A little bit of a rabbit trail led me to this article, which is surprisingly good given the source.
https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/article/deconstruct-culture-not-faith/
I think this gets to the root of the disagreement in the last comment thread. RPs, NAPARC, and much of US Evangelicalism is trapped in a cultural context that includes the gospel, but has wrapped the gospel in a layer of cultural moralism.
As I pointed out, in the 1800's, churches in the US split over the issue of slavery. We look back at that time and wonder why Christians thought it was good and right to own slaves. It was because the cultural context of the slave states justified slavery and racial oppression. Abolitionists had to read past the Bible verses on slavery and ask, "does the Bible really justify and encourage slavery, or is the Bible merely discussing how Israelites/Christians operate in a cultural context of slavery?" It's a real question and just throwing out prooftexts doesn't get to the heart of the matter.
That's why I think it is entirely valid to question the Biblical perspective on things like I have mentioned. The Bible already questions and refines its own conclusions. When the Pharisees questioned Jesus on divorce, he said, "Everyone who divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery, and he who marries one who is divorced from a husband commits adultery." Many sermons take this as the final statement on divorce, but then Paul says something different: "Yet if the unbelieving one leaves, let him leave; the brother or the sister is not under bondage in such cases, but God has called us to peace." Even the WCF recognizes that desertion is grounds for divorce, and that a wife divorced due to desertion does not sin (commit adultery) if she remarries.
In the same vein, God allows and even seemingly recommends polygamy (kinsman redeemer) in the Old Testament, but then Jesus says, "the two shall become one flesh" as if to say that polygamy was never God's intent, and Paul underscores that later to say that an elder must be the "husband of one wife" (pastors say 'one woman man'). So, Israel, Abraham, David ... and others are examples in faith that Paul would exclude from being elders in the church.
So, now when we look at the Bible, we need to not only understand our own cultural lens that we use to interpret, but we also need to understand the cultural lens of the people the scriptures were written to. In a sense, simple, yet complicated. We can understand "love your neighbor as yourself", but Paul points out that "don't muzzle an ox while she is threshing" isn't as much about farming as it is about allowing people to enjoy the fruits of their labor.
So, all these things you want to accuse me of heresy about...
Spanking is not a sin - Proverbs talks primarily about instruction. The purpose of discipline is instruction, and, as far as I know, no one has been "spanked" by God. Therefore, God can discipline us without corporal punishment. Now, let's understand one of the prooftexts: "Do not hold back discipline from the child, Although you strike him with the rod, he will not die. You shall strike him with the rod And rescue his soul from Sheol." It seems to justify spanking, but it's not a command, and it's not even necessarily true. This is just one example:
In 2010, 7-year-old Lydia Schatz died of rhabdomyolosis, or muscle death caused by extreme trauma usually caused in car accidents or even extreme Crossfit-style workouts. Lydia Schatz's injuries were the result of continual spanking. She was, quite literally, spanked to death by her adoptive parents... https://www.oklahomalegalgroup.com/news/parents-found-guilty-in-to-train-up-a-child-death
So, is spanking part of God's perfect parenting discipline plan, or is spanking something that better fit the cultural context of ancient Israel? If we look at studies examining the practice (some early ones were suspect, but I think later ones are less axe-grinding on the matter) it's really not helping kids. I will say, like the studies, I'm neutral to negative on spanking. It was counterproductive for my kids, especially given the Evangelical emphasis on having to punish every infraction.
Sexuality averse to the scriptures - I don't disagree with Evangelicals, except for the emphasis. It's easy to round the troops when you can tickle the ears in one of two ways (better both):
1 - Create a common enemy. If pastors preached against sins their congregants actually committed, they might lose members, but if they don't rail against sin, they're seen as soft and unprincipled. The solution? Pick sins that everyone agrees are bad yet no one in the congregation commits. I remember hearing 45 minutes of an RP pastor railing against "antinomianism". As if any RP, the very definition of legalist, is going to say that the law is no longer relevant. Gasp! Yet someone was praising the sermon to the skies because he "had antinomian friends". Yup. Ear tickling.
