opportunities for women that were nearly unthinkable merely a few short generations ago – except in the mind of God and those whom his Spirit had guided toward his more perfect will and ways. Those who have led the way to improving the treatment and attitudes around the world toward women have come primarily from among God’s people. They have acted to bring about positive change precisely because they believed that God called them to this work in faithfulness to the gospel of Jesus Christ.

Both complementarians and egalitarians argue today that women are not inherently inferior to men – that men and women are equally valued by God. Women are no longer seen as lacking sense and judgment, as being a sinfully seductive distraction to men, or as essentially inferior and incapable. The surprising thing to us these days is that so many church leaders in the past argued for restricting various types of ministry to men because they viewed women as inherently inferior. We find this surprising and distasteful because the general attitude of Christians toward women has improved. As a consequence, following upon God’s work among and through his people, the attitude of our society has changed, too. Praise God!

However, the attitudes of people in our society and others have not changed enough. Official policies are often good, but practice lags behind. Unfair and demeaning treatment of women remains common, both in the church and in wider society. The incidence of tragically poor treatment of women by powerful men remains so prevalent that it seems to warrant recognition as a system of oppression that remains in existence, in spite of much progress. It is a fundamental calling of Jesus’ followers to stand against oppression and injustice. Such patterns of sin directly oppose Jesus’ mission to bring fullness of life to God’s children.

Jesus, in his first reported sermon after a 40-day time of tempting in the desert, quoted Isaiah to define his ministry:

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.
(Luke 4:18-19 NIV)

Upon considering the place of women in family and church, there is work to be done in the name of Jesus. There is past oppression to be lifted and there are prisoners to be freed. There is blindness to be healed. There is good news for those who are prisoners of unjust patterns in this fallen world. Jesus’ people must lead the way in releasing the oppressed into the fullness of life to which our Lord beckons.

Next: 4. Oppression

2. Two Evangelical Positions on Women in the Church and in the Family

October 8, 2011 / / 0 Comments

Among evangelical Christians in the United States, positions on women in leadership are polarizing into two main camps, most often labeled complementarian and egalitarian. Both camps can at times be uncharitable toward the other, and caricature is not uncommon. Both camps use scripture to justify their position; both are serious about respecting the authority of the Bible.

In short, complementarians believe that certain roles should be filled only by men. The complementarian view is that women and men are equal in value and personhood before God, but have different roles to fill in the church or family. One-point complementarians believe that women have different roles in marriage and family, while two-point complementarians believe that women have different roles in family and in the church. In particular, certain roles such as pastor and other leadership roles are not open to women, and (generally) women are not allowed to preach or teach in public worship if the meeting includes men. There are variations in practice, with more or less tolerance of exceptions for particularly gifted women with high-profile public ministries. Wayne Grudem and John Piper are leaders among two-point complementarians who are associated with the Council on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood. On occasion, complementarian thought is referred to as hierarchicalism by egalitarians; though this terminology seems not to be preferred by leading complementarians.

Also in short, egalitarians believe that ministry roles are interchangeable between men and women who are equally gifted. (This position is also known as biblical equality.) The egalitarian view is that all people are equal before God and have the responsibility to obey any God-given calling to exercise the spiritual gifts God has given them. Gender alone does not prevent any believer from exercising their spiritual gifts in obedience to God’s call to a ministry in the church or home; Gender alone does not grant privileges to any believer; no position within church leadership is reserved for one gender only. Those who hold this view do not believe that women and men are identical with no differences between them. Somewhat ironically, an expression common among egalitarians is that God has designed men and women to complement one another. Rebecca Merrill Groothuis and Gordon Fee are prominent egalitarian writers. An organization representing this view is Christians for Biblical Equality.

It is important to note that both of these groups are conservative and Protestant. Both believe in the primary authority of scripture as standing above any church tradition or human tradition; for both groups, scripture takes precedence over anything that seems to contradict it. Both groups exhibit a serious desire to be faithful to both God and scripture. (Of course, there are some holding either of these positions who do not match this description. Disagreement with those who are not committed to the authority of scripture is not addressed here.) Those with whom we disagree on a particular issue but who otherwise show every indication of being faithful followers of Christ deserve our charity and respect. This is a disagreement between followers of Christ – children of God. We must approach it with humility and love for God, for one another, and for truth.

Sarah Sumner, in her book addressing this issue, Men and Women in the Church, writes:

God has not called me to enter the debate and settle the matter conclusively. He has called me to something higher and more painful. He has called me to repent from my sins, speak the truth, suffer for his sake, love other people and entrust myself to him who judges righteously. This is his call to all believers. In the past we have failed to follow in his steps. But that’s no excuse. It’s not too late now to make a better decision.

May we heed this advice.

Addendum: There are two additional views worth mentioning for the sake of completeness. One, which has some traction among conservative Evangelicals is called Biblical Patriarchy. This view might be characterized as “three-point complementarianism”. According to this view, males should be in leadership in church, home, and society; that is, women should have no leadership in society and indeed, should not work outside of the home.

A fourth view is “Christian Feminism”. This view distinguishes itself from the egalitarian position in that it seeks to redefine God in terms that contradict biblical teaching, giving contemporary feminist ideas precedence over scripture.

It seems to me that both the Biblical Patriarchy and Christian Feminism views are quite extreme. The Christian Feminism view seems not to take seriously the teaching of scripture. The Biblical Patriarchy view is a more extreme form of complementarianism that need not be considered separately. In my view, these positions have glaring deficiencies and are rarely considered viable options for evangelicals today; they will not be considered further in these articles.

