"By Whose Authority...?"
Let's snip the last string off at the 58-comment point and rethread the needle.
We seem to be somewhat muddled about "ministry" and "authority," so maybe we can dialogue that a bit. There appears to be a general consensus among us that women should be full/er partners and participants in "ministry" than we perhaps used to think. There also seems to be some unease about women "in authority" ("in governmental role," "headship") over men, and this unease is present across several of our different models/understandings of "church."
So: in terms of how authority is carried/exercised in and by a "church" (however you want to define the term), are there distinctions to be made between the ways in which the men and the women of that church bear authority?
posted by Brian Emmet @ 4:54 PM
47 Comments:
I think that in order to discuss distinctions in how men and women bear authority, you must first examine the issue of what is authority itself -- and where does it come from.
John Maxwell as a favorite saying: "leadership is influence, nothing more, nothing less." He then goes on to criticize what he calls "positional" leadership that bases authority on a title or position in a top down hierarchy.
Jesus was very clear that authority was not based on a title or position. I once did a careful study of the four gospels to see what theme came up most repetitively in Jesus’ teaching. It was the theme of the servant nature of bottom-up leadership. In three passages, Jesus is critical of the “gentile” style leadership which involves “Lordship” and is translated “lording it over…”
MAT 20:25 But Jesus called them to Himself, and said, "You know that the rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them, and their great men exercise authority over them.
MAR 10:42 And calling them to Himself, Jesus said to them, "You know that those who are recognized as rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them; and their great men exercise authority over them.
katakurieuo, “to exercise dominion over”
In Luke the word is only slightly different. Without the “kato” it is literally to ‘rule” or be lord of…
LUK 22:25 And He said to them, "The kings of the Gentiles lord it over them; and those who have authority over them are called 'Benefactors.'
2961g kurieuo_ - to be lord of, rule (5)
I also take this teaching of Jesus to be the spirit of his comments in Matt. 23 about allowing people to call us Rabbi, father, or leader/teacher:
MAT 23:8 "But do not be called Rabbi; for One is your Teacher, and you are all brothers.
MAT 23:9 "And do not call anyone on earth your father; for One is your Father, He who is in heaven.
MAT 23:10 "And do not be called leaders; for One is your Leader, that is, Christ.
MAT 23:11 "But the greatest among you shall be your servant.
Maxwell says that true leadership is influence. I have come to the belief that biblical authority is not positional – it has nothing to do with a ecclesial office – it is more like moral authority, “soft power” in the words of Joseph Nye.
This is why St. Catherine of Sienna had several popes writing her for advice at one time or another…and why she is one of only three women saints in history named as a “doctor of the church” in the sense of being a teacher. Her level of grace/virtue was such that people listened to her words and followed her advice – even popes. But she never imposed herself over people from a position of authority.
As long as men grasp for positions of authority based on a title or an office, for whatever ego motivation, in order to “lord it over” their companions, women will also grasp for authority. However, when we heed Jesus’ teachings on the true nature of divine authority, no woman or man would want to grasp for such a position, and moral persuasion of surrendered servant leaders will rule the day.
Unfortunately, ego is ingrained in the nature of fallen man (and woman). Humanity is adept at setting up hierarchies and pecking orders. There is a chapter devoted to this issue in Blue Like Jazz called “Lifeboat Theory.”
I believe the early church moved rapidly in this direction (institutionalized bureaucracy) after the death of the last apostles, even in the second and third generations, a long time before Constantine politicized the church. This greatly influences my view of the nature of apostolic authority and local church leadership and leads me to a preference for keeping structure as simple and organic as possible and keeping human authority (or leadership) to the minimum.
As Alan Hirsh points out in his recent book, The Forgotten Ways, it is no accident that when the Chinese Communists killed the pastors, expelled the missionaries, and closed down the schools and churches, that the Chinese Church exploded in growth. Obviously, the missionaries and the pastors (and buildings) were the primary obstacles to growth.
I believe we are to know and appreciate the history of the church…we are to honor and revere those who have gone before, and in some mystical-spiritual way, we are one with the saints—the great cloud of witnesses, including those who have been put to death by other members of Jesus’ church, be they Baptist, Puritan, Catholic, Huguenot, or Orthodox. That does not mean, however, that we cannot discern where the church has strayed and attempt to correct our own models and theologies in our time.
The primary thrust of the postmodern critique of Christianity and the church is aimed squarely at the issues of domination, power and politics. And we must humbly recognize that there much truth in their critique and learn not to ‘lord it over men’ or to seek to be teachers, fathers or leaders, but rather servants and friends.
Excellent teaching!
I'm not sure we can ever overcome the authority thing this side of glory. As long as our human insecurities drive us to exert the ego-centric worldview of fallen nature, we will continue to bump into each other at the cost of the KINGDOM. Dying to self wouldn't be so difficult if we didn't have to live through it!
Uh, just to clarify: in asking questions about whether there are distinctions in the ways in which women and men are called by God to exercise genuine spiritual authority, I'm not defending a top-down, positional-based, oppressive, lord-it-over approach to authority. We should note that Maxwell is an"authority" about leadership issues, and Hirsh an "authority" on missional churches, so I think there is something more to authority than servanthood. I agree that genuine Jesus-like authority is rooted and grounded in self-sacrificing servanthood. I think I understand and accept the postmodern critique of the church and this critique's preference for a "soft" or at least "softer" understanding of authority (and I am not using "soft" in any negative, deorgatory or dismissive way), although I wonder if this "softer," bottom-up approach takes us quite as far as we think/hope. I don't know much about the history of Christianity in China, but I do wonder if one of the reasons the church was able to thrive in the face of great persecution under the Communists was the somewhat credible job done by the missionaries and pastors. Or is it in fact the case that those missionaries and pastors functioned solely as the cork in the bottle and that once they were martyred, the church was at last free to become the church? If this is the case, then "martyred" would be the wrong word to use in describing their deaths.
hi Brian, Robert,
Thanks for the responses. I have thoroughly enjoyed this conversation and exchange of views.
