Anyone familiar with the 1970′s British hit “Monty Python’s Flying Circus” will recognize that tag line. In the 30 minute shows that aired on our PBS station that line would occasionally pop up to signal a shift from one really weird skit to another. That was the thing about Monty Python. Nothing was ever “normal.” You went from completely different to completely different.
I am not going to state my age (because, hopefully, it will be continually changing) but I will say that in my lifetime the moral culture of the United States has changed more radically than during any equivalent time period. I am not speaking in terms of technology, as there have been other generations in which technology has advanced more than during my lifetime. (I think of my grandfathers who were born before Lindberg and who watched Neil Armstrong walk on the moon.) What I am talking about is in relation to what is considered right and wrong. I came from the time period in which Mary Ann had to keep her belly button covered to appease the censors. Rhett Butler was almost black-balled because he said he really did not care. Lucy and Ricky had to sleep in twin size beds separated by a night-stand.
Today, a person is considered a bigot if he or she thinks that marriage should be defined as an intimate relationship between a man and a woman. I have to take my shoes off at the airport because some crazy might try to blow the plane up with a bomb in his sneaker. I dread the month of April knowing that someone is going to shoot up a school, a movie theater, or bomb an athletic event.
I know there was a huge shift in morality centered around the major wars – the Civil, the World War to end all World Wars and the World War after that one, the Korean “Conflict” and the Vietnam “Police Action.” But, thinking in terms of the general public, the “man on the street,” has there been a more radical change in the mores and values of the American public than in the past 50-60 years?
Just think of it – we are now actually debating what the concept of “Freedom of Religious Belief” means. When I was born we were only concerned about freedom from ring-around-the-collar.
What does the future hold? Who knows – I cannot see it getting any better for persons of conservative religious or moral belief. You cannot put toothpaste back in the tube once it has been squirted out. Mary Ann’s bare mid-riff has morphed into Miley Cyrus’ bare, um, well you get the idea. Unless there is a cataclysmic change in society’s perception of “right” and “wrong” I can only picture things getting worse.
Does that mean we give up, throw in the towel, wave the white flag? No, never. But it does mean we must learn how to challenge the changing moral landscape a lot more intelligently than we have for the past half-century. It means, oddly, that we are going to have to go back to a way of thinking far more similar to the first century than the 21st century. Jesus, Peter, Paul and the early church fathers lived in a world where homosexuality was openly practiced, women were treated like chattel to be bought and sold, and infants were routinely allowed to die if the father rejected them. Yup, kind of sounds like the LGBT, pornographic sex-trafficking, and Planned Parenthood culture we live in today.
We can no longer rely on our supposed “Christian” foundation. If we ever had one it is quickly disappearing in our collective rear-view mirror. We must own up to the fact that biblical standards of morality will be viewed as “abnormal” and even bigoted and hateful. What once was normal is not normal anymore.
“And now for something completely different…”
I was reading in the book of Exodus this morning in my daily Bible reading. The passage I was reading (more on that later) reminded me of the amazing instructors I had in college. Drs. John Willis, Everett Ferguson, Ian Fair, Neil Lightfoot, Bill Humble, Eugene Clevenger, Lemoine Lewis – an amazing cast of instructors at one given point in history. It is really quite spooky how a few verses from the Bible can bring so many faces and tones of voice and little personal mannerisms and other memories flooding back to you.
Anyway – and on to the point of this blog, the passage I was reading included the last few verses of Exodus 2 all the way through chapter 3:
God heard their groaning, and God remembered his covenant with Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. God looked upon the Israelites, and God took notice of them…Then the LORD said, “I have observed the misery of my people who are in Egypt; I have heard their cry on account of their taskmasters. Indeed, I know their sufferings, and I have come down to deliver them from the Egyptians, and to bring them up out of that land to a good and broad land, a land flowing with milk and honey…” (Exodus 2:24-25, 3:7-8a, NRSV)
It was Dr. John Willis who taught me the ancient language of Hebrew (and a ton of other information about the Old Testament). One of the things that he stressed in dealing with any passage of Scripture (Old or New Testament) is to focus on the verbs. The verbs carry all the freight of the sentence, and theologically speaking, all the spiritual freight as well.
Notice the verbs in those few verses. God heard, God remembered, God looked upon, God took notice, God had observed, God had heard, God knew, God has come down, and God will bring them up.
And that, my friends and neighbors, will keep you busy studying and meditating and praying upon for as long as you would like. Those are some of the most powerful, most pregnant, and most eloquent expressions to be found in Holy Scripture.
Agnostics and atheists like to think they can place Christians in a difficult spot by speaking of God’s absence, of God’s forsaking the earth. They might have a point if the Bible spoke of Deism. But the God of the Bible is no deist. The God of the Bible is a living, active participant in this world. Our God did not wind the universe up only to watch it run down to some cataclysmic end. Our God hears, remembers, looks upon, takes notice, observes, comes down in order to lift up.
