EGALITARIANISM

As a citizen of this country I know I may hold a few political positions that would cause some people to call me an Egalitarian or even a "Feminist" [I guess a man can be accused of that!]  Feminists may perhaps be at the forefront of the kind of Egalitarian debate we are having in our nation politically, but that is far removed from what I'm addressing here. 


Equal pay for equal work is a policy I hold to politically, that is true. That fact, as well as my stand on legal equality for the sexes in education, sports, office holding, and other issues of national importance, may cause me to be labeled by many in an unflattering way. I understand that! Some have even tried to call me, of all things, a Democrat. [For the record, I'm NOT a feminist, Progressive Democrat, Tea Party Republican, Liberated Libertarian, or any other of a number of things, all of which I've been accused of being.] However, none of the above is what I am addressing at the moment. 

I'm addressing Egalitarianism in the context of the last post, I will be speaking of it in regards to theology alone. In this vein, Egals  [I will now revert to the abbreviation as last time.] believe that there is no inherent authority found in the male gender that would scripturally assign them the responsibility of being over female believers in an hierarchical manner as all believers are "equal" before God because of being "in Christ."  Egals believe that "In Christ there is neither male nor female, Jew nor Gentile, bond nor free" as declared in Galatians 3:28.  So all believers are equal in worth and value and are all equally under the Lordship of Christ with no one to take that place of Lordship over any other believer. This is not a political statement, it is a Kingdom statement. 

While Egals would insist this does not, for obvious reasons, mean that all believers have the same skills, abilities, interests or physiological traits: they would say it does mean that all believers have a mutuality and are all to live out all the scriptures that are true of all believers as servants such as, for example....

"Love does not demand its own way." 1 Corinthians 13:5

"If any man [person] desires to first, the same shall be last of all, and servant of all." Mark 9:35

"If I then your Lord and Master have washed your feet; ye ought to wash one another's feet." John:14 

 Add to that an equal responsibility to use their gifts and obey in their calling to glorify God and encourage the Body of Christ with their ministry abilities without regard to class, gender, or race, just as that verse in Galatians indicates, and you would have what is basically believed by theological Egals.

The organization called Christians for Biblical Equality has put on record about what is believed by Egals in its Statement of Faith. A portion of which reads this way....

1___We believe in the equality and essential dignity of men and women of all ethnic groups, ages, and classes.

2___We recognize that all persons are made in the image of God and are to reflect that image in the community the community of believers, in the home, and in society.

3___We believe that men and women are to diligently develop and use their God-given gifts for the good of the home, church, and society.

Egals would desire that people understand it is not the culture that is the influence on why they hold to what they hold, but the scriptures themselves. In fact, it is the exegesis of Ephesians 5 [More on this passage and others in my next post.] that is one of the stronger reasons for the Egals stand on equality of servant hood as believers and a rejection of the unilateral male authority concept.

As intended originally, the man AND woman were commanded to care for the garden as Genesis 1:26-28 states..."Let THEM have dominion...let THEM be fruitful and multiply....let THEM subdue..."  That "THEM" intention, while lost in the rebellion called "the fall" was regained in the redemption called "The Cross" and is to be mirrored in the family and the Church as stipulated in the mutuality found in Ephesians 5 when correctly translated.

The husband is no more intended to autonomously make decisions for the household than is the woman intended to autonomously conceive the children for the household.

I will close by saying something of a personal nature. 

I've never liked labeling. In some ways it pigeon holes us into systems that may be a bit too rigid for our taste and separates us from one another. But there is also some value in knowing, examining, discussing and even embracing some system of labels, if they help us on our journey.

C. S. Lewis said this one time..Remember for geography's sake, he's speaking as an Englishman from the UK....

 "If a man has walked on a beach and looked at the Atlantic ocean, and then goes to look at a map of the Atlantic, he also has turned from something real to something less real: turning from real waves to a bit of colored paper. But here is the point I wish to make. The map is only admittedly colored paper, but two things need to be remembered about it. One is that the map is based on what hundreds and thousands of people have found out by sailing the real Atlantic. In that way it has behind it masses of experience just as real as the one you had on the beach: only, while yours would be a single isolated glimpse, the map fits all those different experiences together. In the second place, if you want to go anywhere, the map is absolutely necessary. As long as you are content with walks on the beach, your own glimpses are far more fun than looking at a map. But the map is going to be more use than walks on the beach if you want to get to America."

Next time I will draw you a map of my journey to the one label out of the three I've been describing that I now identify with more than I do the other two and my study of the scripture that led me to my destination. If it helps for you to read the map I draw, great. But may I remind you we're all on a journey that no one else can take for us. Push out from the beach onto the ocean of scripture study for yourself, as a good Berean, and BonVoyage.

