What's wrong with this picture? (Which after close inspection seems to have been taken right here in PB at Kate Sessions park...cool.) Are the colors off? Should they all be standing? Are they too old, too young? Not of the right race?
Actually none of the above. However, according to my sermon on Sunday (which I believe was Biblically accurate) none of them should be ministers, or pastors or clergy. At least not in the role as the head or senior, teaching pastor in the local church.
Smells of controversy, yes? Am I suggesting that only men can be the teaching pastor in the church? Well, yes, I actually am suggesting that. After careful study and research this last week, that is the conclusion I came to. I would be interested in hearing what you all have to say on this issue. You can read my sermon notes here.
23 comments:
And what do you make of 1 Corinthians 11:5?
And who was Junia?
Shannon,
I believe there is a difference with a woman praying or prophesying and being the teaching pastor. I didn't say that women can't say anything in church or never speak. That happens all the time in our church. If a woman prays or prophesies that's one thing. But to be in the role of teaching pastor, week in and week out, is limited to a man.
We had a woman speak recently in front of the church about some great things God has been doing in her life. In a sense she was prophesying, telling us what God had shown her recently. She didn't happen to pray at the moment, but has before because she also sings in our worship band and has prayed in the capacity.
We even need to back up to 11:3 and factor that in to the equation. If this truly is God's order: woman-man-Christ-God, then we need to stick to that.
My main points were that our services need to be orderly and God-honoring. Men have the primarily responsibility to be the spiritual leaders in the home and at church. (I made numerous points to that issue in the sermon.)
I really believe the bigger picture here is God's ordained leadership structure. Men need to step up to their roles as spiritual leaders in the church body, at home and when gathered.
If you've got 6 passengers in one car, they can't all drive. Even the "back seat drivers" can at best give their ideas. It boils down to the driver. Someone has to steer that car.
RE: Junias from Romans 16:7 here is an interesting link with some thoughts: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Junia
Here is another great link on this topic: http://cbmw.org/questions/38.php
Seems like we can't be sure if "Junias" was a male or female, an apostle or not, or even have an authoritative position in the church.
One more thing I just thought of, I do find it interesting that Jesus decided to pick 12 men to pour his life into and pass off his ministry to. He could've very easily picked a woman to be one of those key figures in his ministry, yet for some reason he didn't.
If "Junia" or "Junias" was a female, then she could've been one the the post-12 disciples.
I believed what you preached is biblically accurate. I don't like it, but it falls in the same category of if you don't believe and receive Christ you are going to hell. Not my rules, God's rules....
Connie makes a good point. We may not like everything that God has for us in the Bible, but's it's God's rules we've decided to follow, not ours.
I think over the course of time, men have made it hard on themselves ( When I say men, I don't mean all men, just some).
If many men had not abused their role as leaders, I don't believe that many women would feel threatened by the role God has designed for them.
My feeling is that some women fear being suppressed in a relationship with a man; so when they hear some of the things that Evan preached on Sunday, it causes some uneasiness.
ok I have been reading this blogg for a bit now. I am much more of an observed or listener, you know the two ears one mouth principle. However, this particular post has left me uneasy and feel that I just need to express my thoughts. Let me start by saying that I do not attend your church, so I did not hear the serman, so maybe this is a case of the wrtten word vs. the spoken word translation confusion. What came accross to me is that what you are saying is that it is ok for women to do the work of the Lord i.e. teach kids, (who by the way some kids are male) and to teach women, but it is not ok for them to lead a church. I find this troubling on so many levels. Jesus Christ came to save sinners and it is our responsibly as Christians to spread that word. If the word spreds by women ministers, praise to God that it has spread and souls saved from Hell.
As to Paul, he describes himself in his testimony Acts. 22 that he was a zealous Jew. That being said, is it not possible that, that being the case, he may have been just a little biased in that it was Jewish Custom to prevent women from entering the temple. And that also he may have felt it necessary to make such strong statements in that city in that time in history.
Many Greek goddesses were worshipped, perhaps Paul was a bit put off by such worship and felt it more then necessary to prevent women from speaking in worship, (which was very different then in todays worship services).