I am afraid that too many Christians have been deluded by Aristotle’s “Unmoved Mover” as the picture of God. In this they have fallen right into the trap that agnostics and atheists have laid. Aristotle does not even come close to the picture of God painted in the Hebrew Scriptures, not to mention the New Testament. I am so glad! Aristotle’s god may be worthy of fear and loathing, but never love, adoration and worship.
When you are flying by yourself in fog so thick you cannot even see your wingtips it is nice to know there is someone out there who can see everything that is going on. In the case of a pilot that is the air traffic controller who guides and sequences all the planes flying around in the muck so they can land safely.
We, as children of God, have so much more than an air traffic controller. We have a God who sees all, knows all, and, most important, loves and cares for all. He created all and died for all. He it is who is worthy of our love and adoration.
It is not difficult to discover who this God is and what He does for His children – the proof is in the verbs!
One more post on an issue that is really a burr under my saddle. Hopefully I can get this out of my system with this entry.
Was the apostle Paul a moral monster? Did he, in his teaching, leave a group of Christians to practice something that he knew was wrong, indeed was sinful? Did he, by writing a letter (or better, letters) exacerbate that error by the thousands, perhaps millions, of mislead disciples? These are serious questions, and in the discussions that are so prevalent in the church today these questions must at least be asked.
The argument that I object to so strenuously, and that was presented in all earnestness by a young man in Bible class yesterday, goes something like this: the apostle Paul knew certain behaviors were wrong, or at the very least were sub-Christian in nature, but because of the prevailing culture in the communities in which he was trying to preach, he faced a dilemma. He could either teach what he knew to be true (and later proved that he knew was true) and risk upsetting the mores of the people that he was trying to teach; or he could swallow his tongue, actually support the unjust and ungodly behavior in the hopes that he could teach them about Christ without raising their self-defense mechanisms. In other words, the apostle Paul actively condoned certain behaviors, even though he knew them to be against God’s will, so that he could teach the people about Jesus.
I have three huge, nay, monstrous, objections to this line of thinking.
1. To suggest this behavior means that Paul violated his own integrity. When you teach something that you believe to be true, and later find to be false, you are guilty of an error of fact, but your integrity is not affected (assuming you correct your mistake). But, when you teach something you know is false in order to achieve another goal you have violated the very basic aspect of integrity. It does not matter the ultimate goal here – you are guilty of the theory of “the end justifies the means.” That theory treats your students as mere pawns in helping you achieve your status. It is fundamentally demeaning to those you are trying to teach. It is philosophically corrupt as well as theologically corrupt. When your students find out that you have not only lied to them, but lied to achieve an ulterior goal, they will not only lose respect for you, but also for the subject about which you are attempting to teach them. For someone to suggest that Paul knew a behavior was wrong (or conversely, that it was blessed by God) and then for him to condone it (or conversely, that he condemned that which God had blessed) makes Paul out to be the worst of deceivers.
2. To suggest that Paul knew a behavior to be wrong, yet taught so as to condone it meant that not only did he teach his audience error, but he taught it is okay to promote that error if the situation demanded it. A student learns not only the content of lessons, but the method and the philosophy behind those lessons as well. For Paul to say, “Listen, I know full well that behavior ‘X’ is wrong, but I’m going to bless practicing it as a command of God so that I can get my point across” was to teach his audience that it is perfectly okay to lie if there is an “acceptable” ulterior motive. Conversely, if Paul knew a behavior was perfectly acceptable to God, yet taught that it was a sin, then the lesson is clear – our teaching is pure regardless of the content so long as we have a “pure” motive behind our erroneous content.
3. If Paul knew a behavior was wrong, and yet taught in such a manner as to condone it meant that he violated a much higher standard of honesty: he falsely involved the activity of the Holy Spirit. Paul did not just say, “Behavior ‘X’ is wrong because our culture says it is wrong and so we should avoid it” he said, “Behavior ‘X’ is wrong because it is condemned in the written word of God.” Likewise, when Paul blessed a certain behavior he used God’s word to verify that claim. Thus, and make no mistake about this, if Paul knew a certain behavior was wrong, and he condoned that behavior by appealing to God’s word, then he is guilty of blasphemy against the Holy Spirit. It is one thing to teach a lie under your own authority. When you knowingly and intentionally invoke God’s name in your lie you have violated the very nature of the true God.
I really know of no other way to state this. If Paul knew a behavior was wrong (or, that a behavior was acceptable to God) and yet he taught and wrote in such a way as to promote that sinful behavior (or, on the flip side, he taught and wrote that an acceptable lifestyle was sinful before God) then he (1) violated his own integrity, (2) taught and promoted that others could violate their integrity if the situation demanded it, and (3) by invoking the word of God to defend his arguments (which he knew were false) he blasphemed the Holy Spirit.
What would we think of a preacher today who taught what he knew was a lie, taught others to practice the same lie, and invoked God’s name and God’s word to support his lies? I would call him a moral monster – a reprobate in the fullest sense of the term.
