A Daughter in the Church

One of my daughters called me the other day. She asked me some questions about why we read words like, "I do not permit a woman to teach or to assume authority over a man; she must be quiet." (1 Timothy 2:12) and apply them in our present context but read words like "I also want the women to dress modestly, with decency and propriety, adorning themselves, not with elaborate hairstyles or gold or pearls or expensive clothes . . ." and do not apply them in our present context.

I thought about all that I had to say on this topic and decided that I would at least start by saying something on this site. There are many other portions of the Bible that could be added to this list of "why this but not this?" Furthermore, we ignore much of the Bible with the practicalities of what we do: "But every woman who prays or prophesies with her head uncovered dishonors her head—it is the same as having her head shaved." (1 Corinthians 12:5) or "Do not be anxious about anything, but in every situation, by prayer and petition, with thanksgiving, present your requests to God" (Philippians 4:6). On the other hand, we put a much greater emphasis on some verses than seems warranted:

"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." (1 Corinthians 14:34-35)

This latter text is very interesting for, we do not actually apply it by requiring that women be silent in our meetings of the church, yet we use it as evidence in other discussions about how we will conduct ourselves in our gatherings and in the leadership structures. Some biblical scholars have good evidence to suggest that these verses are an editorial commentary added by a scribe1; but, even if we allow that they are part of Paul's original writing, we must read them next to words of Paul in which he encourages both men and women to teach, pray, and prophesy. Fee says, "these verses [1 Corinthians 14:34-35] stand in obvious contradiction to 11:2-16, where it is assumed without reproof that women pray and prophesy in the assembly."

More must also be said about the sloppy way in which we interpret our Bibles. I have previously blogged on how easy it is to open a few passages of scripture, read them, and then ask, "What does the Bible have to say about this?" It is much harder, but much more accurate, to "appeal instead to the 'broad sweep of Scripture' and to generalities regarding justice, love, and common humanity."2

What else would I want my daughter to investigate? I would want her to understand this statement by the Spirit filled, evangelical scholar, Gordon D. Fee.

Perhaps the worst thing the evangelical tradition has done on gender matters is to isolate them from the bigger picture of biblical theology. Indeed, I think we are destined for continual trouble if we do not start where Paul does: not with isolated statements addressed to contingent situations, but with Paul's theology of the new creation, the coming of God's eschatological rule inaugurated by Christ – especially through his death and resurrection – and the gift of the Spirit.
   
Two texts in particular serve as a proper starting point here. First, 2 Corinthians 5:14-17, where Paul argues with the Corinthians who are calling into question both his gospel of a crucified Messiah and his cruciform apostleship. He responds that the new creation brought about by Christ's death and resurrection nullifies one's viewing anything any longer from the age old point of view (Gk. kata sarka, "according to the flesh"). Christ's death means that the whole human race has come under the sentence of death (v. 14), so that those who do live (in God's new order) now live for the one who died for them and was raised again (v. 15). The result, he goes on, is that from this point on, to view either Christ or anyone/anything else from a perspective that is "according to the flesh" is no longer valid (v. 16). Why? Because being in Christ means that one belongs to the new creation: the old has gone, the new has come (v. 17). It doesn't take much reading of Paul to recognize that this radical, new order point of view – life marked by the cross – lies at the heart of everything he thinks and does.3

I want my daughter and all of us reading this post to begin to understand the culture into which the gospel came. Again, I call upon the excellent thinking of Gordon Fee.

As Demosthenes says in an offhanded, matter-of-fact way: "Mistresses we keep for the sake of pleasure, concubines for the daily care of the body, but wives to bear us legitimate children."

The idea that men and women might be equal partners in marriage simply did not exist, evidence for which can be seen in meals, which in all cultures serve as the great equalizer. In the Greek world, women scarcely ever joined their husbands and his friends at meals; and if they did, they did not recline at table (only the courtesans did that), but sat on benches at the end. And they were expected to leave after eating, when the conversation took a more public turn. It is especially difficult for most of us even to imagine our way back into such a culture, let alone to have any sense of feeling for it. Which is what makes what Paul actually says so counter-cultural in every way. . .4

I want my daughter to look at passages like Acts 16:3-5 in which Paul greets Priscilla and then Aquila and praises them because they risked their lives for him. He also greets the church that meets in their, not Aquila's, house. This is sure evidence that some things have already been transformed by the gospel. In Colossians 4:15 Paul greets Nympha and the church that meets in her house. In Acts 16:13-15, 40 we see that the first believers in Philippi met at Lydia's house.

