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!
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
As a great historian said "Those who do not know history are condemned to repeat it." Our general ignorance of our history as a church and a culture allows us to become all too dependent on the "way we do things around here." Kinda like that old story of the new bride who cut the end off the roast she prepared for her husband because that was the way her mother taught her to do it. Mom had learned to prepare the dish from grandmom. When the new son-in-law raved about his wife's cooking to her grandmother, he asked: "So why do you have to cut the end off the roast before you prepare it?" Grandmom laughed and said "Because it would not fit into my roasting pan!" Perhaps it is time to stop cutting the meat to fit the pan.
ReplyDeleteWhen and why did the gatherings of the church become more formalized? My resident historian believes it was around the time of the Reformation when the Lutherans wanted someplace to sit down. From my observation and reading, I'm thinking it was even earlier than that, because most of our assembly places are still designed like the ancient Greek temples (if you don't believe me, google "parthenon floorplan") with the worshippers in neat rows in front of the object of worship. I have felt for some time that it is much more difficult to encourage someone when I'm looking at the back of their head. We need more personal contact to be encouraged. While we may need the more formal setting with large groups, I'm still puzzled when I see a group of less than, say...25? or so- still arranged in neat rows looking at the backs of each other's heads.
Cary stated that we have "unwritten rules." Hoo boy, do we ever. The rules change based on where you are geographically and culturally, as well as what period of time you grew up in. I remember one of my very Southern aunts once complaining about a preacher- because she did not like the fact that the man wore a red tie in the pulpit. I'm sure she didn't hear a word of his sermon, although it was very well presented. Cary, dear- she would probably have an apoplectic fit over some of your outfits! :-)
What really amazes me about the unwritten rules is how we treat those who don't go by our rules. We (as a "brotherhood") tend to not let them play. The catch 22 is that you can't learn the rules if you're ostracized by the group that wrote the rules. Most sane people give up and move on.
Note: I have not been able to attend any of the Wednesday night lessons so I dont know if these thoughts will actually add anything new or insightful to the discussion.
ReplyDeleteThe double standard we impose upon women in "formal" vs "informal" settings is indeed perplexing. For example, we allow women to serve at the table during potlucks or other church gatherings. Yet we do not allow them to serve at the Lord's table at the "formal" setting. We even allow women (or young girls) to participate at informal parts of formal gatherings. For example, the are allowed to have a part in a play or have a role in a production such as a Christmas presentation. It seems we are contradicting ourselves and not being consistent.
Also, I would like to post a link to a sermon given by Mike Cope a few years ago on this subject. Mike Cope is currently the minister at Highland Church of Christ in Abilene (though he will be transitioning to another ministry shortly). This was a sermon he gave just after Highland changed the way women were allowed to participate in worship. It is a great summary of why they changed and would probably reinforce many of the things yall have discussed in class. He also presents it very well. Currently at Highland, women are allowed to participate publicly in every way except for serving as an elder and preaching a Sunday morning sermon. This includes making announcements, passing communion emblems, praying publicly, sharing communion table thoughts, baptizing, singing on the praise team, etc. However, they have not yet had a woman actually lead worship in an assembly. So that is the background. The sermon is about an hour long if you have time to listen to it. Well, here is the link http://www.highlandchurch.org/audio/by/date/2005-01-16 You may have to copy and paste it to the address. Hope that works!
Thanks for your really insightful comments. We welcome your input and that of anyone interested who wants to join the discussion. Thanks for the link. I have heard the sermon and found it very interesting.
ReplyDeletePsychologically, some people like to be part of something of higher formality and larger scale. Pride. Those are probably the underlying factors that drove the movement. There's a little town 30min north of Quebec City that has the most imposing of Cathedrals, solid Canadian granite, even larger than Notre Dame. People are like ants in contrast. I often wondered "Why here? Middle of no where?" Yet people drove from hours away, probably dressed their best, to attend services.
ReplyDeleteWhat does it have to offer that is different from little Baptist congregations closer to home ?
As you guys mentioned, when people invent something like an institutional assembly then they have to invent Rules to support such a concept. Each group inserted their own flavor/uniqueness into their version of the institution. Then comes individuals who would take it upon themselves to become Defenders of the Institution, defending their pride. Then they starting to lose focus on Jesus because running institution can be more than a handful. Then you look back at Acts and realize that humanity has created religious machines that can consume us.
