questions for hard complementarians (and hard egaliterians)

The problems with rigid complementarian and rigid egaliterian hermeneutical models

Tom and Donna Petter

In reading the recent literature by espousers of the complementarian viewpoint on biblical manhood and womanhood, a certain rigidity in interpreting key texts has settled in so that interpretations have evolved into indubitable facts.  In other words, a certain viewpoint is put forward as ‘exegetical’ and ‘biblical’ fact.  To take an opposing viewpoint, therefore, is tantamount to being ‘unbiblical,’ swayed by the waves of anti-Christian culture.  In this climate of heightened rhetoric, we need to remember the adage that while Scripture is inerrant, our interpretations are not always so.  In moving forward in this protracted debate, the central hermeneutical question remains: when do texts have a legitimate universal application for all times and when do texts do not.  These have always been complex issues.  Historically, evangelicals have not always been adept at discerning these correctly; arguments in support of slavery are probably the most significant and sad example. To be sure progress has been made in many areas, but we fool ourselves if we think that we don’t fall for culture-bound exegesis ourselves.  No one can claim 100% objectivity in our exegesis and biblical analysis and we need to be constantly looking for the Truth to change us and our false presuppositions.  The following observations therefore apply to both groups who have ‘dug in their heels’ over the years.   

Issues to consider for hard complementarians:

1. A woman can actually have better insights into the Biblical text than you do

1a. When a woman is smarter than you are

1b. When a woman exercises better judgment than you do

1c.  When a woman is more qualified than you are to do your job

(and so forth)

This is a little tongue-in-cheek, but there is truth to this statement.  In recent years, gifted evangelical female teachers have flocked to the Academy because they intuitively know that they will be received and accepted without conditions and reservations in the classroom.

2. The Bible also teaches that your wife is an equal partner in teaching your son (Prov. 1:8)

The idea that the husband is the “priest” or “discipler-in-chief” goes beyond the witness of Scripture, even in the patrimonial social context of the OT.

3.  Some of your conclusions might be based on poor exegesis of the text.  Grammatical and lexical data, literary setting, historical context may not be fully considered in arguments to limit or to expand the application of some key texts.  In other word, your approach is not indubitably more “exegetical” or “biblical” than opposing viewpoints at all times and under all circumstances (see 4.)

The one example is the way Deborah (Judges 4-5) is handled.  Complementarian commentators can go to great length to argue that she was not a judge in spite of the exegetical evidence to the contrary, particularly lexical and literary (the parallels between Deborah and Samuel, the judge and prophet). 

4.  Your hermeneutical system is sometimes influenced by emotion and pragmatism rather than empirical data.  Some examples:

4a. You do accept and receive the teachings of a woman but only when they support your views of hard complementarianism.

4b. What age should a man stop listening to the teaching of a woman? After they reach puberty?  When they go to college?

4c.  Since matters pertaining to the ‘Gospel’ are first-order doctrines and thereby authoritative, why should a woman ever be allowed to preach the Gospel to anyone?

4d.  Hard complementarians really should not be reading commentaries written by women (or any theological topic).

The points raised here are to demonstrate that in the real world of church life today, no one is really ready to apply fully Paul’s prohibition in 1 Tim 2.  It’s one thing to argue man has inherent authority over woman, but it’s quite another to apply it in all circumstances at all times today.  If we really wanted to be biblical, then our wives should call us ‘lord’ since Peter suggests that wives should emulate our matriarch Sarah when she called Abraham ‘lord.’   In other words, we intuitively allow some contextualization of even the most rigid texts for our time.  A glaring and delicate example is Ephesians 5.  The part that deals with husband and wives should be applied across the ages and at all times (especially the emphasis of wife submission in ‘everything’).  However in ch. 6, complementarians are quick to say (and rightly so!) the slavery texts are obviously contextually bound and should not be applied today.  Of course the husband-wife relationship is not at all like master-slave relationship in Ephesians.  But the hermeneutic of Galatians 3 cannot be selectively applied to some text and not to others in Eph 5-6.  It’s especially important in Ephesians itself since unity is the prevailing theme of the book. Husband and wives are united in Christ, children and fathers are united in Christ, slaves and masters are united in Christ.  Eschatologically, the image is one of unity, not ranking, for all these groups. (see 5. For more on the eschatology)

5.  Your biblical theology of manhood and womanhood has reductionistic and, in some cases, outright heterodox eschatological foundations.   It’s essentially based on life on this earth (see 6.)

