Men and Women in the Church

"Rich Toward God": In Memory of My Mother, Teressa A. Richardson (June 28, 1956--Feb. 3, 2009)

2011-06-28T12:00:00.002-04:00

“Then He spoke a parable to them, saying: the ground of a certain rich man yielded plentifully. And he thought within himself, saying, ‘What shall I do, since I have no room to store my crops?’ So he said, ‘I will do this: I will pull down my barns and build greater, and there I will store all my crops and my goods. And I will say to my soul, “Soul, you have many goods laid up for many years; take your ease; eat, drink, and be merry.’” But God said to him, ‘Fool! This night your soul will be required of you; then whose will those things be which you have provided?’ So is he who lays up treasure for himself, and is not rich toward God” (Luke 12:16-21, NKJV).

Today at the Center for Theological Studies as well as Men and Women in the Church, I give tribute to the woman who gave birth to me back on August 21, 1984, at a hospital in Durham, North Carolina. I pay tribute to a woman who loved me from the first moment she laid eyes on me, and gave me a Christian upbringing, with all the love, encouragement, prayers, and shoulder to cry on she could ever have given me. This same woman raised me to be godly, to love the Lord my God with all my heart, soul, and mind...and to let nothing come between me and my God. She taught my Sunday school class when my twin sister (Danielle) and I were younger, cooked Sunday meals, worked 40-60 hours a week, managed the church finances, sung in the choir, and worked hard, as they say, to “bring home the bacon.” She was a loving and wonderful daughter to her parents, a great sister, and an amazing friend to me and all those who knew her. Yes, folks---this woman is still the queen of my heart after all this time. Her name is Teressa A. Richardson.

On February 3, 2009, mom went home to be with the Lord after having battled breast cancer, lung cancer, and brain cancer for a span of three years. I have cried so many tears since she left me; and I’ve cried a lot of them lately. For those who may not know, I graduated from Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary in Wake Forest, NC on May 20, 2011, where I received my Master of Divinity degree in Christian Apologetics...and I missed her so much that day. I cried all during the service, and I’ve been crying every day since.

Today at the blog is set aside to honor this amazing woman of God, a warrior who has fought the good fight, finished her course, and kept the faith. As I began to think on what I would say about mom, I remembered a favorite passage of hers that she always discussed with her children, parents, and church members. That passage today will be the above quoted passage: Luke 12:16-21.

The context of the passage involves the story of two brothers, one who wanted the Lord to make the other divide the inheritance with him. Jesus tells them that life is about more than possessions. And the parable quoted above fits in at this ideal moment.

There was a rich man who had so much wealth that he just didn’t know what to do with it. Now, it’s no secret that he was blessed. The text tells us that his “ground” (or field) “yielded plentifully.” This means that everything grew. All of his crops that he planted prospered. For most farmers, to have everything sprout and grow would be a miracle indeed, considering the weather that we’ve been having in North Carolina all summer so far! The rich man had “the Midas touch”; everything he planted prospered. As mom used to say about her parents (my grandparents), “they have green thumbs.” The rich man had a “green thumb.” Nothing but prosperity, wealth, and blessing was in sight.

Now, you would think that at this moment, the man would decide to perform some act of kindness, some act of consideration for someone else other than himself. I’ve read this passage and stopped at this point to say, “Come on, rich man; stop and think. Think about all the poor people that needed food, clothing, shelter, etc. Think about those that needed some wood to warm the fire, or some food to carry them over until their next paycheck, or someone who needed a place to stay.” If his crops were doing that well, then surely, he had money to provide necessities for those who were less fortunate without asking for anything in return. Since the Lord had blessed his crops, you would think that the rich man would’ve gone and blessed someone else.

Mom, when teaching Sunday school, would say, “I just get tired of driving down the road every day, to and from work, and seeing all these beautiful two-story homes with nobody to live in them. Does it make sense to buy a two-story home if you’re the only person living in it? And what about the homeless who walk the streets everyday with no clothes, shoes, or food? Why is it that they have to walk by the rich person’s house everyday and see a reminder that the rich person has so much, but gives so little?” She always thought about helping others. When mom died, my twin and I discovered that she had been donating money to St. Jude children’s hospital to help them find cures for child illnesses. She never told us she was doing it; we never talked about it all that much. She just had St. Jude’s receive a portion of her check every month, automatic draft. The money would go to the less fortunate, and she didn’t mind it. She was blessed to have a Batchelor of Arts degree in Accounting and Economics from Duke University (class of 1978), and she was a senior accountant at the corporate plant she worked for. Mom had a job with great benefits and great pay. She wasn’t concerned about the money that was leaving. It was a small price to pay to be a blessing to children who really needed it more than Danielle and me.

But the rich man did not think about it. For him, any amount was too high to pay to bless someone else. He was only concerned about blessing himself. Do you know that so many church members do the same thing today, when they refuse to tithe a percentage of their earnings to the Lord, when they refuse to give God the firstfruits of their financial increase? Do you realize that, when we do not give to God’s church, we are robbing God? Do you not understand that, when we refuse to give financially, we are starving the poor, making the naked go without clothing, the sick children without medicine, the homeless without a home, etc.? Do you understand that, when we refuse to give financially (not just to the church but to the needy and less fortunate), we are acting just like the rich man---as if we could care less?

Well, he couldn’t care less, really...so he decided to do what all greedy people do: instead of thinking “go smaller,” he decided, “I know what I’ll do; I’ll do it bigger this time!” So he decided to tear down the barns he had (which were overflowing) and build bigger ones. I think that he should’ve looked at the bigger barns and gotten the hint. But greediness clouds sound judgment...and when someone is greedy through and through, there’s nothing anyone can do to turn them around.

But little did he know that, although he would plan to build those bigger barns, he would not get to enjoy them. The very night he intended to lay down, eat, drink, and be merry, the Lord required him to stand before Him and be judged for what he had done with his life. Isn’t that interesting? Instead of spending his last moments making a difference, he decided to spend his last moments on earth thinking about himself. He had studied “ME-ology” way too much!!!

How many times have we heard of stories of individuals doing the same things? How many times have we heard of people making plans to do much of nothing...and then, dying the very night the plans are made? One of my mother’s coworkers had planned to move to the company headquarters. He and his wife had gotten the UHaul, packed it, and were driving to Indiana where he was scheduled to get a bigger job with better benefits. He was not saved though, and all that week leading up to his departure, the Lord sent men and women to witness to him about the Lord, His gospel, and the need for this man to be saved and turn from sin to salvation. The man would listen to the pleas, but he did not respond. The last day at work, the women in the finance department (where my mother worked) witnessed to him again, but no response. Finally, it was after he and his wife got to Indiana that he died. He stepped out of the truck, pulled down the back of the truck to begin unpacking, and fell dead right on the grass with a heart attack. He had been planning to enjoy the new job, new promotion, and new home...but he did not get one hour to enjoy it!!

And this is what happens to folks when they are rich in material possessions, and not rich where it counts---toward God. Mom was rich toward God. She loved the Lord with all her heart, served Him with all of her strength, and put Him before everyone else in her life. I sure hate that each and every one of you never got the chance to know her here. She had a relationship with the Lord that just made you envy her walk with God. I’ve been around a lot of people in my life...but very few have ever made me jealous of their walk with the Lord. Mom was one of those people.

If she could talk to us today, if she could speak a word to those who are reading, she would say, “Be rich toward God. Store up treasure in heaven, not on earth. Be busy doing the work of the Lord. Serve Him fervently, and put Him before all things. Acknowledge His goodness and share His gospel with the lost of the world. And one day, when the Lord returns for you, you will hear the words, ‘Well done, thy good and faithful servant.’” My prayer for us all is that we will be busy doing the Lord’s work, always abounding in the work of the Lord...in this way our labor will not be in vain (1 Corinthians 15:58). God bless.

A Conservative Egalitarianism: The Middle Way Between Complementarianism and Feminism

2011-06-11T16:24:00.003-04:00

Recently, I did a google search and found that a student in Michigan, named Chad Christian, wrote a paper in which he contrasted my view of egalitarianism with D.A. Carson's complementarianism. He concluded the paper by saying,

"While I do not firmly take a stance on either side of this debate, I believe that both Carson and Richardson exercise two extreme positions in this debate" (http://chaddchristian.blogspot.com/2011/03/womans-role-in-church.html).

To respond to Chad, let me say that first, I do not have an extreme position. I wrote him a response at his site, stating that my view of women and their gifts in the church does not negate the headship of the male and his authority in the home. After all, the New Testament shows us time and time again where wives are to submit to their husbands (Ephesians 5:22 being a good example). I am one who believes in teaching what the Bible does...so I would not tell women to not submit to their husbands. This is the position of feminists, who I dub "extreme egalitarians." The Bible tells wives to submit; for those who refuse to acknowledge scriptural teaching on this are opposing Scripture, which is the exalted, inerrant, infallible, inspired Word of God.

Last but not least, he writes that I oppose 1 Peter 3:7 as referring to spiritual authority. But what Chad does not understand is that I am defining "spiritual authority" in a different sense than he. He sees 1 Peter 3:7 as referring to spiritual authority, since the issue involved is headship in the home, which is given by God. I am referring to spiritual authority as having to do with the five-fold ministry of Ephesians 4 and the Spirit giftedness of 1 Corinthians 12. I am discussing ecclesiology when I discuss spiritual authority, which I deem to be distinct from God-given roles in the home. After all, Paul does the same when, in the same passage that he tells wives to submit to their husbands (5:22), he also tells the Ephesians that Christ is the head of the church (Eph. 5:23). Christ and the church are the example for the home, not the other way around. Many complementarians confuse which example is the standard...and thus, end up stifling the female voice in churches today.

I am not denying that in some sense, male headship in the home is spiritual authority; what I am denying, however, is that male headship can be used as the paradigm by which men and women are to operate as believers in the church. I believe that a woman can submit to her husband in the home and yet, operate in her God-given role to preach the Word (even if he isn't called to do so) in the church of God. I see giftedness by the Spirit (preaching, teaching, pastoring, apostleship, prophecy, etc.) as spiritual authority that is manifested apart from the gender of an individual and/or whether or not the individual is to submit or lead in the home. After all, there will be no marriage between man and woman in heaven (Matt. 22:30); if the church is to usher in the coming Kingdom of God (Matt. 6:10), and the coming Kingdom will have no marriage, then the church should be a divine institution where women are able to preach, teach, apostle, and pastor as God has given them ability. This does not undermine marriage; rather, if the wife is to be the glory of her husband (1 Cor. 11:8), and the wife is preaching and teaching as God has given her ability, then she does so "to the glory of her husband." The more the husband allows his wife to exercise her gifts, the more glorious for him she will be. Conversely, the more the husband forces his wife to sit on the sidelines while he does the work of God, the less glorious he will be for God and His Kingdom. What a shame that so many men have this mindset! I thank God for those who don't, and pray for those who do that one day, their hearts and minds will be changed.

Feel free to check out Chad's site is you so desire. Also, feel free to leave comments. God bless.

Women Preachers: "The Tenth Mark of a Healthy Church"

2011-02-09T18:52:00.004-05:00

“Expositional preaching is preaching in service to the Word. It presumes a belief in the authority of Scripture---that the Bible is actually God’s Word; but it is something much more than that. A commitment to expositional preaching is a commitment to hear God’s Word---not just to affirm that it is God’s Word but to actually submit yourself to it. The Old Testament prophets and the New Testament apostles were given, not a personal commission to go and speak, but a particular message to deliver. Likewise Christian preachers today have authority to speak from God only so long as they speak His message and unfold His words” (Mark Dever, “Nine Marks of a Healthy Church, New Expanded Edition.” Wheaton: Crossway Books, 2004, pages 40-41).

Recently I had the pleasure of reading Mark Dever’s “Nine Marks of a Healthy Church.” My seminary recently had a conference titled “Nine Marks,” and Dever actually came to Southeastern to be a part of the hype. His book has done remarkably well in the evangelical world and I highly recommend it to all believers. Dever’s got one of the finest books I’ve seen on the subject...

I was particularly struck by his words on expositional preaching. Dever made expositional preaching the first of 9 marks of a healthy church. In order for the church to get the other eight marks correct, Dever writes, it is important that expositional preaching be priority number one:

“The first mark of a healthy church is expositional preaching. It is not only the first mark; it is far and away the most important of them all, because if you get this one right, all the others should follow” (Dever, “Nine Marks,” 39).

But his remarks above on modern-day preachers I found to be most fascinating. Let’s read his remarks once more:

Today’s preachers are labeled (according to Dever) the “functional descendants” of the OT prophets and NT apostles. It seems that, like the Old Testament prophets of old (Isaiah, Jeremiah, Hosea, Ezekiel, Amos, Jonah, etc.) and the NT apostles (Matthew, John, Peter, Andrew, James, etc.), today’s preachers have been given a message by God that they are to deliver. But if today’s preachers function like an “Isaiah” or a “Peter,” then wouldn’t women also be viewed as preachers also?

Think about it: In the Old Testament, it is true that there were male prophets such as the ones above; however there were also female prophets (prophetesses) such as Miriam (Exodus 15:20), Deborah (Judges 4:4), Huldah (2 Kings 22:14, 2 Chronicles 34:22). The prophet Joel himself even went on to claim that in the last days, daughters alongside of sons would prophesy (Joel 2:28), not to mention the maidservants alongside of the menservants (Joel 2:29). In the New Testament, women are allowed to pray and prophesy before the congregations (1 Cor. 11:5). This indeed tells us that women had leadership roles before God’s people (Deborah as judge and prophetess), and women did not lose the capacity to lead God’s people even in the New Testament (as prophetesses praying and prophesying in front of male and female congregants).

We can set up the argument in the following syllogism:

Premise One: The modern-day preacher stands in the line of the OT prophets.

Premise Two: Some women (Deborah, Miriam, Huldah) were OT prophets.

Conclusion: Therefore, some women can be modern-day preachers.

It seems then, that leaving women out of the discussion of modern-day preachers has less to do with Scripture than it does tradition and personal bias. But, sadly, enough, I think this is one mark of the healthy church that Mark Dever himself forgot about.

Women are vital to the success of the church, as much as men are. When one-half of the body of Christ is being shut out of leadership positions, and the other half is more than encouraged (but fails in its work), what is supposed to be done? I applaud Mark Dever for telling the world what makes healthy churches; at the same time, however, his work is not infallible...and when women are being abandoned from leadership positions, treated as though they cannot possess the spiritual gifts needed for such positions, what good does it do to write a book on marks of healthy churches? What good does it do to tell the churches, “You need more of this and that,” while pushing the female gender aside and forgetting that, they too, make up the body of Christ?

Women preachers are indeed the “tenth mark of a healthy church.” And even if there is expositional preaching, church discipline, strong church membership, strong evangelistic programs, strong discipleship, etc., we will still have an unhealthy church---until we recognize the spiritual giftedness of women and include them amongst the godly leadership in our churches. Whatever diagnosis the church of Jesus Christ has, she has given it to herself...and only she can make it better.

In Memory of My Mother, Teressa A. Richardson (June 28,1956--February 3, 2009): The Lord, Our Light and Salvation

2011-02-03T09:00:00.001-05:00

“The Lord is my light and my salvation; Whom shall I fear? The Lord is the strength of my life; Of whom shall I be afraid? When the wicked came against me to eat up my flesh, My enemies and foes, they stumbled and fell. Though an army may encamp against me, My heart shall not fear; Though war may rise against me, In this will I be confident.

One thing I have desired of the LORD, That will I seek; That I may dwell in the house of the LORD, All the days of my life, To behold the beauty of the LORD, And to inquire in His temple. For in the time of trouble He shall hide me in His pavilion; In the secret place of His tabernacle He shall hide me; He shall set me high upon a rock.

And now my head shall be lifted up above my enemies all around me; Therefore I will offer sacrifices of joy in His tabernacle; I will sing, yes, I will sing praises to the LORD” (Psalm 27, vv. 1-6, New King James Version).

Today at both the Center for Theological Studies (CTS) and Men and Women in the Church, the day is set aside to honor the memory of my mother, dearest friend, and inspiration, Teressa A. Richardson. For those who may not know, today marks the two-year anniversary of her death. Mom died back on February 3, 2009, after a three-year battle with breast cancer, lung cancer, and brain cancer. When it was time, the Lord took His servant home to be with Him for all eternity...and mother slipped away from this life.

She died when I was still 24 years old; and even today, at age 26 (soon to turn 27), I still miss my mom in my life. No matter how many seasons come and go, holidays, birthdays, or classes, I still miss her in my life. In the last two years, I’ve learned that nothing on this earth will ever take her place...and nothing on this earth will ever truly heal the void she left in my life when she passed from it.

The passage above, Psalm 27, was one of my mother’s favorite passages. The Psalm begins with, “The Lord is my light and my salvation; Whom shall I fear?” If I could sum up my mother’s life in a few words, it would be these. She was one who, even in her tough times, could still take joy in knowing that God was still on her side. I can remember best when mom was sent home for six months. She was battling lung cancer, and her doctor told her, “Ms. Richardson, you’re gonna have to be out of work for at least six months.” My heart sank when I heard the news. But mom told me something afterwards that I wasn’t expecting:

“I told the doctor, ‘I will go home for six months; but I will go back to work.’ The doctor looked at me and said, ‘But Teressa, you don’t understand how big this cancer is.’ And I looked at her and said, ‘Oh, but you don’t understand HOW BIG MY GOD IS!’”

Mom took me by storm with those words. Even in the midst of her storm, she could say, “The Lord is my light and my salvation; Whom shall I fear?”. She didn’t even fear the cancer, because the Lord was her light (He led her in the paths of righteousness for His Name’s Sake, Ps. 23:3) and He was her salvation (He could deliver her from the cancer). No matter how great her cancer was, it didn’t stand a chance when standing next to her Great and Almighty God!

David cried out, “When the wicked came against me to eat up my flesh, my enemies and foes, they stumbled and fell” (v. 2). Mom experienced deliverance from cancer in her lifetime. I remember the first time she came down with cancer when I was still in college. She told me over the phone (I was still away in college at UNC-Chapel Hill), “I’ve got something to tell you.” I kept pressing her to tell me what it was, but she waited until I was home. The news broke my heart, but that night, standing in her mother’s (my grandmother’s home), grandma, mom, Danielle, and I all stood around in a circle, holding hands, as grandma began to call upon the name of the Lord in prayer. I cried so many tears in that prayer, crying to the Lord to heal my mother...

And I can remember when He did. That day, we all went to the clinic with mom to see her to her doctor’s visit. And I can remember when mom came out crying and saying, “The cancer is gone!” I remember crying and screaming and saying, “Thank you Jesus!”, as my family tried to calm me down. All I could do was cry and scream, “Praise the Lord!” throughout the doctor’s office. My mother was healed of her cancer, and I wanted EVERYONE to know that the Lord, the Maker of Heaven and Earth, had done it; He had healed my mother of her life-threatening disease! She returned to church and in her testimony, broke down in tears as she began to tell the church family of what God had done for her. God had healed her, and she wanted everyone to know of the goodness of the Lord. Whether in good times or bad times, mom was determined to be a witness for God with every breath she was given. As verse 3 says, even though the army enclosed around David, he was confident of God’s power. Even though the cancer enclosed mother, she was confident that her God, at any moment, could deliver her.

Verses 4 and 5 tell of David’s desire to “dwell in the house of the Lord” and his reason for so doing: “for in the time of trouble He shall hide me in His pavilion; in the secret place of His tabernacle He shall hide me; He shall set he high upon a rock” (v.5). Mom loved to dwell in the house of the Lord, to be amongst fellow believers and live in the presence of her God. Sunday mornings were church mornings, no questions asked. You could like it or not...you were going to church. If you were alive and breathing, church was the place you were headed to on Sunday morning when the sun began to shine. She loved to meet with the saints of God, encourage, and give her testimony of the Lord’s goodness. She taught Sunday school, and encouraged our church family to be about witnessing to the lost and dying people of the world. She often said that God did not save us to sit down on the pew; no---He saved us so we could go tell someone else and bring them to the “Living Water” that only Christ could give. David realized the benefit of living in the presence of God and being a child of God: when the going gets tough, God is right there fighting for His children. Mom found joy in doing the Lord’s work because she knew that, when trouble would come, God would always “show up” and come through for His own. She was always troubled at how people can have so little time for God, but cry out to Him so much when they have a disease like cancer that they cannot get rid of. And how could they expect God to remember them, when they surely seemed to care little about Him or His kingdom? She would tell the Sunday school class, “Remember now your Creator in the days of your youth” (Ecclesiastes 12:1). She used to tell them that, before the days turn bad, remember God even in the good times. And she lived that out in her own life.

In verse 6, David praises God because “now my head shall be lifted up above my enemies all around me.” God finally heard David’s cries and delivered him, as David knew God would do. In response to the Lord’s goodness, David began to bless the Lord: “Therefore I will offer sacrifices of joy in His tabernacle; I will sing, yes, I will sing praises to the Lord” (v.6). Mom experienced the goodness of God in her life; and it drove her, like David, to sing praises and bless the Lord. Even during the times in her life when she felt as if God was distant, mom would still praise Him. When God would bless her, she would praise Him and give thanks to His Name for His goodness. And when she was battling for her own health and life, mom could still praise God for His goodness. Even through her tears, she could still praise God. I thank the Lord that I got to see a woman who never tired of praising God, even in the storms of life.

If mom were here, she would ask you, “Is the Lord your light and your salvation?” Is God present in your life? Can you agree with the psalmist David in this statement? Can you say that, because God is on your side, you have nothing to fear, no need to fear? If you don’t know the Lord, I challenge you to receive the Lord Jesus Christ as your Savior today. The Bible, God’s Holy Word, declares that “nor is there salvation in any other, for there is no other name under heaven given among men by which we must be saved” (Acts 4:12). We can only be saved at the name of Jesus Christ, and at the name of Christ alone.

You may ask, “Why do I need to receive this Jesus?” You need to receive Him because we have all sinned, and fallen short of God’s glory (Rom. 3:23). We all have done something wrong to offend the Almighty God. Because He is holy, He has to deal with sin. Each of us sinned in Adam (Rom. 5:12) and deserved to die, for “the wages of sin is death” (Rom. 6:23). But I love the end of that verse: while “the wages of sin is death” it is also true that “the gift of God is eternal life through Christ Jesus our Lord.” Christ paid the penalty for our sin when He died on the cross. He became the curse for us, bore the curse that we deserved to bear so that we could take on His righteousness (2 Cor. 5:21). Here is how the prophet Isaiah summed it all up:

“Surely He has borne our griefs and carried our sorrows; yet we esteemed Him stricken, smitten by God, and afflicted. But He was wounded for OUR transgressions, He was bruised for OUR iniquities; the chastisement for OUR peace was upon Him, and BY HIS STRIPES WE ARE HEALED. All we like sheep have gone astray; we have turned, every one, to his own way; and the Lord has laid on Him THE INIQUITY OF US ALL” (Isaiah 53:4-6).

It is our sin that put Christ on the cross. But He paid our debt because God so loved the world (John 3:16). It is in love that God gave His Son, and whoever believes and calls upon the name of the Lord will be saved. In times of trouble, as He hid mother, so also He will hide you.

Sickness, disease, and death will come, as sure as the sun will rise tomorrow; but do you know the One that can heal your sin-sick soul? “There is a balm in Gilead,” and His name is Jesus. Only Jesus will do. There is no other that can take His place. If you do not receive Him, you are condemned already, and nothing but Hell eternal awaits you (John 3:17-18). But if you receive Him, not only will you receive a friend that sticks closer than a brother (Prov. 18:24), but you will spend eternity with Him. The choice is up to you. Don’t delay: receive Him today.

http://listen.grooveshark.com/s/The+Lord+Is+My+Light+danniebelle+live+In+Sweden+With+Choralerna+Album+Version+/3npK2Q?src=5

Exegetical Fallacies in D.A. Carson's "Exegetical Fallacies," Pt. 3: Failure to Recognize Distinctions

2011-01-21T15:28:00.001-05:00

“Of course the Bible teaches that in Christ there is no male and female (Gal. 3:28); but does the Bible mean that male and female are alike in every respect? Who is going to bear the babies? Or do I now get my turn? The context of Galatians 3:28 shows the concern in that passage is with justification. In their standing before God, male and female are as one: neither enjoys any special advantage, each is acquitted by grace through faith...According to Luke, Peter cites Joel to the effect that both male and female shall prophesy (Acts 2:17); and certainly in the New Testament women do in fact prophesy (Acts 21:9; 1 Cor. 11:2-16). But Peter also says that the woman is the weaker vessel (1 Pet. 3:7). Whether this is taken with respect to physical strength or something else, it entails some sort of distinction; and a very good case can be made from New Testament evidence that a distinction was drawn between the gift of prophecy, which men and women could equally enjoy, and the church-recognized teaching authority over men, which only men could discharge” (D.A. Carson, “Exegetical Fallacies, Second Edition.” Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2006, pages 92-93).

Today’s fallacy quote by D.A. Carson comes from his labeled fallacy “Failure to Recognize Distinctions.” While Carson is quite the dogmatic Calvinist, he is also a staunch complementarian. You may not believe this, but most of his book spends time critiquing egalitarians more than it does Arminians (which is the other group he attacks).

Carson argues that, since men and women are biologically different, such biological distinctions testify to distinctions of spiritual authority in the church:

“does the Bible mean that male and female are alike in every respect? Who is going to bear the babies? Or do I now get my turn?”

The problem with this quote is that Carson goes from a biological distinction (that women are child-bearers) to spiritual authority without giving any biblical proof. At the most, this is just an absurd inference that the text does not justify. Not even the Scriptures state that spiritual authority is given on the basis of biological distinction. Rather, spiritual authority is given by the decision of the Spirit (1 Cor. 12:11). Carson is really stretching his exegesis on this one. To be somewhat facetious, “Who is going to do sound exegesis? Carson? Or do I now get my turn”?

Next, Carson gives another somewhat biological proof for his disagreement with women teaching men:

“According to Luke, Peter cites Joel to the effect that both male and female shall prophesy (Acts 2:17); and certainly in the New Testament women do in fact prophesy (Acts 21:9; 1 Cor. 11:2-16). But Peter also says that the woman is the weaker vessel (1 Pet. 3:7). Whether this is taken with respect to physical strength or something else, it entails some sort of distinction.”

What does “the weaker vessel” reference have to do with spiritual authority in the church? When Peter refers to the woman as the weaker vessel, he is not talking about the female intellect. 1 Peter 3:7 discusses the context of marriage (not spiritual authority in the church), so Peter is not saying that women are weak and cannot lead in church. Rather, he is referring to the woman in terms of physical strength, vulnerability in the marriage, etc. This is why men are to give honor to their wives: since Paul told the Corinthians in 1 Corinthians that “God composed the body, having given greater honor to that part which lacks it” (1 Cor. 12:24, NKJV). Women are not only to be honored because God gives them greater honor in their marriages, but also “that your prayers may not be hindered.” Does this mean that the man’s prayers could be hindered if he dishonors his wife in any way? Yes. Could this possibly refer to spiritual gifts: that is, that if a man dishonors his wife in her spiritual calling, he will hinder his prayers? Absolutely! I doubt, however, that complementarians give this any thought. D.A. Carson does not, in his reference to the passage.

A wife desires to be cherished, to be appreciated, to be seen as more than a sex object to be tossed around at will. But how do complementarians justify their treatment of their wives in church when they prevent them to do what they are called to do? I am thinking of a couple at this very moment where both husband and wife have PhDs. The husband is allowed to teach, publish, write, research, and do all that is in his heart...while his wife received a PhD in order to sit by his side and take care of their children. How right is this? What did she get her PhD for if she would do nothing with it? And does the husband in this case not consider that he might be hindering his wife’s progress, the progress of their marriage, not to mention their prayers? It’s certainly something worth thinking about.

Carson ends his assessment with the idea that the Scriptures teach some sort of leadership distinction between men and women (appealing to 1 Timothy 2). The problem, however, is that one cannot just blow off the context of Galatians. Let’s now revisit Carson’s assessment of Galatians:

“The context of Galatians 3:28 shows the concern in that passage is with justification. In their standing before God, male and female are as one: neither enjoys any special advantage, each is acquitted by grace through faith.”

Carson claims that neither male nor female “enjoys any special advantage,” and each person is “acquitted by grace through faith.” But, notice Carson’s “slide” qualification here: Carson doesn’t just say that neither enjoys special privileges; rather, the privilege that is the same for both male and female is “acquitted by grace through faith.” To Carson, salvation is alike for both male and female, but that’s all. Women are not given the same gifts as men for the same places of leadership in the church.

But does not God gives gifts as He pleases (1 Cor. 12:11)? If this be the case, then how can Carson argue that a distinction in gender explains the Holy Spirit’s moving? Don’t you think that the Holy Spirit could have explained this if He desired to? Since the Spirit is the Creator of the early church, could He not have spoken to us clearly about the Spirit giving gifts “according to gender”? Paul clearly knew how to write “male and female” in Galatians 3:28---so why didn’t he write that in 1 Corinthians 12:11?

Carson’s exegesis has problems simply because he attempts to make distinctions in gifting a result of gender, not a result of the Spirit’s own decision. I guess the next question becomes, “Does the Spirit desire to gift according to gender?”...and sadly enough, Carson has staked out on a position that is unbiblical. If anyone has failed to recognize distinctions, it’s D.A. Carson himself, the same man (may I admit) that wrote a book explaining the nature and practice of exegetical fallacies.

Exegetical Fallacies in D.A. Carson's "Exegetical Fallacies," Pt. 2: Reconciling 1 Corinthians 11 and 1 Corinthians 14

2011-01-18T14:00:00.003-05:00

For those who desire to see Pt. 1 of this series, please go to my other blog, The Center for Theological Studies (CTS).

“In this case, however, there is no need for such a procedure of last resort. The passage can be and has been adequately explained in its context. There are ample parallels to this way of looking to the Old Testament for a principle, not a quotation (and the principle in question is doubtless Gen. 2:20b-24, referred to by Paul both in 1 Cor. 11:8-9 and in 1 Tim. 2:13); and the demand for silence on the part of women does not bring on irreconcilable conflict with 1 Corinthians 11:2-16, where under certain conditions women are permitted to pray and prophesy, because the silence of 14:33b-36 is limited by context: women are to keep silent in connection with the evaluation of prophecies, to which the context refers, for otherwise they would be assuming a role of doctrinal authority in the congregation (contra 1 Tim. 2:11-15)” (D.A. Carson, “Exegetical Fallacies, Second Edition.” Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2006, pages 40-41).

In the last post, I critiqued Dr. Carson’s idea of a tense fallacy regarding I. Howard Marshall’s interpretation of Hebrews 3. I made it clear there that Carson simply takes the perfect tense, looks to the end of the human life, and concludes that those who are true believers are only those who endure to the end. You may not have caught on to it, but what Carson is saying is, “Only those who endure to the end ever believed to begin with.” The sad part about such a statement is, that if one does not endure to the end, according to Carson, such an individual was “never saved to begin with.” But, if the individual was never saved, then how about you and me? How about those who love God in the present, who serve Him, worship Him, and do His work? If believers in the here and now must endure to even know if they are saved, how can they know they are saved “now”? How can they know if they are saved “today”? See, Dr. Carson’s words sound believable until we start to question the believer’s salvation---then, things turn ugly. But Carson’s question is a good one for those who insist that the apostate “was never saved.” If the apostate can do what he did, how do you and I know that we will not end up like him? To know the end in the here and now takes a special omniscience, one that you and I do not possess whatsoever. Therefore, when we question that the apostate was ever saved, we are questioning if even we ourselves are saved...and I doubt the believer wants to take that treacherous step.

In today’s post, however, I will not discuss the doctrine of apostasy...instead, I will tackle another fallacy of Carson’s: “Appeal to unknown or unlikely meanings.” In the quote above, we find Carson critiquing an assessment of Walter Kaiser Jr.’s regarding the word “nomos” (Grk. “law”) in 1 Corinthians 14:33-36. Kaiser argues that the word “nomos” there refers to rabbinical law. Carson insists that this is highly unlikely, and then goes on to give his own assessment of what “law” Paul may have referred to: “the silence of 14:33b-36 is limited by context: women are to keep silent in connection with the evaluation of prophecies, to which the context refers, for otherwise they would be assuming a role of doctrinal authority in the congregation (contra 1 Tim. 2:11-15).”

In the sentence before the one I just quoted (see quote above at the top of the post), Carson feels the need to reconcile 1 Corinthians 14 with the permission of women to prophecy before the congregation in 1 Corinthians 11. His solution? Women can pray and prophesy (as 1 Cor. 11 allows), but they cannot “evaluate prophecies.”

Now, whenever a solution or remedy is proposed to texts that seem to conflict with one another, the solution always has to be tested against the context. If there is a solution proposed that may sound believable but does not fit the context, then believers must toss the theory out and look for another proposal that will adhere to sound hermeneutics.

Since Dr. Carson has proposed the prohibition of women from prophecy evaluation, it’s now time to check that view against the context of 1 Corinthians (before we can decide whether or not it would even adhere to 1 Timothy 2).

First, let’s note that the background to 1 Corinthians 14:33 is concerned with bringing understanding to the body of Christ (as well as unbelievers). At the beginning of chapter 14, Paul tells the Corinthians that their focus on tongues as a spiritual gift is lopsidedly misguided: that is, they should desire to prophesy above all. Why? Because “he who speaks in a tongue does not speak to men but to God, for no one understands him...but he who prophesies speaks edification and exhortation and comfort to men...edifies the church” (1 Cor. 14:2-4, NKJV).

This theme is continued in his discussion of speaking in tongues: “I thank my God I speak with tongues more than you all; yet in the church I would rather speak five words with my understanding, that I may teach others also, than ten thousand words in a tongue” (1 Cor. 14:19). The goal of speaking in the church is to edify the body of Christ, to encourage, to push forward into the things of God. How can that be done if the person does not understand the language in which someone is speaking? How can one put something into action that he or she does not understand? Paul uses this logic to argue that speaking in tongues is a good gift and fit for use before God...but it is not to be publicly proclaimed amongst believers, especially when there is no interpreter to bridge communication between the unknown language and confused believers (1 Cor. 14:28).

In verses 29-32, Paul begins to turn the discussion towards prophets and prophecy: “Let two or three prophets speak, and let the others judge. But if anything is revealed to another who sits by, let the first keep silent. For you can all prophesy one by one, that all may learn and all may be encouraged.” What Paul is doing here is exactly what he is doing in all of chapter 14--- providing instructions on how to maintain order and harmony in the body of Christ. Things are out of place, as the Corinthians themselves desire to speak in tongues and are so doing, despite the presence/absence of an interpreter. Paul is aware that worship serves are becoming places where confusion runs rampant, so he feels the need to address the issues. With the prophets, each is to have his/her turn in prophesying, while each is to judge in turn. Paul’s emphasis on “ALL may learn and ALL may be encouraged” (v.31) is his way of saying, “everyone has a moment to act in church. No one person has to “bull-doze” the others in order to get a moment to prophesy and judge. There is enough room in God’s House (the church) for everyone to be given their opportunity to exercise their gifts.” In essence, “Corinthians, what are you fighting about?”

When we get to the prohibition against women speaking in church, the tendency is to do what Carson does: to claim that women are prohibited from evaluating prophecy, and tie it in with 1 Timothy 2 (which is Carson’s prooftext for everything women can and cannot do. What about the other texts regarding women?). However, the context does not point out that women cannot evaluate prophecy. After all, look at Paul’s words:

“And the spirits of the prophets are subject to the prophets” (1 Cor. 14:32).

If this follows with verses 31 and before, then Paul is saying that judging prophecy is to be left to those who are prophets in the house of God. And this contradicts Carson’s idea that women cannot judge prophecy because women themselves are prophets. As Carson himself says in the quote above, “...under certain conditions women are permitted to pray and prophesy” (Carson, “Exegetical Fallacies,” page 40). If women are allowed to pray “and prophesy,” then why would women be automatically forbidden from evaluation prophecy? I’ll set up a syllogism:

Premise #1: Only prophets can judge prophecy.

Premise #2: Some women are prophets.

Conclusion: Therefore, female prophets (prophetesses) cannot judge prophecy.

The conclusion does not follow from the premises. If women are prophets, and prophets are the ones to judge prophecy, then why would women be prohibited from judging prophecy? Carson’s thought here does not follow, considering his own admission that women were allowed to prophesy in the Corinthian congregation. He is only left, in the end, to appeal to 1 Timothy 2 to make his case.

By so arguing, Carson has forgotten the principal rule of hermeneutics: that is, that one must first assessment a statement made in the context in which the statement was written. One cannot make a case to link the prohibition of 1 Corinthians 14:34 with 1 Timothy 2 unless he or she knows what the statement meant to the Corinthian congregation in 1 Corinthians 14 (and the larger context of 1 Corinthians). Then and only then, can Carson appeal to 1 Timothy 2. As is seen here, Carson claims that he is calling Walt Kaiser, Jr. on a fallacy--- but instead, he fumbles and commits one of his own. See? “I told ya” that it’s ironic Carson commits exegetical fallacies in a book written against committing exegetical fallacies...

New Series!

