Abandon Image

I Like Mercy...But I Love Revenge

2011-05-05T15:05:00.006-04:00

"There is no revenge so complete as forgiveness."--Josh Billings

Something profound happens to me whenever I reflect upon the parable of the Prodigal Son. This ungrateful, selfish brat conveniently desires to return home only after he runs out of money and can barely survive. Yet, he experiences his father’s extraordinarily lavish mercy. This is not the kind of mercy that merely forgoes punishment or retribution, but a mercy that welcomes, restores, and celebrates this returning son. This radical and offensive display of mercy moves me. It unleashes an unquenchable thirst for mercy in our world. I’m sort of infatuated with Mercy. I daydream of a world that operates out of that kind of mercy. But then…

When my son disregards my repeated warnings to get off the table and then falls and hurts himself, I sigh with satisfaction.

When the driver who cuts me off gets pulled over by the police, I smugly smile.

When the friend who betrays me apologizes, I stubbornly hold a grudge.

When I deliver an insult that outwits the person who insulted me first, I stand a little taller.

When an ideological opponent is proven wrong, I dance in victory.

When my political opponent is humiliated, I laugh.

When my religious opponent falls, I rub it in.

And when the vile terrorist gets shot in the face, I gleefully rejoice.

See, I’ll flirt with Mercy and praise her many virtues. Mercy is great for a spiritual fling, for a good theological roll in the hay. But the moment Mercy wants to jump off those red-lettered pages into the real world, Mercy gets kicked out of bed faster than an STD-infested hooker. See, I like Mercy, I really do, but I love Revenge. Mercy lives in parables I revere, in the dreams that give me spiritual butterflies, in my ideal fantasies of how the world should be. And that’s where I want her to stay. Revenge is a lover much more suitable for the real world. Revenge lives with me in my daily attitudes and actions, in my heart. I may have an occasional rendezvous affair with Mercy, but I’m married to Revenge. Because when push comes to shove, Mercy is shown the door and Revenge gets the ring.

For me, the death of Osama Bin Laden is not primarily about whether the government had the right to kill him (although I know that discussion is happening), but what our ideal attitude and heart should be in the midst of this reality. Many are discussing the implications of bible verses like Romans 13, Ezekiel 18:32, and Proverbs 24:17 in this matter. For me, I acknowledge the government has a serious duty to protect the innocent by stopping dangerous mass-murderers like Bin Laden. Bin Laden lived by the sword and consequently died by it. He perpetuated hatred, fear, violence, and murder. Ideally, I’d rather see dangerous people like him captured and imprisoned instead of killed, but I realize that is not always possible. Yet, somehow cheering and gloating over his death in a patriotic frenzy does not align with the highest ideals of my faith. There’s a difference between acknowledging the government’s authority to kill a terrorist like Bin Laden, and reveling in it. I can both affirm that what the government did was permissible, without taking pleasure in the death of another human being. So, I don’t sit here condemning the government for taking out Bin Laden or even the people who are cheering his death like it’s a Super-bowl victory. I sit here thinking about what’s in my own heart. When I heard that Bin Laden was killed, I wasn’t thinking about the government’s “divine mandate” to execute justice, or the fact that Bin Laden wouldn’t be able to harm anyone ever again, or anything so noble. I thought “that bastard finally got what was coming to him.” I felt superior and savored the thought of Bin Laden getting shot in the face. No matter how many valid reasons exist to justify killing Bin Laden, I still must face the heart beneath it all that harbors revenge.

I’ve read a lot of ugly things this week. Celebratory cheers over Bin Laden in hell, cries that his body should have been desecrated, and regrets that Bin Laden didn’t suffer more before dying. Many of these comments were from Christians. And while I never voiced such thoughts, perhaps some of these comments reflected what was lurking inside my own heart.

As Jesus hung on the cross, in agonizing pain, He was moved toward compassion for his enemies, the very people who mocked him, plotted his arrest, oppressed His people, spat on him, humiliated him, tortured him, and nailed him to the cross. In the very MIDST of His suffering, He cried out on their behalf, “Father forgive them, for they know not what they do.” His heart was FOR his enemies, hoping for their reconciliation and restoration before God.

I don’t pray like that much. My prayers usually devolve into something like, “Father, forsake them, for they know exactly what they’re doing!” I don’t want my enemies to receive mercy and I certainly don’t want to ask for it on their behalf.

Deep down, I love revenge. I live it, justify it, often approve of it, and even root for it. Revenge feels good, sometimes it even feels right. Revenge is a seductive lover. But Mercy stands on the sidelines, down on one knee, proposing to a world caught in the violent cycles of Revenge. But marrying Mercy means divorcing Revenge and the addicting attitudes that go along with it: the sense of superiority, the self-righteous comparisons, and the surges of glee and revelry that arise when an “enemy” gets their comeuppance. Living a life with Mercy means relinquishing that gavel we are constantly wrestling out of God’s hands to wield in judgment ourselves. It means crying out on our enemies’ behalf, even in the midst of unfathomable suffering caused by their hands. For that is the way of Christ.

No matter what our opinions are about Bin Laden and all the politics surrounding what happened, as followers of Christ, I hope our attitudes reflect that:

All life is sacred.
Death is always tragic.
Violence (no matter how well-intentioned) has ugly ramifications.
And Mercy has the power to liberate both the oppressor and the oppressed.

Loving Our Enemies: Where to Begin?

2010-10-15T15:04:00.015-04:00

This post is part of the Bless Those Who Curse You Campaign's Synchroblog. The links to other contributors can be found at the bottom of this post.

Jesus makes me laugh. Sometimes I laugh at His snarky comebacks to the Pharisees. Sometimes, I laugh when I think of Him walking on water, perhaps with a hint of playful mischief in His eyes, as he beckons Peter to follow. Sometimes, I laugh at His blatant disregard for social customs, religious traditions, and the accepted "orthodox" theology of His day. But then, other times, there's a different sort of laughter that Jesus elicits from me. It happens when I encounter some of His most radical teachings:

"But I tell you, do not resist an evil person. If someone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also...If someone forces you to go one mile, go with him two miles. Give to everyone who asks you, and do not turn away from the one who wants to borrow from you." Or "But I tell you who hear me: Love your enemies, do good to those who hate you, bless those who curse you, pray for those who mistreat you...If someone takes your cloak, do not stop him from taking your tunic...and if anyone takes what belongs to you, do not demand it back. Do to others as you would have them do to you."

This laughter isn't an intellectually-amused reaction to Jesus' razor-sharp wit. It is not the laughter that comes from the awe of, what must have been, a bizarrely beyond-all-reason experience. Nor is it the semi-maniacal laughter over Jesus flipping His culture's most precious ideologies upside-down. No. This kind of laughter comes from utter, almost appalled, disbelief. Love my enemies? Bless those who curse me? Pray for those who mistreat me? Don't fight back, but turn the other cheek? Don't resist an evil person? If someone steals my coat, give them the shirt off my back, too? Give to EVERYONE who asks of me?? Without expecting to ever be repaid?

No, this isn't the laughter of the amused. It is the laughter of the offended. The dumbfounded. The convicted.

And yet, after the initial shock wears off about just how insane the way of Christ is and how miserably I fall short of it all, there is something so brilliant and beautiful happening behind Jesus' words. It's not just that Jesus commands us to love our enemies, but He's undermining the entire belief that we even have any enemies to begin with. Paul picked up on this when he wrote, "For we do not wrestle against flesh and blood, but principalities and powers." People are not our enemies. People get caught up in the systems of principalities and powers, become enslaved to those principalities and powers, even acting as agents of them, but people, themselves, are not our enemies. "They" are our fellow image-bearers. "They" are our fellow human beings who God loves just as much as He loves "us." It applies to the thief, the terrorist, the hypocrite, the liar, the angry, the greedy, the self-righteous, the bitter, the wounder, the wounded, the violent, the religious-other, the sexual-other, the political-other.

Loving our "enemies" is the way to affirm the innate dignity and worth of every person, even when they deserve it the least. It's the way to stop the cyclical nature of violence, revenge, bitterness, unforgiveness, and hatred. It's the tiny window into the glorious bigger picture beyond our individual wounds and pet ideologies. Loving our enemies, sometimes, shows us that we, ourselves, have often been an enemy to "the other."

Who have we declared to be our enemies? Who have you declared to be your enemy?

Loving our Enemies. Where to begin? Perhaps, we must first realize that we don't actually have any.

Others blogging on this topic:

David Henson at Unorthodoxology: Can Anybody Find Me Somebody to Love?

George Elerick at The Love Revolution: Toxicity

Brian Ammons at Nekkid Ressurrection: Loving Those Who Curse Us

Brambonius' Blog: Love Your Enemies, Bless Those Who Curse You...

Mark Sandlin at The God Article: A Call to Political Authenticity for Christians

Danielle Shroyer: "A Prayer for our enemies....And for Us."

Conservative Christians and Same-Sex Marriage: A Match Made in...America?

2010-10-12T17:32:00.020-04:00

I’m a Christian, a Christian with very conservative roots, no less. Despite this background, I’ve been surprisingly fortunate enough to become dear friends with many beautiful people in the GLBT community. I absolutely support my GLBT neighbors in their struggle for equal rights and privileges under the law. At the same time, my theology tends to be a little more conservative (don’t think of Jerry Falwell-Pat Robertson-conservative, but more Tony Campolo-conservative) on the issue. So, I
submit this post in the spirit of friendship and seeking common-ground.

Is it possible for one to be both a Conservative-Christian and support same-sex marriage?

For many, this sounds like an oxymoron. But after some careful reflection, I believe conservatives can accept the secular legalization of same-sex marriage without compromising their convictions on homosexuality or marriage, in general.

We should ask ourselves the following questions:

To what extent do we impose our religious morals onto others through the law?

To what extent should we depend on the government to uphold our religious views on sexual ethics and marriage?

Are opponents of legalizing same-sex marriage consistent with other sexual “violations” within society, such as adultery, fornication, divorce, and remarriage?

While Christians have a responsibility to teach the tenets of their faith to the world, we should not seek to impose the tenets unique to our faith onto the broader public in a free and pluralistic society. Commitment to the Christian faith, or any faith for that matter, and compliance to the moral expectations thereof, should be completely voluntary and not enforced through governmental law. At the heart of the Conservative Christian position is the belief that homosexuality is a sin and marriage has traditionally been between a man and woman. Therefore, as Christians, we must prevent same-sex marriage from being validated under the law. But to what extent should Christians (or people of any faith) seek to impose their religious beliefs onto the broader public through the laws of the land? Certainly, we have quite an inconsistent application as to which “biblical sins” should be permissible under our laws: such as fornication, divorce, and remarriage. The Bible has a lot to say on these issues (much more than it does on homosexuality, btw). Yet, there are not many Christians seeking to enforce those standards on the broader public through the law. Where are the efforts to reform common-law marriages (two unmarried people obtaining the legal benefits of a married couple)? Or for the government to only allow divorce in cases of adultery? Or a law to forbid divorced people from getting remarried? Many Christians also believe the Bible forbids “unequally-yoked” marriages (Christians marrying outside of their faith). Should the government deny marriages
to interfaith couples, previously divorced couples, or force couples seeking a divorce to remain married? Is it the government’s place to only grant legal marriages to those who meet traditional biblical requirements?

Most of us instinctively know, that while these issues are very important to how we live out our faith and conduct our faith communities, we should not force society to conform to all the standards of our faith. Faith, and conformity to the moral standards thereof, must be voluntary.

Christians have every right to express their views on homosexuality (and if that is ever threatened, I would stand up for the freedom of speech and the right of religious communities to conduct themselves as they see fit). But consider for a moment, that one does not have to give up or even compromise their beliefs about homosexuality in order to accept same-sex marriage within our society.

Consider C.S. Lewis’ argument for the legalization of divorce in Great Britain. Could the same logic be applied to the same-sex marriage debate in America?

"Before leaving the question of divorce, I should like to distinguish two things which are very often confused. The Christian conception of marriage is one: the other is the quite different question — how far Christians, if they are voters or Members of Parliament, ought to try to force their views of marriage on the rest of the community by embodying them in the divorce laws. A great many people seem to think that if you are a Christian, you should try to make divorce difficult for every one. I do not think that. At least I know I should be very angry if the [Muslims] tried to prevent the rest of us from drinking wine. My own view is that the Churches should frankly recognize that the majority of the British people are not Christians and, therefore, cannot be expected to live Christian lives. There ought to be two distinct kinds of marriage: one governed by the State with rules enforced on all citizens, the other governed by the Church with rules enforced by her on her own members. The distinction ought to be quite sharp.."--C.S. Lewis, Mere Christianity, p112

Much like C.S. Lewis argued for divorce allowances in a secular society that went beyond the biblical allowances, so can the conservative Christian argue for same-sex marriage in a secular society, and yet retain for themselves and their churches the standards in accordance with their faith. Christians often support the rights of others that are in direct conflict with their faith. For instance, one of the very founding principles of our nation is the freedom of religion. This means we guarantee the right for all people to practice the faith of their choosing and worship freely. I would think, for traditional Christians, one of the worst sins would be to worship other gods. Yet many traditional Christians, sometimes religiously-devoted to the Constitution, affirm the freedom of religion for all people. Our government recognizes other religions and provides tax exempt statuses for all kinds of houses of worship: Christian, Mormon, Jewish, Muslim, Hindu and Buddhist. So, under our current policies, the government "rewards" and "legitimizes" other religions. Yet, traditional Christians believe it is a sin to worship any other god beside God the Father through Jesus Christ. How do we reconcile this? We know worship cannot be forced upon people, nor should worship we disapprove of be forbidden under the law. Since we cherish the ability to worship freely and openly, we must extend this same right to all people, even if how that right is used conflicts with our own faith.

Some Christians worry that the legalization of same-sex marriage will somehow infringe upon their religious freedom. This argument simply doesn’t make sense. The legalization of same-sex marriage would not infringe on the rights of religious people to speak publicly about their beliefs.

Example:

Divorce is legal, but churches still maintain the right to preach against divorce and hold their members to their teachings. Churches reserve the right to refuse performing the marriages of, really, anyone who does not meet their standards. Though common-law marriages are legal and recognized by the government, churches still have the right to denounce fornication and teach abstinence. If same-sex marriage becomes legal, churches will still have the right to preach against homosexuality and handle the issue of homosexuality as they sit fit within their own churches. Just like the Catholic Church will not perform/recognize the remarriage of a Catholic who has gotten a divorce outside of their approval, churches against homosexual marriage will not be forced to perform/recognize the marriages of GLBT couples or stop publicizing their beliefs about it.

I contend, in our pluralistic society, that these types of issues (actions that do not violate the rights of others or seek to harm others), should be legalized, and faith communities should retain the right to publicly accept or reject the practice, in accordance to the beliefs of their particular faith tradition. Our laws aim (or should aim) to restrict the forcible imposition of another’s actions upon un-consenting victims. C.S. Lewis talked about a universal moral law that transcended any one religion or culture, and while people within all religions and cultures have violated and manipulated this moral law, there is, generally, a basic level of accepted morality. It is this universal moral law, upon which the majority of our laws are crafted. For instance, one does not need to be a Christian, or adherent to a particular religion, to recognize the need for laws against murder, rape, molestation, kid-napping, assault, stealing, extortion, and so forth. We can collectively agree that there needs to be laws to prevent and punish purveyors of such atrocities in order to justly protect our society. We can all agree on these because, at their very core, such actions violate the will of another person. We know that when the actions of one person override the consent of another, it is usually wrong. While many of our laws are based on Judeo-Christian principles, they are primarily focused on the morals that violate the rights of others. We should not, however, legislate laws that are unique to one particular faith over other faiths or no faith at all. While the government should be involved in ensuring all who enter marriage are afforded the same rights and privileges, it should be left to the individual couple’s faith community to define the nature and sacredness of a marital union.

We should also consider that by denying same-sex couples the right to marry, we deny them over 1,000 federal protections and privileges that are automatically afforded to heterosexual married couples. Here is a list of some of those protections and privileges.

The GLBT community is not all that interested in altering the theology of conservative Christians or censoring their sermons and broadcasts. Most just want to live their lives with access to the same opportunities for life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness as everyone else. It's about giving their partners and children the same stability afforded to heterosexual couples. My friends in the gay community want the same things I do: companionship, sexual intimacy, family, stability, and equality. I truly believe the views of all sides should be engaged with and respected, but ultimately, no one’s religious convictions should be forced on another through the law. Churches should not be forced to accept/recognize the marriages of gays and lesbians, the divorced, the remarried, or the cohabitation of non-married couples. Christians should remain free to challenge these issues and call those within and without of their faith community to examine their positions. Likewise gays and lesbians should not be restricted from marrying and receiving the benefits of legal marriages in a free, pluralistic society just because it offends the religious sensibilities of others. I suggest we have a more consistent position on the role of government (which traditional conservatism says is LESS government in our personal lives) when it comes to the issue of marriage.

So, maybe, just maybe, Conservative Christians can affirm the rights and dignity of the gay community, while simultaneously remaining faithful to their own deeply held convictions on the issue. I hope so.

This post is part of a Synchroblog, where a group of bloggers post on the same topic on the same day, so that people can surf from one to the other and get different views on the same basic topic. You will find links to the other participants below.

Kathy Baldock at Canyonwalker Connections – Marriage “I Do” For Who

Dan Brennan at Faith Dance – Sexual Difference, Marriage and Friendship

Steve Hayes at Khanya – Same Sex Marriage Synchroblog

Sonja Andrews at Calacirian – In Defense Of Marriage

John C O’Keefe – Exactly What Is Gay Marriage

Liz Dyer at Grace Rules – Nobody knows why or how same-sex marriage is harmful

Herman Groenewald at Along The Way – Same Sex Debate

Margaret Boelman at Minnowspeaks – What Have We Done

David Henson at unorthodoxology – ban marriage

Erin Word at Mapless – Synchroblog: Legalizing Same Sex Marriage

Joshua Jinno at Antechurch – The Church Is Impotent

Kathy Escobar at The Carnival In My Head – It’s Easy To Be Against Equal Rights When We Have Them

Peter Walker at Emerging Christian – Synchroblog – Same Sex Marriage

K. W. Leslie at The Evening of Kent – Mountains, Molehills and Same-Sex Marriage

The Scariest Verses in The Qu'ran!!!

2010-09-13T00:23:00.001-04:00

Every Christian should be aware of these. The following endorses genocide, violence, rape, forced marriages, infanticide, and even cannibalism.

1. "..devote to destruction all that they have. Do not spare them, but kill both man and woman, child and infant, ox and sheep, camel and donkey. "

2. "Happy is he who repays you for what you have done to us, he who seizes your infants and dashes them against the rocks."

3. “But of the cities of these peoples which {Allah} gives you as an inheritance, you shall let nothing that breathes remain alive, but you shall utterly destroy them."

4. "And when [Allah] shall deliver them before thee; thou shalt smite them, and utterly destroy them; thou shalt make no covenant with them, nor shew mercy unto them."

5. "And they utterly destroyed all that was in the city, both man and woman, young and old, and ox, and sheep, and ass, with the edge of the sword."

6. "Their children shall be dashed to pieces before their eyes! There houses spoiled, and their wives raped...Dash the young men to pieces...have no pity on the fruit of the womb, the children shall not be spared..."

7. "So [he] smote all the country of the hills, and of the south, and of the vale, and of the springs, and all their kings: he left none remaining, but utterly destroyed all that breathed, as [Allah] commanded."

8. "We took all his cities at that time, and utterly destroyed the men, and the women, and the little ones, of every city, we left none to remain."

9. "And [he] smote the land, and left neither man nor woman alive, and took away the sheep, and the oxen, and the asses, and the camels, and the apparel. And [he] saved neither man nor woman alive."

10. "Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman that hath known man by lying with him. But all the female children, that have not known a man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves."

11. "But those mine enemies, which would not that I should reign over them, bring hither, and slay them before me."

12. "And he brought forth the people that were therein, and put them under saws, and under harrows of iron, and under axes of iron, and made them pass through the brick-kiln: and thus did he unto all the cities of the children of Ammon."

13. “If a man finds a young woman who is a virgin, who is not betrothed, and he seizes her and lies with her, and they are found out, then the man who lay with her shall give to the young woman’s father fifty shekels of silver, and she shall be his wife because he has humbled her.."

14. "If his master has given him a wife, and she has borne him sons or daughters, the wife and her children shall be her master’s, and he shall go out by himself."

15. "And if you see among the captives a beautiful woman, and desire her and would take her for your wife, then you shall bring her home to your house, and she shall shave her head and trim her nails. She shall put off the clothes of her captivity, remain in your house, and mourn her father and her mother a full month; after that you may go in to her and be her husband, and she shall be your wife. And it shall be, if you have no delight in her, then you shall set her free."

16. "Make ready to slaughter his sons for the guilt of their fathers; Lest they rise and posses the earth, and fill the breadth of the world with tyrants."

17. "If there be found among you... man or woman....who hath gone and served other gods and worshiped them, either the sun or moon or any of the host of heaven, which I have not commanded...then shalt thou bring forth that man or that woman who has committed that wicked thing unto thy gates, even that man or that woman, and shalt stone them with stones till they die."

18. "Take heed to yourself, lest you make a covenant with the inhabitants of the land where you are going, lest it be a snare in your midst. But you shall destroy their altars.."

19. "You will chase your enemies, and they shall fall by the sword before you. Five of you shall chase a hundred, and a hundred of you shall put ten thousand to flight; your enemies shall fall by the sword before you."

20. "Take all the heads of the people and hang them up before {Allah} against the sun.”

21. "They shall fall by the sword: their infants shall be dashed in pieces, and their women with child shall be ripped up!"

22. “And ye shall eat the flesh of your sons, and the flesh of your daughters shall ye eat.”

These Verses are brutal and terrifying. The only problem is, they are NOT from the Qu'ran, they are ALL from the Bible. It's not hard to rip troubling verses out from their original surroundings, like so many of us have done to our Muslim neighbors, taking no consideration for context, interpretation and application. And by the way, some of these verses IN context are no less troubling. But those of us who believe and follow the Bible (at least most of us) are not plotting and carrying out genocide, violence, etc. etc.

When verses from our holy book are ripped out of context, misrepresented and used against us, well, it's deeply offensive and frustrating. May I suggest, we do unto others as we would have others do to us? In this case, let's read the Qu'ran in context and find out from Muslims themselves how they understand and live out the heart of their religion and what the various interpretations and applications are for such difficult texts. At the very least, let's be aware of the troubling verses in our own holy book before we start throwing stones at everyone else's holy books...

Reference Verses for all scripture cited:

1 Samuel 15:3, Psalm 137, Deut 20:16, Deut 7:1-2, Joshua 6:12, Isaiah: 13: 16-18, Joshua 10:40, Deut.2:26-35, 1 Samuel 27:8-9, Numbers 31: 17-18, Luke 19:27 2 Samuel 12:31 Deuteronomy: 22: 28-29, Exodus 21:4, Deuteronomy 21:11-14, Isaiah 14:21, Deuteronomy 17:2-5, Exodus 34: 11-12, Leviticus 26:7-8, Numbers 25:4 Hosea 13:16

Second Chance Theology: Real Heresy?

2010-08-31T16:37:00.000-04:00

Second Chance Theology: Real Heresy?: "Powerful words from Gregory Boyd on real heresy: “While those who wielded the Constantinian sword throughout history undoubtedly convinced..."

What is Emerging? A Wood Between Worlds

2010-04-19T12:23:00.013-04:00

"No, I don't believe this wood is a world at all. It's just a sort of in between place..Think of our tunnel under the slates at home. It isn't a room in any of the houses. In a way, it really isn't a part of any of the houses. But once you are in the tunnel, you can go along it and come out into any of the houses in the row. Mightn't this wood be the same?--a place that isn't in any of the worlds, but once you've found that place you can get into them all."--Digory, The Magician's Nephew.

I could say so much about what the Emerging Movement is and probably even more about what it is not (since misconceptions bug me). But instead, I'd like to focus on why the Emerging Movement has been invaluable to my own faith journey. The Emerging Movement has been the catalyst to going deeper with the scriptures, asking harder questions of myself, my community, and my God, and rethinking many of my own perspectives, assumptions, and understandings of the bible, faith, and what it means to be a follower of Christ.

