Among scholarly literature are people like Wayne Grudem and Joseph Fitzmyer who  answer the question as having to do with “authority.”  Thus meaning the female is to be in submissive authority to the male.  On the other side of the coin are people like Catherine Clark Kroeger and Berkeley and Alvera Mickelsen who answer the question as having to do with “source.”  Thus just as the church’s livelihood is made possible by Christ, so in a patriarch society does a woman’s livelihood depend on her husband.  As you can expect, depending on which side a writer hangs their hat on, they’ll have credible reasons why to reject the other view.  And let’s face it, regardless of whom we currently agree with, none of these scholars (and many others) are dummies writing without having done their homework.  That is, they’ve done their research and are convinced that the evidence points them to…

So where does that leave us then?

Rather than just using 1 Cor 11.3 and Eph 5.23 as flippant proof-texts with pretentious assumptions in order to try and prove what we already think these two verses say, consider this:  To answer the question at hand, we really need to be asking what the Apostle Paul meant when he used the word head.  As we think about that, we need to keep in mind the Old Testament since Paul was well versed in the Hebrew Bible, specifically the Septuagint (Greek translation of the OT).  With that in mind, consider that the Hebrew word ro’sh (head) occurs in the Old Testament, by my search count, 589 times.  In the Septuagint, there are roughly 180 uses where the word conveys the idea of leadership or authority.  Of those  180 approximate uses, the Greek word  kephalē (head), which is used in 1 Cor 11.3 and Eph 5.23, is used to translate ro’sh only 8 times. Whereas the Greek word archōn (ruler) is used 109 times as a translation for ro’sh (with a few other Greek words being used to translate the rest of the occurrences of ro’sh).  Given this evidence, if Paul was trying to convey the meaning of an authoritative position, would not the word archōn (ruler) have been a better choice then kephalē (head)?

What then does this prove?  Nothing in and of itself!  But for this post, I’m not trying to prove anything.  Rather, I am trying to muddy the waters a little more so that we may be a bit more humble?  It seems rather naive to think that two verses which speak about the male being the head over the female will so simply solve the complementarian vs. egalitarianism issue.  And we have yet to even consider whether or not for Paul, in some of his corrective instructions for the two troubled churches of Corinth (cf. 1 Cor 1.11) and Ephesus (1 Tim 1.3, 18; 3.14-15; 4.11), to be accommodating certain aspects of culture in order to bring about resolution before the even greater issue‑the gospel‑is damaged any further.  That assumes that we can get past reading the New Testament like it’s a flat text existing in a contextual vacuum that’s read as though it were a piece of legislation or a constitution of some sorts.

All that I am hoping to point out is that I don’t believe, at least not at this point, that pin-pointing the precise definition of one word is going to solve the issue as it relates to gender and Christian ministry.  Will it help?  Perhaps so…probably, but as I have tried to show, defining that word is not as easy as some would have us believe.

It a couple of other posts, I will hopefully offer more reason as to why I think the egalitarian view is more likely.  I do think that my friends Sean Palmer and Tim Archer may have a point about not drawing such a sharp distinction between egalitarian and complementarian (if I’ve understood them correctly).  I also want to make it clear that even though I’ve staked my ground in the egalitarian camp, I do so lightly and with humility, knowing that I could be wrong.  Further more, know that for ten years now I’ve held on to the complementarian view.  So it is not as if my view has changed just so that I can jump on some politically correct Western cultural bandwagon.

Any ways, thanks again for reading.  As always, if you wish to leave any questions of comments,  just please remember to be courteous and Christianly as you do…and thank you for that too.

————————-

See also the two previous posts:

Christianity and Gender: Introduction

Christianity and Gender: Creation or Fall?

At the same time, I began investing a lot of my reading time into books on the task of Christian missions.  As I did, I began to realize that the question these women were raising regarding gender in the church was a missional question.  That is, the traditional view of gender in Christian ministry was an obstacle between the gospel and culture.  The question was weather or not is was necessary.  In other words, as Christians we want to maintain fidelity to Jesus and his intentions for the church.  So if the intentions of Jesus for his church is male-hierarchy then we would not be free to abandon such practice.  On the other hand, if male-hierarchy is not the intentions for the church, as taught in scripture, then maintaining such order is simply maintaining the “traditions of man.”

