Interesting

"They asserted, however, that the sum and substance of their fault or error had been that they were accustomed to meet on a fixed day before dawn and sing responsively a hymn to Christ as to a god, and to bind themselves by oath, not to some crime, but not to commit fraud, theft, or adultery, not falsify their trust, nor to refuse to return a trust when called upon to do so. When this was over, it was their custom to depart and to assemble again to partake of food--but ordinary and innocent food. Even this, they affirmed, they had ceased to do after my edict by which, in accordance with your instructions, I had forbidden political associations. Accordingly, I judged it all the more necessary to find out what the truth was by torturing two female slaves who were called deaconesses. But I discovered nothing else but depraved, excessive superstition."

-A letter from Pliny the Younger, Governor of Pontus/Bythinia from 111-113 to Emperor Trajan. From Letters 10.96,97

This letter is very interesting for several reasons. First of all, it is written by a government official who, although uninformed about Christianity, was called to persecute Christians and force them to worship the emperor and denounce Christ publicly. You can read the whole letter at http://www.hadrians.com/rome/romans/sources/pliny_letters.html. Next, it gives a description of the practices of these Christians when they gathered. This is from early second century, so it represents a time about 70 years or so from the time much of the New Testament was written, and only 20-30 years after the death of the apostle John.

From this description, we can see that the gatherings were very simple. The singing was responsive--part of the congregation would sing (it would sound more like a chant to our Western ears), and the others would sing back (i.e. "speaking to one another in psalms, hymns, and spiritual songs"). The reference to "ordinary food" probably refers to the "love feast," the meal which surrounded the Lord's Supper (That's what Paul is talking about in 1 Corinthians 11). The reference to "two deaconesses," who identified themselves as such is also of interest to our class discussion. What I find most interesting, though, is the impression that the purpose of their gatherings was to keep each other accountable to live righteously in the world--a world that apparently had no tolerance for them. In that sense, they were counter-cultural. They stood out, not because of their political agenda or wealth or power, but because they had none of those things and yet managed to turn the world upside down. Seems unlikely, doesn't it?

I have been thinking over some conversations I've had over the last few days. Its amazing how the Holy Spirit uses other people to remind us of God's truth, isn't it? I made the point in class Wednesday night that the apostles' PRIORITY was the central message of the faith, the Gospel. The underlying premise in so much of their teaching is "What will serve to advance the spread of the Good News?". In Peter's epistle, chapter 3, he directs some teaching to husbands and wives about their relationships. What I want to emphasize here, though, is the reason he gives for those directives.

"Wives, in the same way (see 2:21), accept the authority of your husbands, so that, even if some of them do not obey the word, they may be won over without a word by their wives conduct (3:1)."

"Husbands, in the same way, show consideration for your wives in your life together, paying honor to the woman as the weaker sex (vessel), since they too are also heirs of the gracious gift of life-so that nothing may hinder your prayers (3:7)."

Everything we do should be guided by this principle. The question I should constantly ask is "Does this (practice, attitude, activity, teaching etc.) serve to help or to hinder the effectiveness of the Gospel?" If we're discussing a matter of opinion, then the opinion which is most conducive to the spread of the gospel should win out every time. Unfortunately, I have not always guided my opinions by this principle. More often than not, my opinions, actions and attitudes have been guided by what I am most comfortable with, or what I prefer rather than on what is best for the gospel's sake. We all have to be very honest with ourselves on this one--no finger pointing here! How am I contributing to the advancement of the kingdom of heaven in MY community, in MY workplace, and in MY world? How does my attitude draw others closer to Jesus? Peter follows up with a very appropriate word of counsel which we all need to take to heart as we study and discuss issues which very much concern the spread of the kingdom:

"Finally, all of you, have unity of spirit, sympathy, love for one another, a tender heart, and a humble mind (3:8)."

May this be true of me.