Robert, I think it would be a good thing for everyone to lay out their underlying philosophy of leadership in order to approach the issue of women in leadership with more clarity. That is my basic point: that we have some underlying assumptions that we have not examined.
Brian and Robert: please don't dismiss my comments too quickly about servant-leadership. Jesus was directly addressing the issue of leadership when he repetitively addressed the servant nature of leadership.
I may be very wrong, but I am of the opinion that 'ordered leadership' is a major part of the current problem of the church (with the exception of present company). It has been said that when Luther launched the reformation, the one area he did not reform was the leadership office. He just changed the name from priest to pastor and married them to nuns.
You guys just keep heading further into the stratosphere which should make me more reticent to comment if I was wise enough or humble enough to keep my mouth shut...
This point is an important one and one that really is eating at the relationship between the generations right now. It is creating a weak baton pass as the older generation shies away from standing in the authority God has given them to impart, teach, lead, equip and discipline the younger generation.
It is as if the older generation received revelation on authority right about the same time the Godfather movies came out and the thing exploded on you all. I have been around to see the obvious reasons why the experience would make you gunshy.
So now you are all a "kinder, gentler" group of leaders...many of whom are very careful not to speak or put your nose into things that could repeat history. You do not want to abuse authority again.
So then we get to all of the talk about servant leadership...which is all right and very good. However, it is missing some of the reality and ends up with no one having the faith or courage to take the stand, the step, the risk necessary to lead a rising generation of young men and women.
As a result,a fatherless generation who have never been loved enough to be disciplined by strong leadership receive sweet words of encouragement but don't get the great honor of walking into battle with you guys. Perhaps your great learning from experience has made you careful.
No father is perfect. Paul, Peter...certainly Luther, Calvin...not one of them. Yet they understood their calling. They took the steps of faith to walk it out until they "graduated" to be with Him.
I need that from you. Certainly you can teach me how to serve. However, you serve us all best by listening to the Father and doing what He says. You serve us all best by being the true leaders He has called you to be. Call it "ordered leadership" or whatever you want.
I feel I'm in the middle of the Jerusalem Council, Acts 15. For me, we are drifting into attitudes. Not to be heavy-handed, does not necessarily mean exercising a softer, gentler leadership, but having a right heart with right motives.
(I Peter 5) Paul certainly exercised authority over the spheres he influenced, kicked butt at times, but it was birthed out of love and concern. Same with Jesus from what I can tell.
One thing possibly lacking in the past for us was honor and respect from leaders toward those they were leading. To some degree, I did it and received it. As Jamie stated, we have generally shied away from taking strong leadership roles into being careful. Again, I think the spirit, attitude, and security plays a huge part in properly leading.
One thing I hesitate to bring up in all this, is the gifts, makeup, personalities that are inherently traits of boys/men that may make them more suitable to lead in certain realms rather then women. (Outside of this blog, I would be a candidate for rehab.) Robert, eluded to this many posts back, when he essentially asked the same question. We have to assume that men can do certain things better than women, and visa versa. God made us that way? Ordained it? Please know, I'm asking, not settled in all we've been talking about. Blessings
Joseph, I don't mean in any way to be dismissive of servant-leadership. I really try to keep working on that (which is different from saying I've made a whole lot of progress). I guess (in classic postmodern style), I'm asking a "both/and?" question rather than an "either/or"--postmodern approaches to leadership seem to get things about half-right (which, in baseball terms, would make them all-time batting champions!) I think "authority" carries both the sense of "seeking the good of those for whom I'm responsible" (a servant-leadership approach) and "I'm right about this, so you'd better both listen and obey me." The postmodern can only see the latter as an aggressive, oppressive, hegemonistic power-grab. Of course, the "I'm right" aspect pf authority can easily be twisted and distorted and bent to serve the selfish ends of those "having authority." No one of us is arguing for this, however. I think one things that may help us was mentioned by Joseph, who apparently doesn't feel that we are quite as guilty along these lines as "the western church" or "the American church" or something along those lines. I'm primarily interested in us, those of us participating in this conversation. I'm not tryng to settle anything "for the church," I'm trying to figure out how to help one other serve our local situations in a way that is faithful and fruitful. Part of the problem (and blessing) of being "non-denominational" is that we do not have a "home office" or "headquarters" whose position on a matter we can critique and grouse about. As Pogo said, "We have met the enemy and he is us." I'm grateful, as are we all, that "while we were his enemies, Christ died for us"--I'm just trying to learn how to not continue to live as his enemy any more than my unsanctified self requires. So let's try to keep the focus on the what's, why's and how's of our local situations, not from a sense of not needing/being part of the larger body of Christ but from a hopefully somewhat genuine humility about the size of the hole our thumbs leave after we remove them from a bucket of water.
Good comments Brian. I agree that we are blessed with our particular non-denominational situation. And whether our leadership is ordered or unordered (or a little of both), we are particularly blessed with servant leaders. Part of my failure to communicate the point I was trying to make may be due to the fact that I have been speaking primarily in terms of the general church rather than our specific situations. The rest of this post I wrote before I read your comments, Brian.
Well, I guess we all know which metaphor of the church Jamie likes. The army, battle metaphor is a great one and occurs frequently in scripture, but I have had enough of it and don’t particularly desire to approach life or the church that way at the moment. I’ll be happy to pray for you, send you money, patch up after the fight, but I must pass on the battle. Now, if you want to join me in the “vine” metaphor, we can slowly grow green and flourish together.