Why should we think the apostle Paul to be any less of a moral monster?
(BTW – if Paul was thoroughly ignorant of the error of his way the issue is not thereby resolved. It simply makes Paul to be, in the words of C.S. Lewis, a pathetic lunatic – someone who was greatly deluded and someone whose rantings are to be steadfastly avoided.)
Brothers and sisters, fellow exegetes and preachers, before we go around spouting off that Paul only taught that such-and-such behavior was right because the culture of his day demanded it; or that such-and-such behavior was sinful because the culture of his day demanded it even though he knew the opposite to be true let us stop and ask a critical question – What does that behavior turn the apostle Paul into?
I cannot accept the moral morass into which that argument places the apostle Paul. The apostle Paul may be many things: confusing, obtuse, opaque, bewildering, hyperbolic – just to name a few. But a moral monster?
Ray Stevens recorded a song that begins, “I’m not one to get all excited, I’m seldom tense and never uptight but there is one thing that really makes me mad…” Well, the song is about vending machines, and it is hysterical, but that is not the point of this entry…
This morning I found yet another thing that really makes me mad. The list is long and filled with items I am not necessarily proud of. The new addition? A combination of telling an elder IN A BIBLE CLASS that his interpretation of a passage of Scripture was wrong, while at the same time totally misinterpreting the disputed passage of Scripture yourself.
Here’s the set-up. The class was focused on the role of women in the church (part of a continuing series of lessons on various aspects of the teacher’s growth in the faith). Towards the very end of the class a question was raised, at which time an elder responded in a very direct, but non-confrontational way. It was at this point that a young man objected and said, in so many words, that he had studied the letter to the Corinthians “carefully” and that the elders interpretation was wrong. Emphatically wrong.
What was the young man’s basis for his all-fired surety? (cue the drum roll, please…..)
The young man was so sure the elder was wrong because (and I cannot quote exactly, but I can come pretty close…) “the culture in Corinth was such that if Paul had allowed the women to speak in a public assembly it would have upset those visiting the church services from the surrounding community and it would have hurt the message of Christ. So, rather than allow the women to speak and upset the culture, Paul told them to remain silent.”
To quote Ronald Reagan, “There you go again.” The old, “Paul was too timid to upset the local culture” argument. Without one single particle, noun or verb to defend his position he was utterly convinced that the elder in question was wrong, and with all of his, maybe, what, 10 or 15 years of “careful” (whatever that means) study he was able to dispense with thousands of years of consistent biblical exegesis.
I don’t care how “careful” you study a passage, if you study wrong you are not going to come up with a correct answer. So, one more time, with emphasis, let us look and see what the apostle Paul ACTUALLY WROTE about whether he was writing to not ruffle any cultural feathers or whether he was writing across all cultures with the same message:
1 Cor. 1:2 – Paul writes to the church of God in Corinth, and to all those everywhere who call upon the name of the Lord Jesus Christ.
1 Cor. 4:17 – Paul’s life (an example to the Corinthians) is in agreement with what he teaches everywhere and in every church.
1 Cor. 7:17 – Paul lays down a rule in Corinth that he lays down in all the churches.
1 Cor. 11:16 – Paul discusses the covering of women and states that he has no other practice, nor do the churches of God.
1 Cor. 14:33 – Paul says that, as in all the congregations of the saints, the women are to maintain silence in the assembly.
So, exactly which of these passages tells us that Paul was making a concession based on culture in Corinth? On any subject??
Or Rome, or Jerusalem, or Ephesus, or Philippi, or Colossae, or Crete?? Where did Paul cave in to cultural sensitivities? And where exactly are cultural sensitivities EVER in line with Christian thought and behavior before Christ is preached?
I’ve heard the “Paul did not want to offend the local culture” argument until I’m getting sick of it – where is even the smallest bit of textual evidence that Paul backed down on ANY point of doctrine because of cultural pressure? Some would argue that he did so in relation to slavery but I would argue even there that (1) Paul did not back down in the face of cultural pressure but rather confronted it in an effort to change it in a significant manner, and (2) the reality of slavery in Paul’s day was so different from our American understanding of slavery that we cannot even begin to discuss the issue intelligently unless we do a thorough study of slavery in the Roman empire and how it differed from the American experience.
So – yeah, I found another item to add to my list of things that “really make me mad.” I do not like it when elders are confronted in public, by a young man who was both disrespectful and who was totally wrong in his interpretation of the passage of Scripture. And I really, really, really am getting sick of people using an argument that (1) they have not studied through and (2) is completely without any textual evidence to support it.
This post has started out in several different forms. Each time I would erase a little, change a little, zig a little here, zag a little there. Every time I started out with the same goal, and each time I found myself traipsing down a path I had not necessarily planned on traipsing. Such is the nature of this post – I know what I want to say but the “getting out” is proving to be quite exhausting.