"Formal" vs. "Informal" Assemblies

I've recently had a few discussions which have provoked me to some reflection. Some of the comments on my most recent post caused a light bulb to click on in my head. One of the difficulties we have in sorting out some of the "peripheral" issues in the discussion on women's roles in our assemblies is that we have delineated between "formal" assemblies and "informal" ones, such as Bible classes, study groups, prayer circles, devotionals, etc. In practice, we (at least in the Churches of Christ) employ a great deal of variance in what women may do when it comes to "informal" gatherings. Women most often feel free to comment, ask questions, read scripture, make announcements, say prayers, encourage, and even debate with men in those "informal" gatherings. Traditionally, however, women have been forbidden to do so in the "formal" assembly of the gathered church because those things have often been associated with "exercising authority" over the men in the assembly. At this point, we're not discussing women preaching or occupying the role of an elder/shepherd. We're talking about things that are in no way connected to those roles. Unfortunately, the New Testament gives us precious little detail when it comes to descriptions of the assemblies of the early church. From history and from Paul's greetings to "the church in your house," we get the idea that most assemblies were smaller and conducted in private homes. The early Jerusalem disciples assembled in the temple (Acts 2:46) as well as in private homes until the first great persecution scattered them throughout the countryside of Judea and Samaria (Acts 8:1). In 1 Corinthians 14:26, we get a very brief glimpse into the assembly at Corinth: "What should be done then, my friends? When you come together, each one has a hymn, a lesson, a revelation, a tongue, or an interpretation. Let all things be done for building up." That kind of structure doesn't work very well in a large formalized assembly, does it?

History shows us that gradually those informal gatherings of the New Testament church become more formal and ritualized. Once churches began to erect buildings for gathering, that only increased the formality of the assemblies held in them. Today, we teach that the church is not the building, but our practice has not always been consistent with this teaching. We have developed some "unwritten" rules for what kinds of things should (or should not) be done in the building, as well as which things are permissible in the "formal" assemblies/gatherings which are a direct result of our historical assumptions. Those assumptions have often caused us to unwittingly "fit" certain passages of scripture into our traditions, rather than judge our traditions by the first-century understanding of the passage. I'd love to get your perspectives on my rather poorly developed thoughts here!

"Daughter"

I'm sitting here at the kitchen table this morning typing tonight's outline for class. Having spent the last couple of days organizing passages in which Jesus interacts with women, I am struck by so many contrasts. I am amazed at the plan of God as it unfolds through centuries of history in the pages of scripture. I've immersed myself in Greek words and sentence structure, parallel passages and historical records.

But this morning I am crying. I'm glad no one is here. Sometimes the "head knowledge" becomes so dry and burdensome (Is it a sin to say that? :) I just read three accounts of Jesus interacting with some marginalized and powerless women and God's mercy just washed all over me. Jesus was so kind to the "sinful" woman who anointed him out of love, while everyone around him had nothing but spite for her. Then, I read Mark's account of the woman with the issue of blood (which made her unclean and therefore "untouchable") who dared to touch Jesus' garment in a desperate attempt to be whole. I love the gentle way that God Made Flesh responded to her as she trembled in fear before him. He called her "daughter." Mine. Loved. Accepted. "Go in peace." And then there's the poor widow from Nain who had lost her only son. Who would care for her in her old age? She was truly all alone. Luke tells us that Jesus saw her mourning and "his heart went out to her." His exchange with her is so compassionate. "Don't cry," he said. No wonder every one's response was "God has come to help his people."

Sometimes in the midst of study I miss out on the truly amazing Jesus. Not today.

Why is the Old Testament Significant?

Last Wednesday we surveyed the roles that women played among God's people in the Old Testament. It was pretty obvious that the the Old Testament reflects a patriarchal culture. By and large, men were the leaders of families. The priesthood was exclusively male, as were most kings, military leaders and prophets. That word, most, however is highly significant. In the midst of a patriarchal culture, God raised up some women to lead his people. Miriam led the Israelites along with Moses and Aaron. Deborah led God's people as a prophet, and as a judge-the highest office in the land. Huldah was a prophet who taught men and women with God's approval. In the Old Testament, women led in worship, served in government, taught Gods word and prayed aloud in the temple.

"But that's the Old Covenant!" we are often heard to say. "We are under the New Covenant of Christ, so the Old has been done away with." For the most part, I agree with that statement. We do serve in the "new and living way" ushered in through the cross. The requirements of the Law have been fulfilled in Christ! However, the Old Testament is still God's word and is preserved for us "for our learning." What we learn about the unchanging GOD in the Old Testament is still true today. We need to know what the Old Testament teaches about the roles of women in order to properly interpret the New Testament scriptures.