Seriously, thanks to Robert for inviting me here and to the rest of you for allowing me to come into your forum as a guest and lay out my thoughts for your feedback. I have a professor who talks about the importance of learning to appreciate peer review in a “warm and supportive environment.” Discussing these things in here helps me process my thoughts and sharpen my thinking. I would rather get constructive criticism from you guys before I get slammed by people in the traditional church or fried by my secular friends.
Let me respond to a couple of specific points from the previous responses. On re-reading Brian and Robert’s points above, I realized that you were not dismissing my thoughts on “servant-leadership” but rather expressing concern about me placing servant leadership in opposition to ‘ordered’ leadership. Is that correct? If so, I see your point. Any and all leadership can be “servant” or “ego-driven.” I stand corrected. From now on, I will call the paradigm of leadership that I am proposing “unordered” or unstructured or something like that.
Robert, I responded to Randy about the Junias issue in the previous post. I was not trying to use that example to push the idea that women should be apostles, but rather to point out that there are several possible views and a certain amount of possible latitude in scripture. My point is that no where does Jesus say that women cannot be apostles. All we have is his example of choosing 12 male apostles…both ways of interpretation are anecdotal evidence, although I agree that the evidence is stronger toward male apostles. I’ll leave to one side the issue of what kind of authority modern day apostles may have.
Also in the previous post, I think I clearly stated that I do not believe that a woman should have authority over a man. I referred to Bob Mumford years ago describing Hebrew ‘teaching’ as discipleship or character formation. A woman should not disciple a man or form his character. Joyce Myer “preaching” in a mega-church is not necessarily a woman having a authority over a man.
And back to Jamie. I agree with Robert these are important issues that need to be discussed. In some ways, what you guys are “doing theology.” In the Reformed tradition, the church is always reforming itself and doing theology in new generations and in new circumstances. Discussing issues of women’s authority and church paradigms does not mean that we are hesitant or fearful of exercising our authority when it is necessary. Better to take a dry run at these things in this “warm and supportive environment, and be prepared for what lies ahead.
What I have been unsuccessfully trying to communicate previously, is that I think the whole issue of women in authority is a greater problem for the institutional church than it is for most of us, who believe in organic, relational life and community. I would not doubt if the issue will force us back into even more underground, organic type church life.
In some ways we compromised our original vision of shepherding/discipling communities in order to try to compete with seeker-sensitive and mega-churches. We changed our job descriptions from ‘shepherds’ and ‘disciplers’ into ‘senior pastors’ in order to sound more legitimate. Women are going to become senior pastors in the general, institutional church whether we agree or not. Among us, however, we can attempt to insure that the elder men shepherd and disciple the young men, and that the elder women shepherd/disciple the younger women, whatever we call the roles. We may need to ditch institutional vocabulary and go back to our roots.
Robert, I could not agree more. I love the quote from the Pope. Some of my thoughts on the subject of authority would probably be better expressed as a paper rather than as a blog posting.
Ooh…. It got quiet in here…possibly the real world calling our attention? I went to the beach today with our family (the grandkids are out of school) and just arrived at the university for my evening class.
I realized today that in my focus on my conversation with Brian and Robert, (and to some extent Randy in the previous post), I talked past Leroy and John. My apologies.
I was thinking today about Leroy’s inductive methodology of interpreting the scriptures. One of my goals in recent years has been to remove as many of my assumptions as possible as I read the scriptures (or at least be aware of them). I have also been focused primarily on reading Jesus, rather than Paul, not because I don’t admire Paul or think that his writings are authoritive, but because of a comment Dow made years ago about discipling young Christians to Jesus before we teach them Paul. Also, because I am a follower of Jesus, not Paul.
Leroy: how can an inductive approach to the scripture regarding women’s role and leadership structures help us?
How you suggest I/we prioritize Jesus’ teachings in contrast with Paul’s (and Peter, John and James)?
John: I agree. We were carefully taught to honor leaders, but it was not often reciprocal. We skipped over, not only Jesus’ comments about “call no man rabbi, father, or leader” but also skipped over Ephs. 5:21 about submitting “one to another.” In other words, we have layers of teaching, training and impartation, most of it excellent, but some maybe not so good. I remember Derek teaching on church government as a plurality of elders in a city from Acts 20… but the teachers themselves did not model collegiality for us but imparted the top-down, military hierarchy (in this case, I am not talking about ‘ordered leadership’ but actual hierarchy) in the translocal. It has taken us many years to dig out from under those layers. Maybe we still are.
Also, on your point, John, about inherent or psycho-biological differences in gender. For me, this is where the rubber meets the road in marriage and family structure. This is why ‘fathering is so different from ‘mothering’ and both are so necessary. If we choose the church as family model, then the elders might become the ‘fathers’ of the church in accordance to Timothy 3, and the elder women might serve as deacons and focus on the discipling of younger women.
So far, so good. But the more organized we get, or the more centralized, the more functions and roles we create that might be contested by women…i.e. teaching on Sunday morning, leading worship, supervising ministries, counseling etc. As we professionalize the church… we move away from the family model and … in our culture… women are to have equal access to the professions as men.
amen!
In that light, let me mention that my brother Jack has posted some scriptures for meditation on Holy Week, and a nice devotional thought about the "Jesus of Holy Week" on our blog at
http://www.inoneentertainment.com/faithjourney/
hope some of you can pop in and comment. The site is still under construction. I have posted all of the 50 plus seed thoughts that I wrote over the last 2 years about the commands of Christ under the "Jesus' teachings" link. I'm also posting as I go the "life purpose" emails I am sending out to the grad students. May you all be blessed during this "semana santa."