Paul B.

IS MALE GENDER AUTHORITY BIBLICAL?

Patriarchalism, Complementarianism, Egalitarianism, big words all ending in "ism," but do they have anything else in common? Not much! Unless you count the fact that each group has Christians, both male and female, who hold to one of them as the popular title of their particular point of view about what the bible teaches concerning the roles of men and women in family life, church life, and even society at large. 


The end result of a couple of them is a kind of male gender authority that is said to be God's plan for the ages. If these three words are unfamiliar to you at present, trust me, they will not be for long. They define what may be one of the major issues facing Christians today in the theological realm.


What follows is a bit of what I trust will be a fair and non-condemning description of each of these differing views of male and female roles with emphasis specifically on how male authority is seen in scripture. Ultimately, I'll give my view and why I hold it. 

I going to simplify this post by using abbreviations instead of the three rather long words each time they're mentioned. So from here on it will be the battle of the Pats, the Comps, and the Egals with winner take all. 

First the Pats. [Patriarchal] They hold to what they believe to be a God-assigned role of authority for the male head of the family without question. In fact, they see the father/husband to be something of the Prophet/Priest/King of the family structure with much of the responsibility, power and prominence that go with each of those roles to be inherent within being__the man. 

The Pats believe that the male head of the family unit is the final word on any issue where a decision must be made. There may be some disagreement within the family members, but he has final word. They usually see this role of the male to be not only for the family, but for the church and society at large as well.

The Comps [Complementarian] would hold to the same view of the male role without it necessarily being for society as a whole. But it is certainly true for the home and church in the Comps mind. They also would generally be less likely to have a rigid control in place, being more open to the gifts and personality of the wife. In fact, it would be more of a complementary aspect of the marriage that they would wish to emphasize. But that would have to be without any loss of the final decision responsibility and power of the man as husband and father. Thus, the coined name, Complementarian.  

Because of the similarities of the first two however, I will address them as one, yet will in fairness, as earlier promised, try to point out a few minor differences along the way. 

The third group, Egals, [Egalitarian] will be examined by itself in the next post.

It would only be fair to say that both the Pats and Comps would agree that, while the husband is to love the wife as Christ loved the Church and gave Himself for her, God has simply divinely appointed the man as the one to have final decision making responsibilities as has been described. The Comps would more likely hear the wife's advice and input, but if there is disagreement, both Pats and Comps would see the man is to have God-appointed decision-making responsibility in that moment. The wife's role, in both systems, is to graciously submit and obey any final male decision that is made.

All of this is determined to be true because of the Ephesians 5:22-25 passage that establishes the man as the "head" over the wife [meaning boss] as Christ is "head" over the Church. Add to that passage the 1 Timothy 2:12 verse that establishes [as they see it] the eternal principle that the woman can never have authority over the man in any situation, and you have male authority established. [Remember the distinction of society at large being exempt for most Comps.]


There are other 'Logical' arguments used by Pats and Comps that they believe give some further biblical basis for this view, but those arguments don't count very much in the final analysis from my perspective. For example, they say since all the original 12 Apostles were men it follows logically that women should not be leaders.  My problem is if you continue that argument for a moment you will be faced with the logical fact that all of those men were Jewish and all had, as much as we can know, been circumcised. I think you get the picture. The fine line of where logic ends doesn't make for the best of arguments. But I digress.

If a woman is single, both Pats and Comps see this headship found in the woman's father or some male who is older and is responsible for her welfare. When she marries, that is then transferred to her husband. All this is seen as the God-ordained authority structure firmly established in the home and family.

You will not be surprised that this has profound ramifications in the local church. Pats and comps say that the 1 Corinthians 14:34-40 passage indicates that the submission of the woman already found in the home in Ephesians 5, is found to be true in the church as well. 

So much so that, in the Pats case, a woman is not allowed to read scripture, lead in prayer, or teach, except children and other women, and in some churches, women are not allowed to be present for business discussions and if they are present, no questions would be permitted at all. 


The Comps would be less rigid for sure, but would not permit a woman to have a leadership position in church over men or to teach men. Neither would allow for a woman to hold the office of deacon or pastor/elder. Additionally, the role of the man in the family is given to the pastor or elders of the church as well.

Pats and Comp proponents, while quick to point out that the scriptures show all this to be correct and true, would just as quickly acknowledge that women are of equal value in the eyes of God with men. But God has simply appointed different roles for them within the family and church. 