Before proceeding any further, it’s necessary to clarify a couple of terms.  In biblical/theological circles a complementarian is one who believes that male-hierarchy is rooted in the creation of humanity.  That is, God created this world to be a place where men lead with authority over women.  On the other side is the egalitarian which believes that men and women were created equal and that male-hierarchy is a result of the fall, the sin of Adam and Eve.  Determining which one is right is not easy but this is how I have arrived at an answer.

The question of complementarian vs. egalitarian is best seen in 1 Timothy 2.11-15 and specifically v. 13-14.  In v. 11-12 Paul prohibits women from teaching and having authority over men (a later post will be devoted to this passage).  But on what grounds does Paul root such prohibitive regulations?  Is it because this is the order by which God created the world to be (complementarian) or is it because Christians still live in a fallen world (egalitarianism)?  Complementarians point to v.13, “For Adam was formed first, then Eve.”* to support their view while egalitarians want to say “no” as they point to v. 14 which says “And Adam was not the one deceived; it was the woman who was deceived and became a sinner.”

Well which is it?  Answering this question is critical to how we deal with the rest of scripture.  If indeed the complementarian view is correct then no matter what individual practices change in regard to gender and church practice, it means that women will always need to be in submission to the leadership authority of men.  However, if the egalitarian view is correct then a male-hierarchal order is a product of the fall and therefore is something that God is seeking to redeem us from in Christ.

For many years I have struggled with this question but deferred to the complementarian view because I couldn’t see the plausibility of egalitarianism.  But what I’ve come to realize is that the only way to seemingly resolve the question of whether or not male-hierarchy is rooted in creation or the fall is to return to the Genesis story.

When we return to the Genesis narrative we are told that God created both male and female in his image, thus equality (Gen 1.27).  Since Adam is formed first, God must find a “helper” for him (Gen 2.18).  The word “helper” (etzer) does not imply inferiority, as the word is twice used to describe God as a “helper” to Israel (cf. Deut 33.39, Hos 13.9) and I’m quite sure God does not see himself as inferior to Israel.  In the Genesis narrative, the helper God is looking for is one of equal intellect and nature which is why the animals will not do since they do not bear God’s image.  So what we have is the creation of male and female where there is an mutuality (equality) shared between them.  It is only in the fall, particularly Genesis 3.8-24 where a shift from mutuality occurs, resulting in the inequity as a consequence of Adam and Eve’s sin (see Walter Breuggemann, Genesis, 50-51).

Thus in the Genesis narrative, the male-hierarchy appears to be a consequence of the fall rather than a part of God’s created intent for humanity.  That is why my view has shifted from a complementarian to an egalitarian view.  So let it be said that I am now advocating an egalitarian view.  In saying that, I am saying that I believer God is seeking to redeem us from our traditional and complementarian views of gender and this is how I shall proceed in this series.

If you’ve read this far, then thanks.  And as always, feel free to leave any questions of comments you may have but please remember to be courteous and Christianly.

————————-

* All scripture is taken from the New International Version, 2011.

See also: Christianity and Gender: Introduction.

I have, with pleasure, spent the last twelve years of my life preaching and ministering in the Churches of Christ (CoC).  As a whole, we in the CoC have sought a restoration of Apostolic  Christianity by attempting to strictly adhering to scripture and the pattern of church believed to be prescribed in the New Testament.  While such a hermeneutical approach is certainly not without questions, as I certainly have raised such questions (see here for example), one of the outcomes of this restoration goal has been a male-hierarchal understanding of gender as it pertains to ministry in the local church.

In times past, this issue was often addressed as the “Women’s Role” issue, which perhaps sounds a bit archaic as if a bunch of men just stepped out of their cave with their Bibles in hand.  Yet that is not entirely the case.  Earlier leaders and preachers may not have been concerned with how politically correct (or lack there of) their language might one day sound but they were concerned with taking the Bible seriously.  Their reading of the Bible has, with few exceptions, led to the understanding that only baptized males could serve as preachers/ministers, elders/shepherds, deacons/ministry-leaders.  Women, on the other hand were given such roles as preparing potluck meals and teaching Sunday-School classes, which they did unto the Lord (with excellence, I might add).  When it came to worship gatherings, only men took part in the public leading of worship while the women were to remain silent.