Seems like servant leadership is a modality for human authority that reflects the heart of God. The mandate to “remember” that He gave at dinner that night doesn’t bring to mind service first and foremost for me but, yet again, the intimacy between Jesus and the Father and the constant obedience of the Son.
Are we talking about the right thing to talk first about servant leadership in connection with authority? Anyone can replicate servanthood externally. I have even seen leaders I work with hide from obeying the Father or surrendering their own will by continually serving (Martha comes to mind.) Some leaders use serving to beguile and seduce followers.
None of this to discount that the heart of God expressed in human leadership should certainly be about servant leadership. I remember going to Bill Bright’s funeral and hearing one co-laborer of his after another talk about how Dr. Bright always asked the question, “How can I help you today to fulfill what God is calling you to do?”
Godly leadership and authority are given by the Father. He speaks. His kids respond. It is His authority that is expressed through them. It gets weird when He speaks to put them in the spot and then they disconnect and don’t rely on His constant direction in how they carry out the task of leading. If they are listening to Him and constantly submitting to His words to them, they would serve those He gives them. They would be loving. Jesus spoke as one who had authority because He spoke the words the Father told Him to, when He told Him to do it and the way He told Him to do it. Didn’t always make sense. Wouldn’t probably be defensible in the blogosphere. Yet there was power and fruit.
I think this is the bigger issue then: Do we exercise authority in submission and connection to Him on an ongoing, moment-to-moment basis? If we do than we would reflect His glory…His kindness, His compassion, His love…in how we relate to those with us. We would be led by the Spirit as Jesus was to constantly direct them to increased dependence on Him and not ourselves.
The result would be fruit…from His perspective, not ours. This would also seem to be where the power John has mentioned would flow. We would not just get towel-in-the-hand leadership but spit-in-the-dirt-put-in-the-eye leadership as well.
In that light, this would add a different component to talking about women in leadership or with authority: What has He called them to do? In what areas is God manifesting His love and leadership through women? Where are we seeing Kingdom fruit? Any perplexing instances in our local situations we could talk about?
Jamie, I totally agree. Excellent points! Especially in your emphasis on moment-by-moment surrender to his initiative and his direction.
“I think this is the bigger issue then: Do we exercise authority in submission and connection to Him on an ongoing, moment-to-moment basis? If we do than we would reflect His glory…His kindness, His compassion, His love…in how we relate to those with us. We would be led by the Spirit as Jesus was to constantly direct them to increased dependence on Him and not ourselves.”
This is right on! Ultimately, the level of our authority and power is directly proportional to the level of our surrender to him. I have never seen anyone model this better than you do on a constant basis.
Jesus demonstrated this surrender to the Father, when he totally broke with all gender, religious (and racial) conventions of his day in order to have a redemptive conversation with the woman by the well. She went forth with a message of “come and see a man…” and a whole village came to faith.
By-the-way, someone pointed out to me that my response to your call to battle might have been interpreted as dismissive. If that is the case, let me correct myself. As I have told you and others, I am your biggest fan and I believe the hand of God is upon you for your generation (and maybe even for ours). I know of no one who has laid hold of greater grace or wisdom in God than you have at 35. What you had to say about going to battle together was inspiring… It is just that….when I hear a call to battle, I start twitching and foaming at the mouth and stuff….I hold my head in my hands and just rock back and forth compulsively…. I don’t know what the heck is wrong with me!! ;-)
"good scotch, a box of Jose's Cuban specials"
wow...sounds awesome! makes me want to apply for honorary membership in your team! Going 'monastic' does not sound bad either.
"good scotch, a box of Jose's Cuban specials"
wow...sounds awesome! makes me want to apply for honorary membership in your team! Going 'monastic' does not sound bad either.
And finally, lets hear it for sybiotic relationship with the female companions of the apostles and elders! especially in these latter days. Hear is a toast to Sue, Debbie, Kathy, and all the other wives who put up with us!
My local situation: as I believe I have said/written, we have recently begun to allow some of our senior women to preach occasionally on Sundays. All are operating with the blessing and support of our elders and the general support of the congregation.
I still feel a bit unsettled about it.
We have one couple, long-timers, who are the most vocal in their opposition, although "opposition" is perhaps too strong; they definitely disagree with what we're doing but are hanging in with us. He recently cited a Paul Petrie tape from our church library from 1977 that was about men's and women's roles, and then he commented, "What was the truth in 1977 is still true in 2007." I don't know the tapes he was specifically referring to, but I heard Paul teach on these matters and I think I remember the general outline... and I suspect that Paul has been moving on this issue, in ways similar/parallel to the rest of us. We can speak with Paul ourselves about this, but I'm trying to help this couple, trying to hear them, and dealing with my own insecurity... Wayne Grudem, a prominent complementarian, has said that churches that allow women to preach forfeit the blessing of God. I'm not sure I really see that.
So without asking anyone to do my job for me, and understanding that I've only given you the barest of info, any suggestions? What might I be missing/not paying attention to?
Our conversations about all of this have been of tremendous help to me, and I'm grateful to all who have been participating. I'm raising my personal situation as a way to maybe move us, or at least me, from the theoretical to the application...recognizing that if we don't have the "theory" right, the "application" will necessarily fall short!
As I said in an earlier post...as long as they are not discipling men in an authoritive or character-forming way, but just publicly sharing propositional truth, I don't see it as a problem. The greater concern, in my view, is how they relate at home with their husbands, and how they view your leadership.
Of course, I have a slightly different view of the value or effectiveness of pulpit teaching...but I won't go into that here.