So, even though I agree that sex outside of a marriage of opposite "assigned at birth" genders is sin, I believe that the vitriol coming from Evangelical pulpits against the LGBTQ+ community is so outsized compared to the supposed "harm" caused by two consenting adults having sex that I end up getting labeled a "heretic" for saying that we have better things to preach about. Like, hey, what about sexual assault? Apparently >25% of women have been sexually assaulted. Does the church care? Well, maybe if they were assaulted by another woman. I don't know. Never heard a pastor preach against sexual assault, and the one I know of (Jared Olivetti) was potentially pretexting for his relative who was... sexually assaulting other kids in the congregation.
2 - Create an us vs. them mentality. So, not only is there a group of people to blame for the decline of society, pastors also have to paint society as universally antagonistic to the growth of the church. It doesn't matter that the Speaker of the House is a Christian Nationalist. We all know that every nook and cranny of the US government opposes Christian Nationalism... Uh wait, what? So, when we say, "the world" who is that world? We have yet to elect a president who doesn't claim to be a Christian. What diabolical plots have come out of the "world" - well, we had Rachael Denhollander saying that gymnasts didn't deserve to be sexually molested in order to compete. We had those demons calling out the Catholic priests who were molesting them. We had women starting a movement that brought down such fine upstanding men as Harvey Weinstein. We had the worldly IndyStar calling out Jared Olivetti and IRPC for covering up sexual assault in their congregation.
The world isn't a unified no-holds-barred antagonism to all that is good. There is common grace and there are moral atheists who are working to bring justice, just as there are Evangelical pastors using their position to spiritually and sexually abuse their congregants.
Pastorship according to the scriptures - again, when we look at the culture of scripture we understand that it is within a context of child abuse, violence against women and violence against other races/cultures. Jesus was already fighting the patriarchy when he allowed female disciples, yet at some point he chose his battles. For example, Jesus even though he claims, “Then the sons are exempt. [from the poll tax]" he instructs Peter to pay it anyway, "However, so that we do not offend them ... give it to them for you and Me." So, we have precedent that Jesus took actions that were in keeping with the culture, even though they were a matter of liberty. It's in the scripture for a reason. Was Jesus required to appoint women apostles for it to be okay for women to be apostles? Paul says, "neither Jew nor Greek, neither slave nor free, neither male nor female" which was a counter-cultural, almost traitorous, claim in first century Rome.
So, again, we can't just look at what happened or what was said without understanding the Roman culture and without understanding our own culture. We even have to understand that our "scriptures" are translated through a cultural lens. So, for example, there is reasonable debate over whether Phoebe is "servant" or "deacon". There is reasonable debate over whether "gendered" statements apply to both sexes. For example, nowhere in scripture is lesbianism condemned, yet we choose to apply strictly masculine terms universally.
If Mary Magdalene were a man, she would be praised as the "first gospel preacher". We would see the language of Jesus as a commission and not just a request, but we interpret that passage through a patriarchal lens. What if Jesus's purpose was to do that very thing? Do we need some later writer to slap us in the face with that to believe it?
Is your antagonism against women so complete that believing they can preach is a matter of salvation? Making everything (infant baptism, women elders, spanking, etc.) a salvation issue, like RPs love to do cheapens the actual gospel. Paul himself says that women prophesy in worship (1 Cor 11:5), and then says that prophesy is a Spiritual gift for the "edification of all" (1 Cor 14). He lists prophets before pastors "And God has appointed in the church, first apostles, second prophets, third teachers" (1 Cor 12:28 ), so it seems valid logic to say, women have been given the gift of prophesy, therefore women have been prophets, prophets are a higher office than pastor, therefore it is reasonable to believe that women can also be in a lesser office. Even Calvin agrees, to the extent that he (presupposing that women cannot be pastors) says that Paul must have been making a moot argument. In other words, yes, women must wear headcoverings, but, no, women don't pray or prophesy in church. What if, instead, it isn't a moot point, and Paul was actually saying that women do pray and prophesy in worship? Hmmm.