As it will become clear, I disagree with the traditional reading of scripture that has led to such practice.  However, since the convictions advocated in the past were held as an honest understanding of the Bible, any attempt to reconsider such positions must do so with a serious engagement of scripture.  Perhaps the two most prominent passages that have shaped the CoC have been 1 Corinthians 14.34-35 and 1 Timothy 2.11-12ff and I will try to deal fairly with both passages.  In my estimation, there are other passages that must be considered such as Acts 2.17-18, Romans 16, and Galatians 3.27-28 and so I will try to deal with these passages as well.

In the last twenty or so years, there has been some change among the Churches of Christ.  I happen to serve in one such congregation, the Columbia Church of Christ, which has made some changes, for instance, we do have women who do things such as read prayers and read scripture during worship as well as serving as a ministry leader.  Such changes have come as some within the CoC have put forth positions questioning the traditional understanding and practice.  Yet, I think it is safe to say that for the most part the traditional view is still the norm in most churches.  For that reason, if it can be shown that the traditional view is in fact more unbiblical than biblical and the CoC is still a fellowship concerned with being biblical then there is ample justification for discussing this issue.

As you probably know, this issue can be volatile.  So feel free to leave any questions of comments you may have but please remember to be courteous and Christianly.

Today someone suggested to me that I might one day appreciate the sacrifices made by the American Military and the freedom that such sacrifices provide me with.  So let me clarify a few things about what I believe as a Christian, as one who is trying to follow Jesus and take Holy Scripture seriously.

First, regardless of my convictions about war-making and political violence, I appreciate the sacrifices made by those who serve in the armed forces.  I know a few people who either have or do serve in the military and to my knowledge, all do so for noble reasons.  That is, they choose to serve believing that their service is done so to serve others rather than themselves.  So for that, they have my admiration.  Further more, I believe it is my duty as a Christian to pray for them that they may return home to their families safely and soundly (we should pray the same for the military personnel of all militaries).

But…  Our freedom to live as a disciple of Jesus Christ does not depend one iota on any government and its military, be it American or not.  We need not the sword of the state to live as a faithful disciples but the Spirit of God dwelling within us which “testifies with our spirit that we are God’s children… heirs of God and co-heirs with Christ, if indeed we share in his sufferings in order that we may also share in his glory” (Rom 8.16-17, NIV).   This is so because it is through the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ alone which brings liberation from death (Rom 8.18-21; 1 Cor 15.20-26) and overcomes the powers and authorities of this world (Col 2.15).

It was suggested that I just need to exercise some more common sense.  Really?  What is common sense?  Is common sense not the wisdom of this world which God has made foolish through the cross of Jesus (cf 1 Cor 1.18ff)?

To say that our ability as Christians to live as a disciple of Jesus who take Holy Scripture seriously depends on anything in addition to the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ makes a mockery out of what God has done in Christ.  Either the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ is all sufficient or it’s useless!  If it is all sufficient then it is idolatrous and unfaithfulness to claim we need any person or nation for our procure our life.  If it is not, then the gospel of Jesus Christ is a fraud and all Christians who do not have the political and military support of a nation are to be pitied.  And if this is the case, and it is the case that we Christians do need American political and military support then it might be worth asking how the earliest Christians (and other groups of Christians in subsequent eras of history) were able to live faithfully to Jesus Christ without the political and military support of Rome.

In case you’re wondering why I am so passionate about this…  Well, it is because I swore my allegiance to Jesus Christ alone, as my Lord and Savior, when I confessed my belief in him and surrendered my life to him in the waters of baptism.  That is why…I’m trying to live (and preach) by the faith God has made me a part of.  Nothing more, nothing less!

Thanks for reading.  Leave a comment (or two) if you like and whether you agree or disagree, please remain civil and courteous.