Hi friends, in the temporary lull before Easter, I want to go back to my discussion with Jamie about the war/battle metaphor. Jamie and I discussed it further in personal correspondence, and I understand and support the sense in which he uses it…as the struggle to obey God and seek first the kingdom in our lives. That is very close to the classical Arabic meaning of Jihad: the struggle with oneself to overcome the weakness of humanity (flesh, lust?) and to submit oneself fully to God (Muslim = one submitted to God).
This morning I am reading a book about the culture wars in the 1990s in American museums for a class on Historical Methods …. (Dubin, Steven C. Displays of Power: Memory and Amnesia in the American Museum, New York: New York University Press, 1999) and I came across this statement on page 204: “But Sowell, like many other opinion leaders at the time, was explicitly adopting the language of battle. He and others frightened many people by doing so. If “culture wars” is a hyped-up, overblown, and alarmist concept, hold the partisans on both sides of the noisy cultural conflicts of the late 1980s and 1990s responsible” (italics my emphasis).
When I was working on my thesis on church and state in Colombia, I did some research into the rhetoric of both Conservative and Liberal partisans in Colombia in the 1930s and 40s leading up to the blood bath known as La Violencia, (1948 – 1956) in which 200,000 people died. I was awestruck by how similar the rhetoric of the Catholic Conservatives were to the religious right in the US in the 1990s. They constantly demonized the Liberal party (the party of separation of church and state and the party of Protestants, evangelicals and Pentecostals) as evil and anti-Christ and anti-God and called upon “Christian” Colombians (i.e. Catholics) to go to war and battle to save Christian civilization. This frightened me and even further distanced me from the whole Christian culture wars ideology.
I understand Jamie’s use of the concept… and I find appeals to the “band of brothers” and manly concepts of war and battle stirring as well. But I strongly agree with Robert that we need to carefully examine how, where and when we use battle metaphors in a post-9/11 world. Both the religious right, the lunatic left and the Islamic fascists are getting great mileage out of the metaphor but in the wrong spirit and aimed at the wrong enemies.
These days, I find a lot of internal resistance in me about using the battle metaphor, and I honestly don’t think it represents wounds, cynicism, battle fatigue or jadedness. I think it represents the overwhelming desire I have to build bridges of communication with people for the activity of “goodnewsing” and the biblical injunction to “love my enemies.” If there is anything I can envision myself fighting or wrestling with, it is my own ego and God’s will… “We have met the enemy and he is us….”
Hey you guys… if you get a chance, go check out our blog (me, Carlos and my brother Jack) and leave a comment. I have put all of the seed thoughts from the commands of Christ there, and I am planning to put Debbie’s updates there as well.
http://www.inoneentertainment.com/faithjourney/
Have a great resurrection day tomorrow. We are going out to the water to welcome the rising of the sun and the Son….
Hey Joseph and all of you,
I hope you had a good Good Friday.
I have just the opposite reaction to the battle metaphor and for deeper reasons than you might think.
We live in a pacifistic country that likes to call itself the Switzerland of Central America. Here they consider any kind of war metaphor to be another example of grotesque Americanism using our might to dominate a vulnerable world.
However, as I walk through my day to day life with the Father, I continually sense Him framing it within the context of a strategic battle against spiritual opposition. The weaponry is obviously different...faith, hope and love. The battle ground is most often my own heart...and then is about "living a life of love" daily in connection to my family, my neighbors, our church body and beyond. That is the battle I see.
I most devastate the enemy when I walk in intimacy with my Father who has defeated Him in what we celebrated yesterday and will celebrate tomorrow. The enemy is most successful when he can deceive people into just the opposite or as far away from that as possible.
Certainly, the fact that I emerged from the gang-neighborhoods in Phoenix has imprinted the concept of fighting beside men and women as central. I can not change that. I am not a big war movie guy. I am a big team guy. One government official in the U.S. recently compared Boy With a Ball to positive youth gangs. I did not deny it.
However, as I talk to young Costa Ricans who struggle with a God who talks of "ugly things" like battle and discipline, I keep hearing Jesus saying that the people will cry, "Peace, Peace" yet there will be no peace.
I spend much of my life doing the work of an evangelist and am extremely sensitive to some of these trip wires that freak the world out. I will not, however, allow the world to shape how I speak my heart to you. My life is a daily "fight" as I walk around loving prostitutes, pimps, drug addicts, and those who are trapped in poverty. I sense the violent attack of an enemy who faces little opposition as many of Jesus' main followers have left the field of battle to discuss it more reasonably. The daily violence of our situation makes it more difficult to not use the battle metaphor within our teams. Forgive our crassness.
My favorite metaphor these days is actually the garden and the river. Yet the constant spiritual battle that I face daily reminds me that we have an active enemy.
Yes Jamie, I like the way you frame the battle metaphor in terms of the battle in your own heart, with weapons of faith, hope and love. I do agree with you that the most effective warfare that we can carry out is primarily to stay focused on love and obedience toward the father. After reading your comments, I have been thinking through the scriptures that use some aspect of the battle/war metaphor.
2 Cor. 10:4 points out that our weapons are not carnal but mighty for pulling down strongholds. In this passage, our enemy seems to be speculations, lofty things, and thoughts, and the solution seems to be bringing our thoughts into captivity – obedience in our mind. That certainly fits with the emphasis you are making.
The premiere passage on warfare of course is Eph. 6…which in my mind is about 80 percent defensive rather than aggressive (in the sense of aggression). The emphasis is on being “strong” and putting on defensive or protective armor. We are not told to attack, but to “stand firm” and to “resist” and then a second time to “stand firm.” In verse 14 we are told for the third time to “Stand firm” with truth, and righteousness. We are told to have our feet prepared with the gospel of peace. The shield of faith is to defend ourselves against the flaming missiles. The only offensive weapon is the word. Obviously, the other weapons are prayer and petitions and prayer in the Spirit.