I personally believe that many of these issues are just baptized presuppositions and cultural beliefs that have been read into scripture. The cycle of scriptural interpretation, to me, is more about seeing Jesus through the scripture, refining my understanding of Jesus and then using my understanding of Jesus to then re-read and re-understand scripture. It is this understanding that has led me away from many of the RP "distinctives" because I feel those distinctives start from an incorrect understanding of Jesus. Psalm 115 talks about idols of gold and silver, and how those who create those idols end up being like them. I would say, conversely, I look at abusive churches and abusive Christians and see that they have created an abusive caricature of God. If someone serves an abusive idol god, why wouldn't I expect them to read the scriptures in a way that likewise promotes abuse?
I didn't leave the RP church's abuse simply to reject their doctrine and accept whatever alternative came along. I still held to pretty much all of the RP teaching, and it was a slow process of hearing something I thought was objectionable and then taking that before God and scripture to say, is it really objectionable or was I just taught that it was objectionable? My church is still Reformed and I still hold to Reformed doctrine. I just think that it has been twisted to fit the needs of spiritually abusive people to do their abuse.
I still have a long ways to go. I've just read some articles and a book on how essentially middle and upper class white men have built an economic system that works well for... essentially middle and upper class white men, and doesn't do so well for women, the poor and minorities. Yet, we wrap the system in the same sort of cultural context that makes it seem like everything is equal, fair and entirely above board. For example, taxpayer-funded buses and trains are an "unnecessary entitlement", but taxpayer-funded roads are "necessary infrastructure". This is what was drilled into me as a young conservative, even the idea that bus fares are a good idea, but toll roads are double taxation.
15 comments:
I appreciate hearing a reasoned argument on this subject, and even if I'm not quite there with you, I have come to at least respect your position. Would you mind please explaining your understanding of 1 Timothy 2:12? I think that must be the clearest and most commonly cited proof text that is generally interpreted in the Reformed churches contra to your position.
My take on it is that it is a cultural argument. It is definitely confusing because Paul's reference to creation makes a lot of readers think that he is trying to make the argument universal. Ephesus was the the hub of worship of Artemis, a female deity. According to NT Wright, "The temple of Artemis was massive, and her cult — run entirely by female officials — was the religious centre of the whole area." So, my view of this is that Paul is giving instructions to Timothy more about how to deal with women within the cultural context of Ephesus, and possibly how to distance the church from the worship of Artemis. The reference to Eve may be more to remind the women that they are not superior rather than make a universal argument.
I would say that meat sacrificed to idols is a similar vein. We are privy to much more of the argumentation, but it is sent down as a command not to partake. The Paul discusses it more fully with the Corinthians, that there is nothing in the meat itself that is sinful, but that the fact that it is so tightly coupled to pagan idol worship is a stumbling block for converts.
I would also argue that the other clear text is ignored, 1 Cor 11:5. The RP headcovering argument always claims the context of corporate worship. They can explain away that a woman praying may not be leading in prayer, but they cannot explain away "prophesying." I have yet to hear a sermon that explains how women are expected to prophesy in corporate worship if they are also to remain silent. Calvin's Commentary on Corinthians also ignores praying and prophesying, saying that Paul is making a fictitious argument. So, for men, it is a real argument, since men pray and prophesy in worship, but for women it's fictitious?? I would argue that Calvin becomes ex-vangelical because a fictitious argument is engaging in idle speculation, which Paul himself condemns. So, either Calvin is wrong or Paul is a hypocrite (and thus the Bible is contradicted).
WCF 19:4 states "To them also, as a body politic, he gave sundry judicial laws, which expired together with the State of that people; not obliging any other now, further than the general equity thereof may require."
The WCF has essentially, Moral, Ceremonial and Judicial laws. The moral law is permanently binding, the ceremonial law prefigures Jesus and was eliminated when Jesus completed his mission, and the Judicial laws are coupled to the state of Israel and apply only to the extent that they are case study applications of the moral law.
I believe that the much of the instruction of the Bible is judicial in nature. Jesus does not preach a sermon on divorce, but explains Moses's precedent (certificate of divorce) in light of the moral law (two become one flesh), which, I think, the church has misunderstood as another moral law (divorce is only allowed for adultery). Instead, it should be understood as a judicial law which sheds light on the moral law, but is not meant to be exhaustive.