Or is it not possible that Paul was concernned that the Gospel of Christ would be diluted or confused if spoke about in the same context of conversation of religious matters as these women were accoustomed to. These pagen religions were what these women knew, so thats what they spoke about. Women in churches today are far more educated about Christ then the women in I Cor. 14. Women in leadership today share the good news of Christ, not false messages. Why say that women, specifically the women pictured should not be ministers? If they or any male minister were spreading a different message than the good news of Jesus, then I would be the first to speak against them. But to simply say that women should not be ministers, simply stiffles Christ. One last comment on the 12 apostles being men. Of course they were men, during that time in history women were not respected or even allowed in the Temple. Why would Jesus who was also a Jew choose to spread the most important message of all, to someone who people would not listen to. Jesus was simply following the proper historical context of his time. I don't think that it should be seen as anything other than that. I will now sign off and go back to being a blogg watcher. I do enjoy reading each persons perspectives. God Bless
Blog Watcher, you have some very good insight. I hope you write some more on this site. I think this is a great opportunity for discussion and is designed for us to ask questions and voice opinions.
I think what you say about women pastors spreading the word of God is correct. I think God can use men and women, really. I know that I've learned a lot from women who have spoken.
I think the central theme here is that God has designed a specific order and roles for men and women in His church. Women are defiitely big contributers to churches and I'm glad women are more educated in God's word than when they were back in the early church days.
I think that God will use a women to lead if a man that He has appointed falls short of his calling.
For example, in Judges 4, Deborah, a prophetess was used by God because the commander of Israel's army at that time, Barak, was a weak spiritual leader. He even sought the militiristic advice of Debrah:
(verse 8) " And Barak said to her (Deborah), 'If you will go with me, then I will go; but if you will not go with me, I will not go!'
So she said, ' I will surely go with you, nevertheless there will be no glory for you in the journey you are taking for the Lord will sell Sisera into the hand of a woman.'"
It seems that Deborah understood the role that God had for men in that they were to be the leaders. However, since the male leader at that time couldn't do his job, God's will came to pass through a woman.
Although this is old testament stuff, I think God's plan is consistent today. God is the same yesterday, today and tomorrow...Although we are under a new covenant of grace, God's design hasn't changed.
For me, when I see a woman pastor, I do see it as unusual. I still do believe that it's the male's responsibiility to lead: However, if we're seeing more women leader, are men falling short of their roles?
To the blogg watcher:
Thanks so much for taking the time to join this conversation. It is through dialog that we learn and grow in our faith. One of the purposes of this blog is to hear from people who don't always agree...and that's a good thing!
I hope you had a chance to read over my sermon notes. Even though you weren't able to hear it live, there was so much more that I said about the importance of men taking the spiritual leader roles at home and in church as well as the important roles women have in church life.
Certainly the thesis of the sermon was that I believe it is Biblical that men lead the churches, but again, there were other equally important points made. With all that said, if needed, please go back to the original post and click the link to my sermon notes.
One of the main points I made was that in an IDEAL situation men take on the role of spiritual leader at home and in the church. I know that doesn't always happen. And as Neil mentioned, unfortunately men have either abused that role or have just not stepped up to the responsibility.
As I read God's order for authority in 1 Cor. 11:3, "Now I want you to realize that the head of every man is Christ, and the head of the woman is man, and the head of Christ is God." that makes it's pretty clear to me.
I do agree that women have gifting in teaching and can benefit the body of Christ. If you are familiar with women like Beth Moore, Anne Graham Lotz and Beverly LaHaye they are obviously gifted teachers. However, to my knowledge their teaching ministries are primarily to other women.
Some of the most godly women I know can actually explain this issue better than me...and it's because they have a healthy understanding of their role in God's church. Please feel free to email my wife Kelley (kelleylauer@yahoo.com) with any questions you may have. She can give you her perspective as a woman. I can also recommend other godly women in our church who can give you their perspective.
God's line of authority is designed to be protective and nurturing of women, not restrictive. We each have our God-given roles, and as we fulfill them, we are blessed.
I forgot to comment on the 12 disciples issue. Yes, it would have been appropriate for Jesus to choose men to carry on the faith, yet he was also a champion of womens rights. When he spoke to the woman at Jacobs Well in broad daylight, he broke all kinds of social norms.