This is the largest problem of hard complementarian hermeneutics.  It’s essentially a “this world” approach to human relationships.  The Bible teaches that in the Age to Come we are not given in marriage, so marriage is not an eschatological category and the Gospel upholds this eschatological view of manhood and womanhood in Gal. 3. We’ve all become ‘sons’  in Christ = the first-born who receives the whole inheritance.   The sense of authoritative hierarchy of the first-born who gets it all has been redefined to include man, women, slaves, free, Jews and Gentiles. The prevailing image is one of eschatological unity. 

6. Do you really want to promote a heterodox view of the Trinity in order to support the eternal functional subordination of woman to man (based on the heretical view that Jesus is eternally subordinate to the Father)?

Jack Davis (our colleague in theology at Gordon-Conwell) has written on the problems of this view of the Trinity, as have others.  The idea that Christ is somehow functionally subordinate forever is plain heresy.  I would never want to support a view of marriage that forces me to take such a stance on the Trinity. 

7.  On the Last Day, who is going to judge your wife before the judgment seat of Christ? You or Jesus?  Will Jesus ask of a wife, ‘did you follow and obey your husband in everything’ or ‘did you follow and obey me in everything?’

It all goes back to the eschatological nature of our identity.  We are accountable before God.  God’s law never says in the OT that a woman is not accountable for her actions.  “The soul that sins shall die.”

8. Pastors and leaders, how many female co-workers do you currently have on your staff?   Name six of them (and then count how many female co-workers the Apostle Paul names in his writings).

8a.  Pastors and church leaders, when was the last time you went to consult a woman for instruction in Scripture and for guidance in matters pertaining to the Church?  Ancient Israelite tribal leaders didn’t seem to be too bothered by it. 

A little tongue-in-cheek here as well, but Paul was very comfortable calling some of his closest associates “co-workers” that included females.  Priscilla, Junia, Phoebe are real persons who were fully invested in proclaiming the Gospel.  Here the reductionistic exegesis of these passages by hard complementarians mirror the approach of OT scholars who refuse to assign the title of judge to Deborah in Judges 4-5.  Furthemore, Barak, and the rest of the Israelite leadership at the time didn’t have any problems consulting Deborah on matters of the Law (or Priscilla teaching Apollos in Acts). If we are putting restrictions on ourselves that the Scripture itself isn’t putting on itself, we need to name the problem for what it is: it’s called legalism.

9. Ask yourself, which is the greater sin?  A woman in the pulpit OR a prideful, undisciplined pastor?

Oftentimes, hard complementarianism is associated with organizations who claim the mantle of the Gospel of grace alone and faith alone that are Reformed in perspective. These groups rightly teach that if there is repentance, there is no sin that the Lord cannot cover.  We are all sinners saved by grace.  We are all ‘always righteous and always sinner’ in God’s economy.  Furthermore, God plays no favorites in electing people unto Himself.  In other words, election trumps bloodlines (Romans and Galatians are the key texts in defining the Gospel). 

Thus, the Jews/Gentiles divide is dealt with directly by Paul in Galatians/Romans.  Freedom is the word.  However, legalistic standards of who belongs to the club and who doesn’t are routinely applied as to who can do what in God’s kingdom.  Standards that even OT saints didn’t feel bound to follow themselves!  (e.g., 2 Kings 22-23 and King Josiah:
“should I go to Jeremiah or Huldah to find out what these curses mean?”)