I like to use slavery as an example, because there's no prooftext, the Bible appears to support it, yet when we correctly interpret the institution through our understanding of the moral law (IMO, the revealed character of God), it falls short.
Another consideration is that, if God established male headship, authority and priesthood over women, then wouldn't he subsequently operate within that framework? Yet, God talks to Manoah's wife directly about what will be required of her and her husband. It's only on her request that he returns when Manoah is present.
God allows Mary to consent to be the mother of Jesus. Neither her father (she is engaged, not married), nor Joseph are asked for permission beforehand.
Jesus also talks directly with women and does not ask for the permission of their authority.
I think the problem with many of these arguments is that they fail systemically. If I can compartmentalize the Bible such that the hermeneutic I use on one passage is conveniently ignored in another passage, then I can make the Bible say a lot of inconsistent stuff. What happens when you ask "how do you explain 1 Tim 2:12 in the context of 1 Cor 11:5, Acts 2:17, and Acts 21:9"?
Thanks. I'm going to need to stew on it for a while.
This came across my feed today - in line with my thoughts about Biblical hermeneutics: "One of the boldest approaches, subsequent to the historical-critical method, was what one scholar, A.C. Thiselton, called socio-pragmatic studies. This approach accused the standard historical-critical method of a subjective bias, based upon white Euro privilege. It was. That, because of its bias, the method was a long way from its claimed objectivity. Objectivity itself was tossed into the flames.
What survived was the admission in the postmodern world of subjective bias, and that inevitable bias deserved a place at the table. One of the methods, of course, was feminist criticism. Women in the feminist mode demonstrated the male bias of ancient texts and modern constructions of the ancient world. We learned immensely from feminist criticism. And still do." https://scotmcknight.substack.com/p/african-sensibilities-and-the-bible
It's a powerful point. The western interpretation of scripture has been from a white, middle class, male perspective. So, what has been marketed as "exegetical" or "historical" or even "Biblical" comes from a racist, classist and even misogynistic point of view, cultivated over centuries.
"how do you explain 1 Tim 2:12 in the context of 1 Cor 11:5, Acts 2:17, and Acts 21:9?" You could probably add in Luke 2:36 while you're at it, and the very powerful 2 Kings 22:14-20/2 Chronicles 34:22-28, but maybe they wouldn't count since they're both pre-Calvary.
I think the major difference is that 1 Timothy 2 discusses "teaching and holding authority" while the others discuss prophecy. This may sound like I'm splitting hairs, but I don't think it is. I know there's a frequent mention in Reformed circles (often alluded to on this site, in fact) that the preaching of the Word is a modern equivalent to prophecy. Well, yes and no. What I believe was stated by the Reformers what that if it's faithful reproduction of what's already in Scripture, then it is indeed the Word of God, and it's practically equivalent to prophecy and should be received and acted on as such by the hearers. But there's a lot of hedged wording there: IF it's faithful reproduction, it's PRACTICALLY equivalent to prophecy. What some (a lot?) of people like to do is rush right past those qualifiers and just say that all preaching of the Scriptures is the Word of God and is therefore prophecy itself, period.
But teaching and prophecy are not the same thing, and authority is yet another thing altogether. Teaching is reproducing, as faithfully and expositionally as possible, what the prophets set down and God preserved in written Scripture. Prophecy is communication of direct divine/special revelation.
To say that God cannot reveal His words directly to women and have them communicate to others is anti-scriptural. But Scripture shows us that God can do a lot of things that we aren't allowed or aren't able to do: miracles, changing the whole administration of His Word and pattern of how we show our devotion to Him, and anointing an alternative king when a current king is already on the throne (cf. David, Jeroboam, Jehu) are a few examples of this. To say that, because women can be prophets in cases of new special revelation (when God chooses them directly), they may also teach and preach in situations where no special revelation is available (and humans have to choose them, based on the rules God has set out) -- I think there's a missing link there.
I'm not sure how compelling that is as an argument, but I think it is derivable from Scripture and avoids special pleading. At the very least, it feels more appealing to me (emphasis on TO ME) than "Paul was just speaking a word to Ephesus; it doesn't really apply fully elsewhere."