2011-01-14T11:38:00.000-05:00

                                                     Dear Men and Women,

Your blog owner, Deidre Richardson here. I'm writing to share with you a new series I'm about to undergo at the site "Men and Women" as well as my other research site, "The Center for Theological Studies" (CTS). I sent CTS a post regarding the new series. I thought I'd send it to you all as well. May the Lord bless you in the days ahead. Happy New Year!
                                                                          - Deidre

                                          Dear Readership,

Happy New Year again to you! About a week ago, I wrote my latest post at CTS. I realize that it has been an entire week since I've written. I wanna take time here to apologize to my readership for the time that I have been away. I am currently registered in a January term class here at Southeastern Seminary, called "Critical Thinking and Argumentation." I've spent the last two weeks going to class everyday from 8am-12:30pm, followed by a nap at home...only to wake up, shower, get dressed, grab dinner, and study with a brother of mine. It's been one heck of a two weeks!! Continue to pray for me; I am doing well, but I've pulled all-nighters everyday for the last two weeks just to make sure I'm up and awake for class at 8am. I don't do very well with morning classes, so I've been sleeping about 5 hours or so doing the day in order to have just enough sleep to stay up and do homework all night. In addition to the chapters of reading and the 150-page book my class has been reading (which I'll talk about in a minute), I've also been given the joy of having computer software (called "LogiCola") that tests your knowledge of the chapters in the book. I recently took my midterm in the Critical Thinking class and was thankful that I played with the software during the week. Many of the questions came from the software...so it was good to see that my efforts did not go unrewarded :-)

On to the book my class has been reading...the title of the book is called "Exegetical Fallacies" by D. A. Carson. Now that I've read the book, I have to write an 8-page sermon (exegetical), using ten of the 56 fallacies Carson mentions in his book. It's a fun assignment...but it's also a hard one. I'm gonna struggle most with committing logical fallacies. I've been taught as an apologetics major here at Southeastern that God is a God of logic, a God of order...as creatures made in God's image and likeness, we too, should strive to think God's thoughts after Him. So committing logical fallacies to get a good grade...it's what I'm required to do, but my fear is that I'll write a sermon thinking I've committed fallacies that may not even be fallacies :-) such is the fear of every seminary student...

Having read Carson's book, I noticed that he tends to critique the views of Arminians and the position I'd like to refer to as "Spirit-gifting" in regards to the issue of women in ministry. I have used the term "egalitarian" at my other site, "Men and Women in the Church," but I do so to distinguish it from the view of complementarianism. There are some things that egalitarians believe that I do not. Among these, some egalitarians, particularly feminists, like to refer to "women's rights" in regards to women in the church. Instead, I focus more on Spirit-gifting because to me, the debate on men and women in the church is not political, but Scriptural. I hold to the headship of men in the home, but I do so because wives are commanded to submit to their husbands in several places in the New Testament. However, I don't see the kind of evidence that complementarianism espouses regarding women in the church in the Scriptures themselves. Rather, I see the presupposition (or assumption) that 1 Timothy 2: 8-15 means that women cannot be in leadership, and then everything else in Scripture regarding women is defined in terms of that one text (others being Titus 2 or 1 Corinthians 11, 1 Corinthians 14, etc.). I think 1 Timothy 2 as it has been interpreted by complementarians cannot stand up to the claims the Scriptures themselves make regarding the gifting of the Spirit. God didn't create roles irrespective of Spirit-gifting; rather, He created roles "in accordance with" Spirit-gifting. As a result, complementarians have to prove that a woman cannot serve in a role because she is not given certain gifts, rather than just "women have certain fixed roles in the church." And I don't think anyone can claim that God can't gift a woman to preach, teach, pastor, etc. To make that claim would amount to heresy, as some would begin to limit God's sovereignty. Calvinists (and even some Arminians) should think twice before making this mistake.

And that brings me to the announcement. This coming week, starting Monday, January 17, 2011, I intend to start a new series here at the Center for Theological Studies titled "Exegetical Fallacies in D.A. Carson's 'Exegetical Fallacies.'" I think that Dr. Carson, as much as I respect him, has fallacies on his own (ironicly) in a book in which he tells believers not to commit exegetical fallacies. What I aim to do in this new series is show that Carson brings his own presuppositions to the biblical evidence, and that he attacks all views that disagree with his and uses both Arminians and egalitarians as part of his "fallacy" attacks. I have to be honest and admit that he does attack some of his Calvinist brethren who smear Calvin's name (and claim that Calvin separated faith and reason), but these examples are few compared to the "overwhelming" (I can use no less of an honest term) attacks he makes against egalitarians and their claims. I for one here at the Center often critique sharply the views of those who disagree with me...but I have my reasons. And I hope that you, the readership, will seriously study my views of theology and the Scriptures and question whether or not I hold to the biblical text. I desire to be faithful to what God says in His Word. I realize that we all have presuppositions, but that is not the issue; rather, the question to ask ourselves is, "Does the Bible support the way I think about this?", or, "Does the Bible support my perspective on this given issue?". These are the kinds of questions we must ask ourselves.

So much for a brief announcement! In any case, I just wanted to let you all know that I am soon to return to CTS. I have much to tell and show in the coming days about the new understanding the course in Critical Thinking has provided. God bless you all...and keep studying the Scriptures for the glory of God.

"No Longer Binding"

2010-11-11T21:55:00.005-05:00

“In the first-century situation with its generally patriarchal society, where women played little part in public affairs, teaching by women could be regarded as an unacceptable breach of behavior patterns, whether among Jews or also among some Gentiles. ACCORDINGLY, THE RESTRICTION CAN BE INTERPRETED AS A CULTURALLY SHAPED PROHIBITION THAT IS NO LONGER BINDING IN A DIFFERENT SETTING. The difficulty is in the appeal to Scripture that is used to back up the prohibition. It has a twofold argument that Adam was created prior to Eve (and therefore is superior), and that it is Eve who was deceived by the serpent (with the implication that women are still more likely to be deceived than men). THIS SEEMS TO BE A DOCTRINAL RATHER THAN A CULTURAL CONSIDERATION AND IS DECISIVE FOR THOSE WHO BELIEVE THAT THE AUTHORITY OF A PASSAGE OF SCRIPTURE MUST BE ACCEPTED EVEN WHEN IT SEEMS TO RUN AGAINST THE GRAIN OF NT TEACHING GENERALLY (e.g., Gal. 3:28)” (I. Howard Marshall, “1 Timothy,” from “Theological Interpretation of the New Testament: A Book-by-Book Survey” by Kevin Vanhoozer, General Editor. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2009, page 166).

Have you ever had a moment in which someone you admired or had great respect for said something that you disagreed with? I had that moment when reading the above quote. Marshall writes that the prohibition in 1 Timothy 2:12 could be interpreted as “a culturally shaped prohibition that is no longer binding...” These words trouble me greatly.

Now, I have to confess: I was raised in a very strict Christian home where the Bible was the infallible, inerrant, inspired, Word of God. No one questioned in my family that the Bible was the ultimate source of authority for godly living. But along with these presuppositions regarding Scripture was placed another presupposition: that is, that the words of Scripture themselves were always binding on God’s people; that is, that in every verse of Scripture, there was a principle that could be applied to contemporary living (as was the thought of two thousand years ago).

Imagine then, what I thought when I stumbled upon I. Howard Marshall’s words. I have great respect for Dr. Marshall. I read his work, own some of his work, and value him as a theologian and Greek scholar. But I disagree with interpreting 1 Timothy 2:12 as just a “culturally shaped prohibition.”

I think the problem with the universal principle behind 1 Timothy 2:12 involves how to take the prohibition, wrapped in its context, and “connect the bridge” (my hermeneutics professor once said) from the time of the first century to the twenty-first century. To discover the universal principle behind the verse, we must first accept the idea that the Scriptures are binding at all times, in all places. The universal binding of Scripture can be seen via two passages, 2 Timothy 3 and 2 Peter 1:

“All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work” (2 Timothy 3:16-17, NKJV).

“knowing this first, that NO PROPHECY OF SCRIPTURE IS OF ANY PRIVATE INTERPRETATION, for prophecy never came by the will of man, but HOLY MEN OF GOD SPOKE AS THEY WERE MOVED BY THE HOLY SPIRIT” (2 Peter 1:20-21).

2 Timothy 3:16-17 tells us that “all Scripture” is inspired and useful for “instruction in righteousness.” The word “all” in the Greek is “pas,” which, according to Thayer’s Dictionary means “individually, each, every, any, whole,” etc. The parts of Scripture comprise to create “all Scripture.” If this is the case, then everything that is said about “all Scripture” includes 1 Timothy 2:12. I’ll set up a syllogism:

1)”All Scripture” is inspired by God and useful.

2) 1 Timothy 2:12 is part of Scripture.

3) If all Scripture is divinely inspired and useful, and 1 Timothy 2:12 is a part of Scripture, then 1 Timothy 2:12 is divinely inspired and useful.

This being the case, we must find out what universal principle we can draw from the text itself. One of the main universal principles we can draw out of the text is to attack false teaching. In the immediate context of 1 Timothy 2 is 1 Timothy 1, where Paul gives Timothy his reason for leaving Timothy behind in Ephesus:
“As I urged you when I went into Macedonia---remain in Ephesus THAT YOU MAY CHARGE SOME THAT THEY TEACH NO OTHER DOCTRINE” (1 Timothy 1:1).

“knowing this: that the law is not made for a righteous person, but for the lawless and insubordinate...and if there is any other thing that is CONTRARY TO SOUND DOCTRINE” (1 Tim. 1:9-10).

“desiring to be teachers of the law, understanding neither what they say nor the things which they affirm” (1 Tim. 1:7).

In the immediate context of chapter 2, the issue that plagues the church at Ephesus is false teaching. So, a universal principle could be, “contend for the faith that was delivered to the saints” (Jude 3) and put down the false teaching. Paul does this himself when he writes to Timothy in 1 Timothy 2:13-14, “For Adam was formed first, then Eve. And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived, fell into transgression.” Here, Paul was setting the record straight: it was not Adam who was deceived (“Adam was not deceived”), it was Eve; and Adam was first in creation, not Eve (“Adam was formed first, then Eve”).

Now, by providing words above, I don’t mean to say that ONLY WOMEN who are teaching false doctrine should be put down. This is where I stand against many conservatives: I think that the Bible’s emphasis is to put down false teaching always, regardless of whether it comes from a man or a woman (1 Tim. 6:3-5; 1 Tim. 4; 2 Tim. 2:17-18; Titus 1:10-14 and Titus 2; 2 Thessalonians 2:1-12; Colossians 2:8-10; Galatians 3-5; Romans 11; etc).

Scripture seems to attack false teaching, from beginning to end. Even after the Pastorals (1 Timothy, 2 Timothy, Titus) there is attack made on false teaching in the letters of 2 Peter, Jude, and so on. I. Howard Marshall errs in his argument when he writes that the prohibition is possibly a “culturally-shaped” prohibition without a universally binding principle. If one believes the Bible to be the ultimate authoritative standard for the Christian life, then one must affirm the universally-binding principles of the Word of God. Someone who fails to affirm a universal principle in the teaching prohibition might feel the need someday to argue that the biblical teaching on the exclusivity of Christ as “The Way, the Truth, and the Life” (John 14:6) is only a temporary statement as well.

Female Rabbi Ordained in Germany

2010-11-06T20:20:00.003-04:00

Dear Readership,

I just stumbled today upon this article regarding a female, Alina Treiger, who was just ordained to be the first female rabbi since 1935. If I'm not mistaken, Alina Treiger was ordained to the German rabbi circle on November 4, 2010. To read the article, go here:

http://www.dw-world.de/dw/article/0,,6188567,00.html?maca=en-rss-en-all-1573-rdf

I desire to know your thoughts on this somewhat history-making event for Germany. Please comment here to give me some feedback. I'm sure this will make for interesting discussion.

"A Deeper Theological Issue"

2010-11-05T19:18:00.001-04:00

“Why this concern to separate the roles of men and women and to silence women teachers in the church’s worship? At the practical level, SILENCING WOMEN TEACHERS CUT THE FALSE TEACHING OFF AT ITS SOURCE---wealthy women, as we have seen, were probably financing the false teachers and spreading the false teachers’ heresy themselves, and younger widows, happily released from any obligation to marry and care for children, were going about from house to house teaching the heresy” (Frank Thielman, “Theology of the New Testament: A Canonical and Synthetic Approach.” Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2005, page 419).

Reading the above quote from Frank Thielman’s New Testament Theology encouraged my heart somewhat. I stayed up late this morning to see what he had to say about the Pastoral Epistles. I’ve read a great deal of his theology textbook this semester and I like the things he has to say. His work has been impeccable, in all of the letters of the NT he traces. So I wanted to know his thoughts. Immediately, I began to think of the site here, “Men and Women,” and it became clear to me that I would have a blog post---whether it would be a positive or negative one, I would have something new to add to the work done here.

I sat down and read attentively. And in his section titled “The Church Gathered For Worship,” I read the above quote. All along, Thielman implicated women in the false teaching at Ephesus:

“...false teachers are ‘ruining whole households’ (Titus 1:11). They apparently do this by insinuating themselves into homes and CONVINCING ALREADY CORRUPT WOMEN OF THEIR FALSE TEACHING (2 TIM. 3:6). PERHAPS WE CAN ALSO LINK TOGETHER PAUL’S claim that a desire for wealth motivated the false teachers (1 Tim. 6:5; cf. 6:6-10, 17-19), his concern that women not make ostentatious displays of their wealth (2:9), and HIS CONCERN THAT WOMEN NOT TEACH IN THE CHURCH (2:11-14). WEALTHY WOMEN IN EPHESUS MAY HAVE BEEN PAYING THE FALSE TEACHERS TO TUTOR THEM AND THEN CONVEYING THE FALSE TEACHING THEY LEARNED TO THE CHURCHES THAT MET IN THEIR HOUSES” (Thielman, 412).

“If men in the church are involved in angry disputes, they cannot lift holy hands in prayer, and if their behavior hinders their prayers, then it also hinders the advancement of the gospel (2:1-8). If WOMEN IN THE CHURCH ARE abandoning modesty and like Eve, succumbing to Satan’s offer of sinful knowledge, AND THEN TEACHING THIS ERROR TO OTHERS (2:9-14; 5:15), then their very salvation is threatened (2:15)” (414).

“WOMEN---particularly the wealthy women who may have paid the false teachers to tutor them, and the younger widows whom the church has supported from its common funds---ARE APPARENTLY AMONG THE CHIEF ADVOCATES OF THE HERESY THAT HAS LED TO THIS BEHAVIOR. WEALTHY WOMEN ARE PERHAPS TEACHING THE HERESY IN THEIR HOUSES while the men spend church meetings not in prayer but in angry disputes about the heresy. THE YOUNGER WIDOWS, freed by the largesse of the church from the responsibilities of marriage and child-rearing, which they do not believe in anyway, CAN SPEND THEIR TIME MAKING THE ROUNDS OF BELIEVERS’ HOUSEHOLDS ADVOCATING THE FALSE TEACHING” (417).

In these four references (the beginning quote plus the three quotes above), Thielman seems to link women with the false teaching: not only were they listening to it and entertaining it, they were also teaching it themselves. In the first quote above, Thielman states that to prohibit women from teaching would stop the spread of heresy. Since women were the ones propagating and clinging to the heresy, prohibiting the women teaching would stop the false teachers’ influence in the church at Ephesus. In turn, the false teachers would have to find some other way to stir up trouble (aside from the women).

But this is where Thielman then takes a turn for the worse:

“As is already apparent from Paul’s willingness to separate the roles of the sexes in worship in 2:8-9 and to silence all women teachers in 2:12, however, a deeper theological issue is at stake in this gender-specific ordering of worship. Paul states this issue explicitly in 2:13-15. God fashioned human beings in two genders, male and female, and the order in which he created them implies distinct roles in the church for each gender...women should submit to the authority of the church’s male leadership because ‘Adam was formed first, then Eve’ (2:13). Men, rather than women, should teach BECAUSE EVE RATHER THAN ADAM WAS SATAN’S FIRST VICTIM IN THE DECEPTION THAT LED TO THE DISOBEDIENCE DESCRIBED IN GENESIS 3:6. THE IMPLICATION IS CLEAR: Adam and Eve violated the divine ordering of the genders when Eve led Adam to disobey God’s command” (419).

Up to this point, Thielman has shown us in context that women were involved in teaching heresy; that women were not only soaking up the teaching but spreading that to others, presumably other women in the congregation. In addition there is evidence that these women may very well have been told to “learn in silence with full submission” (2:11) because they had been disrupting the learning process during worship services. But how then, does his last statement connect to the four quotes he made prior to this last one?

What I’m asking is, “How can Thielman connect women to false teaching in the context of 1 Timothy 2 and then “broaden” the scope of teaching to all teaching in general in his application of the text? Yes, hermeneutics (the study of biblical interpretation) teaches us that context-specific principles can be generalized and applied to everyday life; but why can this text not refer to anyone teaching falsely, whether it be man or woman? And why can’t it be the case that women are not to teach heresy, not that they are prohibited from teaching sound doctrine?

For Thielman, the answer is found in Paul’s usage of Genesis. I have stated here at the site, however, that Paul writes “And Adam was not deceived” for a reason: if Genesis does not provide these words, why does Paul use them? He does so to defend the Law as it was being attacked in the book of Genesis. Thielman notes this as well (page 410), but does not make the connection. He even goes on to talk about the Nag Hammadi document “On the Origin of the World,” which states that “the goddess Pistis Sophia created the god of Genesis (‘the ruler’) and then withdrew to her region of light, leaving ‘the ruler’ with the impression that ‘[he] alone existed’” (Thielman, 410; quoting “On the Origin of the World”). However, Thielman still does not put two and two together that, if the Gnostic document claimed that the woman “created the god of Genesis,” that she must have been seen as having been created first---before the man. Paul’s words in 1 Timothy 2:13 make sense in light of this document. Paul then, was trying to refute the false (Gnostic) teaching that Eve was created before Adam, by affirming what the Bible teaches--- that Adam was created before Eve.

Thielman goes to such lengths to argue women as propagators of the false heresy (and students of the false teachers), not to mention that “proto-Gnostic teaching” (Thielman, 422) comprised the nature of the false teaching prevalent via women in the church at Ephesus. Why then, when he comes to his application, does he divorce the issue of false teaching from the application? Does God not want us to stomp out false teaching today? Does the Lord no longer care when falsehood is being taught in our pulpits, classrooms, and churches? Is it okay for Sunday School lessons to be plagued with gross statements about God that detract from (rather than reflect) His character? If God is still committed to this, then why is this theme of “anti-false teaching” not provided in Thielman’s analysis? Why is it that the point of Paul’s prohibition to the women is to keep them from teaching or holding offices of leadership in the churches?

In the end, all we receive of Thielman’s response to my questions above is “a deeper theological issue is at stake in this gender-specific ordering of worship” (419). But how do we know this “deeper theological issue” is really present in the text? In fact, Thielman’s words about women and the creation order are only mentioned for the first time in his modern-day application. All throughout his exegesis, he has focused on the false teaching and its impact. He has failed to do his homework and show us why Paul was so concerned with “putting women in their place” in the epistle.

Wanna know what my analysis is? I think Paul was concerned with the women neglecting duties of childbearing and homecare because to focus on such duties would prevent women from being prey to the false teachers and their heresy. Paul wanted women to do what was godly so that, by their example, they could serve as leaders in the church. After all, “if a man does not know how to rule his own house, how will he take care of the church of God?” (1 Tim. 3:5, NKJV).

What I Didn't Expect To Find...

2010-10-13T20:15:00.000-04:00

I fought the urge to go to class today. Fall Break just came and went, almost as if it had never come. And sitting in my apartment today, I said out loud, “I don’t wanna go to class.”
I usually get in this “I-don’t-wanna-go” mood a lot...but a dear friend said to me, “Go to class”...so off to class I went.

I never expected to get to class and deal with the discussion of women in ministry. This subject has been mentioned before in my class, but whenever the topic arises, I know the theological slant of my professor and fellow students...so I just let it go and try to find something else with which to occupy my mind. Usually, I’ve found that when one disagrees, the best way to keep from getting angry is to find something else upon which to focus one’s attention. Sometimes, aversion is bliss...

Today, the text that my class spent almost an hour on was the controversial passage of 1 Timothy 2. My professor spent time examining this passage, telling the seminar class that “I’m a complementarian because of 1 Timothy 2.” For him, the chapter itself gives specific instructions (with no details hidden) that women are not to have spiritual authority over men in the church. I stayed quiet during the one-hour discussion because I wanted to find out my professor’s reason for so believing.

He did state, however, during his lecture time on the passage that “I think the best case an inerrantist can make for the egalitarian position is to argue that Paul wrote to Timothy regarding a specific case in the church at Ephesus, but that this specific situation was for the time of Paul’s letter and is not for today.”

Now, before I go on, let me say that I believe that Scripture itself can always show us something in the current era. We never arrive at a place where we have “outgrown” the Word of God. So, as an inerrantist (one who believes Scripture to be without error), I believe that Paul’s words in 1 Timothy 2 are meant to teach us a universal principle. I simply disagree with complementarians over the nature of that universal principle (“what” the principle is).

After conceding that an inerrantist could hold to a rather formidable position (i.e., the church faced a specific, unusual situation) on the passage, the professor said, “Now, I’ll show you why I think the passage is teaching a universal principle. Turn to 1 Timothy 2.” With those words, the class (me included) feasted our eyes on a passage that I’ve read, seemingly, a million times. And then, the professor told us to turn to verse 13. The verse reads,

“For Adam was formed first, then Eve. And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived, fell into transgression” (1 Timothy 2:13, NKJV).

The professor then said, “See, Adam was created first. This holds true for today, right? As a result, I think that this verse shows that Paul’s prohibition is still binding for all women in the church at all times.”

Let me first credit the prof with what he did right: first, he started at the beginning of the prohibition (1 Tim. 2:11), and it’s always a good thing to start at the beginning of any passage. However, let me now critique the prof: he did not finish the passage itself; rather, he arrived at verse 13 and read no further. What about verses 14 and 15? Don’t they play a role in the interpretation of the prohibition as well?

Let’s go back and evaluate the professor’s reasoning. Verse 13, according to him, is still binding today. That is true: Adam, according to Scripture, was created before Eve. That hasn’t changed, and neither has the Law (all of the Old Testament). God’s Word never changes, and, since this be the case, then Genesis has not changed. When it states that Adam was the first human created by God, it means it.

But my question to this prof would have been, “What about verse 14?” Why does Paul get defensive in his stance regarding Adam? That is, why does Paul state that “Adam was not deceived”? Where in the Scriptures themselves do we find these words? We don’t---not even in Genesis. So the fact that Paul is having to defend Adam’s non-deception and Eve’s deception lends credence to the idea that Paul is writing his prohibition against women in order to defend the Law---not because he’s giving a word or two on what he thinks women ought to do in the church.

And what about context? Does not 1 Timothy 1 serve as the immediate, surrounding context to 1 Timothy 2? Why was 1 Timothy 1 not consulted when the prof arrived at his interpretation? Now the professor did note that “there is much related to false teaching going on in the letter”; however, why not read the verses on that material to let the class see why the egalitarian position has some strength? Why instead, would the prof turn to the class and ask them, “What do you think are some of the possible evidences egalitarians would use to defend women in ministry?”

And this prof happens to be one who always says, “A text means what it means in its context.” If the text cannot be divorced from the context, then why does he divorce the text from its context in his own interpretation? If one has to go against his own beliefs in interpretation (i.e., if the prof has to take the passage out of context), doesn’t this signal that something is wrong with the interpretation? If we cannot sin and expect grace to abound (Romans 3:5-8), then how can we disconnect text from context and expect our interpretation to be correct? How can one start wrong and end up right? And if one starts wrong and ends up right, does this create a “Machiavellian” hermeneutic, where the end (i.e., what I think the text says) justifies the means (whether or not I place the passage in its context)?

What I didn’t expect to find today was a discussion on 1 Timothy 2. What I also didn’t expect to find, however, was a transgression of hermeneutic principles in the name of what he believed to be the right interpretation. Chalk it all up to what happens when we become the traditions we espouse so dearly.

Gnosticism In The Pastorals, Pt. II: Eve's Song

2010-09-14T04:19:00.001-04:00

“O Timothy! Guard what was committed to your trust, avoiding the profane and idle babblings and contradictions of what is falsely called knowledge” (1 Timothy 6:20, New King James Version).

The word “contradictions” here in the NKJV is the word “antitheseis” in the Greek, meaning “anti” (against) and “theseis” (arguments). The word “antithesis,” then, means “against arguments.” Used in the context of 1 Timothy 6:20, Paul is saying to Timothy that he should avoid the “arguments against” the truth from “pseudonumou gnoseos,” meaning “false-named knowledge.”

This series will take us through what are called “The Nag Hammadi Scriptures.” For those who have never been introduced to the Nag Hammadi, they are, in the words of James M. Robinson, “a collection of thirteen papyrus codices----bound books, not scrolls---that were buried near the city of Nag Hammadi in Upper Egypt most likely in the second half of the fourth century CE...this is indeed a dramatic escalation of source material on early Christian, Neoplatonic, Hermetic, Sethian, and Valentinian thought” (James M. Robinson, “Preface,” from “The Nag Hammadi Scriptures, The International Edition.” New York: HarperOne, 2007, page xi).

The Nag Hammadi are a collection of thirteen books that contain many different theological and philosophical treatises. The name of the Nag Hammadi was given to them because of where they were found (Nag Hammadi, Egypt). According to James Robinson, “most of the tractates are Gnostic” (xi), which leads us to believe that Gnostic thought was highly cherished by the community that lived at Nag Hammadi. It is Gnostic thought that I will be exploring in this enormous series we are embarking upon. The purpose of examining the Gnostic Gospels is so that we can see the types of teaching that existed in Gnostic thought. Upon studying the Pastorals and the Gnostic Gospels, one will understand why the context of the Pastorals had nothing to do with women in ministry and everything to do with false teaching and its destructive impact upon the church of Jesus Christ.

To begin our study of the Nag Hammadi Scriptures, I thought it would be best to start with a small section of a Gnostic work. Tonight’s small section will come from the Gnostic essay, “On the Origin of the World,” described by Marvin Meyer as “a smart Gnostic essay by an author who uses argumentation, narration, and colorful illustration in order to demonstrate the basic points of a Gnostic worldview” (“The Nag Hammadi Scriptures,” page 199).

The section I will come from in “On the Origin of the World” is Eve’s speech, called “The Song of Eve” (114, 4-24):

“Eve is the first virgin, and she gave birth to her first child without a man. She was her own physician. For this reason she is said to have declared:

‘I am PART OF MY MOTHER, and I AM THE MOTHER.
I am the WIFE, I am the VIRGIN.
I am PREGNANT, I am the PHYSICIAN,
I am the comforter of birth pains.
My husband PRODUCED ME, and I AM HIS MOTHER,
And he is my father and lord.
He is my strength, he speaks of what he wants reasonably.
I AM BECOMING, but I HAVE GIVEN BIRTH TO A LORDLY PERSON’” (“Song of Eve,” from “On the Origin of the World,” 114, 4-24. From the “Nag Hammadi Scriptures, The International Edition.” New York: HarperOne, 2007, page 213).

What is a contradiction? I said it above that a contradiction, or the Greek word “antitheseis,” refers to that which “argues against” something said before it. Well, contradictions are all over the place in the Song of Eve. First, she states, “I am part of my mother, and I am the mother.” How does this occur? How can person be both an offspring AND the parent all at the same time? Were this true, Eve would have been “self-created,” which is a contradiction (and an absurdity!).

The next line “I am the wife, I am the virgin,” is also absurd. If someone is a wife (married), how then can they be a virgin (a sign of singleness)? To be a “wifely virgin” is similar to a woman who is a “married batchlorette” or a man who is a “married batchelor.” The two terms side-by-side are a contradiction, for both cannot be true at the same time. It is likely that a man could once be a “batchelor” and then “married” or vice versa; but both cannot be true simultaneously.

The next major absurdity in the Song of Eve is “My husband produced me, and I am his mother.” How can Eve be the offspring of her “husband,” first of all? If she is his wife, how can she be both wife AND child? Next, if she is either wife or child, how then can she be her husband’s “mother”? These are absurdities that make no sense. And her “husband” cannot be her “father” and “lord”; all three cannot peacefully coexist. A father cannot be a husband (this is incest), and a husband cannot be a father.

Last but not least, what about “I am becoming, but I have given birth to a lordly person”? How can Eve be “becoming” and yet “begetting” at the same time? In order to give birth to a “lordly person,” Eve must be a person herself, with a fixed essence of humanness; this doesn’t exist, however, if Eve is “becoming.” Once again, the contradiction is all over the place.

To conclude, let me say that Paul was write when he wrote to Titus in Crete that he should “avoid foolish disputes...for they are UNPROFITABLE and USELESS” (Titus 3:9). The Song of Eve is such an example: it is a song that is full of contradiction (things that go against common sense) and useless. It serves no purpose to write in the manner in which Eve’s speech is written. Is it no wonder that Paul attacked this heresy of the first-century the way he did?

Gnosticism In the Pastorals, Pt. I: Introduction to Context

2010-09-14T01:03:00.003-04:00

“The so-called Pastoral Epistles—the two letters to Timothy and the letter to Titus—,which go back to the beginning of the second century and were perhaps written in Ephesus, discuss the Gnostic heresy, which they explicitly name ‘Gnosis,’ less intensively, but they insist the more on a strict separation; the pursuit of Gnosis is thought to be useless. The soil is here prepared for the later polemic against the heretics: the false teaching is contrasted with the right, sound teaching, the abandonment of which means apostasy from truth, reason and conscience…little can be learned about the ideas of THE REJECTED HERESY; IT SEEMS TO BE A STRANGE MIXTURE OF GNOSTIC DOCTRINES AND JEWISH PIETY, A JEWISH-CHRISTIAN FORM OF GNOSIS. MYTHS (I.E. FABLES) AND GENEALOGIES PLAY A PART, EVIDENTLY IN THE SENSE OF GNOSTIC PLEROMA SPECULATIONS AND INTERPRETATIONS OF THE LAW. ONE GLORIES IN HIGHER KNOWLEDGE AND MAKES ASCETIC DEMANDS AS E.G. ABSTINENCE FROM MARRIAGE AND THE CONSUMPTION OF CERTAIN FOODS” (“Gnosis: The Nature & History of Gnosticism” by Kurt Rudolph. Edinburgh: T&T Clark Limited, 1984, pages 302-303).

Kurt Rudolph argues in the quote above that Gnostic teaching existed in churches of the first century (after Christ’s ascension). First, he tells us that “the Gnostic heresy…which they explicitly name GNOSIS” is the name of the false teaching in the church. To demonstrate this, Rudolph cites 1 Timothy 6:20—

“O Timothy! Guard what was committed to your trust, avoiding the profane and idle babblings and contradictions of WHAT IS FALSELY CALLED KNOWLEDGE” (1 Tim. 6:20, NKJV).

The Greek word for “knowledge” is “gnosis.” “Gnosis” is the noun form of “knowledge,” but a word similar to “gnosis” is “ginosko,” meaning “to know.” This is where the word “gnosticism” comes from. Gnosticism is “the study of knowledge.”

Rudolph tells us that “little can be learned about the ideas of the rejected heresy…Myths (i.e. fables) and genealogies play a part, evidently in the sense of Gnostic pleroma speculations and interpretations of the law.”

1 Timothy 1 tells us that myths and genealogies were included in the Gnostic heresy:

“As I urged you when I went into Macedonia—remain in Ephesus that you may charge some that they teach no other doctrine, nor give heed to FABLES AND ENDLESS GENEALOGIES, which cause disputes rather than godly edification which is in faith” (1 Timothy 1:3-4, NKJV).

The Greek word “genealogiais,” from which our English word “genealogies” derives, refers to a record of birth, a family line or family tree. According to Thayer’s Dictionary of the New Testament, the word “genealogiais” refers to “a record of descent or lineage.” The heresy of the first century, therefore, involved issues of creation order. I will not go into great discussion now, but “genealogies” may be the problem that Paul is getting at in 1 Timothy 2:12-14, when Paul states that “Adam was formed first, then Eve” (1 Tim. 2:13). The reason behind why Paul must argue that Adam was the origin (“author” or “authentikos”) of man is because the women there were arguing that Eve was created first. This will be a most interesting thing to explore when we dive into the Gnostic Gospels themselves.

Not only were myths and genealogies a problem for Timothy at Ephesus, they also troubled Titus on the island of Crete. Paul writes:

“But avoid foolish disputes, GENEALOGIES, contentions, and STRIVINGS ABOUT THE LAW; for they are unprofitable and useless” (Titus 3:9).

As we can see, genealogies are also a problem at the church in Crete. In addition to this, though, we find that the Law and “strivings about” it are problems as well. The Law was also a problem for the church at Ephesus:

“From which some, having strayed, have turned aside to idle talk, DESIRING TO BE TEACHERS OF THE LAW, understanding neither what they say nor the things which they affirm. But WE KNOW THAT THE LAW IS GOOD, IF ONE USES IT LAWFULLY, knowing this: that the law is not made for a righteous person, but for the lawless and insubordinate…and if there is any other thing that is contrary to sound doctrine” (1 Tim. 1:6-10).

The Law, being the Old Testament Scriptures, was also a part of the chaos at the church at Ephesus as well. Paul, however, wanted Timothy to know that the Law is not bad in and of itself—but it can be bad based upon how the Law is used. If the Law is used in a good way, then it will do much good…but if it be used in a wrong way, it will do much harm. We also see that there are those who desire to teach, but are saying the wrong things and don’t understand that they are propagating heresy and false teaching. Perhaps the women of 1 Timothy 2:11-15 are included here…

One more thing to point out: since the Law itself is involved in the chaos of the churches of Ephesus and Crete, perhaps the Law has something to do with Paul’s need in 1 Timothy 2:11-15 to affirm that Adam was created first and Eve was the one deceived. These events would line up with the events of Genesis chapters 1-3. After all, Genesis is a book of the Law (the OT Scriptures), is it not??

There are other things Rudolph includes in the above quote that I will leave for future days. At the moment, however, let me just say that the goal of this post was to provide for my readership a chance to “peek” into the issues of the Pastorals (1 Timothy, 2 Timothy, Titus) and what they can reveal to us about the Gnostic heresy of the first century. While the Gnostic movement was not as formalized as it was in the second and third centuries (one-hundred to two-hundred years later), the ideas were certainly floating around the church. I will begin to glean evidence from Scripture regarding the false teaching in my next post.

The Early Church and Gnosticism: The Context Behind the Pastorals

2010-09-12T11:17:00.004-04:00

Dearest Readership,

What a joy it is to write this announcement! I am so thankful to the Lord that He has allowed me the opportunity to return to my personal blog ("Men and Women") and continue writing to the glory of God.

I desire to announce that the work here at Men and Women in the Church will begin to take a different turn from the last series I did here. That series was on the Trinity and how we see good news for women in the fact that Christ's subordination on earth was not an eternal subordination. To have a situation of "God in hierarchy" in eternity would lead to such heresies as "tritheism" (three Gods, instead of one God) and the Lord Jesus Himself would be beneath us in eternity. Even Jesus said in the Gospels that there will be no marriage in heaven---which means that male headship in the home will not last forever! And if the church of God is supposed to be the visible sign of the kingdom of God come to earth, then we have got to stop completely living with a "life on earth is how it is" mentality. If we are now sons of God, we have to prepare for the day when we will fully live out that sonship...this means, then, that men have got to stop thinking in terms of power and control and begin to think of what life in Christ is really all about.

Those who stress the differences of the Trinity members do so at great peril; those who stress the similarities too much begin to conflate the Trinity (and the Son and Father, for instance, could be labeled the same person in this mindset). What believers must learn to do is demonstrate both the similarities and differences of the Trinity members. But we must not let go of the fact that, whether it be "Father," "Son," or "Spirit," none are "less God" than the other members. All three members of the Trinity are God, and share the essence of divinity. Because of this, neither can be "eternally subordinate" to the others, in the same way that no one human is eternally subordinate to any other human.

The new series will deal with a subject that I have been wanting to approach for a long time: that is, the context of the Pastorals. I have written some work here on complementarian scholars who argue that Gnosticism and false teaching is not the context of the Pastorals, and that the real issue is the role of women in the church. I intend to look at the Pastorals themselves to glean all the info we can about the situations that existed in the letters themselves; next, I intend to focus on how the details of the Pastorals "line up" with what we know of Gnosticism and the Gnostic Gospels. In addition, I will provide quotes from the church fathers themselves, who battled Gnosticism from even within the church (take Marcion for example, who even truncated down his version of the canon, even diminishing the amount of material in Luke's Gospel; Luke's was all he kept in his version of the Scriptures). All of this research is geared at showing believers that Paul did battle Gnosticism in his day (what scholars call "Proto-Gnosticism," meaning "first Gnostic thought").

It is my prayer that this will put to rest the idea that the Pastorals are just all about church leadership and that they are simply manuals for church leadership. While Paul does provide administrative counsel in these letters, he does so because of the atmosphere at the time: the church was battling false teaching from without that was being brought "within" the church. No wonder then, that Paul could write to the Corinthians, "But I fear, lest somehow, as the serpent deceived Eve by his craftiness, so your minds may be corrupted from the simplicity that is in Christ" (2 Corinthians 11:3, NKJV)!

Thanks so much for your support...and I apologize for my time away. For those of you who desire to see what I've been working on in all the time I've been away, please read posts written at my other blog, "Center for Theological Studies." I've done some interesting work there on the Doctrine of Eternal Security (or Doctrine of Perseverance of the Saints) as well as discussed issues of hermeneutics in the biblical text. I think the church needs to know what hermeneutics is and how valuable it was to the early church (and should be to us today).

Continue to pray for me and the work done here in cyberspace. May God grant you the opportunity to hang in here with me as we embark on this exciting series. May the Lord bless you and keep you until the day of His return.

When Theory Meets Practice: What Happens When Complementarians "Practice What They Preach"

2010-07-25T19:20:00.002-04:00

Just this past week, I stopped by a local bookstore. I enjoy spending time “lusting” amongst the shelves, loaded with nothing but academically-delicious books (yes, I just made that phrase up!). While in there, I talked with a woman who is a higher-up in the bookstore, second in command only to another manager. She runs the day-to-day work in the bookstore, and everyone who works the cashiers and all take orders from her. Needless to say, she’s the “right-hand woman” around the place.

We talked some days ago about the manager, who is supposedly retiring sometime in the near future. In any case, the man who owns the place will need a new manager to run his store...and there she is, a qualified businessperson to run it, with about 15 years of experience in the store itself (the manager has worked the store for 25 years). Sadly enough, though, she probably will not be placed in charge of it because...you guessed it! She’s a woman!