10.  Are matters of church governance now an essential part of the Gospel? Are organizational matters discussed in 1 Tim 2-3 that important in defining the Gospel?

In looking over the Danvers Statement on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood, the texts to prove the affirmation keep circling back to the same passages, the pastoral epistles being chief among them (along with Gen 2 and Eph 5).  What is missing in this view of the Gospel is the central texts that affirms that the Gospel is an eschatological declaration of freedom for everyone who would come to Jesus.  Acts 2/Joel 2 is essential to understand the eschatological Age of the Spirit, an Age in which man and woman, young and old prophesy (in the Reformed sense of the word: ‘teaching God’s Law’).  As stated earlier, the goal for man and woman is not marriage but eschatological unity in the presence of God forever.  

10. If you really want to be a hard complementarian, you really shouldn’t quote Maggie Thatcher anymore

Ok totally tongue-in-cheek here!

10 Observations and Questions for hard egaliterians:

These propositions are more “self-evident” so we are not providing a commentary.

1. Women are different from men.

2. Not everybody should minister just because of their gender.  The ministry is not an equal opportunity affair, it’s a matter of calling and election.

3. The overwhelming majority of leaders in the Bible and in Church history are male.

4. Male primacy in Genesis is real

5. Headship and submission are real categories in discussing man/woman relationships

6.  God is Father; Jesus is Son; there are 12 tribal heads and 12 apostles, and none of them are female.

7. Paul did prohibit women from teaching in 1 Timothy 2.

8. The two list of qualifications for elders in NT are all male, e.g,  ‘husband of one wife’

9. The Trinity is “God is Three Persons;” it’s not one giant blur.

10.  Scripture is normative, even the hard texts.  You can’t pretend the “clobber texts” are not there or to be re-interpreted as ‘positive’ texts. 

Persia on my mind

When we lived in Toronto, some of my closest friends were from Iran (and Afghanistan).  When our son Marcus turned one on September 28, 2001, we celebrated the event with them, just a couple of weeks after 9/11.  A significant and influential part of my doctoral studies focused on Iron Age Iran.  Some of my favorite professors while in graduate schools were born and raised in Iran who had an intimate knowledge of the area (Christy Wilson at Gordon-Conwell, Bill Hutchison at Harvard and Cuyler Young at the University of Toronto).
However, in spite of my love for the land and its people, I cannot quite bring myself to joining in the  jubilation and celebration coming from the general direction of 1600 Penna. Ave.   The Islamic Republic of Iran is still a terrorist state and an active sponsor of terrorists.  An adoring press will be tempted to make comparisons with the Nixon/Kissinger deal with China, but the analogy breaks down so fast so as to make it quite meaningless.  In recent months, cool heads including Dr. Kissinger in a great essay co-written with George Shultz,  have warned of the folly to sit down with the "ayyatolahs."
I am also reminded of an old movie, The Heroes of Telemark where the Norwegian Resistance put an end to Nazi hopes for nuclear power during WWII.   From a strategic standpoint, for Nazi Germany to go nuclear was simply unacceptable in the eyes of the Allies and no cost was spared to stop the production of "heavy water."  We are such a long way from such determination by the Great Powers.
So let's keep Persia on our minds and in our prayers.  The world just got a little more dangerous as a result of this agreement.