It just seems to me that if it were really that important for women to be leaders in the church, Jesus would have picked a woman disciple to pour his life into.
It's similar to the point that Neil made on the issue of homosexuality. It does seem that if that type of relationship was so important, that there would be at least one example (if not many) of homosexual couples in the Bible.
Evan, you know I HAVE to jump in again... :)
This issue of St. Paul and women is another one of those selective interpretations that says one passage should be taken literally and another shouldn't. And in the process, it's created a crazy-making doctrine that has fouled up people's relationships unnecessarily.
It's true that Paul says in 1 Cor 14 and 1 Tim 2 that women should be submissive, that they are not to have authority over men, that there is a natural pecking order because God made Adam first, then Eve, and it was Eve who was the 'weak' one that succumbed to Satan. But here's what else he said:
"I'm single, and I wish everyone was. Marriage isn't as desirable as being single because it's a distraction from doing the Lord's work." (1 Cor 7:7, 32-34) Sorry to all you married people out there - according to Paul, you're living the lesser Christian life.
"Women shouldn't draw attention to themselves by the way they fix their hair or wearing gold or pearls or expensive clothes." (1 Tim 2:9) Ditch the decorations and the nice clothes, girls. Don't wear ANYTHING that draws attention to you.
"Women can't teach men or have authority over them. Why? God made Adam first, so it makes sense man is the primary human. And anyway, Eve was the one who was deceived because she wasn't as strong willed as Adam." (1 Tim 2:13-14) Guys, I guess we hold out against temptation longer than women can. Eve succumbed to temptation - ipso facto, all women are the same way. Oh, and I guess Paul didn't read the first account of creation in Genesis 1 where God created males and females together, both equally in His image -- not the woman from the rib of the man. The Genesis 1 and 2 accounts of the creation of man contradict (read literally).
"Women will be saved through childbearing." (1 Tim 2:15) Um, OK. Sorry, single women. And nuns. And infertile wives.
"Submit to one another out of reverence for Christ." (Eph 5.21) Wait. I thought women were supposed to be the submitters. Husbands are to submit to their wives out of reverence for Christ? I guess so. Paul makes reference to Christ submitting himself, putting himself in a lower position than those he was serving.
"There is no longer Jew or Gentile, slave or free, male and female. For you are all one in Christ Jesus." (Gal 3.28) Wait (again)... If, in Christ, we are free from the law and all of these seperating distinctions, then why the fuss over women and spiritual authority?
What I'm pointing here is three things:
1) Taking all Scripture literally raises serious contradiction that take wild leaps of logic to try and reconcile.
2) Paul is a man, and he's not the head of the church. That would be Jesus. Jesus was silent on the issue, so Paul had to jump into the gap on the gender issue - with a background of a patriarchal tradition and being a bachelor. We never allow for the possibility that he could have been wrong on his pronoucements about women. But why not? The apostles weren't infallible. Paul himself rebuked Peter for going along with trying to impose Jewish purity laws on the new Gentile coming into the faith.
3) We think that "authority" means being ruler over, being more powerful than. Not so. Christ subverted that model by saying "Those who would lead have to humble themselves, submit to being last. You lead from the back of the line, not the front." Men can't lead by "taking charge" - they lead by humbling themselves, by submission. And Paul, in his best moments, echoes that model.
I think that Paul comes closest in his wonderful letter to the Galations - my favorite of all his letters, where he is the most passionate, most obviously in love with Jesus and the freedom Jesus brings. He says an incredible radical statement for 1st century civilization, "There is no longer Jew or Gentile, slave or free, male and female. For you are all one in Christ Jesus." In essence, he says "In Christ, there are no longer any distinctions that allow us to seperate from each other or have power over each other -- not religious, not class, not gender. When we follow Christ, we are all one, all equal, all with the same faith and authority."
If you're going to take the words of Paul literally, take them ALL literally. Just don't hurt yourself trying to make it all fit.
Paul, glad to read your comments. You always provide some interesting comments which makes for good dialogue.
With that said, I don't understand why you discredit some things written in the Bible, while pointing out others. The Bible is a tough book to understand. I'm no Bible scholar, but I believe that everything written in the Bible is there for a purpose. Although some verses are obscure and even tough to swallow, God has it in His word. Those verses require more than just knowledge; it requires His holy spirit.