In one of C.S. Lewis's classic Chronicles of Narnia books, The Magician's Nephew, Digory and Polly stumble upon "The Wood Between Worlds," a heavily forested place with an abundance of pools. The trees go so far up that they create a huge canopy that blocks their view of the sky and sun, yet a strange and warm light seeps through the cracks between branches and leaves to illuminate this strange place. They soon discover that each of the seemingly shallow pools of water are actually portals into other worlds.

For me, The Emerging Movement is a sort of Wood Between Worlds. It's not just another church or another denomination, but a place that connects us to something bigger, and by experiencing the other worlds through this place, our own world will never be the same. It's a humble place where we admit our limited view and yet walk boldly within the light that does shine through. A safe place to explore and seek honestly, fearlessly, and even brokenly. A welcoming place that attempts bringing together the vast "worlds" within the church.

My experience within churches, whether it was the Pentecostal churches in my young childhood, the catholic church in my middle school years, the Calvary Chapel movement in my teens and early twenties, or the nondenominational-moderately-charismatic church I'm a part of now, has been rather insular. In each of these faith traditions, I met lovely people (some of whom have become lifelong friends) committed to following God in how they knew to best. However, many in these settings were not only surprisingly unaware of the actual practices, beliefs, and history of other christian traditions, but were WARY of any other christian traditions beside their own. As I travelled between traditions, I found much to be celebrated and faithful people in all of them. But never shaking that "square peg" feeling, I always knew something was missing. Something was off. Something was stifled. Someone was calling me out, to go further up and further in.

When I went through my crisis of faith during my early twenties, I felt utterly alone in my thoughts, questions, beliefs, and understanding of God, the Bible, and what it meant to be a follower of Christ. Because of the insular nature of the traditions I had been involved in, I was completely unaware of any other expressions of the christian faith outside of the circles I travelled in, none of which I fit into very well.

But The Emerging Movement became an inclusive haven for the myriad of christian traditions and faith expressions to be fairly represented and engaged with. It's a place to learn from each other, to walk in each other's shoes, and progress further together in bringing about God's Kingdom. It's a place to wrestle, to challenge, to doubt, to affirm, to reject, to believe, to inspire, to listen, and to emerge as a fuller, more authentic person and community of faith. It's a place to conspire together about how to live out the love of God in our world.

Best of all, it's a place that draws God's diverse people out of their own secluded pools, continually welcoming them to be seated at the same table to encounter each other as a family and as a community.

This post is part of a synchroblog effort organized by Julie Clawson to gather diverse voices about the Emerging Movement. To read more posts on this subject, Julie has linked to all of the posts over at her blog here.

The R's of Discipline

2010-03-27T18:15:00.022-04:00

"Moreover your little ones and your children...who today have no knowledge of good and evil, they shall go in there; to them I will give it, and they shall possess it."--Deuteronomy 1:39

Now that I've shared why my husband and I will not be spanking our child, I thought I'd share some of the disciplinary tools we are planning to use to help and guide our little man through the confusing journey of growing up. I compiled a list, "The R's of Discipline" to sum up the basic principles and practical application.

Redirection

The strategic use of distraction to transition very young children away from an undesired activity to a desirable one.

Revelation:

Teaching values, morals and good behavior to a child through verbal communication, games, reading books, drawing pictures, utilizing real-life experiences, being an example, training, and making opportunities to convey lessons as often and as creatively as possible.

Representation:

Modeling the behavior and values ourselves that are expected from our children. Here's a powerful video that shows representation needs to be one of our highest priorities as parents..

Reprimands:

Firmly and clearly addressing and correcting bad behavior. With young children firm language should also be accompanied by restraint or removal in a potentially harmful situation (like touching a hot stove or running towards the road).

Respect :

Showing the child the same respect we expect them to show us; respect for their feelings, perspective, situation, body, and voice.

Reasons:

Explaining the purpose behind a rule, restriction, correction or standard. Children are much more likely to behave if they know WHY they should behave in a certain way. The phrase "Because I said so" only plants the seeds of resentment.

Reminders:

Clearly and SIMPLY stating the behavior expected from a child and WHY it is expected on a regular basis, especially for younger children who have short attention spans.

Rules:

Creating a clear set of fair standards for the home and life in general along with the principles behind those standards. So children KNOW what is expected from them.

Results:

Followup with consequences for bad behavior. If you have established that certain behaviors have certain consequences, follow through and don't make idle threats.

Reaffirmation:

Repeatedly praising a child for good behavior and reaffirming your love for them no matter what their behavior is.

Regularity:

the consistent practice of discipline.

Relationship:

Strengthening the bond and trust between a parent and child. Many behavioral problems stem from broken relationships and lack of trust in this vital relationship. Seek honest communication, respect, and quality time with the child.

Reward:

Acknowledging good behavior and going out of the way to associate behaving well with good experiences.

Removal:

The use of time-outs, taking away privileges, rewards, objects of interests, etc., etc.,

Restraint:

Physically restricting a child from touching "no-no" items or from hurting themselves like during a temper tantrum or running out in the road.

Restitution:
Having children replace belongings they have broken or damaged.

This a basic principle that teaches a child responsibility for their actions and can be applied in different ways depending on the age and understanding of a child. If my toddler is playing with another child and purposefully breaks that child's toy out of frustration, then my toddler would be instructed to give the child one of their own toys of "equal value." If an older child damages or is careless with other people's belongings, that child would have to replace the damaged items with money from their allowance or work it off in some other way.

Realistic Consequences:

In a controlled environment AND within reason, allowing children to experience the natural consequences of their actions. If they refuse to eat a lunch, they cannot eat again until the next meal, if they refuse to do their own laundry, they have to wear dirty clothes until they do, if they are told to hold on tightly to their balloon and still let go, the balloon floats away and they lose it. There are countless ways to allow children to experience the logical conclusions to their actions. Here's a decent article explaining the concept further.

Regaining Order:

Establishing a controlled-environment in which a child's temper tantrum does not take over a social situation. For instance, if a toddler throws a temper tantrum at a restaurant because they want dessert now and refuses to calm down after being instructed to, the parent would immediately remove the child from the table, take them to the bathroom or the car, make sure they are safe, but allow them to choose their behavior. They can continue throwing a tantrum, but it will only keep them from the fun inside, will not get them what they want, and the parent will not even engage in a conversation with the child until they choose to compose themselves. Once the child has calmed themselves down, BEFORE bringing the child back inside, discuss their behavior, instruct them on how they must behave once they go back if they want to stay in the restaurant. Repeat process if necessary. The same principle can be carried out while shopping or just at home. It's time-consuming and requires the parent to sacrifice their social time as well. But if this practiced consistently, it will not have to be done that much or for long. The child will soon learn that temper tantrums simply do not work.

Readiness:

Anticipating a child's behavioral tendencies (based on temperament and experience) and creating a plan before bad behavior arises. Discipline sessions go much smoother if a parent already knows how to respond to unwanted behaviors. Also, by being acquainted with a child's behavioral tendencies, a parent can avoid putting a the child in overly-tempting situations unnecessarily. For instance, don't take a temper-tantrum prone child on a long shopping during nap time. Make it as easy as possible for the child to do what is right by avoiding situations that are too much for the child to handle. Don't surround the child with things he cannot touch. Maximize the outlets to play and explore and limit the chances to get into trouble.

These are some of the disciplinary techniques we have chosen, what are some of the disciplinary techniques you find work best in your family?

Here are the links to the rest of this series:

We're Coming Out of the Closet...

Spanking and the Bible

Are the "Rod" Verses Figurative or Literal?

Why do some Christian Reject Spanking?

Spanking and The Imperfect Parent

Spanking and the Imperfect Parent

2010-03-22T03:10:00.027-04:00

I am a violent person.

Well, I was a violent person and at times still desire to be one. By violent, I do not mean that I killed someone or beat someone up (except that one bully in the fourth grade), but that I struggled for years with fits of rage, during which I have thrown plates, punched walls, kicked doors, and even slapped, pinched, and pushed my husband. The early years of my marriage, a particularly angry and hurting time in my life, were filled with episodes of such unbridled rage that the ONLY relief came by hitting, punching, kicking, screaming or breaking stuff. Thankfully, my anger has dulled since those days as I began the long arduous process of healing from childhood wounds. I am happy to say that those uncontrolled behaviors have been tamed (now if I could only get my tongue under control!). But to this day, my husband reserves the skin on his elbow to offer me a "pre-approved" pinching spot to help me out when I am on the brink because when I get angry, the desire to act out in physically destructive ways rears its ugly head.

All that to say, I know myself. I, of all people, absolutely cannot give myself permission to spank under the guise of biblical mandates and loving discipline. It would not be so. Even though my mind and heart are wedded to the ideals of nonviolence and grace-based everything, I still live in a body that likes violence and likes to see people get what is coming to them.

Some have said that within every human being, there rages a war, a war between "good and evil." This analogy refers to the complicated web of conflicts and contradictions that make up the character of us humans. We possess profound beauty and potential for greatness as image-bearers of the Living God, and we also can produce disturbing ugliness and destruction as fallen, broken creatures.

So while the nonviolent and insanely gracious teachings of Jesus have won my heart, my base instincts prefer a theology of retribution, retaliation and vengeance. The teachings of Jesus have won me over precisely because of this reality. "Turn the other cheek" is beyond beautiful to me because I know firsthand how ugly the desires behind "an eye for an eye" really are.

My son is nine months old, and already there have been times when he cries in the middle of the night or will not settle down to eat or be changed that I want to give him a good whack. But this desire has nothing to do with discipline. This desire comes from the part of me that is selfish--the part that is put out and frustrated because MY sleep is being interrupted, because MY time is being infringed upon and because my innocent, precious son can't "get with the program." The desire to whack stems from the desire to relieve frustration. That is the ugly truth. But these are fleeting desires that quickly pass as I remind myself of the teachings of Jesus, the beauty and innocence of children, and my own shortcomings. The theology that preaches spanking would, in my case, foolishly nourish those momentary selfish desires and justify them under the guise of discipline. So, while biblical interpretation plays a major role in transforming my opinions about spanking, this decision is also informed by the painful awareness of my own weaknesses in this area.

I don't know what other people experience while spanking their children, but I do know that when Christians preach spanking as the only godly form of discipline, it puts Christians like me in a very precarious situation. I am not alone in this. When I began this series, I started by announcing my husband and I were coming out of the closet because choosing not to spank is a very controversial decision in church world. I have received quite a few e-mails from Christians who feel pressured, bullied, and biblically-guilted into spanking by their friends, churches and christian culture in general. I hope for someone, somewhere, my story and struggle can be a source of encouragement. And hopefully, the Church can better foster open and honest dialogue about this issue and the possible repercussions of spanking in the hands of imperfect parents like myself.

Why Do Some Christians Reject Spanking?

2010-03-22T00:29:00.007-04:00

Since sharing our decision not to spank our child, I've received a lot of feedback, both positive and negative. In general, I've noticed that the biggest misconception about Christians who reject spanking is our motivation for doing so. Many in the pro-spanking camp portray non-spanking Christians as "world-pleasers," just going along with "the world's wisdom" instead of "God's wisdom." But the truth is, non-spanking Christians hold their convictions precisely because of the teachings of Jesus and the New Testament, not because of the advice of Dr. Phil or The Super Nanny.

And that's why the "rod" verses in the Book of Proverbs must be viewed through the prism of the New Testament. Even if those verses are NOT figurative, they can still be legitimately superseded by the higher standards of love and grace found in the New Testament. The Old Testament has been fulfilled through Christ. In Christ, we have a fuller picture of how God, as Father, relates to us, as His Children, and in turn, we, as parents, have a fuller picture of how to relate to our own children. We have Christ's example of nonviolence, overcoming evil with good, disciplining through teaching, unconditional love, mercy, grace, compassion, gentleness, kindness, patience, and self-sacrifice. We have been given the Holy Spirit to teach, guide, and convict. In light of these "developments," many Christians find themselves conflicted about using physical retribution to force children into compliance, let alone to bring about true repentance. Our understanding of the teachings of Jesus lead us to believe in grace-based discipline (which will be the subject of another post).

This conviction about forgoing corporal punishment, is much like the slue of other Old Testament practices that Christians have abandoned because of the fulfillment of the law and the higher callings of Christ. For instance, Christ updated "eye for an eye" with "turn the other cheek." He updated the callous allowances for divorce to a higher standard because of the hardness of men's hearts. We no longer abide by dietary restrictions, though eating shrimp is famously labeled an abomination in the Old Testament. We no longer engage in the harsh punishment, such as stoning people for behaviors like adultery (Duet. 22:23-24), fornication (Duet. 22: 13-21), or breaking the sabbath (Numbers 15:32-36). We also do not stone rebellious children (Duet. 21:18-21), or put to death children who curse or attack their parents (Exodus 21:15, Leviticus 20:9).

Likewise, much of the content of the Book of Proverbs, must be understood in the context of its relationship to Law of Moses, the legal system of the time, and all of the Old Testament must be filtered through the teachings of Jesus Christ.

Dr. Randall Heskett explains in Interpretation Journal:

"The book of Proverbs can only be appreciated and correctly understood in an environment where the Law of Moses is the legal orientation. Without this understanding, the book has no real context. Remove it from this context and you have chaos. This also makes sense even from the very beginning of the book of Proverbs...Solomon, in the first proverb also urges his readers to "..hear the instruction of thy father, and do not forsake the law of your mother.” The word for “law” is the Hebrew word “torah” which is used numerous times to describe the “law of Moses.” The point is, all of the information that you find in the book of Proverbs was produced within a legal and religious environment where the Law of Moses was the governing religious system."

Of course, many of the standards of the OT carry over into the NT. The ones that do are reiterated in the NT, but no where in the NT are we told to physically strike children, though there are many passages that address the parent-child relationship. We are told to love, teach, train, discipline, and educate, but never to physically strike. In fact, when Paul lists the qualifications for leadership in the church, he requires that leaders must be a "no striker," (1 Timothy 3:3). And a few verses later, when Paul calls for leaders to have obedient children, he does not make an exception for disciplining children. Samuel Martin, author of Thy Rod and Thy Staff They Comfort Me, expounds on Paul's "no striker" requirement:

"There are no exceptions given. He should not strike his neighbors, he should not strike his co-workers, he should not strike his wife, and he should not strike his children. In the Bible verse that follows the one that says that a pastor should not be a striker, the Bible says that the pastor should have "his children in subjection with all gravity." If striking the children was meant to be used as one of the means to keep the children in subjection with all gravity, then this would have been an excellent occasion to give spanking as an exception to the commandment to be "no striker", but no exception is given."

The absence of a single clear instruction to physically strike a child in the New Testament combined with the overall heart of the New Testament leads many of us to raise our children without resorting to hitting. Parents have a responsibility to discipline their children and teach them right from wrong, but many of us just don't believe spanking is an appropriate tool for the task, and in the long run, we believe it does way more harm than good.

Another good resource for the non-spanking Christian position is Rick Creech's article over at Bible Gems.

You can read my posts on the figurative interpretations of the rod verses here, spanking and the bible here, and our original "coming out of the closet" post here.

Are the "Rod" Verses Literal or Figurative?

2010-03-15T16:51:00.019-04:00

"Spare the rod, spoil the child."-- A phrase often mistakenly attributed to the Bible, but really comes from a 1664 satirical poem by Samuel Bulter entitled Hudibras and is actually describing a sex act.

The Book of Proverbs is part of the Bible's "Wisdom Literature." Using short and poetic sayings, the writers (whom most scholars believe to be Solomon, Hezekiah, and possibly Joseph, son of Jacob) convey the principles and practices of wisdom. And while these truths are timeless, they must be understood in the context of the book's intrinsic style and the culture from which it came.

Being wisdom literature, the verses naturally consist of metaphor, similes, and hyperbole. And the "rod verses" are no exception. To demand that these verses be applied literally quickly raises some problems. For one, should all the proverbs be applied literally as many spanking advocates demand the rod verses be? Should those who overindulge themselves and commit gluttony literally take a knife and slit their own throats as Proverbs 23:1-2 recommends? No sane person would teach that. The writer is making a point about the severity of gluttony and the need to restrain oneself, not advocating suicide.

Another proverb uses the rod in a clearly figurative fashion:

"In the mouth of the foolish is a rod of pride: but the lips of the wise shall preserve them."--Proverbs 14:3

Obviously there is not a literal rod coming out of a fool's mouth, but "a rod of pride" is a word picture to describe the nature of pride. Likewise, "the rod of correction" need not be a literal rod used to physically hit a child. A rod can simply symbolize verbal correction, teaching, creating boundaries, a constant influence, and giving consequences that teach a child self-control, responsibility, and right from wrong. None of these goals require resorting to hitting. All the "rod verses" (Proverbs 13:24, Proverbs 22:15, Proverbs 23:13, Proverbs 23:14, and Proverbs 29:15) can legitimately be seen in a figurative light. The "rod" is a symbol for authority, guidance, training and teaching--in other words, discipline. Plus, since the rod is most likely a reference to a shepherd leading sheep, it must be noted that a shepherd did not use a rod to beat sheep, but to guide them along the right paths and to fight off predators.

So one does not have to spank in order to take the bible seriously and remain faithful to the these proverbs.

Ironically, for all the talk of "taking the bible literally," these verses are not even applied literally in Christian spanking circles. The word used for "rod" is shebet and is most often used in the scripture to refer to a shepherd's staff, walking stick, or ruler's scepter, which is rather large and thick. There are other Hebrew words for "smaller" or "thinner" rods, like the the word matteh, which is a branch or vine, or the word choter, which is a branch/twig type rod, but neither of these terms are used.

Most spanking advocates carry out spankings with their hands, a wooden spoon, a belt, a small paddle, or some other small object. But the word shebet does not call for any such instrument. If these verses are to be read and applied literally, then an actual rod should be employed. And I don't know any parents who would consider spanking their children with such a large, menacing, potentially damaging object.

The word shebet is used 36 other times in the Scriptures. Most of these uses are clearly figurative, symbolizing the authority of God, nations, people (both wicked and righteous), and the heritage of God. Almost all of these instances use "the rod" to convey the image of a shepherd's staff or a ruler's staff, and only in a couple of instances is the rod used in connection to literally striking another person. And each of those instances are found in the Old Testament and are addressed to fully grown adults.

Another interesting point is that the proverbs in question are addressing a parent using the rod on their "child." But the Hebrew word here is na'ar, which literally means "he who shakes off" or "he who shakes himself free." It is most commonly used to describe teenage boys or young men who have yet to marry. The very first chapter of proverbs is addressed to a "na'ar," which is rightly translated there as "young man." The only time this term is ever applied to a baby or young child is in two extraordinary cases. Moses is called na'ar only after he is sent down the river and found by the Egyptians. This makes sense since he was "shaken loose" from his real mother at an abnormally young age. We also find that Samuel as a young boy is called na'ar after his mother takes him to live at the temple. Again, here we have a child being shaken loose from a parent before the normal age. Samuel Martin, author of "Thy Rod and Thy Staff They Comfort Me," points out that:

"This word is found over 200 times in the Bible.There are some poetical uses of this phrase 'na’ar,' but the vast majority of these texts refer to younger men or women who have yet to marry."

Also, Proverbs 23:14 declares that beating a child with the rod will save his soul from hell. This is also not a literal phrase, nor do spanking advocates take it literally, since we (and they) do not believe salvation can be achieved through physical punishment or any other means besides God's grace through Jesus Christ. This is just more evidence to the figurative nature to these proverbs.

So if one insists that these rod verses are literal and call for the corporal punishment of children, then they must use a literal shebet rod to do it, only use it to hit a male child who is a teenager or young man still under his parents' care, and teach that the very act of hitting can save a person from hell. Most spanking advocates start spanking children as young as four months and recommend stopping by time the child reaches the age of 6 through 9. But there is absolutely no biblical basis for this. It may be wise to reconsider the meaning behind the rod imagery in Proverbs, because the so-called literal reading is neither taught literally, nor carried out literally. But the meaning behind these metaphors are full of wisdom and truth to be lived out by parents committed to their children and their God.

To read a more in depth analysis on the words shebet and na'ar (and the non-spanking perspective in detail) see Samuel Martin's book, which can be read for free online, "Thy Rod and Thy Staff They Comfort Me: Christians and the Spanking Controversy.

Also see Parenting Freedom and Arms of Love Family Fellowship for some good resources.

The next post will focus on another lens through which The Book of Proverbs (and the entire Old Testament) should be viewed through: The New Testament.

Spanking and The Bible

2010-03-05T16:24:00.002-05:00

“Recognize that your children are miniature versions of yourself. Learn to think in terms of Adam and Christ, sin and grace. That itself will help you realize why God has given you the command not to exasperate your children.” --Sinclair Ferguson

So, my husband and I came out of the closet about our decision not to spank. Many factors contributed to our decision. And the first consideration was the Bible.

Spanking. Is it biblical? This is the big question, because for many in the spanking camp, the issue does not come down to practical results or passion for spanking for spanking's sake, it becomes an issue of being faithful to the Bible. If the Bible taught parents never to take their kids to the circus, parents would comply, not because they found any obvious dangers/evils present in the circus itself, but because the Bible forbids it. With spanking, there are indeed some who say, it works best practically and others who say it's one of those "God's ways are higher than our ways" concepts.

But what does the Bible actually say on the subject? (Of course, there are a myriad of interpretations of the Bible, some in conflict with each other, so I am not claiming that I am just so smart that I've figured it all out, but based on my studying, praying, and conviction, I am settled on how to proceed for our family on this issue.)

So, there are six verses in Proverbs that appear to support corporal punishment for children.

Proverbs 13:24: He who withholds his rod hates his son, But he who loves him disciplines him diligently.

Proverbs 19:18: Discipline your son while there is hope, And do not desire his death.

Proverbs 22:15:Foolishness is bound up in the heart of a child; The rod of discipline will remove it far from him.

Proverbs 23:13: Do not withhold correction from a child, For if you beat him with a rod, he will not die.

Proverbs 23:14: You shall beat him with a rod, And deliver his soul from hell.(Sheol)."

Proverbs 29:15: "The rod and reproof give wisdom: but a child left to himself bringeth his mother to shame."

These six verses alone make up the pro-spanking position. No where else, and especially no where in the New Testament, are we told to spank children.

Proverbs should be read through a couple of lenses. One, it's original relationship to The Law Moses, the reigning law of the time and then through the higher teachings of Jesus found in the New Testament.

There are two main views among the non-spanking christian crowds and they often overlap:

1.Proverbs, a book of wisdom written in correlation to the law of Moses that contains poetry, metaphors, similes, and hyperbole, renders the infamous "rod" verses as symbolic imagery, not meant to be taken literally. The "rod" is not meant to advocate corporal punishment, but represents a symbol of authority, guidance, training, protection and teaching. Thus, a parent is not required to dish out physical retribution for bad behavior in order to be faithful to meaning of rod imagery portrayed in Proverbs.

2. Proverbs, though inspired by God, is still part of the Old Testament which has been fulfilled and Christians are now called to a higher standard reflected in the Way of Jesus Christ. Thus, physical retribution is now superseded much like the "eye for an eye" mentality and stoning prescriptions for sinful behavior were superseded by the higher standards of Christ.

Both of these camps like to point out that so-called "literalists" do not even apply these verses literally (more on that later.).

Those are the alternate understandings of these scriptures. The next posts will examine the evidence for these views.

We're Coming Out of the Closet...

2010-03-03T15:29:00.010-05:00

And it may be the second hardest closet to come out of amidst conservative christian culture. My husband and I have made a commitment NOT to spank our child. This decision has come off the heels of much research, experience, prayer, and conviction.

I considered keeping this information private, as I do with much of a my personal life, but child rearing is uncharted territory for us, and I know I need the support of my friends, family, and faith community. I don't care if Hillary Clinton said it or not, I *do* believe it takes a village to raise a child well. I am a new mother and I do not have all the answers to parenting--and I doubt anyone, new or seasoned, really does.

So while we are confident and settled on our decision for our family, we openly acknowledge that we have no idea what we are in for, that we will make tons of mistakes along the way, and will not always live up to the disciplinary ideals we have chosen.

Like sailors embarking upon unknown waters, we have prepared for the trip with patient sails, directed rudders, gentle oars, and a firm steering wheel, but choose to forgo the use of jet propellers that promise to get us farther faster because they also happen to make everyone on board seasick.

So, this is not an anti-spanking tirade to condemn parents who do choose to spank their children (I have many dear friends who spank, and I admire most of them very much as parents for their love and commitment to the well being and healthy development of their children).