Some of the owner’s friends played golf with him one day and expressed that their sons needed jobs. Since they and the bookstore owner are such good friends, they figured it wouldn’t hurt to ask the owner for jobs for their sons; and the owner found it no trouble at all to grant their sons the jobs. The owner told the friends, “They don’t even need to interview for the positions; just tell them to be in the bookstore Monday at 9am, and the jobs are theirs.”

Monday morning came, and the sons found themselves in the bookstore. Just as the sons were putting on their uniforms, the woman (the good friend I talked with) told them, “Now, after you get your uniforms on, I need you to start stacking the new books for the new semester courses on the shelves in the back room.” All through the day, the sons found it hard to work; they were little inspired, and everything seemed to come hard. All they wanted to do was see 5pm roll around so they could go home and relax after what they believed to be a “hard day.”

As 5pm rolled around, the sons were relieved to clock out. What they wanted to do, though, was have a little chat with the store owner. Evidently, something grieved them to the point where they needed to talk about it for some time.
As they were in the office talking with the store manager, the assistant came in and overheard the conversation. “I’m glad you wanted to give me a job,” one of the sons said. “But I didn’t know that I would have to work for a woman; I thought I was working directly for you. I thought I was taking orders from you.”

“What’s wrong with my assistant, Linda?” The manager said.
“Oh, nothing’s wrong with her.” At this point all the sons chimed in.

“We think that she’s great; she helped us find all the shelves, showed us around the store, helped us with price labeling and everything. She’s great.”

“Well, then, the problem is...” At this point, the manager began to turn serious.

“Well...she’s a woman,” one son reluctantly said.

“Well, of course, she is,” the manager exclaimed. “Don’t you think I see that?”

“Don’t you have a problem with that?” One of the sons asked.

“The Bible itself teaches from 1 Timothy 2 that the man is over the woman--- ‘Adam was formed first, then Eve.’ By right, one of us should have the assistant manager’s position, and she should be reporting to us.”

The manager responded with a firm but dedicated tone. “Linda will work here as the assistant manager; and if you gentlemen don’t like that, find somewhere else to work.” The manager walked out and closed the door behind him, leaving the sons to their shame. The next day, the sons took his advice, turned in their uniforms, and left the store.

In the account above, we can see that the sons had a problem with reporting to a female. In their minds, 1 Timothy 2 entitled them to rule over a woman. No woman, regardless of experience and qualifications, should be a leader in anything; rather, she should report to a man and have a man over her. And why? Because “that’s her place.”

Funny though, but isn’t that discrimination? And yet, when it comes to the church, suddenly, discrimination isn’t all that bad. When discrimination revolves around the church, isn’t it striking that it is so highly tolerated, taught, and promoted?

This, my friends, is the result of what happens when complementarians “practice what they preach.” And, in my opinion, I think we should see it more often---prayerfully, one day, complementarians will wake up and understand how biblically incorrect, theologically-damaging, and Lord-disdaining their theology of women really is...

A Tribute To My Mother, Teressa A. Richardson (June 28, 1956---Feb. 3, 2009): Martha and Mary

2010-06-28T11:36:00.001-04:00

Today at the blog is a day set aside to celebrate the life of my mother, Teressa A. Richardson. For those of you who may not know, mom died at the tender age of 52 years old, having battled breast cancer, lung cancer, and finally brain cancer over a span of some three years. She would have been 54 years old this day.

Today, I’d like to set aside this day to honor mom, the woman who influenced me in so many ways to be the blog writer whose work you read daily. I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again: without my mother this blog would never have been created. In a sense, whenever I take up a challenge in a post and put words on the screen, it’s as if mom were here speaking them herself.

Preparing for this day was somewhat bittersweet. Some weeks ago, I began to brainstorm regarding what I would post at the blogs to honor mom. And then, I began to go over again and again in my head the type of woman mom was, the things she did, the songs she sung, the lessons she taught me and my twin sister (Danielle), and the funny stories she used to tell. I even have memories of mom’s joke e-mails. She was a senior accountant at her corporation, so she was always over a computer typing, double-checking numbers, sending e-mails, or setting up meetings. I remember the weekends when the corporation would perform what is called “inventory,” when the company had to see how many engines were in the plant (she worked at an engine plant), how many were in good condition (and good for sale), and how many were defective and needed to be rebuilt before they could sale. Mom would take my sister and I to work on random Saturdays, and we would sit at her desk (and the desk of a co-worker), and play card games, surf the web, etc. She always told us to behave ourselves because, should we have misbehaved, we might not have been able to return. According to mom, the more we behaved, the better the chances of getting to come visit her job.

The memories are many indeed...and even now, despite the heartbreak, I can still smile when I think of the three of us (Mom, Danielle, and me) together, laughing until our stomachs hurt. Usually, we were ALWAYS somewhere laughing until our stomachs hurt. To laugh until your insides hurt was a typical action in our insane family.

But mom was not only “mom,” “daughter,” “sister,” “friend,” “coworker,” and “boss”...she was also a Sunday school teacher. Mom bought commentaries galore in her lifetime. We have so many Bibles that there are enough there for twelve future grandchildren and beyond (I might be a little outrageous with the “twelve” there...). Whenever I would come home from school and classes, mom would be sitting at her dining table, pouring over the books. Even when she began to live with my grandmother (her mother) while battling cancer, she was still studying...and she was STILL pouring over the commentaries. She had so many that I had to borrow from her extensive collection! Suffice it to say that, while I attended seminary, mom “owned” a seminary of her own (lol). She told me, upon seeing my first set of books in my Master’s degree, that “I’m gonna read everything you read.” According to mom, her seminary education was coming right to her door through me!

One of mom’s favorite accounts in all of Scripture consists of the account of “Martha and Mary”:

“38 Now it happened as they went that He entered a certain village; and a certain woman named Martha welcomed Him into her house. 39 And she had a sister called Mary, who also sat at Jesus’[k] feet and heard His word. 40 But Martha was distracted with much serving, and she approached Him and said, “Lord, do You not care that my sister has left me to serve alone? Therefore tell her to help me.”
41 And Jesus[l] answered and said to her, “Martha, Martha, you are worried and troubled about many things. 42 But one thing is needed, and Mary has chosen that good part, which will not be taken away from her.” (Luke 10:38-42, NKJV)

The account of the text given shows us that there were two sisters, Mary and Martha, who had two different approaches to Jesus’ arrival at the home: while Martha worked hard to serve, Mary sat at Jesus’ feet to hear His teaching. Martha became offended: “Lord, DO YOU NOT CARE that my sister has left me to serve alone? Therefore tell her to help me” (v.40).

What Martha wanted Jesus to do was scold Mary. In her mind at least, she was doing the “proper” thing while Mary was “being lazy.” In Martha’s reasoning, Jesus had arrived, and it was time to get to work, transforming the house to spotless in order that Jesus may be pleased. What Martha didn’t understand though, was that what pleased Jesus, more than the condition of the home, was THE CONDITION OF THE HEART! Instead of rebuking Mary, Jesus turns and says,

“Martha, Martha, you are worried and troubled about many things. BUT ONE THING IS NEEDED, and MARY HAS CHOSEN THAT GOOD PART, which will not be taken away from her” (Luke 10:41-42).

Martha’s housework was really a “distraction” from what she needed most. Instead of scolding Mary, Martha needed to follow Mary’s example. Jesus’ response to her is that “one thing is needed,” that is, to sit at His feet and listen and learn. Martha, then, was worrying about things of no eternal significance. Her house cleaning would only benefit that day; but Mary’s learning would benefit her for a lifetime. We can easily see the significance of learning at the feet of Jesus over the daily fleeting pursuits that we can easily pour ourselves into.

Mom always felt as if this account was of importance to her. “God’s trying to tell me something,” she would always say. No matter where she went, whether it be to a church service or a bookstore, she always managed to find something on the “Martha and Mary” account. Martha and Mary were everywhere, and some days, she would point out a Martha and Mary book and then laugh. “The Lord just keeps letting me run into this account. What is it that He’s trying to teach me?”

The funny thing is, that when mom was diagnosed with cancer, she began to wonder about her life’s work. “I just wanna make sure that I’m doing what the Lord desires I do. I don’t wanna live my entire life and stand before Him, not having done what I was supposed to.” I used to tell her, “Mom, you won’t. You’re seeking to do what pleases Him most, and believe me, you’re either doing it now or you will get to do it.”

And when she died, I felt as if she had died too soon. I still believe that regardless of the quality of life a person lives (whether in Christ or not), fifty-two years old is still too young of an age in which to die. But my grief over her death was also due to the plans and dreams that I had for us. We had discussed my twin sister, Danielle, and figured that she would marry first (between the two of us). Then, mom and I would travel the world. She always wanted to see other countries, get a chance to travel and witness for Christ. She had such a heart for missions, and winning others to the good news of the gospel of Jesus Christ. For her, that was the most exciting thing in all of life itself---to tell others about Jesus. And she did that: she told everyone she could about Him, even a store owner who responded, “I’ve had greater people than you tell me about Him, and I’ve not given in yet.” This same grumpy, old man who was lost and in need of Christ is the same man mom told about Jesus and the gospel. She was fearless for Christ, even in the face of doubt and rejection.

But even though mom died young, she died having done what she was placed on earth to do. I’m convinced that the “Martha and Mary” account was mom’s daily reminder of what was important. Mom had “Martha” traits: she was a parent raising a set of twins; a coworker; a boss who had people to oversee; a daughter, who financially provided for her parents with every paycheck she ever received; a sister, who needed to spend quality time with her brother, sister, and three nephews; a choir member, who often helped to organize the choir for Sundays. Even when she was tired, she would still open her mouth and sing at least one song for Christ. In addition, she was the financial secretary, managing the church finances, as well as a Sunday school teacher, who had souls to instruct from the Word of God. Mom studied for every Sunday school lesson, and taught every class with God-given energy that everyone knew came from above.

Having “Martha” traits, however, didn’t take away from the “Mary” portion: In addition to being a diligent worker for Christ, mom also realized her need to hear the Lord in her daily living and the importance of time spent hearing the Word of the Lord. I would wake up on Sundays to the smell of breakfast pervading the house (from the kitchen to my bedroom and beyond) as well as Sunday preaching on the television screen. That’s how all Sundays started. And if you happened to wake up one morning with no television on, that’s because she had the radio turned on to songs of worship. From the time we’d leave the house to the time we’d return, mom would have worship music on the radio. I was never asked to go to church on Sundays: I was going to church, like it or not. Mom took my instruction in the Word as part of her parental duties (not optional) to “bring me up in the training and admonition of the Lord” (Eph. 6:4, NKJV). And church was always important. Sundays were set aside for worship, Tuesday nights were set aside for Bible study. No questions asked!!

I miss mom today; and I’ve missed her every day for the last almost year and a half since she departed this life. But I know that when she left us, she had fulfilled her mission on earth. It turns out that the “Martha and Mary” account was one she took to heart, and implemented in all she said and did...and the fact that I am here today, studying the Word of the Lord and researching to the glory of God, testifies to just how important being a “Mary” really was to her. Sure---she was a “Martha”; But she learned how to be a “Mary”. And because she was a Mary and sacrificed much to “sit at Jesus’ feet” (study the Word, hear the Word, teach the Word to her children), she lost no time at all. On that cold February morning when she left us, she was, in that sense, the “oldest” woman in all of human existence.

If mom were here, she’d challenge you to be a “Mary.” So that’s what I’m gonna do: challenge you, my readership, to live as “Mary.” There are many things you will do throughout your lives that will have no eternal significance. But I say to you, that only what you do for Christ will last. And since our work for Christ is the only thing of eternal significance in this world (second to receiving eternal life), then we should be busy kingdom-building. How can we start today? By “sitting at Jesus’ feet,” hearing His Word, learning more of His Word. I tell you today that if we learn from my mother’s (Mary’s) example, death will take from us no time at all.

A Chinese Lunch

2010-05-29T16:31:00.002-04:00

Today I did lunch with a dear brother of mine. We had been trying to meet up together all semester, to take some time to discuss our favorite area of discussion--- THEOLOGY! So we finally met up and did a Chinese lunch today. Boy am I so glad to have brothers!!!

Our first topic of conversation involved evangelism and how to present the gospel to someone who does not believe in God and has no concern for learning about this God we believe in at all. But eventually, the conversation took a turn down a road that he and I both knew we would arrive at; and we ended up discussing two issues that seem to really flow together: the issue of Calvinism versus Arminianism (see my blog at CTS regarding the nature of this debate) and...an issue I love here very much: the issue of men and women in the church.

We began by discussing 1 Timothy 2, a passage that, as I’ve established, has been viewed by complementarians as a passage that “decisively” (their own words) kills the issue of whether or not women should lead in the church. I took my dear brother back to 1 Corinthians 11, another passage that talks about some form of creation order. There, I showed him that men and women are BOTH dependent “in the Lord.” The sphere of God’s house is the place where men and women are functionally equal, despite the woman’s functional submission to her husband in the home. Even the husband has no independence from the wife in the church (according to 1 Cor. 11:11-12)!

Then he asked me the question, “Does dependence nullify authority?” I told him that the husband has been given headship in the home, but God holds the headship of the church, and is free to do what He pleases in His House (Eph. 5:23). If Christ is the head of the church, and headship in the church belongs to Christ, then why does the Bride have to argue over which “bride” (member) of the Bride (Church) should lead?

Finally, my brother looked at me and said that he understands the differences between Calvinists (who are also complementarians) and Arminians (egalitarians): those who are Calvinists are more likely to be complementarians because they see that God chooses not only those who will be saved, but also chooses what gender (and as a result of gender, what gifts) a person will have. Arminians, on the other hand, who believe that everything is foreknown but not predetermined (chosen beforehand), see some indeterminate aspects to life itself, that everything is not picked out by God. In his mindset, Arminians, therefore, would choose to argue for women’s equal leadership opportunities in the church.

I think there is some truth to what he is saying regarding theology; however, I don’t think that a theological grid is the most important reason why the line divides along Calvinist (complementarian) and Arminian (egalitarian) lines. The most important factor that creates the divide is the biblical text. For me as both a Classical Arminian and a conservative egalitarian, I see the Bible itself as the dividing line. I cannot agree with complementarian argumentation because ultimately, they draw “inferences” to the biblical text without sufficient biblical proof. If God truly desired to tell women what they could not do in the church, why is it not as clear as the divine command for wives to submit to their husbands (Eph. 5:22; 1 Pet. 3:1; Col. 3:18; Titus 2:5)?? It seems that the Holy Spirit, the Author of Holy Scripture, was not hesitant when He wanted to communicate to wives the need to submit to husbands. If complementarians are so right about women in leadership, why is the Spirit extremely silent on this issue? And why is it that the church has to “draw inferences” instead of drawing from Scripture? If “the simplest answer is often the best explanation,” then the answer to the question is “the Spirit does not make prohibition of woman leadership clear because He does not desire to prohibit women from leadership in the church."

In his chapter on “Human Nature” in the work “A Theology for the Church,” John Hammett writes regarding 1 Timothy 2:

“The passage begins with a call to let women learn, a somewhat revolutionary idea in some parts of the Mediterranean world of that time. But, Paul continues, women should not teach or exercise authority over a man. BUT HOW DOES THIS TEXT RELATE TO ROLES IN THE CHURCH? It seems clear from elsewhere in Scripture that THIS IS NOT A BLANKET PROHIBITION. For example, believers are commanded to teach and admonish one another (Col. 3:16), and Paul gives instructions concerning the praying and prophesying of women (1 Cor. 11:2-16). CONTEXT SEEMS TO INDICATE THAT THE TYPE OF TEACHING AND AUTHORITY PAUL HAS IN MIND IS THAT OF AN ELDER, for the qualifications for that office is the topic Paul turns to in 1 Timothy 3, and the duties of an elder include authoritative teaching and leading. Thus, 1 Timothy 2:11-15 prohibits women from serving in the role of elder or pastor” (John Hammett, “Human Nature,” from “A Theology for the Church” by Daniel L. Akin, editor. Nashville: B&H Academic, 2007, page 359).

But Hammett’s analysis here is rather subjective. Do we even read of women and elder in the same sentence in 1 Timothy 3? No. The issue of women teaching, then, is to first be investigated within the chapter of its location (which is chapter 2). Next, what about chapter 1? Hammett invests time on why women can’t teach according to chapter 3, but overlooks chapter 1 entirely. Hammett does not address the problems Paul does: (1) false teachers (1:3) and false doctrine (1:3), which consisted of “fables and endless genealogies” (1:4), as well as (2) students who desired to teach but were propagating false doctrine ignorantly (1:7). If these problems were to be incorporated into interpretation, then 1 Timothy 2 would be seen as Paul counteracting false teaching, not prohibiting women from serving in leadership roles. Hammett doesn’t address any of these mentionables of chapter 1. Why is this? It’s an interesting question indeed...

Last but not least, there is the question regarding women teaching: if women are ONLY prohibited from the office of elder and pastor (which seems to be Hammett’s conclusion), then are women prohibited from teaching men in a mixed Sunday school class? I find it fascinating that Hammett doesn’t argue against women teaching mixed Sunday school classes, and yet, so many churches prohibit women from so doing. Why is this? If scholars are not prohibiting women teaching, then why are so many churches prohibiting women from teaching? Although Hammett states that “this [1 Tim. 2] is not a blanket prohibition,” the churches sure seem convinced that it is...

Aside from Hammett’s interpretation of 1 Timothy 2, however, Hammett does make a good point about the weak argument from inference:

“Some complementarians think that the order established by God in marriage should also be an argument for a similar order within the church. Thus, just as women cannot be husbands or fathers in the family, so they cannot (or at least should not) be elders or pastors within the larger family, the church. While this view has a good deal of merit, WE ARE NOT LEFT TO SUCH AN INFERENTIAL ARGUMENT” (358).

Even Hammett admits that the above complementarian “consistency” is nothing more than an inference. And if the argument is just an inference, then we are left to Scripture to see what it tells us. And even the evidence against women as pastors (including Hammett’s analysis) is questionable.

Back to the Chinese lunch. At the end of the lunch time, I realized that my brother simply did not have a biblical text for his case. All he had was a collection of inferential arguments with no Scripture as justification. If Scripture provides no evidence against women, then the “traditional” view of complementarianism is nothing more than tradition; and if we believe the Bible to be the ultimate authority in every area of life, then we must either elevate tradition to Scripture or toss tradition out. And I know which one I choose...how about you?

The Rebel Bride: A Response to the Charge of Inconsistency

2010-05-17T23:32:00.001-04:00

Some time ago, a friend of mine (who has been struggling with the issue of whether or not women should be elders and pastors in the modern-day church) told me that he doesn’t see evidence in the New Testament for women in pastoral leadership. His reason? According to him (and those who have instructed him), the creation order (which he believes 1 Timothy 2:12-15 teaches). My response to his statement was that if 1 Timothy 2 said what he believed it did, why is it that we read so much of wife submission (Eph. 5:22, Col. 3:18, 1 Pet. 3:1), but do not read of the submission of women to men in the church? The Scriptures, however, do command that the sheep of the flock submit to those who lead in the church (Heb. 13:17, 1 Thess. 5:12-13, 1 Tim. 5:17-18), but it never directly tells women to be submissive to the men of the church. Instead, what we find is that women, like men, prayed and prophesied publicly in the early church (1 Cor. 11:5), and women even served as apostles (Junia, Rom. 16:7). Women such as Phoebe were active as not only recognized workers of the church, but even as ambassadors or representatives to other churches (Rom. 16:1-2). Contrary to the belief of most complementarians, women even conducted churches in their homes (such as Nympha, Col. 4:15). Last but not least, women such as Euodia and Syntyche served side-by-side with Paul in preaching the gospel (Phil. 4:2-3). All this evidence cannot be a biblical “mistake.” No---it serves as an incredible witness to the role women played both in the church itself and outside of it. And all of this New Testament evidence doesn’t even mention the great prophetesses (such as Huldah) and judge (Deborah) of the Old Testament!!

In this post, I wanna tackle the issue of inconsistency. It has been said that conservative egalitarians are inconsistent when they advocate male headship in the home but teamwork leadership (both male and female) in the church. I was labeled “inconsistent” by my friend above, when I made this same statement to him.

But I would like to stop and pose this question to complementarians everywhere? How are conservative egalitarians inconsistent for their view? The Bible is what decides inconsistency, not my logic. If the Scriptures do not point out the error of egalitarianism, then its position is just as valid (if not more than) as complementarianism.

What do the Scriptures say? That’s the kind of question I like to hear...to answer this question, let’s look at the Bible.

As I mentioned above, the Bible confirms male headship in the home. A good example of this is Ephesians 5:22---

“Wives, submit to your own husbands, AS TO THE LORD.” (NKJV)

As this verse tells us, wives are to submit to their husbands as if they are submitting to the very Lord Himself. The husband has been given headship in the home. This is undisputed amongst complementarians and conservative egalitarians. I mention “conservative” egalitarians because there are liberal egalitarians (some are called “feminists”) who assert that male headship must be overthrown. While I sympathize with feminists and their mistreatment by male authorities, I cannot say that I agree with them. God has given the male headship in the home, whether you and I like it or not. If the Bible is the Word of God, then we must accept everything in it (whether or not it fits a preference of ours or not).

Having said that, though, the next question would be, “Does the Bible confirm male headship in the church?” the answer to this question would be a resounding no!! Let’s read further in the text of Ephesians 5:

“For the husband is THE HEAD OF THE WIFE, as also Christ is THE HEAD OF THE CHURCH; and He is the Savior of the body” (Eph. 5:23, NKJV).

Here we see that, while the husband is the head of the home, his headship stops there; Christ is the head of the church, and He will share His place with NOONE! So for complementarians hung up over male headship, check Ephesians 5:23. Nowhere does it affirm the male as the head of the church. So if the male is not the head of the church, then what is he in the church? Part of the bride. As Paul writes in Ephesians 5:29-30,

“For no one ever hated his own flesh, but nourishes and cherishes it, JUST AS THE LORD DOES THE CHURCH. FOR WE ARE MEMBERS OF HIS BODY, of His flesh and of His bones.”

No matter the gender, whether male or female, both genders comprise “the body of Christ.” Christ is the head, and we are the body. And the head is greater than the body, so Christ is Lord over and above all of us, whether male or female, whether Pastor, Elder, Deacon, choir member, nursery worker, etc.

Now that Ephesians 5 has cleared the air, one more question remains: Is the conservative egalitarian consistent in his/her view of male headship in the home and teamwork leadership in the church? Yes. The answer is found in the husband-wife analogy of both home and church relationships. Let’s revisit Ephesians 5:23 once more:

“For the husband is the head of the wife, as also Christ is head of the church...”

Here we see the “husband-wife” analogy in both spheres. In the home, the male is the husband, and the female is the wife. In the church, Christ is the husband (the head), and the church is the wife, the Bride. We can see this in verse 25:

“Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ also loved the church AND GAVE HIMSELF FOR HER” (Eph. 5:25).

The church, then, is the Bride of Christ (Christ being the husband). This is why the church in the Greek is an “ekklesia,” the “ia” ending serving as a “feminine” noun ending. Paul continues this analogy further in the same chapter:

“‘For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh.’ This is a great mystery, but I speak CONCERNING CHRIST AND THE CHURCH” (Eph. 5:31-32).

So the verse Paul quotes from Genesis 2:24 he now tells us refers to Christ and the church. So the church is the Bride of Christ, and Christ is the Husband of the church.

Where then, is the inconsistency? We’ve seen that between male and female (and between Christ and church) that there is a husband and a wife established in both spheres. So, I ask complementarians, “What’s the problem?” Don’t worry: I think I know what it is...they continue to desire to replace women in the church because of a presupposition concerning 1 Timothy 2. But if Ephesians 5:23 tells us that Christ is the head of the church, and 1 Corinthians 12:13 tells us that the Spirit gives spiritual gifts “as He wills,” then how can complementarians continue to assert that 1 Tim. 2 refers to male leadership in the church? I think this is a fitting time for complementarians to step back and take a look at their scriptural interpretation. If you ask me, I think their interpretation of 1 Timothy 2 needs some serious reform...and the church needs to stop playing “rebel bride” and submit to her Husband (that is, Christ) by allowing Him to decide the giftedness of the church instead of the church herself.

Old Testament Theology...and Women?, Part III: Living the Conclusion

2010-03-11T15:54:00.002-05:00

“The church ought to encourage women to minister according to their God-given gifts by, among other ways, opening up avenues of ministry such as those listed in Romans 12:3-8 and 1 Corinthians 12-14, and if appropriate, in connection with honoring them financially (Rom. 16:2; 1 Tim. 5:17). The Bible commends the equality of women with men in their being, dignity, GIFTS, and ministry. THE SPIRIT VALIDATES THIS BY CALLING AND GIFTING WOMEN TO THE SAME KINDS OF MINISTRIES AS MEN, SUCH AS PROPHESYING (Acts 20:9), TEACHING (cf. Acts 18:26), PASTORING, evangelizing, and helping the church in all sorts of ways (cf. Romans 16). Nevertheless, the church should not appoint women (Greek ‘gune’) to an office, such as being an elder (‘presbyteros’)...wherein she has authority over her husband (Greek ‘aner,’ Heb. 13:17)” (Bruce Waltke, “An Old Testament Theology,” pages 245-246).

I’ve spent the last few days discussing the problems with Bruce Waltke’s view of women and their ministries in his work on Old Testament Theology. And this post will be no different in that respect: once again, I will deal with more statements from Bruce Waltke’s assessment of women in ministry.

The first thing I’d like to note is his assessment that the Spirit equally gifts men and women: “The Spirit validates this by calling and gifting women to the same kinds of ministries as men, such as prophesying...teaching...PASTORING...”

This statement most surprised me! I mean, Waltke has noted earlier in the same chapter, titled “The Gift of the Bride,” that women have equal access to the gifts; but here, he actually says that one of the ministries that women have is “pastoring.” I never expected him to say such a thing!!!

However, while applauding Waltke for this bold statement (which I’ve never read from the hand of a complementarian), I must also disagree with the statement he provides following this remarkable acknowledgement:

“Nevertheless, the church should not appoint women (Greek ‘gune’) to an office, such as being an elder (‘presbyteros’)...wherein she has authority over her husband (Greek ‘aner,’ Heb. 13:17).”

There is a problem with the last statement Waltke provides: that is, that Waltke is actually advocating something devastating to the church. He is basically saying that, while women are gifted in pastoring ministries, and God has gifted them equal to men, they are still not to hold down pastoral authority (for example) over men in the church. Notice as well that he is talking about “women” and “husband.” I infer from this that he means “wife,” but all throughout the chapter, it seems that he has been referencing all women:

“...He [Jesus] IMPLICITLY confirmed the role of men as rulers by not appointing A WOMAN as one of the twelve apostles on whom the church is built...” (Waltke, 235)

“My thesis, in brief, is that the two creation accounts reveal God’s design for men and women. They are written to help them understand their natures and THE ROLES FOR WHICH THEY WERE CREATED...” (232)

“The sexual, social, and economic equality of all believers will be obliterated in the eschaton, but until the redemption of our bodies, believers still participate in the first creation with its sexual, social, and economic distinctions. The biblical instructions regarding the distinctive roles of MEN AND WOMEN...address that reality and serve the best interests of BOTH SEXES” (243).

From the above quotes, it doesn’t seem as if the so-called “rule against women” is just for wives---but instead, for ALL women, whether wives or not.

But what about single women, women who have no husband? Are they subject to this rule? It seems to be the case that single women are just as referenced as the married women. The only reference made to 1 Corinthian 7 regards the children of a married woman who is “holy” despite the fact her husband is “unholy.” (1 Cor. 7:14, page 238) There is no reference made to single women, who are also mentioned in that same exact chapter (vv.8,25,34). Why is this? I have no clue. I guess Waltke will have to produce another revised edition and clue us in on this one...

Now, on to the task at hand. Waltke has stated that women do have the “pastoring” gift (Waltke, 246), but that women are not allowed to actually “be a pastor” of a church. So women can’t be elders, pastors, nothing of that sort, that will allow them to be in leadership over men and lead men in church administration whatsoever.

Is there a problem with this view? YES! Simply put, Waltke is telling women that regardless of their gift, they can never serve in leadership. If a woman has the gift of “pastoring,” she can be a “Pastor’s Wife” and aid her husband---give him advice, make suggestions, etc. However, she could never be a Pastor--- UNLESS, in the minds of most conservatives (and yes, I’m being honest about my own background!), her husband is a pastor. She can be a “co-Pastor” IF and only IF her husband is a Pastor. Her gift will never place her over her husband...so, if she is a called Pastor, she cannot actually DO pastoral ministry unless her husband is also made a Pastor. Her giftedness and place in the body of Christ is dependent upon her husband’s.

What makes it worse is the fact that in many cases, wives cannot pastor (simply because their husbands do not feel called to pastoral ministry). But what about the lazy and slothful servant do we not understand (Matt. 25:24-30)? The wicked servant failed to use his talent---and he was punished eternally for so doing (Matt. 25:30). How can the church advocate that women, although possessing leadership gifts, disobey Christ and not use them...and then turn around and tell the women that they must obey Christ by being submissive to their husbands? How can they say, “Disobey Christ and obey Christ in this matter,” all at the same time in the same way???

Last but not least, what are the gifts for if they are not given to the church to be used? Paul answers this question:

“And He Himself gave some to be apostles, some prophets, some evangelists, and some pastors and teachers, FOR THE EQUIPPING OF THE SAINTS FOR THE WORK OF MINISTRY, FOR THE EDIFYING OF THE BODY OF CHRIST...”(Ephesians 4:11-12, NKJV)

The purpose of receiving the gifts is to use them. How then, is the church obeying Paul’s words here if women, no matter how great the pastoring ability, are not able to pastor churches? How can a woman lead with skill and diligence if she is sidelined or placed in the nursery, or given a young children’s Sunday school class? How will she “equip” the saints if she is supposed to watch over the flock of God...but told that she can only counsel and talk to young girls, teenage girls, young adult women, and elderly women instead? How is she pastoring and counseling effectively as an overseer if she can only “oversee” one half of the church congregation (that being, the women)???

In 1 Corinthians, Paul talks about the necessity of all gifts and abilities within the church:

“And the eye cannot say to the hand, ‘I have no need of you’; nor again the head to the feet, ‘I have no need of you.’ No. much rather, those members of the body which seem to be weaker are necessary...God composed the body, having given greater honor to that part which lacks it, that THERE SHOULD BE NO SCHISM IN THE BODY, but that the members should have the same care for one another” (1 Cor. 12:21-25).

Paul instructs the congregation that EVERY PART (i.e., EVERY GIFT in the context of the chapter itself) is needed in the body of Christ. If this is true, then women and their pastoring abilities are NEEDED in the body of Christ. Women who are called to pastor, for example, are needed in the pastoring role so they can implement God’s will for His church through their gift.

If the foot is amputated, how can the foot help a person walk from place to place? A person cannot have their foot amputated and still say, “That’s my foot...it is effective in helping me travel.” Humans understand that if we have a body part that we call our own, there is something that it should do for us. In the same way, if we have women in our churches who are called to pastor, they should be allowed to pastor. Why would God give them a gift and then tell them to not use it? It seems that when one follows the complementarian logic, God begins to contradict Himself---which is one clear sign that we should not listen to the complementarian nonsense...

Old Testament Theology...and Women?, Part II: Assessing Waltke's Use of 1 Corinthians 11:8-9

2010-03-10T00:21:00.004-05:00

In my last post on Bruce Waltke, I made the point that he seemed to affirm that men and women are on equal terms in the Old Testament regarding spiritual gifts (such as the case of Huldah the prophetess). However, Waltke decides to separate gifts and offices not for the purpose of demonstrating the will of God, but for the purposes of arguing against women in leadership:

“Paul gives governmental priority to the many BY THE SEQUENCE OF CREATION of man and woman and by the purpose for which the woman was created” (Waltke, “An Old Testament Theology,” page 242).

Since he cites 1 Corinthians 11:8-9 as his argument, let’s take a look at that here:

“For a man indeed ought not to cover his head, since he is the image and glory of God; but woman is the glory of man. For man is not from woman, but woman from man. Nor was man created for the woman, but woman for the man” (1 Cor. 11:8-9, NKJV).

This is Waltke’s proof text for why women should not be in leadership. However, what Waltke forgets is that there is a text after this passage. Let’s look at the following verses:

“Nevertheless, NEITHER IS MAN INDEPENDENT OF WOMAN, nor woman independent of man, IN THE LORD. For as woman came from man, EVEN SO MAN ALSO COMES THROUGH THE WOMAN; but all things are from God” (1 Cor. 11:11-12, NKJV).

Funny how Waltke’s interpretation looks skewed now, doesn’t it? What Waltke fails to do (as well as most complementarians) is read through the rest of Paul’s argument. If he had done so, he would see that Paul sets up the Genesis origin account, but nullifies it when he says, “nevertheless,” and “man also comes through the woman.” When he states that “neither is independent of each other in the Lord,” he states that there is an even keel in spiritual authority that does not mandate that a woman wear a “sign” or “symbol of authority.” Notice in the text, as I stated it in the last post, that both men (v.4) and women (v.5) are praying and prophesying in 1 Corinthians 11.

One could easily think that this would be the end of the post, right? Well...think again!! Our dear friend Waltke has a response to my interpretation (egalitarian):

“According to 1 Corinthians 11:11-12, THE MAN AND WOMAN ARE DEPENDENT ON ONE ANOTHER FOR THEIR EXISTENCE. Their interdependence, however, does not rule out male priority in government. Likewise, the United States Supreme Court does not exist independently from the people, but the people are subordinate to its rulings” (“An Old Testament Theology,” page 243).

I have two responses to Waltke’s argument. First, notice that he affirms what I did above. However, what he does next, though, is he uses an argument from logic that nullifies the context and Paul’s argument in 1 Corinthians 11. What he attempts to do is say, “even though man and woman are dependent on one another in the Lord, men can still be over women in the church.” However, if this was the intention of Paul’s letter, why would he tell us that both men and women are praying and prophesying (same activities and gifts, 1 Cor. 11:4,5), as well as use the word “nevertheless”? The word “nevertheless” used here is the Greek word “plen” (pronounced “plain”), which means “moreover, besides, but, except,” etc.

I looked up the word “moreover” in The Oxford American Dictionary and Thesaurus, and I found this definition:

“further; besides. Furthermore, not only that, MORE THAN THAT, WHAT IS MORE; to boot, into the bargain, IN ADDITION.” (The Oxford American Dictionary and Thesaurus, “moreover”)

The words in the definition of “moreover,” tell you that what Paul says after “nevertheless” (as the NKJV translates it) outweighs what Paul said in his previous argument. The word “plen” (“plain”) also means “however,” or “but,” which is a contrast with the material just before it. The word is a Greek conjunction; and conjunctions are “connective words,” which bridge sentences together. So if Paul is saying “however” or “moreover” here, he must be saying, “Listen up; what I am about to say contrasts with what I just said.” And if Paul is giving a contrast with his prior discussion of the man being above the woman, then he is not affirming such a hierarchy here---which puts Waltke’s interpretation on the sidelines.

Secondly, Waltke does not provide us with support from Scripture. All he does is give us a rational argument. When it comes to showing why women should not be in leadership, complementarians spend time “making inferences” instead of showing Scripture for what it is. Waltke’s argument breaks down, and all he can say is, “this still does not rule out my presupposition.” How does it not, when the text explicitly places man and woman in an equal balance in spiritual authority, when Paul does not mandate women to wear head coverings (which would have been the sign of a man’s authority over the woman, a sign of the husband-wife relationship)? Waltke doesn’t have an answer for this. Instead, he attempts to resort to logic. But that seems to be what the complementarians do these days...instead of finding explicit references from Scripture to support their points.

Anyone can read the English words like “nevertheless” and conclude that Paul is contrasting his next statement with his last statement. And this is the problem with Waltke and the complementarians: they make a mountain out of a mole hill. Why do this if the process of reading Scripture is so simple? Because they desire to uphold tradition...and they will do it at all costs.

Old Testament Theology...and Women?, Part I: Bruce Waltke's Argument

2010-03-09T22:06:00.004-05:00

I’m taking a seminary course this semester titled “Old Testament Theology.” And for the last several weeks, my class has been going through the basic features of OT theology, like poetry, prose, narrative, etc. We’ve been looking at all the types of writing in Scripture and how the writers of Scripture crafted the writing the way they did to give us a certain message. Paying attention to the message involves paying attention to form of the text, that the form helps shape the interpretation.

But I never thought that this course would also involve an entire chapter on women and their “prescribed” roles in the home and the church.

Now, before I continue, let me first say that I count myself to be a conservative theologian. What this means is that I believe that when Scripture tells the wives to submit to their husbands, I believe Scripture to be true. However, I believe that husbands are called to be like the “Lord” (uppercase L); and by serving as the ‘lord’ (lowercase L) of their homes, men are to “love their wives as Christ also loved the church, and gave Himself for her” (Eph. 5:25). Men leading in their homes can lead with love, concern, and the utmost care for their spouses and children. In the same way that humanity is to have a God-given, benevolent rule over the earth (Gen. 1:26-28), so men are to be benevolent leaders in their homes.

But I disagree with the assumption made in most conservative circles today, which says that men are to lead in the home and, therefore ARE CALLED TO LEAD IN THE CHURCH. I don’t see that labeled in Scripture. Rather, I see both men and women called, and both genders provided for in terms of work in the church. More specifically, I don’t see where men are told that only THEY can be the elders, pastors, and leaders. And it is my whole-hearted belief that such passages like 1 Timothy 2 have been twisted in the name of “old Southern tradition.” In reality, the “stretched metaphor” of the men ruling in the churches because they rule in the home is an inference drawn from Scripture (or so believed)---but where is the cold hard proof? In the end, if there are no explicit texts that give men full leadership in the church, then men ruling in the churches becomes about as necessary as the color of the carpet, or the style of worship. And if these things just mentioned have no explicit texts to uphold a certain belief, then I think it’s wrong to say that the carpet MUST be red, or the worship style MUST be traditional...or that men MUST rule in the churches. Paul gave a loud declaration when he said that Christ is the head of the church (Eph. 4:15; 5:23-24). If Christ is the head of the church, then no matter how powerful the male leader, he is still not the head. No deacon, preacher, elder, or otherwise will ever be the head of the church. That is reserved for Christ alone. All the pastor will ever be is the “undershepherd,” or “overseer,” which is a position that lies beneath the Lord, who is “the Shepherd and Overseer of our souls” (1 Peter 2:25, NKJV).