To be truly biblical they believe the same must be held to in our day in truly Christian families and churches. After all, the scriptures never change. Culture may, but not the bible.

In fact, Comps and Pats find it amazing that anyone who says that they study the scriptures could ever come to a position that disagrees with their male/female point of view. 


Clearly, they believe that those who do hold to a different opinion___and I'm referring to the Egals now___whose view of scripture and male authority we've not yet addressed, but when we do it will be found to be fundamentally different than the Pats and Comps___ are theological liberals who have embraced today's culture and live by political correctness rather than endorse what is clearly God's biblical roles for men and women. 


Are the Pats and the Comps correct in their opinion about Egals? Do Egals follow culture with a total disregard for scripture? 

We shall see next time.

Paul B.

WOMEN DEACONS?

If I had a quarter for every time I've been asked about the office of "deacon" and whether or not women are qualified, I'd be rich. Were you to add a quarter for the number of times I've heard someone declare that anyone who believes women can be a deacon is not standing on the bible but has become a theological liberal, it would make my fortune even larger.


To prove their point when talking with me, they always take me to their proof text in 1 Timothy 3:13 in the King James translation where it says..."For they that have used the office of a deacon well purchase to themselves a good degree, and great boldness in the faith which is in Christ Jesus." [KJV] They then remind me of what was said in 1 Timothy 2:12 and that settles it for them. 


They rest their case with arms crossed and daggers in their eye just waiting for me to admit my folly and cry for mercy from the Almighty for having become a Liberal myself. 

What's a guy to do? Maybe translate the scripture correctly? That might really help. [I'll save a "my view of a correct" translation of 1 Tim. 2:12 for another time.]

The 47 translators who did the KJV were told by brother James the King in 1604 [completed in 1611] to be sure and stay with the [his] proper ecclesiology and the episcopal structure of the Church of England which, in that day, had its ordained clergy intact. Well, when the King says that, you'd better please the King.


Lest you think I'm out in left field by myself, Dr. Daniel B. Wallace of Biola University and Dallas Seminary says this.."It is not altogether unfair to say that the motive to produce this grand work was more to protect the status quo than to meet the needs of the people. In this respect, the King James Bible resembled the Roman Catholic Rheims-Douai version rather than its own Protestant predecessors of the sixteenth century."


So they took the word "diakoneo" in 1 Timothy 3:13, which means "serve" or "minister," and paraphrased it with "have used the office of a deacon." They wound up with an entire carefully articulated and constructed phrase used as the supposed meaning of one Greek word, [diakoneo] but which only winds up, as intended, undergirding and even promoting the ecclesiastical system of that day rather than giving a true translation of the meaning of the text. They did brother King James proud.

But along came brother Strong [Strong's Concordance] a good bit later and rights the ship by translating it as simply..."to serve." Brother W.E. Vine agrees with brother Strong by saying it this way, "The R.V. rightly omits "office" and translates the verb diakoneo "to serve." 

So not surprisingly, in every other place in scripture that Greek word "diakoneo" is found, it is translated "serve" or "serving" or the equivalent English words "minister" or "ministering". No problem! That's the way it's suppose to be. 


An illustration using a method that I saw some time ago in one of the finest articles I've ever read on the subject will make my point quite well. These are just a few although many such verses in other books could be used as well.

First is Matthew 8:15 where it says, "And He touched her hand, and the fever left her: and she arose and ministered [served/diakoneo] unto them."

Then there is Matthew 20:28 which says, "Even as the Son of man came not to be ministered unto, [served/diakoneo] but to minister [serve/diakoneo] and to give His life a ransom for many.

Finally, John 12:26 says, "If any man serve [diakone] me, let him follow me; and where I am there shall my servant [diakoneo] also be: if any man serve [diakone] me, him will my Father honor." [Here is is used three times in one verse.]

Now....To make this point very clear let's insert the paraphrase used by the 47 James boys in 1 Timothy 3:13 for that very same word into those Matthew and John verses and let's see what happens.

Matthew 8:15: "And He touched her hand, and the fever left her: and she arose and used the office of a deacon [diakoneo] unto them."

Matthew 20:28: "Even as the Son of man came not to be used the office of a deacon [diakoneo] unto, but to used the office of a deacon [diakoneo] and to give His life a ransom for many.

John 12:26: "If any man use the office of a deacon [diakoneo] me, let him follow me; and where I am there shall my office of deacon [diakone] be: if any man use the office of a deacon [diakoneo] me him will my Father honor."