I recognize the potential implications of these conclusions for relations between men and women, and without having to go beyond our own experience, we all here know plenty of examples of how they have been misused, abused, and exploited by men. But that misuse, abuse, and exploitation must be accompanied by ignoring (easy enough, alas, for a sinful heart and mind to do) clear scriptural requirements that those who have authority must be servants to all and must understand that they themselves also are men under authority.
I would add as well that, although I don't believe that God has given us permission to ordain women as pastors and teachers, I also fully admit that a church that sins in this respect is not a place where the gospel must therefore be absent or that women are incapable of faithfully preaching salvation in Christ or that God cannot use a female pastor to save lost men, women, boys, and girls to Himself: "The purest churches under heaven are subject both to mixture and error."
Thanks for the reply. I think that's a fair claim. Part of the reason I highlight prophecy is that many pastors have a concentric view of office, that is, that deacon's office is contained within elder, and elder's office is contained within pastor, which is contained within prophet and contained within apostle. Thus, claiming that women can be prophets implies the rest. That's why I've heard stories that belittle the women called prophets, as if the Bible has a (p)rophet and a (P)rophet, reserved for females and males, respectively.
The other thing that I've read more lately in response to a recent tome on 1 Tim 2:12 is specifically about the word authentein https://michaelfbird.substack.com/p/1-tim-212-and-authentein is an example. There are two main points:
1) Paul uses many words for the role and office of elder, but authentein is a word that is only ever used in 1 Tim 2:12, so the argument from silence is that Paul did not have in mind "legitimate" authority, but women who were using authority illegitimately.
2) The word is used in common Greek to imply domineering, and sometimes (according to the above) domineering within normal authority, like a husband domineering his wife.
I will add that complementarians seem to read disdain into the verse. Paul is exaggerating women's trying to be elders to be domineering/usurpation. I find that violates the reformation principle of the clarity of scripture. If God wanted to convey (as is claimed) that 1 Tim 2:12 is saying women cannot be elders or teachers, then 'authentein' is a poor word choice. It smells again of the Evangelical narcissist god of the patriarchs who wants to get in a good jab (how dare women want authority!!) and that is not where I am in interpreting scripture.
As to, "Paul was just speaking a word to Ephesus", I needed to take a step back when I left the RP church, because my immediate reaction when hearing some verse is, 'well, that doesn't apply', or 'it's only in this situation'. What I mean is that being steeped in RP doctrine, it doesn't register when verses are explained away. We get "holy kiss" and "fences around our roofs", but what about "turn the other cheek?" It gets explained away. There are verses that are in contention, is it moral to sue a fellow Christian, or a parent? Is it moral to eat Halal meat?
Back to hermeneutics, the "more clear" verses interpret the less clear. 1 Tim 2:12 is a less clear verse, obviously, since there is so much debate on it, so why does it become the cornerstone of every view of women in office? If the Bible says nothing concretely negative about ordaining women except for a bit of circumstantial evidence, then why is it such a divisive issue, especially when we have to put gigantic asterisks on more clear scripture, like "neither male nor female".
There are many comments here about 1 Tim 2:12, but not the conclusion: 1 Tim 2:14, "And Adam was not the one deceived; it was the WOMAN who was deceived and became a sinner." The whole reason the author is warning against women is because in his view, they are more susceptible to manipulation (weaker vessels). That culture was full of misogyny, "consider that every (Jewish) man was obligated to recite three blessings daily. These express gratitude for ones station in life through the negative statements: thank God that I am not a gentile, a woman, or a slave (or in earlier formulations, a boor)." They literally were so grateful that they were not a woman, that they thanked God. I'd like to hear ex-RP Kathy Stegall chime in on some of these posts (Kathy's book is, "The Full Rights of Sons").
Regarding, "Deconstruct Your Culture, Not Your Faith", do you plan to do a blog post / article on deconstructing? Or maybe the "Rise of the Nones" or something like that?
