In posting some personal favorites I found something I wrote in October of 2006 and decided to re-post it in the "Personal Favorites" I'm doing this summer. What do you think?
I guess I would need to confess to a transition going on in my own understanding of this gender issue controversy. I’ve had questions and have heard others raise the same questions that, for biblical and personal ethics, I would have to have answers for in order to come down biblically on the side of a male dominated society, home, or church from this Christian’s perspective. I will briefly mention a few of those questions.
My question about the Covenants is one. My understanding of the Covenants requires me to carefully think through the uniqueness of the New Covenant. I see how the Old covenant established between God and Israel was based generally on gender, age, and race or at least evolved into such. So if, as one said, you were an “old Jewish guy” you had it made in the realm of authority. But, I have a question about the New Covenant promised for the latter days and written in hearts, to be ratified by the Blood of Christ. Was it not to be based on something other than gender, age or race and was it not for something other than an “authority” thing? Was it not a servant thing instead so that the greatest in the New Covenant was, in fact, the greatest servant?
Thus “sons and daughters,” when it finally came, were said to be able to prophecy, “young men and old men” were able to dream dreams, and of course the gentiles were included. So it was the work of the Spirit that set all that in motion with His more than adequate authority. It was NOT people in an office or a sex, age, or race thing that were inherently authoritative. Could it be that things are to continue in that fashion when the text is truly understood?
I have a question about Pheobe and some other women in the New Testament. Was not she said to be a servant? It is translated “deacon” when used of a man and would not be deaconness since there was no feminine for of the word. I’m wondering if this was more a King James era thing.
One other woman was said to be a “helper” [different word] which is translated when used of men…”overseer." This is spoken of the woman who ministered with Paul. Did she give oversight to his ministry? Or is it again a King James thing? Or is there a New Covenant thing presented in the text when carefully studied? Just wondering.
I have my 1 Timothy 2:12 question. Paul used a the word “authority” here that is used no where else in scripture. Not even in the Septuagint. It was, I have found, a street word. [Sorry, I’m not at my library at the moment to give specifics.] It was a word with perhaps sexual overtones, so could it be that it makes sense for Paul, under inspiration, to say this to the pastor [Timothy] of a church filled with women saved out of the mystery religions which used sexuality to control men. Old patterns don’t die easily even after you become a believer. I would think Paul had a need to address it, if this is, in fact, what he’s saying…”I suffer not a woman to take charge over a man in an unseemly [my toned down word] manner. Good advise for all women of all ages in church life but a sure good word to pastor Timothy and the church in Ephesus.
Then there is that ever present question about Genesis chapter one. I do believe the pattern was established in Genesis 1 where “He said to “them” have dominion and to “them” to multiply and to “them” to care for the garden. It looks to me to be at least a partnership going on. Of course, the fall messed it up and both now try to “be in charge,” her by “desiring her husband” [the meaning is not Godly but taking charge] but, rain on that, he will “rule” over her. [the meaning is as a despot.] So both are pretty well messed up by now.
But hang on, God straightened it up in Ephesians 5 where all are told to submit to one another and to serve one another in the power of the Spirit as they are walking in Him. [It's the New Covenant remember. ]
It’s the authority thing that keeps throwing me. What does all this mean in the realm of authority? I understand things in servanthood terms. I heard one fellow say one the Gen.1/Ephensians 5 passages present a graceful way of living but the “who’s the boss” thing [Gen. 2@3] presents a curseful way of living. Christians are to live in grace [Of course.] and NOT according to the curse. [Of course not.] I wonder if he might be right?
Then there is my final question about this "woman being created second" thinking. I haven’t yet grasp this thing of man being created first and woman coming from man and how that sets up an authority thing. No doubt he was and she did, but since that original creation moment, every man has come from a woman. Not a lot of bragging room there.
Of course they, [the mystery religions of Ephesus] did believe woman was created first by their gods and were far superior to males. Paul was sure setting them straight on creation and the craziness of this “woman is superior” stuff. Now if we could just get believers to get as straight on men not being superior either just because they were created first. Different of course, I thank the Lord for that. Different capabilities too. I’ve not yet given birth to a child. But in Kingdom stuff the Spirit is the gifter, decider, authority, power, and sender of of all ministry. At least it seems to me.
What I have said has all been said by those better than I am at explaining things. Right now I am just presenting some questions SOMEBODY will have to help me through before I can come down on the side of male authority because of the male gender.
Loving people who differ in opinions about it all is no problem for me. But being told I'm not a good baptist unless I hold one or the other is a bit much for me personally. [Being the good baptist I am.]
So, without my being dogmatic and until I get some adequate answers for my questions, I’ll trust my local fellowship and myself to study, dialogue, decide, and follow the Lord as we see and hear Him, all the while walking in love and in step presenting the gospel with others who may disagree with me on issues like these…being the good baptists we are.