I would suggest that my daughter read other great books on the subject such as Finally Feminist by John G. Stackhouse Jr. Then, I would ask my daughter to pray with me and ask that God might make each of us a suitable vessel for all of the gifts of the Holy Spirit. That, regardless of gender or the church context in which we reside, that each of us might work within those confines and teach, prophecy, counsel, pastor, lead, and love the people of God. May there be joy, love, grace, and unity in the churches of the Body of Christ.

1 On the inauthenticity of 1 Corinthians 14:34-35, see Fee, God's Empowering Presence, 272-281.
2 Noll, Mark A. The Civil War as a Theological Crisis. Chapel Hill: The University of North Carolina Press, 2006, p. 50 and also at http://www.religion-online.org/showarticle.asp?title=3403
3 (Hancock 2003, 64)
4 (Fee 2000, 68, 69)

Further Reading:
Fee, Gordon D. Listening to the Spirit in the Text. Grand Rapids: William B Eerdmans Publishing Company, 2000.
Hancock, Maxine, ed. Christian Perspectives on Gender, Sexuality, and Community. Vancouver: Regent College Publishing, 2003.
Stackhouse, John G. Jr. Finally Feminist. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2005.

Recent Reading

I like it when I discover what other people have read. It gives me ideas about books I would like to read, authors to investigate, or even genres to consider. Here is a list of some of my recent reading with some brief notations.

Novels:
The Edible Woman, Margaret Atwood - Atwood is one of the most (if not the most) celebrated Canadian authors. Although The Edible Woman is a novel, it makes important statements about women in western society and gender stereotypes.

A Small Death in the Great Glen, A. D. Scott - This is a well-written mystery novel set in Inverness, Scotland. The book is an easy read and keeps your interest to the end. If you have ever been to Inverness you will certainly enjoy the author's geographic descriptions.

The Brothers Karamazov, Fyodor Dostoevsky - Dostoevsky demonstrates remarkable knowledge of the human psyche in this classic published in 1880. It is full of insight into our motivations and false humility.

Non-fiction:
Making The Best Of It: Following Christ In The Real World, John G. Stackhouse Jr. - Stackhouse discusses the writings and lives of C.S. Lewis, Dietrich Bonhoeffer, H. Richard Niebuhr, Reinhold Niebuhr, and John Howard Yoder comparing their various approaches to living and acting in the world. He then presents his own best answer on how we might follow Christ in the real world.

Mere Christianity, C. S. Lewis - This book is a classic example of Lewis' brilliant logic and apologetics of the Christian faith. It also contains many great insights into human nature.

The Writing Life, Annie Dillard - In this collection of various writing forms, one of the greatest writers of our time describes her writing process. It is both inspiring and terrifying. All who aspire to write should read this book. All who read and buy books should read The Writing Life to appreciate the work that has gone into a well-crafted book.

Leave a comment below and tell me about a book you have recently enjoyed.

Disagreement

The other day, I had a challenging conversation with a friend. We disagreed on something. This will happen. It is good and it is right that we disagree with others from time to time. At the end of the conversation we affirmed each other as people and spoke of our respect for each other and the roles we carry. We need to hear other voices and seek to see things through different eyes. Neither of us changed our stance on the particular issue.

Franklin Littell once pointed out the irony that churches have tried to impose certain ideas upon all people. Such issues as prohibition and resistance to evolution would be recent historical examples.

Politicians in the churches attempted to secure by public legislation what they were unable to persuade many of their own members was either wise or desirable. . . . Lacking the authenticity of a genuinely disciplined witness, the Protestant reversion to political action was ultimately discredited, and the churches have not to this day recovered their authority in public life.1

We must not seek to legislate our opinions when a large number of people would not support those opinions; and, another equally important truth lies along side of this one: we cannot affirm everyone else's difference. Despite what some might say, we cannot tolerate evil. As John Stackhouse points out, "The absurdity of such an attitude [that we can tolerate everyone's difference] emerges immediately upon one's refusal to affirm this or that idea, behavior, or group with which one disagrees: one is then condemned (note: not affirmed)."2

This gives us some helpful language for how to speak of such things. We want to listen to one another and learn from other people's perspective even when we know we cannot move to their same conclusions. We must not legislate our morality or ideas when we know that there is broad disagreement with the ideas. A mature version of tolerance must go beyond a fierce judging of all who will not play the same game.