My heart is moved as you talk about your daily fight on behalf of prostitutes, pimps and drug addicts and the poor. That is a good fight!
I was trying to think of somewhere that Jesus uses the battle metaphor. I am struck that he was led “like a lamb to the slaughter” that he made no attempt to defend himself, not even in words. But then I thought of Matthew 11:12 "…the kingdom of heaven suffers violence, and violent men take it by force.” I have always interpreted this as a passionate pursuit of the kingdom of God and a willingness to deal severely with one’s own carnality, ego and lusts…as in bringing every thought captive to Christ.
Sorry if you felt that I was attacking or challenging your use of the war/battle metaphor. I think we were talking about apples and oranges. I lived for many years under the constant pressure of spiritual warfare, especially last year. It is only in the last 6 months or so that that has seemed to lift off of us…partly because we have totally surrendered…(I’m not saying that you have not) in the sense that there is a ceasing of striving and just releasing ourselves into God’s hands…like lambs led to the slaughter. It may just be a temporary respite.
I can fully endorse your approach to war/battle. On the other hand, I have found myself recoiling from most of the war/battle rhetoric that I hear among most Christians. I have a friend who sends me a lot of email forwards from the Elijah List and a lot of Pro-Israel Jewish stuff. Although their appeals to war and battle are cloaked in spirituality, one gets the impression that the enemies are the Democratic Party, Paletinians, blue state Americans, gays, feminists or illegal immigrants. Reading most evangelical stuff on our culture, one gets the consistent impression of evangelical anger against the secularists. That’s the use of the war/battle metaphor that I object to.
I have also been disenchanted by most of the Charismatic emphasis on "binding the strong man" and "spiritual mapping" and other forms of spiritual warfare that I do not see taught in the scriptures.
As long as we keep a clear focus that our enemies are speculations, lofty things, and wandering thoughts (2Cor. 10) and “not against flesh” but “rulers, powers, world forces of darkness, and spiritual forces of wickedness” … I can support you, although I will not initiate provoking them… I will resist and have stood firm.
Conversation about "women in ministry" is starting up again in www.jesuscreed.org. The thread centers around Galations 3:28 and there are only six comments so far. here is the essence of what Scot McNight is saying:
(Scot McNight - www.jesuscreed.org)
In Paul’s letter to the Galatians the apostle builds an argument that former barriers to the blessing have been knocked down — everyone comes into the family of God by faith. And then Paul gives what my colleague, Klyne Snodgrass, calls the “most socially explosive statement in the NT” — and he says folks have four options when reading Gal 3:28:
Here’s the verse:
“There is no longer Jew or Greek, there is no longer slave or free, there is no longer male and female; for all of you are one in Christ Jesus.”
An ethnic mandate, a socio-economic mandate, and a gender mandate.
Here are the options:
1. Paul did not really means these words: maybe he got carried away.
2. Paul meant this only in part: all have access to salvation on the same basis.
3. Paul’s theology developed after this – away from it — 1 Cor 14 and 1 Tim 2 show that Paul changed his mind.
4. Paul meant exactly this – and his theology grew toward it — mutuality, unity, and giftedness are the same for all three groups.
Many things can be said, have been said, and will be said about this verse. It both carries far too much weight for some and scares the traditions of others. I offer only a few observations:
Folks, something happened to my bogger id or password. I attempted a post but could not get on. More later
I will try again...
On the post by Jose, I will go with line items for brevity:
1. Paul meant what he said.
2. Paul was not being partail. All stand on level ground at the foot of the cross with equal value.
3. 1 Cor 14 seems to address cultural context while 1 Tim 2 a
Sorry about that...back to 3.
1 Cor 14 does seem to address cultural context where 1 Tim 2 appeals to creation order.
4. Mutuality, unity and "giftedness" is revealed in the Triune Godhead. The Father sent the Son, the Son was completely obedient to the Father to the extent of casting off all rights or priviledges (Philp. 2) and the Father and Son sending the Holy Spirit to reveal the things of Jesus. Perfect unity, perfect mutuality and perfect order...economic subordination without loss of value, unity or role.
Testing to see if the new logon works....
thats good Robert...just to be clear, I was posting his comments (from jesuscreed.org) not necessarily endorsing his line of reasoning.
Are you familiar with the "5 Aspects of a Woman" material? They have the only theological treatment of complementarian views that I have read. They clearly defend the view that God is 'masculine' not both masculine and faminine, and not androgynous...it has been a while since I read it. I'll see if I can dig it out.
I wrote "faminine"...(rolling my eyes)... it must be getting close to lunch time. Spelling has never been my strong suite...sorry.
I am sorry; gentlemen, but I may be missing something here. It seems to me that although #2 is worded as though it is less than favorable choice, that it is, in fact, the correct choice.
2. Paul meant this only in part: all have access to salvation on the same basis.
When worded, "in part," it makes it seem like there is MORE than salvation. It seems to me that Paul's argument is that this is the GREATEST gift we could ever receive. It brings us a freedom and liberty that we can find no where else.
Therefore, even if we are still a slave (in the natural), we are really FREE; likewise, even if we are a woman (someone with limited freedoms in that society and culture), we are really FREE. We can even be a uncircumcised, bacon eating Gentile; yet, in Christ we are FREE.