But, growing up in the evangelical church, spanking is not only presented as *a* disciplinary tool, but THE disciplinary tool, mandated by God. Some teach that parents who do not spank are in sin, that they hate their children, and are committing a grave disservice against their children. In such circles, spanking as become synonymous with discipline--therefore, if one does not spank, one also does not discipline. This reality makes choosing not to spank a very fearful decision. It creates an environment where parents become inclined to hide the fact that they do not spank lest they endure the barrage of concerned lectures, passionate rebukes, and head-shaking "I told you so's," every time their child misbehaves.

Unlike most of my posts, this is not me on a soapbox trying to convince others to take a certain position, but sharing our journey in coming to this decision in hopes that my friends, even the ones who will vehemently disagree, will grant us their support. And to encourage others wrestling with the same issue.

The next few posts will elaborate on how and why we have come to this decision.

Our reasons for not spanking can be divided into three main categories :

1. Biblical Understanding
2. Personal Conviction/Personal Goals
3.Personal Weakness

More to come soon!

Playing Cards With Mark Driscoll

2010-02-27T14:53:00.005-05:00

When I was a teenager, I was introduced to a card game with the uncouth name, "Bullshit." The game is basically about leading (or misleading) the other players to believe that you possess a better hand than you actually do. Once a player has caught on to another player's false claims, they call the bluff by shouting "Bullshit." I loved this game because it created a space in which one did not have to mince words about obvious and purposeful false claims. You simply announced these false claims for what they were.

At times, it seems like sectors of the church engage in a death match competition to prove who is more right, more orthodox, more faithful, more biblical, etc. And often each side will over estimate their own "hand" and underestimate the "hand" of the others. And every now and again, someone will so grossly misrepresent, that the time comes to stand up, lay all the cards on the table, and call the false claims what they are: bullshit. And I am having one those moments with none other than Mark Driscoll because of the following quote from 2008's Church Leadership booklet:

"Without blushing, Paul is simply stating that when it comes to leading in the church, women are unfit because they are more gullible and easier to deceive than men. While many irate women have disagreed with his assessment through the years, it does appear from this that such women who fail to trust his instruction and follow his teaching are much like their mother Eve and are well-intended but ill-informed. . . Before you get all emotional like a woman in hearing this, please consider the content of the women’s magazines at your local grocery store that encourages liberated women in our day to watch porno with their boyfriends, master oral sex for men who have no intention of marrying them, pay for their own dates in the name of equality, spend an average of three-fourths of their childbearing years having sex but trying not to get pregnant, and abort 1/3 of all babies – and ask yourself if it doesn’t look like the Serpent is still trolling the garden and that the daughters of Eve aren’t gullible in pronouncing progress, liberation, and equality (p. 43). "

Like I said: Pure and unadulterated bullshit.

I usually take little interest in Mark Driscoll, though I've familiarized myself with his work for the sake of being well-rounded. Sometimes, I come across something so ridiculous that I might make it a facebook status, and then move on. I, clearly, am not Mark Driscoll's target audience. I am fiercely egalitarian, fiercely NONreformed, and have found a "home" in emergent circles. So, I don't waste a lot of time being outraged at Driscoll, since I suspect he enjoys the "persecution." But when I came across the quote above I was both irked and intrigued for the following reasons:

1. How blatantly hateful and ignorant it is. (not very surprising, but irking)
2. How poorly it was thought out and argued.
3. And most importantly, how it COULD and SHOULD serve as a wake up call for more reasonable complementarians on how they interpret 1 Tim 2:11-14.

First off, Driscoll's appeal to current women magazines to "prove" women are easier to deceive than men is probably the most dishonest part. Mark Driscoll and his engaged-with-culture-self should know better than anyone that men's magazines are selling just as many lies and just as many men believe them, including the one about "true" masculinity being about tough-guy, violence-prone Western notions of maleness. In fact, current top ten lists place both Playboy and Penthouse as two of the most popular men's magazine, in which women are portrayed as voiceless, brainless eye-candy for men to use for sexual gratification. And then other popular magazines, such as Maxim, Esquire, and GQ teach men their worth and the worth of others depends on good looks, money, fine clothing, current style, and how much stuff one can accumulate. Maxim just featured an article entitled "How to Cheat and Not Get Caught." Now should I uphold the lowest form of male-directed media and apply it to my brothers in Christ working to bring about God's Kingdom--who actively work against such mindsets? Of course not.

So while Driscoll's magazine anecdote is clearly ludicrous, I am more interested in his lead point. That the reason women are declared unfit to lead in the Bible is because they are gullible, easily deceived, and still paying for Eve's sin as clearly expressed by the Lord via the Apostle Paul. And I want to applaud Mark Driscoll for coming clean on this. Because most comps, who I admire for being as compassionate and as generous to women as their theology allows, should find these remarks very troubling indeed. Not only because they are extremely offensive and sexist, but because it is the logical conclusion of this kind of theology. If one wants to read the verses in 1 Timothy 2:11-14 "as is" (without considering the immediate context of the letter, the larger cultural context of the time, and the linguistic controversies that have plagued these verses for centuries), and apply these verses literally and universally, then one must also embrace the reasons for the "command." If one wants to continue to exclude women from teaching or having authority over men because "the Bible says so," then one must also accept the reasons given for WHY they are excluded. Mark Driscoll does exactly this, preaching that women are easily deceived and are still under the shadow of Eve's failing.

Most complementarians teach that the restrictions placed on women are about divinely mandated roles and gender hierarchy serves as a picture of Christ and the Church, and so forth, but never would they (or most of comps anyway) dare vocalize that women are restricted from teaching men or having authority in the church because women's very essence renders them dumber than men and it's a continued punishment because of Eve. And yet, that is the only choice the "as is" approach leaves a reader with.

Driscoll brings to light, though probably unintentionally, the quandary many comps find themselves in: how to keep preaching against women teaching men or having authority in the church without having to teach that women are fundamentally and irreversibly inept for the task compared to men.

My complementarian brothers and sisters, if you want to continue to exclude women from teaching and having authority in the church based on the verses in 1 Timothy, then do as Mark Driscoll does, and actually teach that women in their very essence are dumber than men because they are more susceptible to deception by their very nature and must still be held accountable for Eve's sin.

Because the only bigger bullshit move than actually believing women are inherently gullible and more susceptible to deception than men, is to still continue excluding women from leadership positions based on one part of a scripture while rejecting the reasons given for their exclusion in the very next part of the scripture.

A World Without Water Halts...

2009-10-16T14:31:00.003-04:00

"In an age when man has forgotten his origins and is blind to even his most essential needs for survival, water along with other resources has become the victim of his indifference."--Rachel Carson

A few weeks ago, a town nearby us, Toccoa, experienced some heavy rainfall and storms, which led to most of the water supply being contaminated or cut off from the town's residents for a few days. The local grocery stores ran out of bottled water, businesses and schools closed down, and people had to migrate to friend's houses in neighboring towns to take showers, use a toilet that flushed, and get some clean drinking water. The old saying is true. Sometimes you don't know what you have until it's gone. Since we are fortunate Americans, this loss of water was mostly a temporary inconvenience. But for those few days, seeing people experience what life without access to clean water is like--namely our world coming to a screeching halt--left quite an impression on me.

A couple of weeks later, I attended Rob Bell's speaking tour, Drops Like Stars (which will be the topic of a future post), where something very exciting was introduced to me. He informed his listeners to a unique non-profit organization called Charity Water . The founder, JahSun, a former entertainment networker, got bored with the life of luxury and frivolity. So, he decided to dedicate his life to improving the quality of lives of the "least of these" around the world. The brilliance of this organization is that 100 percent of donations go the ground work of providing clean water for the poorest people in the world. All overhead costs are funded through separate donations, mostly from the immensely wealthy entertainers he befriended in his former life. The JahSun has decided to use his "celebrity capital" to raise awareness to this issue and implement solid solutions. The second stroke of genius comes from how EASY they've made it donate to their efforts. They struck up a deal with all the major cell phone companies, in which all donaters have to do is text the word "WATER" to 20222. They will receive a text asking if they wish to have ten dollars added to their next cell phone bill and the donater just has to text back the word "Yes." It's that simple. Every 500 donations of 10 bucks ensures an entire village with long term access to clean water. This is such a small amount and such an easy way to help meet the vital basic need of access to clean water. Between all our blogs and facebook friends, if we all pitch in, we can collectively give entire villages clean water. So donate and pass it on!

Water Charity is a nonprofit corporation, directed toward improving the human rights and dignity of individuals throughout the world by providing them with resources that impact upon their health and wellbeing. With all donations applied to projects in the field, we have become one of the highest-ranked water charities delivering global services.

Water Charity at Lake Titikaka Water Charity implements practical solutions to provide safe water, effective sanitation, and meaningful health education to those in need.

Water Charity, in concert with key partners, surveys the needs, drafts the plans, assembles the resources, implements and manages the projects, and evaluates the results.

We plan for the long term and intermediate future, implement in the present, and react in the short term to crisis situations.

Our core group contains people with decades of experience in engineering, community development, construction, education, and public health. Led by Jacqueline Chan, Dr.P.H., Averill Strasser, and JahSun, we have completed many water and sanitation projects throughout the world in the past year, all on schedule and within budget.

"To donate $10 Dollars, simply text the word "Water" to 20222. When you receive the confirmation text asking if you want to have $10 dollars added to your next cell phone bill, text back the word "Yes." And you're done!"

Sometimes It's Easier to Worship at a U2 Concert Than At Church....

2009-10-13T23:03:00.017-04:00

At least for me, it is. Last week, I got to see my all-time favorite band, U2, live in concert for the very first time. About halfway through the show I realized I was talking to God and worshipping in a way that I rarely experience at church services. I wondered why this was. I started thinking about the U2 lyrics that mean the most to me, that really speak to my soul and then some of the lyrics to the most popular worship songs. It hit me. A lot of U2's lyrics are words that I actually CAN say to God, whereas a lot of worship lyrics are words that I WANT to be able to say to God. While most worship songs are true, they sometimes feel dishonest.

Let me explain.

When we sing the words to "I Could Sing of Your Love Forever," a popular worship song, it doesn't so much express what I want to say to God, but what I want to want to say. I want to want to sing of His love forever, but if I am being honest, I really want to sing about it for ten minutes and then I want to hang out with my husband/son/friends, eat a sandwich, read a book, watch some TV, take a nap and so forth. Or consider some of the lyrics to "Better is One Day:"

One thing I ask
And I would seek
To see Your beauty
To find you in the place
Your Glory dwells

OK. Yes, I think the deepest part of me longs for this (or wants to long for this), but it's not the ONE thing I ask, or even ask the most. I am often asking for God to fix my problems, to calm my fears, to provide financially, for health, long life, the well-being of my loved ones, a lasting marriage, deeper friendships, forgiveness for the retarded things I do on a daily basis, etc.

Or how about the lyrics "I will delight in the law of the Lord, I will meditate day and night.."

Again, I want to want this. But if I am being honest, I don't delight in the law of Lord very often, especially if we are talking OT law, since I don't "get" a lot of it, let alone delight in it. And my humanness doesn't much delight in loving my neighbor as myself (because that requires quite a bit of sacrifice), loving my enemies, esteeming others higher than myself, telling the truth, denying myself, or the call to be humble, forgiving, generous, gracious, compassionate, and kind. And I certainly don't want to meditate on such things day and night, though I want to want it.

The disconnect also has something to do with the language of many worship songs. The language and imagery tends to be so far removed from our everyday vernacular (whether it be true or not) renders some songs difficult to mean, imagine, or fully grasp (Think of phrases like blessed be your name, let your glory manifest, I lift your name on high...) But mostly, it's the emphasis on rejoicing, faith, certainty, and triumph while virtually abandoning the reality of doubt, struggle, pain, sorrow, and failure. Both are important to worship and our experience with God. So emphasizing the warm, fuzzy part of faith while ignoring the complex, difficult parts creates a feeling of hollow, surface-y, and incomplete worship for an "easy" faith that does not accurately reflect the overall human experience of faith in God and the very "uneasy" process of dying to oneself and wrestling with the mysteries of God.

This is where U2, for me, captures this duality in graspable, meaningful language. I can proclaim my unwavering faith while admitting I haven't "arrived" in "I Still Haven't Found What I'm Looking For." I can pledge my whole being to God and His guidance in "Yahweh," while at the same time expressing how difficult the process is and how far I am from it. I can vent my frustrations while still giving way to trust in God through "Peace on Earth," "Crumbs From Your Table," and "Where the Streets Have No Name." I can commit to persevering with God though there are struggles, disappointments, and hurt through "Walk On." I can marvel at the wonder of the Holy Spirit through "Mysterious Ways." I can adore the many facets of God's greatest gift through "Grace." I could go on. But the main point is that all these songs find their hope, peace, faith, and rejoicing in God, while remaining in the context of the muck and mire of our messy, complicated human existence. And just maybe it means more to God to say the things we can say versus saying what we "should" say.

Don't get me wrong, there are plenty of worship songs that I love, deeply love, but I often feel there is something missing from the ENTIRETY of our musical worship experience, whether it be the over-spiritualized language that is so far removed from how we actually speak and think, the lack of creativity to tell the story of God or express our devotion to God in new ways, or the lack of holistic expressions between joy and sorrow, faith and doubt, found and seeking, wonder and wondering, victory and failure, and surrender and struggle. Maybe we could learn a thing or two from U2 to enrich our musical expressions of worship.

Baby Rylan Sawyer is Here!

2009-06-16T12:16:00.012-04:00

"Whoever invented the epidural should be seated at the right hand of Christ." --Me.

Baby Rylan Sawyer finally arrived on June 9! I have been the biggest slacker when it came to blogging throughout this pregnancy. But I did want to share some pics for those of you who may still be checking in every now and again. :)

Here is Rylan Sawyer fresh out of the oven....

Our first family photo at the hospital.

Rylan and I taking a much needed nap.....

Rylan sleeping. He's obsessed with his hands, they have to be touching his face at all times...
My dog Scrappy cuddling with Rylan. Here, I thought my dog would be super jealous, but it turns out he loves little Ryles.

Rylan smiling right before dosing off to sleep.

Hopefully, once I get into the swing of things with a new baby, the creative juices will start flowing again and I can get back to writing. Thanks everyone for your prayers!

Opinions and the Bible Part 2

2009-02-03T11:12:00.010-05:00

"The Church is a whore, but she's still my mother,"---Augustine, early church father.

See Opinions and the Bible Part 1

I sure do have beef with Augustine, but boy, do I know exactly what he meant with that statement above. I just finished a short history book, entitled "The Dark Side of Christian History," and could barely grapple with how such atrocities were carried out in name of Jesus, at the hands of the Church (both pre-reformation and post-reformation). The witch hunts, heresy hunts, the crusades, the "purification chambers," all came down to one thing: the church needing to be right and enforcing their "rightness" on others, even if it meant torturing and killing dissenters. Anyone who thought differently was quite literally stomped out. Thankfully, the Church has progressed quite a bit, leaving behind the physical torture and killing, but that need to be completely right lingers on. The Church has split apart into thousands of factions with thinly veiled slogans of "We're really the right ones." A lot of churches create safe havens, making it completely possible for their members to live out their lives never truly interacting with any other brand of Christianity but their own.

This sort of quarantine leads to elitism, automatic skepticism of other "outsider" Christians, and unquestioning allegiance to a particular denomination, movement, or pastor. Ultimately our faith winds up in a segment of the body of Christ, while cutting ourselves off from the rest.

This is why I believe it is so imperative to listen to the various voices of Christians and consider what they have to offer; to at least consider the possibility that "they" may have something to teach me or "they" may have examined a topic or scripture from an angle I've overlooked. Do not misunderstand what I am saying, I do not think we should fling our convictions out the window and just agree with every christian or alternate viewpoint that comes along. Quite the contrary, actually. It's not that I think we need to turn off our discernment, but that we need to crank it up so high that the beliefs within our own camp, within our ownselves, are examined rigorously as well. And ultimately, that all interpretative options are laid at the feet of the Holy Spirit with humility. True unity has little to do with everyone thinking exactly alike, but is about working with each other for God's kingdom, despite our differences.

Those of us in the church have all acted like whores, unfaithful to what Jesus has called us to do and be, at one time or another. Since we all fall short, all have limited understandings, all see in part, all have cultural biases, we really do need each other in sorting our matters of faith AND bringing God's kingdom to earth. We should esteem each other higher than ourselves and at least consider where Christians of different persuasions and convictions are coming from. While we should never put blind faith in one church, one denomination, one theology or one person to hammer out the Bible for us, we should carefully consider the various understandings of the Christian faith and the scriptures and ask the Holy Spirit to guide us, convict us, and give us discernment. But most of all, we should love one another. And loving one another does not include segregating ourselves from believers with whom we disagree or thoughtlessly dismissing/demonizing their expressions of faith, experiences with God, or understandings of the scripture. "The Church" may be a whore at times, but she will always be my mother, and I will always glean from the imperfect, diverse, and strange people within it, whom God seems particularly fond of using to call those of us who think we got it all figured out to the carpet.

So, when I hear people say, "Read the Bible for what is says and don't listen to what others think about it," I know that I, myself, am an "other," my church is an "other," my pastor is an "other," and it would be foolish for me to rely on my own understanding and isolate myself within my own camp without consulting God's great gift of the Body of Christ. These are my brothers and sisters in Christ, from the past and present, who share my struggle in wrestling with God, the scriptures, and desire to better know and serve Him. So, I will honor them enough to listen to what they have to offer.

Opinions and The Bible

2009-02-01T13:06:00.009-05:00

No man ever believes that the Bible means what it says: He is always convinced that it says what he means." ~~George Bernard Shaw

Before my blogging hiatus, I received an email from a reader who rebuked me for reading so many books about God and the Bible. (Apparently, she took a gander at my Shelfari book list.) She said, "You should take the Bible for what is says alone and not listen to what others think about it."

I've heard others express similar sentiments, either directly toward me or as a general rule of thumb. In one sense, I agree with the heart of this sentiment (or at least what I'm hoping is the heart of it), which is read the Bible for yourself and allow the Holy Spirit to guide, teach, and give understanding. Far too many fall back on their preconceived ideologies, pastors' teaching, and church affiliations to "seal up" the scriptures for them, instead of personally engaging the Bible and opening themselves up to the Holy Spirit.

Now, here's why I part ways with the concerned woman's recommendation to cease listening to other people's "take" on the Bible.

1. It assumes that I, the individual, am free from bias, prejudice, preconceived interpretations, cultural and historical ignorance, and the ancient language gap. Let me assure you, I am not free from any of those factors and neither are you. :)

2. This approach just further polarizes Christians from one another, as well as boosts our own pride and unwillingness to listen to other perspectives, because we can just dismiss any other point of view with "Well, if they just would read the Bible for what it says, then they wouldn't think that," since we have convinced ourselves that's what WE do. I said almost those exact words once to a friend who attended a church with a woman preacher. Needless to say, now that I'm passionately for women in all ministry roles, I know exactly how my friend felt when I dismissed him without ever looking into the evidence. This attitude allows us to negate all other positions but our own, without having to weigh the evidence or critically examine the other perspective or our own.

3. Some passages taken for "what they plainly say," leave us with lots contradictions. If I take the verse in 2 Timothy "as is" where Paul writes, "Women will be saved through childbearing" and never consult the original language, historical/cultural context (which I have to rely on other people to find), on my own, I would be left to believe women are SAVED, not by grace, but through the act of childbearing. And even this verse by itself could mean many different things. This is just one example.

4. This approach is nearly impossible. Since all people are prone to a particular set of lenses and most Christians place themselves under a particular denomination, movement, or pastor, which all have the weaknesses listed in #1 above, this undoubtedly influences HOW believers read and understand the Bible.

Let me use the example of Christians who experienced church/Christian parents at an early age, which accounts for a large chunk of American Christendom. Do these children read the bible for themselves to determine its meaning or are they taught what it says and means by their parents, Sunday school teachers, pastors, and so on? The answer is obvious. Right from the beginning Christian children are taught a particular understanding of the Bible before ever opening the good book themselves. Depending on the affiliations of the parents and the church, children are geared from the beginning to understand the bible in a certain way, a way that supports the theology of their family/church, whether it be in the areas of Calvinism, Armenianism, Complementarianism, Egalitarianism, charismatic practices, baptism practices, whether or not alcohol is permissible, whether or not tongues are a gift for today, whether we ask or demand for healing, the nature of hell, a particular understanding of eschatology and so many others issues...

All these lenses become so ingrained within segments of the Church, that we don't even see them for what they are: interpretations. We see them as absolute truths that the Bible clearly says and teaches, end of story. We can shut our brains off and rest in the fact that we "know" exactly how it is. Anyone who thinks differently is suspect of embracing heresy or being a wolf in sheep's clothing. It becomes unbelievably difficult for people in this situation to even consider that there may be other valid understandings of a particular biblical topic or scripture. And far too often, the evidence for any other understanding is either never presented or is never examined.

So, the "Don't listen others' opinions on the bible, but read it for what it says" stance usually means "Don't listen to others' opinions on the bible, read it for what I think it says..."

The next post will be about why I find it so imperative to sincerely listen (not blindly follow) to the various voices in Christendom......

Pregnancy, Perusing, Pondering, and Procrastinating

2009-01-30T13:28:00.008-05:00

"There is nothing like returning to a place that remains unchanged to find the ways in which you yourself have altered."~~~~Nelson Mandela

For anyone left out there checking my blog, after months of my absence, I just wanted to let you know, that I am alive and well and have committed to posting regularly again.

My life has changed quite a bit in the last five months. In September, I found out I am pregnant! YaY! My hubby and I are thrilled. We found out last week that we are having a boy. Here's a picture from my ultrasound of little Rylan Sawyer, who is expected to be born around June 8.
So here's a relatively short recap of the last five months.....

Pregnancy:

My husband and I were secretly trying for four months and found out we succeeded in late September. The moment the stick turned pink, we cried, laughed, celebrated and jumped up and down. Later that evening, as we got into bed, I rested my hands on my stomach and stared down at my belly. My husband asked, "What are you thinking about?" I immediately burst into tears and answered, "That it's just gonna get bigger and bigger until I have to push it out!" Needless to say, I'm having a little anxiety about giving birth. :)

I was very sick in the beginning, but I'm much better now and I'm looking forward to being a mom.
Perusing

The last few months, I've been up to my eyebrows in books; books on all different topics, written by all sorts of people. When I was going through the sickest part of my pregnancy, curling up with a good book was the best comfort to me. But all that reading, left with many challenges. Many viewpoints to wade through, to consider, reconsider, and respond to in my own heart. Which accounts for the next part of my hiatus.........

Pondering

Reading a plethora of books on the topics of parenting, pregnancy, theology, marriage, sex, women's roles, emergent thought, anti-emergent thought and biblical interpretation (to name a few) has propelled me into a very conflicting place. On the one hand, I have never felt closer to God as I've been searching through "uncharted territory" (at least uncharted by me). I've realized what a gift the body of Christ is, how God uses His children to encourage and challenge each other with their own experiences and unique perspectives on faith. I've also been challenged by the works of those outside the Christian faith who present some thoughtful questions, concerns and critiques of the church. I've been thinking, rethinking, examining, deconstructing, embracing, rejecting, balancing and searching. Most of all, I've been appreciating the abundance of avenues through which God reveals Himself in part, finding truth in the oddest of places and people.

On the other hand, the more I see "Aslan" in the dark woods ahead, where others think He doesn't go, the more disconnected I feel from my former life. It was so much easier to uncritically accept the specific viewpoints spoon-fed to me, instead of wading through the myriad of viewpoints within the Christian faith and allowing for some gray. So stepping out and reinforcing some of my old beliefs, while revamping others and embracing some new/enhanced ones, feels difficult and vulnerable. I've had my feelings hurt quite a bit recently (mostly likely exasperated by the hormones from pregnancy), and encouraged my retreat into private searching and questioning. But my faith in Jesus and His transformative gospel has never been so alive, so I know it's been worth it and continues to be worth it, and I can only hope my old and new friends will stick by me in this journey. Which leads up to the next part of the past 5 months..........

Procrastinating

I never really intended to take a break from blogging. I sort of said to myself, "tomorrow, I'll get back on there..." When I last left off, I was juggling three jobs, a new roomie, a new pregnancy, morning sickness, and a sudden spurt of introverted-ness as discussed above. All of this led to procrastinating in regards to this blog. But I've really missed it and so I am putting an end to the procrastinating. I do plan to weave in the rest of the women's study in the midst of some other posts.