When Mr. Alexander Campbell led the Restoration, I wonder that's what was spiritually unattractive to the people of Restoration. The Restoration was good and benefited us but it's been imperfect, probably because we are imperfect. We must strive to be perfect as He is perfect.
God doesn't make a distinction of formal or informal assembly, as long as "two or three gathered" in His name and it would be mighty fine. And as long as we are focused on Him, continually improve our faith, examine our conducts, think about its impact, improve it, we'd be fine.
I am looking forward to the next 2wks as we study and discuss I Tim 2. I hope that it (Role and extent of participation) would be clearer after that.
Nhiem, you are right. It was not God who created the distinction of formal and informal assembly. Our lives are our worship which is why two or three make a "formal assembly". You are also correct about the Restoration Movement. Just as the original intent of the Pharisee movement was based in sincere desire to serve God but became twisted by human character defects, so has the Restoration Movement. I believe the same mistake was made by both groups. The Pharisees searched the scriptures rather than seeking wisdom from the Lord God, so they had rules rather than relationship. The Restoration Movement sought to restore the first century church rather than seeking Jesus Christ, his life, death, resurrection and ascension, so we have rules rather than relationship. We need to seek to see Jesus Christ in his fullness and follow him.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteou guys are so right. Why must man constantly strive to put our signature on God's gift check to us. He offers a relationship--we pervert it into a religion. In that process grace and freedom are traded for law and bondage. I think it's an ongoing process of acknowledging and repenting or else we simply get swallowed up by the machine we create. "Man plans, God laughs" is so true. I'm so grateful for His sense of humor which must be one of the fruits of the spirit that didn't make it onto the list in Gal 5.
ReplyDeleteMay 22, 2009 5:00 AM
I want to share with you a website resource that is great for studying by contrast/comparison between different translations of the Bible.
ReplyDeleteIt's net.bible.org where you can enter a reference and it will list 8 translations plus Greek/Hebrew on one page.
It's great for studies like last Weds when Cary pointed out "women" vs. "their wives" in I Tim 3:11
http://net.bible.org/verse.php?book=1Ti&chapter=3&verse=11
It looks like this
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
1 Timothy 3:11
Context
NET © Likewise also their wives 1 must be dignified, not slanderous, temperate, faithful in every respect.
NIV © 1Ti 3:11
In the same way, their wives are to be women worthy of respect, not malicious talkers but temperate and trustworthy in everything.
NASB © 1Ti 3:11
Women must likewise be dignified, not malicious gossips, but temperate, faithful in all things.
NLT © 1Ti 3:11
In the same way, their wives must be respected and must not speak evil of others. They must exercise self–control and be faithful in everything they do.
MSG © 1Ti 3:11
No exceptions are to be made for women--same qualifications: serious, dependable, not sharp-tongued, not overfond of wine.
BBE © 1Ti 3:11
Women are to be serious in behaviour, saying no evil of others, controlling themselves, true in all things.
NRSV © 1Ti 3:11
Women likewise must be serious, not slanderers, but temperate, faithful in all things.
NKJV © 1Ti 3:11
Likewise their wives must be reverent, not slanderers, temperate, faithful in all things.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NET © Notes 1 tn Or “also deaconesses.” The Greek word here is γυναῖκας (gunaika") which literally means “women” or “wives.” It is possible that this refers to women who serve as deacons, “deaconesses.” The evidence is as follows: (1) The immediate context refers to deacons; (2) the author mentions nothing about wives in his section on elder qualifications (1 Tim 3:1-7); (3) it would seem strange to have requirements placed on deacons’ wives without corresponding requirements placed on elders’ wives; and (4) elsewhere in the NT, there seems to be room for seeing women in this role (cf. Rom 16:1 and the comments there). The translation “wives” – referring to the wives of the deacons – is probably to be preferred, though, for the following reasons: (1) It would be strange for the author to discuss women deacons right in the middle of the qualifications for male deacons; more naturally they would be addressed by themselves. (2) The author seems to indicate clearly in the next verse that women are not deacons: “Deacons must be husbands of one wife.” (3) Most of the qualifications given for deacons elsewhere do not appear here. Either the author has truncated the requirements for women deacons, or he is not actually referring to women deacons; the latter seems to be the more natural understanding. (4) The principle given in 1 Tim 2:12 appears to be an overarching principle for church life which seems implicitly to limit the role of deacon to men. Nevertheless, a decision in this matter is difficult, and our conclusions must be regarded as tentative.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
This is a great site to bookmark. Technology has made study of the Word much easier. You can even copy/paste to PPoint.