“When the early church claimed Jesus to be the Son of God, the imperialists touted Caesar as son of the gods.  When the early church refused to fight the wars of Caesar, the pawns of Caesar realized the political insult that the Jesus-followers posed.  And so on into our day, in which the politics of Jesus will challenge numerous facets, commitments, and practices of every human system of government of which I am aware.  ’Jesus is Lord’ is a consummate political statement.  To claim Jesus as Lord of Lords and King of Kings is to claim Jesus as the ultimate authority in every realm of life, politics not excluded.”  (Lee C. Camp, Who Is My Enemy?: Questions American Christians Must Face about Islam – and Themselves, 36.

And if you still think you can separate your Christian faith from politics then ask yourself why all the fuss in Thessalonica…

“But when they did not find them, they dragged Jason and some other believers before the city officials, shouting: ‘These men who have caused trouble all over the world have now come here, and Jason has welcomed them into his house.  They are all defying Caesar’s decree saying that there is another king, one called Jesus.  When they heard this, the crowd and the city officials were thrown into turmoil.”  (Acts 17.6-8, NIV 2011, italics mine.)

If you’re asking me…  I say that any Christian who thinks their faith and politics are separate issues has not only misunderstood the historic Christian confession that Jesus is Lord and Messiah (cf. Acts 2.36) but also has yet to allow Jesus to be Lord over all of their life.

Though change has been made since 1963, the dream is still waiting to be fulfilled in its fullness.

In this series I want the church to hear how our story really begins.  All people are living out of a story, the question is which story.  The story which Genesis tells us places God as the beginning of the story but just as God is the subject of the story, humanity is the object of the story (Brueggemann, Genesis, 17).  In fact, the story begins by reminding us that the two, God and humanity, are not meant to be separated but belong together.  It is, as the story will remind us, only when humanity seeks to separate itself from God by becoming it’s own god that things go wrong…very wrong.

It seems though that in our contemporary circumstances, it is difficult for some people to hear the story as it wishes to be told for two reasons.  In one camp are those who want to insists that Genesis 1-11, particularly the creation narrative itself, be read as a literal-historical account of how creation began, turning the story into a text addressing matters of science.  On the opposite end are those who want to dismiss Genesis 1-11 as having anything to do with human history, thereby relegating the story as nothing but a fairytale offering moral/spiritual wisdom.

The literalist approach falls short, in my judgment, when one pauses long enough read what the text says.  For instance, if the literalist account is true then we must account for where the light from the first day of creation (1.3) came from since the sun, moon, and stars were not created until the fourth day of creation (1.14ff).  Such approach must also when explain why the Hebrew word YoM (day), a word heavily used throughout the Bible, must be limited in it’s meaning to a specific twenty-four hour time period when it’s meaning can also imply an unspecified period of time.  Lastly, and perhaps most difficult, is the challenge of such approach to try and explain why the narrative (particularly, Genesis 1-2) should be read in a literal sense offering answers to questions of a scientific nature when the story originated in a pre-scientific era.  In other words, if the purpose of the text is to serve as an apologetic against modern scientific theories then the text was hardly a word for the Israelites who first heard the story since they lived well before modern science.

Although, in my ministry experience, I have rarely encountered people who wish to take the fairytale approach, I need to say a word as to why this approach is flawed too.  Those who want to dismiss the text as offering nothing of a historical account of human origin seem to assume the text must be read in its entirety as literal matter-of-fact account of history and then dismiss such plausibility because certain details of the story seem implausible to the Western worldview and cannot be historically verified with the same certainty with which we verify details of the late 18th century French Revolution.  The flaw is, in my judgment, in the assumption made about the text of Genesis.

From my studies, it seems as though Genesis 1-11 is much more interested in theology than history.  It is interested in history from the standpoint of reminding the hearers of the text that their origin is from God but it’s primary purpose is theology, in trying to demonstrate how life is to be viewed and lived in light of God, the Creator.  The text also takes events from history to demonstrate what happens when creation turns from her Creator.  Thus we have a text in which, as one of my favorite Old Testament Scholars puts it, there is a:

single sentence, “Creator creates creation,” which is decisive for everything.  It is not subject to inversion.  The sentence asserts that God does something and  continues to care about what he does.  The pathos and involvement of God is implicit in all these texts… (Brueggemann, Genesis, 17).

So in my estimation, while our texts speaks of historical events, it’s purpose is not to render us a historical account but to offer us a theological assessment in order to change our worldview so that we live life from the story of God and us.