Mandatory Head Coverings?

2008-09-04T23:39:00.003-04:00

I have taken quite a long break from blogging. One reason is astounding busyness. The other reason has more to do with feeling reflective as of late: mulling, examining and processing instead of proclaiming and soap-boxing. :) Anyway, I'm back and returning to the subject of head coverings for women and hair length for men.

My last post on head coverings highlighted the varying customs among religions and cultures in the ancient world on the subject. Read here for a refresher.

Now that we know each culture (and subculture for that matter) had varying policies and motives when it came to head coverings, we can see how all these ideas collided in the church, once all kinds of people began converting to Christianity. Paul's letter to the Corinthians reveals quite a number of divisive disputes infecting the church there.

We must remember, as nearly all historical records confirm, that the early church was largely made up of women and slaves. Since most women married in all three cultures, we know that many Christian women were in "mixed" marriages with unbelievers. Since women could be divorced, beaten into submission, or ostracized from their families without legal recourse (especially in a Greek city, like Corinth), it was imperative to protect these women. This is what I believe is driving Paul's passage on head coverings. We find the same sort of concern from Peter who encourages wives to win over their husbands through a loving example, "without a word." To our modern ears, it sounds as if Peter thinks women should be seen and not heard, that they are not to usurp a man's place by vocalizing the gospel to men, even their own husbands. But the reality is that these women's lives were at stake. If they vocalized their faith to their unbelieving husbands, they would likely face abandonment, abuse, public humiliation, destitution, the taking away of their children and even death. Peter and Paul knew full well what the consequences of women preaching the gospel to their unbelieving husbands could bring. Veiling/unveiling could bring equally dire consequences to women, especially if they were married to unbelievers.

The fact of the precarious fate of women in the ancient world alone should signal to modern readers to proceed with caution before handing out head coverings for women and measuring the length of hair on men.

But as I pointed out before, Paul's arguments go BEYOND cultural factors, but that doesn't mean culture had nothing to do with it. So do not think I am dismissing this passage based on culture alone. I am just asking that readers admit that women of faith found themselves in a dangerous and complicated time that we spoiled American Christians can barely comprehend.

The next post will focus on the abundance of textual problems in 1 Corinthians 11:1-16: mainly translation options and and the inconsistent interpretations of this passage that are out of line with other scriptures.

A Quick Note

2008-08-18T22:28:00.003-04:00

I am still alive. The last couple of weeks have been very busy. I finished up my internship at the newspaper, but was asked to remain on part-time. I am starting a new tutoring gig three times a week (yay, catrina!), and possibly still keeping my restaurant job. On top of that, I've been helping my roomies (friend, Theresa, and her 18 month old daughter, Kayla) transition from NJ to GA and my sister is visiting this week from NJ as well. So, it's a full house with constant activity. Plus, I am leaving for NJ on Wednesday, so lots of preparation for the drive. Needless to say, I have zero computer time. But at night I have been reading through all my head covering research and mentally composing the next study. It'll be a little while before it makes it on to the blog. Anyway, I am alive and well, just extremely busy. I promise not to stay away too long. :)

Some History On Head Coverings

2008-08-07T15:35:00.013-04:00

"The veil was a sign of guilt and shame worn by the Jew in worship to signify condemnation before the law. But what has the Christian to do with such a sign when professing that, 'Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the law,' and 'There is therefore now no condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit,' (Romans 8:1). For such believers to wear a sign of condemnation is to nullify the worth of the atonement, and so dishonor Christ who released them from the condemnation of the law."--Katharine Bushnell

Before we can delve into the actual text of 1 Corinthians 11: 3-16, we must set the stage to get a feel for the context and unique situation Paul was dealing with when he composed his instructions to the Corinthian Church.

Corinth was a Greek City situated on the peninsula of Southern Greece and was part of the Roman Empire during the time Corinthians was written. Before 146 B.C., Corinth was known for its military might, commercial capabilities, and for its excessive worship of the love goddess, Aphrodite. The city erected a temple dedicated to her, staffed with up to a thousand temple-slaves and courtesans. Prostitution became so ubiquitous in Corinth that the phrase "to corinthianize" became slang for "practicing fornication." This went on until the Romans destroyed the city in 146 B.C. and its citizens were dragged off into slavery. In 44 B.C., the city was refounded by Julius Caesar and became a Roman colony. It regained prominence by 27 B.C., becoming the capital of of the Roman province, Achaia. This resurrection set the stage for Corinth to become a cultural melting-pot, where Roman, Greek, and Jewish cultures found themselves coexisting, conflicting, overlapping and sometimes, colliding.

Corinth became the wealthiest city in Greece during the first century A.D., with a possible population of 600,000. The city returned to its roots and reestablished the temple of Aphrodite during this time. The gods of Apollo, Asclepius, Poseidon, Hermes, Artermis, Zues, Dionysus Heracles and even Egyptian deities also found their way into Corinthian culture during this period.

In light of the myriad of religions and gods present in Corinth, it is not surprising to find a myriad of customs and practices that varied from time to time, place to place, and sect to sect. Not only were the customs themselves varied, but separate groups with shared customs still possessed different reasons for engaging in those customs. For instance, Jewish men covered their heads during worship to symbolize their guilt under the law, while certain Greek men covered their heads in accordance with the mystery cults that taught followers to cover their heads while engaging in religious sexual rites and ceremonies to preserve their anonymity. So certain Jews and certain Greeks both covered their heads, but for very different reasons.

We must remember that neither Greek nor Roman culture were monolithic cultures. Sub-cultures and diverse sects formed within each culture and had both over-lapping and conflicting customs. Most people think the Greek and Roman cultures were nearly interchangeable because the scripture lumps its people together as "gentiles", but each culture was VERY different and clashed over a number of religious, philosophical and legal matters.

Although Jewish culture is considered to be a monolithic culture for the most part, we must remember that there were still different offshoots and interpretations of Judaism (Pharisees, Sadducees, Essenes, etc.), who also argued over all sorts of customs.

We know that within specific Greek cults, women DID NOT always cover their heads during religious ceremonies. But whether these cults' uncovered women characterizes Greek culture as a whole cannot be determined. There is some evidence that only Greek married women wore head coverings (as an external symbol of marriage, sort of like our modern-day wedding ring) and single women went about with uncovered heads so they could more easily find a husband. Roman culture was much more consistent, with the vast majority of its people wearing head coverings (both men and women) during religious ceremonies, but not always in everyday public life. The type of head coverings were also diverse: colorful scarves, helmets, headbands, heavy woolen cloths, coverings that went down to the ground, partial ones that only hid the back of the head and hair, and so forth. But there is no doubt that head coverings were associated with piety in Roman culture.

Jewish men wore (and still do) head coverings, called talliths, as a symbol of guilt and shame before God. It was their way of showing that they were guilty under the law and their sin separated them from God. To this very day, the practice still stands in Jewish worship. Jewish women consistently covered their heads during this time, but throughout Jewish history there is evidence of women freely appearing without head coverings. But during this time, it would seem the majority of Jewish women absolutely kept their heads covered in worship services, in public, and even in their own homes, lest they face dire consequences (more on that later...)

Since Paul attempted to unify these THREE distinct cultures under the counter-cultural Christian faith, the cultural component to this passage cannot be underestimated when we study Paul's teaching on head coverings.

If we are honest about the cultural dynamics prevalent in Corinth at the time of Paul's letter, we must abandon the tendency of adhering to our own pet generalizations about the comprehensive "policy" of head coverings (who wears them and why) in the ancient world. It is simply futile. The Roman Empire fostered a pluralistic society with great variances in social and religious customs in any given city. Corinth was no exception. This complex, non-comprehensive reality makes understanding the head covering passage more difficult, but it should humble each"side," since NOBODY has an air-tight, irrefutable interpretation. We should come reason together, weigh all the evidence, seek the Spirit's guidance and be convinced in our own minds of this passage's intent. If we find that we differ in our understanding, we should show respect, while keeping each other intellectually honest.

In the next post, I will delve into some alternate interpretations of this passage. I'm curious as to which interpretations readers hold to as of now. I'm only aware of a few readers that actually enforce the head coverings passage at "face-value." What is every one's current personal understanding of this passage or what has it been in the past?

What's the Deal with Head Coverings and Hair Length?

2008-08-05T11:16:00.006-04:00

"But to this day whenever Moses is read, a veil lies over their hearts, but whenever a person turns to the Lord, the veil is taken away. Now the Lord is the Spirit, and where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty. But we all, with unveiled faces, beholding as in a mirror the glory of the Lord, are being transformed into the same image from glory to glory, just as from the Lord, the Spirit."--Paul, 2 Corinthians 3:15-19.

"I pray you, be you mother, or sister, or virgin, or daughter...veil your head. All ages are imperilled in your person. Wear a rampart for your sex, which must neither allow your eyes egress, or ingress to other people. Arabia's female heathen shall be your judges, who cover not only the head, but the face also, so entirely that they are content to leave one eye free to enjoy half the light than to prostitute the entire face..."--Tertullian, 3rd century theologian.

So what is the deal with head coverings? From a "biblical perspective," should women be wearing them? Should men not? Should women only wear their hair long and men only have short hair? These are questions, we as believers, must ask ourselves while studying 1 Corinthians 11:4-16.

1 Corinthians 11:4-16 is ranked as one of the most difficult passages in the bible to understand, not because it's admonishment is "unfavorable," but because the meaning of certain words/phrases within the original text can not be adequately defined and the context is obscure. Anyone who claims to KNOW 100 percent how this verse should be understood is lying to you. It is one of the most disputed passages in the entire bible with a myriad of interpretive possibilities.

But I will try to present the positions that I think make the most sense and are most conducive with my understanding of scripture, as I am sure my "opponents" will argue for the interpretations that fit best with their understanding of the scriptures. Since this text is difficult, with a variety of valid interpretive options, it is important to note that these verses should not be used as a foundation for one's viewpoint on the role of women in the church, but only as an enhancement for either position, depending on how one becomes convinced of its meaning.

Most moderate-complementarians ironically view this passage as one of the few "cultural" admonishments recorded in scripture that is no longer relevant for today. However, because of the way English versions are translated, the text does not allow for such an understanding. The face value reading asserts that women should wear head coverings (and men should not). None of the reason given for this are cultural at all, nor do they have anything to do with "offending" others. Paul argues for women covering their heads/having long hair and men uncovering their heads/having short hair because (1) man is woman's "head," (which complementarians interpret as leader or authority figure), (2) man is the "image of God," while woman is "the glory of man" and was created for "the sake of man" (3) FOR the above reasons, the woman needs to wear a symbol of subjection on her head while in church, (4) because of the angels, (5) nature itself (not culture) teaches it is a shame for men to have long hair (inferring that nature also teaches woman should have long hair and/or wear head coverings); and (6) whatever Paul is trying to say here, he maintains that the Church (as a whole) has no other practice/custom.

None of Paul's arguments here, as we know them in our bibles, are cultural. Complementarians (depending where one falls on that broad spectrum) still believe the husband/man is the head, the woman/wife is to be in subjection to man/husband, that angels still exist, and so forth. So, if all of those factors are still true and still apply, why is it that moderate-complementarians disregard the head covering/long hair mandate for women and uncovered/short hair for men?

So, whether one is complementarian or egalitarian, one must determine what exactly Paul is arguing for and why? Then we must determine if Paul's argument is a time-bound or universal teaching, and how to faithfully live it out today. If it is universal and all-time binding, what does that mean for how believing men and women dress and wear their hair today? If it is time-bound, why is Paul arguing for this practice then? The next few posts will explore some of the options.

Prayers in Unlikely Places

2008-08-01T22:10:00.005-04:00

"Take a walk with you Sister in the rain
Let Her talk about the things you can't explain
To touch is to heal
To hurt is to steal
If you want to kiss the sky
You better learn how to kneel,"--U2, Mysterious Ways.

I hate mornings. I should have been born an owl or something. But the past couple months of rising at 5:30 a.m.m monday through friday, to drive 55 miles to my newspaper internship does have its benefits. I've burned quite few songs and sermons on CD for the morning drives. All week I have been listening to a mix of U2 songs on the lonesome morning drive, playing one song in particular over and over again, entitled Yahweh. As I sang, I realized the lyrics comprise one of the most challenging and raw prayers I've ever heard and completely reflective of "where I am" at this point in my life. So, I thought I'd share:

Yahweh by U2

Take these shoes
Click clacking down some dead end street
Take these shoes
And make them fit

Take this shirt
Polyester white-trash, made in nowhere
Take this shirt
And make it clean, clean

Take this soul
Stranded in some skin and bones
Take this soul
And make it sing

Yahweh, Yahweh
Always pain before a child is born
Yahweh, Yahweh
Still I'm waiting for the dawn

Take these arms
Teach them what to carry
Take these hands
Don't make a fist

Take this mouth
So quick to criticize
Take this mouth
Give it a kiss

Yahweh, Yahweh
Always pain before a child is born
Yahweh, Yahweh
Still I'm waiting for the dawn

Still waiting for the dawn, the sun is coming up
The sun is coming up on the ocean
This love is like a drop in the ocean
This love is like a drop in the ocean

Yahweh, Yahweh
Always pain before a child is born
Yahweh, tell me now
Why the dark before the dawn?

Take this city
A city should be shining on a hill
Take this city
If it be your will

What no man can own,
What no man can take
Take this heart
Take this heart
And make it break

And another fav. compilation, just because.

Are We Captives of Babylon?

2008-07-23T14:41:00.008-04:00

"I see this same dynamic at play in the church today. So many Christians (both liberal and conservative) are disgusted to be in “exile” amidst the sinful, secular, bastions of empire. They curse the culture, they curse the government, and metaphorically hang up their harps and withdraw from the system. Since the system is evil, they choose to wash their hands of it and refuse to get involved."--Julie Clawson

Julie Clawson, over at Onehandclapping, put together this insightful post about the Jews during the Babylonian captivity and how their situation and attitude unfortunately reflects the Church's today.

Psalm 137 records the prayer/cry of the Jews for revenge against "God's enemies" after being taken into captivity. This is the same psalm that celebrates the enemies' infants being smashed against rocks:

O Daughter of Babylon, doomed to destruction, happy is he who repays you for what you have done to us- he who seizes your infants and dashes them against the rocks.
-Psalm 137:8-9

For the life of me, I could not figure out how God could "endorse" this kind of prayer that advocates murdering innocent children. This is where discernment between descriptive truth and prescriptive truth comes in handy. Head over to Julie's blog to find out why this passage is descriptive of the Jews state of heart and mind and not a prescriptive truth from God on what the right state of heart should be.

Phoebe: A Deacon of The Early Church

2008-07-16T15:34:00.011-04:00

"What was Phoebe's work? Was it material or spiritual? Was her chief duty to 'mend men's socks,' as one fellow put it? Was that the way she served, or deaconed the Church? The phrase "whatsoever business" (affairs) implies that she rendered a variety of service. It is not at all reasonable to suppose that the Holy Spirit would make such prominent and important mention of Phoebe if she did nothing more than mend socks for "many and for Paul." Can anyone honestly dodge the fact that she was an official?"--A. S. Copley

Phoebe is an intriguing character briefly mentioned at the end of Romans. Paul, who had not yet been to Rome, sends Phoebe to deliver his letter, what we now know as the book of Romans. Think, Phoebe was entrusted with the original scripture to carry over 800 miles, by boat, to the Romans. Letter carriers also were given verbal instructions to explain parts of the letter as they read it out loud to the recipients.

"I commend to you Phoebe our sister, who is a servant of the church in Cenchrea, that you may receive her in the Lord in a manner worthy of the saints, and assist her in whatever business she has need of you; for indeed she has been a helper of many and of myself also."--Paul, Romans 16:1-2:

There are three key Greek words used to describe Phoebe, adelphe, "sister;" diakonos, "deacon/minister/servant;" and prostatis, "patroness/protector."

English versions tend to translate these words found in this verse with technical accuracy, but fail to achieve contextual and consistent accuracy. If Phoebe was a man the words "diakonos" and "prostatis" would be translated as deacon/minister and leader/protector. But because Phoebe is a woman, translators opted for "servant" and "helper." The word helper is especially misleading. In English, "helper" connotates the weaker, less qualified aid that comes under a superior, more qualified leader and carries out their bidding or tends to their menial business to free the superior one to tend to more important matters. However, a helper in Hebrew and Greek was considered to be one of superior strength and status with superior resources, who was in a position to rescue or lift others out of dire situations. In fact, the word helper in Hebrew, ezer, is attributed to God 17 times in the Old Testament and a handful of times to the Holy Spirit in the New Testament. One who helps was seen as the stronger, not the weaker. The word prostatis literally means "a woman set over or put in front of others" and should be translated as protector or benefactor. Paul asks that the church (men and women) to come along side her and provide assistance with her affairs.

Paul is abundantly clear that Phoebe was a prominent leader in the church of Cenchrea because she helped him and many others. Prostatis is the feminine form of the Latin patronus, which means "one who is the legal representative of the foreigner." In Jewish communities it meant
the legal representative or wealthy patron. Phoebe somehow was the legal protector of the Christians at Cenchrea. In the Old Testament this noun is used of officials in charge of the work of the King (1 Chron 29:6) and of chief officers “who ruled over the people” (2 Chron 8:10). In its verb form the word means “to be at the head of, to rule, to direct” and it is used of those who “rule” in the church (Romans 12:8, 1 Thess 5:12, 1 Tim 5:17).

Translators also the conveniently choose the word "servant" for diakonos instead of minister or deacon, but this is an inconsistent interpretative-choice based on the biased theological supposition that asserts a woman could not be an "official" deacon/minister, so Paul must have meant that Phoebe was an everyday servant with no leadership role in the church whatsoever. However, this is not how Paul used the word diakonos in his letters, nor does it fit the immediate context of his introduction of her. Paul, who had not yet been to Rome, vouches for Phoebe to verify her leadership role in the church, so the people will cooperate with her and join in on the mission she was on. Why would Paul entrust a "table waiter" to be his representative 800 miles away to a church he had never been to and give her the sole responsibility of delivering and explaining what would become scripture and ask the church in Rome to assist her in whatever work she was there to do? This is obviously missionary language and an official recommendation for Phoebe.

Paul consistently used diakonos to describe an official leadership position and tied it with the ministry of the word, evangelism, missionary work, preaching and teaching the gospel to others with authority from God to do so.

Paul applies diakonos to Phoebe in the same way he applies it to himself and to other colleagues in his ministry who preached, taught, and lead. He described her as a (or even the) deacon of the church in Cenchrea.

Consider these scriptures:

Col. 1:23-25: "...Of this church I was made a minister (diakonos) to the stewardship from God bestowed on me for your benefit, that I might fully carry out the preaching of the word of God..."

1 Cor. 3:5: "What then is Apollos? And what is Paul? Servants (diakonos) through whom you believed, even as the Lord gave opportunity to each one."

Ephesians 3:7: "Whereof I was made a minister (diakonos), according to the gift of the grace of God given unto me by the effectual working of his power."

2 Corinthians 3:6: "Who also hath made us able ministers (diakonos) of the new testament; not of the letter, but of the spirit: for the letter killeth, but the spirit giveth life."

1 Thessalonions 3:2: "And sent Timotheus, our brother, and minister (diakonos) of God, and our fellowlabourer in the gospel of Christ, to establish you, and to comfort you concerning your faith..."

Ephesians 6:21: "But that ye also may know my affairs, and how I do, Tychicus, a beloved brother and faithful minister (diakonos) in the Lord, shall make known to you all things.."

Also see: 2 Corinthians 6:4, 2 Corinthians 11:15, 2 Corinthians 11:23, Phillipians 1:1,1 Timothy 3:8, 1 Timothy 3:12, and 1 Timothy 4:6.

Paul consistently ties being a "deacon/minister/servant" with preaching the word, teaching the word, nourishing others with the word, holding onto good doctrine, and being a vessel through which others come to Jesus. So are we to think that because Paul addresses a woman with this title that all of a sudden the word diakonon means something other than it's official usage in the early church? That these women remained silent and only waited tables? (nothing wrong with waiting tables and doing domestic chores, Christ washed his disciples feet. The point is that doing those acts does not preclude one from teaching, preaching or using whatever spiritual gift they have been endowed with in the midst of the entire church body.)

Paul's form even denotes that Phoebe is an official deacon/minister in the church of Cenchrea. He calls her diakonon in its masculine form. If he wanted the Christians in Rome to believe she was some sort of waitress, he would have called her a doulos or used the feminine form for "servant," but no, he uses the masculine, official term consistently used throughout the new testament to describe a specific leadership role within the church.

Advocates for women priests concur:

"Are we to change the meaning of the exact same words just because they are applied to a woman? When a man is called a deacon, it means he was a leader in the church, could be as prominent as Stephen, but a woman is called a deacon, it means she nothing but a letter carrier with no leadership authority to guide others in the church into a closer walk with Christ. The early Greek Fathers certainly understood Phoebe to have been an ordained minister. Clement of Alexandria (150 - 215) speaks of the ‘women deacons’ (diakonoi gunaikes) whom ‘the noble Paul mentions in his letters’. Origen (185 - 255) states: ‘This text (Romans 16,1-2) teaches with the authority of the Apostle that also women are instituted as deacons in the Church’. And may we omit the testimony of Pliny the Younger, Roman governor of Bithynia (112 AD), who reports that he arrested a group of Christians whose two female leaders bore the title of ministrae (Latin for diakonoi)?"---from womenpriests.org

How the role of deacon got separated from preaching, teaching, and leading is the product of church tradition, not biblical precedent. Paul regularly ties the role of "diakonon" to teaching the gospel to others.

I thought the writer of this website explained the evolution of diakonon well:

Yes, "diakonos" can mean servant, but in Pauline ecclesiological usage "servant" takes on the nuances inherent in "Servant of the Lord" language from the OT, especially in regard to Moses. While non-ecclesiological usage could refer to someone who does menial task, anyone who is referred to as a diakonos in ministry takes on a high status. In fact, according to context, diakonos is often translated as "minister".Moreover, the fact that Phoebe is listed as a diakonos "of the church Cenchrea," makes likely the diakonos is an official position. This is all the more obvious when we take into account that Paul is giving formal introduction to her to the Roman churches. Such formal introductions were commonly given in letters of referral, which this epistle contains for her. In such letters, the referrer would normally emphasize the referee's official capacity.--from Treasures Old and New Biblical Texts.

Dianne McDonnell elaborates about the evolved meaning of diakonos and Phoebe's legacy in this article: Phoebe: Traveling Through Time.

What About Women Elders and Deacons? Part 2

2008-07-04T13:45:00.005-04:00

Elders and deacons in the early church were people who already served the church in a certain capacity according to gifting and were then recognized for it. They also were not limited to these roles or labels. For example, Stephan is considered to be the first deacon, but we know that while he aided the elders and served many, he also preached the gospel publicly and performed signs and wonders with authority.

"And Stephen, full of grace and power, did great wonders and signs among the people" (Acts 6:8)... "they could not withstand the wisdom and the Spirit with which he spoke..." (Acts 6:10).

So just because one serves others, does not preclude them from leading, preaching, or teaching. One can both be a "foot washer" and a bold leader in the church. That is the beautiful counter-cultural, counter-worldly possibilities of the redemptive gospel, where authority and service is shared and determined by giftings, not "status" or the amount of power you can exercise over another. We submit ourselves to others, cooperating with each other, and all ultimately [should] submit to Christ.

"Requirements" for Elders and Deacons.

Paul leaves Timothy on in Ephesus and Titus on in Crete to appoint elders and deacons and to combat widespread false teachings. Paul wants capable believers to fulfill these roles. Desired attributes for elders and deacons are found in 1 Timothy 3 and Titus 1.

The words for "elder/bishop" is presbyter/epikosmos and are masculine, as is the word diakonon, the word for deacon. Before "elder" became a leadership role in the church, it literally meant, "the aged" or "the elderly." However, the ministry of elders did not require a candidate to be literally old, but older or more mature in the faith. This is how the term elder was coined. Similarly, diakonon is masculine and literally means "servant" or "minister." This was a fitting title for this specific leadership role within the church because of Christ's admonishment found in Matthew 20:25-28:

But Jesus called them to Himself and said, “You know that the rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them, and those who are great exercise authority over them. Yet it shall not be so among you; but whoever desires to become great among you, let him be your servant. And whoever desires to be first among you, let him be your slave— just as the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give His life a ransom for many.”