Paul B
19 comments:
I totally disagree with the male cam efirst argument, but hadnl;t thought about every man coming from women after Adam part. Food for thought to be sure. Christ and the new covenant equalled the playing field, yet many have a hard time doing away with the sin that gave man the desire to rule over women. That was a result of the fall, not the way Goid intended us to relate.
I so appreciate you and Wade for the way you handle this topic... my 2 cents
sorry for the spelling mistakes. That's what I get for not proofing first.. :(
Kate,
Your "two-cents worth" is quite valuable to me. Thanks for investing it here.
Paul,
This article illustrates the reason I check out your blog first, usually at about 5.30 a.m.
I love the way you have asked questions and given your answer in the same breath.
You said, "It's the New Covenant remember." You know, them's swear words for the Baptists I'm used to :)
My wife and I joined the Baptists a whole lifetime ago because they were known as "the people of The Book". As the years rolled on I became a deacon (where I learned that "my opinion" is more important than what Scripture says). Later on the congregation recognised me as an elder where I learned that the local hierarchy (which Baptists don't have, and usually the more wealthy men) prescribed everything according to "my opinion".
Later, as a full time pastor, as I attended denominational meetings, I discovered that there was indeed an hierarchy who prescribed EVERYTHING according to "my opinion", which, by the way was always right. Woe betide the person who disagreed with them, and who were marked men thereafter.
Even more interesting was that "The Book" was only ever used as a secondary source of proof texts to back up the primary source, "my opinion"!
I'll join you, if I may,and, "... trust my local fellowship and myself to study, dialogue, decide, and follow the Lord as we see and hear Him, all the while walking in love and in step presenting the gospel with others who may disagree with me on issues like these … being the good baptists we are."
Aussie John,
Thanks for coming by and making this a better conversation every time you do.
Aussie John,
That was an awesome comment. I'm just getting started, and my experiences are so similar. Fortunately, I had many professors and I have worked with some pastors as mentors who really did try to just get back to the book. But you are right that that is so hard to do and so rare in these days.
Paul,
Great questions/answers. Thank you for this post. You certainly gave me some "by the book" ways to better explain what I have always intuited as I read The Book.
Chris,
I always appreciate what you have to say here and the many other places [blogs] where I read your comments. Keep it up, we need to hear what you have to say.
Paul, I love your honesty and vulnerability, being the good Baptist that you are. That Timothy passage is such a tough one to get around. Here's a thought though: If men were consistently walking in the spirit and having submissive, servant hearts, and there were no unbelievers on the outside challenging the apparent scriptural order.....It would not even be an issue. Just a thought!
Well Paul, as usual I am with you. You said,
'But in Kingdom stuff the Spirit is the gifter, decider, authority, power, and sender of of all ministry. At least it seems to me.'
And so it seems to me! Thanks for writing this article. We have a huge war on our hands with the enemy holding vast millions of people in darkness. We need every single Christian doing what the Holy Spirit has gifted them to do.
Scott, Strider,
Sorry guys for being out of pocket.
I usually enjoy as rapid a response personally as I can give but some busy times have come upon me and will not abate until after a 69th birthday trip to Ft worth with Mary and another couple .
[He celebrates his 69th two days after mine. We've known each other as friends and ministy co-workers, they are on my VTM board, and celebrated often together for nearly forty years.]
I'll be away from my computer until monday.
Paul,
Over the years I have struggled with this issue. My struggles were that intuitively it seemed there was no reason to distinguish between men and women except the obvious physical differences. It has always seemed to me that the Spirit gifts people for reasons that have nothing to do with gender. But because of what I was taught about the meaning of scripture on these points I had an internal conflict. In more recent years there has been some tremendous new scholarship that has now convinced me that it takes both men and women to adequately reflect the image of God in humans, that while there are physical differences there are no distinctions between men and women just because they are either a man or a woman in so far as what they may do or be except in how God created and gifted that individual, which is without regard to gender. I am also absolutely convinced that the intent in God's dominion is that men and women, whether in marriage or otherwise, are to work together just as the Trinity does, with no one having authority but with a reciprocal cooperation that comes from likemindedness which results from a complete unity in diversity. This also makes perfect sense when we consider we are the human image bearers of God, that is, looking like God in every way.
Aussie John,
Your experience reminded me of the line by comedian/singer Mark Lowry. He tells of growing up in a fundamentalist Baptist church where the preachers may not have always been right but they were never in doubt.
Paul,
Traveller said,"...because of what I was taught about the meaning of scripture on these points I had an internal conflict."
That was certainly my experience, and that of many men, who like me, never allowed themselves to think clearly on matters like this because of the pressure of peers steeped in, what often amounts to inferential mumbo-jumbo,as well as the party line, rather than what the Scriptures teach.