For those of you who do not keep up with religious bloggers, quite the hoo-haw has been raised over the past few days concerning Donald Miller’s confession that he does not like church very much. (He wrote a book entitled Blue Like Jazz in which he basically said the same thing, but in much more disguised and glowing terminology.) There have been dozens (hundreds?) of blogs written in response – some praising and some condemning. But what I find to be interesting is that so many of Miller’s compatriots in the “Emerging Church” movement have ended up in exactly the same place – they all claim to love Jesus exuberantly but for one reason or another cannot stand to remain in the “institutional” church (whatever that is) so they leave the church to join the ekklesia at large. I see that as a very high-brow way of saying, “I love to eat steak, but I would never condone the slaughtering of a cow. So I get my steaks at the restaurant.”
I might add, for those of you who think I am just reacting to everyone else’s reaction, I have had three classes in a doctoral level program that were either entirely or significantly focused on the writings of post-modern, “Emerging Church” theologians. I was interested in their writings (and I still am), but was then and remain now deeply doubtful of the long-term results of their shallow theology. They often indicate they are in agreement with orthodox Christianity, but when they spell out what they really believe in terms of practice it becomes clear that their doxy is quite anything but ortho.
I should also say up front that I too believe that the modern church is not what it could and should be. I think I am honest about my misgivings. If I am permitted to do so, I intend to direct my dissertation to an area of theology and practice that I believe modern Churches of Christ have completely (or to be more charitable, almost completely) omitted – and much to our spiritual loss. But, the Good Lord willing, I will write out of a position of love and healing, not a position of hate and rejection. Such is my plan, anyway, and my fate is currently in the hands of others, so all of this may be a bunch of blather about nothing.
But, returning to my original, thoroughly revamped post – I just wonder how anyone can proclaim any kind of love for Jesus or God and at the same time argue that the church is dead, or at least is on life support and should be extinguished. What kind of friend walks up to a groom and says, “Man, I love you like you were my own brother, but I have to tell you, that girl you just married is as ugly as the south end of a north bound donkey and has the personality of a witch.”
The book of Revelation ends with God’s redeemed people receiving a stamped, embossed invitation to the marriage feast between the Son and his bride, the Church. Jesus died for the church, his creation. Paul rejoiced that he was able to continue Christ’s afflictions for the church. It’s funny, but with all the warts and dysfunction and flat-out heresies that consumed the early churches, Paul never referred to them as anything other than God’s holy and precious children.
Yes, I love the church. Exactly why would take a whole book to explain – this blog is just too short. But suffice it to say that I love the church exactly because Jesus loved the church – enough to die so that it might have life. And it seems to me that if Jesus loved something enough to die for it then I should make every effort to love it as well.
It may not be popular, it may not be blue like jazz, but in the end God is not going to ask if we were trendy and hip – He will judge whether we have been faithful and devoted. I do not think that God ever expected the church on earth to be perfect – I think that is a dangerous myth that has led to some horrendous mistakes. But we can be faithful, honest and disciplined – all hallmarks of the church that God gave to us through the blood of Christ.
The church of Christ, the church of God, the church of the Firstborn Ones*, the universal ekklesia or the local congregation down the street, – whatever name you find in Scripture, just love the church. Help it get better. Point out where it is weak. Make it stronger. Just do not leave it and claim you are doing so for the love of Jesus.
*The word firstborn in Hebrews 12:23 is plural. This is not typically translated, as firstborns or firstborn ones are clumsy ways of translating the phrase. Think of the word “fish.” We can catch either one fish, or multiple fish, but we only rarely (and only archaically) catch more than one fishes. The context of the passage, however, makes the plural obvious.
The sermon topic this morning was Paul’s message to the older women in Titus 2. Now, I can’t tell you for sure exactly what all the points were, because like every good sermon this one prompted thought – and some internal processing. I got to thinking about all the wonderful senior saints who have had an impact on my life. The quirky, the eccentric, lovable each and every one of them.
So much is being said and written these days about how the Church of Christ in particular is being oppressive to women. Yea, verily, you would think we make our females wear burqas and sit on split rail benches behind a screened in wall in an adjacent room while the men sit in upholstered recliners in a gilded auditorium.
And I remember these heroic women of my childhood and wonder – if they were so oppressed, if the men of the congregation looked down on them so much, if they were so 2nd or 3rd class – then why are they so prominent in my memory? How did they come to have such an impact on my spiritual development?
I really feel sorry for a woman who feels like the only way she can gain any respectability is to preach a sermon, pray a prayer or “lead” at the Lord’s table. What a small concept of self-worth. Honestly ladies – once you do it a couple of times you will realize how little “power” you will have. The glory that God has given the female far exceeds the menial task of standing behind a pulpit. To look at a man and say, “I want to be like him” is the worst kind of self-deprecation. If you do not like being a woman, believe me, you will not be worth much as a man.
I realize those may be harsh words in the 21st century and the age of egalitarianism. But as I sat this morning listening to Paul’s words to the older female Christians I could not help but stop and think that I sure am glad I had some older ladies in my life who were sincerely grateful to be God’s daughters. They knew the power that they held in their grasp – and they had no desire to exchange it for the role of a male.