Let me give you an example: In 1 Corinthians 14:34 (which we will explore in depth in a couple of weeks, so we won't do that here), Paul told the Corinthian women that they "should keep silent in the churches. For they are not permitted to speak, but should be in submission, as the Law also says." (ESV, emphasis mine). Paul, in teaching the Corinthian believers, referenced the Law (Old Testament) as support for this command to the Corinthian church. This passage has been ripped from its context throughout history to prove a point that it did not make--that it could not make unless the Bible contradicts itself, which is does not. Deborah was not silent. Huldah was not silent. Miriam was not silent. Even Sarah, whom Peter uses as an example of a wife's submission to her husband, was not silent. There is no indication that anyone in the Old Testament disputed the leadership of any of the above mentioned because they were women. There is no mention by anyone that somehow Deborah and Huldah (both married women) were being unsubmissive to their husbands by obeying the call of God to serve. On the other hand, none of these women (or any others recorded in the Old Testament) indicated that they resented not being able to join the priesthood. None of them refused to serve as a prophet, judge, or servant because they couldn't serve the Lord as a priest. Remember, there were many men unqualified for the priesthood as well as many many who were not chosen to serve as prophets, kings or judges.

Without understanding God's concept of "submission" as taught in the Old Testament, we are forced to mishandle and misapply scripture to say what it never said. Paul was not commanding total silence upon all women when the church was assembled (read 1 Corinthians 11). His appeal to the Old Testament concept of submission is completely consistent with actual Old Testament practice. Misapplying scripture is always condemned in the Bible. The Old Testament begins with a perfect example of the origin of this manipulation of scripture, which we talked about on the second week of class. When the serpent was tempting Eve, he asked her "Did God really say, 'You must not eat from any tree in the garden'?" (Genesis 3:1) The insertion of that small word any was classic manipulation. I'm certainly not suggesting that people who misinterpret scripture always do so out of impure motives. Many times we make honest mistakes as we read and grow. However, when we take the time to study scripture in context, we are not so prone to rash statements and the formulations of commandments which God did not issue. Paul told Timothy to be "a worker who does not need to be ashamed and who correctly handles the word of truth (2 Timothy 2:15)." Paul says that mishandling scripture is "shameful." "Rather, we have renounced secret and shameful ways; we do not use deception, nor do we distort the word of God. On the contrary, by setting forth the truth plainly we commend ourselves to every one's conscience in the sight of God (2 Corinthians 4:2)." The Old Testament is vital to our understanding of and ability to correctly interpret and apply the New Testament teachings.

This Wednesday we survey the roles of women in the Gospels and in the early churches. I look forward to studying with you!

I'm sitting here in the jury room waiting to see if my name is called. I wonder if I will be placed on a jury, or just sent home like almost every other time? When you think about it, it's really a testament to our democratic society that common people are called to decide the guilt or innocence of others. Maybe I'm making too much of this because I have all this time on my hands
but I find the concept of the collective power & wisdom of ordinary citizens to be fascinating. You know, we are called as the body of Christ to approach Scripture this way. No one person has a monopoly on truth. When we study and discuss together in an atmosphere of love, humility, freedom, & mutual respect, our understanding increases and our bond of love grows stronger. The Holy Spirit dwells in each believer individually, but He also indwells us collectively. As we allow Him to exercise more and more control, we witness the beauty of the body of Christ "building itself up in love.". Be blessed today. I look forward to praising Christ with you tonight.

We Didn't Know Any Better

How we apply Scripture is to a great degree influenced by our culture. Making honest applications of biblical teaching requires us to also honestly assess our cultural assumptions. I'd like to give a couple of personal examples. Back in 1991, I was teaching in a school in Cincinnati, Ohio. One day I was having a conversation with a delightful retired teacher who had taught for many years. She was African-American. During the discussion I learned that she had grown up in Nashville, Tennessee and graduated from Fisk University. I shared with her that I had attended David Lipscomb College, and we shared some fond memories of life in the Music City. Without any real bitterness, she mentioned to me, "You know, I would not have been allowed to attend Lipscomb at that time because I am black." Feeling a welling of shame and discomfort, I said, "I am so sorry for that," not really knowing what else to say. "Don't you apologize," she said. "Those were different times then. People didn't know any better."