You don't have to be a rocket scientist or a Greek scholar to see that doesn't make any sense! That's because the word was never intended to mean "The office of deacon" or "deacon." That is paraphrase or a transliteration of that single Greek word "diakoneo." 


It simply and only means to minister or to serve or to be a minister or servant when translated rather than transliterated or paraphrased for a purpose.

The previously mentioned article used one more illustration I also want to borrow that shows yet another twist to the sinister plot we're uncovering and then I'll draw some personal conclusions from all this.

In Romans 16:1 Paul said, "I commend into you Pheobe our sister, which is a servant [minister/diakoneo] of the church which is at Cenchrea...." 

Notice the 47 James boys doing the KJV [all men remember] saw a woman being talked about here. Well, they thought, that means it's safe to correctly translate the Greek word "diakoneo" as "servant" here because a woman is being talked about and everyone knows women are always supposed to serve anyway. 


But, then, the King's boys chose to transliterate it as "deacon" when it applied to a man. Could that be because they needed to be careful of ever putting men in the place of JUST serving? That really could mess up the "clergy" gig they were playing and that would be unthinkable! My goodness..what tangled webs we weave! 

That the language reveals the 47 guys bias is pretty clear when you understand where they were coming from IMHO. To them, a woman was not ever to be able to hold "the office of deacon" so they used the correct translation of "servant" even though the word is exactly the same as in 1 Timothy 3:13. They probably thought,, "Shoot! Who's to know anyway!" This was probably the last big translation ever in their view anyway. [Maybe I'd better try to stay out of their heads.]    

But the point I'm making is that the word was never intended to mean "office of deacon." It was describing a servant or serving or minister or ministering. 


There is, in fact, no "office of deacon" invisioned by the biblical writers at all and there were clear indications from them that both men and women served in special ways in the New Testament, such as Pheobe in that Cenchrean church and even with Paul in his own ministry and were called "servants." [Transliterated 'deacon.']. 

But later translations would, indeed, correct the plot they hatched. So__to have an "office of deacon" that is for men only__ is only a church tradition__and not a biblical interpretation at all. [Thank the Lord for brothers Strong and Vines and some later real good translations.] 

Come to think of it, maybe those who hold that women can serve are the biblical ones and those who hold to a male office of deacon are the___well, not liberal maybe___but certainly not biblical!!

CONCLUSION? As I see it....

1___What you have in the KJV is an adopted hierarchy of male over female and certain offices established with men only filling them, but which are not in the clear meaning of the text of scripture. I'm not saying it's evil to have "deacons" as we do today. You just have a man made system when you do. 


2___This also means that when reading about women in the KJV, you may need to really BE CAREFUL with your translation and make sure of what you're hearing is said in context and you are interpreting the text correctly.

3___What we do with the well established "office of deacon" [not evil necessarily, just not biblical] in Southern Baptist churches is anyone's guess and each churches decision, but to make it a male over female thing and then to try to make that a test of biblical orthodoxy as a Baptist is so far removed from the scriptures themselves it is incredible.

4___In this matter at least, it looks like the people in the SBC___ who hold to an office concept where women are excluded___ have tragically ceased being "a people of the book." Well I'll be, who'd of thought!

Paul B.

SECRET HISTORY WITH GOD

All of us have what Ron Dunn use to call a "Secret History with God." What he meant was we tended to appear to be on a mountain top spiritually on Sunday mornings while the week had, in truth, been filled with a journey of scrapped knees, bruised behinds and bleary eyes from struggling to get the top spiritually. 


Often we even found ourselves in valleys that we didn't know existed. Some of them deeper than we believed they could ever be. But, evidently, we think the appearance of the mountain top experience must be maintained resulting in a kind of pretense so that when Sunday rolls around we put on a mask to hide the pain. Coupled with our adept ability at using a Christian vocabulary or what I call our "Christian lingo" we wind up giving off the appearance of having it all together while all the time we've really lost our focus on Christ being our "all and in all" including our spirituality. 


After all, if my Christianity is REAL then I SHOULD have it all together and this struggle to be spiritual would really be an easy thing rather than the failure at it that I'm facing___right? I say___ really!


Struggling TO BE spiritual aside___that's a subject for another post within itself as shown when I indicated that Christ IS HIMSELF our spirituality and we lose sight of that reality___a truly biblical NT Church gathering can/should be a safe place and time where we can/should "bear one another's burdens" and talk with transparency about those pages of our "Secret History with God," scrapped knees and all, without fear of condemnation or shame. 

But, you say "that would take a miracle and that would have to be the work of the Holy Spirit wouldn't it?" I say___ "Yes!" 




Paul B.