I don’t think that was the main point of the sermon. But, it was a sermon well preached anyway. It has been preached by dozens of women in my life. Godly women who received their giftedness with strength, humility and grace. It was a sermon that is preached every day by God’s servants both male and female who have the ability to say, “may it be to me as you have said.” (Lk. 1:38).
Over the past several days I have had some wonderful conversations regarding the recent Bill Nye/Ken Ham debate over the science of creation. I have also read some wonderful blogs as the bloggers offered their two cents worth.
The biggest takeaway from the debate – nothing significant is going to change intellectually unless there is an underlying change of heart.
I believe it was Albert Mohler who made the case the most specific and convincing. Bill Nye and Ken Ham approached the subject of evolution/divine creation from two vastly different worldviews. The difference, at least as Mohler interpreted the event, was that Ham was fully up-front about his world-view orientation while Bill Nye seemed to project that he did not even have a world-view, he was just looking at the facts and reading them like this morning’s newspaper. Therein lies the problem and until there is a recognition of that fact there will be no significant change in the minds of those who reject God as the source of our universe.
We (as believers) can make all the arguments we want to – and there are very real and scientific reasons to believe that this world was created by a Divine Being – but as long as a person is committed to a secular world-view that evidence will simply be dismissed out of hand. As I am told Ken Ham pointed out in one of his speeches, we are looking at the same evidence, the same rocks and the same fossils, but we are interpreting the evidence through profoundly different lenses. A totally committed secular lens is just not capable of seeing God, whereas a world-view that allows for a Divine creator can accept and work within a scientific arena. What it refuses to do is accept the dogma of scientism, the humanistic idea that man is master of his own past and future, and that science is the solution to all of man’s problems.
As the old saying goes – a man convinced against his will is of the same opinion still.
What does this all mean? Does it mean we give up with our study of science and our logical arguments? No. We must never do that.
But what it does point out is that a person will never change intellectually until there is a change in the soul as well. The heart and the intellect are far more inter-connected than we as “logical” debaters seem to think. We get sucked into the idea that all we have to do is present a logical, scientific answer and everyone MUST accept our position. I wish that were true. But the fact is the heart must be touched sometimes before, and sometimes at the same time, as the mind is being challenged.
So – let us keep up with our study of geology and astronomy and physics and biology and every other kind of -ology. But, as we do so let us also pray that God opens the hearts and the ears of those we are trying to teach. I do not just want to win a debate. I want to bring someone to Christ. And the only way for that to happen is if our creator God works either before or during our words to soften the heart of those we are teaching.
Disclaimer here – I was not able to watch the debate last night between Bill Nye (the “Science Guy”) and Ken Ham. (I was busy feeding about 75+ hungry college students). But I have read some news reports and commentary today and I am generally familiar with their arguments, so I would like to offer some commentary of my own.
First, where Bill Nye is wrong.
Nye is wrong in that he seems to think that “science” is a pure subject. It is not. I know this sounds esoteric, but when Nye says, “science is just about studying facts” he is in fact (no pun intended) working under a larger philosophical concept of “scientism.” Nye, and many other evolutionists, confuse the examination of particular artifacts as “science” when in fact their examination of those artifacts is being driven by an earlier presupposition to accept certain results and reject others. When Nye and other evolutionists claim that a certain rock or fossil “proves” evolution, they are in fact rejecting other possibilities because those possibilities do not fit the theory that they are indeed trying to prove. To be specific, there is not just one “missing link” in the chain of “evolution,” there are many. But, you will never hear an evolutionist even mention those gaps, because their “scientism” will not allow them to ask the question that might allow for a Divine Creator – how can you explain these gaps? On the other hand, the scientist who believes in the Creator God can look at the exact same evidence and argue that the “gaps” in the evolutionary chain are the fatal flaws of evolution. Their examination of the facts, or “science” is disavowed by Bill Nye and others because it does not fit within their “scientism” – a philosophical belief that will not allow for a creator God in any way, shape or form.
Now, where Ken Ham is wrong.
Ken Ham goes to the other extreme. Ken’s failsafe position is “because the Bible says so.” In effect, Ken turns the Bible into a scientific text book, complete with an inerrant chronological record and specific history of all things created. The Bible was never meant to be used in such a fashion. Perhaps the one thing that distresses me the most about Ham’s position is his relentless promotion of the “6,000 year old earth” argument. I wrote about Archbishop Ussher and his computation of the 6,000 year age of the earth a long time back, but the salient facts bear repeating. Archbishop Ussher was a profound Christian apologist and quite a remarkable mathematician. By combining various chronological lists in the Bible along with some intricate mathematical computations, Ussher arrived at the age of the earth as being around 6,000 years. His findings finally found their way into the introduction of one of the early editions of the King James Bibles, and it has been sacrosanct ever since. But I know of no current (or even relatively recent deceased) Old Testament scholars who hold that you can take the various genealogical lists given in the Old Testament and come up with anything even remotely bearing certainty. That was NOT the purpose of those genealogical lists! Just one example: in Ruth 4:18-22 we have the “genealogy” of King David, from Perez (the son of Judah) to David. The list includes 10 names, but the time period involved (from before the time Israel entered into Egypt leading all the way to David) involves at least 800 years! (Note: I am assuming that the reigns of the judges were sequential, and not that some of them were “co-regents” of a sort) The various genealogical lists are provided for various reasons (theology being one, and perhaps the most important!) but calculating the age of the earth is NOT one of those reasons!