I guess we haven't come far... our culture is also full of misogyny. I'm not sure what your point is, but like your other comment, you are putting words in Paul's mouth. "Weaker vessel" is not a moral judgment as you are making it out to be. Women are generally physically weaker, but if you're trying to make a claim that women are, categorically, morally inferior to men, I think you're adding to scripture what it never said. What do we do with the fact that Cain (a male) was the first murderer? Should men be barred from eldership because Cain was violent and elders cannot be violent?
I wrote a lot of blog posts through that process. I was able to find a good church, but I know people who have not been able to return to church after being abused. Is there anything specific you think should be covered in an article?
Thinking about it some more - it's not really something pertinent to my blog. Most of the articles on deconstruction/done's are written by pastors who are saying, "Why are people leaving and what can you do to keep people in your church?"
My interest in deconstruction is mostly orthogonal:
1) When someone is "done" with the RPCNA how do they identify the toxic beliefs that still cling to them and understand that those toxic beliefs in the RPCNA do not reflect who God is.
2) When someone is a victim of spiritual abuse, there is a grieving and recovery process. How do people navigate that recovery process?
3) What are the toxic beliefs being preached in the RPCNA that maintain the spiritually abusive control?
I think writing an article on "deconstruction" (the common belief of deconstruction being synonymous with losing one's faith, or "done's" doesn't necessarily get at why people are leaving or should leave, the RPCNA. Maybe there is an intersection with general Evangelicalism, but there are books on that.
"The whole reason the author is warning against women is because in his view, they are more susceptible to manipulation (weaker vessels)."
There is an alternative non-egalitarian reading that states that Paul actually gives 2 reasons: order of creation (in which Eve came 2nd) and order of fall (in which Eve came 1st), both of which go together to explain why women don't get to "teach or exercise authority." Wives were from the beginning called to submit to their husbands' authority (order of creation) and then the Fall, far from undoing that submission and authority, turned it from an orderly, love-centered, mutually-beneficial relationship (as between Christ and His people) into one in which wives/women would chafe at the fact of their submission and/or that husbands/men, by abusing their authority, would give the wives good reason to chafe at it -- with the final result that corruption in the relationship or authority and submission was inevitable if not inescapable. Redeeming the corruption by centering the relationship in lovingkindness instead of in power is therefore what is needed, not so much undoing the original parameters of the relationship nor over-hardening them.
I think I need hardly add that nothing in this reading suggests that women are by nature more gullible than men, but I will add for clarity's sake that I believe such a suggestion to be an example of over-hardening the parameters of the relationship beyond what God actually demands in His Word.
Yes, and that's where I was when I was complementarian, but I have to look at the system. Paul argues pre-eminence by order in 1 Tim 2, but in 1 Cor 11, he argues that, while Adam came before Eve, all men after Adam were born of a woman.
I don't have a really good theory on the existence of both passages, plus the idea that women are to keep silent while at the same time talking about women praying and prophesying in worship (with heads covered/uncovered).
My new hermeneutic is that scripture is takes into account where people are and moves them in a direction. We can't read Paul as "God's final command for all time" as many Evangelicals want to do, but as "God's specific advice to people dealing with certain issues". I guess by way of analogy, if we read doctors' prescriptions like we read the Bible, we could be in worlds of hurt. Like, "take methadone". We need the context to understand that methadone might be a way of weaning someone off of a drug addiction. But, if we read prescriptions like we read the NT, especially Paul, we'd be taking all sorts of medications that are actually causing harm. That's why the WCF says that case laws no longer apply but are to be understood in terms of their "general equity". We don't put fences on our roofs, but we do put fences around pools, because that is the general equity.
Many have speculated on the situations and proposed why something seemingly restrictive in our eyes was freeing in their eyes, or why it might be a temporary restriction (e.g. meat sacrificed to idols) necessary to not offend a plurality of weaker brothers. Bruce Hemphill's approach of arguing from the general "There is neither male nor female" to the specific is also an okay approach.
It's also helpful to know that the 1st century church was not some pinnacle of perfection from which we've fallen. So, maybe Paul is prescribing some "methadone" that is a short-term fix for a bigger issue but not the ideal that we assume it to be.
Post a Comment