Bruce Waltke, author of “An Old Testament Theology: An Exegetical, Canonical, and Thematic Approach,” writes the following regarding 1 Corinthians 11:

“God establishes this pattern (the order of creation) by creating Adam first and the woman to help the man (Gen. 2:18). As Paul notes in a passage dealing with the role of men and women, one that demands its own study, ‘man did not come from woman, but woman from man; neither was man created for woman, but woman for man’ (1 Cor. 11:8-9). In other words, Paul GIVES GOVERNMENTAL PRIORITY TO THE MAN BY THE SEQUENCE OF CREATION OF MAN AND WOMAN AND BY THE PURPOSE FOR WHICH THE WOMAN WAS CREATED. Is it not plausible to assume that if God intended equality in government, he would have formed Eve and Adam at the same time and made them helpers suitable to each other? If he had wanted a matriarchy, would God not have formed Eve first and created the husband to be a suitable helper to his wife?” (Bruce Waltke, “An Old Testament Theology: An Exegetical, Canonical, and Thematic Approach.” Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2007, page 242)

There is no doubt where Waltke stands on this one: he is a conservative...and a die-hard complementarian. His argument is not surprising, but I will examine it nonetheless.

Let’s look at the passage that he quotes. In 1 Cor. 11:8-9, the discussion in the church involves the issue of women wearing head coverings. Notice in verses 4 and 5 that the men AND women are doing the same things: “every man PRAYING OR PROPHESYING” (v.4), and “every woman who PRAYS OR PROPHESIES” (v.5). The only difference is that the men should not cover their heads (in this verse), while the women should (v.5). Both men and women are equally acknowledged in the ministries of prayer and prophecy.

Waltke actually acknowledges equal gifts among men and women, and emphasizes that even the Old Testament testifies to this very fact:

“Huldah is a most remarkable prophetess with regard to the question of women’s roles in worship and ministry...Josiah directs five leaders to inquire of I AM (God) about the book. INSTEAD OF GOING TO JEREMIAH AND ZEPHANIAH, they go to their contemporary, Huldah, to verify the book (2 Kings 22:8-20)” (caps mine) (Waltke, 240).

Waltke’s comment about Huldah and prophetesses? “In the Old Testament, women are called to be ‘prophetesses’ ON AN EQUAL FOOTING WITH THE PROPHETS” (Waltke, 240).

It looks as if Waltke understands that the gifting of the Spirit places women on an equal footing with men. He actually titles five sections around the theme of equality: “Equality in Creation, Equality in Parenting, Equality in Charisma (Gifts), Equality in Prayer, Equality in Worship” (Waltke, 239-240).

But then, Waltke gets to leadership in the church...and he blows it entirely! Waltke’s first mistake after the above equality affirmations is to separate gifts and offices:

“Here we need to distinguish clearly between call to ministry and appointment to an office since they are not the same thing” (Waltke, 241).

I agree with Waltke. For instance, being a helper in the church is not the same as being a deacon. While a deacon has the “ministry of helps,” every person who possesses this gift does not end up serving in the office of deacon. A deacon can possess the gift, but possessing the gift does not guarantee the office. In this manner, I affirm what Waltke says. But I disagree when Waltke tries to show why women should not serve in the offices of pastor and elder:

“Male authority in the home and in the church is founded on the order of creation and reinforced in the order of redemption as presented in both the Old and New Testaments” (242).

In response to Waltke, I’d like to say two things: first, male authority in the home is not founded on the creation order, but in the very words of God Himself as a punishment to Eve for her sin in the Garden(Genesis 3:16). If God had clearly intended to appoint Adam as the head of his wife in the home, then why is it that we only find God saying these words to Eve in Genesis 3 with the fall and not earlier?

Complementarians such as Waltke like to play with vague generalities and draw inferences. But when are conservatives gonna get back to finding EXPLICIT references in Scripture---and when are we gonna stop using vague references to emphasize our points? If God says it in Scripture, there will be some place within the canon of the text where the concept will be as clear as day. Every text in the Bible is not a vague generality; and I despise this sort of technique used by complementarians to attempt to validate their personal belief.

Secondly, there are no texts that give men the right to be the head of the church (not even 1 Timothy 2 does this). I have interpreted this text dozens of times here at the site. For all those who desire to read my thoughts, go to the blog sections on the right of the main page and click on the section “1 Timothy 2.” Respond to this post or the others if you have comments, questions, observations, etc.

The point being made here is that the order of creation does not place the man over the woman in the churches. And 1 Corinthians 11 works against the complementarian position. What does it say? Well, I’ll get to that in my next post.

Essence and Function, Part II-B: The Contingency of the Crucifixion

2010-02-14T21:04:00.002-05:00

Following up my last post on “Essence and Function: Definition and Distinction,” I decided to create a second portion of Part II, where I would set up a simple argument for the temporary subordination of Christ. The temporary subordination of Christ can be proven by arguing that the coming of Christ to earth to die was not a necessary action, but a contingent one: that is, it was based upon the granting of free will to human beings and God’s foreknowledge of their later sin. I have set up a syllogism as a way to present a succinct argument.

Syllogism:

a. God freely decided to create the world.

b. God freely decided to grant human creation free will.

c. God freely knew that man, with his free will, would sin.

d. God freely knew man’s sin, and freely decided to come in the person of Christ to atone for man’s sin.

e. That which is freely done or that which is a free decision is not necessary.

f. Therefore, it was not necessary for God to create the world.

g. It was not necessary for God to grant free will to His human creation.

h. It was not necessary that man should sin.

i. It was not necessary that Christ come and atone for sin (if sin was not
necessary).

j. If none of God’s free decisions were necessary, then neither was His coming
to earth and crucifixion necessary. As a result, Christ’s subordination on earth was not necessary.

k. That which is necessary is eternal (as is God’s essence); that which is not necessary, then, cannot be eternal.

l. Christ’s subordination, then, was not necessary, and therefore, cannot be eternal. It can only be temporary.

In order to understand the above syllogism, one must know the terms involved. To begin with, let’s define the word “necessary”:

“Of an inevitable nature; inescapable.”

Christ’s essence, Godness (or divinity), was NECESSARY in order that Christ come to earth and atone for man’s sin. But what about his function? Let’s find the definition of the word “contingent”:

“Conditional; dependent; that may or may not occur” (from “The Oxford American Desk Dictionary and Thesaurus,” Second Edition. New York: Berkeley Books, 2001).

If God had never created the world, then Jesus would never have had to come and die; how then, can His subordination have been “necessary” or “eternal”? those who argue this belief fail to consider the unorthodox theology behind such an argument.
I will refer to this twelve-point syllogism quite often as we continue to discuss the issue of essence and function. Stay tuned...

For You, Mom: In Memory of Teressa A. Richardson (June 28, 1956---February 3, 2009)

2010-02-03T11:03:00.001-05:00

I realize that I haven’t posted at the blogs in a while. And for that, I’m extremely sorry. As a student, I’ve just recently started a new semester in seminary; this means that the work load has increased, deadlines are in place, and I am running like a chicken with its head cut off once more.

But today, I wanted to pay tribute to someone very special and extremely dear to me, a person who has been an indispensable part of my life since the day I first entered the world---my mother, Teressa A. Richardson. One year ago today, February 3, 2009, my mother died from brain cancer at the relatively young age of 52 years old. And today, I want to set aside the usual routine here at the blog to honor the woman who made me everything I am. You, my readership, will benefit from this blog because of the woman who not only gave me life, but influenced who I've become. In many ways, this blog is as much my mother's voice as it is my own.

Teressa A. Richardson was born Teressa A. Alston to parents Anthony and Annette Alston on June 28, 1956, the oldest of what would soon be a son and two daughters. Mom graduated Valedictorian in her 1974 high school class and enrolled as a student at Duke University in the fall of 1974. She went on to graduate from Duke University in 1978 with a dual Batchelor of Arts Degree in Accounting and Economics.

Mom soon married after college, to her best friend and high school sweetheart, James A. Richardson, on December 15, 1979. To this union, two children, a set of twins, were born: Danielle and Deidre (me) on August 21, 1984. After 12 years of marriage, mom and dad separated in 1991. They did not divorce until October 1993. Mom received full custody of her children and continued to work full-time, teach our Sunday school class, and raise us as any devoted parent would.

After working in a few jobs here and there in her 20s, mom found her place in the working world at a place formerly known as Consolidated Diesel Company, owned by Cummins, Inc., where she worked as the senior accountant for 21 years. She was dearly loved by her coworkers.

Not only did mom serve her community and her family, but also her church. She joined the family church, where her father has been a deacon for over 40 years, at an early age. She started singing in the church choir early, and went on to teach the youth Sunday school class (where my sister and I were) as well as serve as the financial secretary, a position that required upkeep of the church financial records. In addition to these positions, she went on to teach the Adult Sunday School class in her pastor’s stead. She served in these positions until her death on February 3, 2009.

In January 2006, mom was diagnosed with breast cancer. The cancer would then metastasize to her lungs (lung cancer) and then, finally, to brain cancer in February 2007. I was a student at seminary at the time. In August 2008, mom would enter into retirement from Consolidated Diesel, having put in 21 years of work. After six months of hospital visits due to bodily infections, mom would face more infections in the days to come.

In January 2009, while I resumed classes at Southeastern Seminary for the Spring semester, mom continued to decline in health. I saw her three days before she died. The weekend before the Tuesday of her death, I got to spend some time with her, just the two of us alone. Then and there I got to tell her just how proud of her I was and just how much of a role model and example she had been to me and my sister Danielle. The cancer had progressed until mom could not even open her mouth to talk.

That Sunday afternoon, upon coming home from teaching Sunday school and performing the music for worship service, I was left alone with mom to say some things before I left. The Lord told me then that my mother was leaving me. He had told me earlier that weekend when me and the family sat around and saw her sleeping all day, with the only noises coming from the respirator in the hospital bed. But Sunday was the day to seal it all: for me, mom was leaving...and I had to accept that she was parting from me. It was at this time that I laid over her and prayed for the Lord to receive her into His embrace. I knew she was saved, loved the Lord, and had served Him faithfully. And now, He would take her home to the place He had promised and prepared for her (and for all who love Him).

That following Monday evening, February 2, 2009, my sister Danielle called me around 5pm or so to tell me that the hospice nurse noted that mom was soon to die. The nurse told us that mom would not make it through the rest of the week...but that prognosis declined within five hours. The next pronouncement from the nurse was that mom would not make it through the night. She would die before nightfall.

I was at Southeastern surrounded by neighbors and a special friend, Eunice, who spent the night with me once it was certain that mom would die through the night. At 2:07am on Tuesday morning, February 3, 2009, my mother breathed her last here and embraced the arms of our Savior, as He took her home to live with Him forever.

If there’s one thing my mother taught me on this earth, it was that our lives are not about us, but the glory of God. Each day is a gift that we are given by a gracious God; but we are not promised a new day. Should God grant it, then He has been gracious to us (we did not deserve it); but if He does not, then that, we too, must also accept.

I was extremely graced by God to have such a wonderful woman to call my mother for 24 years. And because of the godly example she modeled before me, my life is forever changed. An old saying goes, “Life is not about what you get here; it’s about what you leave behind.” If that’s true, then my mother left a fortune unparalleled when she stepped foot into glory.

Lord, thank you for my mother, who blessed my life in so many ways. Thank you for how you watched over us, and blessed us through all our hardships. Thank you for the laughter, the love, the hugs, the tears, and even the misunderstandings. Thank you for allowing me to live and love and enjoy good days with mom. Thank you for all the support you graced her to give her children, even when she was hurting after such an unexpected divorce. And thank you that, even after the divorce, she found purpose and meaning again in you, as well as the ministry of parenthood to her children, and service to her church.

Mom, thanks for all the many things you taught me---how life is only worthwhile when we put God first in everything we do. Thank you for all the sacrifices you made to make life comfortable for me and Danielle. Thanks for all the little lessons you instilled into us, the stories you told us over and over again, the arguments, the laughter, the jokes, the surprises, the joys, and even the discipline. Thanks for giving your all so that we could benefit. Because of your labor before God, we have been given so much. Thanks for the prayers you sent up for us, even when we were doing crazy things and needed to be disciplined. Thanks for the times when you would be there to hug us when life disappointed us.

Mom, there are so many things I could say about you---but if I tried to name them all, many I would forget. But I want you to know that you are my hero. And this post is for you.

Essence and Function, Part II: Definition and Distinction

2010-01-06T03:10:00.004-05:00

Happy New Year to everyone! I’m back, after a month away, to begin work at “Men and Women” for the year of 2010. It is such a blessing to be returning to the work I love once more!!

Since I was in the middle of a series on “Essence and Function,” I will pick up where I left off. This post will continue our series.

I told you in the last post that, as students of the Bible, all of us who name the name of Christ should be philosophers (which means, we should be “lovers of wisdom”). The Bible tells us the importance of godly wisdom and the benefits that godly wisdom provides for the believer.

Now, on to the task at hand: the definitions and distinctions of “essence” and “function.”

First, let’s define “essence”:

1. The intrinsic or indispensable properties that serve to characterize or identify something.

2. The most important ingredient; the crucial element.

3. The inherent, unchanging nature of a thing or class of things. (http://www.thefreedictionary.com/essence)

Let’s notice some things about the above definitions of essence. First, we see that it is an “intrinsic” property that “identifies” something. It is important to see essence as an identifier because essence is the DEFINING MARK of an object or person. In addition, the essence of a thing is its “unchanging” nature. The essence stays the same. There is no change that occurs in the essence whatsoever. This is important because, if this is the case, then the essence must represent that which is “permanent” when compared with the function of something. The function, then, will be the opposite of essence; and if the essence is permanent, then the function must be temporary. It cannot be permanent because its duration (amount of time) must be distinguished from the essence (which is permanent). The opposite of “permanent” is “temporary.” Just keep these things in mind.

Next, let’s look at the definition of “function”:

1.the natural action or intended purpose of a person or thing in a specific role
2. a factor dependent upon another or other factors
(http://www.thefreedictionary.com/function)

Function relates to “purpose” or “action” of a person. According to the second definition, the function is “dependent upon another or other factors.” This means that the function is a dependent variable. As I was always taught in mathematics, a “dependent” variable is that which needs something else in order to exist; an “independent” variable, on the other hand, is something that can stand on its own.

Take for example two factors, “time” and “height.” Time is an independent factor---in other words, time can stand on its own. However, height is a dependent factor, for I can only grow if time exists. If time does not exist, then I cannot grow. Another good example would be “seed growth of plant” and “weather.” The weather is the independent variable, because if the weather does not cooperate, then the seed will not grow. But even if the seed does not grow, the weather will still exist! This is why the weather is the independent variable: because it exists despite seed growth (or the lack thereof).

According to the definition of “function” given above, then, the function is a dependent variable, not able to exist without another factor. In this case, function would not exist without essence (think about it: if something does not exist, then it cannot function!). I think that it’s pretty easy to conceive of something that does not exist as having no function or purpose. After all, no one sits around and talks about imaginary objects as part of everyday life, do they?

Now, let’s talk more about Jesus and the Father. I have made the point here at the site that essence and function are opposites. If they are, and function is dependent upon essence (essence being permanent), then the function of something or someone must be temporary. If we use this in regards to Christ, He is ETERNALLY EQUAL in His essence, but TEMPORARILY SUBORDINATE in His function.

Why is Jesus’ function “temporarily subordinate”? Because it follows the meaning of function. Function is dependent upon the essence. If Jesus had not been God, He COULD NOT have been the Savior of the world (for the only one who could save mankind was God Himself). If one wants to debate about function, ask yourself this: “Could Jesus have been just a mere man AND the Savior of the world?” I think we all know the answer to that question (of course, it’s “NO WAY!”).

Now, to test this theory out of essence and function, let’s examine the view of the complementarians regarding Jesus:

ETERNALLY EQUAL in essence [but] ETERNALLY SUBORDINATE in function

Now, according to our definitions above, function must be dependent on essence. Function cannot be permanent if essence is, because function cannot exist without essence. Since this is the case, subordinate function cannot be “eternal.” Why? because “eternal subordination” implies that subordination is a permanent factor. In other words, complementarians, when they label subordination as “eternal,” imply that function can exist without essence (which it cannot!)...

We see this in everyday life. Take a student for instance: if that student were to lose his humanness, could he still be a student? No. Where have you ever seen a monkey go to class, sit, pay attention, answer questions, and take examinations, pass them, and function as a human being? I will boldly confess that I’ve never seen that sight before! And chances are, you haven’t either---which means that humanness is essential to the function of “being a student.” However, a human doesn’t have to function as a student---he could be a recording artist, for example, and still be human! “student function” is not necessary for a person to be human---“humanness” is!

I’ll give a real-life example of essence and function. In World War II, during the Holocaust, Hitler killed over 6 million Jews. I read Elie Wiesel’s “Night” and learned that Hitler killed all the Jews who seemed to be elderly and of old age. Wiesel writes in his book that he and others would run for some time before their doctor appointments, in order to show up “red” in the face and give the appearance that they were “young-blooded.” If they looked old and tired in any sense, the doctors would sentence them to the concentration camps, where they would die. Hitler reasoned that if a Jew could no longer function in hard labor, then that Jew was no longer human (and thus, no longer worthy of human life). Hitler advocated much of Darwinian biological evolution into his practices; and Darwin himself believed that man is just a machine: take away his function and he is no longer human. This explains eugenics and death in the cases of the paralyzed, comatose, and handicapped (whether mental or physical).

But this has also become the reasoning behind abortions. Have you ever wondered why abortions are so popular over the United States? Abortions have become the “new fad” of conception because they presuppose a Darwinian view: that man is just a machine, and without function, nothing at all. So if a fetus is present within a woman, but cannot function like a person, then the fetus is no person at all (just a bunch of biological raw material)---and can be “done away with.” And why? Because function, in the minds of humans, has become EQUAL to essence. I believe, however, that the fetus is still a human being (even if the fetus cannot “do” anything). And I believe the fetus remains human because essence is over function. Regardless of the human’s function, the human is still a human (even a fetus!).

I have one more thing to say about Jesus’ subordinate function, but I’ll save it until next time.

Essence and Function, Part One: The Importance of Philosophy

2009-12-06T22:27:00.003-05:00

I’ve been thinking over the series on the Trinity that I’ve been doing here at the blog the last few days...and it has occurred to me through dialogue with others via e-mail that it is important to spend some time explaining the simple philosophy behind the Trinity and the men-women debate.

Now, some may say, “Well, this is a theological issue...let’s just stick to the Bible.” When I was younger, I believed the exact same thing----even until I was a seminary student, I believed the exact same thing. But my time at seminary (in addition to the countless pages of reading I’ve done) has convinced me, via historical theology, that debates in the church are not as much an issue of the Bible as they are of philosophy. In the debate on the Trinity, for instance, everyone will marshal their proof-texts to sway you to believe what they do; however, what happens when you arrive at an impasse? What happens when your opponent has just as many passages for his view as you do yours?

This is where philosophy comes in. During the Middle Ages, philosophy was labeled “the handmaiden of theology” (http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,871268,00.html) and, although the two fields have had their share of fights, I still believe the statement to be true: philosophy is still the handmaiden of theology. Because Scripture speaks of God as a logical God, a God of order, a God who does that which is just and right, it makes sense to study philosophy. The word “philosophy” literally translated, comes from two Greek words, “philos” (lover) and “Sophia” (wisdom). Put together, the word “philosophy” refers to “a lover of wisdom.”

Scripture testifies that wisdom is a blessing:

“Happy is the man who finds WISDOM, and the man who gains understanding; for her proceeds are better than the profits of silver, and her gain than fine gold. She is more precious than rubies, and ALL THE THINGS YOU MAY DESIRE CANNOT COMPARE WITH HER. Length of days is in her right hand, in her left hand riches and honor. Her ways are ways of pleasantness, and ALL HER PATHS ARE PEACE. SHE IS A TREE OF LIFE to those who take hold of her, and happy are all who retain her” (Proverbs 3:13-18, NKJV).

Wisdom is more profitable than “silver,” “fine gold,” and “rubies.” Wisdom is worth more than “all the things” a person could ever desire. In other words, wisdom is the most valuable possession a person could ever own. Wisdom is even worth more than all my college and seminary training combined!

One of the most important things that Solomon wants us to see about wisdom is that “she is a tree of life to those who take hold of her...” Solomon labels wisdom as “a tree of life.”

Does the “tree of life” allusion here ring a bell? It should. This reference takes us back to Genesis, where Adam and Eve sinned in the Garden by eating fruit from “the tree of knowledge of good and evil.” Someone could say, “well, they aimed for knowledge...so, why was it a bad thing?” It was wrong because they were disobeying God! The very act of disobedience itself showed that humanity’s first parents did not have a “fear of the Lord,” which is central to wisdom: “The fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom, and the knowledge of the Holy One is understanding” (Prov. 9:10, NKJV). To first have wisdom, then, we must first have a reverential fear for the Lord. God must be first in our lives, and we must long to please him with all our heart, soul, and might (which involves the mind). Once He is Lord over our lives, then and only then can we seek to love Him with everything we are and everything we have. Wisdom, then, is not just a tree of knowledge, but a tree of understanding. And wisdom gives life, prolongs days (“length of years,” Prov. 3—see above).

It is at this point that you may ask me, “Well, I realize that wisdom is important, that it’s more valuable to me than anything I hold dear. How do I get this wisdom?” James, the brother of our Lord Jesus Christ, tell us:

“If any of you lacks wisdom, LET HIM ASK OF GOD, who gives to all liberally and without reproach, and it will be given to him” (James 1:5).

I have taken some time here to show the importance of philosophy in the life of the believer. The Lord desires that we please Him with our minds; but in order to do that, we’ve got to become “lovers of wisdom.” The only way to do this is to know what wisdom is—and that starts with “the fear of the Lord.” Once a person has the Lord as the center of their entire existence, then he or she can begin to ask God for wisdom. God desires that we know Him in a most intimate way, so He will give us wisdom if we ask for it. Our desire to study philosophy should be founded upon our desire to please the Lord with our minds, our intellect that He so graciously bestowed upon humanity. Let the wicked and lazy servant be an example to us that, to throw away our minds is to disregard the goodness of our Lord...and thus, make ourselves enemies of His Grace.

I will continue with a discussion of wisdom and philosophy in future posts.

Operation Giftedness: Resolving the Presumed Contradictions

2009-11-30T11:10:00.002-05:00

It is through dialogue over the last few days that I have found the inspiration and idea to write this blog post.

I’ve been talking a lot at my other blog, the Center for Theological Studies (CTS), about contradictions and how to resolve them. In addition, I’ve also dealt with the contradiction here of “equal essence” but “subordinate function” as well when referring to Christ. The Law of Non-Contradiction states that two opposing concepts or things cannot co-exist in the same way at the same time. This means that “short and tall” cannot co-exist peacefully...unless we define “short and tall,” such as “she is shorter than her aunt but taller than her grandmother,” or “she is shorter than her aunt without heels, but taller than her aunt with heels,” etc. Either way, two opposing concepts or things must have “qualifiers,” more information in order to resolve the blatant contradiction.

And this concept of resolving contradictions is a good one to use when it comes to interpreting Scripture. I’m sure you all have run into the problem of what happens when someone says that there are two passages that “seem to be opposed” to one another. Complementarians have done this with regard to 1 Timothy 2 (see my post under the section “1 Timothy 2” titled “In The Name of 1 Timothy 2” for more information).

Here at “Men and Women,” we’ve been tackling the issue of Christ’s equality in essence and His subordination in function. What do you do when you find that, just as you emphasize the equality of Christ, someone else emphasizes the subordination of Christ? I initially tried to solve that thorny problem with the passage of Hebrews 5:8. The person I dialogued with conceded that I was right on that issue...but this still did not keep him from heaping up a dozen verses where Jesus exalts the Father above Himself.

I can’t promise you that attempts to reconcile Scripture will convince other people. In fact, I don’t think anything here at the blog is one-hundred-percent convincing to every single person! Complementarians, for instance, will most likely find none of my arguments appealing in any manner. Therefore, my goal is not to make you 100% convincing...but to give you sound argumentation and evidence so as to face someone who thinks that the egalitarian view is liberal and historically progressive with little to no backing...

Today’s topic is on “Operation Giftedness.” That’s right! I am writing another post where we are looking at two or more passages. 1 Timothy 2 will continue to be tackled here at the site because there are so many theologians and Christians alike who believe this chapter prohibits women from serving in the church. But, to counteract this passage, I will use other passages, such as 1 Peter 4 and Romans 12.

Let’s first place 1 Timothy 2 side-by-side with 1 Peter 4:

“Let a woman learn in silence with all submission. And I DO NOT PERMIT A WOMAN TO TEACH or to have authority over a man, but to be in silence. For Adam was formed first, then Eve. And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived, fell into transgression. Nevertheless she will be saved in childbearing if they continue in faith, love, and holiness, with self-control” (1 Tim. 2:11-15, NKJV).

“As each one has received a gift, MINISTER IT TO ONE ANOTHER, as GOOD STEWARDS of the manifold grace of God. If anyone speaks, let him speak as the oracles of God. If anyone ministers, let him do it as with the ability which God supplies, that in all things God may be glorified through Jesus Christ, to whom belong the glory and the dominion forever and ever. Amen” (1 Peter 4:10-11, NKJV).

Do you see the problem? In 1 Timothy 2, Paul is prohibiting women from teaching, but in 1 Peter 4, Peter himself is giving license to those with spiritual gifts to exercise them in a godly manner. How do we reconcile both of these passages? Is everyone to use their gifts—-- or only men? Which is it?

If that doesn’t disturb the atmosphere a bit, read Romans 12:

“Having then gifts differing according to the grace that is given us, LET US USE THEM: if prophecy, LET US PROPHESY in proportion to our faith; or ministry, LET US USE IT in our ministering; he who teaches, IN TEACHING; he who exhorts, in exhortation; he who gives, with liberality; he who leads, with diligence; he who shows mercy, with cheerfulness” (Romans 12:6-8, NKJV).

This is even more disturbing to the text of 1 Timothy 2 than 1 Peter 4 is. Paul says here that if we have a gift, “let us use” it. But this poses problems for 1 Timothy 2, which Paul also wrote to the church at Ephesus. How then, do we reconcile both 1 Peter 4 and 1 Timothy 2?

I think the answer can be found in not so much the use of gifts as in the MANNER of how the gifts are used. Look back at Romans 12, and this is what you’ll find:

(a) “if prophecy, let us use prophecy IN PROPORTION TO OUR FAITH” (Romans 12:6; the manner in which prophecy is used).

(b) “he who gives, WITH LIBERALITY; he who leads, WITH DILIGENCE; he who shows mercy, WITH CHEERFULNESS” (Rom. 12:8; the manner of giftedness)

Someone might say, “Well, what about verse 7? What does the “it” of verse 7 refer to? the answer can be found in verse 6: “if prophecy, let us prophecy IN PROPORTION TO OUR FAITH...” Further back in the passage lies verse 3: “For I say, through the grace given to me, to everyone who is among you, not to think of himself more highly than he ought to think, but to think soberly, as God has dealt to each one A MEASURE OF FAITH” (Rom. 12:3, NKJV).

In whatever gift we operate, let us use our gifts according to not only the grace we have been given, but our faith as well (Rom. 12:6).

What about 1 Peter 4? The answer of how to reconcile that passage with 1 Timothy 2 can also be found in the manner of how the gifts are used:

(a) “as each one has received a gift, minister it to one another, as GOOD STEWARDS of the manifold grace of God” (1 Peter 4:10, NKJV).

(b) “If anyone speaks, LET HIM SPEAK AS THE ORACLES OF GOD. If anyone ministers, let him do it AS WITH THE ABILITY WHICH GOD SUPPLIES, that in all things God may be glorified through Jesus Christ...” (1 Pet. 4:11, NKJV)

As demonstrated with the above passages of Romans 12 and 1 Peter 4, the issue seems to be “how” the gifts and abilities are being used, not the giving of the gifts or even types of gifts (although they are mentioned).

Someone could say, “Well, I’ve seen all your evidence above. But how do these two passages meet head-on with 1 Timothy 2?” The problem in the church at Ephesus in 1 Timothy 2 was the “manner” in which the church was operating:

(a) “I desire therefore that the men pray everywhere, lifting up holy hands, WITHOUT WRATH AND DOUBTING” (1 Tim. 2:8, NKJV).

(b) In like manner also, that the women adorn themselves in MODEST apparel, WITH PROPRIETY AND MODERATION, NOT WITH BRAIDED HAIR OR GOLD OR PEARLS OR COSTLY CLOTHING, but, which is proper for women professing godliness, WITH GOOD WORKS” (1 Tim. 2:9-10, NKJV).

(c) “Let a woman learn IN SILENCE WITH ALL SUBMISSION” (1 Tim. 2:11, NKJV).

(d) “Nevertheless, she will saved in childbearing if they CONTINUE IN FAITH, LOVE, AND HOLINESS, WITH SELF-CONTROL” (1 Tim. 2:15, NKJV).

Notice that the men were praying with angry hearts (wrath and doubting); the women were dressing immodestly, which is why the emphasis is placed on “modest” apparel. In addition, Paul also wrote that they should do what is “proper,” which is “good works.” This is because what the women were doing in the church was anything but “good” work.

Then, there comes verse 11. Women are to learn “in silence with all submission.” This is the best way for learning to take place, but since the women need to know what “good work” is all about, Paul states it here: the women are to pay attention and submit to what they are being taught.

The question then becomes, what about vv. 12-15? First, let me point out that the word “authentein” does not mean “to have authority.” Although the NIV has put out this definition, modern research shows the word to mean something “other” than “to have authority.” For instance, my “A New Reader’s Lexicon of the Greek New Testament,” by Michael H. Burer and Jeffrey E. Miller, states that the word means “to give orders to”...this shows that the women in Ephesus were out of order, not that Paul simply was against them having a position of authority (Michael H. Burer and Jeffrey Miller, “A New Reader’s Lexicon of the Greek New Testament.” Grand Rapids: Kregel Publications, 2008, page 398).

Burer and Miller both put out a definition that I think in some ways would work, but I don’t think fits the context. However, I’ve actually done some research on this subject (search for my posts on “Authentes” and “Authentein” in my section labeled “1 Timothy 2.” My word study will prove particularly helpful to those who desire to know more on this subject. In addition read Katherine Kroeger’s study of the word “Authentein” as well. She has some interesting insights. If you have any further desire to read on the subject, I suggest you read “Discovering Biblical Equality: Complementarity Without Hierarchy” by Pierce and Groothuis. Linda Belleville has done quite a study there and, while I disagree with her conclusion, she demonstrates (as do Burer and Miller) that the word “authentein” does not mean “to have authority.”

Next, what about verses 13 and 14? Do they appeal to some inherent “creation order”? Or is Paul just upholding the Law? My answer: the latter----Paul is defending the Old Testament Law from the heretical interpretations being tossed around in the church.

Someone may easily object and say, “Wait! How do you know this?” well, this is where context comes to the surface. Look back at 1 Timothy 1:

“As I urged you when I went into Macedonia— remain in Ephesus that you may charge SOME THAT THEY TEACH NO OTHER DOCTRINE” (1 Tim. 1:3, NKJV).

The problem in the church involved the teaching of “other doctrine.” This is Timothy’s whole reason for staying in Ephesus and not going to Macedonia with Paul. They were also paying attention to “fables and endless genealogies, which cause disputes rather than godly edification...” (1 Tim. 1:4)

In verse 7, we discover that there are those “desiring to be teachers of the law, understanding neither what they say nor the things which they affirm...” these believers want to teach the truth, but they confirm by their very words that they don’t know it themselves.

But verse 8 ties this passage with that of 1 Peter 4 and Romans 12:

“But we know that THE LAW IS GOOD, IF ONE USES IT LAWFULLY...” (1 Tim. 1:8)

So the law is good “if one uses it lawfully.” What Paul was saying to Timothy here is that the law is good when it is used in a GODLY MANNER. Teaching, then, like the other gifts mentioned in 1 Peter 4 and Romans 12, is a good thing when it is done in a godly manner, in a way pleasing to the Lord. When it is abused, however, it then becomes a tool for evil and wickedness, and must be suppressed. This is the reason for why the women of 1 Timothy 2 are being told they cannot teach. Unlike the complementarian view, women are not told they can’t teach because of a creation order, but because they do not understand what they are saying (1 Tim. 1:7) about the law. Paul has to defend that “For Adam was formed first, then Eve. And Adam WAS NOT DECEIVED, but the woman being deceived, fell into transgression” (1 Tim. 2:13-14). Paul is only defending the events as Genesis records them--- not prohibiting women to serve because of some “creation order” in Genesis that automatically disqualified them from serving.

I will continue to use 1 Timothy 2 in relation to other passages to show the folly of those who base their view of women in leadership on one passage. Proper hermeneutics demonstrates that, when context is examined, reality is not what it seems to be at first glance...

The Hermeneutic of Hope

2009-11-27T09:57:00.006-05:00

“As a growing body of theologians is demonstrating these days, there is no such dogma. Reformed theology at least attempts to interpret the whole counsel of God in view of the principle that SCRIPTURE INTERPRETS SCRIPTURE. In other words, that which is clearest and is treated with the greatest significance in Scripture interprets those passages that are more difficult and less central to the Biblical message. At least THE GOAL is to say what Scripture says and to emphasize what Scripture emphasizes” (Michael Horton, “God of Promise: Introducing Covenant Theology.” Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 2006, page 12).

I’ve been investing quite a bit of time in the last six months to issues on my other blog, called “Center for Theological Studies.” In so doing, I’ve been reading on the debate between Calvinists and Arminians (for those who wanna see the research, click on the link at the top of this page, on the right). To be brief, covenantal theology attempts to unify all of Scripture around a common theme, which covenantal theologians believe to be covenants. Now most people believe that Christ serves as the unifying theme of the Scriptures, but there are other related themes like the covenant. For instance, if you read Paul’s words in Galatians 3, you will understand that the Spirit desired that salvation would come to not only the Jew, but also the Gentile, through Abraham (“in you ALL THE NATIONS OF THE EARTH will be blessed,” Genesis 12:3). When God told Abraham that “all the nations” would be blessed, He was referring not only to Jew, but Jew and Gentile. Christ serves as the fulfillment of other covenants as well, but there is no time to discuss this further here.

In any case, Horton’s quote above from his book intrigued me about two days ago while sitting in a salon waiting for my sister to get some kind of nail treatment (I am so inept in these things..) The principle of “Scripture interprets Scripture” is one to which the Reformers held to (Luther, Calvin, and others), and one which we should hold to as well. If God has revealed Himself in His Word (which He has), and if He desires to make His ways known to us (which He does), then surely, something in the Bible can help us understand that which we do not!

It is my belief, however, that we apply this little hermeneutical principle to everything else EXCEPT the issue of women in ministry. Have you ever heard contradictions on this subject? Someone will say, “a text means what it means in its context”; and then, he or she will turn around and say, “but the text of 1 Timothy 2 regarding a woman says what it means” WITHOUT REGARD FOR CONTEXT! I’ve heard this before and wondered whether or not the person understood that he or she contradicted himself/herself in two sentences, one right after the other!!

1 Timothy 2 is a hard text to interpret. In all the numerous reading I’ve done on the subject, every writer struggles with how to interpret this passage, and thus, how to apply the passage in the contemporary church. But we are not alone! 1 Timothy 2 is only one passage of a host of passages located in the 66 books of the biblical canon. Using what we know from those other passages, we can interpret 1 Timothy 2.
I could point out the biblical examples of Deborah (prophetess), Miriam (prophetess), Huldah (prophetess), Euodia and Syntyche (fellow laborers with Paul, Philippians 4), and Junia the apostle (Romans 16). While all these examples are valid ones, I will not approach an example of a person in this post, but a Scriptural passage instead. Which one will I choose?

I will choose a passage that I think gets to the heart of women in ministry and leadership in the church—1 Corinthians 12.

In verse 7, Paul writes, “But the manifestation of the Spirit is given to each one for the profit of all...” Everyone receives a gift from the Spirit. The gift itself is the manifestation of the Spirit—it is the way that the Spirit testifies to a person being a child of God. It is the Spirit’s presence made known not just to the person, but to everyone in the body of Christ around them. Verses 8-10 lists the various gifts that the Spirit gives to His church. Verse 11 gets to the heart of this post:

“But one and the same Spirit works all these things, distributing to each one individually AS HE WILLS” (1 Cor. 12:11, NKJV).

I think this is where the rubber meets the road. In most discussions on women in ministry, there is always an appeal to 1 Timothy 3, which states that the pastor (or bishop) should be “the husband of one wife.” This phrase has been taken to say that only men can be preachers, pastors, elders, and so forth. And I’ve even read material on this subject where theologians will interpret 1 Timothy 2 in light of 1 Timothy 3 (which comes after the text in question)—and yet, they do not seem to mind leaving off the material BEFORE 1 Timothy 2 (which is 1 Timothy 1), where we read that the problem in the church at Ephesus involved “myths and endless genealogies” and that Paul told Timothy to stay at this church specifically to put down the false teaching in the church. It seems that even the context is “proof-texted” these days...

Back to 1 Corinthians 12. Notice that the Spirit gives gifts “as He wills.” This is a guiding principle for the church today. The Spirit is the one who decides who gets what gift. But we have forgotten this today. In today’s church, when we set aside who gets to operate in what office in the church, we don’t set aside believers ON THE BASIS of gifts, but on the basis of gender! If the church decides to set aside preachers in the church, those who have an ability to proclaim the word of God, the next thought in the minds of the church is “we have to find men.” Even if there is a woman who is faithfully teaching a Sunday school class, and knows the Word of God, we turn our backs and focus on selecting men to aid the Pastor. No matter how many degrees the woman may have, her level of education and seminary training, we will look for men to aid the Pastor. It seems that, in our minds, “maleness” is the first gift to the church, and all the leadership gifts hinge upon “maleness.” But where is that in Scripture? “maleness” or “femaleness” are not gifts given by the Spirit to the church in 1 Corinthians 12—yet, we act as though they are. Why is this so?