I believe Ham lost a very important opportunity here to point out that the debate is not between science and theology – it is between one philosophical view of science (the idea that science can solve all of our questions, or the above mentioned “scientism”) and another view of science (that science can lead us to ask better and more appropriate questions, but will never provide all, or even a majority, of the answers). Instead, Ham more or less let Nye hold the high ground (or so Nye supposed) and tried to argue from a philosophical foundation that Nye and other evolutionists reject entirely.
Where both Nye and Ham were absolutely correct.
Both men argued their positions in a calm fashion, both made salient points, and both were respectful (by virtually all accounts). I think they were both absolutely correct in saying that this issue is critical for our children to be able to discuss. Where I would disagree vehemently with Nye is that I believe this discussion SHOULD take place in our science classrooms, in addition to our philosophy classrooms and religion classrooms. To deprive our children of the right to hear and discuss these questions (as I believe Nye is promoting) is simply to abdicate our position as educators. Education is all about the examination of all possible facts and the various theories that those facts lead different scholars to believe. To eliminate 50% of those conclusions and resulting theories because they do not fit some very limited concept of “scientism” is just blatantly irresponsible. So, whether he wanted to or not, I think Nye made a very important point: this discussion DOES deserve to be in the science classroom.
This is true if for no other reason that our children deserve to discover that evolutionists cannot answer even the most basic questions about their theory: why is there “anything” to begin with? From whence came the “stuff” that started this whole process?
For the answer to that question we must turn to God. And that, my friends, is exactly what terrifies Nye and his comrades.
An excellent question has been posed to me, and I would like to give it the full consideration it deserves. I will not repost the question in its entirety, but I hope to cover all that the respondent indicated were important issues. The question is one that is asked all across the country in differing degrees and with differing outcomes. Are women allowed to speak up in modern Bible classes? Are they allowed to ask questions? Are they allowed to make comments? And, should a woman wear a hat or a scarf over her head to show her submission to men?
First – where I stand generally. In regard to my last post I believe that all Scripture is inspired, not just the parts we like or can button-hole into interpretations that we like. I believe it is important to listen to ALL that a particular writer has to say, and I believe that it is critical to take grammatical and rhetorical cues into mind as we seek to understand what the author intended and the Spirit directed.
In regard to the questions being asked, I believe that Paul wrote the Corinthian letters as a continuation of what he taught everywhere and in every place (1 Cor. 4:17, 7:17, 11:16, 14:33, see also 1:2). I do not believe that 1 Cor. 11:1-16 is written with the situation of public worship in mind (the passage that discusses a woman praying or prophesying). I believe this because in 11:18, 20, and 33, and later in 14:23 and 26 Paul clearly uses the phrase “when you come together” or “when the church comes together.” So, I separate 11:1-16 from Paul’s later injunction in 14:34. Finally, in 14:26-35 Paul exhorts first tongue speakers, then prophets, and finally women to “be silent.” The first two are clarifications or limitations – if there is no one to interpret a special tongue or if there are additional revelations. However, in regard to the “women” there are no clarifications or limitations of previous permissions. Paul does not appear to be saying, “a certain group of women need to be silent, but other women are free to speak.” Paul does use an absolute word for “silent” with all three groups, but it is clear (at least to me) from the context he is not meaning “absolutely soundless” as the command to be silent is a clarification, not an absolute prohibition. In 1 Timothy 1:11 a different word is used for the silence of women and I think it provides clarity to the 1 Corinthians teaching. The word is “hesychia” and means respectful silence – not absolute soundlessness.
So, what about our modern Bible classes and the participation of women? I will answer not as an absolute authority, but only as one who is offering his own opinion, based on a careful study of this issue.
1. Our modern Bible classes are nothing like the ancient worship setting. There was no “Bible class” separate and apart from “Worship.” That is a modern monstrosity. Be that as it may, we must deal with it or completely change our format, and I can guess how far that suggestion would go. So, in response to the above question I would ask the following clarification questions:
- Is the class recognized as one which is “open” for discussion and comments? Or are questions (from either males or females) considered to be interruptions and challenges to the teacher’s authority?
- Is the question asked or comment made by a female considered rude and interruptive, or is she genuinely asking for information?
- Has the teacher (assuming it is a male) objected to the questions/comments of a female, or is the person objecting herself a female who resents another “uppity” female from asking questions?