Next: 3. Observations on the Two Positions

1. Introduction to Women in Leadership in the Church

October 8, 2011 / / 0 Comments

I’d like to consider the Christian question of women in leadership, particularly as it pertains to leadership in the church, but also briefly touch on the relationship between husbands and wives in a Christian marriage.

Much has been written on this topic, so why should I write? Well, there are two specific reasons for these articles. One is to stake out a place in the territory of Christian opinion on this matter. Careful, intelligent Christians dedicated to following Christ under the authority of scripture differ on the topic of women in leadership in the church and in how Christian marriages should be ordered. This is a matter with practical implications for church and family. Even when one is charitable towards those of differing opinion, there is the issue of how a particular local church will order its affairs and teach. Thus, there is need to explain a position for the sake of clarity in practical application.

Secondly, there remains a need for more general discussion and consideration of this topic. The last word has not been written, and many of the key ideas that one should consider are scattered across a broad range of reading material. Since this is a matter of practical importance and of more than passing interest to many, it is worthwhile to summarize some of the ideas relevant to the matter at hand and share references that interested readers might like to pursue.

Next: 2. There are two major positions on women in the church and family

John Stott: Two Instructions

October 1, 2011 / / 0 Comments

Here then are two instructions, “love your neighbor” and “go and make disciples.” What is the relation between the two? Some of us behave as if we thought them identical, so that if we have shared the Gospel with somebody, we consider we have completed our responsibility to love him. But no. The Great Commission neither explains, nor exhausts, nor supersedes the Great Commandment. What it does is to add to the command of neighbor-love and neighbor-service a new and urgent Christian dimension. If we truly love our neighbor we shall without doubt tell him the Good News of Jesus. But equally if we truly love our neighbor we shall not stop there.”

–John Stott

What makes a church? …Contrasting Catholic and Quaker thinking

July 7, 2011 / / 1 Comment

In an essay entitled The Ecclesiology of Vatican II, Joseph Ratzinger (as of 2011, the current pope) explains a Catholic view of what constitutes a church:

No one can make a Church by himself. A group cannot simply get together, read the New Testament and declare: “At present we are the Church because the Lord is present wherever two or three are gathered in His name.” The element of “receiving” belongs essentially to the Church, just as faith comes from “hearing” and is not the result of one’s decision or reflection. Faith is a converging with something I could neither imagine nor produce on my own; faith has to come to meet me. We call the structure of this encounter, a “sacrament.” It is part of the fundamental form of a sacrament that it be received and not self-administered. No one can baptize himself. No one can ordain himself. . . . In the Eucharist, the priest acts “in persona Christi,” in the person of Christ; at the same time he represents Christ while remaining a sinner who lives completely by accepting Christ’s Gift. One cannot make the Church but only receive her; one receives her from where she already is, where she is really present: the sacramental community of Christ’s Body moving through history.

As Quakers, we see things differently. Our understanding is that such matters rest with Christ, not on a human succession – not even an unbroken succession of human apostles (if such a thing even exists). While to a Catholic the other churches seem to presume too much in organizing themselves outside the “one true church”, to a Quaker the Catholics seem to presume too much in claiming an exclusive right to franchise the church, or even in claiming to be the one, first, only, true church! Quakers testify that God has come to teach his people himself. Jesus is the head of the church and can establish a gathering of his people directly without needing endorsement form any particular pre-existing organization.

We believe that Christ has gathered us as a people and called us to a particular testimony – a particular way to follow Him and worship in obedience. We are Christian – followers of Christ – first and foremost. Our theology is orthodox and evangelical. Yet we have been given a particular testimony of the reality of Jesus in contrast to the shadows and symbols and rituals that is somewhat unique. Was this testimony formed under particular circumstances in a particular cultural and historical setting? Of course it was. Yet even these particulars are not outside the providence of God. It is our understanding that Jesus establishes his church; Jesus baptizes his people by his Spirit. Said another way, the Spirit baptizes Jesus’ people into Him. We are not concerned about apostolic succession because we are called by the one who established the original apostles and minister under his direct authority.

For the sake of making this point, I will borrow the beginning text and skeleton of Ratzinger’s comment but change it into something more Quaker than Catholic:

No one can make a Church by himself. A group cannot simply get together, read the New Testament and declare: “At present we are the Church because the Lord is present wherever two or three are gathered in His name.” The element of “receiving” belongs essentially to the Church, just as faith comes from “hearing” and is not the result of one’s decision or reflection. Faith is a converging with something I could neither imagine nor produce on my own; faith has to come to meet me. We call the structure of this encounter, a “sacrament.” It is part of the fundamental form of a sacrament that it be received and not self-administered. No man can baptize another into Christ. No man can ordain another into ministry. These are spiritual realities enacted by Jesus himself to establish and organize his people. A gathering of humans is a church insofar as it reflects these spiritual realities. Human beings cannot make the Church but only receive her; humans receive her by being born from above, immersed into Christ, and gathered by His Spirit. Jesus is really present; he organizes his people himself as he sees fit: the sacramental community of Christ’s Body moving through history.

Christ has come to teach his people himself. Christ has come to baptize, call, ordain, and gather his people himself. Apostolic succession is irrelevant when Christ himself is present and active to call out and establish his church – his people – his family by the power of his Spirit.

« Older posts Newer posts »

© 2024 Expressions of Faith

Theme by Anders Noren — Up ↑