In one of your paragraphs, you seem to question Paul's credibility in his views of women. Although he was just a man, God used Paul to write His word. God wouldn't have let Paul write something like this if it were false.
Men and women are designed differently; to work together. God gave men and women with distinctly different traits. This is quite obvious.
Why would God create men and women differently? He has different roles for them.
However, as I said before, Women certainly do have spiritual discernment and at times God has used them to lead. ( Deborah and queen Esther) and many other women in post-Biblical times.
Neil, as I tried to point out in the homosexuality conversation and in this one, many Christians have a dual Biblical standard without stopping to think "why do I believe this passage literally (as 'God's Word') and this passage not?"
If you read Paul's letters, he contradicts his own platform. If, as he says in Galations, we are all one in Christ, then how can he clearly state to Timothy and the Corinthians that women aren't "permitted" this and that as though they are in second place, second in line, not authoritative?
As for Paul's writings, I've wondered if he even intended them to be included as Scripture on the same level as the Old Testament, which is what he called "Scripture". His writings were canonized 300 years later, and it wasn't centuries later after Martin Luther and the Protestant tradition that Christians starting putting so much emphasis on the Biblical canon - ie. "sola scriptura" or "only scripture".
Now, I think Paul's writings are full of power and truth. But his theological observations and conclusions are subject to the real head of the Church - that is, Jesus. Where his teachings fall in line with Christ's life, example, teachings, and mode of understanding, they are true. Where they vary, they are not.
Like I pointed out, Paul had to correct Peter for going astray. The apostles were fallible. And he clearly contradicts his own theological platform in places. It doesn't lessen my reverence for him and my awe at how God used his enormous abilities to build a worldwide church from scratch. But it doesn't mean every word he says is literally true and can be taken wholesale without comparison to Christ's way. I think Paul got it wrong in Timothy, overstated his case in Corinthians because he was dealing with a problem church, and hit the right notes in Galations and Ephesians.
Again, you can't be selectively literal with Scripture. You're either literal, or not. If you're literal, you have to do enormous leaps of logic to make it all fit. If you're not, then you have the freedom to soberly and prayerfully weigh parts of Scripture against others, and most importantly, Christ. You can then go deeper into the truth and beauty of what it has to say.
I say this as a person raised Bible-thumping fundamentalist with a life-long attendance in conservative "Bible believing" churches. I have sat for years through sermon after sermon of pastors who wouldn't deal with Scripture consistently - sometimes literal, sometimes situational, often out of context, and all sometimes in the same sermon! They are good people, but they didn't question the dogma of mainstream evangelicalism, and either avoided grappling with the controversial aspects of Book they were reading or stretched logic beyond all reason to try and make things fit. It was confusing and made increasingly little sense to me, much less the non-Christian friends I was supposed to be defending the faith with.
I'm a liberal Christian now, not because I wanted a free party pass, but because it made the most sense and gave me a freedom and love of Scripture I didn't have before. Liberals don't take the Bible as all equally authoritative or literally true. All Scripture has to be interpreted rigorously, historically, with an awareness of your own built-in presumptions, and most importantly, in line with Christ himself. There are parts of Scripture that don't add up - like, the passage in the Psalms where David asks God to dash the little babies of his enemies on the rocks or where God was said to command wholesale slaughter of men, women, children and animals. But we don't discard them because they are a living story of how man, fallible and riddled with mistakes, can still live with God and know God. Even in the middle of those stories, we see the glimmer of light of God's revelation and the hope of Christ.
Sorry this is so long - it's a complex topic.
I believe that the scripture transends time. Just because women were different back then....shouldn't make a difference.
I agree that the way God has set up the hierarchy is the way things "should" be and we can all strive to attain that and live the way He intended.
Having said that....regarding the approach you took with my comment on the homosexuality issue, The feeling I was left with was basically being told that I had no right to voice even my "opinion." I had to read what you wrote a few times and get past that feeling of being stifled to get the point you were trying to make.(which I got and understand now)
By the same token...
I think what has the people I spoke to scratching their heads over this particular sermon is the "approach" in which is was presented and not the topic of women pastors.