In response to my question just asked, someone would say, “Well, men are to lead in the home.” That is true, and as a conservative evangelical, I will agree with that statement. But my next question would be, “How does leadership in the home GUARANTEE leadership in the church? And how does submission in the home GUARANTEE submission in the church?” And to this, I would wait in vain for an answer. General revelation shows us via everyday experience that every man in every family does not go on to work in a leadership position in the church. But when it gets to women, we ASSUME that every woman is to have a submissive role in the church. But where is that in Scripture? Even Paul allowed women to serve as deacons in the church in 1 Timothy 3. If you’ll notice, the only leadership called in Acts 6 were “seven men.” Paul, however, breaking with tradition, made room for women to serve. There’s a lot I could say about that, but I won’t address it here. The point being here, nonetheless, that there is no one passage of Scripture that ties leadership/submission in the home with leadership/submission in the church. And yet, we claim to be “biblical”...

The church today operates with an asymmetrical standard: when it comes to “men,” men are allowed to work anywhere in the church that God has gifted them to serve; and when they come into our churches, they are welcomed and embraced. But when it comes to women, our gender ELIMINATES many of the positions of church giftedness before the Spirit even manifests in us where He desires us to serve. Once our gifts are narrowed down to “five,” for instance, NOW, THE SPIRT CAN GIFT US TO SERVE IN ONE OF THOSE! Isn’t it funny how we hamper down the Spirit, who, by the way, is GOD? What is it gonna take for us to understand that, by tearing women and their giftedness down, we are SLAPPING GOD IN THE FACE? How much more clearly can this be illustrated?

I’ve written all this to say that Horton is right: we need to return to the principle that “Scripture interprets Scripture.” When it comes to this debate, we need to remember that, no matter what you or I think, God’s Word is what decides the standard, no matter how right or wrong it “feels” to me. And if it challenges tradition, so what? Jesus challenged tradition. And if I will challenge tradition, and by so doing, become more like Christ, then I’ll do it...I’ll continue to uphold the hermeneutic of hope.

The Trinitarian Order: First, Second, Third?

2009-11-22T12:19:00.001-05:00

“The common order in which Christians usually express the names of the members of the Trinity is Father, Son, and Spirit, and this is supported by the order in the baptismal formula in Matthew 28. However, Warfield points out that THIS ORDER IS BY NO MEANS INVARIABLE IN THE NEW TESTAMENT...” (Millard Erickson, “Who’s Tampering With the Trinity? An Assessment of the Subordination Debate.” Grand Rapids: Kregel Publications, 2009, page 56).

In today’s post, I am covering the idea of “taxis,” or order within the Trinity. I have finished covering the Gradational-Authority View (which states that the Son and Spirit are subordinate to the Father in function). Now, I will begin the study of the “Equivalent-Authority View,” beginning with B.B. Warfield. In his above statement, he recognizes the baptismal formula in Matthew 28, which states the following:

“Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the FATHER and of the SON and of the HOLY SPIRIT” (Matthew 28:19, NKJV).

Nevertheless, B.B. Warfield makes the case that, if the Father were really superior (and the Son and Spirit subordinate), then we would see this order consistently repeated throughout the New Testament. However, this is not what we see:

“In the benediction in 2 Corinthians 13:14, the order is ‘Lord, God, and Holy Spirit.’ In 1 Peter 1:2, the order is ‘Father, Spirit, and Jesus Christ.’ In Jude 20-21, it is ‘Holy Spirit, God, and Lord Jesus Christ.’ Sometimes, as in 1 Corinthians 12:3-6, the order is ACTUALLY REVERSED COMPLETELY, which may be a rhetorical device. Again, Warfield’s statement is cautious: ‘If in their conviction THE VERY ESSENCE of the doctrine of the Trinity was embodied in this order, should we not anticipate that there should appear in their numerous allusions to the Trinity some suggestion of this conviction?’” (56-57)

I think that the interchangeable order of the Trinitarian members shows us their equality—that one is no more God than the others, that no one member is “less God” than the others. But I think this equality also demolishes the idea of the Son and the Spirit as “subordinate.” After all, Paul tells us that after meeting Christ on the Damascus Road, he went to Arabia (Galatians 1:17) where he was taught by the Lord concerning the law and the Scriptures. It seems that, if he was taught by the Lord in all matters (which he states he was), then, if there was an important “one order” to the members of the Trinity, that the Lord would have revealed that also to Paul? The fact that we see Paul using the members interchangeably without being labeled a heretic testifies to the fact that using them interchangeably does not “humiliate” God Himself.

Warfield does acknowledge that Christ is sent by the Father, and that He takes on a role of submission to His Father. However, his reason for why this occurs differs greatly from that of the gradationists:

“It may be natural to assume...that the reason why it is the Father that sends the Son and the Son that sends the Spirit is that the Son is subordinate to the Father and the Spirit to the Son. But we are bound to bear in mind that these references to subordination in modes of operation (functions) MAY JUST AS WELL BE DUE TO A CONVENTION, AN AGREEMENT, BETWEEN THE PERSONS OF THE TRINITY—a ‘Covenant’ as it is technically called—by virtue of which a distinct function in the work of redemption is VOLUNTARILY ASSUMED by each” (57).

I know what you, my readers, are thinking at this point: here goes an “invented” scheme as a way to deal with the submission of the Son to the Spirit (and the Spirit to the Father and Son). However, there is biblical warrant for Warfield’s assertion:

“LET US make man in Our image, according to Our likeness...” (Genesis 1:26, NKJV)

“Come, LET US go down and there confuse their language...” (Gen. 11:7)

These are two instances in Genesis, but I think it shows us the collaboration of all the Trinitarian members in regards to creation of man (Genesis 1) and the confusing of the language of mankind (Genesis 11). It shows that all of the members had one mind and were in unanimous agreement regarding divine action. This is what we know biblically. While we do not know if there was a Trinitarian agreement regarding Christ’s role as Savior and His Crucifixion, we do know that the Trinity members agreed on everything. If this is so, then we can make the connection between the creation of man (and the world) to the roles of the Father, Son, and Spirit before the foundations of the world.

We’ve seen in this post that, while the baptismal formula of Matthew 28 shows order, we see that the order was interchangeable throughout the New Testament. In addition, we’ve also seen that the distinguished roles are very likely to be the result of a pre-creation covenant amongst the Trinitarian members. While we can’t be one-hundred percent sure of a covenant, details within Scripture itself give us hope. The gradationists, on the other hand, don’t have a shred of evidence to prove that the Spirit and the Son were subordinate before the foundations of the world...and this hole in their argument is what tears the gradationist view apart.

An Important Theological Question...

2009-11-17T00:54:00.001-05:00

“He [Bruce Ware] believes that the egalitarians have a problem here in terms of their inability to answer an important theological question: ‘It appears that contemporary egalitarianism is vulnerable also to this criticism. Since NOTHING IN GOD grounds the Son being the Son of the Father, and since every aspect of the Son’s earthly submission to the Father is DIVORCED ALTOGETHER FROM ANY ETERNAL RELATION that exists between the Father and Son, there simply is no reason why the Father should send the Son’” (Bruce Ware, quoted by Millard Erickson, in “Who’s Tampering With the Trinity? An Assessment of the Subordination Debate.” Grand Rapids: Kregel Publications, 2009, page 42).

In “The Trinity: Good News For Women” series, I have covered quite a bit so far. We have seen Bruce Ware’s arguments, among others, for the eternal subordination for women. Here in this post, Bruce Ware poses a question: if there is no eternal submission in the Trinity of the Son and the Spirit, and if there is no hierarchy within the Trinity itself, then why does the Father send the Son?

This question makes it seem as if hierarchy and submission are the ONLY reasons why Jesus would be sent. But to emphasize these two factors downplays what Scripture has to say about why Jesus came. In truth, Jesus came to die for the sins of the world (both Jews and Gentiles). For proof, we have the following verses:

“And she will bring forth a Son, and you shall call His name JESUS, FOR HE WILL SAVE HIS PEOPLE FROM THEIR SINS” (Matthew 1:21, NKJV).

“And behold, you will conceive in your womb and bring forth a Son, and shall call His name JESUS. He will be great, and will be called the Son of the Highest; and the Lord God WILL GIVE HIM THE THRONE OF HIS FATHER DAVID. AND HE WILL REIGN OVER THE HOUSE OF JACOB FOREVER, AND OF HIS KINGDOM THERE WILL BE NO END” (Luke 1:31-33, NKJV).

“The next day John saw Jesus coming toward him, and said, ‘BEHOLD! THE LAMB OF GOD WHO TAKES AWAY THE SIN OF THE WORLD!’” (John 1:29, NKJV)

As is demonstrated with the verses above, Jesus’ mission was not to show “who the boss is,” or to show Jesus taking orders from the Father. The purpose of Jesus’ mission was to give His life for the sins of the world. Jesus tells us this Himself in John 6:

“I am the bread of life. Your fathers ate the manna in the wilderness, and are dead. This is the bread which comes down from heaven, that one may eat of it and not die. I am the living bread which came down from heaven. If anyone eats of this bread, he will live forever; AND THE BREAD THAT I SHALL GIVE IS MY FLESH, WHICH I SHALL GIVE FOR THE LIFE OF THE WORLD” (John 6:48-51, NKJV).

His mission was to be Savior, which is why He was given the name “Jesus.” The name “Jesus” means “Savior.”

So, contrary to Ware’s belief, the Incarnation was not done to show submission or the authority of the Father, but rather the love of God for the world (John 3:16-17). In the same way that Abraham sacrificed his son and received him back as a foreshadowing (Hebrews 11:17-19), so the Father sacrificed His Son out of love for the world.

As I’ve shown in this post, Ware’s emphasis on submission and authority demonstrates his own perception of the Father sending Jesus. However, it isn’t supported by the biblical text. And Paul’s concern for the church as a congregation was that they mutually submit to one another, seeing the Father and Christ as the example of submission (Christ) and exaltation by the Father (Philippians 2:5-11).

"Houston, We've Got a Problem": The Thorn of Temporary Submission

2009-11-14T00:33:00.003-05:00

“Ware spends considerable time on the topic of taxis, or ordering, within the Trinity. Because of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are distinct persons and this distinction is not in terms of any difference in essence or attributes, it must be found in this ordering. Ware describes it: ‘The order is not random or arbitrary; it is not the Spirit first, the Son second, and the Father third, nor is it any way other than the one way that the early church, reflecting Scripture itself (Matt. 28:19), insisted on: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.’ So the Son obeyed the Father in all things, not only during his earthly ministry, but also in eternity past, just as he will do so in eternity to come. Similarly, Ware traces the role of the Holy Spirit, who submits himself to both the Father and the Son. He acknowledges that the Spirit directed the Son at certain points in the Son’s life and ministry, but HE REGARDS THAT APPARENT SUBMISSION OF THE SON TO THE SPIRIT AS BEING RESTRICTED TO THE SON’S EARTHLY MINISTRY” (Millard Erickson, “Who’s Tampering With the Trinity? An Assessment of the Subordination Debate.” Grand Rapids: Kregel Publications, 2009, pages 38-39).

I’m back to continue my discussion of Millard Erickson’s work. For those who haven’t bought this book, you need to buy it. It will prove to be one of the best books regarding the subordination debate that you could ever own. I also think that Erickson was fair to both sides of the debate, while still being honest with his readers and stating his advocacy of the equivalent-authority position.

We’ve seen here at the site just how adamant Bruce Ware is about the ETERNAL SUBORDINATION AND SUBMISSION of the Son to the Father. And we’ve also noted that Bruce Ware believes that the Spirit is eternally subordinate to both the Father and the Son. However, in the quote above, Ware finds himself entrapped: in discussion of the Son’s subordination to the Spirit, he now states that the submission of the Son to the Spirit is “restricted to the Son’s earthly ministry.”

Funny, but we don’t read anything of this sort in Scripture! We read nothing of the Son submitting Himself to the Spirit, but we see this in the Incarnation (as Jesus is conceived in Mary’s womb by the Holy Spirit), as well as the Spirit’s leading Jesus into the wilderness (Luke 4, among others), and Jesus’ miracles with the Spirit’s power. Even though this submission is not explicitly mentioned in Scripture, Ware seems to “assume” that this submission is temporary.

But if the submission of the Son to the Spirit is temporary, why not then the submission of the Son to the Father? In the thought of Bruce Ware, the Son has to eternally submit because He is subordinate, BELOW, the Father. However, Ware’s need to keep the Father as always “superior” to the other members of the Trinity sounds like part of an underhanded agenda to me.

Apart from Bruce Ware’s material on the Trinity, I do read other material of Ware’s. And last night, I found myself finishing Ware’s discussion of the Doctrine of Divine Immutability (which basically teaches that God changes nothing about Himself, except in relationship with His creation). This doctrine teaches us that emotions like God’s anger really existed—that God was angry with us while we were enemies of His. When we were sinners, we were “sinners in the hands of an angry God,” to use a Jonathan Edwards sermon title. Once we accepted Christ, however, we became “friends” of God...which means that now, God’s anger is no longer kindled toward us. Instead, God’s anger has now been appeased in His Son, Jesus Christ. This is why Romans 3 and 1 John 4 refer to Christ as “the propitiation for our sins.” The word “propitiate” means “to please, to appease,” and Christ’s sacrificial death was the “appeasement” of God’s wrath. This is why when Jesus is born in the Gospel of Luke, for instance, the angels proclaim, “Peace on earth, goodwill toward men.” Peace came in the form of Christ, who is our “prince of peace” (Isaiah 9).

Now, back to Bruce Ware. I was reading on the above doctrine, and I noted a statement Bruce Ware made that I think works perfectly for this discussion on the Trinity:

“What is it like to be in relationship with one who is infinitely wise, powerful, holy, truthful, and good? Perhaps from God’s side of the picture, this relationship is summed up with the words, ‘he knows our frame; he remembers that we are dust’ (Ps. 103:14). The disparity between us and God is impossible really to imagine. Analogies fail, because the disparity here is between what is infinite and what is finite and, at present, fallen. WHY SHOULD WE THINK THAT THIS RELATIONSHIP WOULD BE LIKE ANY OF OUR OTHER RELATIONSHIPS?” (Bruce Ware, “God’s Greater Glory: The Exalted God of Scripture and The Christian Faith.” Wheaton: Crossway Books, 2004, page 156).

Notice the statement I capitalized above in Ware’s quote? I think it is fitting. Ware says that our relationship with God is unlike any other relationship that we have. And I would say that he’s right—it is “the infinite” interacting with the “finite,” and “the finite” (us) interacting with “the infinite” (which is God).
However, if our HUMAN relationships are BELOW our relationship with God, then how do we characterize the intratrinitarian relationship of the Trinity? Since all the members of the Trinity are “fully and equally God” in their own right, and yet, are in relationship with one another, where does this fit on our scale of relationships?

Ware tells us here that the Trinity has a hierarchy within itself, QUITE LIKE HUMAN RELATIONSHIPS:

“An authority-submission structure marks THE VERY NATURE of the eternal Being of the one who is three. In this authority-submission structure, the three Persons understand the rightful place each has. THE FATHER POSSESSES THE PLACE OF SUPREME AUTHORITY, and the Son is the eternal Son of the eternal Father. As such, THE SON SUBMITS TO THE FATHER...and the Spirit submits to both the Father and the Son. THIS HIERARCHICAL STRUCTURE OF AUTHORITY exists in the eternal Godhead even though it is also eternally true that each Person is fully equal to each other in their commonly possessed essence” (Bruce Ware, “Father, Son, & Holy Spirit: Relationship, Relevance, and Roles.” Wheaton: Crossway Books, 2005, page 21).

But this contradicts what he said above; if the God-human relationship is ABOVE human relationships, and the intratrinitarian relationship consists of the three persons as God, then doesn’t that place the intratrinitarian relationship ABOVE the God-human relationship? And if analogies fail with the God-human relationship (Ware states this above), then how much more do they fail when it comes to the members of the Trinity!!

We see the difference in the God-human relationship from human relationships in the book of Hebrews:

“Furthermore, we have had human fathers who corrected us, and we paid them respect. Shall we not much more readily be in subjection to the Father of spirits and live? For they indeed for a few days chastened us as seemed best to them, but He FOR OUR PROFIT, that we may be partakers of His holiness” (Hebrews 12:9-10, NKJV).

The God-human relationship is above all human relationships! On this, we would all agree...

Next, the Trinitarian relationship.

“But when He again brings the firstborn into the world, He says:
‘Let all the angels of God worship Him.’
But to the Son He says:
‘Your throne, O God, is forever and ever; A scepter of righteousness is the scepter of Your kingdom.’
And:
‘You, LORD, in the beginning LAID THE FOUNDATION OF THE EARTH, and the heavens are the work of Your hands” (Hebrews 1:6,8,10).

The Trinitarian relationship is such that each member of the Trinity recognizes the other members as “fully God” and equal to Himself.

If this is true, then what about Jesus’ submission?

“though He was a Son, YET HE LEARNED OBEDIENCE by the things which He suffered” (Heb. 5:8, NKJV).

If we listen to Bruce Ware, the Son had already “learned obedience” in heaven; however, this contradicts the biblical record. If Christ was already “subordinate” in heaven, then why would He need to learn obedience on earth? It is at this point that we should part ways with our good friend, Bruce Ware.

And, because of the Son’s temporary submission to the Father, we can conclude that the Son temporarily submits to the Spirit. But, if this be the case, then there is a mutual submission amongst all the members of the Trinity: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.

In the case of the Spirit, this can be seen with the fact that the Son foretells of
the Spirit:

“And when He has come, He will convict the world of sin, and of righteousness, and of judgment...when He, the Spirit of truth, has come, He will guide you into all truth; for He will not speak on His own authority, but whatever He hears He will speak; and He will tell you things to come” (John 16:8, 13 NKJV).

However, we find that the Spirit also foretold of Christ’s coming:

“Of this salvation the prophets have inquired and searched carefully, who prophesied of the grace that would come to you, searching what, or what manner of time, the SPIRIT OF CHRIST WHO WAS IN THEM was indicating when He testified beforehand the sufferings of Christ and the glories that would follow” (1 Peter 1:10-11, NKJV).

The Spirit of God that was within the prophets foretold that Christ would suffer and die for the sins of the world.

Now, let’s look at this interaction. The Spirit announces Christ’s coming through the prophets; but in John, the Son also announces the Spirit’s coming and His mission in the world. In both cases, we have the Son and the Spirit recognizing and introducing one another. This is the case of a relationship among equals, not one wielding power over the other.

Our friend Bruce Ware is at a disadvantage: he wants to affirm the “temporary” subordination of Christ to the Spirit, while affirming Christ’s “eternal” subordination to the Father. What we find in the Trinity instead is a mutual relationship among equals. Jesus tells us this when He requests of the Father to “glorify Me together with Yourself, with the glory which I had with You before the world was” (John 17:5), stating that He had glorified the Father on earth (John 17:4). This, then, is mutual submission.

Sounds like Ware’s playing theological mind games with the evidence; however, to affirm the Son as “temporarily” subordinate on one hand and “eternally” subordinate on the other shows more of the mind of Bruce Ware than it does the testimony of the biblical evidence.

Father Alone?

2009-11-09T01:52:00.003-05:00

“Ware makes much of the differing roles of the three persons. With respect to creation, for example, he says of the Father, ‘He is the Grand Architect and Wise Designer of everything in the created order. More generally, ‘From initial creation through ultimate consummation and everything that happens in between, it is God the Father who is the Architect, the Designer, the one who stands behind all that occurs as the one who plans and implements what he has chosen to do. Thus, the Father is PREEMINENT in foreordination, creation, providence, and many associated doctrines. He is also the giver of every gift. Yet, ‘though the Father is supreme, he often provides and works through his Son and Spirit to accomplish his work and fulfill his will” (Millard Erickson quoting Bruce Ware, in “Who’s Tampering With the Trinity? An Assessment of the Subordination Debate.” Grand Rapids: Kregel Publications, 2009, pages 37-38).

In Bruce Ware’s book, called “Father, Son, & Holy Spirit: Relationship, Roles, and Relevance,” Ware goes to great lengths to show why the Father is superior to both Jesus and the Spirit in the Trinitarian relationship. In the quote above, he states, “He [Father] is the Grand Architect and Wise Designer of everything in the created order.”

However, Scripture tells us that without Jesus, the world would not have been created: “All things were made through Him, and WITHOUT HIM NOTHING WAS MADE THAT WAS MADE” (John 1:3, NKJV). Christ was just as essential to the creation of the world as God the Father was.

Next, Ware states, “Thus, the Father is preeminent in foreordination, creation, providence, and many associated doctrines.”

But Ware’s comment here is a problem as well. Notice what the Scriptures say about Jesus:

“And He [the Son, Col. 1:13] is the head of the body, the church, who is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead, THAT IN ALL THINGS HE MAY HAVE THE PREEMINENCE” (Colossians 1:18, NKJV).

It seems then that the Son was to have “preeminence” along with the Father. After all, this is the same Jesus who prayed to the Father,

“And now, O Father, GLORIFY ME TOGETHER WITH YOURSELF, with the glory WHICH I HAD WITH YOU BEFORE THE WORLD WAS” (John 17:5; 1:1, 14, 18; Phil. 2:6).

Since in his eyes the Father is the “head” of the Trinity, the Son and the Spirit are “sent” by the Father:

Yet, ‘though the Father is supreme, he often provides and works through his Son and Spirit to accomplish his work and fulfill his will.”

However, what are we to do with the Spirit’s “willing”?

“There are diversities of gifts, but the same Spirit...but one and the same Spirit WORKSS IN ALL THESE THINGS, distributing to each one individually AS HE WILLS” (1 Corinthians 12:4, 11).

But if 1 Corinthians 12 is correct, then Bruce Ware can’t be—for here, the Spirit Himself is “willing” who will receive certain gifts from Himself. If Bruce Ware is correct, then the Father “wills” for the Spirit to give gifts, but now, the Spirit is “willing” gifts to whomever He pleases! If we listen to Bruce Ware, the Father and the Spirit are IN OPEN CONFLICT RIGHT HERE IN SCRIPTURE!!

You see the problems with the idea of a “Trinitarian conflict” or “Trinitarian disagreement,” right? I do. How then, can we reconcile the “willing” of the Father and the “willing” of the Spirit? We can reconcile this by remembering that, since all three members of the Trinity are God, they do not will apart from one another; rather, they all have ONE WILL and do things IN ONE ACCORD! Scripture tells us this also:

“Likewise the Spirit also helps in our weaknesses. For we do not know what we should pray for as we ought, but the Spirit Himself makes intercession for us with groaning which cannot be uttered. Now He who searches the hearts know what the mind of the Spirit is, because He [Spirit] makes intercession for the saints ACCORDING TO THE WILL OF GOD” (Romans 8:26-27, NKJV).

The Spirit intercedes according to God’s will, which means that the Spirit does the uniform will of the Trinity. The Trinity has one will, not three (which would argue that each member of the Trinity has a SEPARATE will).

Jesus Himself spoke of the agreement of the Trinity:

“However, when He, the Spirit of truth, has come, He will guide you into all truth; for He will not speak on His own authority, but whatever He hears He will speak; and He will tell you things to come.
He will glorify Me, for He will take of what is Mine and declare it to you. All things that the Father has are Mine. Therefore I said that He will take of Mine and declare it to you” (John 16:13-15, NKJV).

When Jesus said that “all things that the Father has are Mine.” The Father gave all things to Jesus. Jesus then, gave “all things” to the Spirit.
Notice then, that what the Father has He “shares” with the Son; and the Son shares with Spirit.

Clearly then, there is an intimate bond between the Father, Son, and Spirit. There is no one member of the Trinity “yielding power or authority” over the other members.
Is the Father “alone” in His work? No, He isn’t. The problem is even worse for Bruce Ware when you consider that the Trinity was in UNANIMOUS AGREEMENT among the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit when God created man (Genesis 1:26-28)...

The Nature of the Trinity

2009-11-07T22:29:00.002-05:00

“An authority-submission structure MARKS THE VERY NATURE of the eternal Being of the one who is three. In this authority-submission structure, the three Persons understand the rightful place each has. The Father possesses the place of supreme authority, and the Son is the eternal Son of the eternal Father. As such, the Son submits to the Father just as the Father, as eternal Father of the eternal Son, exercises authority over the Son. And the Spirit submits to both the Father and the Son. This hierarchical structure of authority exists in the eternal Godhead even though it is also eternally true that each Person is fully equal to each other in their commonly possessed essence. The implications are both manifold and wondrous as we ponder this authority-submission structure which not only is accepted but is honored, cherished, and upheld within the Godhead” (Bruce Ware, “Beholding the Wonder of Our Triune God: Importance of This Doctrine,” from “Father, Son, & Holy Spirit: Relationships, Roles, & Relevance.” Wheaton: Crossway Books, 2005, page 21).

The “Trinity” series will continue with a quote from Bruce Ware’s book (as given above). I capitalized a phrase at the beginning, “marks the very nature.” The reason why I did this is because it contradicts the subordinationist stance. Notice that Ware is quick to say, “each Person is fully equal to each other in their commonly possessed essence.” However, what does Ware mean by a “commonly-possessed essence”? Isn’t there ONLY ONE essence that the members of the Trinity share? One easily discovers that Ware’s language demonstrates that there is a “common essence,” but also an “uncommon essence.”

Millard Erickson, author of “Who’s Tampering With the Trinity? An Assessment of the Subordinate Debate,” shows us the “uncommon essence”:

“It is important to notice that this differentiation in which the Father is eternally supreme and the Son and the Spirit eternally submit to the Father is described as a structure that ‘marks the very nature’ of God. IT IS THEREFORE INTRINSIC TO THAT DIVINE NATURE. Things could not have been otherwise. This means that each of the three persons has roles that are unique
to him and that THESE ROLES ARE ETERNAL” (Millard Erickson, “Who’s Tampering With the Trinity? An Assessment of the Subordination Debate.” Grand Rapids: Kregel Publications, 2009, page 37).

If something is intrinsic to one’s nature, then it must be “of the essence,” essential to the Person of the Trinity. In this case, if subordination is part of the very nature of the Trinity, then we end up with a “less-Deity” Jesus and “less-Deity” Holy Spirit.

Since the subordinationists like to use human analogies to make their case regarding the Trinity, let’s oblige them for a moment. At the current moment, I’m a student. My function in this society is a student (although I pay bills). But is being a student INTRINSIC to my nature? Was it NECESSARY for me to be a student to be human? NO, ABSOLUTELY NOT! I could have decided to be an astronaut or a basketball player. I could have become a full-time member of an international music group. I could have become the owner of a restaurant chain, etc. My function in society is not “essential” to my existence (although I don’t think I would enjoy life half as much if I had done anything else except go to school!!).

Now, as a student, I’m not “eternally subordinate” to my professors. Although my professors are my academic and ecclesiastical superiors, one day I will graduate with my PhD and they will have to stand and acknowledge my achievement as I walk across the stage to receive my degree. One day, I will be their academic equals (and theological equals as well). Everyone knows that their students do not always stay “subordinate” to them. Their students may even surpass them in their educational pursuits...if this is true, then it is also true that the function of Christ as “eternally subordinate” goes against that idea. Christ as Savior offered Himself for mankind “once for all” (Hebrews 10:10). How could He do this “once” but be “eternally subordinate”? if the function, coming to die for mankind, occurred “one time” for all of history, then why would Christ be PERMANENTLY held in this position?

The Scriptures testify to the difference between “temporary” and “eternal”:

“For the law, having a shadow of the good things to come, and not the very image of the things, can never with these same sacrifices, which they OFFER CONTINUALLY YEAR BY YEAR, make those who approach perfect. For then WOULD THEY NOT HAVE CEASED TO BE OFFERED? For the worshipers, once purified, would have had no more consciousness of sins. But in those sacrifices THERE IS A REMINDER OF SINS EVERY YEAR. For it is not possible that the blood of bulls and goats could take away sins” (Hebrews 10:1-4, NKJV).

The law was a “shadow” and “not the very image” of what was to come. Because it was “impossible” for the temple sacrifices to do away with sin, there was a need for something “superior” to temple sacrifice. Notice that the sacrifices are offered “continually year by year.” The temple sacrifices are eternally subordinate in their effect.

But Christ is the ULTIMATE sacrifice:

“And every priest stands ministering daily and offering repeatedly the same sacrifices, WHICH CAN NEVER TAKE AWAY SINS. But this Man, after He had offered one sacrifice for sins forever, sat down at the right hand of God” (Heb. 10:11-12, NKJV).

The Lord Jesus gave His life for the world ONCE, and His sacrifice is still saving those who come to Him by faith. He is not “eternally subordinate,” but “eternally superior.”

If His function on earth was to “save” through His blood, and His blood has already been shed, then what need is there for Him to retain this function eternally?

The writer of Hebrews realized Christ was God, and he contrasts the Father’s treatment of the angels versus that of Christ Himself:

“But when He again brings the firstborn into the world, He says:
‘Let all the angels of God worship Him.’ And of the angels He says:
‘Who makes His angels spirits and His ministers a flame of fire.’
But to the Son He says:
‘Your throne, O God, IS FOREVER AND EVER; a scepter of righteousness is THE SCEPTER OF YOUR KINGDOM” (Heb. 1:6-8, NKJV).

Notice that in verse 8, the Father calls His Son “God,” and tells His Son that “your throne...is forever and ever.” In addition, the Father tells the Son that He rules the Kingdom: “the scepter of Your kingdom.” The Son’s rule is ETERNALLY. One who “rules” cannot be “subordinate.” Since the Son rules eternally, He cannot be ETERNALLY subordinate.

If all three members of the Trinity agreed with one undivided will to create the world, and agreed to make man in “our image, after our likeness” (Gen. 1:26-28), then what makes us think any one member is “eternally” subordinate?

I’ll continue with more of our series in my next post.

Going to the Source: The Central Meaning of 1 Corinthians 11.3

2009-11-05T14:51:00.002-05:00

I am still here in the Trinity series, talking today about 1 Corinthians 11:3 and its implications for women in ministry.

I’ve made it clear here at the site that one cannot give Christ an “eternal” functional subordination without also giving Him an eternal “ontological” subordination—a subordination in essence, which now makes Him “less God” than the Father, the Spirit being “less God” than the Son.

Today I’m back to deal with this passage and some comments from Erickson’s book.
In his chapter on “The Gradational Authority View,” Erickson quotes from the work of George Knight III regarding the role of women. In 1977, Knight published a book titled “The New Testament Teaching on the Role Relationship of Men and Women,” in which he claims to “set the record straight” about men and women and how they should relate to each other. Regarding 1 Corinthians 11:3, Knight writes,

“For the basis of man’s headship and woman’s submission, the apostle Paul appeals to the analogy of God the Father’s headship over Jesus Christ, His incarnate Son (1 Cor. 11:3);...with full authority and with absolute and permanent reasons, Paul argues for the form of this relationship between man and woman...one would have to deny Paul’s argument or his explanation and application of Genesis 2 to overturn the fact that this is the teaching of the apostles which they intended to be believed and obeyed” (George Knight III, cited by Millard Erickson, “The Gradational View”; from “Who’s Tampering With the Trinity? An Assessment of the Subordination Debate.” Grand Rapids: Kregel Publications, 2009, page 34).

Now that we know how Knight feels about women, let’s look at Scripture itself, 1 Corinthians 11—

“Now I praise you, brethren, that you remember me in all things and keep the traditions just as I delivered them to you. But I want you to know that the head of every man is Christ, the head of woman is man, and the head of Christ is God. Every man praying or prophesying, having his head covered, dishonors his head. But every woman who prays or prophesies with her head uncovered dishonors her head, for that is one and the same as if her head were shaved. For if a woman is not covered, let her also be shorn. But if it is shameful for a woman to be shorn or shaved, let her be covered. For a man ought not to cover his head, since he is the image and glory of God; but woman is the glory of man. FOR MAN IS NOT FROM WOMAN, BUT WOMAN FROM MAN. NOR WAS MAN CREATED FOR THE WOMAN, BUT THE WOMAN FOR THE MAN” (1 Corinthians 11:2-9, NKJV).

As you can see, the issue here is clearly “origin” or source, for we are told that “woman is from man” and woman was created for the man, both pieces of information supplied in verses 8 and 9. The “symbol of authority” found in verse 10 is to be worn because the origin of the woman is the man. The woman comes from the man, in the same way that Eve came from Adam’s rib in Genesis.

But look at verses 11 and 12:

“Nevertheless, neither is man independent of woman, nor woman independent of man, in the Lord. For as WOMAN CAME FROM MAN, even so MAN ALSO COMES THROUGH WOMAN; BUT ALL THINGS ARE FROM GOD” (1 Cor. 11:11-12, NKJV).

Look at Paul’s argument. It is easy to look at verses 8 and 9 and get lost in that portion of the argument without looking to Paul’s conclusion in verses 11 and 12. In these two verses, though, Paul is arguing that, whereas the EARLIER ORIGIN of mankind is the man, the MODERN ORIGIN of man is the woman, since man is born of a woman. This is why Paul writes in verse 11 that “neither is man independent of woman, nor woman independent of man, in the Lord.” The man comes from the woman just like the woman comes from the man. In Genesis, Eve needed Adam to be created; however, Adam needed Eve to bring children into the world, as all men need women to bear children today (for only women can do so).

And notice what Paul says about Christ and God?

“but all things are from God” (1 Cor. 11:12b).

As we’ve seen in verses 11 and 12, Paul trumps the argument of women wearing head coverings because they came from “man.” Paul argues instead that if men should not wear head coverings, there is also an argument that women shouldn’t either—because they are the origin of new life today that comes into the world.

If he claims that man and woman are not “independent in the Lord” (v.11), then he would be making the same statement about Christ and God—neither is independent of the other. The Father needs the Son and the Son needs the Father. According to Giles, Athanasius made the same argument:

“To put it succinctly, for Athanasius the Father and the Son are eternally correlated. The Father never stands alone or works alone. Pannenberg states that ‘Athanasius’ most important argument [was] that THE FATHER WOULD NOT BE THE FATHER WITHOUT THE SON (Contra Arian 1.29).’ The words ‘begotten’ and ‘offspring’ are for Athanasius helpful terms to use of the Father-Son relationship because they ‘signify a Son...and beholding the Son we see the Father’” (Kevin Giles, “Jesus and the Father: Modern Evangelicals Reinvent the Doctrine of the Trinity.” Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2006, page 136).

I’ll state it again: Athanasius’ greatest argument was that “the Father would not be the Father without the Son.” And I think this matches Paul’s point regarding the origin of men and women in 1 Corinthians 11. Without Adam, there would never have been an “Eve.” But today, without the “woman,” no “man” would exist. Thus, we see a dependence of the woman on the man, and a dependence of the man on the woman. In the same way, we see the mutual dependence of God and Christ on one another. And both relationships, whether divine or human, are both based on interdependence and trust. This, then, is the meaning of relationship; and until subordinationists figure out what “relationship” is, they’ll continue to get it wrong.

The Trinity: Good News For Women, Part I-A (Creative Absence, Continued)

2009-11-02T00:22:00.003-05:00

Yesterday, I posted on the opposing categories of “essence” and “function” and how both of these can’t exist as absolutes side-by-side because they are both opposite phrases of “equal in essence” and “subordinate in function.” I then took you, the reader, through the ridiculousness of the subordinationists’logic—which is demonstrated when they add the word “eternally” in front of both opposing statements (as if this actually helps the problem). Now what they’ve done is affirmed that these two OPPOSING STATEMENTS can exist AT THE SAME TIME IN THE SAME WAY throughout infinity! This is like saying that a person can be both tall and short at the same time throughout all eternity. When subordinationists accept this contradiction, however, they are going against rules of common logic.

Tonight, though, I’m back to deal with the words of Gregg Allison, who is a professor of Christian Theology at Southern Seminary. Allison was asked by Randy Stinson, who chaired the event, to explain “the discrepancy in the debate” over the church fathers and the Trinity. According to Courtney Reissig, Allison responded as such:

“Because the early church did not specifically discuss authority and submission in their teaching on the Trinity, Erickson takes this as the early church fathers not holding to authority and submission. Allison said that the church fathers saw authority and submission as so natural that they did not have to make it explicit in their writings.”

For those who wanna see the article for themselves, go to the following site:
https://www.cbmw.org/Blog/Posts/Trinity-Panel-Wrap-up-Part-1

What amazed me most about Allison’s quote is that he advocates the subordinationist position, but does so for a poor reason: “the church fathers saw authority and submission AS SO NATURAL that they did not have to make it explicit in their writings.”

He is, however, incredibly wrong on this point. There is a reference to Jesus as “subordinate” (with the word “subordinate” mentioned) in a few of the church fathers, but not all. I will cover in this post the church fathers who reference the “subordination” or “inferiority” of Jesus in relation to God the Father.

First, we have the ante-Nicene (before the Nicene Creed) father Novatian:

“He [Jesus] is therefore the Son, not the Father: for He would have confessed that He was the Father had He considered Himself to be the Father; and He declares that He was sanctified by His Father. In receiving, then, sanctification from the Father, HE IS INFERIOR TO THE FATHER” (quoted by Millard Erickson in “Who’s Tampering With the Trinity?” page 143).

Next is the church father Athanasius:

“For we acknowledge, that though HE BE SUBORDINATE TO HIS FATHER AND GOD, yet, being before ages begotten of God, He is God perfect according to nature and true, and not first man and then God, but first God and then becoming man for us, and never having been deprived of being” (“Who’s Tampering With the Trinity?” page 148).

“And no one is ignorant, that it is Catholic doctrine, that there are two Persons of Father and Son, and that the Father is greater, and the Son SUBORDINATED TO THE FATHER together with all things which the Father has subordinated to Him” (148).