It should be noted that diakonon became an "official" word among Christians referring to a specific ministry/leadership role within the church and not just anyone who serves others, for ALL christians are called to become servants. But the mark of leadership in the Church should be through SERVICE to others, not the ability to control others and give orders.

presbyter and diakonon, while masculine in nature, are used in the early church, much how ekklesia and adelphos are used. Ekklesia, a feminine noun, means church or more literally, "the called out ones." Even though this word is feminine, we know that when ekklesia is used in scripture it includes men, too. Adelphos, masculine, is translated as brethren, and was also used to include both women and men when speaking of believers. We will see in the another post that Phoebe was called a diakonon, in it's masculine form, even though she is clearly a woman.

Presbytera, the feminine of presbyter, appears in 1 Tim. 5:2, while the masculine form occurs in the preceding verse (5:1). If 1 Tim. 5:1 refers to an elder who is to be entreated as a father (as indicated in older versions), then verse 2 refers to a woman elder who is to be entreated as a mother.

This next commentary I found through a commenter of CBE.

In 1st Timothy Chapter 3 and 5:17-19, Paul outlined in detail the office of the presbyter (elder). "After completing his list of qualifications for bishops and deacons (I Tim 3:1-10), he continued by including the women when he said, "qunaikas hosautos" or "women likewise." Hosautos links the entire list of qualifications into one single theme. It links the deacons with the bishops in verse 8 and then links them to women in verse 11. The usual translation for presbyter (elder) is "older men" and "older women" but the Greek word is the same one used for elders everywhere. If consistency is to be maintained, then "presbutero" and "presbuteras" should be translated as men presbyters and women presbyters. A more nearly correct translation would be, "Do no sharply rebuke a male presbyter, but appeal to him as a father, to the young men as brothers, women presbyters as mothers, and the younger women as sisters, in all purity."

Catherine Kroeger, a bible scholar, speaks about the existence of female elders in the early church"

"Titus (2:3-5) also gives a list for those who hold the title of presbytis, the  feminine word that
corresponds to the masculine presbytes. In some versions presbytes is translated elder,
while the feminine term in the next verse is rendered "old woman." Though often translated
as "old woman," presbytis was used in early Christian literature to denote female presbyters
(Lampe, Patristic Greek Lexicon lc 2B). There is a qualification list for these women: reverent
in life style, not slanderers or addicted  to much wine. They must be  hieroprepeis (worthy of
the priesthood), again an indication of fitness for a special office.They were also to be
"teachers of good things.""

While Paul admonishes older women to teach younger women, he does not limit their teaching.
In a world where the sexes were segregated in nearly all aspects of life, even in the home
(separate entrances and rooms for each sex), naturally women would be teaching women more
than they would men. But this is not because women teaching men is inherently wrong, but it
was just not practical in this culture. However, women could easily gain entrance to certain
sectors of society and bring the gospel to places that men could not always, such as leper colonies
and other places where the poor and sick were kept, including men.


Paul also instructs older men to teach younger men, but we would never conclude that this limits
older men from teaching the entire congregation when they gather. It is common sense that
older men would be natural mentors to younger men and older women would be mentors to
younger women. This, however, does not mean they have nothing to offer the opposite sex when
teaching the Gospel or using their gifts in midst of the entire body.

Also, every other passage dealing with presbyteros in the pastorals is taken to refer to
officeholders, including two passages in this same chapter of 1 Timothy (5:17, 19).  

The main reason cited for excluding women from serving as deacons and elders is the phrase
mias gunaikos andra translated in most English versions as "husband of one wife," which is
viewed as a requirement for eldership and deaconship. Since women cannot be the "husband of
one wife," it is assumed that only men are permitted to perform these roles within the church.

People who use the "husband of one wife," clause to exclude women from this role, must also then use it to exclude single men, remarried men, widowers, and men without children or men with only one child or still young children. These admonishments from Paul are not so much qualifications are they are disqualifications for people certain scenarios, i.e., men with multiple wives, rebellious children, and so forth, not that they have to HAVE a wife and children, but IF they do, this is what is acceptable. "The husband of one wife," clause seems not to be a qualification, but a disqualification for polygamist men.

The options of "husband of one wife"--

A man must be presently married to one wife, in other words, he cannot be a polygamist, Polygamy was common among MEN in Roman, Greek and even Jewish culture. It is the only gender-related "requirement," and since men were the only ones allowed to have more than one spouse, it is natural that Paul would only direct it to the man. The rest of the qualifications are all in gender-neutral language in the original Greek with words like tisi, which means person or one. Although most English translations use the the pronoun "he," the original greek uses the word "one."

We know polygamy existed in the culture. When people were converted it was from that culture, and the problems of the culture were promptly imported to the church.

If one maintains that a man MUST be married in order to serve as an elder in the church, this is problematic for a few reasons. One Paul, who was notoriously single, would be excluding himself from this office, even though he refers to himself as an elder in Philemon 1:9. Where Paul applies it to himself ("I Paul, the elder"). Many English versions simply translate this verse as "I Paul, the aged" or " an old man," but the word in the Greek is presbyters, the word Paul regularly uses to describe a leadership role in the church. In the context of this verse, he is appealing to the church to heed his words because he is an elder, not just because he is literally old. Plus, Paul views singleness as an asset to ministry, not a hindrance. In 1 Corinthians 7, Paul wrote that he wished everyone could be like himself, celibate and single, so they could serve the Lord without distraction or divided interests. Would Paul wish everyone to be this way and yet forbid the ones who were single from filling such a key leadership role?

Catherine Kroeger also believes the husband of one wife clause was meant specifically to disqualify polygamous men from serving in this capacity.

"The direction that a male elder have only one wife appears to serve as a specific disqualification for those with multiple wives. It is not necessary, however, for an elder to be married at all. Indeed, the Apostle Paul maintained that his singleness gave him far greater freedom to further the cause of Christ (1 Cor 7:32-35)."

The next posts will look at women deacons and elders throughout church history and Phoebe, who Paul calls a deacon. Forgive me for the length, but it's been quite a while since I've posted anything of substance. :)

I'm Not Dead

2008-06-30T11:54:00.004-04:00

I just wanted to check in while I have a second. It's been so long since I last posted. I have like 8 or 9 fragmented, unfinished posts and another 20 floating around in my head. However, since I started my reporter internship (which I love BTW), I have had zero time to really work on any of them. I work six days a week, long hours, and all my free time has been spent with the hubby and the Finnabagos (you know who you are!).

This weekend my hubby and I celebrated our 7th wedding anniversary and his birthday. He's 31! Yikes! In another couple of years I'll have to trade him in for a newer model. :) Will 2.0 or something.

But I am just so proud of us for making it this far. We had a rough year last year:

But we persevered and really worked it out, not just swept it under the carpet or fixed the superficial symptoms of deeper issues. We went right down to the root. Now, we are in a better place than we have ever been. Seven years is a major milestone to me, so I just want to say that even though I got married very young and made A LOT of mistakes along the way, I would not trade one minute of it for the entire world. My husband is my life, my other half, and I've been so fortunate to spend my life with him. OK, that's as sentimental as I am going to get on blogworld. :)

I will try to update this blog more often. Once my internship ends July 25, things should be back on track!

What About Women Deacons and Elders?

2008-06-13T13:41:00.007-04:00

Complementarians differ on the issue of women deacons. Moderates say yes (like the church I attend) and others say no because any position that "elevates" a woman above the "lay people," which undoubtedly includes MEN, would give the impression that certain women exercise an authority in the church that certain men do not/cannot exercise, therefore women cannot be deacons because it would directly or indirectly put them in "authority" over some men. Pretty much all churches of the complementarian-persuasion are united in the belief that women cannot be elders/bishops/overseers. Note: all three terms are used interchangeably within the New Testament, and both complementarians and egalitarians agree that elder/bishop/overseer is the same leadership role.

I personally find it hard to believe that if a woman like Junia could be considered an apostle (not one of the 12 obviously, but one of the later apostles that witnessed Christ's ascension...) and apostles were the ones who were traveling missionaries, who planted churches, and appointed elders and deacons, that women would be denied the opportunity to serve as an elder or deacon. Plus, with the numerous legitimate female prophets recorded in both testaments, it's a bizarre notion that women would be prohibited from being a deacon or elder, two positions that were "under" apostles and prophets. The way we "modern" Christians "DO" church is quite different from the first century. The "office" of apostle and prophet are pretty much obsolete now. But in the first century church, apostles and prophets were at the top of the food chain (if one must be concerned with hierarchy.)

"And God has appointed in the church, first apostles, second prophets, third teachers, then miracles, then gifts of healings, helps, administrations, various kinds of tongues."--1 Corinthians 12:28

So, Paul considers apostles and prophets to be the most "authoritative" figures, although the whole purpose for any of these positions is sacrificial service and empowering others through the gifts of Holy Spirit to take part in what God is doing, not to have power over others. TEACHERS come next, which modern day pastors have become in the church, and so forth. Even if one denies that Junia was an apostle, one can hardly deny the abundance of legitimate female prophets in both testaments. Prophecy is not limited to predicting the future or receiving a new word from God. Prophecy can also come in the form of wisdom (which can be a teaching), knowledge, encouragement, and a reminder to God's people of their obligations to God and each other. Both prophets in the Old and New Testament did this. Prophetic voice s challenged the status quo to return people's hearts to God. A prophet's role is very similar to the role pastor. Prophecy takes on new dimensions in the New Testament age and goes beyond speaking "thus saith the Lord," although I cannot think of a MORE authoritative task. Prophecy can also be instruction for the building up of the entire body, given so all "may learn," "be encouraged," and just like teaching, it should be evaluated. Just because one prophesies or teaches does not make them unquestionable or above error. Hearers are always suppose to evaluate prophecy and teaching for themselves. Prophecy and teaching are GIFTS, not originally "offices," and definitely not a way to control or dominate people. That is why it is beyond me that some churches forbid women from expounding upon the scriptures in front of her church body, if she is capable. Can we not evaluate what a woman teaches as we do, or as we should do, when men teach? Doesn't true authority lie with Christ and His truth, not with the vessel that proclaims it?

So, in the next post we will look at the "requirements" for elders and deacons, the original language, various interpretations, and church history.

I'm curious as to what opinion readers of this blog hold to and if they align with their own church bodies. Do you think women can be elders and deacons, or neither, or women can be deacons, but not elders?

Where's A Good Samaritan When You Need One?

2008-06-06T11:16:00.004-04:00

"And because lawlessness abounds, the love of many will grow cold."--Jesus, Matt 24:12

Well, Jesus was right. The hearts of many have grown cold.

Just look and see. I couldn't believe this.

The Case For Junia, The Lost Apostle

2008-05-29T13:13:00.018-04:00

"Greet Andronicus and Junia(s), my kinsmen and my fellow prisoners, who are outstanding among the apostles, who also were in Christ before me."--Paul, Romans 16:7

The story of Junia is a sad one. Beginning in the 13th century, her memory was not only diluted, but the fact that she was an "outstanding" female apostle was hidden by medieval copyists who changed her name to the more male-sounding "Junias." Since the truth has been recovered that Junia was clearly a woman, modern-complementarian translators and scholars now try to strip Junia of the title "apostle," by concluding that she was merely known by the apostles or favored by the apostles, but could never have been deemed an apostle herself. This is a NEW interpretation. The fact that Paul was commending two apostles was never debated, only whether Junia was female or male, and even that debate did not start until the 13th century. The historical reading of this verse has always been that Junia was both a woman and an apostle. It's important to note that the early church fathers who conceded to these facts were by no stretch of the imagination "egalitarians." Many held degrading beliefs about women and their "divinely designated" position in life. But even they could not deny that Paul deemed this woman Junia to be an apostle, and an outstanding one at that.

Two Complementarian Views

1. Junia was really a man

The more hardcore-complementarians still refuse to admit that Junia(s) is a woman, even though for the first 1300 years of church history, ALL commentators of Romans 16:7 believed Junia to be a female AND the male name "Junias" did not even exist during Paul's era. On the other hand, the Latin/Roman-female-name "Junia" is found in ancient literature of Paul's time and found nearly 250 times in ancient Roman inscriptions.

The first person to expound on Romans 16:7 was the early church father, Origen of Alexandria (185-253), who understood the name Junia to be feminine. Other prominent church fathers and theologians recognized "Junia" as a woman: Jerome (340), who translated the Latin Vulgate; Hatto of Vercelli (924-961), a bishop and Greek scholar; Theophylact (1050-1108), and Peter Abelard (1079-1142), a French theologian and philosopher. Not a single commentator on the text until Aegidius of Rome (1245-1316) assumed the name to be masculine. Aegidius offered no textual or historical evidence to support his belief that Junia was a man. He simply made the passing comment about how "these two men" must have been honorable.

John Chrysostom, church father from the 4th century, made it crystal clear that Junia was both a woman and an apostle:

"To be an apostle is something great. But to be outstanding among the apostles—just think what a wonderful song of praise that is...how great the wisdom of this woman must have been that she was even deemed worthy of the title of apostle."

Even though the historical and textual evidence is overwhelmingly in favor of rendering "Junia" as a feminine name, complementarians like John Piper and Wayne Grudem cling to the writings of the notoriously disturbed church father, Epiphanius, to "prove" that Junia could have been a man. Epiphanius (315-403) wrote the "Index of Disciples," in which he lists Junia as one "of whom Paul makes mention [and] became bishop of Apameia of Syria." Since Epiphanuis wrote the phrase "of whom" as a masculine relative pronoun, Piper and Grudem conclude that Epiphanius believed Junia to be a man. Regardless of what Epiphanius believed about the gender of Junia, it should be noted that he also believed Priscilla was a man! He once wrote that "the female sex is easily seduced, weak and without much understanding. The Devil seeks to vomit out this disorder through women... We wish to apply masculine reasoning and destroy the folly of these women."

Needless to say, Epiphanius is hardly a credible source. His own writings prove he succumbed to the worst brand of degrading patriarchy. He so despised women that he sought to edit influential ones right out of the scriptures.

New Testament scholar Bernadette Brooten comments on the fictitious male-name Junias:

"To date not a single Latin or Greek inscription, not a single reference in ancient literature has been cited by any of the proponents of the Junias hypothesis. My own search for an attestation has also proved fruitless. This means that we do not have a single shred of evidence that the name Junias ever existed. The feminine Junia, by contrast, is a common name in both Greek and Latin inscriptions and literature. In short, literally all of the philological evidence points to the feminine Junia."

It's important to note that not only is the male name "Junias" nonexistent within the New Testament manuscripts, but it does NOT appear even once in ANY ancient manuscripts, sacred or secular.

The feminine name Junia, however, is found in ancient Greek literature AND appears nearly 250 times in ancient Roman inscriptions.

Bible Scholar Richard Bauckman links the Latin/Roman name Junia to the Greek name Joanna. This would explain the title of apostle. In "Women in the Heart of God" by writers from Christian Thinktank, Bauckman's theory is elaborated upon:

Recent argumentation by Bauckham makes a strong case that not only is this word-noun-name feminine, but also that it is the Latin-ized version of Joanna (one of Jesus' traveling companions/disciples—cf Luke 8.3 and 24.10)! Joanna was the wife of Herod's steward, and would have had a Latin/Roman name for purposes of administration. This identification would make the most sense of the name, her relation to Rome, her being 'in Christ' before Paul, and of her apostolic status (as a witness of Jesus' deeds and resurrection—Acts 1).

2. Junia was merely known by the apostles

This interpretation asserts that Junia was most likely a woman, but was simply well known to the apostles or highly favored by the apostles, but was not an apostle herself. However, if this was the correct and most natural understanding of Romans 16:7, then copyists would not have stooped so low as to blatantly changing the text. This was a desperate and theologically-motivated alteration to change the gender of Junia without any textual or historical warrant. If the verse simply meant that a woman was well known by the apostles, there would have been no controversy, no deceptive tactics to mask Junia's gender in male trappings in the first place. No one on either side of the debate ever questioned whether Paul was deeming these two apostles, but only whether or not Junia was male or female. So, this new interpretation emerged as a last ditch effort in the face of indisputable evidence that Junia was, in fact, a woman. It aims to disprove the notion that a woman could ever be a rightful apostle.

A report from BBC on Adronicus and Junia pointed out:

"The most natural way to read the Greek phrase is that both were apostles; some modern interpreters have rejected this reading mainly because they presuppose that women could never fill this office."

The original Greek (nor the historical reading) does not support this complementarian interpretation. It's basically grammatical gymnastics employed to cast flimsy doubt upon the validity of a woman apostle.

The fact that Junia was imprisoned with Paul should tell us that this woman was a public figure who was considered a leader in the church. The whole point of Romans arresting and killing christians was to make an example of the boldest ones and most influential ones, so other christians would be deterred from following suit. Had this woman remained "silent" in the assemblies and never dared to preach/teach the gospel to men, it hardly makes sense as to why she would find herself behind bars. History bears witness to the fact that the large majority of christians captured, imprisoned, and martyred were public figures and leaders within the early church, men and women alike (more on that in an upcoming post).

Below are two excellent articles on Junia. Both examine the evolution of Junia's name from feminine to masculine and the original wording of this passage in the Greek. I highly recommend reading both articles to get a better grasp on the implications of the original language and the ugly reality of how Junia's gender was masked for nearly 8 centuries. These two articles take a more in depth look into the original language. They have done such an excellent job, that I feel no need to regurgitate their findings here. :)

Junia, A Woman Apostle By Dianne D. McDonnell
Junia, The Female Apostle: Resolving The Interpretive Issues of Romans 16:7 by Dennis J. Preato

The Liberal/Conservative Dichotomy

2008-05-22T19:09:00.006-04:00

Brian McLaren is quickly becoming one of my favorite authors. He has a way about him, a way of making complicated issues understandable without oversimplifying them. The complexity remains in tact, but you walk away feeling as if you actually understand it. He's passionate without being arrogant. He's thoughtful and unafraid to question the "staples" of Christendom. He recently made some remarks in an interview that I appreciated. I particularly loved his response to the reporter who tried to pin him into the "liberal" or "conservative" box (because don't you know those are our only two options?) The reporter asked if he was "a liberal" and McLaren answered:

"What do you mean by the term? If liberal means you believe ... you should help the poor, and your bias should be toward peacemaking rather than war-making, then I'm a liberal. But if liberal means that government can solve all of our problems and that secularism is better than faith, and that it doesn't matter what you do in your personal life and that morality is up for grabs, then I'm not a liberal. And I could say the same thing about conservatives...When we present Jesus as a pro-war, anti-poor, anti-homosexual, anti-environment, pro-nuclear weapons authority figure draped in an American flag, I think we are making a travesty of the portrait of Jesus we find in the gospels."

And yet it makes people's head spin when they cannot classify someone into a clean-cut, clearly defined category. This is because if they cannot classify someone into some offensive, suspicious, or baggage -laden label, then it becomes much more difficult to automatically dismiss everything they have to say. People will actually have to process new or different arguments and logically and adequately refute them, or heaven forbid, concede to the fact that "others" might just have a valid perspectives.

Civilized Killing

2008-05-22T00:44:00.005-04:00

A poem I wrote last year is getting published in a small collection of poetry from The American Poet's Society. It's always an honor to get published. So, I thought I'd repost it. :)

Civilized Killing

Ancient Arrows
Former slayers in the wars of men
Now mounted on the walls of their dens

Useless arrows
Too impractical for the modern age
There are easier ways to pierce a flesh-bound cage

Savage Arrows
Too barbaric for the modern man
You lack the dignity of the bombs in our hands

Hang, shrouded in mystery
Teach us something of our history

You are a senior citizen of war
Knocking on death's door
Lingering on life support
To indulge our indignant thrill

Show us how far mankind has come
As we polish our efficient guns
Those brutal savages knew none
Of the civilized ways to kill

Hang, shrouded in mystery
Teach us something of our history

Back In The Saddle

2008-05-18T21:59:00.007-04:00

All of us who professionally use the mass media are the shapers of society. we can vulgarize that society. We can brutalize it. Or we can help lift it onto a higher level.--William Bernbach,

Well, I have been looking for a full-time job since school let out, with no luck. Out of the blue, my former editor from the Dawson Community News called and asked if I'd be interested in filling their summer internship position again this year! This is very exciting because not only is it a full-time, PAID internship, but I actually will get to do what I love, journalism. Last year was a priceless experience, and this year is shaping up to be even better. My editor said that I can pick up right where I left off, which was covering stories by myself, writing my own articles, and finding stories. There is no learning period this time around. I already know the people, the usual contacts (police, fire department, school officials, etc.), and the overall area. I get to jump right back into to covering crime, town events, feature stories, and fires and accidents (my least favorite things to do). Journalism appeals to me because I get to interact with all different kinds of people, I get to be "in the know," and I get to learn a different style of writing.

The only downside, to this otherwise awesome opportunity, is the drive. It is so friggin' far. Over an hour each way. So, for eight weeks, I will have to rise before the sun. Those of you who know me personally already know how I loathe mornings. But I adjusted fine last summer, I know I can do it again. I'll have to get some good books on CD to fill the long drive. Then I will be set.

Anyway, I am very psyched about being a reporter again!

Prince Caspian

2008-05-17T12:27:00.010-04:00

You come of the Lord Adam and Lady Eve. That is both honor enough to erect the head of the poorest beggar and shame enough to bow the shoulders the greatest emperor on earth. Be content.”--Aslan, In Prince Caspian, the book.

We saw Prince Caspain this weekend. I must say, I went into it with zero expectations. While I thoroughly enjoyed the first movie, The Lion, The Witch, and The Wardrobe, I quickly realized that movies NEVER live up to the books. So, this time around, I hardly thought about it and told myself it would be mediocre and just to appreciate the fact that this would the best visual experience of Narnia. I was pleasantly surprised. I thought this movie was MUCH better than the first one. I cried from start to finish, (as I did with the first one, because any moment that brings to life scenes from the books release all sorts of repressed emotions for me).

The four children return to Narnia, a year after their departure, under very different circumstances. It's 1300 years later in Narnia and a vicious human kingdom has come to power, while Narnians live in hiding. Peter is bitter and disillusioned from having grown into a man during his last trip to Narnia and then returning to his world as boy, to go from being treated as an adult king to an ordinary boy again. It's a hard pill to swallow. This development added a realism and deeper layer to his character. It also set the stage for the trials he would soon face in Narnia. A guarded-Susan distances herself from the Narnian experience, for fear of it ending like the last time. A softer Edmund shows wisdom, having learned his lesson from their last trip. And Lucy is still full of faith and hope.

There were a few scenes I wished the filmmakers hadn't tinkered with. There are such great lines in the original that did not need to be altered. They also cut some scenes I would liked to have seen. As usual, I wish Aslan was in it more. Prince Caspian's accent was annoying and there was some unnecessary "cheese" near the end. But overall, I LOVED it. It was rich with symbolism that spoke volumes. It captured the struggle between faith and doubt, peace and war, courage and revenge. I'm sure I'll see it again.

The Mistranslation of 1 Timothy 2:11-12

2008-05-09T13:12:00.024-04:00

"Let a woman learn in silence with all submission. And I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man, but to be in silence. For Adam was formed first, then Eve. And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived, fell into transgression."--Paul, 1 Timothy 2:11-12

Paul's letters are already difficult to interpret because they are like listening to one side of a telephone conversation, but faulty translations only further complicate our understanding of his words. There are a few key words that are conveniently mistranslated in 1 Timothy 2: 11-15.

Hesuchios/Hesuchia: Traditionalists normally translate this word as "silence" (at least in passages concerning women), but the word in all other places is translated as "peacefulness" "Peaceable" or "quietness." The word does not carry the meaning of literal silence or absence of speech, but of an atmosphere or presence in which learning should take place. Strong's Greek Dictionary defines hesuchios/hesuchias as "properly, keeping one's seat," "stillness" "undisturbed," "undisturbing," and "peaceable."

When Paul has absence of speech in mind, he uses the term "sigao." The same word is used just nine verses earlier and is translated as "peaceable," 1 Timothy 2:1-2. Hesuchios/hesuchia is translated as quiet/quietness in 1 Thess. 4:11, 2 Thess. 3:12, 1 Peter 3:4. None of these verses are about silence, as in the literal absence of speech, but a tranquil quietness or peaceable presence/environment. This fits the context much better than a literal silence, since Paul just rebuked the men in the congregation for praying while angry and quarreling. Obviously, this would NOT be the optimum environment for anyone to learn in. Thus, Paul tells Timothy to make sure the woman can learn in quietness or peacefulness, and not amid the chaos that was taking over church meetings.