A delicate issue in the best circumstances with even the best Christian women. Presentation is everything and I realize you are teaching the mass here and can't worry how the minority are going react but some extra TLC goes a long way in this instance.
Personally, I feel that women pastors are preaching the Word but not following It.
As always...Thanks,
Sue
Paul, if we can't trust Paul's writings, which is part of God's word to us, then what can we trust?
It wouldn't make sense to accept some parts of the Bible and not others. Although Paul was a man, I believe God gave Paul the words to speak.
As for the literal and non-literal debate: Do we always speak literally? Jesus himself spoke both literally and non-literally.
So when we are analyzing scripture, we must use God's spirit to see what the meaning of the text is...whether it is literal or not.
As for Paul pointing out that Peter was in the wrong...Well, God has it in the Bible because Peter really was wrong. I believe God wanted us to know that Peter's exclusion of the gentiles was really wrong.
Now if God has it written that Peter is in the wrong, why is not written in the Bible that Paul was wrong in his writings of women?
As modern day Christians, the Bible is so important to us. I don't believe God would have allowed false writings to be included in his Holy word.
If even one sentence in Bible is wrong, then the entire Holy Bible has no credibility.
Great discussion. I do have a question that I would like to get everyone's thoughts on. We are members of a small Baptist Church in the Panhandle of Texas. Recently we hired a part time youth pastor and she is a woman. She is not the primary leader of the church, but what are your thoughts on her holding this position?
I'll save my thoughts for later.
OK, so I'm thinking that maybe this week I should just preach on "Jesus loves you"...
Yet another hot topic or difficult Bible passage to consider this week. Let's remember what is really important in this dialog, Christ came to save us from our sins! Hallelujah for that!
And my response is not just to Paul, but also to "blogg watcher" and anyone else who may be reading this blog and either disagreeing with me or trying to figure it all out.
What I'm trying to avoid here is the "salad bar theology" only picking and choosing the passages I like. Hence my attempt to somehow explain these difficult Bible passages.
Yes, for St. Paul marriage was not desirable. Certainly you can focus more on ministry without the distraction of a family. Since that won't be the case for everyone, Paul then gives guidelines for those who are married. Both passages that address Paul's singleness and the line of authority in marriage work. They both make sense. Paul favored celibacy (v.7, 8, 9, 27, 38) yet also approved marriage (v. 2, 27, 28).
1 Tim 2:9 is obviously counsel for women to dress moderately, we don't need to get any deeper than that.
In the creation account of Adam and Eve, Gen. 2:18-23 just further explains in more detail how Eve was created. Yes, There is no longer Jew or Gentile, slave or free, male and female because once we come to Christ God views us equally in his love and forgiveness. In fact we are all equal before we come to Christ also in that there is a universal need for Christ's salvation.
"Women being saved through childbirth" certainly is a difficult Bible passage. However, all one has to do is remember that Paul spent his entire ministry driving home the point that salvation is not gained by the performance of functions and duties nor the exercise of specific roles, but by fatih in Jesus Christ alone. Paul is not speaking about personal salvation in 1 Tim. 2:13-15.
So what is Paul talking about here? Here's a few options to consider: (and not try to figure out theologically how a woman can actually be saved from her sins and on her way to heaven through childbirth, because as Paul points out correctly, that leaves out the nuns, single women and infertile women)
1. It could mean brought safely through childbirth.
2. Saved through the birth of a child, Jesus Christ.
3. A womans greatest achievement is found in her devotion to her divinely ordained role: to help her husband, to bear children, and to follow a faithful, chaste way of life.
So, if a woman never gets married, say a Mother Teresa, than obviously number 3 doesn't apply to her. Pick a number here, any one of them could work in this context. We know through study of the Bible that we are actually saved from our sins only through God's grace, mercy and love (Eph. 2:8-9) and though the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ.
In Timothy's situation, heretical teaching was undermining the validity of marriage. We are not told why, but on the basis of 1 Cor. 7, where marriage seems to be rejected by the superspiritualists who despised physical, bodily reality, they viewed marriage, and childbearing as negative or unworthy of those who were "truly saved." (Kinda like a pro-tongues Christian telling me I'm not as close to God because I don't speak in tongues.)