Erickson writes regarding Athanasius:

“Whether he saw the full implications of his view and would have applied them to these statements is not completely clear, but the principle of the double account, if carried through thoroughly, might have resolved these APPARENTLY CONTRADICTORY STATEMENTS” (149).

As I stated in my blog post from yesterday called “Creative Absence,” one cannot hold to “equal essence” and “unequal function” at the same time without qualifying these two opposing statements. Athanasius, however, leaves them “in tandem” without qualifying the terms. Even though he mentions “subordination,” we still don’t know whether he would’ve qualified the subordination as “temporary” or “eternal.”

Hilary of Poitiers is another church father who writes about the subordination of the Son in his work, “On the Councils”:

“There is no question that THE FATHER IS GREATER. No one can doubt that THE FATHER IS GREATER THAN THE SON IN HONOR, DIGNITY, SPLENDOR, MAJESTY, AND IN THE VERY NAME OF FATHER, the Son Himself testifying, ‘He that sent Me is greater than I.’ And no one is ignorant that it is Catholic doctrine that there are two Persons of Father and Son; and that THE FATHER IS GREATER, AND THAT THE SON IS SUBORDINATED TO THE FATHER...” (Hilary of Poitiers; quoted by Millard Erickson in “Who’s Tampering,” page 151).

These three church fathers (Novatian, Athanasius, and Hilary of Poitiers) are the only three that mention “subordination” in their discussion of the Son’s relation to the Father.

Back to Allison’s quote: the church fathers did mention submission and authority, and some even labeled Jesus as “subordinated” in function. However, only three do so. And the fact that they mention “subordination” of any sort demonstrates that the church fathers felt the need to explicitly, in detail, set forth their theological convictions in writing. However, the “subordination” of Jesus is never qualified (we are just told that Christ is subordinate). So the question then becomes, if Jesus’ “functional subordination” was not qualified, then was His essence? Are there any clues about His essence and its eternality? That will be the subject of my next post...

The Trinity: Good News For Women, Part I (Creative Absence)

2009-10-31T19:05:00.003-04:00

“Stinson asked Allison to explain the discrepancy in the debate if both sides are claiming church history as their ally. Because the early church did not specifically discuss authority and submission in their teaching on the Trinity, Erickson takes this as the early church fathers not holding to authority and submission. Allison said that the church fathers saw authority and submission as SO NATURAL THAT THEY DID NOT HAVE TO MAKE IT EXPLICIT IN THEIR WRITINGS.” (https://www.cbmw.org/Blog/Posts/Trinity-Panel-Wrap-up-Part-1)

Our series on the Trinity will begin with a few articles regarding the intense debate amongst conservative evangelicals over the Trinity—and what this means for women in ministry.

Reading the quote above (from the article link above) made me laugh immensely. This
morning, I finished reading Millard Erickson’s chapter on “The Historical Considerations” from his book “Who’s Tampering With the Trinity? An Assessment of the Subordination Debate,” and the entire chapter revolved around tracing the church fathers who are claimed by both sides in the debate. Erickson wanted to show what the church fathers really said regarding the Trinity, and whether or not the fathers ever claimed that Jesus was subordinate to the Father.

I can tell you this: while Jesus was considered to be “eternally generated,” that is, “begotten of the Father from all eternity,” He was never unanimously labeled as “subordinate.” One church father, Hilary of Poitiers, comes out in his language and labels Jesus as “subordinate”; but none of the others do. Eternal generation does not imply eternal functional subordination. However, if Jesus is “eternally subordinate” in His function, then He is also “eternally subordinate” IN HIS ESSENCE—and this is the old ancient heresy of Arianism repackaged!

Gilbert Bilezikian, an egalitarian and equivalentist (believes in the equality of the Trinity persons), writes the following with regard to eternal functional subordination and eternal essence:

“a subordination that extends into eternity cannot remain only functional...it also becomes ipso facto an ONTOLOGICAL reality” (quoted by Millard Erickson, “The Equivalent-Authority View,” from “Who’s Tampering With the Trinity?” page 71).

If Jesus has existed from all eternity, and He has been “forced” to do what He’s told to do from all eternity, then He has been “ontologically subordinate” (inferior in Deity) from all eternity.

Here’s a simple way to approach this. Think about slavery times in this country. When it was reported that new land was available in America, European landowners and workers of all types decided to come to America. At first, there were those who couldn’t pay their way to America—they didn’t have enough for the fare. As a result, landowners began to help these everyday people make it to America. When the workers got to America, they placed themselves under the landowners with the title “indentured servants.” Such a title was meant to be “temporarily subordinate in function”: the only reason why the workers were servants to the landowners was to pay off their debt. In a few years, the indentured servants believed they would be free of their debt and would go their own way. As time passed, though, they began to understand that they wouldn’t be able to pay off their debt; as a result, not only would the indentured servant remain in service for his entire life, but GENERATIONS more of his kinsfolk would remain in slavery as well.

If we look at the subordinationist belief, they would say, “Well, Jesus IS God; He’s just SUBORDINATE in function.” They attempt to separate function from essence. But let’s get back to my slavery story above...

If the subordinationist belief is correct, then the slaves should have been considered the “equals” of the slaveowners, even though they were functionally subordinate, right? Isn’t this how it should have gone? yes. But the problem is, this is NOT how history unfolded; instead of the servants being considered the equals of their “functional superiors,” they began to be treated as “ontologically subordinate” to their superiors. Once blacks were enslaved in what seemed to be an unceasing spiral, no longer did the surrounding society deem them as “equals.” Instead, what we find in reading history is that society began to argue the INEQUALITY of persons. Blacks now were deemed BIOLOGICALLY INFERIOR, labeled as the “chattel” or property of their slaveowners, and deprived of rights in this country like voting, citizenship, etc.

But wait a minute! Blacks were equal, right? Yeah, in theory...but the fact that society enslaved them and THEN found “genetic” arguments to “prove” the reasons for enslavement and inequality shows that even a society can’t maintain an “equal, but subordinate stance.”

The truth is, subordinationists cannot maintain “equal, yet subordinate” and hold them both in balance. If an “equal essence” exists, then it is “essence” we must emphasize. If we don’t, then even “blacks” in my story above become nothing more than “animals.” To stress the differences of human beings at the expense of the human quality creates a whole new category of “species” for the “black” person.

And it is no different with the Trinity. To stress the subordination of Jesus at the expense of His equality as Deity is to make Him less than God.

In the world of philosophy, Bilezikian (whom I just quoted above) uses what is called “The Law of Non-Contradiction,” which states that two OPPOSING ideas cannot be the same in all respects AT THE SAME TIME. Let’s take for example, the words “tall” and “short.” Now we all know that these two adjectives are in direct contradiction to each other. To reconcile them, we must “qualify” the adjectives themselves—in other words, specify TO WHAT EXTENT these two adjectives can peacefully co-exist. So, if Sue is “both tall and short,” we must explain HOW this can be. Sue cannot be “EQUALLY TALL AND EQUALLY SHORT” at the same time. However, Sue can be “tall” and be “shorter than her grandmother” at the same time. The second phrase, “shorter than her grandmother,” tells us the extent to which Sue is “short.” With the qualifying statement, though, we see that Sue’s “shortness” is relative. It doesn’t change the fact that when we see her walking in the mall, because she is six feet tall, she will be labeled “tall.”

But, can Sue be “taller than her grandmother” and “shorter than her grandmother” at the same time? Of course not! When a person is using a qualifying statement, if one quality is absolute (unqualified), the other must be qualified. Now, both statements can be qualified (for instance, “taller than her aunt, shorter than her grandmother”); but both CANNOT be unqualified (tall and short).

And this is where the subordinationists fall into a trap.

Essence is defined by Merriam-Webster as:

1 a : the permanent as contrasted with the accidental element of being.

What is “function”?

Merriam-Webster defines “function” as that which “implies a definite end or purpose that the one in question serves or a particular kind of work it is intended to perform.”

If essence, then, is “permanent,” then function must be “temporary,” for it “implies a definite END,” in and of itself. Seeing this, then, “essence” and “function” are opposites.

Because they are opposites, they cannot co-exist (like tall and short) without some sort of qualifier. If a person cannot be “equally tall and equally short,” then neither can they be “the same in essence and the same in function.”

There are, then, three choices:
(1) Qualify the essence
(2) Qualify the function
(3) Qualify both essence and function

First, let’s qualify the essence. Since this is important to Jesus as Deity, we will say that He is “equal in essence” to the Father.

Next, let’s qualify the function. Since this is where Jesus differs from the Father, we will say that He is “different” in function. We’ll come back to this in a moment.

Last, we are left to qualify both essence and function.

Now, look at what we have. Jesus is equal in essence, but unequal (different) in function. Have we solved the problem here? No, absolutely not! By saying that Jesus is “equal in essence, unequal in function,” all we’ve done is pile MORE OPPOSITES on top of the OPPOSITES! Look at it:

EQUAL in ESSENCE

UNEQUAL in FUNCTION

All we’ve done is piled two more opposites (equal and unequal) on top of two previous opposites (essence and function). We’ve still got two absolute statements without qualifiers. So now, we’ve got to find two more adjectives to qualify the two statements above. The end result of these two must be in such a state where one is permanent (absolute) and the other is temporary (qualified).

What do the subordinationists do? They present to us the following:

ETERNALLY EQUAL in ESSENCE

ETERNALLY UNEQUAL in FUNCTION

But this only compounds the problem we had above! We notice that they’ve added another qualifier, but it’s the SAME. They have failed to add two qualifiers that will distinguish the two statements.

By using the word “eternally,” all they’ve given us are “equally opposing statements”! We are no better off than where we started. Sue is still “always tall” and “always short” (if we use the same qualifier, “always”).

Therefore, if Jesus is “eternally equal in essence,” He cannot be “eternally unequal (or subordinate) in function.” There must be a qualifier to the equality and a qualifier to the subordination (for both essence and function are opposites).

If we qualify Jesus’ essence, what shall we do? Well, if we say that He is “temporarily” equal in essence, then we have committed the old ancient heresy of Arianism (where Arius believed that Jesus had a “point of beginning” and was “created”). However, we would then be forced to keep the other opposing phrase, “eternally unequal in function”; this would then mean that Jesus is “less God” than the Father (because He would only share Deity for a time—“temporarily equal”). We end up with this:

TEMPORARILY EQUAL in ESSENCE
ETERNALLY UNEQUAL in FUNCTION
If, then, we decide to say that Jesus is “temporarily unequal in function,” then we end up with this scheme:

ETERNALLY EQUAL in ESSENCE
TEMPORARILY UNEQUAL in FUNCTION

This fits what we know about Jesus and His existence. In the case of Jesus, we see that one exists for a shorter duration than the other, that being Jesus’ subordinate function is “temporary,” as compared to His “essence,” which is “eternal.”

Even if we had not used “essence” and “function,” we can still see the problem with the subordinationist view:
“eternally equal”
“eternally unequal”

In this case, we still have TWO EQUALLY OPPOSING PHRASES that would still need a qualifier to distinguish them. Jesus would then have had to be either
TEMPORARILY equal
ETERNALLY unequal

OR

ETERNALLY equal
TEMPORARILY uneqal

Bilezikian makes the argument that “eternal” subordination becomes part of the “eternal” essence. Here, however, I’ve shown you that, according to the rules of philosophy and logic, the subordinationist view doesn’t hold up.

About the Allison quote? I'll tackle it in my next post...

"Why Arguments Against Women In Ministry Aren't Biblical" by Ben Witherington III

2009-10-30T17:34:00.003-04:00

Dear Men and Women,

The following is an article by Ben Witherington III I stumbled across while randomly reading on the internet. Witherington put the article out a few days ago, so it's fairly recent.

Before I let you read the article below, let me just say that I am extremely PROUD of Witherington and his work in the fight for women in ministry. I also applaud him for theological reasons (as I share his theological stance on Arminianism) as well as his educational stance (I, too, am an alum of the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill). But above all, I praise God for men like Witherington who found the courage to admit that women possess great ability for the kingdom of God and should be allowed to exercise such ability. I pray that this article will inspire you, in a world where women are put down every day...

"Most of you who know me, know that I did my doctoral thesis on women in the NT with C.K. Barrett at the University of Durham in England. My first three published scholarly books were on this very subject. One of the reasons I did that thirty some years ago was because of the controversy that raged then over the issue of women in ministry, and more particularly women as pulpit ministers and senior pastors. Never mind that the Bible does not have categories like 'senior pastor' or 'pulpit minister', the NT has been used over and over again to justify the suppression of women in ministry--- and as I was to discover through years of research and study, without Biblical justification. Now of course equally sincere Christians may disagree on this matter, but the disagreements should be on the basis of sound exegesis of Biblical texts, not emotions, rhetoric, mere church polity, dubious hermeneutics and the like.
So in this post I am going to deal with the usual objections to women in ministry, one by one. Some of these objections come out of a high church tradition, some tend to come from low church traditions, some are Catholic/Orthodox some are Protestant, but we will take on a sampling of them all without trying to be exhaustive or exhausting.
1) Women can't be ministers, because only males can be priests offering the sacrifice of the Mass etc. The root problem with this argument is that the NT is perfectly clear that apostles, prophets, teachers, evangelists, elders, deacons ARE NOT PRIESTS IN THE NT. There is no need for a separate order of priests in the NT because Christ's sacrifice made obsolete the entire OT sacerdotal system of priests, temples and sacrifices. The only priesthoods we hear about in the NT are: 1) the priesthood of all believers, which of course includes women, and 2) the heavenly high priesthood of Christ (see Hebrews). There is no new priesthood between these two carried over from the OT or inaugurated in the NT era. Indeed the whole language of sacrifice and temple is spiritualized in the NT to refer to our offering of ourselves or our praise to God, and the Temple is described in various places in the NT (cf. 1 Cor. 3-6), as either the believer's body, or the whole community of Christ in which Christ and the Spirit dwell. The problem here is essentially a hermeneutical one. Somewhere along the way about the time when the church became a licit religion under Constantine the OT hermeneutic took over, a hermeneutic which saw churches as temples, the Lord's Supper as a sacrifice, ministers as priests, the Lord's Day as the sabbath, and so on. This did a grave dis-service to the newnness of the new covenant and its facets and features, and the net result was an exclusion of women from various ministries, on grounds the writers of the NT would have rejected outright.
2) Women can't be ministers because then they would have headship over men, including their husbands--- and this will never do, and is a violation of the household codes in the NT. This argument is often complex and at the heart of it is an essential confusion of what the NT says about order in the physical family and home, and order in the family of faith, wherever it may meet. It is certainly true that texts like Col.3-4 and Ephes. 5-6 and other texts in 1 Pet. for example do talk about the structure of the physical family. As I have argued at length, the patriarchal family was the existing reality in the NT world, and what you discover when you compare what is in the NT and what is outside the NT, is that Paul and others are working hard to change the existing structures in a more Christian direction. Paul, for example, has to start with his audience where they are, and then persuade them to change. And you can see this process at work in Philemon, Colossians, and Ephesians. For example, though the language of headship and submission is certainly used in these texts the trajectory of the argument is intended to: 1) place more and more strictures on the head of the household to limit his power and the way he relates to his wife, his children and his slaves; 2) make the head of the household aware that women, children and slaves are in fact persons created in God's image, not chattel or property. This becomes especially clear in Philemon when Paul urges Philemon to manumit Onesimus on the basis of the fact that he is "no longer a slave, but rather a brother in Christ". Paul is working to place the leaven of the Gospel into pre-existing relationships and change them. Similarly with the roles of husbands and wives, in Ephes. 5.21ff. Paul calls all Christians to mutual submission to each other, one form of which is wives to husbands, and then the exhortation 'husbands love your wives as Christ did the church, giving himself....' can be seen for what it is--- a form of self-sacrificial submission and service. Submission is no longer gender specific or unilateral as Paul offers third order moral discourse here, working for change (see my commentary on Colossians, Ephesians, and Philemon-- Eerdmans). Furthermore, we need to keep steadily in mind that what determines or should determine the leadership structures in the church is not gender but rather gifts and graces of the Holy Spirit. The family of faith is not idenitical with the physical family, and gender is no determinant of roles in it. Gender of course does affect some roles in the Christian family, but that is irrelevant when it comes to the discussion of the leadership structure of the church. This is why we should not be surprised to find even in Paul's letters examples of women teachers, evangelist, prophetesses, deacons, and apostles. Paul is not one who is interested in baptizing the existing fallen patriarchal order and calling it good. One of the tell tale signs of Paul's views on such matters can be seen in what he says about baptism--- it is not a gender specific sign that we have for the new covenant unlike the one for the old covenant, and Paul adds that in Christ there is no 'male and female' just as there is no Jew or Gentile, slave or free. The implications of this are enormous. The change in the covenant sign signals the change in the nature of the covenant when it comes to men and women.

3) Women can't be Christian ministers because specific passages in the NT prohibit it. Here, especially for very conservative Protestants is the nub of the matter. It is believed that 1 Cor. 14.33b-36 and 1 Tim. 2.8-15 prohibit women from teaching and preaching in the church. I will not bring up the hypocrisy of some of these arguments that make nice distinctions like--- "its o.k. for women to teach or lead a Bible study in the home, but not in the church building.' (this word just in-- there were no church buildings in the NT era, they met in homes!), or even worse 'its o.k. for women to teach and preach on the mission field where it's necessary, but not here in America where it isn't.' Again the logic here is completely bogus and not based on anything in Scripture at all. But what about those texts?
3) 1 Cor. 14.33b-36 (assuming that it is an original part of this letter, which many scholars doubt on textual grounds. I disagree with the doubters) is part of a large problem solving letter. Paul is correcting problems as they arise in the house churches in Corinth. One such problem is caused by some women, apparently just some wives, who are interrupting the time of prophesying by asking questions. Now Paul has already said in 1 Cor. 11 that women are allowed to pray and prophesy in Christian worship if they wear headcoverings to hide their 'glory' (i.e. hair), since only God's glory should be visible in worship, and he is not reneging on that permission in 1 Cor. 14.33b-36. The largely Gentile congregation in Corinth brought with them into the church their pre-existing assumptions about prophecy and what was appropriate when approaching a prophet or prophetess. The oracle at nearby Delphi for example was a consultative prophetess. People would go to her to ask questions like--- Should I marry this man, or Should I buy this land etc. and the oracle would give an answer. Thus it was natural for some Corinthians to think that when prophets spoke in their assemblies, they had a right to ask them questions. Paul's response is no--- "worship time is not Q+A time, and you are interrupting the prophets. If you have questions asks your man (probably husband) at home. There is a time and place for such questions, but Christian worship isn't it. The reason Paul corrects women/wives in this case is not because they are women but because they are in this instance causing this problem, of course. A couple of other points about this text need to be noted: 1) the text says nothing about women submitting to men. The call here is for these women to be silent and in submission as even the Law says. O.K. where in the OT is there a commandment for women to be silent and submit to men? Answer NOWHERE. Its not in the Pentateuch at all, or for that matter elsewhere. What Paul is talking about is being silent in the presence of God and listening to his inspired words, in this case coming from the prophets and prophetesses! "The Lord is in his holy temple, let all the earth keep silence (and listen)'... and be in submission to God's teaching.
4) What about 1 Tim. 2.8-15? This is sometimes, wrongly, seen as the ultimate proof that women should not be ministers. But again this ignores the context and nuances of the text, which of course is the major problem with proof-texting anyway. Paul here is giving Timothy some instructions about how to handle his fledgling new converts probably in Ephesus (see my commentary on the Pastoral Epistles-- Letters and Homilies for Gentile Christians Vol. One IVP). Now the problem as it surfaces in 1 Tim. 2.8-15 clearly has to do with particular women, high status women who have fancy clothes and hairstyles and are expecting right off the bat to be teachers of one and all in the church. The proof that this is once more a corrective passage, dealing with problems is seen from the outset--- First Paul corrects grumbling men whom he wants to pray, then he corrects these high status women. Paul is an equal opportunity corrector of men and women when they are in error. In regard to his correction of women, something needs to be said about high status women in cities like Ephesus. What we know about such women is that they played vital roles in the Greco-Roman religious festivals, temples, worship services. They were priestesses, they were prophetesses, they were teachers, healers, keepers of the eternal flame, etc. It is then not surprising that such high status women would expect to be able, once they converted to Christ, to do the same sorts of things in the church. The problem was, they needed to be properly instructed and learn before they began to instruct others, whether male or female. This is a good principle for all of us to follow. I once had a student who was getting frustrated in a seminary class because of all that he was required to learn, much of which he thought was unnnecessary, and he came up to me and said--- "I don't know why I need to learn all this stuff first. Why I can just get up in the pulpit and the Spirit will give me utterance." I replied-- "Yes Charlie, you can do that, but its a pity you aren't giving the Holy Spirit more to work with!" In essence, Paul is saying the same thing to these women in Ephesus--- they need to learn before they teach.
Here are some details about the exegesis of 1 Tim. 2.8-15. Once again nothing is said about women submitting to men here. The Greek is clear enough. Here the word for 'quietness' is used rather than the word for silence, and once again the issue is their being in submission to the authoritative teaching of Timothy and others. Secondly the Greek verb "I am not now permitting" as Phil Payne has shown over and over again, is not a verb that implies an infinite extension of this refusal to permit. It means what it says "I am not presently permitting..." Why not? Because the women needed to learn before they taught. Thirdly, the Greek, since we are dealing with a text where a correction of behavior is being offered should be translated as follows "I am not currently permitting women (in this case the women referred to with the hairdos and bling and expensive attire) to teach or usurp authority over the (authorized) men. This is a prohibition of an abuse of a privilege, It does not rule out the possibility of a later authorization of a proper use of the privilege of offering Christian teaching, indeed we hear elsewhere in the Pastorals about more mature Christian women doing some teaching. The verb authenteo here is a rare one, meaning either to exercise authority, or to usurp authority, and it occurs on here in the NT. Here is a good example of why you can't study the language of the Bible in isolation from its larger context, in this case the context of usage elsewhere in Greek. Elsewhere, in a corrective context the verb refers to an abuse of power, a usurping of some role or function that others have. It does here as well.
Finally, what about the argument from creation, from the story of Eve? Paul is assuming some in his audience know the story very well. The story is as follows in the Hebrew--- only Adam is instructed about the prohibition in regard to the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, and it was his duty to properly instruct Eve, as she was not around when that prohibition was given. As the story develops, it is clear enough that Eve had not been properly instructed. She talks about not touching the fruit of the tree, which was not part of the original prohibition. Now the very 'deceived' here is an important one, only used in Paul in connection with Eve and the Fall. A person who is not properly instructed, is easily deceived, and may take action that is disastrous. Such was the case with Eve. She is the perfect example to give to the high status women in Ephesus-- they needed to properly be instructed before they took any action. I would remind you as well that on a literal reading of the Genesis story, Adam was right there with Eve on this occasion and could have and should have stopped her, but he did not do so. Eve plucked the fruit, and Adam dropped the ball as the authoritative teacher for the occasion. This is no doubt why it is Adam who is blamed for the Fall in Rom. 5.12-21. Paul then goes on to offer an alternative--- "but now women shall be saved by the child-bearing" or possibly it reads "women shall be kept safe through the child-bearing". What Paul is certainly not doing here is talking about salvation for women by baby-making!! So either of the two renderings I suggested are possible. I tend to favor the interpretation that the definite article before childbearing points to a specific birth--- Jesus' by means of Mary. So Mary is Eve in reverse. She obeys the voice of the angel, is the handmaiden of the Lord, unlike Eve. The other possibility is that Paul is saying that the curse on women (pain and danger in child-bearing) can be reversed in Christ if they remain faithful Christians and trust the Lord. In either case, this text is not a prohibition of all women in all times in all situations preaching and teaching. It is a very specific prohibition, and doubtless Paul would say the same thing to women or men today who try to teach or preach the Word of God without properly learning it first!! One more thing about the Genesis story. The author tells us that the effects of the Fall is patriarchy. It was not God original creation order design. The text tells us that part of the original curse (not the original blessing) on Eve will be "your desire will be for your husband, and he will lord it over you!!" So to love and to cherish degenerates into to desire and dominate!!! This is the effect of sin on the relationship, not inherent gender properties or qualities of the relationship.

As I have learned over many years.... the problem in the church is not strong and gifted women. We need all those we can get, and were it not for them, many churches would have closed long ago. I remember so vividly meeting the babooshkas-- the grandmothers in the Moscow Baptist Church, who had stopped Stalin from closing the church by standing in the door and not letting his troops enter and close it down. Thank God for strong, gifted women in the church. No, the problem in the church is not strong women, but rather weak men who feel threatened by strong women, and have tried various means, even by dubious exegesis to prohibit them from exercising their gifts and graces in the church.

If you want more along these lines, see my commentaries or my lay person's summary Women and the Genesis of Christianity, (Cambridge Press). Enough said." -- Ben Witherington III

About Ben Witherington on the Bible and Culture
Bible scholar Ben Witherington is Amos Professor of New Testament for Doctoral Studies at Asbury Theological Seminary and on the doctoral faculty at St. Andrews University in Scotland. A graduate of UNC, Chapel Hill, he went on to receive the M.Div. degree from Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminary and a Ph.D. from the University of Durham in England. He is now considered one of the top evangelical scholars in the world, and is an elected member of the prestigious SNTS, a society dedicated to New Testament studies.

Revisiting "Authentein" with Catherine Kroeger

2009-10-28T23:45:00.005-04:00

The following commentary was written by Catherine Clark Kroeger from the book “Women, Authority, and the Bible” by Alvera Mickelsen, editor. I think Kroeger’s section on “authentein” (coming from the Greek verb, “authenteo”) is a wonderful one, and I wanted you, my readers, to get to read this. Pass it on to all you know and continue to read it over and over again.

“The Meaning of ‘Authenteo’”
If the religious environment surrounding 1 Timothy 2 is important, so is the language. ‘Authenteo,’ translated ‘to usurp authority’ in the King James Version, is a Greek verb so rare that it appears nowhere else in the entire New Testament. The concept of ruling or exercising authority over another occurs frequently in the New Testament, but always with other words. The French etymologist Pierre Chantraine suggested that ‘authentes,’ the noun from which the verb ‘authenteo’ is derived, had essentially the significance of the person beginning or being responsible (aitios) for an action, situation, or state. From this stemmed two other basic meanings, namely, to be in charge or rule over something and to be ultimately responsible for a terrible crime, usually murder. In this way, Chantraine resolved an etymological problem that had perplexed scholars since late antiquity. How could the same word denote both murderer and ruler? In the earliest usages, the concept of murder was almost always involved. The concept of ruling came later. For the verb ‘authenteo,’ there is only one attested use in the sense of ‘to murder.’

Let us turn to the value that Chantraine held to be most basic, that of originating something or being held responsible for it. By the New Testament era, ‘authentes’ was already being used to denote an originator or instigator (Josephus Wars 1.582; Polybius 12.14.3; 22.14.2; Diodorus of Sicily 16.61. Psichari, “Effendi,” p. 426). The related adjective, ‘authentikos,’ like the English ‘authentic,’ implies something original or genuine. In the sense ‘to begin something, to take the initiative, or to be primarily responsible for it,’ the verb ‘authenteo’ is even used by the early church fathers for the creative activities of God (Eusebius “de ecclesiastica theologia” 3.5; J.P. Migne, “Patrologia Graeca” (Paris, 1857-66), 24:1013A; Dihle, “Authentes,” pp. 82 n.2, 83 n.1.). John Chrysostom (late fourth century) discusses the replacement of Judas in the book of Acts and writes, “Protos tou pragmatos authentei” (“He was primarily responsible for the matter”). In a discussion of lapsed brethren, Athanasius (mid-fourth century) suggests leniency for those who defected under compulsion but had not themselves instigated (authenteo) the problem: “Tois de me authentousi men tes asebeias parasyreisi de di’ananken kai bian” (Athanasius “Epistle to Rufinus” (ed. Migne 26.1180C).

“Authenteo,” as well as the related “authentizo,” could also mean “to take a matter or inheritance into one’s own hands” (Berliner griechische Urkunden [Aegyptische Urkunden aus den koniglichen Museen zu Berlin), vol. 1 (1895), no. 103.3, 8 (p. 122).It was equated with “autodikein” (“to have one’s own law courts or to take the law into one’s own hands”) (Thomas Magister (ed. Ritschl) 18.8; Moeris (ed. Piers), p. 58). For example, a bishop was asked to take a difficult marital situation in hand, and the pope to take a matter under his jurisdiction (Berliner griechische Urkunden 103; Basil “Epistle” 69.4.389A). In the sixth century, Lydus used the verb in the sense of taking the initiative, in a manner that combined the concepts both of starting something and of having the authority to do so (Johannes Laurentius Lydus, “de Magistratibus populi Romani,” ed. R. Wuensch (Leipzig; Teubner, 1903), 3:131.

In the late Renaissance, an era when scholars studied classical texts more thoroughly than is customary today and had materials to which we no longer have access, another definition was cited by lexiocographers: praebo me auctorem (“to declare oneself the author or source of anything”). “Authenteo,” when used with the genitive, as it is in 1 Timothy 2:12, could imply not only to claim sovereignty but also to claim authorship. “To represent onself as the author, originator, or source of something” was given in various older dictionaries that I have been able to consult, such as the widely used work of Cornelis Schrevel and the still-fundamental “Thesaurus Linguae Graecae” by Stephanus (Stephanus, “Thesaurus Graecae Linguae, ed. Dindorf (Paris: Didot, 1831-1865). The earliest of these entries date back to the Renaissance, the latest to the last century. This value disappeared from classical dictionaries about the time when the translation of 1 Timothy 2:12 was being challenged by feminists.

The differentiation between being an originator and professing to be one is a valid point. In several texts, the meaning is strengthened by the sense of asserting oneself to be the author or source of something. For instance, Saint Basil was in anguish because the rumor had gone out that he had anathematized his old friend Dianius. Where was he supposed to have proclaimed the anathema? he asked. In whose presence? Was he merely following someone else’s lead, or did he himself instigate the outrage or even profess himself (authenton) to be its author (katarchon kai authenton tou tolmetos)?(Basil “Epistle” 51.1) “Authenton” is the climax of this carefully constructed progression. It moves from a passive role to an active one and then to claiming responsibility for that role of instigator. Constantine’s Edict speaks of God who proclaims himself to be the author of judgment (“tes de kriseos authentei ho hypsistos theos”) (Eusebius “Vita Constantini” 2.48). Leo wrote to Pulcheria of Eutychus, the self-avowed author (authentountos) of the dissension in the church at Constantinople (Leo the Great “Epistle” 30.1).

Thus there is support for “authenteo” as meaning “to proclaim oneself the author or originator of something.” If we apply this meaning of “authenteo” to 1 Timothy 2:12, we would have “I do not allow a woman to teach nor to represent herself as the originator or source of man.” This then might be a prohibition against a woman teaching a mythology similar to that of the Gnostics in which Eve predated Adam and was his creator. Certain Gnostic myths also included the notion that Adam, who had been deluded, was liberated by the Gnosis of his more enlightened spouse. (Catherine Clark Kroeger, "The Meaning of 'Authenteo'", from "Women, Authority & The Bible" by Alvera Mickelsen, ed. Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 1986, pp. 229-232).

This concludes the article. If you have any question or comments regarding Kroeger’s article, please reply under the “comments” section of this post. I look forward to reading an interesting discussion!

New Series Starting Soon...

2009-10-26T11:15:00.000-04:00

Dear Readership,

I've been starting new reading these days on the subject of women in ministry, and I've decided (after quite a long stay away) to resume work here at "Men and Women."

I am writing to announce that I will be starting a new series here at the blog soon, titled "The Trinity: Good News For Women." One of the readers here at the site, Cheryl, has made comments about Bruce Ware and his belief that Christians should not pray to Jesus (as Christ is "subordinate" to the Father). It is a sad state of affairs, but complementarians are now using the Trinity as the argument for their view of the eternal subordination of women (based off of their belief in the eternal subordination of the Son). Pray for this up and coming series, that the Lord will work wonders in my heart and mind as well as yours (you, the readers). There's still a lot of work to be done in making the case for women in ministry.

In case there are curious minds out there who desire to know what I'll be reading, I'll provide a starting list here:

(1) "Jesus and the Father: Modern Evangelicals Reinvent the Doctrine of the Trinity" by Kevin Giles
(2) "Who's Tampering With the Trinity? An Assessment of the Subordination Debate" by Millard J. Erickson

(3) "Father, Son, & Holy Spirit: Relationships, Roles, and Relevance" by Bruce Ware

There will be more reading for this subject as we make our way through the series.

I hope you're enjoying the work at "Men and Women." Pray for the blog, pray for the hearts and minds of egalitarians (that we remain ever faithful to the proclamation of the Scriptures), and last but not least, pray for our complementarian brothers and sisters, that the Lord would help them understand that women too are made in the image of God and endowed with spiritual authority. I look forward to much discussion in the coming days.

Women In The West, Part III: Tomb Inscriptions

2009-10-24T00:17:00.003-04:00

I’ve covered women presbyters in church canons and Episcopal letters. Now, we’ve arrived at the time of tomb inscriptions.

I have a confession to make: there are very few tomb inscriptions available to us from the West for women presbyters. We will find out why after we’ve seen all the evidence of women presbyters, both from the West and the East.

For now though, we’ll look at three tomb inscriptions and gather details from them.

First, there is Martia the Presbyteress. According to Madigan and Osiek, the inscription of Martia is “a graffito found near Poitiers in Gaul...evidence...including conciliar and epistolary writings considered...may place it in the sixth century” (Kevin Madigan and Carolyn Osiek, “Ordained Women In The Early Church: A Documentary History.” Baltimore and London: Johns Hopkins University Press, 2005, page 195).

Let’s read the inscription:

“Martia the presbyters (presbyteria) made (ferit) the offering (obblata) together with Olybrius and Nepos” (195).

Giorgio Otranto, as I mentioned in a previous post, views such inscriptions as a noun and a title. Madigan and Osiek write,

“We agree with Otranto. First of all, the Council of Tours (567) would use ‘presbyteria’ as a title at roughly the same time this graffito was made; the slightly later Council of Auxerre (578) would use ‘presbyteria’ as a title as well. All three pieces of evidence come from Gaul. We also agree with Otranto that ‘Olybrius and Nepos are almost certainly two presbyters who were officiating in the community to which Martia also belonged; and it is probable that this woman collaborated with them during the Eucharistic celebration...[according to Otranto] ‘the fact that there had been a desire to record an action performed by Martia during a liturgical celebration would seem to signify not the usual service of the faithful at the moment of the offertory, but rather an act habitually performed by a deacon or another member of the clergy.’ Otranto is right to interpret this letter in light of the letter of the three Gallic bishops. Both texts are found in roughly the same period; both refer to activities in Gaul; both refer to the participation by women in the Eucharistic celebration. In light of this roughly contemporary literary evidence, and of the existence of the graffito, it seems likely that Martia HAD AN IMPORTANT ROLE AS A MINISTER IN THE CELEBRATION OF THE EUCHARISTIC SERVICE in Poitiers” (195-96).

Notice that Martia’s inscription says that she “made” the offering with the two other officials. This means then, that she had some role to play in the Eucharist that likely involved administering the eucharist to the congregation.

The next inscription concerns Flavia Vitalia. According to Madigan and Osiek, Vitalia’s inscription is dated around 425 and was found in modern-day Croatia. The tombstone was bought by a man named Theodosius. Let’s read the inscription:

“Under our Lord Theodosius, consul for the eleventh time, and Valentinian, most noble man of Caesar, I, Theodosius, bought [a burial tomb] from the matron (matrona) Flavia Vitalia, the holy presbyter[a] (presbytera sancta) for three golden solids” (196).

Madigan and Osiek write,

“What can we say with certainty about Flavia Vitalia? First of all, the description of her as matrona tells us she was free-born and married. Second, the title PRESBYTERA tells us, in all likelihood, that she OCCUPIED AN OFFICIAL AND RECOGNIZED PLACE AS A LEADER IN THE ECCLESIASTICAL COMMUNITY OF SALONA...this piece of evidence emerges from a similar ecclesiastical-cultural milieu as the one reprehended by Pope Gelasius, and Flavia was functioning as ‘presbytera’ at about the same time as those whose activities so infuriated the people. In this light, it is EQUALLY IMPOSSIBLE to conclude that Flavia Vitalia was NOT a presbyter in the full and proper sense of the term, invested with the status and all the functions of the sacerdotal office” (196).

Look back at the inscription: Flavia Vitalia is called “the holy presbyter.”
Remember the Tertullian post on Prisca? He called her “the holy minister,” and certainly thought of her as an ecclesiastical authority. Well, Vitalia’s position is that of “the holy presbyter,” so she would not have just been a helper or someone without spiritual authority in the church. Therefore, we can infer from her inscription that she was a leader in her church. We are also told something else: that in the fourth and fifth centuries, church officials began to be in charge of selling burial plots (Madigan and Osiek, 196). Flavia Vitalia, then, must have been a church official of some rank to be appointed this task.

The last notable tomb inscription we have for women presbyters is “a sacerdota from Solin.” It reads:

“...of/to [?] a PRIESTESS...” (caps mine).

Madigan and Osiek supply the following information:

“The epigraph on this tombstone is fragmentary. It is the genitive or dative form of ‘sacerdota,’ ‘priestess.’ The only other bit of the epigraph remaining is a cross. This indicates the entombed was a Christian, not a pagan priestess. Obviously, as this tombstone comes from Solin, it has to be interpreted in light of the Flavia Vitalia inscription and vice versa. Taken together, they suggest a strong possibility, minimally, that women were functioning as presbyters in the community. Eisen even suggests that ‘it is possible that the epigraphically attested sacerdota was the bishop’ of the community. Eisen is correct. It IS possible. Such a possibility is strengthened, philologically, by the use of ‘sacerdota’ rather than ‘presbytera.’ This is clearly NOT THE WIFE OF A PRIEST, NOR IS IT MERELY A RESPECTED ELDERLY WOMAN IN THE COMMUNITY. She is a ‘priestess’ or ‘sacerdotess,’ a woman with high official status and some sort of important official function in the community of Solin. Here the fragment of a single word, when interpreted in conjunction with contemporaneous inscriptional evidence, CAN bear at least that much historical weight” (197).

