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!