Over against that hereitical teaching Paul may be affirming that the bearing of children does in fact not keep her from full participation in the community of the saved. Thus women are and will be saved even as they perform those domestic and maternal roles, which was a concept evidently rejected by the heretical teachers.
With equal submission, yes that is true probably 99% of the time. (As most of us married folks know.) Once in a while it's appropriate for the man to take the lead and guide his family spiritually. It is a comfort for a godly woman to know that when her husband does take the lead, he is doing his best to listen to God's guidance.
Taking all scripture literally requires a bigger picture view of God's grand over all purpose, within the cultural context that Paul, Mark, Peter, James, Jesus, or an OT prophet wrote.
Yes Paul was a single man writing about marriage, women and their roles in church from that perspective. That doesn't disqualify him from writing within that bigger context of scripture.
Remember, Paul was a rabbi who had been transformed into a follower of Jesus Christ. As a trained rabbi, he became a disciple of Jesus and an apostle to the Gentiles. His training as a rabbi (from Gamaliel one of the great rabbinic teachers in first century Palestine, Acts 22:3)was placed at the service of the interpretation and articulation of the gospel. As a result, Paul's writings are thoroughly pervaded by accurate references to other Biblical texts that relate to this topic.
I do take all of St. Paul's words literally...again within the greater context of the Bible and his training and respect for the OT writings.
With this issue of women pastors, we just need to remember that women may teach in various forms in the church as long as they do not ursurp the place of leadership and authority of the men in the church.
These aren't my words, but St. Paul's through God. Don't argue with me or get mad at me, search the scriptures on your own and see what God is telling you.
Chris,
Good question. That can be a bit tricky. I don't have a problem with it because that woman youth pastor has not taken over the primary role as spiritual leader in the church. If she is under the leadership of a male pastor, then I see that fitting in with God's greater line of authority.
Full disclosure, I've got some skin in the game on this issue as well. My mom is currently studying to become a pastor/evangelist in the Nazarene Church, which, as I told Evan, actually has allowed women leadership since it's inception in the 1890s -- kinda surprising for a pretty conservative denomination.
Sue, I'm glad that you took the time to get to my point. As I told Paulla in the homosexuality discussion, I'm passionate about these issues, and I've made a conscious choice in my life to not soft-pedal on what I think while remaining respectful and open. Please don't feel stifled -- my post in the homosexuality discussion was intended to encourage your questioning and testing. You've got a good mind, and it's good to trust that feeling of being somewhat uneasy with what you're told, especially if it leads you to prayer and study.
Neil, you clearly point out the differences in our approach. You've been taught that either every word of Scripture is true, or the whole thing is false. That understanding of Scripture is widespread, but it's not the only approach. The liberal approach is to see Scripture as powerful and authoritative, but not equally authoritative in all passages -- only if those passages point to, and are consistent with, the themes and intent and example of Christ. The Bible is flawed, yes, but it is a powerful living story and testament of the power of God that was assembled by a community of believers carefully and prayerfully. It is the treasure map and testament that leads to Christ, the most condensed and potent source of learning how we live as Christians. It is to be revered and handled carefully. BUT, it's not necessarily all literally true.
Like I said in my previous comment, learning how to read the Bible this way freed me to love it more, to be more fascinated by it, to feel more of it's aliveness. Otherwise, I think the Bible becomes an idol. People actually call it the Word of God, when John states quite clearly that JESUS is the Word. To treat the Bible (written by men and assembled by men into a canon) as divine comes dangerously close to idolatry in my perspective. And, sadly, I think looking at it as untouchable and removed from the humanness that created it kills it's aliveness. It certainly did for me.
Evan, I think that calling it a "salad bar" approach doesn't do justice to the amount of rigorous study that it takes to evaluate Scripture in the way that I lay out - just as much as for scholars that take the "infallible" approach. It's not picking and choosing on your own whim or on the basis of the culture. It's evaluating everything in light of Christ - how close or far any particular passage is from His example. And, I would argue that evangelicals do it all the time, even if they say they take the Bible literally. I've watched them do it time and time again, and I watch you do it here.