New Age of Heresies

This is a brief post that could swell into a monograph pretty quickly (I don't have the time to write such a book maybe someone will feel the call!).
A new age of heresies not unlike what the Early Church faced is upon us.   It's now not unusual to see scholars and pastors who claim evangelical roots that have moved from orthodox understanding of the faith to new ideas (justification; inspiration of Scripture; historicity of Adam; deity of Christ; to name a few; and now we can add sexual ethics to the list).  What is also troubling are those who are concerned with these movements are viewed as intolerant extremists.   In this new era of the evangelical movement in North America,  Early Christian documents will become more and more important as guidelines on how to deal with false teachings and false teachers.  1, 2 Timothy; 2 Peter/Jude; Revelation, 1-3 John are great texts and will provide a much needed corrective to more extreme forms of the missional and liberation/social justice movements.  When I read this part of God's Word, it seems to me the inspired writers are clearly guilty of circling the wagon and they don't seem to be wringing their hands about it.  What they saw was the need to protect the Church from the lies of the devil and those who were deceived by him.  NT writers in the General Epistles (and other texts, of course) felt like the OT watchmen whose responsibility it was to alert the town of impending danger.  In NT terms, it's the danger of the impending wrath of God against ungodliness and the proclamation that Jesus is the One who delivers us both from the wrath to come (1 Thess 1:10) and this present evil age (Gal 1). As Paul puts it in 1 Tim. 3:15, "if I delay, you may know how one ought to behave in the household of God, which is the church of the living God, a pillar and buttress of the truth."  
Maybe what we need to do is emulate the Early Church, shed some of the overemphases of the missional movement,  and recover a robust view of the Church as "bulwark" (or in German  "Festung") of the Truth.  

Time to go dark

There were many good responses to  SCOTUS' decision this past Friday by evangelicals and I personally liked a lot of them. In terms of what to do next, so far, my favorite has been John Piper  with his motif of lament and mourning (maybe it's because I'm working on the Nehemiah part of our NIVAC Ezra-Nehemiah commentary).  While we need to be careful to set the context in the Persian period for Nehemiah, there are points of applications for us nevertheless.  Upon hearing of the calamitous news from Jerusalem in the province of Yehud in chapter 1, Nehemiah becomes a mourner and goes "dark" for a few months, praying and fasting and interceding for the king of Persia to revert a decree he had made (recorded in Ezra 4).  Again, we can't have a direct application to the US situation, but maybe it's time for us to "go dark" too and to have a posture of prayer and repentance for our sins and the sins of the people. The idea that "nothing has changed" after Friday is ok if by that we mean that God is still in control and that the nations are mere drop in a bucket (Isa 40) etc. etc.  However, it's not ok if we mean disengagement from the situation.  We are to pray actively for our government, Scripture teaches us.  We ought also to feel the weight of what happened and lament and weep over this decision that so blatantly goes against the will of God (as so many other SCOTUS decisions before). We should also pray that we might not be hampered in proclaiming the Gospel, esp. those of us involved in Christian higher education.
So, maybe it's time for us to go dark too and while we're there also to weep and mourn for the tragedy in Charleston, the persecutions of our brothers and sisters in Africa, the Middle East, China, and many other unknown places.  Finally, and not least of which, let us weep and mourn also over our own personal failures and shortcomings, as Nehemiah prays, "even I and my father's house have sinned" (Neh 1:6)

Lex, Rex

Samuel Rutheford in the 17th century was a Scottish Presbyterian minister who penned this idea that proper governance is predicated on the rule of Law, rather than on absolute power residing in one individual ("the Law is King").  History is replete with countless leaders who have disregarded the Law to advance their own political agenda.   Some do it more skillfully than others and in varying degrees.  After all, the mark of a skilled politician in modern democracies is one who "gets things done" by using the law to his/her advantage, and by enlisting the help of others to carry out their agenda.

Theological liberalism, with its situational interpretation of Biblical Law provides a fitting counterpart to the secular political realm.   The norming norm of Scripture resides within the flux of the human experience, which means that normative ideals shift accordingly.  What the text might have meant in the past may not necessarily be what it means today.  Here also, a cursory survey of History will serve abundant helpings of the idea that Lex, Rex  is easily bullied and trampled upon.