As your son's blog clearly demonstrates, the infallible religious police, and their henchmen, are always ready to place before the "firing squad" one who dares to study the Scriptures and think for themselves and, as a consequence challenges the status quo.
I feel like I am pretty neutral on this, as far as personal leanings, and just want God's word to be known and honored. My mother went on staff at FBC/Orlando in the seventies and introduced Evangelism Explosion and the first New Christian's class they ever had. God used her in incredible ways there to help ignite a fire that has yet to subside (with just a little help from some other guys!), yet there was a reluctance to give her a title that included the word 'minister' or 'pastor', like, 'Associate Minister'.
But here are a couple of questions: Is the Father submitted to the Son, and if so, is He in the same way as the Son is to the Father, for that is the template for what Paul says in Ephesians 5. And then, what do we do with the post-resurrection statement of Paul in I Tim.2:13, "For Adam was formed first, then Eve."??
"the Father submitted to the Son, and if so, is He in the same way as the Son is to the Father, for that is the template for what Paul says in Ephesians 5."
Here are some questions back...How was Jesus described in the OT? And where do we see the Lord of Hosts submitting to the 'Father' in the OT?
And will the Incarnate Son/Father relationship be for enternity?
" And then, what do we do with the post-resurrection statement of Paul in I Tim.2:13, "For Adam was formed first, then Eve."??"
What do we do with the childbearing statement? Do we believe that women are saved by childbearing?
Obviously there is a serious problem in that we do not know the personal situation in Eph. But we do know that Paul used an obscure word authenteo that has been translated as authority over when it was also translated by Jerome as Dominate.
We also know that 1 Tim is talking about false teachers. Those who deceive on purpose and those who deceive out of ignorance. Could this be a reference to Eve being deceived because she was created last and Adam had more knowledge of God and even saw some of his creating?
And then why would Paul assume women are prophesying in the Corinthian church? And why did he not make clear when writing about spiritual gifts which ones are pink and blue?
And why would God be more strict in the NC about women teaching men than in the OC? That does not make sense.
Those are some thought-provoking questions. I wish it was all crystal clear. Since we are committed to scripture being the word of God, without error, even though written by mere mortals, it leaves us wrestling, with all those who have wrestled in the past. Whatever Paul said is absolutely true. The problem is that we aren't sure what some of it meant to the people to whom he wrote. Once we are sure of that, we are able to move from there.
I'm back everybody. Thanks for continuing while I was away for a bit.
Scott, you've mentioned a couple of things I'd like to respond to.
First, you said... "Here's a thought though: If men were consistently walking in the spirit and having submissive, servant hearts, and there were no unbelievers on the outside challenging the apparent scriptural order.....It would not even be an issue."
I would say that what you've described..."men walking in the spirit and having submissive, servant hearts..." is a biblical description of the walk of ALL believers. I'd change the word "men" to "people" and make it of all of us as Christ followers.
Second, you say that were there "no unbelievers on the outside challenging he apparent scriptural order there would be no issue." But I, personally, don't have any desire to hear unbelievers on the outside as to what the scriptures do or do not teach. I'm sure you don't either.
I also find many INSIDE who insist and demand even that their wives submit to them but all the while lacking in their own service to her all based on this text. [The word HEAD being mis-interpreted I believe.] So my problem is I disagree with many ON THE INSIDE who see the text differently than do I.
I don't believe seeing the text differently is the real issue however. I think the real problem is when we refuse to fellowship or respect those who differ from us on non-salvific things. When it is a "I'm right and you're liberal if you don't agree with me" mentality, there is a problem.
Were it to be a "Let's fellowship around the reality of Christ and His redemotive work and the sharing of that [the gospel] while we seek, study, share, debate, and hold lightly our views on lesser issues" as we live the Christian life loving one another in the presence of unbelievers, we could move along together and keep our voices strong with the gospel.
This not to say the meaning of the text isn't important. It is. But whatever meaning we come to see there should not fundamentally change us from being that "walking in the spirit and having submissive, servant hearts..." person we all are to be.
Scott, thanks for some thoughtful questions. I've got to run errands and will write more later.
It should be....This [is] not to say the meaning of the text isn't important. It is. But whatever meaning we come to see there, [it] should not fundamentally change us from being that "walking in the spirit and having submissive, servant hearts..." person we all are to be.
SORRY.
Sitting in the Endodontist's chair right now...getting the finishing touches on a root canal, which only slightly more annoying than the thought of what you have to endure with that kind of legalistic environment. It makes me want to smack someone. Actually it's my flesh that wants to do that. I just asked God to do it instead. It's not anything that five minutes of good old fashioned persecution wouldn't vaporize!
I'll still never forget what a part of the "amen!" crowd I was when I was a teen at a small SBC church in Arkansas and the local association threw a church out for having a woman deacon - "those liberals!" It's been quite a journey to where I am today. Thanks for continuing to address the issue. May the love of the Father transform hearts and minds!
Post a Comment