For example, you attempt to provide shades of meaning to Paul's statement to Timothy. But if you honestly take *ALL* of St. Paul's writings literally, then you'd have to come to the conclusion that he really actually thinks all women are saved through childbearing. That's what the sentence says. Same with Galations 3:23. Taken literally, it's an outright contradiction of his distinctions between men and women. So, either you're not taking him literally as written on the page, or you're shading his meanings - relativizing him. You can't have it both ways.
And finally, Evan, I do believe with you that all of Scripture points to a big picture view of God's grand purpose, but I disagree that's only if you take it all literally. As I hope I've pointed out, all Scripture doesn't have to rank as equally important in order to point to Christ - who, as St. Paul said is the ultimate end goal of everything, including the Bible writings.
Paul, is the Bible flawed, or are we as humans flawed in our understanding of the Bible?
I admit that I do not understand everything written in the Bible. But that said, just because I don't understand it, doesn't mean I think that part of the Bible is flawed.
If any part of the Bible if flawed, then what grounds for credibility do we have over the Koran? Or any other religious text?
I've never read the Koran, but I'm guessing that there are at least some historically accurate things in there.
Although we have some disagreements, I'm glad you post on this site. I'm trying to be as open-minded as I can and although we have some differences, I can see that you have a strong passion for the Lord.
Neil, I think three things are true - we are flawed as human beings, the Bible is flawed because it was written by human beings, and we are flawed in understanding it because our communication with other humans is flawed. But that's not a reason to despair. We have the living Spirit to "guide us into all truth" as Christ said, and we have other believers to dialog with and challenge our assumptions. And, realistically, most Christians agree much more than they disagree.
I believe that what makes the Bible authoritative vs. other mystical writings, like the Koran, is simply JESUS. It's a witness to Jesus. Jesus is the end goal of all of Scripture, even all of creation. St. Paul says we are foolish and all of this theological discussion is meaningless without Christ and His Resurrection. Without Jesus, and the living Spirit that connects all Christians, the Bible would be just another set of mystical texts among many.
The Bible leads us to Christ, teaches us about Christ, reveals Christ's nature, shows us God's work leading to Christ and changing the world through His advent and death/resurrection. What I'm arguing is that the Biblical writers do this better in some places than others.
Look at it like a relationship with a person. My wife is a wonderful woman - talented and strong, but also flawed, as am I. If we're humble with each other, our flaws actually allow us to be more connected with, learn from, and discover each other more through the mistakes we make. Our flaws give us personality, points of connection, if you will.
Same with the Bible. Reading it puts you in relationship with the authors, let's you see God and Christ through their eyes, teaches you from their mistakes (even in the text itself!) and experiences and wisdom, provides a structure for critiquing and examining the unbelieving society around us and our own behavior, and reveals Christ's nature so that we can learn to communicate with him. The Bible doesn't have to be literally or scientifically accurate and perfect to have power and meaning and reveal Christ and God's work in the world. St. Paul says that it's "living and active, like a two-edged sword" - something to be in relationship with and wrestle with, not a lifeless guidebook or manual.
Does that help clarify my approach more?
I too am passionate about these issues and Paul and I agree (for better or worse) that we are (Paul's words) "irresistably drawn to these long, drawn-out discussions... It's like theological crack or something..."
I believe in a big God, bigger than I'll ever fathom or possibly understand. Thus, I believe everything in the Bible happened as we read it and I will do my best to understand it at it's face value. If God is not capable of pulling off the crazy stuff we read about in the OT as well as the confusing things we read about in the NT, then that's not the God I want to worship. The goal is not to figure it all out. I do believe that it "makes sense" in light of the entire revelation of God throughout the whole Bible.
I am not doing the "salad bar" thing or else I'd just avoid these passages all together. I am doing my best to interpret scripture in light of scripture.
Yes, the Bible was written by fallible human beings. What other choice did God have? He could've written it all himself and personally delivered it. That wasn't his plan though. By orchestrating his plan for our lives through faulted human beings, we get to read about the human drama that is life through the eyes of fellow humans. It takes a broad understanding of the Bible to somehow make it all fit. Again, it doesn't have to make perfect sense...or else we'd be God, wouldn't need faith or to continually ask God for guidance.
The Bible IS the Word of God. Cheese whiz! If it isn't, then why even bother consulting it? These are God's words, written for us as a guide (albeit sometimes a confusing one) for our lives.