I ask these questions because I have lead classes myself in which a woman tried to interject herself as the “teacher” and it was very uncomfortable for everyone involved. I have also seen women hijack classes that were being lead by men who were very young or inexperienced teachers and did not have either the courage or the wisdom to overcome the challenge. These situations are clearly wrong in my opinion, and would be wrong if the perpetrator was a male. To challenge a teacher in order to tear him down or to usurp his teaching authority in front of a class is just wrong – it is unchristian and beneath the dignity of a student.
On the other hand, in our culture today the asking of a question is not automatically assumed to be a challenge and a method of usurping authority. In the Socratic method of teaching, the “instructor” lead by asking questions – by “drawing out” the correct answer from his students. Thus, for a student to “ask a question” in a Socratic sense is to challenge authority, and believe me, I have had plenty of these type questions both from males and females. (There is a manner in which you can ask a question and convey the attitude that you believe the instructor is a total and complete idiot.) There is also a perfectly innocent method of asking questions – to seek information. I personally do not object to, and often very much appreciate, these types of questions from any student.
In a “worship” experience I have an opposite conclusion. From 1 Corinthians, 1 Timothy and incidentally from passages in Ephesians and Colossians, I believe males are to be the leaders in a worship setting. Here is where I believe 1 Cor. 14 is distinct from 1 Cor. 11. A woman may pray or prophesy (although I have a MUCH different understanding of “prophecy” than modern egalitarians!!), but not in a setting in which males are present. If a male is present, HE is to be the leader and voice of teaching and preaching authority.
2. What about the head covering? In looking at 1 Corinthians 11 it seems obvious to me that Paul is discussing how a person reveals submission to his or her “head.” In that culture women did so by wearing head coverings. Today most women do not. So, how do women today demonstrate respectful submission? I believe that answer to that is cultural – “when in Rome do as the Romans.” Are you in a location where head coverings are expected? Then by all means follow that practice. Should all men wear a tie and a coat when serving on the Lord’s Table or when publicly praying or leading singing? If that is the common understanding, then yes, by all means buy a tie and wear a sport coat. Do bib-overalls suffice? Then wash your overalls and wear a nice shirt.
A very important note needs to be interjected here. In my graduate study I read an article that discussed 1 Corinthians 11:1-16 and for the life of me I cannot remember the title of the article or the name of the author. However, the gist of the article was that Paul was NOT specifically addressing the head covering of women in this section, but he was rather condemning the practice of pagan male priests to have their heads completely covered with a heavy cowl as they “officiated” at their pagan sacrifices. Thus, what we have seen as being directed against women, was actually directed to men, and the reference to women was simply an aside – Paul commenting on his own argument with an oblique reference to women’s head coverings. That article had a profound influence on the way I interpret this passage – although obviously not enough for me to remember who wrote it.* (By the way – I have forgotten my own wedding anniversary, so that tells you how good my memory is).
I will say that I have had women in the congregations that I serve wear head coverings at every service. They did not demand it of other women, but quietly followed their own conscience.
So, to the one who asked the specific question I will advise this – speak to the teacher of the class and/or your leadership. In your setting is the class clearly demarcated from the worship assembly? Does your leadership object to a female asking questions? Is the class open for anyone to do so? Or is it understood that only males can ask questions? Are the questions considered “Socratic” in the sense that they are viewed as interruptive and authoritative? And, regarding the woman that confronted you, did she do so in a spirit of humility, seeking your best interest, or did she attempt to steamroll you and back you into a corner? I have discovered that very often it is the staunchest “defenders of the faith” that need the greatest reminder about humility, and the willingness of the leader to wash the feet of those whom he/she leads.
*To the best of my foggy memory the article was written by Richard Oster. However, it could have been Abraham Malherbe. It actually could turn out to be neither. The title had something to do with head coverings in 1 Corinthians 11. I have not had the chance to locate that article, although I would dearly love to get my hands on it again.
(Warning – long post. Sorry, got a little wordy today.)
The joke is told in various forms. A city slicker is driving through the country and begins to notice a number of bull’s eye targets painted on the sides of buildings, fence posts, trees – just about anything that could hold one. In the center of every single target was a single bullet hole. The city slicker was amazed by the incredible accuracy of the anonymous marksman. When he pulled into the nearest town for a cup of coffee he struck up a conversation with a local sitting alone at a table. “I could not help but notice the astonishing accuracy of a local shooter,” started the visitor. “Every target for miles around here has a bullet hole perfectly placed right in the center of the target.” “Oh, that,” said the local. “Them’s from my grandson. He loves to shoot his gun and wants to feel good about himself, so whenever he shoots and hits somethin’ I come along behind him with a can of white paint and draw a bull’s eye around the hole.”
What does that story have to do with theology, you ask? I’m glad you did.
I fear we have created (or perhaps been sucked into) a culture of theological reflection in which we shoot our gun, and if we happen to hit something, we run over and paint a target around the hole and then congratulate ourselves for having achieved perfect execution.