One's freedom in Christ didn't change his or her status. Slavery in the West BEGAN its end 200 years ago (Wilberforce, England, 1807). Yet, worldwide, TODAY, there are MORE slaves (~25,000,000) then during the height of the African slave trade!!! Paul ,made an appeal on behalf of Onesimus, a slave, with these words, "He is not longer just a slave, he is a beloved brother . . ." (Philemon 16a). Likewise, the status of women has really seen its most remarkable changes in the past 200 years. Yet, they have been free in Christ for almost 2000 years!
Therefore, at the risk of sounding like I am beating dead horse, it seems to me that our appeals for a greater role for women need to be made on a cultural basis, which begs a more important question. Does the Scripture grant us that latitude?
One last morsel for thought: Were our forefathers, who may have been Christian slave owners, in sin? Culturally, and as far as they were concerned, Biblically, what they were doing was OK. It is very hard for us to imagine any man or woman who is called a Christian supporting slavery, today.
very good points Randy. I think, in the discussion on jesuscreed.org, the context was whether Gal. 3:28 was only addressing soteriology (equal staniding in salvation), or was also addressing ecclesiology: i.e. a woman's role in church leadership.
I think you make a very good point about "cultural latitude." Changing cultural attitudes needs to be separated from biblical teaching...which may not be as easy as it sounds. We all interpret bibilical truth through cultural lenses. What we assumed was biblically "true" 20 years ago may now look more like a cultural assumption of gender-based hierarchy.
I am looking for any fundamental biblical teaching that compellingly and absolutely prohibts women from doing certain things....
which takes us back to the nature of the trinity (as Robert alluded to) the question of the masculinity of God (or not) and the Genesis intent for gender dinstictions (or the abence thereof) for man and woman before the fall.
Even before the fall...the death really...there was order both in terms of creation and responsibility. That is where things got really messed up.
Prohibition excites desire. Looking for texts that prohibit women from leading the local congregation pales in the light of consistent and overwhelming evidence for redeemed patriarchy...emphasis on redeemed.
Everybody got their taxes done?
there is an interesting conversation about "soft patriarchy" and a sociological study of CP (Conservative Protestant) families versus MP (mainline Protestant) families at
http://www.jesuscreed.org/
Personally, I am still processing. Things that I took for granted 15 years ago do not seem quite as clear to me now. I guess we are in a period of re-examination and re-thinking. I am sure that truth will stand scrutiny.
PS: Deb went to see the CPA today. Looks like we are getting a little bit back!
Boy, you take a few days off for Easter and taxes and stuff, and here the conversation proceeds nicely along without you! But good to finally get around to catching up.
On Galatians 3, there is another option: Krister Stendahl, former deam of Harvard Div School, plowed this particular ground back in the late 1950's in a little pamphlet called "The Bible and the Role of Women in the Church." His argument was that Paul received God's revelation in Gal 3, but then could not see or walk out the implications of all of it because of cultural conditioning, personality, etc. In other words, Paul got it right in Gal 3, but couldn't overcome his cultural limitations in 1 Corinthians, Timothy, etc. At first blush, this strikes us as wrong, because it seems to be saying that Paul (and therefore Scripture) got it wrong at certain places. I think Stendahl was perfecty comfortable with this approach, where we would not be... but that's a whole 'nother really interesting question: what do we really mean when we speak of the 'authority' of Scripture? How does the Bible have and deliver its authority... maybe that's for a new post.
Anyway, I think this is a 'wedge' that egalitarians maybe using, seeing one text as 'more operative' or 'more deifnitive' than others. Of course we all do this all the time, interpreting/understanding and applying less-clear passages through the lens of clearer (or somehow more 'dominant') ones.
The 'croaker' passage for the egals is 1 Timothy ("I do not permit a woman to teach..."). The woamn who has been most vocal in pressing us to re-look at all these issues referred to this as a 'difficult, obscure passage,' because Paul apparently uses a different word for 'teach' here than elsewhere, and how exactly to translate the Grk for "exercise authority over" is not crystal clear. Of course, this passage was never before seen as "difficult or obscure" until recently. The text didn't change; we did. All I'm doing here is echoing Randy's point: our slave-holding brethren saw themselves as being faithful to Scripture, but we now see them as particpating in a tragically sinful practice. The text didn't change, we did... and one of the reasons we changed was in fact due to the power of the Word of God! We have come to the conclusion that certain texts (the ones that make the case that it is wrong to 'own' another human being)really do take precedence over others (the ones that seem to allow or even bless the practice).
The role of women and the role of slavery in the light of cultural context. Slavery...ownership of one's time, energy and giftings in the light of cultural context. An individual goes to a military academy with the understanding that they are "obligated" to "serve" military duty for six years of "duty" in exchange for the benefits of their education. The word "indentured" seems to apply. You obligate yourself to something in exchange for a service rendured. Is that a sinful practice? Do we have a good understanding of the difference between slavery in the first century..or later centuries...and current practices of expecting a return of service for priviledges extended? It seems that we need to make a distinction between oppressive domination of those who have no rights and those who agree to serve for the benefits obtained. One seems reasonable...the other abusive.
The fact that the latter was deemed sinful does not mean the former falls into the same category.
I propose that understanding the role of women in ministry involves the same contrast...appropriate understanding of subordinate roles to male headship and oppresive roles of male domination. The fact that the latter is sinful does not negate the former.
This is a huge leap to the present string. Past understanding of oppresive attitudes toward women does not necessarily dismiss a classic understanding of the roles of women. If we key off of the negative, the pendulum swings.
hi Robert,
You said: "appropriate understanding of subordinate roles to male headship"
I know I sound like a broken record. I think it is essential that we study Jesus' definitions of authority in order to be able to define "headship" from his perspective. It is so easy to think of headship as some sort of positional "top-down" hierachical chain of command...but Jesus seems to debunk this idea with his warning not to "lord it over" one another like the gentiles...but to be servants. If we can clearly describe Jesus-style headship, as you so effectively described in your email... it takes the thunder out of the feminist critique of male leadership, and it takes the ego-driven abusiveness out of male leadership. I like using the term, "male responsability" to describe Eph. 5...husbands, love your wives... no one can argue with servant leadership
Joseph and all...