I remember hearing that from my parents when they told stories about life in Northeast Arkansas, and how blacks and hispanics were denied access to the town cinema; how there were separate schools for different races and separate water fountains, restaurants and churches. My mom shared a poignant story with me about migrant life during the Depression, when my grandfather moved the family from Arkansas to Southern California to work as a caretaker at a gun club. My mother was a little girl and had befriended a Japanese girl who lived in a colony near the ranch. When war broke out, the Japanese family was moved to an internment camp. This little girl sent my mother a letter, which my aunt, her older sister took from her and destroyed. "You won't get letters from the enemy!", she said. My mom often told me that those were different times.

As a young adult, I sat open-mouthed in an elders meeting. We had been planning the youth rally for months. I had invited a good friend of mine, a fantastic preacher and godly man to be the speaker. He was also black. My mouth was open because an elder of the church had just asked, "Can't you find anyone white to speak?" Apparently there had been some controversy at a previous youth rally because the speaker (who was black) had brought his white wife with him to the rally, which had scandalized some members. "We don't have a problem with it," I was told, "But there's no sense causing controversy when we don't have to."

I find a common thread in this lines of thinking. "Some people just didn't/don't know any better." That is a result of culture- a misinformed and warped culture, but one that formed over centuries. Many of us look at that in today's culture of tolerance and say, "How could a Christian believe that way? Didn't they read the Bible?" The fact is, many people read their Bibles with great devotion during different eras of history and still came to conclusions that many today find incompatible with the gospel of Christ. You see, the power of culture is much stronger than most of us would like to admit. It often influences how we read scripture, what we emphasize, or what we choose to apply. Even when we see something which conflicts with our tradition or culture, we are often afraid to go against that culture because of the social repercussions or even our own level of discomfort.

My question is, what is our responsibility as believers to the teachings of scripture. Is it a valid position to continue to hold to practices or traditions which are not taught in Scripture solely because to change that practice would bring resistance or discomfort? The Bible does not promote segregation by race or the denial of participation in ministry because of race. It does not promote slavery. However, in the past, Christians have used the Bible to justify those practices. We have been wrong before. I understand how that hurts, as well as the discomfort of examining the practices and attitudes developed over the past centuries. As we continue to study the scriptures, some of our historical practices may prove to be based upon a culture or tradition rather than on scriptural teaching. Some of our practices may prove to be scriptural indeed. We have to be willing to distinguish between the two if we are to be faithful to Christ and the word. We also need to committed to approaching change with humility, love and in the spirit of Christ. Let me be specific in reference to last week's class. The serving of the emblems in the Lord's Supper or the performance of baptism is not restricted to males in any passage of the New Testament. Neither is it an "authoritative" act relegated to "ordained" individuals. Traditionally in most Churches of Christ, these actions have been restricted to males. Why? Because some along the way decided that these were acts which men should perform to maintain the witness of the church to male authority. In other words, if a woman passes the tray down the aisle while sitting, it is acceptable. If she is standing, she is exercising authority over the men in the congregation. Ten year old boys can serve the emblems, but their mothers, who taught them the gospel would be "usurping" the authority of their son were they to do so. There is no scripture to support such a conclusion, only culture and tradition.

So why "rock the boat?" Does it really matter who serves? My response is that its not about rocking boats. It is about allowing what scripture allows and being honest enough to distinguish between the teachings of the Lord in those scriptures and the traditions of people which developed after the canon of scripture was closed. It is vital to our spiritual integrity and to the future of our cause that we be honest with scripture and apply it responsibly. When questioned about our practices, we owe it to those who ask to provide honest answers based upon a sound exegesis of scripture. We are all influenced by our culture, however in every age, faithful men and women have been brave enough to call that culture into question when it conflicts with the word of God. Many positive changes in our own society and even in our churches have been realized because people were willing to change in spite of enormous pressure by a status quo which "didn't know any better." We do know better--don't we?