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.
Wednesday, April 29, 2009
Sunday, April 26, 2009
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?
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?
Tuesday, April 21, 2009
Course Outline
If you pre-registered for the course, you received a packet with some reading materials. If you registered on the first day of class, you may not have received that packet, which contained a course outline. It's always helpful to know where the course is headed, so I thought I would publish it online for you.
April 1 Responsible Biblical Interpretation
April 8 Survey of the Two Major Positions
April 15 The Egalitarian Position and Galatians 3:28
April 22 The Complementarian Position and Galatians 3:28
April 29 5th Wednesday Singing
May 6 Women in Old Testament Ministry
May 13 Women in New Testament Ministry
May 20 1 Corinthians 11:2-16
May 27 1 Corinthians 14:33-38
June 3 1 Timothy 2:8-15
June 10 Ephesians 5:22-23; 1 Peter 3:1-7
June 17 Conclusions and Questions
April 1 Responsible Biblical Interpretation
April 8 Survey of the Two Major Positions
April 15 The Egalitarian Position and Galatians 3:28
April 22 The Complementarian Position and Galatians 3:28
April 29 5th Wednesday Singing
May 6 Women in Old Testament Ministry
May 13 Women in New Testament Ministry
May 20 1 Corinthians 11:2-16
May 27 1 Corinthians 14:33-38
June 3 1 Timothy 2:8-15
June 10 Ephesians 5:22-23; 1 Peter 3:1-7
June 17 Conclusions and Questions
Friday, April 10, 2009
Why is the Creation Narrative so Important?
At the conclusion of the last class, I made the comment that the creation narrative is the basis for our understanding of the issue of women's roles. I thought it might be good to give a bit more detail about that idea. When we boil down the issue of men's and women's roles in ministry to its core, we are actually discussing the purposes for which men and women are created. Whether we are discussing the marriage relationship or the exercising of spiritual gifts in the church, the divine purpose for "male and female" is what will determine how each should live out that purpose to God's glory. The interpretation of the texts we will explore from now on rely upon a basic viewpoint the reader holds of Genesis 1-3. We will discuss the way egalitarians and complementarians view the creation and fall of men and women this coming Wednesday, but here are some questions and thoughts as to why I believe the creation narrative is so foundational.
1. Is the order of creation significant? According to the "micro-view" presented in chapter 2, Adam was created first. In the Old Testament, the "firstborn" was the recipient of the father's blessing. The firstborn carried the birthright, receiving a double portion of the inheritance and was responsible for the leadership of the family. If Adam's priority in creation is significant, then the principle of male leadership is established at creation and is not just a result of the fall.
2. Adam was created by God out of the earth that He had created. Eve was formed "from the rib he had taken out of the man (2:22)." Does that imply a subordinate role for the woman? The idea of the man being the "source" of the woman is a major argument of the egalitarian viewpoint, which is countered by the complementarian concept of "headship."
3. What is the significance of the woman being created as a "helper suitable for [the man] (2:18)." Does that role imply subordination to the leadership of the man, or does it simply indicate that she is a "partner" with him? The word "ezer (helper)," does not in itself imply a subordinate role, since God is sometimes refered to as man's "Helper," and that certainly doesn't indicate God's subordination to people.
All of the above points are used in the New Testament by Paul when he speaks to the churches at Corinth and Ephesus about the woman's "silence." We will discuss those texts in detail in the coming weeks. For now, I think we can see how an understanding of the first three chapters of Genesis is so crucial to our study of the roles of women and men in the home and church.
1. Is the order of creation significant? According to the "micro-view" presented in chapter 2, Adam was created first. In the Old Testament, the "firstborn" was the recipient of the father's blessing. The firstborn carried the birthright, receiving a double portion of the inheritance and was responsible for the leadership of the family. If Adam's priority in creation is significant, then the principle of male leadership is established at creation and is not just a result of the fall.
2. Adam was created by God out of the earth that He had created. Eve was formed "from the rib he had taken out of the man (2:22)." Does that imply a subordinate role for the woman? The idea of the man being the "source" of the woman is a major argument of the egalitarian viewpoint, which is countered by the complementarian concept of "headship."
3. What is the significance of the woman being created as a "helper suitable for [the man] (2:18)." Does that role imply subordination to the leadership of the man, or does it simply indicate that she is a "partner" with him? The word "ezer (helper)," does not in itself imply a subordinate role, since God is sometimes refered to as man's "Helper," and that certainly doesn't indicate God's subordination to people.
All of the above points are used in the New Testament by Paul when he speaks to the churches at Corinth and Ephesus about the woman's "silence." We will discuss those texts in detail in the coming weeks. For now, I think we can see how an understanding of the first three chapters of Genesis is so crucial to our study of the roles of women and men in the home and church.
Thursday, April 2, 2009
After months of study and preparation, our 301 Class finally launched last evening! We have 82 registered students, and we had a few non-registered visitors last evening as well. I appreciate the great response, and am really looking forward to our continued conversations. The purpose of this Blog is just that, to CONTINUE the discussion and conversation. I'd like to present an example I came across while studying for a class I'm taking on the Gospels through Reformed Theological Seminary here in Orlando. This week we are studying through Mark, and in the chapter dedicated to Mark in the class textbook there is a segment dealing with Jesus' driving out the money-changers out of the Temple courts. In Jesus' time in Jerusalem, all male Jews had to pay a temple tax. There were three kinds of currencies used in Palestine at that time: Roman (imperial money), Greek (provincial money) and Tyrian (local money). Both Roman and Greek currencies bore images of emporers which Jews found idolatrous, so Caiaphas set up a "bank" in the temple to exchange the "unclean" money for "clean" local currency--at a surcharge, of course! They were also selling ritually pure items and animals for sacrifices. On top of that, they had converted the Court of the Gentiles into a thoroughfare for people to pass from one part of the city to another with their merchandise. No wonder Jesus was infuriated! He said: "Is it not written: 'My house will be called a house of prayer for all nations'? But you have made it a 'den of robbers. (Mark 11:17)'"
Okay, so here's the point I'd like to discuss which illustrates a principle we learned last night: The textbook presents some questions in a section called To think about.
How does this add to last night's discussion? Let me know what you think!
Okay, so here's the point I'd like to discuss which illustrates a principle we learned last night: The textbook presents some questions in a section called To think about.
- "What can contemporary houses of worship learn from this?"
- "What theological deductions can be drawn from the fact that Jesus felt competent to challenge the authority of the temple?" (Encountering the New Testament, Elwell & Yarbrough p. 93)
How does this add to last night's discussion? Let me know what you think!
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)