I have been accused (perhaps rightly so) of being hyperbolic, excessive, crass – snarky even. I hope I can avoid those descriptions and pose some questions to those who feel we must overturn hundreds, or in some cases, thousands of years of traditional understandings of Scripture just because our culture has been able to hit a new “target” of inclusivity and egalitarianism. My immediate focus is on those who have decided that male spiritual leadership has somehow become oppressive and spiritually demeaning to females; but my questions should also have validity to anyone who seeks to “re-imagine” or “re-invent” church as we know it. I have three questions that I believe deserve serious reflection.
1. What is your view of Scripture? It has become meaningless to say one has a “high” view of Scripture if the definition of “high” is not further explained. Do you view one passage as being more “spiritual” than others? Do you view some passages as being “spiritual” or authoritative by virtue of their being generic or “timeless,” and other texts as no longer having any kind of authority because of their specificity or “cultural” baggage? Do you attempt to take one passage of Scripture as being authoritative, and then measure other texts according to that one “meta” text? Or do you believe that within all of the concreteness and “givenness” of any text there are eternal principles that can be learned from these “situational” texts? Do you intentionally seek to find unity among the written texts, or is it more advantageous for you to discover “disunity” and therefore contradictions among the writings of Scripture, which then allows you to place these texts on a sliding scale of authoritative on one end descending down to purely situational and cultural on the other end?
You see, all of this matters, and matters significantly. If I can take a text, decide on totally extraneous criteria that it only has meaning in one “cultural” context, and therefore I am free to ignore, or at least to significantly modify it, then I have made myself the arbiter of the truth of Scripture. I do not stand under the text, I stand over the text as master and judge. I no longer have a “high” view of Scripture, no matter how valuable that description might be in my current work environment.
2. What is your view of mankind (humanity)? Consider the difference between a geocentric and an heliocentric view of our solar system. The geocentric view has certain positive values: for one it is the most easily observable and explainable. The sun clearly does appear to rotate around the earth. We even have texts in Scripture that refer to the rising and setting of the sun. But, as any 9th grade science student (and hopefully younger) has learned, the earth does indeed rotate around the sun, as do all the other planets in our solar system. The explanation is more complex, and deserves a longer answer than just “go outside and watch the sun,” but the fact is that truth is sometimes more complicated than a 30 second sound-bit will admit. So, as with the solar system as with man. Is man (generic, not a male) the master or servant of this world? Is man the created, or the creator? Is man the judge, the jury, or the accused?
Once again, the answer to this question is critical. If in a theologian’s view mankind is the focus of the debate, then the answer will of necessity place mankind as the answer to all the questions. If, however, God is the focus of the debate, then any answer that suggests that mankind as the answer will be unacceptable. The center of the theological universe is not man – it is God. When we try to answer theological questions by positing a humanistic answer we will fail just as positing a geocentric explanation of the movement of the planets will fail. In scientific terms, I do not study my theology to explain and justify my anthropology. I use my anthropology to enlighten and serve my theology. If I worship God so that He will bless my humanistic conclusions, I have created an idol.
3. What is your view of sin, the “fall” of mankind, and of redemption/salvation? Is the ultimate definition of sin the broken relationship of human to human, or is sin the broken relationship of human to God? The anthropological view says we sinned against each other (male against female) and therefore fell from a relationship with God. Restore the relationship between the genders and the relationship with God will be healed. The theological view (brilliantly exposited by Dietrich Bonhoeffer, I might add) is that humans sinned against God and therefore we lost our relationship with each other (including, but not limited to, gender differences). The only way to fully restore the broken relationship among humans is to completely heal the relationship with God. This will, in one sense, never be possible; as created beings we constantly fall short of the glory of God. However, in another sense the breech has been healed but not in the full sense of the original creation! In the garden male was created first, and was given the spiritual protection of the female. This has never changed. The fall did not change those relationships. What changed was that after the fall all humanity was affected, and we became seekers of self instead of participants in communion with God and each other! It was not just the difference between the genders that was broken; our relationship with all things was broken, both created things and the divine Creator. What has changed by the blood of Christ is that all humanity (regardless of nationality, gender or socio/economic background) has a path of forgiveness and reconciliation with God (Gal. 3!). If we look at the Genesis story theologically we can see this – if we look at the Genesis story only through the eyes of anthropology all we see is the battle of the races, sexes, and economics/politics. And, if we get the question wrong, we have no hope of getting the answer right.
In my mind this discussion inevitably flows back to the question of the serpent in the Garden, “Did God really say…” Of course God said it, but did he really mean it? Or did he have some subterfuge in mind that you as humans can overcome by expanding your knowledge of good and evil?
Realistically, we can shoot at anything, and assuming we hit something, can run over and paint a target around it and then give ourselves an award for outstanding marksmanship. We can do this with theology just as easily as with firearms.
But, is that hitting our target, or rewarding our (possibly sinful?) mistakes?