The immigration debate in America has taken a sudden turn these past few days with the President taking the notion of Executive Order to brand new levels (which until very recently he didn't think were actually legal). However, it is argued,  now the situation has changed and we need to act on a situation that every one agrees needs fixing, i.e., the status of millions of undocumented residents in the US [BTW, not all come from our southern borders.  Many undocumented foreign-born residents simply overstay their visa].  So the need for immediate action overrides the sense that we should have laws in place before action can be taken.  But this is the post-modern, post-foundational world we now live in.  Expediency must prevails over Lex, Rex.

The implication of this action are profound for the Church as well.  If the chief executive in the land feels he can disrupt the (fragile) equilibrium between the three branches of our government and pretty much disregard existing laws, what would prevent other leaders to feel the need at some point to override by-laws, elder boards, boards of directors, trustees, governance documents, etc. to carry out their own purpose?  In the world of higher education,  where grading, student handbooks, faculty handbooks, governance documents are our "Lex, Rex,"  what if we disregarded our own standards based on expediency?  Any university that would engage in shifting standards (F last year is now a B this year) simply won't survive, we know that.  However, with this new precedent being set, I wonder how long it's going to take before we see the implementation of blatant instances of post-modern shifting standards beyond the Beltway.   Am I sounding too alarmist?  I sure hope so.

The Lord Jesus Himself upheld the constancy and perennial nature of Law when he re-affirmed OT Law by fulfilling it.  Compassion to the poor and needy in the OT becomes love for enemies in the NT. The prohibition against bearing false witness in the NT takes a much simpler, but equally profound dimension: speak the truth because He is the Truth.  So, in this confused age, the Sermon on the Mount in Matthew 5-7 becomes again a magisterial and powerful counter to a deceived culture, which wants to compromise and undermine Lex, Rex at every turn.  Let's make sure we as followers of Jesus, those who continue in His Word (His Law), don't fall for expediency and compromise in our own lives and in the institutions we serve.

PS on the question of Mosaic authorship

In the debates among evangelicals who are seeking to re-define inerrancy, even non-inerrantists are flagging the problems related to moving away from a traditional understanding of inerrancy.  You can't have a Chicago Statement viewpoint on inerrancy (which is based on written texts) and then turn around and be committed to a primacy of orality that is followed by a long process of literary/written production of the texts.  You lose too much in the process and it makes the traditional inerrancy claim that the texts are historically true and reliable sound very hollow.  This is the point made by this reviewer below (hardly a friend of the evangelical doctrine of Scripture)

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/peterenns/2014/01/review-of-the-lost-world-of-scripture-walton-and-sandy-by-carlos-bovell/

Say it ain't so Moses

There is a new storm brewing in OT evangelical scholarship:  Denial of Mosaic authorship of the Pentateuch and the resulting validating of classical liberal historical criticism methodology.  The blog posts are up, the books are being published at a steady rate by well-established figures both in the publishing world and in evangelical academia.  In the months and years ahead, more OT scholars with roots in the evangelical tradition will align themselves with this newly found historical-critical consensus in the same way it overwhelmed European universities in the 19th century and American mainline seminaries in the 20th century.

However, before we join this call to freedom from the shackles of "pre-critical" and "fundamentalist" notions of Mosaic composition, it is important to take a look in our rear-view mirror.   In both Europe and the US, a skeptical stance toward the Scripture, among other factors, has resulted in devastating losses in terms of church growth.  One anecdotal story will suffice. In my home country of Switzerland in the French-speaking part, I was told that a couple of years ago, the faculty of theology in Neuchâtel had no new theological students matriculating.  The other two universities that are training pastors in the State Reformed Church, Lausanne and Genève, now share classes because of lack of students (this is Calvin's seminary we're talking about here).   In the US, the narrative is similar: mainline seminaries are struggling too, though not as severely as in Europe.