Ephesians 5 does not dismiss one for the other. A man serves as the head of his wife as Christ serves as head of the Church. I don't know how to read that design without understanding an order of responsibility. A man also loves his wife as Christ loves the Church. I don't know how to understand that apart from authority that is designed to serve. The "top down" paradigm seems to be a sticking point. I don't think we can get away from "top down" thinking if we hold to the Lordship of Christ. That plays out in order. Husbands and wives, parents and children, submission to elders, recognizing authority in the workplace, honoring governmental authorities within biblical boundaries...all speak to Kingdom order. A radical departure will suggest that children are just as capable of defining the order of family as the parents...and assume responsibility for the outcome. Somebody has to assume responsibilty at some point. If that is the case, where does one receive authority to act in that capacity? This raises the original question of "By Whose Authority...?" which I think is relevant to this whole string. Is there an underlying resistance to the idea of submitting to somebody else?
Hmmm... I was at a local pastors' mini-retreat this week, and the speaker, BJ Weber, talked about his early formation as a disciple in a Catholic monastery. He spoke of the monastic vow of obedience (along with vows of chastity, poverty, stability, and reformation of manners, which has nothing to do with how you hold your pinkie when drinking your tea). I wonder if our concerns about authority (the heart of the postmodern challenge to modernity) doesn't cripple us from ever having to obey anyone about anything, anytime. It's not that modernity was much better about this; I'm not arguing for "the good old days when men were men and women knew their place." At the same time, I'm not sure that authority = servanthood. They are related, but not equalivalent.
So, Joseph, you anti-authoritarian fireballer (I'm kidding, honest!), how would you (a) define NT authority and (b) distinguish NT authority from NT servanthood? I pretty much buy postmodernity's critique of modernist authority structures, but don't get what postomodernity proposes for a replacement.
thanks Brian...I'm thinking and running through scripture in my mind (been at it all day..even at a wedding). I'll get back to you.
Robert: I don't think there is any resistance in me to the idea of submission... I have been doing it for a little over 30 years. The resistance is more to demanding or obligating others to submit to authority inherent in an office or position (husband, pastor, apostle, bishop, elders) rather than for the love of Christ.
Brian,
I appeal to a slooow approach to the underdstanding of authority structures in Modernity. There are two streams flowing along side one another...Kingdom and culture. To what degree culture influenced thinking in the Church is worth a good look in the light of Bob Mumford's idea of "Kingdom extraction." There are things worth bringing forward that were not lost in in the mix. I don't think we should discount an understanding of order because it emerged within the context of a cultural setting that had misplaced priorities or values. Because there was a "glass ceiling" in the work place does not mean order in the Church is defined by the same controversy.
Modernity is basically co-existant with the Protestant Reformation. Most of what we have inherited from the Reformation can also be viewed as part of modernity.
The emphasis on the book, reading, individual interpretation, rationality and pulpit preaching are all "modern" and at the same time "Protestant." Professionalization of organizational structures is also both modern and protestant.
Postmodernism is critical of modernism (validly, in my view) but is not yet "for" anything. Another way of saying "postmodern" is to say "not modern any more".
The Church fought modernism, but finally gave in and became modern, espcically among Protestants. Modernism began around the fourteen hundreds, and the Fundamentalists were still fighting it in 1920.
We don't have to do the same thing with Postmodernity. We are nither pre-modern, modern or postmodern, we are Jesus-followers, seeking the kingdom--a city not made with hands, swimming in the currents of modernity and postmodernity.
Postmodernity can help us with our old enemy modernity but will not become our friend either.
This all sounds poetic, but I am not sure it makes any sense...I am only on my first cup of coffee.
oops! After I posted the above, I took my 2nd cup of coffee and went to jesuscreed.org to see whats up...there is an interesting discussion of women in ministry, part 3, in which McNight is laying out some of the arguments in favor of Junia (of Romans 16) being a female apostle. If you are interested in this topic, I encourage you to go read it, even if you don't agree with him. Wouldn't hurt to post a comment with your views either...we need to broaded the conversation beyond just ourselves (and just men).
http://www.jesuscreed.org/
Bri, Jose and all,
Will the attention shift to the new blog as far as time invested? KInda challenging to keep a number of them going at one time. There will be broader participation in the new one...but room for more personal connection on this one. What say you?
I had a similar concern--no one has time to spend all day respondning to blog posts! Our team participation has dwindled here...still don't know why, other than the reality that guys are voting by their absence that this is not particularly useful/helpful.
I don't know if theye would use this as a personal "checking in" opportunity--I'd be happy to see that happen, but don't know how to help it happen. Suggestions?
I have at different times enjoyed the discussions on various issues. It's been a good forum for that, however, I had hoped there would be more personal sharing, updates, church life, etc. A place to communicate apart from being together. I know some have been going through some things where discussing issues is not on the front burner. I was there not too long ago. To be honest, I will probably not participate in the ACM blog or any blog outside of this one. Brian, you have been terrific in faciliting this blog. If it expands to more than issues over scripture, I don't know if anyone can administer that. But, if anyone can figure it out, you can.
Blessings!
Thanks, John, I appreciate your feedback. Let's try a change of pace... see new post!
I am with John. I really don't have time for another blog!
Post a Comment
<< Home