Paul also instructs that women should learn in full submission. This is not a unique request asked only of women, but men are also suppose to learn in full submission to the gospel and sound teaching. The reason this command is directed toward women here is only because teaching women in the same way as men was still a revolutionary practice and still repulsive to many men, believers or not.

Now, onto the grand-daddy of mistranslations and controversy....

"...nor to have authority over [authentein] a man..."

Exousia is the normal word used for "authority," a carrying out of one's official duties. But this is not the word Paul uses here. He instead picks the word authentein and it is the ONLY time this word appears in the New Testament. Exousia, however, appears over 100 times. Other uses of authentein from the same time period show that this word does not simply mean legitimate or routine authority, but carries violent, sexual, and dominating meanings.

Authentein.

It cannot be stressed enough how unusual this word is, especially for Paul. Paul writes about authority quite a bit and he never uses authentein as a synonym for legitimate, godly authority. For most mentions of authority, he uses exousia. Louw and Nida's Lexicon lists 12 common ancient Greek words that are synonyms for routine or legitimate authority, exousia being the most common throughout the new testament. There are 47 words that are synonyms for legitimate "rule" or "governing." Yet Paul uses none of these words in 1 Timothy 2:11, he chooses the unusual authentein.

We do not find any evidence that authentein, in any of its forms, connotates a routine or legitimate authority until the late third to fourth centuries, far too removed from Paul's era to provide relevant meanings and contexts. And even once the word took on a less severe meaning in later centuries, THIS passage was ALWAYS been understood as Paul forbidding women to dominate a man, not simply exercise legitimate Christ-like authority. Consider these early translations:

Old Latin Version from the second - fourth century translates this verse as "I permit not a woman to teach, neither to dominate a man {neque dominari in viro}.

The Vulgate, from the second to fourth century, translates this verse as "I permit not a woman to teach, neither to domineer over a man {neque dominari in virum}.

"There is a basically unbroken tradition, stemming from the oldest version and running down to the twenty first century, that translates authentein as "to dominate" and not "to exercise authority over."-Linda Belleville

It is not until the 1500s that the verb authentein used in this verse changes from the drastically negatively-charged "to dominate/domineer" to a slightly water-downed phrase, "to usurp authority" (thanks, King James). Still different from exercising legitimate authority, but much less forceful than the violent and even sexual connotations of the original authentein. The King James version asserts that women are not to wrestle authority or seize it from men. No believer is permitted to usurp authority or act in self-interest over others. It is not until after World War II that authentein really gets the botched-translated: "to exercise/assume authority over." That's right, less than 80 years ago! So, the notion that women may never exercise godly authority within the body based on this verse is completely unbiblical, both logically and historically.

Exegetical Fallacies in Interpreting 1 Timothy 2:11–15
This is by far the best article I've read on 1 Timothy 2:11-12. Linda Belleville, a new testament professor, put together a thorough and compelling paper on 5 exegetical fallacies concerning 1 Timothy 2:11-12 : Contextual/historical, Lexical, Grammatical, Cultural, and Doctrinal. She provides a thorough survey of the early uses of authenteo, in all its forms. This is a MUST read to gain a proper understanding of the egalitarian position.

Catherine C. Kroeger also put together a brilliant survey of authentein (and all it's sister-nouns/adjectives) uses from before Paul up until the third and fourth centuries. I would particularly challenge Tonya and Catrina to read these articles in full before giving me CBMW rebuttals. :)

These combined articles find that early uses of authentein (in its noun, verb, and adjective forms) collectively mean "criminal mastermind," "a perpetrator," "one who slays with his own hand," "self-murder," "women who can command domestic and sexual services from their male concubines," "incestuous sex and murder," "religious sexual orgies," "to dominate," "to control," "to restrain," and "to domineer."

Hardly the meaning we find in modern translations of 1 Timothy 2:11.

One of the earliest meanings to authentein is the act of murder or the act of violence.

Wisdom of Solomon 12:6, an apocrypha book translated into ancient Greek, considered "scripture" by both Jews and Christians until the second century AD, uses a form of authentein.

"With their priests out of the midst of their idolatrous crew, and the parents, that killed with their own hands [authentas] souls destitute of help."

Ancient Greek grammarians and lexicographers define authentein as "to dominate," "to control, restrain, and domineer." It is also classified as a "vulgar" term, possibly because of it's sexual uses.

Other notable uses of the word include:

Josephus, the famous Jewish historian from Paul's own time, used the noun form, authenten, to describe the "author" of a poisonous drink. Diodorus of Sicily wrote about the "sponsors" (authentas) of daring plans and the "perpetrators" (authentas) of a crime. John Chrysostom, an early church father, used the same word, authentia to express “sexual license” or perverse sexual practices. Clement, another early church father, linked the word with women involved in sexual orgies.

Catherine Kroeger makes an excellent analysis of the implications of the original meaning of authentein:

"Chrysostom [the early church father] uses autheritia to denote "sexual license." If the word in this context refers to sexual behavior, it puts a quite different interpretation on the entire passage. For instance, if we were to translate the passage, 'I forbid a woman to teach or discuss higher algebra with a man,' we would understand the prohibition to be directed against instruction in mathematics. Suppose it read, 'I forbid a woman to teach or talk Japanese with a man.' Then we infer that the injunction applies to the teaching of language. 'I forbid a woman to teach or dangle a man from a high wire' would presuppose that the instructor was an aerialist. 'I forbid a woman to teach or engage in fertility practices with a man' would imply that the woman should not involve a man in the heretical kind of Christianity which taught licentious behavior as one of its doctrines. Such a female heretic did indeed 'teach to fornicate' in the Thyatiran church mentioned in Revelation 2:20 (cf. 2:14f.; Num. 25:3; 31:15f.).

Too often we underestimate the seriousness of this problem for the New Testament church. A passage in 2 Peter expresses concern not only for those drawn into this error but also for the illegitimate children which it produced:

'But Israel had false prophets as well as true; and you likewise will have false teachers among you. . . . Having eyes full of adultery, that cannot cease from sin; beguiling unstable souls, an heart they have exercised with covetous practices; cursed children which have forsaken the right way ... following the way of Balaam.... They utter big empty words, and make of sensual lusts and debauchery a bait to catch those who have barely begun to escape from their heathen environment (2:1,14f.,18).'"

Others have conducted in depth word studies on authentein with similar results...

Dr. David H. Scholer sites Leeland Edward Wilshire's exhaustive study of the word authentien.

"Wilshire is the first to use the Thesaurus Linguae Graecae (TLG) computer database, which contains virtually all three thousand ancient Greek authors from Homer to A.D. 600. The database showed that authentein and its cognates occurred about 330 times and over a large number of centuries almost exclusively meant “a perpetrator of a violent act, either murder or suicide.”

But there is no evidence from the first century that authentein means ordinary or legitimate authority. Nothing exists until the late third and fourth centuries to suggest other meanings, and even then, the verse in question still translates authentein as "dominating men" or "domineer over men."

Paul is not allowing a woman to teach others to dominate men, to teach the domination of men, nor to dominate a man themselves, but to be peaceable (heshucias). This verse has nothing to do at all with mature, trained christian women exercising their spiritual gifts and serving the body through teaching, preaching, or leading. These were women led astray by false teaching, whom Paul is correcting in these verses and who must start at the beginning with full submission to the gospel and sound teaching.

He ties in the creation story to draw a correlation between Eve being deceived by the voice of false teaching and these women. It is a reminder to the church of the devastating effects of false teaching and deception.

I know someone is going to say, "Well, if Paul is forbidding dominating others as opposed to holding mere authority and it's wrong for all believers to dominate each other, why does Paul only address this to women?" Consider that HERE IN THIS LETTER, Paul is correcting the ones exhibiting specific behaviors. Consider that Paul only tells the men to lift up holy hands in prayer without anger or disputing. Now, just because he only directs the men here in this verse, does that mean women shouldn't lift up holy hands? Does it mean women are free to be angry and constantly disputing in or out of church? Of course not. But the men in the body were the ones exhibiting this behavior, so Paul only addresses them, even though it's inappropriate for all believers to behave that way. Likewise, he only addresses the women about dominating and seizing authority through false teachings, possibly sexual ones, because they were the ones doing it in this instance.

Consider this reality of ancient Greek culture pointed out by Catherine Koeger:

"Virtually without exception, female teachers among the Greeks were courtesans, such as Aspasia, who numbered Socrates and Pericles among her students. Active in every major school of philosophy, these hetairai (high-class, intellectual prostitues) made it evident in the course of their lectures that they were available afterwards for a second occupation. But the Bible teaches that to seduce men in such a manner was indeed to lead them to slaughter and the halls of death (cf. Prov. 2:18; 5:5; 7:27; 9:18). The verb authentein is thus peculiarly apt to describe both the erotic and the murderous."

It becomes overwhelming clear from the the well-documented culture of Ephesus coupled with the original word meanings used in 1 Timothy 2:11-12, that this mandate is not a prohibition against all women teaching/preaching/leading in the church. It's simply absurd to keep gifted and qualified women from teaching the truth of the gospel, leading church bodies in the ways of Jesus, or simply contributing their gifts by vocally participating in the gatherings of the entire body because of a verse that was originally a disciplinary action against women at Ephesus. who were lead astray by false teaching.

Forbidding Women Teachers Or False Teachers?

2008-05-08T12:47:00.011-04:00

"In like manner also, that the women adorn themselves in modest apparel, with propriety and moderation, not with braided hair or gold or pearls or costly clothing, but, which is proper for women professing godliness, with good works. Let a woman learn in silence with all submission. And I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man, but to be in silence. For Adam was formed first, then Eve. And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived, fell into transgression. Nevertheless she will be saved in childbearing if they continue in faith, love, and holiness, with self-control." ~Paul, 1 Timothy 2:9-15

In the last post, I briefly relayed some of the difficulties of 1 Timothy 2:9-15. In this post I aim to place these verses within their cultural and situational context. Not only do these verses make much more sense viewed in this light, but they fit within the larger context of 1 Timothy and the rest of the Bible.

As shown in a previous post, the prevailing theme of 1 Timothy is standing against false teaching. But what were these false teachings? Even though we do not have Timothy's letters to Paul explaining the details of the situation at Ephesus, there is an ample amount of context clues, historical evidence, and other biblical records to reconstruct the basic scenario at Ephesus at the time of Paul's letter. Let's start with context clues:

In 1 Timothy 1:3-4, Paul tells Timothy to put a stop to certain "men" (the Greek word here is tisin and means "ones," not men. It's gender neutral) from teaching false doctrines and to rebuke them for devoting themselves to "myths" and "endless genealogies." In 1 Timothy 1:6-7, Paul describes those who have turned aside to fruitless discussions, "wanting to be teachers of the Law, even though they do not understand either what they are saying or the matters about which they make confident assertions." Paul then launches into a corrective teaching on the proper use and purpose of the law, sin, the mercy, grace, and forgiveness of the Lord, and takes great care to point out that God is King, eternal, invisible, and the only God. It is obvious Paul is countering the false teaching Timothy is battling in Ephesus by reiterating the true teaching of the gospel.

Ephesus was a decadent Asian city, whose focal point was the fertility goddess, Artemis. The Romans called her Diana. Artemis is said to be the twin of Apollo and the daughter of Zeus and Leto. The cult of Artemis was particularly alluring for women because Artemis was believed to protect her female worshippers during and after childbirth. Plus, women were viewed as superior to men, possessing secret divine knowledge. Men were drawn to this cult as well because sex was part of the worship rituals, where men would receive divine knowledge through engaging in sexual rituals with female priestesses.

We know from indisputable historical findings (such as ancient temple ruins, writings, and graves) and the biblical account in Act 19: 11-41, that the city of Ephesus was dedicated to the fertility goddess, Artemis. The passage in Acts reveals the exact brand of paganism running rampant in Ephesus, even causing confusion among believers. The teachings of this goddess-cult caused so much confusion and hostility among the assemblies and the city that violent riots broke out. People were fiercely passionate about The Lady of Ephesus and flew into a blind rage when Paul rejected her divinity. Artemis was the fertility goddess and protector of women (keep that in mind for later). The female-focused cult of Artemis taught female superiority and dominance based on their claim that women were descendants of mythological Amazon women. These women enslaved the men and forced them to build the city. In order to prove this myth, followers would create lengthy genealogies in attempt to prove they were true descendants of the goddess herself or the amazon women who supposedly founded the city. Could this be what Paul refers to in 1 Timothy 1:3-4?Artemis' temple was so stunning and brilliantly designed that it became one of the seven wonders of the world. So, this is no little unknown, undocumented cult with gaps so wide that it would be impossible to reconstruct the culture and setting of Ephesus at the time of Paul's letters.

Entering into the Ephesian cultural-mix is gnosticism. Gnostic teachings ran rampant during the first century, which were famous for infusing christian and pagan beliefs together to comprise one of the first heretical teachings to infiltrate the early church. As christian and pagan beliefs intermingled, Gnostics taught that Eve, contrary to the Genesis account, actually liberated the world by eating the fruit from the tree of knowledge of good and evil. They called Eve "the illuminator" because they believed she became enlightened when she ate the fruit and paved the way for others to become enlightened, too. They also taught that Eve was created FIRST and Adam received life from her. For the Gnostics, Eve became a salvation-figure.

Between the cult of the Artemis and the gnostics, it was widely believe that:

1. Eve was created first and received special knowledge when she ate the from the tree of knowledge.

2. Women prophetesses or mediators could share or pass on their "divine knowledge" through rituals mixing sex and worship.

3. The legend claimed that ancient amazon-warrior women, far superior to any man, founded the city of Ephesus and erected Artemis' temple. Therefore Ephesian women were these amazon-warriors' descendants and inherited their special knowledge and superiority.

4. Artemis' name means "safe." Allegiance to her meant she would keep women safe during and after childbirth.

Coincidentally, the passage in question (as well as other parts of 1 Timothy) refutes all of these teachings. When you look at these four beliefs in relation to 1 Timothy 2:11-15, suddenly we can see that Paul is not citing creation to teach women's inferiority, to put more blame on Eve, or to justify an all-time exclusion from teaching, but to correct the bizarre false teachings some Ephesians had embraced with the truth of scripture. He retells the events of creation to reveal what really happened so believers could easily recognize these false teachings circulating about the creation account. These verses do not mean all women must not teach because Eve was created second or because she became deceived, as the church has taught for centuries.

Let's go verse by verse:

Verses 9-10 admonishes women to dress modestly and appropriately for women professing godliness. He tells them to avoid braided hair, gold, pearls and expensive clothing. This is another context clue that hints toward the women of Ephesus being influenced by the cult of Artemis, for the priestesses would wear elaborate, braided hairstyles and adorn themselves with extravagant jewelry and attire. Paul makes a curious statement when he classifies this type of extravagant attire as inappropriate for women "professing" godliness, which could mean he questioned the sincerity of these women's faith to begin with.

Verse 11 is particularly liberating for women at this time. Most modern readers take "Let a woman learn..." as Paul granting mere permission for women to learn, but the original Greek is phrased as a command that women BE TAUGHT. This was a major battle in the first century, since traditional male Jews and Greeks did not find any value in educating women and viewed it as a disgrace. Paul insists that they be allowed to learn (this would be imperative if false teachings were to ever be overcome, too). Of course, women, who have never before learned the scriptures, would not be qualified to teach and would be more susceptible to deception and false teaching. It's not because they are women, but because of the patriarchal prejudices that kept them in the dark for centuries.

Verse 12-14 Paul says he does not permit a woman to teach or have authority over a man (we'll analyze the actual word meanings in the original language post). This makes perfect sense, if women are indeed the targets and spreaders of these false teachings consuming and dividing the Ephesian church. Paul follows his ban on women teachers by reiterating sound teaching that counters the false teaching. For Adam was formed first, not Eve, like the cult of Artemis and the gnostics taught. He then points out that Eve became deceived and sinned. This is hardly the basis upon which to claim female-superiority and divine knowledge. Eve did not do a noble thing or liberate the world; she was tricked into violating the command of God. It's important to note that Paul is not arguing for male superiority, just refuting female superiority by pointing out the facts of the creation account. He is not implying that because Eve was deceived all women are prone to deception or because she was created second that women may never be entrusted with the ministry of the word. Directly after refuting this false teaching, he moves onto the childbirth subject.

Verse 15 , This strange verse about women being "saved" through childbirth should actually read a woman shall be "preserved" or "kept safe" through childbirth. It becomes especially meaningful and relevant in light of the fact that the women of Ephesus looked to Artemis to keep them safe through childbirth. In a time when massive amounts of women and babies died in childbirth, we can easily see how the cult of Artemis would be tempting, even among Christians. Here, Paul admonishes women to continue in the faith of Christ and to put their lives in His hands.

Now, since women were obviously the primary targets of this pervasive teaching and the most vulnerable members of the church (since new christian female converts, whether Jewish or Greek were not schooled in the scripture), it makes perfect sense for Paul to forbid women from teaching at a church that was overrun with false teachings, false teachings that just happen to be tailor-made for attracting women. Of course,women who had never received proper teaching would first have to learn before they could teach. The requirements were the same for men. They had to be trained in "the way" and then were sent out to teach others. Women had been shut out from such learning under Judaism and most Greek religions. When we consider the "catch-up" game women had to play under their new found freedom in Christ, is it any wonder why Paul would command the Ephesian women who "wanting to be teachers of the Law...they do not understand either what they are saying or the matters about which they make confident assertions" (1 Timothy 1:6-7) to first learn in total submission to sound teaching and stop teaching themselves? One cannot teach before they have been properly taught themselves.

While Paul's words are inspired, they were inspired for this particular situation at Ephesus. It distorts the inspired words of scripture to rip them out of their specific context, the crisis at Ephesus, and transform Paul's disciplinary solution to a culture-specific problem into a blanket prohibition against all women teaching for all times in all places.

Next post will examine the original Greek words of 1 Timothy 2:9-15 Modern translations are misleading to say the least.

Women: More Easily Deceived?

2008-05-06T15:06:00.016-04:00

Do you not know that you are [each] an Eve? The sentence of God on this sex of yours lives in this age; the guilt must of necessity live too. You are the Devil's gateway: You are the unsealer of that [forbidden] tree: you are the first deserter of the divine law: you are she who persuaded him whom the devil was not valiant enough to attack. On account of your desert--that is, death--even the Son of God had to die."--Tertullian, early church father.

"In like manner also, that the women adorn themselves in modest apparel, with propriety and moderation, not with braided hair or gold or pearls or costly clothing, but, which is proper for women professing godliness, with good works. Let a woman learn in silence with all submission. And I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man, but to be in silence. For Adam was formed first, then Eve. And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived, fell into transgression. Nevertheless she will be saved in childbearing if they continue in faith, love, and holiness, with self-control." ~Paul, 1 Timothy 2:9-15

The Problems

This is the main verse cited to bar all women from obtaining any "official" positions in the church that would put them "over" men or have any say in the decision-making aspects of church government: no teaching, no preaching, no leading, or anything that could be construed as having authority over men. However, if we are to use this verse to exclude women from the "top" levels of ministry, we must also embrace the reasons this verse seemingly cites to justify women's exclusion, which are:

1. Eve was formed second

2. And was the one who was deceived, falling into transgression

Then to top it off, Paul declares that despite this fact that "woman" was deceived, "she" will be saved through childbearing..." All this taken literally implies women are easily deceived and therefore should not be allowed to teach men, lest we ruin them as Eve did with Adam (which is the longstanding 'traditional' interpretation of this verse) and that women obtain salvation through childbirth. The last line (if taken literally) is heresy. Women are saved by the blood of Jesus, just like men, not through bearing children. Other translations remedy this puzzling choice of words by making the verse say women will "survive" or be "kept safe" through childbirth. But even this reading begs the question, is Paul really promising that christian women will never die during childbirth, even though countless have, especially during this time? And if all women ARE somehow more prone to deception than men, why are they admonished to teach at all? Why would they be allowed to teach other women and children? Would they not just pass on their deception to other deception-prone subjects?

It is Paul's reference to the creation order that convinces complementarians that his forbidding women to teach or exercise authority over a man is universal and all-time binding. Are all women prone to deception because of Eve? Was Eve created with an inherent lack of discernment, thus all women inherit this trait as well? Are women, covered in the blood of Christ, to be eternally held accountable for the failure of our ancestral mother?

Fortunately, the cultural and historical context of 1 Timothy is one of the easier to reconstruct. Ample evidence exists both in other biblical passages and in historical/archaeological evidence to shed light on the environment of Ephesus and the nature of the false teachings plaguing the infant-christian church of Ephesus. Oddly enough, the nature of these false teachings directly correlates to the descriptions and commands given in 1 Timothy, especially 2:9-15.

The next post will expound upon these false teachings and how it brings out a clearer meaning to Paul's letter to Timothy. Without a contextual understanding, Paul's words seem harsh, ludicrously stereotypical, and border on heresy, for all are "saved" by grace through faith, not through childbearing. If we want to bar all women from teaching based on this passage of scripture then we must also believe the reason for their exclusion is because Eve was the first deceived, first to fall into transgression, and all daughters of Eve take after her, therefore must not teach. The literal reading irreversibly ties the prohibition against women teaching with Eve's deception, not just the fact that she was formed after Adam.

Backdrop of 1 Timothy

2008-05-05T14:21:00.005-04:00

"It will greatly help you to understand scripture if you note – not only what is spoken and written, but of whom and to whom, with what words, at what time, where, to what intent, with what circumstances, considering what goes before and what follows."~Miles Coverdale

Before we delve into the internal problems of 1 Timothy 2:9-15, I want to note the context of 1 Timothy as a whole. Many scholars compare reading the letters of Paul to listening to one side of a telephone conversation. Since we do not have the letters written to Paul or know for certain the entire context or the exact matters he is addressing, it can be difficult to extrapolate the original intent and application of Paul's words and instructions. Plucking obscure verses out of their original context to establish universal all-time binding mandates without acknowledging the the full range of probable and possible meanings is a lazy and foolish practice. Just because taking the face value reading is the easiest method, doesn't mean it is the right method or the most accurate method.

1 Timothy is a NOT a letter to a church, but a personal letter, giving instruction to Timothy. Paul is instructing Timothy on how to handle the onslaught of false teaching that had broken out in the church at Ephesus. Explicit instruction about and attention given to the topic of false teaching comprises 35 percent of 1 Timothy. Paul writing in this letter indicates that Ephesus was in total chaos, rebellion, and that false teachers need to be silenced (1:3-7, 18-20; 4:1-8; 5:20-22; 6:3-10, 20-21), widows were going around saying things they ought not (5:13), even the elders of the church were in such sin that they needed to be publicly called out in front of the entire body (5:20), and others had rejected the faith altogether (5:15). Men became angry and were quarreling (2:8) and women were dressing provocatively (2:9) (which history shows the dress Paul describes here is shockingly similar to the dress of pagan temple prophetesses). False doctrine was creating envy, evil suspicions, and constant friction (6:4-5). This was not a healthy, mature, grounded body, but an infant church quickly exchanging the gospel of Jesus Christ for false teachings. Drastic times call for drastic measures.

In the next posts, we will examine the kind of false teachings that were most likely infiltrating the church at Ephesus by deciphering some of the context clues within 1 Timothy, Acts, and other historical accounts. The precise nature of these false teachings bring revelatory meaning to the verses that seemingly bar women from all teaching in the presence of men. It also illuminates Paul's appeal to the creation order. After that, we will will look at the original language of 1 Timothy 2:9-15 to examine the original wording and meaning of these verses.

Are Women Allowed To Teach Men?

2008-05-04T14:11:00.006-04:00

"Men are taught to apologize for their weaknesses, women for their strengths." ~Lois Wyse

Alright. I'm back and ready to delve into the women series yet again!

We left off at the three interpretations of 1 Corinthians 14:34-35 which if taken literally at face value, would silence women altogether in public gatherings of the body. For those just tuning in, you can read three alternate interpretations here: Silent Women Part 1, Silent Women Part 2, Silent Women Part 3.

When we consider the larger context of the Bible and internal problems of 1 Corinthians 14:34-35, we can conclude a woman's utter silence in church gatherings is not what the scriptures are mandating. Now, we move onto the amount of authority a woman can exercise within the body. We know she can speak, but can she teach? Can she preach? Can she pastor? Can she lead prayer, songs, and ministries?