That is, Genesis 1-11 is a text that calls us to live the true story in which God is the subject and we are the object rather than the all too familiar flawed story of humanism where we are both subject and object.  It is a story which calls us back to the original intent of creation, of our existence.  That means first, that our creation in the image and likeness of God (1.26-27; 5.1) we are meant to live in fellowship with both God and one another.  That is, we are meant to be a community with God and neighbor.  Additionally, we are to live as God’s stewards of the world, endowing all of creation with blessing just as God, our Creator, does and like he does.  Or to put it another way, we are to “mirror for the sake of creation the nature of the creator” (Grenz, Created for Community, 75).

The ball is now in our court.  The choice is ours.  What will it be?  Will we live the story God is calling us to become participants of?  Or will we continue asserting ourselves as both subject and object?  Genesis 1-11 will help us see why such choice is so critical and paramount.

On most Sundays, the singing was lead by a man I’ll call Tim.  Tim loved to sing just as much as he loved being with his church family.  At first, I was taken back a bit.  Tim had special challenges with a personality to match.  That meant the church was as likely to hear a few stories and other comments which, while never off color or anything like that, didn’t seemed to fit with the point of worship…at least not as I thought they should.  Nevertheless, folks just smiled and didn’t seem to be bothered.  Everyone was joyful as we continued worshiping God together.

That little church there in the back hills of Arkansas will never make the front pages of a magazine story on thriving churches engaged in fruitful kingdom ministry.  Yet they played a big part in an extended Brazilian family becoming Christians.  I know this because the Ole Hardy church helped send me to Brazil for the first time on a short-term mission trip where I met Olivio and began a Bible study with him.  Though I returned in a few weeks to the US, Olivio continued  his Bible study with a local missionary, eventually being baptized into Jesus Christ.

Not long after Olivio had been baptized, he tragically drowned while attending a church retreat in the countryside.  As tragic as his death was, the occasion of his funeral allowed for his family to meet his new church and the missionaries that planted the church.  As a result, those missionaries began teaching the gospel to Olivio’s family and eventually several of his family members became disciples of Jesus Christ too.

I find it to be absolutely amazing the way God works.

This story reminds me of just how God works in this world, which is radically different than we expect.  Throughout history God has always brought about his will which, according to human standards, is through weakness rather than power.  Where there was the powerful Egyptians, God chose Israel.  Where there was a dominative king, God chose a Jewish girl named Esther.  Where there was a mighty giant, God chose a young teenage boy named David.  Where Caesar was, God began with a small group of disciples we call the church.

Wow!

Yet as amazing as that is, it’s all easy to forget.  It’s easy to forget and look for the big grandiose stuff that speaks of power and prestige for success.  That was part of the problem in Corinth which is why the Apostle Paul reminded them that “the foolishness of God is wiser than human wisdom, and the weakness of God is stronger than human strength” (1 Cor 1.25, NIV).  Still, this was a truth that God even had to remind the Apostle Paul of (cf. 2 Cor 12.8-9).

Now we live in a day where consumerism has trained us to seek the bigger and better.  People looking for churches are naturally inclined to think that bigger is better.  From where I sit, there’s nothing wrong with big churches as they serve a purpose in God’s kingdom.  However, from where I sit, we, the Columbia Church of Christ, a small church in the large Baltimore-Washington D.C. Metro area, serve a purpose in God’s kingdom too.  We can take comfort in knowing that God can accomplish this purpose through us because our God delights in taking our weakness and using it to bring about his glory upon earth.

————————-

          * This article was written for and first appeared  in Connections Newsletter, vol. 27, no. 1 (January 2012), published bi-monthy by the Columbia Church of Christ, Columbia, MD.

Sometime last night, Rachel Held Evans tweeted “So God’s busy altering the outcome of a football game when 30,000 children died from preventable disease today? Got it.”  John Mark Hicks, in this blog post, took a little issue with the tweet.  He reminds us that God is big, big enough to grant or allow for Tebow’s success in hopes that Tebow would use such success with the unique financial and influential position it places him in for the advancement of God’s kingdom by “feeding the hungry, healing the sick and saving some children from death”.