These are the three major tomb inscriptions on women presbyters in the West. In my next post, I will cover women presbyters from the East.

Women Presbyters In The West, Part II-B: Episcopal Letters

2009-10-23T01:29:00.003-04:00

There are three Episcopal letters I will tackle in this post: (1) Letter 14 (to bishops in southern Italy) by Pope Gelasius I (492-96), (2) Letter of Three Gallic Bishops, and (3) Letter of Atto, Bishop of Vercelli, to Ambrose the Priest.
First, Pope Gelasius’ letter:

“We have heard to our distress that contempt of divine things has reached such a state that WOMEN ARE ENCOURAGED (firmentur) TO SERVE AT THE SACRED ALTARS (ministrare sacris altaribus) AND TO PERFORM ALL THE OTHER TASKS (cunctaque) THAT ARE ASSIGNED ONLY TO THE SERVICE OF MEN (non visi virorum famulatui sexum), and for which they [women] are not appropriate (cui non competunt)” (186).

Madigan and Osiek tell us that there is much controversy surrounding this letter, and that most don’t believe this refers to sacerdotal ministry. However, Giorgio Otranto “reads the text as evidence for the argument that ‘at the end of the fifth century, some women, having been ordained by bishops, WERE EXERCISING A TRUE AND PROPER MINISTERIAL PRIESTHOOD IN A VAST AREA OF SOUTHERN ITALY, as well as perhaps in other unnamed regions of Italy” (186).

What makes Madigan and Osiek believe Giorgio Otranto?

“...the single Latin word with enclitic ‘cunctaque’: ‘and ALL THE OTHER THINGS’ (emphasis added) that male presbyters do and for which women, in Gelasius’ view, are not competent. Otranto captures the significance of ‘cuncta’ very well: this word, he correctly notes, implies ‘all the attributes of the male services: liturgical, juridical, and magisterial.’ When that piece of philological evidence is introduced, then we can agree with Otranto that: ‘The functions exercised by women at the altars, therefore, can refer only to the administration of the sacraments, to the liturgical service, and to the public and official announcement of the evangelical message, all of which comprise the duties of ministerial priesthood...Hence...Gelasius...intended to stigmatize and condemn not the exercise of a feminine liturgical service, but an abuse that appeared to him a great deal more serious: that of TRUE AND PROPER PRESBYTERS WHO WERE PERFORMING ALL THE DUTIES TRADITIONALLY RESERVED FOR MEN ALONE’” (187).

What we have here is Pope Gelasius writing against women who are serving in tasks that were “only to the service of men.” It is the idea of women acting as official presbyters of the church that offends Gelasius.

Madigan and Osiek point out another great detail of the text:

“...the letter itself states (albeit in the passive voice) that women are ‘encouraged’ (firmentur) to serve at the altars. Bu whom? The bishops? It is certainly possible but, on the basis of this text, far from certain, especially since Gelasius implies some of the bishops simply CONDONED this behavior rather than encouraged it. Be that as it may, this text, especially when put in context of contemporary inscriptional evidence, constitutes very strong evidence that some women in the south Italian dioceses were functioning as fully-fledged presbyters with the knowledge of their bishops. It is crucial to observe that these were not women in heretical sects but IN CHURCHES CLAIMING TO BE ‘CATHOLIC’ OR IN COMMUNION WITH THE CHURCH OF ROME” (188).

The last sentence of Madigan and Osiek’s quote says it all: Gelasius’ letter shows us that women were ordained and active not in heretical sects (like the Priscillianists), but in the orthodox church (which, at the time, was the Roman Catholic Church). And this is the proof needed when someone comes up and tells you that only the heretical groups allowed women such activities. Point to this letter as evidence that the heretical sects were not alone in their permission of women.
The next letter is called “The Letter of the Three Gallic Bishops.” Madigan and Osiek provide this background:

“Written in 511 by three bishops from the northern Gallic dioceses of Tours, Rennes, and Angers, this letter is addressed to two Breton priests. All five clerics are named in the first sentence of the letter, which reprehends a situation (in their eyes an abomination) very like the one described by Gelasius less than two decades before” (188).

Here it is:

“Bishops Licinius, Melanius, and Eustochius to priests Lovocatus and Catihernius, our most blessed lords and brothers in Christ. We have learned through a report of the priest Speratus, a venerable man, that you have not desisted from carrying certain altars (tabulas) through the domiciles of several citizens and PRESUME TO SAY MASSES THERE WITH WOMEN, whom you call ‘conhospitae,’ whoo are EMPLOYED (adhibitis mulieribus) IN THE DIVINE SACRIFICE; so that, while you are distributing the eucharist, THEY HOLD THE CHALICES AND PRESUME TO ADMINISTER THE BLOOD OF CHRIST TO THE PEOPLE OF GOD. This novelty and UNHEARD-OF SUPERSTITION saddens us not a little, as such a horrendous sect, which by no means has ever existed in Gaul, SEEMS TO BE EMERGING IN OUR TIMES” (188).

Notice that the “conhospitae” here are holding the instruments of Holy Communion and also administering it to the believers. The letter calls the idea of women doing such things an “unheard-of superstition,” which is their attempt to label women serving the eucharist as an unholy act. And then, they go on to state that this act “by no means has ever existed in Gaul,” which implies that the idea of women serving and administering the eucharist is against tradition. Because it goes against the status quo, it is seen as something wicked.

The last Episcopal letter is from Atto, the Bishop of Vercelli, to Ambrose the Priest. According to Madigan and Osiek,

“Atto was an accomplished canon lawyer and bishop of Vercelli, a town in the Piedmont, in the early tenth century. Among his writings are a commentary on the epistles of Paul, collections of various canons, and several letters; the following is taken from his Letter 8, to an otherwise unknown priest named Ambrose, who had apparently written to him to inquire about the meaning of the terms ‘presbytera’ and ‘diacona’ in the ancient canons. Atto replies that the terms could refer to women who had married priests and deacons before their ordination. But he also says (and then the quote follows):

“Because your prudence has moved you to inquire how we should understand ‘female priest’ (presbyteram) or ‘female deacon’ (diaconam) in the canons: it seems to me that IN THE PRIMITIVE CHURCH, according to the word of the Lord, ‘the harvest was great and laborers few’; RELIGIOUS WOMEN (religiosae mulieres) USED ALSO TO BE ORDAINED AS CARETAKERS (cultrices ordinabantur) IN THE HOLY CHURCH, as Blessed Paul shows in the “Letter” to the Romans, when he says, ‘I commend to you my sister Phoebe, who is in the ministry of the church at Cenchrea.’ Here it is understood that not only men BUT ALSO WOMEN PRESIDED OVER THE CHURCHES (sed etiam feminae praeerat ecclesiis) BECAUSE OF THEIR GREAT USEFULNESS. For women, long accustomed to the rites of the pagans and instructed also in philosophical teachings, were, for these reasons, converted more easily and taught more liberally in the worship of religion. This the eleventh canon of the Council of Laodicea prohibits when it says it is not fitting for THOSE WOMEN WHO ARE CALLED FEMALE PRESBYTERS (presbyterae) OR PRESIDERS (praesidentes) TO BE ORDAINED IN THE CHURCHES. We believe female deacons truly to have been ministers of such things. FOR WE SAY THAT A MINISTER IS A DEACON (DIACONUM), FROM WHICH WE PERCEIVE FEMALE DEACON (diaconam) TO HAVE BEEN DERIVED. Finally, we read in the fifteenth canon of the Council of Chalcedon that a FEMALE DEACON is not to be ORDAINED BEFORE HER FORTIETH YEAR—AND THIS WAS THE HIGHEST GRAVITY. WE BELIEVE WOMEN WERE JOINED TO THE OFFICE OF BAPTIZING so that the bodies of other women might be handled by them without any deeply felt sense of shame…JUST AS THOSE WHO WERE CALLED FEMALE PRESBYTERS (presbyterae) ASSUMED THE OFFICE OF PREACHING, LEADING, AND TEACHING, so female deacons had taken up the office of ministry and of baptizing, a custom that NO LONGER IS EXPEDIENT” (192).

I wanna say to the readership, KEEP THIS LETTER QUOTE HANDY! You will need this one as well.

Now, let’s look at the details of the above quote. Atto (Bishop of Vercelli) writes Ambrose the priest, and tells him that in the “primitive” (early) church, women were ordained. Then, he quotes Romans 16:1-2, using the example of Phoebe and then mentions that “Here it is understood that not only men BUT ALSO WOMEN PRESIDED OVER THE CHURCHES (sed etiam feminae praeerat ecclesiis) BECAUSE OF THEIR GREAT USEFULNESS.” So Phoebe, to Atto, was a “female presider” over the church at Cenchrea. “The eleventh canon of the Council of Laodicea” prohibits women serving in such places of ordained leadership. And the fact that a church council had to issue a canon AGAINST this practice proves that such a practice existed in the early church. Finally, in his discussion of female presbyters, Atto states that “those who were called female presbyters assumed the office of preaching, leading, and teaching…”

And the female presbyters bring to mind the passage of 1 Timothy 5. I’ve covered 1 Timothy 5 here at the site regarding biblical eldership (read under the section labeled “biblical eldership”). However, until this quote, my views regarding 1 Timothy 5 were just pure speculation. But now, I’ve got proof…

The word regarding “older women” in 1 Tim. 5:2 is “presbuteras.” This word is very similar to “presbuterae.” Now someone may say, “Well, how do we know that these “older women” mentioned are official elders in the church? They could just be “older women,” women who are advanced in years.” That is very true: they very well could just be women who are old in age. However, this view, as impressive as it may be, doesn’t do justice to a little something we call CONTEXT!!

While chapter 5 may seem to start with just discussion of the elderly, it ends up being about the office of elder. Verse 17 states, “Let the elders who rule well be counted worthy of double honor, especially those who labor in the word and doctrine.” In this verse, Paul is telling Timothy that the elders that labor in the word and teaching are to be compensated (including financially) for their labor in God’s service. In verse 19, Timothy is told not to receive an accusation against an elder “except from two or three witnesses.” In verse 20, Timothy is told to “rebuke before all” those elders who are deliberately sinning in the church. In addition, we read that “widows” can be enrolled on the church list (v. 9), and these widows have certain qualifications to meet for list enrollment. As we can see, the context of chapter 5 is about church leadership and structure. Therefore, the “older men and women” of 1 Timothy 5 are not just people advanced in age; instead, they are the “eldership” of the church. This would make sense with the eldership being mentioned just a few verses prior to chapter 5 (4:14), the eldership that had laid their hands on Timothy.

1 Timothy 5 proves to us that women were part of the ordained leadership as well—and this Bishop of Vercelli, Atto, tells us that women were teaching, preaching, and leading (which matches 1 Timothy 5).

I have now covered the Episcopal letters. The next post will cover tomb inscriptions of women presbyters in the West. Keep reading...

Women Presbyters In The West, Part II-A: Church Canons

2009-10-22T01:24:00.002-04:00

For those of you who read Part I on Tertullian, let me add something to it: I am still in shock myself regarding Tertullian’s comments regarding women, as well as his respect for Prisca (Priscilla), whom he calls a “prophetess” as well as “the holy minister.” For those of you who haven’t read the post I put up last night, go back and read it. Let’s just say it’ll fire you up more about defending women and their work in Christian ministry.

Tonight I’m back to cover canons and Episcopal letters regarding women presbyters in the West. Before I get started though, I want Madigan and Osiek to give us something to look forward to:

“From the late fourth century, a movement was stirring in the West toward greater leadership roles for women, spurred on in part by the movement of Priscillian. The letter of Gelasius at the end of the fifth century requires some context. Not only Gelasius but also the three bishops of Gaul a few years later, and Fulgentius Ferrandus in Africa half a century later, suggest that the practice of women serving at the altars had happened in certain times and places in the West. Fulgentius connects the office of women presbyters with the Greek East, whose influence was strong in southern Italy, the destination of Gelasius’ letter. Finally, we give a later, tenth-century opinion of Atto of Vercelli that in the early church, women were ordained presbyters” (Kevin Madigan and Carolyn Osiek, “Ordained Women In The Early Church: A Documentary History.” Baltimore and London: Johns Hopkins University Press, 2005, page 183).

As these canons and church documents will show, women did serve as presbyters in the early church.

First, we have the “First Synod of Saragossa”:

“According to Sulpicius Severus (363-420), a contemporary of Jerome and Augustine and hagiographer for Martin of Tours, a synod was held in 380 in Saragossa and was attended by bishops from Spain and Aquitaine...the synod was convoked mainly to combat the errors of Priscillianism. Priscillianism was a movement that began in Spain around 370 and spread rapidly throughout the entire country and from there to southern Gaul. Among the followers it attracted were Instantius and Salvianus, two bishops. A strictly ascetical group, the Priscillianists had pronounced similarities to the Manichaeans, with whom they may be confused in the canons here...the execution had the effect of making Priscillian a martyr and of radicalizing the movement that traced itself to his name. Indeed, it became immediately more heterodox, as the Synod of Toledo (c.398) noted to its horror. In any case, none of the heretics, though invited, appeared at Saragossa. Nonetheless, the synod condemned them and threatened to excommunicate any who communed with them” (183-184).

Because of the Priscillianists, the Synod of Saragossa issued the following statement:

“Let all believing women who belong to the Catholic Church absent themselves from lectures and conventicles of foreign men, and FROM WOMEN GIVING LECTURES, EITHER OUT OF ZEAL FOR TEACHING OR LEARNING, since this is what the Apostle commands. [1 Cor. 14:34-35; and 1 Tim. 2:12: ‘I permit no woman to teach...’]” (184).

Madigan and Osiek comment,

“Of perhaps greater importance is the implication that women themselves were organizing and giving lectures for the purpose of teaching and instruction” (184).

Notice too, that the Synod of Saragossa uses two famous Scriptures noted by complementarians today on the issue of women in ministry: 1 Corinthians 14:34-35 and 1 Timothy 2:12. What this tells us though, is that women were teaching and instructing, and the councils were so against it that they began to organize and publicly condemn what the women were doing. Evidently, the Priscillians made such a stir before the councils with their meetings and “leading women” that the council saw no other way to address the issue. Still though, these women were considered to be “spiritual authority” in the eyes of many believers. If these women were not deemed spiritual authority, why would the Synod have even bothered to mention it?

Next we have the “Synod of Nimes, Canon 2.” According to Madigan and Osiek,

“...a Gallican National Synod occurred at Nimes in approximately 394...at least seventeen...Gallican bishops from seven provinces did. They produced only seven brief canons, most directed against the Manichaeans...and especially, the Priscillianists. Among the heterodox practices observed with alarm by the bishops assembled at Nimes, just a few years after the Synod of Toledo, was the elevation of women to clerical offices reserved, in their minds, for men” (184).

The Canon states as follows:

“The following was suggested by certain individuals, that contrary to apostolic teaching (apostolicum disciplinam), unbeknownst, WOMEN SEEMED TO HAVE BEEN ASSUMED INTO LEVITICAL SERVICE (in ministerium...leuiticum videantur adsumptae) in some place or another (nescio quo loco). Ecclesiastical discipline does not permit this because IT IS INAPPROPRIATE (indecens), and such ORDINATION should be undone (distruatur) when it is effected CONTRARY TO REASON (contra rationem). It should be seen to that NO ONE SO PRESUME IN THE FUTURE” (185).

We learn some things from Madigan and Osiek regarding this document. First,
“In the West at the end of the fourth century, ‘levitical’ and ‘sacerdotal’ often could be, and often were, used synonymously. So there are philological grounds for believing that these Priscillianist women were functioning as presbyters” (185).

In addition,

“the Synod is quite UNANALYTICAL in its rejection of female priesthood, noting only that it is not traditional, because indecens, and that it is unreasonable. Finally, the forceful recommendation that such ordinations be undone ties into the debate, occurring at almost the same time in North Africa, over the permanence of priestly ordination and Episcopal consecration. The ‘orthodox’ position worked out by Augustine in his conflict with the Donatists is that such ordinations could not be undone. Medieval scholastics developed this position with more philosophical texture, as those theologians insisted that ordination effects a character on the soul of the ordinand that can be neither reversed nor erased. The bishops assembled here assume not only that it can be reversed but that it must” (185).

What I think is noteworthy about this canon is what Madigan and Osiek note: that “the Synod is quite unanalytical in its rejection of female priesthood…” For three and a half years now, I have heard people talk about the issue of women in ministry and was told that, for some of the women I’ve met, they grew up with nothing but male preachers, male deacons, male pastors, male elders, and male teachers—so that’s how it should be...nothing but MALE leaders! But all that statement says is, “I’ve grown up in a certain tradition, and I’m COMFORTABLE with that.” It’s funny how so many women have grown up in a complementarian atmosphere, and yet, have NEVER questioned why things are the way they are (complementarian). I find that fascinating to believe. And the sad thing is that most of the women I’ve talked to in the last three and a half years haven’t even desired to question the “status quo.” They are content and happy just the way they are.

And I think I would still be the exact same way if I hadn’t stepped out of my comfort zone and done a study of women all on my own. So I do sympathize with these women and understand their background; at the same time, however, I still have to challenge the traditional view that God cannot call women to such wonderful gifts in His church. I believe that God gifts women to serve in ways that He has gifted men, and for the church to not allow women to exercise those gifts is the church’s way of “rebelling” against God. Now there’s the problem: the church, as the bride, is not submitting to her Husband. And yet and still, they can toss around passages for women to submit to their husbands. Sounds like we haven’t practiced what we’ve preached...

I will continue with Episcopal letters in my next post.

Women Presbyters In The West, Part I: Tertullian

2009-10-21T03:58:00.002-04:00

The time has come to begin our work on women presbyters in the church. Yes, it’s true—women did serve in this authoritative function in the church.
I will post on two writings of the church father Tertullian here, one called “Exhortation to Chastity,” and the other called “To His Wife” (Tertullian’s letter of instruction to his wife of what actions to take after his death).

Before I get ahead of myself, I will now give some introduction regarding Tertullian:

“Born in Carthage, North Africa, Quintus Septimius Florens Tertullianus (c. 160-225) was one of the most influential and brilliant of the Latin fathers. He could also be quite vituperative, especially on the subject of women, though most of all these abusive remarks need to be carefully contextualized and interpreted. A convert from paganism, Tertullian nonetheless became a prolific and effective apologist for Christianity. In his theological works, he did much (along with the Latin Bible, probably already available at the end of the second century) to augment and develop the theological vocabulary of the church, so much, in fact, that he is often designated ‘the father of Latin theology’” (Kevin Madigan and Carolyn Osiek, “Ordained Women in the Early Church: A Documentary History.” Baltimore and London: Johns Hopkins University Press, 2005, page 174).

Now, on to the two documents of Tertullian’s. The first document is titled “Exhortation to Chastity.” Madigan and Osiek give us an introduction to the context of the letter:

“Tertullian urges his friend not to remarry and recommends to him a life of continence. In the tenth chapter of the treatise, he dwells on the advantages of widowhood. Drawing on examples from the Hebrew scriptures and Paul on the desirability of purity, Tertullian then turns to what was revealed in an oracle of the Montanist prophet Prisca” (179).

On with Tertullian’s words:

“Again through the holy prophetess (prophetidem) Prisca is the gospel PREACHED IN THIS WAY [i.e., THROUGH PROPHECY], that THE HOLY MINISTER knows to minister sanctity. ‘Purity,’ she says, ‘brings harmony, and they see visions and, turning their face to the ground, they also hear distinct voices, as salutary as they are mysterious’” (179).

Madigan and Osiek note,

“While Tertullian generally, and often vehemently, opposes women exercising a teaching role, he does recognize here (as he does in ‘On the Soul’ 9.4) THAT SOME WOMEN (LIKE PRISCA), UNDER THE INSPIRATION OF THE HOLY SPIRIT, DO UTTER AUTHORITATIVE PROPHECIES. Tertullian PLACES PRISCA’S ORACLE AS AN AUTHORITY alongside the Hebrew scriptures and the Apostle. All are effected by the action of the Holy Spirit” (179).

First, I wanna say that even Wayne Grudem goes against church history. In Grudem’s book, “Evangelical Feminism and Biblical Truth,” which we’ve covered in quite a lot of detail here at Men and Women, I’ve quoted Grudem as saying that prophecy is “non-authoritative.” However, Tertullian the great church father would blatantly disagree with him; here, Tertullian says that it is authoritative and even considers Priscilla (“Prisca” for short) as a spiritual authority. Grudem needs to get a little more acquainted with his church history.

Notice that Tertullian writes here that “the gospel preached…” is “through prophecy.” Isn’t it funny how today, when an egalitarian goes to Joel 2:28 and says, “When Joel says that ‘your…daughters will prophesy,’ he is saying that women will preach,” what is the response? “oh, you’re delusional.” However, EVEN TERTULLIAN, one of the most adamant voices against women teaching publicly, believed that women COULD PREACH IN THE CHURCH! He believed that to prophesy meant “to preach,” and this is why he refers to Prisca (Priscilla) as “the holy minister.”

Here’s what I want you, the readership, to do: go to people who don’t believe Joel 2:28 and show them the statement by Tertullian above. If they know their church history, then they’ll be stunned that Tertullian, against women teaching, would advocate them preaching! The reason, though, why I’ve been doing this historical/archaeological series is because most conservative evangelicals have grown up with this idea that women have NEVER had any positions of ecclesiastical authority; and, since the Bible “supposedly” claims that women can’t have those positions, then women have never held them. But this isn’t true; and the near 20 posts we’ve done on the historical evidence here at Men and Women show clearly that women did hold such positions in the early church. I pray that Tertullian’s statement above will be one of your favorite statements to “whip out” on complementarians when they come telling you that your view of women in the church is wrong and disagrees with history. Chances are, you’ll shock them…and this is exactly the hoped-for response.

The next document I will quote is Tertullian’s letter, “To His Wife,” in which he gives her instructions regarding life after his death:

“How harmful to faith, and what an impediment to sanctity, second marriages are, the discipline of the church and the restriction (praescriptio) of the Apostle declare, since he does not allow twice-married men to preside [1 Tim. 3.11], and when he would not allow a widow into the ORDER (in ordinem) unless she had been married to only one man (univiram)…indeed, it is fitting that THE ALTAR OF GOD be presented pure (mundam)” (181).

Madigan and Osiek:

“Tertullian used the term ORDO to describe an OFFICIALLY RECOGNIZED SOCIAL CATEGORY within the church. In applying the use of the term here to women, Tertullian implies that WIDOWS ARE PART OF THE CHRISTIAN CLERGY, even if there is no explicit profession of widowhood. At the time of Tertullian’s writing, widows were in fact recognized by the entire Christian community as a special class of Christian, symbolized spatially in liturgical assembly by their occupying a place apart and by penitent sinners seeking reconciliation before them and the presbyters” (181).

Notice that Tertullian’s letter above to his wife discusses “widows,” and then goes on to discuss “the altar of God” being “pure.” Tertullian makes a connection between an order of widows and the altar. This tells us that women served at the altar—although we don’t know what functions they performed. Even in the time of Tertullian, and even with Tertullian’s bias against women teaching, he had no problem affirming women serving at the altar in this letter to his wife.

Although Tertullian was quite outspoken against women teaching publicly, we see that he did believe women had the Holy Spirit and that, being vessels of the Spirit, could possess the spiritual authority to prophesy (preach) and give words from God to God’s people. He certainly believed Priscilla had this spiritual authority and honors her as “the holy minister” (which means that she wasn’t just serving tables). I think Tertullian was right when he said,

“Those persons have but a poor knowledge of God, who suppose Him to be capable of doing only what comes within the boundaries of their own thoughts” (printed in “Quotable Quotes From The Early Christians” in “A Dictionary of Early Christian Beliefs: A Reference Guide to More Than 700 Topics Discussed By The Early Church Fathers” by David W. Bercot, Editor. Peabody, Massachusetts: Hendrickson Publishers, 1998, page 548).

I think both of these Tertullian quotes are in the egalitarian’s favor that you should print them off, frame them, and keep them close. You never know when the day will come that you’ll need them…

Women Deacons In The East, Part V: Later Texts Bearing On Earlier Evidence

2009-10-20T02:18:00.002-04:00

“The following discussions in the Eastern Church from the seventh century and later all shed light on further interpretation of some of the texts presented in the previous chapter. Several, for example, witness to the belief in their day that, though deaconesses no longer functioned liturgically, they were once FULLY ORDAINED MEMBERS OF THE CLERGY and even entrusted with some kind of altar ministry” (Madigan and Osiek, “Ordained Women In The Early Church: A Documentary History. Baltimore and London: Johns Hopkins University Press, 2005, page 133).

I promised you, my readership, that I would supply part five soon…and although it has taken me a while, I’m back to deliver as I promised. In this post, I will begin to tackle later documents that show the privileges women experienced in the church earlier in history—such as ordination.

The first document we will look at is the Trullan Synod, Canon 15. Madigan and Osiek tell us,

“The Trullan Council or Synod was held in 692 in the domed hall (trullus) of the imperial palace of Justinian II in Constantinople to complete the disciplinary work of two previous councils numbered fifth and sixth in 553 and 680-81, hence its secondary name of ‘Quinisext’ or ‘fifth-sixth.’ Its canons largely concerned questions of clerical life and were not accepted in the West” (134).

Let’s read what Canon 14 says:

“Let the canon of our holy God-bearing fathers be retained, namely, that a presbyter not be ordained before the age of thirty even though he be fully qualified, but let him be held back. For Our Lord Jesus Christ was baptized in the thirtieth year and began to preach. Likewise a deacon before the age of twenty-five, nor should a DEACONESS (diakonissa) BE ORDAINED (cheirotonein) before the age of forty” (134).

Notice that Canon 14 gives an age requirement for the ordination of women deacons. Notice too, that canon 14 does not “introduce” the idea of deaconess ordination, but instead, refines the position (with an age requirement). This means that the practice of ordaining women deacons had to have been a normal occurrence for quite some time prior to the publication of this canon.

The Council of Nicaea provides a reference to women’s diaconal ordination in Canon 19:

“This is what happens with deaconesses (diakonissai). Virgins were coming to the church and with encouragement from the bishop, they were maintained as dedicated to God, but in the dress of the laity. This is the way it was arranged. Having attained forty years of age, they were worthy of ORDINATION (cheirotonia) AS DEACONESSES, if they were found to be completely deserving. If any were found to be among the Paulinists, they would be dealt with the same as the men” (136).

There is an interesting point to bring out of Canon 19. In this case, unlike most, it is “virgins” who are being ordained. This is very much against the idea that a woman had to be a “wife” in order to become a deaconess. Perhaps this is why “Phoebe” is mentioned in Romans 16:1-2 as “just Phoebe”—because maybe she didn’t have a husband at all; maybe she was an unmarried woman.

Regarding Canon 19 of the Council of Nicaea, Madigan and Osiek write:

“Balsamon adds more than the Canon of Nicaea, for he goes on to specify age of ordination, bringing in this information from Canon 15 of Chalcedon. HE IMPLIES THAT THE OFFICE OF DEACONESS BEGAN WITH CONSECRATED VIRGINS AND AROSE FROM THIS GROUP. As we will see with his further comments, HE ALSO ASSUMES AN ORIGINAL SACRAMENTAL MINISTRY FOR THEM. The final comment here relates to the integration of the followers of Paul of Samosata into the catholic church: their ordinations done before reconciliation and (re) baptism in the church were not considered valid (see Canon 19 of Nicaea)” (136).

Kevin Madigan and Carolyn Osiek mention “Canon 15 of Chalcedon” above in their comments on canon 19 of the Council of Nicaea. This canon will be dealt with next. For now, what is of note is that Balsamon assumes that the virgins have an actual “sacramental ministry.” In other words, these virgins are to perform services at the altar. This is something that church councils attempted to squelch at every turn.

Now, regarding Council 15 of the Council of Chalcedon:

“The issues concerning the present canon have received wide attention [or, are completely outdated; panteescholasan]. A deaconess (diakonissa) today is not ordained, EVEN IF SOME FEMALE ASCETICS ARE LOOSELY REFERRED TO AS DEACONESSES. For there is a canon that defines that women may not enter the sanctuary (bema). HOW COULD ONE WHO CANNOT APPROACH THE ALTAR (thysiasterion) PERFORM THE FUNCTION OF THE DEACONS? Read canons fourteen and fifteen of the Trullan Synod, which depose a DEACONESS ORDAINED before the age of forty. Doesn’t the present canon anathematize one who marries after ordination? It offends the grace of God” (136)

Madigan and Osiek write the most interesting note on this canon:

“Balsamon mixes two things here. The first comment CONFIRMS THAT ORDINATION OF DEACONESSES IS A THING OF THE PAST, though some monastic women may still bear the title in twelfth-century Constantinople, without ministerial function. The reason for women being excluded from the altar is given in his ‘Response to Mark’s Questions 35: ‘the monthly affliction.’ But the final comments refer to the Trullan Synod (692) and do presuppose the existence of deaconesses, remarking on the minimum age limit. The fifteenth canon in fact speaks only of subdeacons but then affirms that all the clergy mentioned above (presbyters, deacons, deaconesses, and subdeacons) should be deposed if ordained before the required age. Thus Balsamon witnesses to the interpretation that deaconesses were considered members of the clergy (see comment on the Trullan Synod)” (136).

First, we should ask ourselves, “Why would Canon 15 of Chalcedon even have to be produced IF women were not being ordained as deaconesses?" Notice that Balsamon then quotes the canon that forbids women at the altar, and then says, “How could one who cannot approach the altar perform the function of the deacons?” In other words, the function of the deacons, INCLUDING women, involved work at the altar. Women according to this canon cannot be deacons because they have been forbidden at the altar. The canon Balsamon quotes regarding women at the altar should make us ask the question, “If women have to be forbidden at the altar, then doesn’t this mean there was a time when they were ALLOWED at the altar?” Thus, we see that women were allowed at the altar and had sacramental ministries, something that is considered to never have even existed by many of today’s church leaders. I guess they’ve never read their history. And this is why I’m providing this information for my viewers: because they need to know that not everyone in the early church interpreted 1 Timothy 2 to mean what complementarians claim it does today.

What exactly does Balsamon’s “Response to Mark’s Questions” say? Let’s read Balsamon’s next work here:

“Question 35: the divine canons mention deaconesses (diakonissai). So we want to learn what were their liturgical roles (leitourgema).
Response: IN TIMES PAST, ORDERS (tagmata) OF DEACONESSES WERE RECOGNIZED, and THEY HAD ACCESS TO THE SANCTUARY (bema). BUT THE MONTHLY AFFLICTION BANISHED THEM FROM THE DIVINE AND HOLY SANCTUARY, In the holy church of the see of Constantinople, deaconesses were appointed to office, without any participation in the sanctuary, but attending to many church functions and directing the women’s assembly according to church procedures” (137).

According to Madigan and Osiek, “Again Balsamon implies that ORDINATION OF DEACONESSES WAS ONCE FULLY PRACTIED and that at one time THEY EXERCISED SOME KIND OF SACRAMENTAL MINISTRY, THE MEANING OF ACCESS TO THE SANCTUARY. He thinks, however, that once the liturgy was established in Constantinople in the fourth century this practice already had been terminated…Balsamon attributes the restriction of women from the sanctuary NOT TO ANY INHERENT INFERIORITY but to CULTIC PURITY CONCERNS” (137).

What kept women from performing work at the altar? It wasn’t their “inferiority” to men, or their need to “submit” or “not have authority”; instead, it was because of their monthly menstruation. However, if this becomes the reason to ban women, then there is a reason to ban certain men as well: for the Old Testament Mosaic Law is full of people who could not be serve as the priests, or in the tabernacle. Anyone who was unclean, or had any type of impurity (such as leprosy or a birth defect) could not serve in the tabernacle:

16 And the LORD spoke to Moses, saying, 17 “Speak to Aaron, saying: ‘No man of your descendants in succeeding generations, who has any defect, may approach to offer the bread of his God. 18 For any man who has a defect shall not approach: a man blind or lame, who has a marred face or any limb too long, 19 a man who has a broken foot or broken hand, 20 or is a hunchback or a dwarf, or a man who has a defect in his eye, or eczema or scab, or is a eunuch. 21 No man of the descendants of Aaron the priest, who has a defect, shall come near to offer the offerings made by fire to the LORD. He has a defect; he shall not come near to offer the bread of his God. 22 He may eat the bread of his God, both the most holy and the holy; 23 only he shall not go near the veil or approach the altar, because he has a defect, lest he profane My sanctuaries; for I the LORD sanctify them.’” (Leviticus 21:16-23, New King James Version)

So, if women were not allowed to serve, then men who had the above defects (such as skin diseases or broken bones, or unequal limbs) should not have been able to serve as well. If women are not to serve today, then the Levitical law should be in effect and all men with physical problems on the above list in Leviticus should be forbidden from serving at the altar. And yet, we all know that no church today will stop men with defects from teaching, preaching, pastoring, and serving Holy Communion. If you ask me, I smell a “discrimination” rat...

I have one more document to quote from, that being Matthew Blastares’s “Alphabetical Collection 11”:

“Women deacons then fulfilled a certain service AMONG THE CLERGY (kleroi), which is nearly unknown to everyone now. There are some who say that they baptized women because it was not proper for men to see undressed those being baptized who were of a certain age. Others say that THEY WERE ALLOWED TO APPROACH THE HOLY ALTAR AND PERFORM NEARLY ALL THE FUNCTIONS DONE BY MALE DEACONS. THEY WERE FORBIDDEN ACCESS AND PERFORMANCE OF THESE SERVICES BY LATER FATHERS BECAUSE OF THEIR MONTHLY FLOW THAT CANNOT BE CONTROLLED” (138).

Notice that women were allowed to work at the altar at a certain point in time, and that the only reason they were forbidden to do so involved their monthly menstruation. This should tell us, once again, that 1 Timothy 2 was not an excuse to prohibit women from serving. Even Blastares seemed puzzled that the churches disconnected women serving at the altar and 1 Timothy 2:

“But for a woman to be deacon of the holy and unbloody sacrifice does not seem plausible to me. It is not a safe policy [literally: a saving word] that those to whom it is not conceded to teach publicly should be allowed the rank of deacon, whose work is to cleanse by their teaching the unbelievers who approach for baptism” (138).

Notice that he links “teach publicly” with “rank of deacon, whose work is to cleanse by their teaching the unbelievers who approach for baptism.” Blastares didn’t understand how women couldn’t teach but yet, could baptize publicly. Evidently, the church itself didn’t make this connection. So, contrary to today’s thought about women and 1 Timothy 2 (and contra Blastares), women were still allowed to serve at the altar—even if they weren’t allowed to teach.

These later texts confirm what has already been stated—that, at one point in time, women were ordained and allowed to serve at the altar. In future posts, I will cover “women presbyters” in both the East and the West. Stay tuned…

The Ten NOT Reasons (Continued)

2009-10-12T09:48:00.002-04:00

I’m back here at Men and Women to tackle another of Grudem’s “Ten Reasons For Male Headship Before the Fall.” I promised you I would tackle these ten reasons, and I will get to them all before I stop writing on them.

Reason #5 supplied by Wayne Grudem is “The primary accountability”:

“…in a similar way, when God summoned Adam to give an account, it indicated a primary responsibility for Adam IN THE CONDUCT OF HIS FAMILY. This is similar to the situation in Genesis 2:15-17, where God had given commands to Adam alone before the Fall, indicating there also a primary responsibility that belonged to Adam. By contrast, the serpent spoke to Eve first (Gen. 3:1), trying to get her to TAKE RESPONSIBILITY FOR LEADING THE FAMILY INTO SIN, AND INVERTING THE ORDER THAT GOD HAD ESTABLISHED AT CREATION” (Wayne Grudem, “The Key Issues in the Manhood-Womanhood Controversy, and the Way Forward” from “Biblical Foundations for Manhood and Womanhood,” page 31).

It’s good to at least be able to write a post on Wayne Grudem from time to time. I mean, there are days when (as you can imagine) I have to step away from the men and women debate. It gets to be too much. If I don’t step away, I get frustrated by the opinions out there regarding an “unequal” view of women…

However, there are times when courage is needed to approach this task; and so, no matter how frustrating the opinions of men like Wayne Grudem may be, I am on a mission and I CANNOT GIVE UP THE FIGHT!! I must persevere in this subject until women are where God places them.

Regarding Grudem’s quote above, the most striking phrase of all involves the fact that he believes Adam’s “family” played a role in his accountability to God. Before this moment, Adam and Eve were married—but there was no family except for Eve. There were no children at all (no Cain, Abel, or Seth).

Next, he claims that the serpent tried to “get her [Eve] to take responsibility for leading the family into sin, and inverting the order God had established at creation.” First, let me say that the serpent had one task—that is, to get the first couple to attempt to “overthrow” God—and the first couple did attempt this impossible feat!! This idea that the serpent tried to get Eve to “usurp” power from Adam and take his responsibility, is NOWHERE IN THE TEXT! This is Grudem’s interpretation of 1 Timothy 2 coming to play. As I’ve said at the blog here, Grudem LOVES 1 Timothy 2, and if there were no 1 Timothy 2 as we know it, Grudem wouldn’t have any problems with women (I’m being sarcastic…he’d still find a new reason to replace 1 Tim. 2).

Why then, is Adam responsible to God? Because God charged him with the task. God made Adam the human head of creation, the “lord” over the earth. As a result, Adam was to dress the garden and keep it (as well as watch over it). This is all Genesis 2 tells us about Adam being the head of creation.

But here’s a rare moment in time: Grudem actually goes on to say something that I agree with…but, you’ll have to stay tuned to find out what it is...

"Authentein" Again...

2009-09-23T02:40:00.003-04:00

I spent this past summer working on my other blog, titled “Center for Theological Studies.” As I’ve suggested often, anyone who wants to see other theological research of mine, go to the link for “Center for Theological Studies” at the top of the page to the right. Click on the link, and it should take you to the main page of the blog itself. Feel free to read there and post if you just wanna see some other work of mine.