The "big guns" for the complementarian position on this matter is 1 Timothy 2:9-15, which taken at face value would bar women from not only teaching, but holding any position of "authority" over men. Division exists within complementarian-camps about just how far to apply this verse. Does this verse bar women from not only teaching the scripture to men, but from holding ANY teaching position in which they would instruct men? Should christian women be forbidden from becoming college professors at co-ed universities? Or public speakers? Should they be judges, senators, governors, or hold other political offices?Should christian women hire male employees if they run their own businesses? Extreme complementarians would assert that christian men should NEVER put themselves under a woman's authority in any setting: church, home, business, school, and so forth and that christian women should never aspire to obtain any position in the church, home, and business, political, and educational realms that would make them the "boss," "expert," "teacher," "instructor," or "leader" over men.

On the other hand, more moderate-complementarians claim this verse only applies to church and home. So, a woman may teach a man math or history in a college class, but cannot teach on scripture in a co-ed adult bible class. She may "share" a testimony or encouraging word, but cannot teach, pontificate, or expound upon the Bible. A woman may have authority over her male students or employees, but never in the church. In the church, she may never hold any position other than backup singer, nursery worker, or in solely women and children ministries.

As much as I appreciate moderate-complementarians' attempts to make 1 Timothy 2:9-15 a little less restrictive, there are no such convenient qualifiers found in the text itself. So to arrive at the moderate-complementarian conclusion, other interpretative tools must be explored, such as cultural and historical factors, who Paul is writing these words to and why (context), the original language, and so forth. When they do this, they arrive at their moderate-understanding and when egalitarians do this, we arrive at our equality-understanding. We can debate which interpretation is the stronger, more logical, and more probable, but neither side adheres to a completely face-value-type interpretation. So, I make this friendly reminder to discourage the inevitable comments from the "just take the bible for what is plainly says" crowd.

The next couple of posts will examine this perplexing verse by consulting the original language and the enlightening historical and cultural factors at play which are congruent with the larger context of 1 Timothy.

Is this verse a command/corrective measure to a specific church body encountering a specific problem or a universal command to keep women in an eternally subordinate position in all aspects of life?

Ahh...Goofy, but Brilliant

2008-05-01T13:59:00.002-04:00

Jon Stewart, host of the Daily Show, nailed the mainstream media's insatiable appetite for sensationalism, catch-twenty-two's, and double standards in this satirical-bit from last night's show. It's funny, don't be offended. :)

As the media indulges in the "mint-chocolate chip" subterfuge of the moment, can the rest of us get back to discussing real issues and not guilt by association. Yes, Wright crossed the line and squandered the opportunity to be a sane critic of Babylonian-esqu aspects of America, but must Barack Obama account for all of this? He came out and denounced the comments. Can't we hold him accountable for ISSUES. All the candidates are guilty of "association" with the "wrong" people. There are plenty of reasons voters can justifiably disagree with Obama and vote for someone else, and I respect that. But the mainstream media is doing a grave disservice to republicans, democrats, and everyone in between by continually distracting us with fake controversies and under-reporting the real issues that plague our country.

Take The Blindfolds Off

2008-04-30T18:01:00.008-04:00

"There can be a certain dishonesty in christian music."--Dan Haseltine from Jars of Clay.

"There are two great lies that I’ve heard: 'the day you eat of the fruit of that tree, you will not surely die' and that Jesus Christ was a white, middle-class republican and if you wanna be saved you have to learn to be like Him."--Derek Webb, A King and a Kingdom.

I've been really digging Derek Webb lately, a christian artist whose lyrics are those of a prophetic rebel. No tiresome cliches or "skipping through a field of daisies while holding hands with Jesus" type songs. His lyrics make me uncomfortable, in a good way. He's artistic, creative, blunt, subversive, and asks the tough questions. He knows he doesn't do the church any favors by only being its apologist, but like any prophetic voice, he must also be the church's critic, to challenge the church to be what it ought to be and call it to repentance when its gone astray.

I stumbled across the video for Webb's facetious tune, "New Law." It reminded me that we need to stop trying to control people by teaching them what to think, but need to empower people by teaching them actually HOW to think for themselves. Anyway, the video and lyrics are compelling.

Note:To turn off the automatic music playing on my site so you can actually hear the video, scroll down to the very bottom of the blog where you will find my playlist. Just click pause or stop and then continue on your merry way.

don’t teach me about politics and government

just tell me who to vote for

don’t teach me about truth and beauty

just label my music

don’t teach me how

to live like a free man

just give me a new law

i don’t wanna know if the answers aren’t easy

so just bring it down from the mountain to me

i want a new law

gimme that new law

don’t teach me about moderation and liberty

i prefer a shot of grape juice

don’t teach me about loving my enemies

don’t teach me how to listen to the Spirit

just give me a new law

i don’t wanna know if the answers aren’t easy

so just bring it down from the mountain to me

i want a new law

gimme that new law

what’s the use in trading a law you can never keep

for one you can that cannot get you anything

do not be afraid

You Like Me, You Really Like Me!

2008-04-28T12:22:00.006-04:00

Kathy from The Carnival Inside my Head nominated me for the Subversive Blogger Award and as "scary" as the word subversive sounds, this is actually a compliment, one that is particularly meaningful to me.

The description for this award is as follows:

“Subversive bloggers are unsatisfied with the status quo, whether in church, politics, economics or any other power-laden institution, and they are searching for (and blogging about) what is new (or a “return to”) - even though it may be labeled as sacrilege, dangerous, or subversive.”

Here are the rules:

1. If you are tagged, write a post with links to five subversive blogs.

2. Link back to this post on JakeBouma.com so people can easily find the origin of the meme.

3. Optional: Proudly display the “Subversive Blogger Award” somewhere on your blog.
That’s all there is to it.

Keep in mind that this award is meant as an encouragement to bloggers to keep doing what they’re already doing - being subversive (however you interpret it). May we never forget that Jesus (and His message) was the original and ultimate subversive.

I nominate:

David, over at Imagination Conversion (I would nominate Mak too, but she's been nominated several times already, I think).

Terry over at Ornaments of Grace. We disagree on many things, but also agree on the important things. Disagree or not, she definitely challenges the status quo.

Mike Clawson over at Emerging Pensees

Linda over at Christian Feminism

Derek over at Rebel God.

All these bloggers challenge the status quo in their own unique and creative ways. Thank you all for giving me something to think about.

As for me, I have been in a bit of a blogging slump. I am officially finished with school, but I have been working a lot and am currently on the hunt for a full-time job. I can't seem to find the time to put together anything compelling. On a personal note, I've been in a very private, introspective mood, kind of keeping to myself and thinking over a variety of things. I've also been reading two rather depressing books, which are proving to be extremely beneficial for me, but are depressing nonetheless. All of this to say, my blogging well is running dry at the moment. But after tomorrow, things should settle back down, at least in the busy department.

Someone Knit A Sweater For Satan....

2008-04-25T11:17:00.006-04:00

Well, I don't think these two will solve Earth's climate change, but Hell may be freezing over at this very moment. So, that's something.

Note:
To turn off the automatic music playing on my site so you can actually hear the video, scroll down to the very bottom of the blog where you will find my playlist. Just click pause or stop and then continue on your merry way.

Uncomfortable Realities

2008-04-25T11:05:00.005-04:00

I don't know about you, but after seeing that ad and then looking in my fridge filled with 5 gallons of bottled water and remembering the 20 minute hot shower I enjoyed this morning, I feel spoiled, selfish, over-privileged, and clueless to the unjust realities of how billions of people are living, or trying to live, around the world.

Note:

To turn off the automatic music playing on my site so you can actually hear the video, scroll down to the very bottom of the blog where you will find my playlist. Just click pause or stop and then continue on your merry way.

Worship Songs On American Idol

2008-04-24T11:26:00.006-04:00

"God is with the vulnerable and the poor. God is in the slums, in the cardboard boxes where the poor play house. God is in the cries heard under the rubble of war. God is in the debris of wasted opportunities and lives. And God is with us, if we are with them."-Bono

It's no secret that I am obsessed with American Idol. I watch every year, vote for my favorites, and then throw things at the television when my favorites are prematurely kicked off. Last year, when people were knocking of Idol Gives Back, I was up in arms! OK, or I just made a few snarky comments. But I actually admire American Idol going to the poorest places around the world and using their clout to bring attention to the poor. I know big corporations are probably in it for their own publication and indirect profit, but the actual participants (the hosts and past American Idol contestants) who physically visited these impoverished places, I KNOW it affected them and changed they way they view the world. I always think of Jeremiah 22:16:

"He defended the cause of the poor and needy, so all went well. Is that not what it means to know Me,' declares the Lord."

It is a mark of searching for God, when people take an interest in the poor by using their influence to obtain justice for them, giving of their own resources to provide for them, and personally interacting with the poor as fellow human beings of equal worth, who should not be left in the shadows to starve or die alone in their illness. I don't care how rich they are, how famous they are, how ludicrous they appear, when any person's heart is stirred with compassion and cries out for true justice for the poor, I truly believe that could be the beginning of their journey with God. After all, is that not what it means to know Him?

Anyway, as I watched both rich and poor be transformed through American Idol Gives Back, I was still surprised when this year's remaining American Idol contestants sang Shout to The Lord, not once, but twice! Even American Idol can recognize God's unrelenting heart for the poor. I hope we in the church see this as clearly, too.

Here are some other compelling moments.

This promo for Idol Gives Back 2008 showed some instances of transformation for both poor and rich. Interactions like these narrow the vast gap that usually keeps the rich isolated from a world of poverty and all it's ugly realities.

"If I am honest I'm rebelling against my own indifference. I am rebelling against the idea that the world is the way the world is and there's not a damned thing I can do about it. So I'm trying to do some damned thing."-Bono

Carrie Underwood covering "Praying For Time." These sharp lyrics cut right through me.

“The test of our progress is not whether we add to the abundance of those who have much. It is whether we provide enough to those who have little.”-Franklin Delano Roosevelt

Daughtry's Trip To Africa

Favorite Moments from Idol Gives Back 2007

NOTE: Since I now have music on my site that plays automatically, you won't be able to watch videos and HEAR them without first turning off the music. To do this, scroll DOWN to the very bottom of my blog. There, you will see my playlist. Just hit stop or pause. :)

Which Tool Are You?

2008-03-19T15:16:00.020-04:00

To learn all that a horse could teach, was a world of knowledge, but only a beginning. .. .Look into a horse's eye and you instantly know if you can trust him."~Mary O'Hara

I am still taking a break from the women series because finals are approaching fast, and I just can't seem to find the time to put together worthy studies on the upcoming crucial scriptures. So, I thought I'd share a little bit about the Ladies' Retreat I went on last weekend.

The theme of the retreat was horses. We stayed at a farm and learned spiritual lessens via horses. The wonderful ladies that work at the farm lead some truly creative activities and challenges to teach us about ourselves, how we view God, and how we view each other. We were split into groups with the objective of leading a horse through an obstacle course without touching the horse. The obstacles were created by 4 small groups, each one representing various problems that keep Christians from maturing spiritually. Afterwards, as one large group, we participated in a "group therapy" type session to discuss what we learned.

The first night, we watched two short videos of horse trainers to parallel our relationship to God. The first trainer used a bit and bridle and spurs to coerce the horse to do the rider's will. But the second trainer built such a remarkable relationship of trust with the horse, that she did not need to use any methods of coercion. The horse WANTS to submit to her. I do not know a lot about horses, but even I could see that what this rider accomplished with her horse was amazing. So, if you do know about horses, I suspect you will find this video meaningful. This girl rides BAREBACK and the horse still obeys. It's simply beautiful.

"There is no secret so close as that between a rider and his horse."~Robert Smith Surtees

That video really spoke to my heart.

But the most revealing activity was when a vast array of wooden tools were laid out in the middle of our circle. We were asked to pick the tool(s) that represents who we are or what we do in the body of Christ. There were hammers, screw drivers, nails, spackle knives, measuring tape, glue guns, nuts and bolts, saws, wrenches, pliers, electrical outlets, drills, and so forth. I immediately grabbed:

I chose these tools because I am an inherent "cut and paste-er." In order to become passionate or convinced about a belief or idea, I have to dissect it, analyze, question it, and approach it from every feasible angle. I don't do well with spoon-feeding or assumed beliefs. After I cut it all up, I can paste back together the valuable jewels of truth. Scissors and a glue gun are the symbolic tools for the identities I take on or aspire to: a questioner, a seeker, a reconciler, an eclectic wanderer, carrying the flag of diverse unity. I love to sift through the unlikely places, the unusual places, and even the undesirable places and finding God there. I can cut out the wisdom and truth found in these places that point me to Jesus and paste them altogether to create a unique, multidimensional faith.

So which tool are you? And why?

I'm curious how readers of this blog see themselves.

Desperate Housewives Go To Church?

2008-03-19T00:17:00.016-04:00

"The church is a place for answers, not for questions."--Bree Van De Camp, Desperate Housewives.

Yes, it's true. I learned something insightful from the usually shallow-and-smutty-Desperate Housewives. My ears perked up when I heard one of the main characters declare to her family that they should go to church.

Lynette Scavo; mother of five, a surviving cancer victim, AND a surviving tornado victim; watches her neighbors leave for church on a Sunday morning, and realizes that she has a lot to be thankful for, as well as a lot of unanswered questions. This unbelieving, unchurched woman for the first time in her life wants to go to church. Lynette did not grow up in a religious family and has never attended a church. When she tells her family she wants to go to church, the husband says, "Why? What did we do?" She admits she knows nothing about God or Jesus and feels she needs to find out. Her son confidently declares that he knows plenty about Jesus. "Jesus is the guy who helps Santa at Christmas." Realizing their children's ignorance, they decide to head straight to church.

Lynette seeks out her best friend, Bree Vandecamp, the most "religious" person she knows, and asks if she and her family can tag along to her church. As Lynette walks away, she asks, "So, what are we now?" Bree answers, "Presbyterian!" and Lynette's eyes sort of glaze over, obviously puzzled because she is unfamiliar with the plethora of denominations out there.

The next scene shows Lynette and her family sitting in the pews, listening to the preacher finish his sermon on God's unfailing love. Just as he finishes speaking and is about to lead a hymn, Lynette shoots her hand in the air, eager to ask some pertinent questions about the sermon she just heard. Bree, mortified, frantically whispers, "We don't do that here!" Lynette persists, and the preacher uncomfortably calls on her. She stands up and says she's enjoyed the sermon, but did not understand how God's love could be unfailing when there are so many wars, school shootings, and natural disasters. The congregation looks uncomfortable. People look down at the floor. Men adjust their ties. Eyebrows descend toward squinting eyes. The pastor graciously responds about free will and living in fallen world. Just as the congregation breathes a sigh of relief, Lynette shoots her hand up with another question. The preacher invites her to the midweek bible study; a better place to discuss such deep theological questions.

Lynette, thrilled, accepts and rushes out to buy a bible. Lynette tells Bree that she's breaking in her bible and can't wait to ask all the questions brewing inside of her. Bree gently informs Lynette that "church isn't a place for questions, it's a place for answers." She then explains that church and bible study are a time to listen and eventually, if you have any questions, they will be answered by listening. A discouraged and hurt Lynette decides to give the Catholic church down the street a try instead, describing herself as a "free agent," and the church that will allow some Q & A can have her.

Meanwhile Bree is competing for a prestigious position as committee leader and thinks Lynette's improper behavior may have cost her the spot. But when Bree realizes her pastor was refreshed by Lynette's honest questions, she sets out to get Lynette back. But a still hurting Lynette lashes out at Bree, confessing she used to admire Bree's faith. That she thought Bree had a "real relationship with God," and that's how Bree got through the difficult times. But when she got cancer and her family was nearly killed in a tornado, she was puzzled that Bree never shared her faith. It was as if Bree kept the secret that gave her strength all to herself.

Lynette says, "I have survived cancer and a tornado and I don't understand why I survived and so many others didn't." She needs to understand how God fits into all of this.

Bree, stunned, says "Why didn't you ever tell me this?" Lynette shoots back, "Why didn't you ask? Oh that's right, you don't like asking questions."

In the end Bree apologizes. Bree says, "Faith shouldn't be blind. You don't threaten it by asking questions, you make it stronger." The episode ends with them on the porch reading the Bible together.

Throughout the episode, I kept thinking about the growing number of the population that is completely "unchurched." How many people do not know anything about God or Jesus, let alone how church is done. I wonder how the few curious seekers that do wander into churches see our services? Do they feel the way Lynette felt? Do even Christians sometimes feel the way Lynette felt? Like they are trouble-makers or lacking in faith if they ask the hard questions plaguing their hearts and minds? If they don't just sit back and hope one day their answers will come?

Are our churches a place for questions? I realize that in larger churches, it would be quite impractical to have the congregation asking their questions during those meetings. But I think the nature of Lynette's questions is what really made everyone uncomfortable. I've been part of several bible studies where similar questions were posed and the mood immediately changed. The tension was thick and people scrambled to dismiss the questions with simple pat answers and cliches before changing the subject. Slap a scripture on it and move on!

It seemed perfectly natural to Lynette (a representative of the unchurched segment of America) to voice her concerns and ask her questions once the preacher was done speaking. But when such questions are asked, does the church come off fearful or bothered by questions that have no easy answers? Do we make a place for such questions to be asked, whether from new comers or longtime members of the body? If our faith is real and our God is Truth, are there really any uncomfortable questions that can change that?

This episode of Desperate Housewives portrayed a valuable lessen, at least for me. It put me in the shoes of a person seeking God with no knowledge of the institutional church and how confusing it must all be for them.

BTW, I should return soon with more on the women series. These in depth posts on scriptures are wearing me out, because they involve so much and real life keeps getting in the way. So I thought I'd interrupt with a less studious post. But the women series will continue to march on.

Silent Church Women? Part 3

2008-03-18T23:44:00.012-04:00

For God is not a God of confusion but of peace, as in all the churches of the saints. The women are to keep silent in the churches; for they are not permitted to speak, but are to subject themselves, just as the Law also says. If they desire to learn anything, let them ask their own husbands at home; for it is improper for a woman to speak in church.

The Quotation Reading

The words found in 1 Corinthians 14:34-35 are so problematic that many doubt their authorship even belongs to the Apostle Paul. The external and internal problems of these verses have even led some to believe that these verses were added MUCH later by a scribe, since if these seemingly contradicting verses are removed, the text reads much more smoothly. Here are the issues: these verses seem to contradict, not only the rest of the bible, but Paul himself, in multiple places, and in the very same letter (1 Corinthians 11:5, 12:4-11)! The style employed in these verses is utterly foreign to Paul's writing style . The appeal to the "Law" to justify silencing women frankly does not exist anywhere in the Old Testament. No where in the Old Testament does any law or command require that women "subject themselves" by being "silent" in an assembly or while in public.

Walter C. Kaiser, author of Correcting Caricatures: The Biblical Teaching on Women notes:

"The problem simply put is this: nowhere in the whole Old Testament does it teach or even imply what is claimed here. Now law in the entire old testament, much less the Torah, can be cited to teach that a women 'must be in submission' and 'remain silent' and if she wants to know or ask about anything, she 'should ask [her own] husband at home.' Women spoke freely in both testaments."

When Paul actually does cite the Law or scripture to support his points, he immediately follows it by quoting the law he is referring to, as he does in 1 Corinthians 9:8-9, 14:21, 1:19, 1:31, 2:9, 3:19, 10:7, 15:45. For more in depth analysis of Paul's consistent writing style and the "mystery law," see the very thorough article by Dennis J. Preato at God's Word To Women.

A growing number of scholars insist that 1 Corinthians 14:34-35 is not the words of Paul at all, but that Paul is quoting the letter written to him from the church at Corinth and then promptly rebuking this degrading, legalistic notion in verses 36-38. Besides the fact that these verses contradict everything Paul has instructed the Corinthians up until this point AND there is NO SUCH LAW in the Torah or the entire Old Testament that requires women to be silent, there are other clues in the original manuscripts that support the quotation reading.

We must remember that ancient Greek did not have punctuation marks, so there is no such symbol that we can equate with how our quotation marks surround a quoted sentence. However, in many of the earliest manuscripts, there appears this greek symbol: η with a grave accent at the beginning of verse 36 to signal to the reader that the above statement is quoted.

Paul already informs the reader that he begins addressing "the things you wrote" back in chapter 7, verse 1. After Paul gives very thorough instructions on how to maintain order during worship gatherings, this bizarre verse appears and contradicts everything he has just instructed, followed by a peculiar, sharp rebuke in verses 36-38.

But if one reads verses 34-35 as a quote from the Corinthians and verses 36-38 as Paul's response, suddenly the meaning becomes crystal clear and totally conducive to the rest of Paul's letter: all members of the body participating in worship assemblies in peace and order. So Paul repeats this appeal from Corinth for the purpose of rebuking it, not to command a universal ruling that silences women in church.

It's imperative to note that while there IS NO law in the OT that silences women, rabbinical "law" strictly forbade women to vocally participate in religious assemblies. Women were seen as obscene, deceitful, immoral, untrustworthy seductresses, whose only purpose was to make babies and serve men. Paul NEVER appeals to rabbinical law to establish universal mandates. Jesus spent most of his ministry openly defying and challenging such legalistic "laws" and "traditions" of the rabbinical Judaism. The early church experienced its fair share of Judaizers (Jews who converted to Christianity, but still believed it necessary to observe the purity codes and rabbinical laws/traditions). Judaizers insisted that converted Gentiles be circumcised, abandon eating idol-offered meat, observe Jewish Sabbaths, etc. Paul refutes all of these assertions made by Judaizers clinging to rabbinical tradition. Such is the case here; Paul quotes Judaizers in Corinth to reveal the hypocrisy in such a statement and then flatly contradicts it, even mocks it. Ironically, these verses used to silence women are actually part of Paul's defense of a woman's right to participate as full member of the body.

Bible Scholar Dennis J. Preato concurs that the "mystery law" cited here is from the irrelevant rabbinical laws:

These verses are best understood as a slogan or rabbinic saying based on the Jewish "oral law," not the written word of God. Therefore, these verses cannot be used to prohibit women from pulpit ministry within the church.

Below is the entire passage from verses 26-40. Remember that the the word brethren (Greek word: adelphoi) is gender plural or gender inclusive, including both men and women. Read verses 34-35 as a quoted statement. This blew my mind the first time I did this.

What is the outcome then, brethren? When you assemble, each one has a psalm, has a teaching, has a revelation, has a tongue, has an interpretation Let all things be done for edification. If anyone speaks in a tongue, it should be by two or at the most three, and each in turn, and one must interpret; but if there is no interpreter, he must keep silent in the church; and let him speak to himself and to God. Let two or three prophets speak, and let the others pass judgment.

But if a revelation is made to another who is seated, the first one must keep silent. For you can all prophesy one by one, so that all may learn and all may be exhorted; and the spirits of prophets are subject to prophets; for God is not a God of confusion but of peace, as in all the churches of the saints.

THE WOMEN ARE TO KEEP SILENT IN THE CHURCHES; FOR THEY ARE NOT PERMITTED TO SPEAK, BUT ARE TO SUBJECT THEMSELVES, JUST AS THE LAW ALSO SAYS. IF THEY DESIRE TO LEARN ANYTHING, LET THEM ASK THEIR OWN HUSBANDS AT HOME; FOR IT IS IMPROPER FOR A WOMAN TO SPEAK IN THE CHURCH.

Was it from you that the word of God first went forth? Or has it come to you only? If anyone thinks he is a prophet or spiritual, let him recognize that the things which I write to you are the Lord's commandment. But if anyone does not recognize this, he is not recognized. Therefore, my brethren, desire earnestly to prophesy, and do not forbid to speak in tongues. But all things must be done properly and in an orderly manner.

The King James Version translates verse 36 as: "What? Came the word of God out from you? Or came it unto you only?"

The phrase "Did the word of God come to you only.." is believed to be a reference to Jesus' first appearance to the women at the tomb, the first entrusted with the good news of His resurrection and the first commissioned to tell the male apostles about it! Basically, Paul's point is that the word of God has come to all believers, so how dare they deprive the church body by silencing half its members.

J. Lee Grady points out:

"This strange response makes no sense if we believe that Paul penned verses 34 and 35. But if he is contradicting the statements made by the Judiazers at Corinth, then we can understand the definat tone of verse 36."