I must admit that I am sympathetic with Rachel Held Evans tweet.  As a parent who has lived through the death of a son, I am sympathetic.  Why, after all, would God be interested in the outcome of a football game (or any sporting event) when there are thousands of children suffering and dying from poverty, disease, exploitation, etc…?  Of course, the question of “Why?” is all part of the mystery of suffering left waiting for that ever-illusive answer.  But what Hicks is saying, and what Evans, myself, and everyone else who is skeptical about the claims associating the success of Tim Tebow with the divine providence of God need to be reminded of, is that however God is at work in this situation (and God is at work in all things for the good, according to Romans 8.28), this could be God’s way of addressing such problems as poverty, sickness, exploitation, etc… by raising up a Tim Tebow with such a rare position of prominence and financial fortitude to deal with such problems.  In other words, God could be at work in the success of Tim Tebow in order to advance his kingdom through the feeding of the hungry, the caring of the sick, etc… which brings about God’s glory upon the earth.

Tim Tebow, of course, has a choice.  He can use his unique position for his own selfish gain or he can use it for the sake of God’s kingdom and glory.  I’m not a huge Broncos fan and so I don’t follow Tim Tebow closely but it appears from everything I see, hear, and read, that he thus far is using his position for the later.

Where does that leave the rest of us Christians?  We can keep jostling back and forth over the question of God’s providence as it relates to the success of Tim Tebow and the Denver Broncos (however long it lasts for) but I fail to see what good will come from that.  On the other hand, we can pray for Tim Tebow and other Christian athletes that they would use their unique positions for God’s kingdom and glory.  Added to that, we can join them in the causes and charities they support for that purpose.  After all, however God is at work, he’s not just at work trying to bring about his Kingdom in the Tim Tebow’s of our world.  God is at work in you and I too.

To God be the glory!

I only know of the atrocities committed by the Nazis through history books, yet I do not know of any words which adequately describe the depths of depravity it took for the Holocaust to happen across Europe. However, as a Christian preacher and minister, I do wonder how the Nazi party was able to convince a nation of professing Christians to support their political agenda. After all, whatever we think about the ethics of Christian participation in state politics, it is clear that the Nazi agenda was evil, oppressive, and anti-Gospel. So how could professing Christians by in to such a program?

The answer to that question is huge and probably cannot be fully explained in a few simple paragraphs. One thing that is clear to me, as I read through this biography, is how much ignorance there was among Germans when it came to the Bible, theological understanding, and knowing their history as Christians. This ignorance, coupled with a largely nominal faith, allowed the Nazis to co-opt German Christianity into a nationalistic faith serving the Nazi agenda.

As Metaxas notes, “The Nazis were anti-Christian, but they would pretend to be Christians as long as it served their purposes of getting theologically ignorant Germans on their side against the Jews” (p. 94). This included using the anti-Semitic writings of a very old and, perhaps, mentally unsound, Martin Luther on the unsuspecting Germans who were unfamiliar with the earlier writings of Luther that were very sympathetic to the Jewish people. This is all worth noting because, as the maxim goes, those who forget history are doomed to repeat it.

Is such history repeating itself in the United States of America? Most likely not with the same depraved results of Nazi Fascism but I do suspect that Christianity in America is quickly evolving into a nationalistic faith, if it has not already (and I’m not alone in that suspicion). Further more, the repetition of history appears to be for the very same reasons: a growing biblical, theological, and historical ignorance. In fact, it’s not uncommon for me to hear apathetic attitudes by Christians towards any study of theology and church history. On top of this, there are more and more professing Christians who’s faith is increasingly nominal.

Added to this is the plenty of politicians, both liberal and conservative, Democrat and Republican, who’s agenda is nationalistic rather than that of Jesus’ Christ…the Gospel, the Kingdom of God. Like the Nazis, such politicians express enough Christian sentiments in order to gain our support of their cause. The real question is at what cost?

There is more I want to say about the trend toward nationalism as the nation begins another election year. For now, I just want to point this out for two reasons. First, this is, in my judgment, the biggest problem facing Christianity in America. Secondly, I also want to stress the need for teaching the Bible, as well as Christian theology and church history among churches. We can learn from what happened in Germany that both nationalism as well as biblical, theological, and historical ignorance are cancers to the Christian faith as well as cancers to society.