Now, back to the task at hand. I’ve been studying Calvinism and Arminianism this past summer, so all my reading (20+ books) involved that subject. Everything I could find with Calvinism and Arminianism in the title or the subject matter, immediately became a part of my book collection this summer.

While reading on the subject of divine sovereignty and human responsibility and how both concepts work together, I read something in the book titled “No Place For Sovereignty: What’s Wrong with Freewill Theism” by R.K. McGregor Wright that motivated me to return to my blog here at Men and Women in the Church.

Yes, it does involve the Greek infinitival verb “authentein” once more. If you’ve read my 20 posts on 1 Timothy 2, you’ll find that I’ve done quite an extensive subject on this verb. Most notable of the work I’ve done on “authentein” is my work on Rebecca Groothuis’s book, “Discovering Biblical Equality: Complementarity without Hierarchy.” In this book, I examine Linda Belleville’s word study of “authentein” and point out that, while her research is good, her conclusions are wrong. She shows that “authentein” in its earliest form often used an article (“ho”) in front of it, turning the infinitival verb into a subject (a noun). However, she then turns around and says that the infinitive (in everyday language) would have meant to domineer. The focus on the infinitive should be its appearance in literature, not necessarily its function in ordinary everyday use.

Just so we all know, an “infinitival verb” is a verb that functions as an infinitive. For instance, the word “authentein” serves as a verb in 1 Timothy 2:12. It also functions, though, as an infinitive. An infinitive in English is a verb that has the word “to” added to it. For example, “walk” is a verb. When you add the word “to” with the word “walk,” you now have “to walk.” The words “to walk” form an infinitive.

R.K. McGregor Wright writes the following on free will and its use in Scripture:

“Second Corinthians 8:3 (RSV) says that the believers of Macedonia ‘gave…of their own free will.’ The Greek word translated as ‘free will’ here is ‘AUTHAIRETOI,’ which simply means ACTING ‘OF THEMSELVES’ or ‘OF THEIR OWN ACCORD’” (R.K. McGregor, “No Place For Sovereignty.” Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 1996, page 164).

A light bulb went off in my head right away. If you notice, the word “authairetoi” has a prefix, “auth,” which is very similar to the infinitival verb of 1 Tim.2:12--“AUTHentein.”

This intrigued me greatly. All of a sudden, I wanted to study the other words in the New Testament that begin with this prefix and see if they had any linguistic connection whatsoever with “authentein.” There are two other words (in addition to “authairetoi,” and we will examine each of these words and the context of the verses containing them so as to see the connection between them.

Let’s look at the Greek word “authairetoi.” This word is found in the participle form (“authairetoi”) in 2 Corinthians 8:3—

3 I testify that, on their own, according to their ability and beyond their ability… (2 Corinthians 8:3, Holman Christian Standard Bible)

In the context, Paul is writing to the Corinthians here, discussing how the churches of Macedonia have given from their small means “for the privilege of sharing (D) in the ministry to the saints…” (2 Cor. 8:4, HCSB)

The word for “authairetoi” here means “of themselves or of their own accord,” as R.K. McGregor Wright states in the quote above from his book. The word “authairetoi” is made up of two other Greek words: “autos” (self) and “hairetizo” (to choose). So the word itself, with a literal translation, means “to self-choose,” to choose something on their own. What we see here is that the prefix “auth” has something to do with “origin.” Here in 2 Corinthians 8:3, the Macedonians themselves are the “origin” of their decision to give—no one made them give, or forced them to. It was their decision alone. The Macedonians themselves were the “origin” of their decision.

2 Corinthians 8:17 brings us up and close with this word again, except this time, the word is in a noun form:

“For he [Titus] accepted our urging and, being very diligent, went out to you by HIS OWN CHOICE” (2 Cor. 8:17, HCSB).

We see a word similar to “authairetoi,” but the word here is “authairetos.” Since the word is in a noun form here, the word would be translated as “self-choosing.” Titus’s own “self-choosing” is the reason why he went to the Corinthians.

The next word we find related to “authentein” is the word “authade,” found in Titus 1:7—

7 For an overseer, (U) as God's manager, must be blameless, not arrogant, not quick tempered, not addicted to wine, not a bully, not greedy for money…” (Titus 1:7)

The word “arrogant” here is “authade” in the Greek. What does it mean to be “arrogant”? Merriam-Webster’s Online Dictionary gives us this meaning:

1 : exaggerating or disposed to exaggerate one's own worth or importance often by an overbearing manner

Notice the words “one’s own” in the definition? The prefix “auth” is responsible for such translations involving the concept of the self. So someone who is “arrogant” is “self-absorbed” and seeks to magnify themselves in the eyes of everyone else. To use biblical language, they “think more highly of themselves than they ought to think,” which is what the apostle Paul speaks against in the Roman church (Rom. 12:3).

So when we see this word in the context of Titus 1, we realize that being “arrogant” is not a good thing to be!! The word “authade,” in addition to meaning “arrogant,” can also mean “self-willed.” Once again, we see the word “self” as part of this definition as well. The “auth” prefix has everything to do with the “self.” This same word occurs in 2 Peter 2:10, referring to the false teachers.

All these words, starting with the “auth” prefix, have something to do with oneself as the starting point, or “origin,” of an action. Clearly then, “authentein” has something to do with the “self” as the “origin” of something. Much to the shock of many, the word cannot mean “dominate” or “exercise authority” (as defined in our day). If the women in 1 Timothy 2 are doing anything wrong in the church at Ephesus (which they are, since Paul prohibits their actions), then they must be saying something IN RELATION TO THEMSELVES, or ABOUT THEMSELVES. If Paul is writing for these women not to “exercise authority,” or “have authority,” as the NIV claims, then these women must have been in positions of leadership—for, until 1 Tim. 2:12, women are never given such a prohibition by the apostle. If women are dominating the church services, that would be a problem, but it wouldn’t fully explain Paul’s reasoning regarding the order of Adam and Eve’s appearance as well as the details of the Fall. However, if women are PROCLAIMING THEMSELVES TO BE THE ORIGIN OF MAN, then here, we see that the women are saying something ABOUT THEMSELVES, and they are saying something in relation to the Genesis account (the origin of mankind), which would match Paul’s response to the events in the church at Ephesus. This, then, would match Paul’s reference to “those desiring to be teachers of the law” in 1 Timothy 1:

3 As I urged you when I went to Macedonia, (F) remain in Ephesus (G) so that you may command certain people (H) not to teach other doctrine 4 or to pay attention to myths (I) and endless genealogies. These promote empty speculations rather than God's plan, (J) which operates by faith. 5 Now the goal of our instruction is love (K) from a pure heart, (L) a good conscience, (M) and a sincere faith. (N) 6 Some have deviated from these and turned aside to fruitless discussion. 7 They want to be teachers of the law, although they don't understand what they are saying or what they are insisting on. 8 Now we know that the law is good, (O) provided one uses it legitimately. 9 We know that the law is not meant for a righteous person, but for the lawless and rebellious, (P) for the ungodly and sinful, for the unholy and irreverent, for those who kill their fathers and mothers, for murderers, 10 for the sexually immoral (Q) and homosexuals, (R) for kidnappers, liars, (S) perjurers, and for whatever else is contrary to the sound teaching (T) 11 based on the glorious gospel (U) of the blessed God (V) that was entrusted to me.” (1 Timothy 1:3-11, HCSB)

Notice that the issue at Ephesus concerned “other doctrines” (v.3), “myths,” and “endless genealogies” (v.4), what Paul refers to as “fruitless discussion” (v.6).

Yes, I covered “authentein” again, and I will continue to do so from time to time should I find something that will help aid us in our study of this word. For now, though, you should know that my goal is to help us to logically and systematically approach the study of “authentein,” so that we will come away with an interpretation that best fits the context of the epistle of 1 Timothy (and matches the view of the remainder of the biblical canon itself). If 1 Corinthians 11 demonstrates that genealogy is nullified, then I doubt Eve’s appearance AFTER Adam would affect the right of women to exercise leadership in the church at any level.

Women Deacons in the East: Tomb Inscriptions, Part IV

2009-09-13T22:33:00.002-04:00

I am back to give the last three references to women deacons that I will mention in our series on Women Deacons in the East (from the book “Ordained Women in the Early Church: A Documentary History” by Kevin Madigan and Carolyn Osiek). These last three are a great bunch by which to end our archaeological study of tomb inscriptions with regard to women deacons.

First, there is Paula. The tombstone of her brother is from Laodicea Combustia, Phrygia. On the stone is written the following words:

“PAULA, DEACON MOST BLESSED OF CHRIST. SHE BUILT ME AS TOMB of her blessed brother Helladius, outside the homeland, constructed of stones as guardian of the body UNTIL THE TERRIBLE SOUND OF THE TRUMPET WAKES THE DEAD AS GOD HAS PROMISED” (OWEC, 87).

According to Madigan and Osiek, Paula is called a “diakonos” (masculine term for “deacon”) and “one can infer her high level of education and family loyalty, and her sufficient wealth to afford an expensive memorial” (87). In addition, the last words “until the terrible sound of the trumpet wakes the dead as God has promised” come from 1 Corinthians 15:51-52 (87)—

“Listen! I am telling you a mystery:
We will not all fall asleep, but we will all be changed, in a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the LAST TRUMPET. FOR THE TRUMPET WILL SOUND, and the dead will be raised incorruptible, and we will be changed.” (HCSB)

We discover that Paula built a tomb for her brother and the tomb itself tells us she was a “diakonos.” But, aside from that, we find that believers of the early church had firm convictions regarding their eschatology. Paula really believed that the Lord would return and that the Scriptures told her so. And I think we should all look at death in this way: whenever someone who loves us leaves us, we should remember that God has promised to raise them from the dead—and not just them, but all of us who love Him!

This next tomb inscription concerns a woman named “Sophia” and comes from the fourth century. According to Madigan and Osiek,

“the stone was found by workers below the Tomb of the Prophets on THE MOUNT OF OLIVES in Jerusalem on December 8, 1903, in five pieces, with the bottom missing. It is now in the museum of St. Anne’s Church, Jerusalem” (OWEC, 90).

On the tomb are the words as follows:

“Here lies the slave and bride of Christ SOPHIA, DEACON, THE SECOND PHOEBE, who slept in peace the twenty-first of the month of March in the eleventh Indiction…the Lord God…” (90).

According to Madigan and Osiek,

“The most surprising part of the description is her [Sophia] appellation as ‘SECOND PHOEBE,’ a reference to Rom. 16:1-2, where Phoebe, bearer of Paul’s letter to Rome, is recommended to the recipients as ‘diakonos’—THE EARLIEST USE OF THAT TERM, with Phil. 1:1, for an officer of a particular church—and ‘prostatis,’ patron or benefactor (see Phoebe). The comparison to Phoebe is probably not only to her diaconate, which was common to many women of the period, but to her position as patron and benefactor” (OWEC, 91).

We also find that Sophia calls herself the “slave” and “bride of Christ,” which means that she knew her eschatology. According to Madigan and Osiek, “calling oneself the slave or servant of Christ or God was common early Christian language (see Rom. 1:1; 1 Cor. 4:5; Phil. 1:1; Gal. 1:10), and the use of bridal imagery…was also beginning at this period” (90).

The most important thing about Sophia’s tomb inscription is that she is labeled “the second Phoebe.” Since she is a “diakonos,” and the first Phoebe (Rom. 16) was a “diakonos,” we can infer that she believed she was following in the footsteps of the Phoebe Paul mentions in Scripture.

The fact that Sophia believed herself to be in line with the Phoebe of Romans 16 tells us that the church used this woman as an example for all women to follow and pattern themselves after. I’ve spent quite a bit of time here at the blog trying to rebut complementarians who attempt to remove this woman from having any importance in the early church at all—and make Phoebe out to be nothing but a “good assistant.” Phoebe was a woman of means, someone very active and trustworthy in the early church—and from now on, when complementarians attempt to discredit Phoebe, point to this evidence about a woman named “Sophia” who evidently believed that she was walking in the footsteps of the Phoebe who helped Paul! This is the goal of providing historical evidence at the site: so that you can inform others of the truth regarding women and their work in the early church.

The last reference I will make concerns a woman named “Zaortha”:

“Zaortha DEACONESS” (94).

Someone might be puzzled to see such a short tomb inscription and wonder, “Why is this here? Why would you even post this inscription?” That’s a good question, and I have a good answer: because she served as a deaconess in a Syriac-speaking church.

As Madigan and Osiek tell us,

“The word for deaconess that is transliterated into Greek as ‘samastha’ is Syriac ‘shamashta,’ not the usual Syriac word, which is ‘mshamshanita.’ The root meaning of the term is the same, ‘servant’ or ‘minister.’ Whether this is a regional or some other variation is not known. Nor is anything further known about the deaconess Zaorta. This is not a funerary commemoration but her dedication of a piece of the chancel screen as a pious offering to the church. She was therefore a person of means, PROBABLY A PATRON IN THE COMMUNITY. Together, with the deaconesses to whom Severus wrote, SHE IS EVIDENCE OF THE USE OF THE OFFICE IN THE SYRIAC-SPEAKING CHURCHES” (OWEC, 94).

This seems to be the only evidence of the existence of a female diaconate in Syriac churches. In any case, however small the evidence, the evidence still exists.

This will conclude our study of tomb inscriptions of Women Deacons in the East. We have one bit of business left—and that involves to show evidence of ecclesiastical texts that confirm the female diaconate as an ORDAINED office. Part Five is on its way…

Show Me The Evidence!

2009-09-09T04:11:00.002-04:00

“Untold harm has been done in the name of Christianity by people who have absolutized their relative interpretations of life or of Scripture. Presumptuous prophets who claimed to speak God’s word to people, without divine authorization, in the OT administration were subject to the most severe penalties. May God deliver evangelicals today from prophetic ministries not validly drawn from divine revelation. This case for revealed absolutes must not be taken to justify absolutizing merely human ideas, however good…We can be assured of our view of the major doctrines of Christianity and the realities to which they refer WHEN OUR INTERPRETATIONS ARE BASED ON NUMEROUS RELEVANT AND EXTENSIVE PASSAGES OF SCRIPTURE, supported by interpreters throughout the history of the church, and attested to us personally by the internal witness of the Holy Spirit to the teaching of the Word. Then we can confidently relate to the realities designated and preach the great doctrines of the faith with joy” (Walter Elwell, editor, “Relativism,” in “Evangelical Dictionary of Theology: Second Edition.” Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 2001, page 1005).

I like Walter Elwell’s quote above. Elwell shows us the danger of placing our own views onto Scripture.

I was reading from Elwell’s dictionary because of my theology class. It’s amazing how reading for theology could bring me back to a subject I haven’t studied for some time!!!

Notice that I capitalized a phrase of Elwell’s quote above. The phrase I capitalized is the phrase that concerns the discussion of this post: how can a person tell when their interpretation of a passage is correct?

Here at the blog for the last nine months, I have tried to show that the complementarian view of women in ministry is one that is based on a presuppositional bias, NOT the Word of God. Scripture does not subordinate all women to all men, nor does it tell all women to submit themselves to all men! Instead, Scripture tells WIVES to submit to their HUSBANDS (Ephesians 5:22-24, Colossians 3:18, 1 Peter 3:1). And when Scripture tells wives to submit, it states that they are to do so “to THEIR husbands,” not to EVERY husband.

But this is where Elwell’s statement comes in: if God forbade women in positions of church leadership, such as the pastorate, eldership, deacon, teacher, preacher, and so forth, then why is it that NO EXPLICIT passages mention this? Have you ever wondered why there is no undisputed passage in Scripture that forbids women from having leadership offices in the church?

Well it is here that someone may object: “Well, Deidre, what about 1 Timothy 2?” In response I would say, “Yes, let’s consider this wonderful passage indeed. Notice that the ONLY letter that gives this prohibition is 1 Timothy 2. And why is that?" Having studied hermeneutics the last three years, I’ve learned that when something is mentioned in several places throughout Scripture, it is a universal statement—binding for all times in all places through all situations. However, when something is mentioned once (and only once), it is not a universal statement, but a LOCAL one—which means that the comment or statement applied only to a specific time period or situation. 1 Timothy 2 would fit under this umbrella. Paul’s prohibition is found nowhere else in the New Testament EXCEPT in the letter of 1 Timothy. In fact, as I’ve written about in a few posts here at the blog on “Junia or Junias?”, Paul even mentions a female apostle, Junia, in Romans 16, not to mention “Syntyche and Euodia” in Philippians 4 as “fellow workers” of his. These two women “contended” for the gospel alongside of Paul, and he credits them as his equals in the Gospel work!!

Let me play the role of “Devil’s advocate” for a moment: IF the Lord could be so explicit about wives submitting to their husbands, why couldn’t He be AS EXPLICIT about women not working in positions of leadership in the church? It seems that whenever the Lord wanted to be clear about something, the language of Scripture is precise and to the point. But when it comes to this so-called “universal” prohibition (as complementarians believe), we don’t find such a bold prohibition, but instead, many pieces of evidence that lead to the other conclusion. Why is this so? How can this be?

I think that you and I know the answers to these questions. We find the opposite because we all know that the opposite is true—that the Lord doesn’t forbid women to exercise their gifts for His glory.

Some people don’t consider the issue of women in ministry to be a “doctrine” of the church; but I think it is—for, think of all the Christians that are indoctrinated against women in ministry from the time they are old enough to know how to behave in church. It is a doctrine when believers are being taught that women are subordinate by nature and were never meant to assume leadership in the churches. It is a doctrine when little girls are being taught that all they can do is sew and knit and keep house and have children and work in the nursery, sing in the choir, and play an instrument at church. It is a doctrine when men are being taught that, by virtue of their GENDER, they are MORE FIT for leadership in the churches than women are. It is a doctrine, whether most conservatives like to think of it as such or not. I think it’s time the church call it what it is (a doctrine) and place it with the other doctrines as teaching that should be subject to examination.

Place the doctrine of “women’s subordination” on the table; follow the Elwell pattern and “Show Me the Evidence,” show me the passages that confirm the traditional view of women in leadership. Show me why Miriam, Deborah, and Huldah were all “out of place” and why 1 Timothy 2 was written. I’ll even allow the complementarian to take time explaining to me his “biological” argument for the domination of men in the home and the church. However, while the complementarian is doing this, I ask one thing of him: show me other passages that have the SAME prohibition as 1 Timothy 2. In other words, if Paul prohibits women to “teach” and “have authority,” as most conservatives believe, then show me the other passages that explicitly mention “teach” and “have authority” as prohibitions for women.

Complementarians can search for such passages—but they will search in vain. 1 Timothy 2 is the ONLY passage that gives such a prohibition. This “once-mentioned” prohibition, then, cannot be given the same weight as “wife submission” in Paul’s letters, for he mentions this three times to three different congregations!
Instead, 1 Timothy 2 is a particular letter written to address a specific situation in the church at Ephesus. But for those who still believe in the power of 1 Tim. 2, explain to me then why 1 Timothy 5 mentions women being “rulers of the home” (“manage the home,” the Greek word “oikodespotein”)…

Women Deacons in the East: Tomb Inscriptions, Part III

2009-08-12T14:13:00.001-04:00

Currently, I’ve been providing information regarding tomb inscriptions of female deacons in the West as well as the East. At the present time, we have covered women deacons in the West and are attempting to cover the presence of women deacons in the East. This is where Part III will resume.

Next on our list is a limestone inscription from Phrygia in Asia Minor. The limestone is broken into two pieces:

Left side: “Aurelius Antonius, son of Miros, together with his aunt ELAPHIA DEACONESS of the Encratites…[text is broken off]”

Right side: “I, ELAPHIA, DEACONESS OF THE ENCRATITES, have set up this monument as memorial to the presbyter Peter together with his brother Polychronios” (OWEC, 78).

Regarding the limestone:

“In the right inscription, she [Elaphia] alone makes the commemoration, to a presbyter and his brother, both of whose relationship to her is unknown. Since no relationship is stated, it is possible that SHE WAS ACTING AS A CHURCH OFFICIAL to commemorate two brothers, one a cleric, who had no surviving family to do it for them” (OWEC, 78).

What interests me, aside from Elaphia as a deaconess here, is that she is called a “deaconess of the ENCRATITES.” Madigan and Osiek provide information on this interesting group as well:

“The Encratites were a sect of ascetics known from the second century on in the East. Celibacy was an important part of their practice…” (OWEC, 78)

Another inscription comes from a marble sarcophagus near Nicomedia in Bithynia (Asia Minor):

“In memory of EUGENIA DEACON we, the poor people of Geragathis, restored the sarcophagus that we decorated” (OWEC, 81).

This is an interesting one because of those who describe themselves as “the poor people of Geragathis.” According to Madigan and Osiek, “The group could be of a particular place or belonging in some way to a person. Ute Eisen suggests the leader of a house for the poor where Eugenia had worked” (81).

A Nicopolis (Thrace) inscription dated from 538 CE tells of a woman who was patron of a memorial center:

“Here lies EUGENIA of praiseworthy memory, d…[stone broken off], WHO BUILT THE HOUSE (domo[n], i.e., shrine) OF THE GLORIOUS APOSTLE ANDREW in a holy manner, and ended life on June 12 in the first Indiction, in the reign of our godly and reverend ruler (despo[tou]) Flavius Justinianus, eternal Augustus and Emperor, in the twelfth year of the consulship (hypatia) of the noble Flavius John” (OWEC, 81).

Only the first letter of her title [d] is preserved (Madigan and Osiek, 81) so that we don’t know if she was a deacon or deaconess. We do know, however, that she played a role in the construction of a memorial center—so she must have had quite an influence in her community.

The next inscription concerns a woman named Maria of Archelais. The inscription itself was of grey marble stone, with a cross and ivy decoration in the center; the words themselves were written below the arms of the cross. It is a sixth century inscription:

“Here lies MARIA THE DEACON of pious and blessed memory who, according to the saying of the Apostle, raised children, exercised hospitality, washed the feet of the saints, and distributed her bread to the needy. Remember her, Lord, when she enters into your kingdom” (OWEC, 82-83).

Madigan’s and Osiek’s comments are fitting by themselves for Maria’s tomb inscription:

“The inscription contains biblical allusions to 1 Tim. 5:10 in the middle and Luke 23:42 at the end. The allusion to the work of widows in 1 Tim. 5:10 makes it almost certain that Maria was a widow at the time of her death. The title ‘the Apostle’ is frequently used of Paul by writers of this period. Everyone would know to whom it referred. Her title is ‘diakonos,’ and the total lack of mention of any relatives is unusual. It may mean that she had no surviving relatives, or it may indicate HER LEVEL OF IMPORTANCE TO HER CHURCH COMMUNITY. PERHAPS THE COMMUNITY ERECTED HER MEMORIAL” (83).

They also give us insight into Maria’s work as a deacon:

“the description given here from 1 Timothy lists typical works that would be theirs. Raising children may mean not only their own but the neglected or orphaned children of others. Hospitality involved the washing of feet as a sign of welcome and was not understood only as slaves’ work. Feeding the poor was a necessary work of charity that was expected of all. The mention of these specific activities is a biblical allusion and DOES NOT NECESSARILY MEAN THAT MARIA EXCELLED ONLY AT THESE FUNCTIONS” (83).

Maria of Moab has something of historical note to show us:

“Here lies MARIA daughter of Valens, DEACON, who lived thirty-eight years and died in the year 538 [643-44 CE]” (OWEC, 83).

While Maria’s title was abbreviated (dk), leaving us in the dark as to whether she was a deacon or deaconess, we do know that her age is of note. According to the writers, “She was already a deacon at the age of THIRTY-EIGHT, DESPITE THE LOWER AGE LIMIT OF FORTY SET AT THE COUNCIL OF CHALCEDON for ordination of a woman deacon. These frequent discrepancies show that LEGISLATION MAY HAVE BEEN ENACTED, BUT WIDE OBSERVANCE WAS ANOTHER THING” (83).

Maria’s age was two years BELOW the age limit set by the church council, which shows us that rules, although set down in stone, were not implemented as such. And this will be seen also in our future posts regarding women presbyters. Although church councils attempted to undermine women in leadership positions, they couldn’t be at EVERY church to enforce those rules—and that is where churches took advantage of the councils’ lack of access and followed personal convictions. As Madigan and Osiek tell us, councils continued to decree and make their rules, but they couldn’t enforce observance. It seems then, that everyone exercised power in their own spheres.

This will conclude Part III of Women Deacons in the East: Tomb Inscriptions. Having read over these inscriptions, I think what encourages me most is that these inscriptions teach us so much about the women whose names are engraved on them. We’ve learned that women deacons contributed to financial projects, worked in hospitals, took care of orphaned children, had ordinations, etc. What this shows us, however, is that women deacons were a COMMONLY-ACCEPTED thing in the church for quite some time. And this fact should make us pause and ask, “if the early church accepted women leaders, then why have we forgotten this?” It makes me realize more and more each day that “history is written by the victors.” Church councils wrote what they did; but the women, those who served in leadership positions, only have their tomb inscriptions left to tell their story. And, similar to Abel, though they are dead, their lives “still speak” (Hebrews 11:4).

Women Deacons in the East: Tomb Inscriptions, Part II

2009-08-06T23:23:00.001-04:00

There are more tomb inscriptions than those presented in Part I.
This post will start with a mosaic inscription from Patras, Greece—that of Agrippiane:

“The DEACON AGRIPPIANE, most beloved of God, made the mosaic in fulfillment of her vow.” (Ordained Women in the Early Church, 70). [from this moment on, the book titled will be referenced by the acronym “OWEC”]

Kevin Madigan and Carolyn Osiek write:

“Agrippiane is a DIAKONOS who exercised her patronage by paying for a mosaic floor after having made some kind of promise to God, the details of which are unknown. The usual pattern, often practiced by believers of the early Church, is to promise to do something specific if a request has been granted by God. Both clergy and laity could make such vows and were bound to fulfill them. The appellation ‘most beloved of God’ (theophilestate) IS KNOWN IN OTHER CONTEXTS AS A DESCRIPTION OF CHURCH OFFICIALS” (OWEC, 70).

With Agrippiane, when she is called a “diakonos,” the title “most beloved of God” adds to our belief that Agrippiane was a deacon of a church in Greece.

The next tomb inscription is a funerary inscription from Apollonia, Pontus (Thrace):

“Alexandra subdeacon” (OWEC, 70).

According to Madigan and Osiek, the office of subdeacon existed for men, but we have no evidence regarding what the office meant for women. “The title HYPODIAKON on the Greek inscription is an abbreviation either for HYPODIAKONOS or HYPODIAKONISSA, so her actual title could have been either term” (OWEC, 70).

For those whose minds are curious as to what a subdeacon did, you’re in good luck. David Bercot, editor of the work “A Dictionary of Early Christian Beliefs,” gives us the details of what the office would have required for men:

“In the early church, a subdeacon was an assistant to a deacon, and in some churches he performed similar functions to that of a deacon” (“A Dictionary of Early Christian Beliefs” by David W. Bercot, Editor. Peabody, Massachusetts: Hendrickson Publishers, 2008, page 635).

So a subdeacon for the deacon was an assistant to the deacon; assistants usually did whatever the deacons needed them to do. This is probably how it worked among the women. They possibly had assistants as well, who did whatever the women deacons needed them to do.

The next inscription concerns a fourth-century inscription found in 1910 in the Peloponnesus, a marble plaque:

“Here lies [________] only child, twenty-three years old, daughter of [________] and ALEXANDRA DEACON, raised and taken in by my father Erenianos in swaddling clothes, in distress and pleas, buried in hope by me. As God wished, I fulfilled this path for her in the fourteenth Indiction, September 13” (OWEC, 71).

We know that Alexandra, mentioned in the inscription, is the mother of the child who died at 23. Alexandra is considered to be a deacon of a church.

The next inscription concerns Anastasia of Palestine. The inscription itself is “a funerary inscription of the Byzantine Period, from the burial caves at the St. George Choziba Monastery, Deir el Qilt in Wadi Kilt, between Jerusalem and Jericho” (OWEC, 71).

“Here lies ANASTASIA DEACON, in the month of February 27, in the 11th Indiction” (OWEC, 71).

Madigan and Osiek tell us that in the place of “deacon” here in the inscription are really just four letters, an abbreviation of the title (DIAK); therefore, we can’t know whether Anastasia was a deacon or a deaconess (OWEC, 71).

The last tomb inscription in this post is from the fifth century, from Delphi (Greece):

“The devoted DEACONESS ATHANASIA, who lived a blameless life decorously, INSTALLED AS DEACONESS by the most holy bishop Pantamianos, set up this memorial. Here lie her mortal remains. If anyone else dares to open this monument where the deaconess has been placed, may he share the lot of Judas the [betrayer] of our Lord Jesus Christ…” (OWEC, 72)

Regarding this tomb inscription, Madigan and Osiek tell us that “this is the only inscription of a female deacon that speaks of her installation as deaconess (Katasthathisa)and gives the name of the installing bishop, probably because of his importance. This verb (kathistemi) is not normally used for ordination and is sometimes contrasted to ordination. It rather connotes official appointment to an office or function…” (OWEC, 73).

Despite Madigan and Osiek’s claim here, I’d have to say that the word “kathistemi” is used in the Greek New Testament for appointment to church office. It is especially used for the first deacons of the early church in Acts 6. When Peter says, “Therefore, brothers, select from among you seven men of good reputation, full of the Spirit and wisdom, whom we can APPOINT to this duty” (Acts 6:4, HCSB), he is telling the church to pick seven men they can install to the office of deacon. In the early church, installment, appointment, and ordination meant the same thing; so I don’t see where the difference lies. At least in the Greek New Testament, “kathistemi” did mean ordination.

This means, then, that Athanasia, the deaconess, WAS ORDAINED to her position. What adds to this conclusion is the fact that we are told the name of the Bishop who ordained her: “installed as deaconess by THE MOST HOLY BISHOP PANTAMIANOS…” If Athanasia was just given a church office that held no significance of ordination, why would a bishop’s name be used here? As we will see throughout the study of tomb inscriptions, there were women who served as “deacons” and did good charitable things, but the name of a bishop was not given—nor were any of the details of their appointment.

This will conclude Part II of our study of tomb inscriptions. As we see, though, women did serve in leadership in the early church. As we progress through the study, I hope that you feel as I do: that much of this material, although true, remains hidden or undiscussed. Something must be done…

Women Deacons in the East: Tomb Inscriptions

2009-08-05T02:56:00.001-04:00

It is now time to add a new section to that of our historical evidence: tomb inscriptions proving the existence of women deacons in the East.
Without further ado, I will now start with Aeria, from an inscription found in 1885 on a stone with a cross in the middle:

“Here rests the ever-remembered servant of Christ, AERIA, who was a DEACON of the holy ones, friend of all. She came to rest in the tenth Indiction in the month of January, being thirty years old, in the year 594. God-bearer [help?]” (“Ordained Women in the Early Church,” page 68).

Madigan and Osiek tell us that the label “friend of all” [panton phile] is a common label used in the fifth and sixth centuries.
We are told that Aeria was a “diakonos.”

Next, meet Agaliasis, whose name was inscribed on a tomb as part of a fourth-century family funerary inscription from the Island of Melos in the Aegean Sea:

“In the Lord: the presbyters worthy of every commemoration, Asclepis and Elpizon and Asklepiodotos and AGALIASIS THE DEACON and Eutychia and Klaudiane, virgins, and Eutychia their mother lie here. Since this tomb is full, I adjure you by the angel located before it that no one dare bury anyone else here. Jesus Christ, help the one who writes this and his entire household” (Ordained Women in the Early Church,” page 68).

Regarding Agaliasis, Madigan and Osiek write:

“Though the deacon’s name is spelled with only one ‘l’ in the inscription, THE NAME IS A COMMON GREEK WORD, ‘agalliasis’ (see Luke 1:47)” (Ordained Women, page 69).

The next piece of evidence comes from a funerary inscription at Philippi in Macedonia:

“Distinguished resting place of AGATHE DEACON and John treasurer and linen-weaver” (OW, 69).

Madigan and Osiek believe that “this brief inscription probably records the burial of a wife and husband. Her title is DIAKONOS. The terms used to describe her husband are disputed. He may have been treasurer or custodian of the church (hypodektos) as well as a worker or merchant in line (othonetos)…HE SEEMS NOT TO HAVE BEEN ORDAINED. This inscription is a rare indication that not all women deacons were virgins or widows” (69).

This inscription shows us that, in some cases, the woman was ordained—while the husband wasn’t! But that would NEVER happen today, according to most conservative evangelicals.

One more tomb inscription will be discussed in this post: that of Agathokleia. The inscription is only a few words:

“Memorial of Agathokleia, virgin and DEACON” (OW, 69).

This inscription comes from Macedonia in the fifth and sixth centuries. Here’s what Madigan and Osiek had to say about the unusual combination of “virgin” and a church office:

“The DIAKONOS Agathokleia is also called a virgin; she is undoubtedly a CONSECRATED VIRGIN…this inscription…shows that the two titles and thus the two functions, virgin and deacon, were considered DISTINCT, yet COULD BE COMBINED” (OW, 69-70).

I will pick up where I left off in our discovery of tomb inscriptions in my next post.

Women Deacons in the West: Church Documents

2009-08-04T02:14:00.002-04:00

We have finished our coverage of women deacons in the west via tomb inscriptions and a letter between a Pope and Bishop. Now, we are gonna begin tracing women deacons in church texts. The first church document I will begin with is called the “Testamentum Domini Nostri Jesu Christi,” which is Latin for “the Testament of our Lord Jesus Christ.”

Kevin Madigan and Carolyn Osiek provide us with a fitting description of the document:

“The TD is an early Christian church order, depending literarily on some form of Hippolytus’ ‘Apostolic Tradition,’ as well as an apocalypse and other sources. IT PURPORTS TO INCLUDE THE INSTRUCTIONS CHRIST GAVE TO THE TWELVE AFTER THE RESURRECTION, on issues of ecclesiastical order, architecture, daily prayer, and other matters…probably written in Greek in the late fourth or (as Harnack suggested) the fifth century, it survives today in Syriac, Ethiopic, and Arabic” (“Ordained Women in the Early Church: A Documentary History,” page 150).

The texts of the TD have all been translated from Latin to English, so I will only provide the English translation here at the blog site. The parts of the Testamentum that I will address here will be those rules of the TD that mention women deacons. There are other documents regarding church order. To find those, just do a google search.

Now to begin with, let’s look at Testamentum Domini 1.23:

“On the Sabbath let [the bishop] offer three breads as a symbol of the Trinity; on Sunday, four breads as an image of the Gospel.
When he offers the sacrifice, let the VEIL OF THE SANCTUARY be drawn closed, as a sign of the wandering of the ancient people, and let him offer it WITHIN THE VEIL WITH the presbyters, deacons, canonical widows (viduis canonicis), subdeacons, DEACONESSES (diaconissi), readers, [and] THOSE HAVING SPIRITUAL GIFTS (charismata).
Let the bishop stand first in the middle, and the presbyters immediately behind him on both sides; the widows (viduae) behind the presbyters who are on the left side; the deacons behind the presbyters who are on the right side; and behind these the readers; and behind the readers the subdeacons; and behind the subdeacons, the DEACONESSES (diaconissae).”

Regarding the placement of deaconesses behind the veil, Madigan and Osiek write the following:

“The deaconess, WHO HAS ALMOST NO ROLE BEYOND THAT OF GREETING WOMEN AT THE DOOR OF THE CHURCH, is brought within the veil and, though mentioned last, she experiences an ‘upward’ shift, so to speak, and is explicitly brought into the penumbra of the clergy. All are clearly separated from the laity” (152).

I desire to point out some things in rule 1.23 that we just examined. First, notice that the deaconesses are placed BEHIND THE VEIL with the bishop and presbyters. Then, as Madigan and Osiek tell us, the deaconesses are clearly separated from the laity itself. This tells us that deaconesses were considered to be part of the ordained clergy in those days. The fact that women were ordained clergy in those days attests to how women have shifted “downward” in the centuries since; in many conservative theological circles, women no longer have a place as ordained clergy.

Remember what I’ve been saying at the blog? It’s funny how most theological conservatives believe that women have NEVER been ordained; yet and still, we have not only tomb inscriptions but also church documents that tell us otherwise. It doesn’t take much to see that the Church of Christ has disintegrated from what it was in the early centuries following the ascension of Christ.

But I found something else interesting about rule 1.23: not only does it allow women behind the curtain, but also “those having spiritual gifts.” THOSE HAVING SPIRITUAL GIFTS! Did you notice that?

I point out those with spiritual gifts because today, in most churches, since we believe that everyone has a spiritual gift, we tend to let those with spiritual gifts remain among the congregation and sit out in the pews with the rest of the congregation: we don’t allow them behind the pulpit or anywhere near it. Well, in the early centuries of the church, those who had spiritual gifts, such as those of the five-fold ministry in Ephesians 4 (evangelists, teachers, pastors, prophets, apostles) were allowed to go behind the veil as ordained clergy. Teachers would have been included behind the veil, which means that, they were considered to be part of the clergy. It’s funny that many churches consider them to be part of the church staff, but not necessarily part of the ordained clergy. But I think the early church was onto something when they allowed teachers behind the veil—because teachers are the ones feeding God’s people the Word, helping them to understand what God is saying. In other words, teachers are performing a PASTORAL DUTY when they instruct from one Sunday to the next, whether they are teaching youth, men, women, toddlers, etc.!

The fact that the teachers were ordained clergy also tells us something else: that today’s women, including those of Southern Baptist circles who teach only women and children, would have been considered ORDAINED CLERGY in the days of the early church! Actually, as teachers, in some cases, women would have had a greater role as ordained clergy than that of the deaconess!

The Testamentum Domini 1.23 shows us that women were considered to be ordained clergy. The question is, if women of the third and fourth centuries were considered to be ordained, then why has the rule changed today? Why is it that women today are considered in conservative theological circles to be NON-ORDAINED by nature? To presuppose women should never be ordained then, is to go against the views of the early church.

Since we have covered all the material on women deacons in the West, we will continue our discussion of women deacons by looking at tomb inscriptions of women deacons in the East. Keep reading, and feel free to comment or ask questions.