Deciphering quotations seems to be a tricky task for bible translators. For instance, 1 Corinthians 6:12, 6:13 and 10:23 are marked as quotations in the NCV, NIV, NLT, and NRSV; but they are not shown with quotation marks in the ASV, KJV, NASB, and NKJV. These kind of discrepancies occur because of the lack of punctuation signals available in ancient Greek.

However, all the available evidence seems to point to these verses and 1 Corinthians 14:34-35 being quotations that Paul is rebuking.

Theologian Kenneth S. Kantzer wrote:

"In 1 Corinthians 14, we are caught in an intricate interplay between quotations from a missing letter form the Corinthians and Paul's solutions to the problems the letter had raised. The verse is clearly not repeating a law of Scripture and cannot be taken as a universal command for women to be silent in church. That interpretation would flatly contradict what the apostle had just said three chapters earlier."

I believe this reading is the strongest and most logical choice for interpreting 1 Corinthians 14:34-35. I apologize for the lengthiness of this post, but it's difficult to present the sound-bite version of a biblical interpretation most people are unfamiliar with and do it justice! When there are only 2 obscure and highly controversial verses in the entire new testament that seem to bar women from ministry and church participation, we must dig into the scriptures and examine all available evidence to clarify their true meanings.

Silent Church Women? Part 2

2008-03-18T23:43:00.022-04:00

"For God is not a God of confusion but of peace, as in all the churches of the saints. The women are to keep silent in the churches; for they are not permitted to speak, but are to subject themselves, just as the Law also says. If they desire to learn anything, let them ask their own husbands at home; for it is improper for a woman to speak in church."--Paul, 1 Corinthians 14:33-36.

The Original Language Reading

The original language reading of 1 Corinthians 14:33-35 leads to one of three options:

1. Paul is addressing all of the women (in that church or in every church) and forbidding them from interrupting the service with unnecesarry questions, rude chatter, or airing private family matters to shame their husbands, not from vocally participating in an orderly fashion.

2. Paul is addressing UNBELIEVING wives attending christian assemblies with their converted husbands, commanding that they are not to speak during the assembly, until they make a commitment to the faith.

3. Paul is addressing all women everywhere and commanding them to be in silence, no speaking at all during church gatherings.

One of the most important factors to understand when dealing with the original language of the bible, Greek in this instance, is that Greek (Paul is writing in the dialect of koine) has NO SPACES between words and NO PUNCTUATION MARKS. So CONTEXT is relied on very heavily to determine meaning and arrangement.

Most English translations contribute to all the confusion surrounding this passage by dropping the phrase "as in all the churches of the saints," down to the beginning part of verse 34's sentence: "the women are to keep silent..." However, "as in all the churches of the saints" is really the last part of verse 33. So, it should read: "God is not a God of confusion, but of peace, as in all the churches of the saints," meaning that God wants peace and not confusion in ALL the churches. The New American Standard Version, praised for its very literal translation of the bible, rightly corrects this error that is found in most other translations.

Here are the key words from this passage and the transliterated Greek words they are translated from:

Silent = sigao

Speak = laleo

The = hoi/hai (feminine form used in these verses)

In = En

Church/churches = ekklesia

Women = gune

Disgraceful/shameful = aischros

Laleo (to speak) is used in its present infinitive form, therefore some argue it should be translated as "continually speaking up," which would support the idea that Paul is silencing women who interrupt the assembly, forbidding a type of speech, not all women from speaking in the midst of the congregation. Paul is correcting chaos, not forbidding women from speaking in the assembly in an orderly fashion.

Greek only as ONE word, gune, for women/woman and wife/wives, so the context has to determine when the word means which. In this particular instance, wives seems to make more sense, since the solution to answering their questions is having them ask their own husbands. If Paul meant all women, would he not appeal to fathers, brothers, and husbands to solve the problem of women's questions? Nonetheless the word CAN mean either. So there is no definite proof either way whether Paul is addressing unbelieving wives, or women in general.

The Greek word "hai" translated in these verses as "the" can also be translated as "those." The very same word is translated as "those" in Matthew 8:33, 9:12, 12:3 (NKJ).

Likewise, the Greek word "en" translated in these verses as "in" can also be translated as "among." The very same word is translated as among in Matthew 2:6, 4:23, 16:8, and 20:26.

While ekklesia is the word that means church, it literally means "the called out ones" or "true believers," more aptly the gathering of called out ones/true believers, both men and women. It does not refer to a building. It should be noted that when a person came to faith in the early church, they were immediately baptized to be recognized as members of the ekklesia. So could these to-be-silent women not have made a public commitment of faith yet, thus were not yet permitted to participate in the gatherings as part of the body and instead only learn in silence until they became members? It's something to consider.

Taking alternate meanings of the key words into consideration, verses 33-35 could read:

For God is not a God of confusion, but of peace, as in all the congregations of the saints. Those women (or wives) are to keep silent among the called out ones (or true believers); for they are not permitted to speak (continually speak up), but let them subject themselves, just as the Law also says. If they desire to learn anything, let them ask their own husbands at home. For it is disgraceful for a (the) woman (or wife) to speak (continually speak up) among the called out ones (or true believers: both men and women).

Some argue that the last line is addressing one unbelieving woman in particular that keeps disrupting the ekklesia. It is argued that the church at Corinth wrote Paul about the situation of a pagan woman continually interrupting with false prophecies and incoherent, babbling utterances, as was custom among the surrounding pagan cults. Since the subject of "someone" saying "Jesus be cursed" is mentioned earlier in the letter (1 Corinthians 12:3), it is not that far fetched to conclude that their were indeed unbelievers attending the church at Corinth, and if they were unbelieving wives, it can be easily seen why Paul would command their silence.

Others argue that these verses are just a matter of manners, telling women (who have never before been able to learn the things of God) to be attentive to those speaking, and not to talk amongst themselves, interrupt with constant questioning, yelling across the room to their husbands to clarify for them what is going on.

The Problems:

The fact remains, that outside of the phrase "as in all the churches of the saints" being dropped down to appear as the first part of verse 34, this really isn't concretely a case of mistranslation, but of key words retaining a variety of meanings. Hardcore complementarians can just as easily argue for the "traditional" reading that exists in most modern versions and not technically be wrong. They may have to backpedal and qualify a lot of other verses to avoid contradictions, but the original words themselves, could render either reading.

Even if one subscribes to the alternate readings, it does not account for Paul's uncharacteristic reference to the mystery "Law," (further explanation in next post). And if Paul is telling women/wives that it is disgraceful to "interrupt" the service with their speech as opposed to all women publicly speaking, then why is this limited only to women? Isn't in disgraceful for men to interrupt services as well? Also this alternate reading does little to explain the sharp, puzzling statements that follow in verses 36-38. We haven't touched on these verses yet, but will explore them in the next post.

For a more indepth look at the original language AND entire context of 1 Corinthians see "Let the Women Keep Silent in the Churches" by Dianne McDonnell.

If one fuses the original language options with the cultural and historical factors, it makes a strong case for this verse NOT being an all-time, universal command to silence all women from publicly speaking during church gatherings. However, I do not believe it to be the strongest option.

So, the next post will explore The Quotation Theory. This is my personal understanding of this bizarre passage.

Silent Church Women? Part 1

2008-03-18T23:23:00.020-04:00

"As in all the congregations of the saints, women should remain silent in the churches. They are not allowed to speak, but must be in submission, as the Law says. If they want to inquire about something, they should ask their own husbands at home; for it is disgraceful for a woman to speak in the church." --Paul, 1 Corinthians 14:34-35.

The Cultural/Historical Reading

For all my talk about the importance of understanding the cultural and historical context of a passage, I actually find this interpretation to be the weakest. I do think these cultural aspects enhance the reasoning and relevance for such a verse, but it's not enough to discredit the notion that women should remain silent and that it is "shameful" for a woman to speak in church.

First, the context of 1 Corinthians as a whole is a letter written by Paul to the church at Corinth, which was in real trouble. They were unruly, disorderly, chaotic, and angrily disputing with one another. Some were even pitting teachers against each other. Paul calls them "worldly" and still "infants" in the faith (1 Corinthians 3:1-4). The letter is answering specific problems within that church. The first half deals with situations relayed to Paul through members of Chloe's household (1 Corinthians 1:11) and the second half deals with specific issues the church at Corinth inquired about in a letter to Paul (1 Corinthians 7:1). Since we only have Paul's answers and not the letter from Corinth, we can only "read between the lines" as to what those questions were. Biblical scholars like to say that the letters of Paul are akin to listening to one side of a telephone conversation. I think that is an apt description.

Most early churches met in homes, and many still segregated the men and women. This was a LONG standing tradition in Judaism, and since Christianity was seen as Judaism's offspring, that tradition (along with others) crept into the early church. Nonetheless, women had never before been so included during religious meetings. The Holy Spirit fell on all believers at Pentecost and all believers were expected to contribute to church meetings for the common good and building up of the church (1 Corinthians 14:26). Some would prophesy, some would pray, some would sing, some would give a teaching, some would give instruction or a word of knowledge, some would edify the body, and so forth. Gifts are distributed according to the Holy Spirit and not according to gender and if one had a gift, one was expected to use it in the midst of the entire body (1 Corinthians 12:4-11).

We must remember that women previously under Judaism and previously under pagan religions were rarely afforded this kind of participation in religious services, so most were uneducated. Pagan religions featured temple prostitutes and female prophets that uttered unintelligible babbling, but this was not the kind of participation expected in the christian church. So believing women in the church, though filled with the Spirit, did not have the same training under The Law as most of the men did. Based on some other early writings of this time, many scholars believe that the women let this new found liberty go to their heads and got out of hand by interrupting the meetings with unnecessary questions, talking over others, all prophesying at once, and so forth. And since women were still seated away from the men, it is supposed that they were yelling across the room to ask their husbands about what was happening or being said. So the "silence" command was not so much about gender, but keeping order.

Others believe wives were airing their dirty laundry during services, revealing all their personal problems with their husbands. It does seem strange that the first part of the verse is translated as "women" remaining silent and then the latter solution is that they should ask their own husbands. What about women who were unmarried? So this inappropriate "sharing" could be the case.

And yet others believe that Paul is addressing UNBELIEVING women who attend meetings with their believing husbands, who obviously would not be permitted to participate in a vocal manner until they became believers.

Although Corinth was a city IN the Roman Empire, it was Greek by culture. In Greek culture, woman had it even worse than in Jewish culture. The only women seen and heard in public were the cultured prostitutes, called hetaira. There were also pagan prophetess, administering sexual temple rituals and preaching pagan religions. But women by and large were considered inferior on every level: mental, physical, and spiritual.

Dianne McDonnell, from Church of God in Texas, points out:

The "keep silent" admonition was written to a church at Corinth that was a short forty mile boat ride away from the world famous Oracle at Delphi. At this temple women priestesses uttered babble which was interpreted and presented as messages from a pagan god. In 1 Cor, Chapter 12, Paul introduces the subject of "spiritual gifts" and then he reminds church members they were once running after dumb idols themselves.

Some believe Paul was being sensitive to the culture surrounding the Corinthian Church. Since Christianity was still an "infant" religion, unestablished and unknown to the culture at large, then if women were publicly speaking, they could easily be mistaken for the hetaira and Christianity would be seen as just another sect that offered temple prostitution to commune with the gods.

For more info on the cultures of Paul's time, see A Tale of Two Cultures By James R. Payton Jr.

While all of the scenarios briefly covered above are plausible, they are highly speculative. I think the original language study and quotation reading offer a much clearer and precise understanding of this verse. Even though I find these insights into the culture beneficial and revealing, I do not think it is enough to clarify the meaning of the passage in question. The passage is phrased too broadly and universally to be based solely on culture. Calling it shameful for women to speak in church and appealing to The LAW is strong language that cannot be dismissed based solely on the situation and culture of the Corinthian Church.

Even if Paul is only telling Corinthian church women to be silent because of some cultural factors, it still flatly contradicts what he has written just a few verses AND a few chapters earlier.

So, unless one believes Paul would contradict himself right in the same letter, telling all believers to pray and prophesy in the church and encouraging all to use their gifts in front of the entire church, we have to conclude that there is more to this verse than meets the eye.

When Literalists Ain't So Literal...

2008-03-18T23:17:00.016-04:00

Christians who pride themselves on being "biblical literalists," taking the bible for what it says at face value, seem to ignore or give little credence to the very literal translation errors that have crept into English/Western versions of the bible that differ from the earliest Greek manuscripts. Many of these mistranslations conveniently pertain to gender language, in effect building the case for women to be restricted in ministry.

At least with hardcore-complementarians, the reasoning remains the same throughout their biblical interpretation process: the bible, as we know it in English, had divine direction and therefore, can be read at face value without worry.

But moderate-complementarians run into a bit of a problem. By moderate-complementarians, I mean Christians who believe only men should lead the church, teach the assembly, and lead in their homes, BUT believe women may participate in the services, as long as they are not perceived has "having authority." So, a woman may get up and read a scripture, but she may not teach on it. A woman may get up and sing a song, possibly even lead a song. Women may pray aloud in the presence of men and even share testimonies. While I appreciate this more "liberal" approach, the issue of consistent biblical interpretation becomes problematic. For instance, a purely "literal reading" of 1 Corinthians 14:34:35 does not allow any of the aforementioned lenience.

Let your women keep silent in the churches, for they are not permitted to speak; but they are to be submissive, as the law also says. And if they want to learn something, let them ask their own husbands at home; for it is shameful for women to speak in church."--Paul, 1 Corinthians 14:34-35

There are really only two verses in the bible that would appear to outright bar women from public ministry and holding positions of "authority," such as church leaders, church planters, pastors, preachers, evangelists, elders, and deacons: 1 Corinthians 14:34-35 (if read literally in English, this verse would silence women altogether: no speaking, no vocal praying, no singing.... ) and 1 Timothy 2:11-12. Sometimes Ephesians 5 is thrown in for good measure. But even if one takes the view that the husband has all the authority over the wife in the marriage relationship, this hardly places all women under the authority of all men in the church! Nonetheless, it is these verses upon which the complementarian position hangs and the verses through which they interpret the rest of the bible: the creation account, Jesus' ministry, Deborah not being God's best, etc. etc. ( I am speaking here of complementarian scholars, I do not presume to know how each individual complementarian approaches the bible...)

Now, across-the-board complementarians have no problem with reading the above mentioned verses literally, at face value, with no qualification, or contextualization, for that matter. They certainly have no qualms about prohibiting women from teaching/preaching/evangelizing/leading, and women's overall public silence is just an added bonus.

But for the moderate-complementarian, this just doesn't seem right. So, most moderate complementarians have opted for a little more "in-depth" interpretation when it comes to 1 Corinthians 14:34-35. They argue that this verse does not completely silence women in public church meetings or other mixed gatherings, was never really meant to be applied universally, or was never really meant to silence all women at all times.

Since the text ITSELF does not provide any of these convenient "qualifiers" or hints at a "temporary" instruction, moderate-complementarians refer back to the original language, appeal to the larger context of the verse, and what was happening culturally and historically at the time. Once it becomes clear, based on THOSE factors (not the text itself mind you), that Paul never intended to completely silence women, they feel justified in allowing women to vocally participate in public church meetings, as long as women are not leading or teaching men. Phew! right?

But the methods they use to come to this very logical conclusion about 1 Corinthians 14:34-35 are THE EXACT same methods they criticize and denounce egalitarians for using when applied to 1 Timothy 2:11-12 or Ephesians 5! They say things like: "You're reading things into the bible," "You're over thinking it," " You're using outside sources to determine meaning," "You're not just taking the text for WHAT IT PLAINLY SAYS," "History and culture are irrelevant and unreliable," "If the Bible is inspired, then that inspiration should have carried over with each translation" or Tonya's favorite line, "That's human reasoning!" (hehe). I can accept all of these arguments from hardcore, across-the-board complementarians, because at least they are consistent in their reading of the scriptures: all "command" passages are all literal, all-time binding, and can be taken at face value without qualification. But moderates who adhere to a "deeper" reading of 1 Corinthians 14:34-35, while fancying themselves "biblical literalists," is a bit of a head scratcher. What's the old saying? Oh yes: Moderate-complementarians who live by glass hermeneutics should not throw stones. OK, now I'm just being snarky. I deserve whatever wrath is forth coming. :)

So, I would like to remind my moderate-complementarianish friends that if they believe 1 Corinthians 14:34-35 means anything other than completely silencing women in church gatherings, they have arrived at this interpretation through similar methods that egalitarians employ to arrive at alternate interpretations of 1 Timothy 2:11-12 and Ephesians 5.

Now, on to business. :)

Before delving into whether or not it is allowable for a woman to teach/preach/lead in the presence of men, we must establish whether or not a woman is biblically permitted even to speak at all during church gatherings. So, the next three posts will be devoted to exploring 1 Corinthians 14:34-35 and the verses around it. I'm curious to how my moderate complementarianish friends interpret this verse, since I know they believe women can speak in church, yet are at the same time, all about taking scripture for what it says, without making outside inferences or consulting outside help to understand a passage's meaning.

There are MANY different interpretations of 1 Corinthians 14:34-35, and biblical scholars rank this verse within the top three hardest passages in scripture to interpret. Not because the meaning is unfavorable, but because nearly two-thirds of the surviving Greek manuscripts place these verses in entirely different places! Also, the language, syntax, and style seem to be uncharacteristic, inconsistent, and contradictory with Paul's other writings. The next three posts will present the following interpretations of this difficult passage:

1. The Cultural/Historical Reading

2. The Original Language Reading

3. The Quotation Theory

I personally find the third interpretation to be the most plausible. But we'll see what you guys think. I'm breaking this up into three posts so I can thoroughly explain each position and avoid overlapping confusion between them. Letters of Paul, here we go!

Parable of the Lost...Dog?

2008-03-18T16:19:00.017-04:00

"What do you think? If any man has a hundred sheep, and one of them has gone astray, does he not leave the ninety-nine on the mountains and go and search for the one that is straying? If it turns out that he finds it, truly I say to you, he rejoices over it more than over the ninety-nine which have not gone astray,"--Jesus, Matthew 18:12-13

I have to interrupt the women series to post about this while it is fresh in my mind. Since yesterday morning, all I have done is cry my eyes out, pray, agonize and drive around looking for my runaway dog. I periodically checked in on blog world to get my mind off of it.

This is me and Aravis, at a much skinnier time in both our lives. :)

It all started yesterday morning. I awoke to find one of our outside dogs, Aravis, missing from the yard. She dug her way out of the fence. I went out front and saw her hobbling down the road back towards our house. She had a huge gash on her left front paw and could barely walk on it. I immediately called the vet, which is about 4 or 5 miles away, to set up a time to bring her in.

When we got there, I lifted her out of the car and as I carried her up to the vet's office, she panicked, flipped out of arms, and took off with her leash still attached! She ran directly into oncoming traffic. A truck almost hit her, but swerved at the last second. She ran across the street, through a parking lot, down a long, STEEP, ravine and disappeared into the field of high grass. Only more busy roads surrounded the field. She was gone.

Those of you who know me already know at this point that I was devastated. We have ten dogs (two inside dogs and eight outside dogs) and we love them like people. My husband and I often say that dogs are God's best creation. I drove around in circles for hours calling her name, crying, hitting my steering wheel, and dropping a few expletives. I did not spot her once. I went home defeated, convinced I'd never find her again alive. My worst fear was finding her hit on the side of the road.

I woke up this morning to VIOLENT thunder and lightening. All I could think about was my poor, scared, wounded dog trying to fend for herself out there with no way to come home. As soon as the storm let up, I started driving around again. My voice was hoarse from calling her name.

As I was driving, I started to get really angry. These kind of things tend to happen to me A LOT, so much so that I've started to expect the worst in these kind of situations. After hours of searching, I was "talking" to God, okay, yelling at God, recounting all the worry, anxiety, desperation, and fervor of the past twenty-four hours, expressing how the thought of giving up or finding her dead was almost unbearable. The prayer was laced with a "it's not fair," attitude. In the middle of my rant, within in the deepest part of me, I felt God say, "Imagine how I've searched for you." Ouch. I nearly drove off the road. I pulled over and just wept over my steering wheel. How many times have I wandered off? I realized that I am a lot like my dog. She really loves us, but is ruled by fear. She's always cowering until she's sure she's not in trouble. She kind of expects the worst. Sound familiar? I started thinking about the mind-blowing notion of God searching for me and still searching for all of me. Just then, I heard a faint yelp. I got out of my car and yelled for Aravis. I did this for a half hour before finally giving up. I got back in my car and started to turn around. Just before driving off, I saw her standing in the middle of a field about a quarter of a mile away. I jumped out of my car and called her to come. She stood there looking at me for a moment. I couldn't believe it! I thanked God over and over again out loud. But then Aravis ran off again and I imeediately switched to dropping the F-bomb in frustration. Thanking God in one breath, dropping the F-bomb in the other....OY.

Anyway, I had to run after her through a FLOODED field. I got mud up to my knees and she was no where in sight... again. I finally heard some rustling in the thicket and she poked her head out. I called her in my nicest voice, since I knew she wanted to come to me, but was also scared (another familiar spiritual problem). It didn't matter. No matter how nice sounding my voice was, she wouldn't come close enough. Finally, I decided to lay prostrate on the ground, in the mud (Dog people know that this is a way to communicate a non-threatening demeanor). So I laid there for a few moments and she cautiously circled around me, and finally collapsed on top of me, digging her head into me, shaking and wimpering.

As I sat there hugging my wet, muddy, wounded, fearful, nutbag of a dog, I realized how happy I was to have found her. I wasn't angry with her, I felt compassion for her. I didn't care that I was covered in mud from head to toe or how filthy she was, I just wanted to take care of her. And I wondered if this is how God feels when we finally surrender and come close enough to Him to be found? I wondered how often God is searching for me and I don't even know it? I wondered how often God is reaching out to me and I'm too wrapped up in my own baggage and fear to realize it? There are parts of myself that still cower and run from God's extended embrace because of fear. But today the reality of how far God goes to find us, how far He was willing to wade through the muck and mire of human filthiness, just came to life. The parable of the lost sheep came alive through my own parable of my lost dog.

Equal In Being, Different In Function?

2008-03-15T00:01:00.013-04:00

There are very few jobs that actually require a penis or vagina. All other jobs should be open to everybody. ~Florynce Kennedy

Give to every human being every right that you claim for yourself. ~Robert Ingersoll

Today is my deadline for a number of school assignments, as well as edited articles for the newspaper. So, I have had ZERO time to spruce up the more in depth posts. Since the posts coming up (especially the ones on Paul's letters) are the crux of this debate, I want to make sure those posts do the egalitarian argument justice. After today, my schedule loosens up, so I can start cranking them out.

In the meantime, I wanted to share this post from the CBE Scroll on equality and ask for some reader feedback. The end of the article asks for complementarians to elaborate on what they mean by equality, beyond the phrase "equal in worth, different in function."

So, what is your ideal vision of gender equality?

How do you think equality and gender should play out?

Which gender roles, characteristics, careers, and activities are you willing to see as flexible, overlapping, or as grey areas within the home and church?

Which roles, activities, characteristics, and positions do you see as strictly off limits for either sex?

Where and HOW do you draw the line?

Do you think complementarians need to abandon the term "equality" altogether (since they only started using it in the 70s...) and just admit that women are NOT equal, as it pertains to being equipped for ministry, giftings, leadership opportunities, and functions within the church and marriage?

And if complementarians believe that women are not fit for these tasks, then should they just say so, instead of hiding behind a water downed version of equality (equal in worth, but limited in function)? Maybe they can argue that equality is not biblical or that equality is not all its cracked up to be (as I have heard argued before)?

Or do you think the notion of women possessing equal worth, but remaining eternally subordinate can be reconciled with concept of human equality?

How does redemption factor in to your veiw of gender equality? Does Jesus' death on the cross change the way men and women relate to each other? How does it affect the curse?

I know all complementarians (or egalitarians for that matter) do not march in lockstep, so I am curious as to what the consensus is among my readers (both C's and E's) regarding these questions. Let's probe how our abstract beliefs take shape in everyday life and the impliactions those beliefs dictate.

"Deep down, beneath all our insecurities, beneath all our hopes for and beliefs in equality, each of us believes we're better than anyone else. Because it's our beliefs that are right, our doubts that are allowable ones, our fears which are legitimate."--Audrey Beth Stein