The approach contains many well known liberal arguments concerning the formation of the Pentateuch: the authorship of the Pentateuch was a long-term literary process.   Moses, while an authority behind the core texts, was only one part of the process that led to the text in its final form.  Tradents (= editors/authors) are credited with substantial responsibilities for the production of the Pentateuch. So, nothing new under the sun here. This sort of long-term processual scheme to factor in the multivariate dimensions of the Five Books of Moses has been a critical mainstay for 200 years.   But now, the arguments have taken a sort of evangelical idiosyncratic identity, an "in-house" feel: Since the Holy Spirit superintended the process, we need not fear this methodology.   God must have inspired the tradents just the same way he inspired Moses.

 It appears the OT and NT writers receiving these Pentateuchal texts didn't seem to share modern critics' confidence in this "gap theory."  When OT and NT writers said "Moses said this," the most reasonable assumption is that they meant he also wrote it (Nehemiah 8, etc.).  To argue otherwise seems a hard case to make, especially when the production of texts in the Ancient Near East is also factored in.  Orality (oral tradition) and literacy (texts) work hand in hand on many occasions (see Exodus 15 and Judges 5; the 9th century Mesha Stele [a Moabite text]).  The fact that it's very hard to recognize precisely when the oral traditions are put to writing (especially in Genesis) cautions us from being overly confident in assuming this was inevitably a long term process.  On the contrary, in the ANE, what the king says becomes binding authority (e.g., the code of Hammurabi) and it would be difficult to imagine scribes taking great liberties altering the accounts, especially much later on, when the king/authority is dead.  In fact, it's better to assume just the opposite happens.   Even today, people want their words recorded for posterity while they are alive.  This was certainly the case for Nehemiah in chs 1-6, 13: "Remember me, O God."  How much more so when these documents become codified and binding upon the community while the authority (Moses) is still present in their midst (Ex 24; Deuteronomy).

So, for evangelicals committing to this approach, the question becomes,  how historical is the text? For those who have dropped the "inerrancy" language from their vocabulary, the hermeneutic of suspicion is in full effect and the answer is quite easy to handle: the authors of the story of Adam, the Exodus, and Conquest narratives have all badly flunked the course "Israelite History 101" as taught in modern universities.  With this historical-critical grid, real Israelite history was quite different from what is recorded in the biblical text.  For those who are hanging on to traditional definitions of inerrancy, the answer to this question is more complicated. What is more plausible? To believe the accuracy of an eye witness account based on an oral tradition? Or to believe that some unknown scribe, perhaps as late as a half-millennium later would put to writing a tradition passed down to him orally, down to the last details?  I'm not doubting God could inspire these tradents, but does the text require us to believe in this long compositional process?  Of that, I am not convinced at all. This is why many evangelical OT scholars still don't find compelling positive evidence to counter the case for both Mosaic authority and authorship of the Pentateuch.

Accreditation or Principle in the balance for Christian colleges

No one likes to make decisions between hard and yet harder ones.  Sometimes, however, difficult circumstances require that agonizingly tough choices have to be made.  This is precisely what is upon Christian Colleges in the US.  Do they remain "in good standing" with accrediting agencies, or do they persist in hanging on to what is perceived as discriminatory policies?  Every one knows accreditation is a huge currency in higher education.  If you lose it, why would students continue to come to your school?   It amounts to a lawyer being disbarred or a physician losing his/her license to practice.

Those who lament how quickly times have changed and how the tide has turned simply do not interpret History right.  The human experience is replete with revolutions that occurred in a tremendously accelerated tempo.  The causes might have taken a long time, but the execution (pun intended) unfolds at a breathtaking pace. Right now the cultural warriors of the new moral majority sense that final victory is just around the (SCOTUS) corner.  Those holding to common grace marriage and sexual ethics are in full retreat.

What is a college to do? One approach would be to take a re/conciliatory tone.  Since we can't change the culture now, why be labelled discriminatory by the general public? The specter of a shameful era gone by (still a giant scar across the face of "America the Beautiful") is impossible to avoid.  Discrimination is one of the worst social sins in American society since "all men (and women [why has that not been added yet?]) are created equal. So let's change the policies that are perceived as discriminatory and move on.