To me there is an important and tricky balance between being led by the Holy Spirit and looking to the Bible for guidance. If it was all about the Holy Spirit, than anyone could say anything they want about how we live the Christian life and tell the rest of us that the Holy Spirit told them that. Then it's every persons word against the other.
Instead, we have a source to go to, the Bible. We need a guide, a rule, a benchmark to base our lives on.
We do want to evaluate everything in the light of Christ, but there are so many issues he didn't address, like homosexuality and women in ministry. So, we look to other writing in scripture for help, as we are doing here.
I look at the Bible as the rule book for life. It's not a complete A-Z rule book, but without it, then we're all making up our own rules. Rules run our lives in everything from sports to business. I'm going to do my best to go back to the rule book and ask God to give me guidance according to his character. I will always do my best to interpret scripture in light of scripture, not in light of what any well-meaning human has to say (including myself).
Finally, Paul, my friend and fellow debater...it's just plain silly, bad theology and weak exegesis to think that Paul literally means women are saved through childbirth. You HAVE to take into account everything else he says that points to Christ for our salvation and then balance that with his statement in 1 Timothy. We need to interpret passages "literally" in light of the whole Bible, the whole counsel of God.
It's like if you were to hear only part of one of my sermons where I gave some illustration that made no sense on it's own. If I have crafted my sermon correctly, then within the context of the over-all theme it would only make sense.
One more thing (and I do mean this in the most sincere way) you mentioned you were looking for a church in Seattle. I know of one that is accepting of the gay lifestyle and has a woman pastor. That could be the fit for you! That way you don't have to expend all this energy every time you are around your fellow churchgoers. Let me know if you want that contact info.
Uh, okay, so Evan submitted my questions/comments to just him as the first entry on this blog line, so I guess I have to jump in. I just skimmed the last 22 comments/entries. Interesting. And sometimes disturbing. Sure, folks can believe whatever they want about biblical interpretation. That's what this discussion is abll about exegetical and interpretive methods. As for me, I believe the best way to interpret scripture is CONTEXTUALLY. : ) Try it.
I'm sort of stunned that one would think that just because a person has female genitalia and breasts that she is disqualified from preaching or leading or pastoring.
So, about 1 Corinthians 11, here's the deal: In 1 Corinthians 12 we find a well-known list of spiritual gifts that are a part of the Corinthians' worship, the gifts that are active in a Christian worship service. What is not mentioned there, surprisingly, is "preaching." What is mentioned there (among other things) is "prophesying." What can one conclude then? I would conclude that what we call "preaching" they called "prophesying", since we all know that "prophesying" in the Bible refers less to foretelling the future and more of speaking God's Word, which is what we call preaching. So, in 1 Corinthians, at least, prophesying and preaching are one in the same thing.
Now rewind to chapter 11 where Paul implies that women are prophesying in the church in Corinth. Paul has NO PROBLEM with women prophesying (i.e. preaching) in the church in Corinth. Paul only wants a woman's head to be covered when she prophesies/preaches (which is cultural or contextual thing, of course). Thus, we must conclude that Paul was okay with women preaching, at least in the Corinthian church. It was fine with Paul in that context.
Another thing about those verses for those who want to read that passage (and lots of scripture?) more literally and fundamentally rather than contextually: Why don't we or why don't you require women to cover their heads in worship? Paul says very clearly in that passage (1 Cor 11:5) that women ought to have a head covering of some sort on their heads or else face having their heads shaved against their will. (Anyone know of a church that has forcibly shaved a woman's head against her will on a Sunday morning recently?)
I could go on and on, but I won't. ... I just think we simply ought to be tolerant with various interpretations on matters like this. I feel pretty confident that God can and does speak through women preachers, and I believe that the husband is the head of the household. But I don't believe in some sort of rigid order of the universe. For example, have you ever prayed to God the Father or spoken directly with Him? If you have, were you disobeying God or Paul who supposedly says in 1 Cor 11 that there is a definite order to things and that Jesus stands between us and God in the order of creation like man stands between woman and Jesus? Hmmmm?
I'll close by saying I love you, Evan, as a brother in Christ and I have a tremendous amount of respect for you.
God bless,
Post a Comment