1 As quoted in (Stackhouse 2008, 326, 327)
2 (Stackhouse 2008, 329)

God's Providence

I like this description of city and garden and Fall and Redemption in Making the Best of It.1

We must be careful, however, to see the Fall also in its context as just one part of the story. Some Christians instead have interpreted our current existence as if we are in a world utterly fallen, corrupted beyond repair, a valley of the shadow of death through which we must travel as expeditiously as possible in order to reach the sunlit lands of the next life. In particular, culture itself is seen as a bad thing in the form of the city - the antipode to Eden (which is, to make this contrast work best, depicted as a "natural" place, not the garden it was, which of course implies culture). The first city was founded by Cain. Aha! That means cities are bad, and thus all human culture downstream of the Fall is bad.

Yet long before the Bible set up its ongoing dialectic between the evil city (Babel/Babylon) and the good city (Jerusalem/Zion), even a little study of the immediate Biblical context suggests an interweaving of the good and the bad after the Fall. Genesis 4 proceeds from the story of Cain and Abel to show us at least two forms of cultural decline in the person of Lamech, who marries two wives and then boasts to them of his disproportionate violence, killing a man who had (merely) hurt him. Yet this Lamech fathers three sons, one of whom is the ancestor of nomads, those who dwell in tents and heard livestock; another of whom is the first musician; and the third of whom is the archetypal metalsmith. However one might be suspicious of cities, and however much one might disdain loutish Lamech, in the gracious providence of God even this family produces cultural advancement through three creative and productive sons.

I have always marvelled at a creator God who could use so many flawed people for His purposes. There are many in the Bible whom I would not want to meet, let alone befriend, who are used to fulfill the cultural or spiritual purposes of God. He seems infinitely capable of meeting us at our level and redeeming some part of our lives. He has worked through history with those who have pledged their faith in Him and those who have not and still brings about growth and progress in this family of humanity. I marvel at a God who allows good rain to fall on the righteous and the unrighteous; who works with the faithful and the depraved; and allows atheists to create art and science and literature which benefits humans and other creatures on this planet. I may not like this "loutish Lamech" but I am thankful for his farming, musical, and black smithy sons. It is a good thing that He can use any one. That tells me that, despite my flaws and sin and sloth, He can still use me.

1. Stackhouse, John G., Jr. Making the Best of It: Following Christ In The Real World. New York: Oxford University Press , Inc., 2008.

Follow-up to A Parable

On December 9th John Stackhouse had a blog post which contained these quotes from Walter Hilton. Hilton offered a way for us to determine if we truly love our enemies. Here is the quote.

What it really comes to is this: if you are not stirred up against such a person in anger while faking an outward cheer, and have no secret hatred in your heart, despising him or judging him or considering him worthless; if the more shame and villainy he does to you in word or deed, the more pity and compassion you show toward him, almost as you would for someone who was emotionally or mentally distressed; and if you are so compelled by love that you actually cannot find it in your heart to hate him, but instead you pray for him, help him out, and desire his amending (not only with your mouth, as hypocrites do, but with a true feeling of love in your heart): then you will be in perfect charity toward [him]. . . .

. . . Stop and think how Christ loved Judas, who was both his mortal enemy and a sinful dog. How good Christ was to him, how benign, how courteous, how humble toward him whom he knew to be damnable. He chose him for his apostle and sent him to preach with the other apostles. He gave him power to work miracles. He showed to him the same good cheer in word and deed. He shared with him his precious Body, and preached to him in the same manner as he did to the other apostles. He did not condemn him openly; nor did he abuse him or despise him, nor ever speak evil of him (and yet even if he had done all of that, it would simply have been to tell the truth!). And above all, when Judas seized him, he kissed him and called him his friend.