Another approach is to remain re/conciliatory but to politely decline by appealing to another enshrined law in American society: separation of church and state.  In this approach, we condemn discrimination and embrace people of every walk of life and we promote these principles of good citizenship in our curriculum and within our walls.  However, our admission policy is selective and in step with our values enshrined in our historical documents.  For instance, Annapolis trains future naval officers and looks for leadership qualities in their midshipmen.  If you don't qualify (and many don't), tough.  Go study somewhere else.  We don't call that discrimination. Neither should we when it comes to small private (private!) confessional colleges.  If the dam breaks here, there is no stopping: Catholic schools, Orthodox schools, evangelical seminaries, etc. will be forced to admit students who don't believe in the standards of the school and who, depending on the situation, will not be able to find any job related to their traditions.

But here lies the problem: We know what the United States Naval Academy is all about.  I am not so sure some Christian colleges do anymore. In their efforts to shed their "Bible College" image, a lot of the historical identity is gone too. On the plus side, some of these schools truly compete with some of the finest Liberal Arts Colleges in the country and attract extremely bright individuals.  But not many of these people go to Christian College X because they themselves are necessarily Christians preparing to go into the ministry and/or the mission field (I'm told only two schools in the Council for Christian Colleges and Universities require a statement of faith as pre-requisite for admissions).  Students are there because they want a first rate Liberal Arts education.  In the old Bible College model, Biblical Studies and Theology used to provide intellectual leadership on campus, but this model is not possible to maintain in a Liberal Arts university: it's been replaced by Philosophy, Political Sciences, Biology and so on.  Classes in Scripture and Theology remain important, to be sure (in a cultural heritage, religious studies, sort of way) but they have ceded the agenda.

This is why we will see variegated answers to this dilemma: Liberal Arts schools who have retained their strong Bible College (read: theological) identity won't budge (it's already been documented).  And, I bet if they make a good case to the accrediting agency that they exist for the purpose of training Christian leaders in all areas of society, the accrediting agency might in fact respect this decision. Accreditors may not like it and may slap the school on the wrist. However, since accrediting bodies look for consistency between what a school says it is, and what it actually does, those schools with strong Christian identity may actually survive with both their accreditation and values intact (this is the optimist in me speaking).  But for those schools who have only residual and historical ties to their roots, the decision to dismiss distinctly Christian sexual ethics will be easier to make.  We are a Liberal Arts school and we don't discriminate.  It's time to move on from the historical artifacts of our past and complete the makeover toward what they view as non-discrimination.  It will make sense to both the institution and the accrediting agency.

In reality many schools are finding themselves somewhere in between these two positions: divided constituencies within the Board of Trustees/Governors, Administration, Faculty, Staff, Students and Alums.  Tough decisions will be made by the leadership of these schools.   Compromises will be ironed out with less than decisive outcomes which will be hailed and wailed with equal fervor.  In the end, however, I don't think it's a guessing game as to who will do what: simply look at the current identity (more "Bible College" or more "Liberal Arts") of any particular institution and it can be a pretty good guide as to what will govern their decision-making process.

Pray that the Lord may cause these schools to revive and rekindle the reason why they were founded in the first place.

P.S.
Some evangelicals are also openly questioning the wisdom to pursue a legal path to protect our religious freedoms. The argument is that we lose the "missional" dimension of our faith if we were to win this legal battle (e.g. winning according to the law, but losing according to "hearts and minds"). My take is that you can do both: protecting our rights to hire whomever we want according to our biblical code of ethics, and yet at the same time welcoming other sinners to join us to receive redemption, forgiveness of sins and the accompanying fruit of repentance.

On equality and unity

The question of the roles of man and woman created in God's image seems to be settled for some, but for me, whenever I hear some of the arguments, more questions than answers are raised in my mind.

I don't think recent arguments on either side of the issue of women in ministry would make the case that a woman is downright inferior, weaker, or less capable as a human being because she is female.  So, in this way we have made progress toward respect for one another in the Body of Christ.  In modern western democracies and with the constant focus on social justice, who wants to come across as authoritarian? We are painfully aware there are many instances where "authority" has been an excuse to abuse another person, including, sadly, within the sacred fellowship of marriage.

So, to prevent abusive relationships, people hasten to add (and rightly so) that, while a man is the leader both at home and in the Church, this doesn't inevitably follow that he is in some way better or superior to his wife or women in the Church.  As long as the man remembers his role as a Christ-like servant to his wife and to the church, harmony can be established and a loving relationship can be nurtured.  In this regard, anecdotes exist of wonderfully loving and serving husbands who also happen to be die-hard complementarians.  And, conversely, we have examples of card-carrying egalitarians that are quite tyrannical in their relationships.  Thus, the injunction to walk in the Spirit trumps individual viewpoints on the matter, as it should.  We're all the better for it.

However, to push back a little, it still seems hard to accept that any system of subordination, with its inherent limitations and restrictions placed on the subordinate party, doesn't create a perception of inequality.  If someone is in authority over you, there is invariably a sense of loss regardless of how much the one over the other claims this is not the case.  I think it's part of human nature to think this way: "rank has its privileges" is a truism that is hard to shake off, it seems to me.  The very fact that a lot of time is usually spent explaining that one idea (submission) doesn't lead to the other (inequality) tells me there is some noise in the system.

Paul himself does not seem to struggle with this perceived tension.  In his clearest articulation of the Gospel in Romans and Galatians,  he is happy to claim unity and equality between ethnicities and genders (the famous "there is no..." in Galatians; the whole of point of Romans is that Jews and Gentiles are now equal before God in their guilt and righteousness by faith; "no favoritism" is the idea). In fact the metaphor of unity in his theology is far more important to him than the idea of subordination.  Even a key text such as Eph 5 sets the context of the wife's submission within the larger, and presumably, more important, framework of mutual submission (which is another way to get at unity).  In this mindset, he is firmly in line with the language of "union" between a man and woman (completeness/ togetherness) of Gen 1-2.  So, in the Christ/Husband and Church/Wife analogy, Paul subordinates the submission of the wife (and the children, and the slaves) within the context of the primary command to "submit to one another."  The husband submits to his wife by his Christlike sacrificial love, while the wife submits to her husband in everything (is there any other sort of loyalty/submission than one where everything/every area is involved?).  The father submits to his children by not provoking them to anger, while the children obey their parents.  Slaves and masters have also a mutually submissive attitude under the Lord, quite the radical claim in the first century. Thus,  if we place the submission language over Paul's language of unity in Ephesians in general and here in particular, we are missing the point he is making at the very beginning of the sequence: submit to one another.  It is in this symbiotic relationship that the unity of the body of Christ is reflected, including the union between a husband and wife.   Paul seems to argue from the standpoint of the primacy of unity and mutual dependency in relationships, not hierarchy per se.

The creation-order-as-authority argument is another problematic one for me.  Here my focus is on 1 Tim 2 (as opposed to 1 Cor 11).  In the logic of Paul's argument, Adam came before Eve, therefore Adam has primacy, therefore women can't teach men. However, if we are going to argue for a narrow idea of primogeniture-equals-authority from Genesis, we find ourselves quickly in over our heads.  In Genesis, the first-born routinely gets the proverbial "shaft" (Cain, Ishmael, Esau, Reuben, Manasseh).  In fact, Paul himself gets tremendous mileage out of the principle that "election overrides primogeniture" when he brings up Jacob and Esau in Rom 9 to illustrate God's mercy toward Jews (and Gentiles, as it turns out).   So, if we find in Paul's theology this prevailing idea that election overrides any claim of primacy based on bloodlines and first-born status, we need to be careful not to absolutize the illustrative analogy Paul makes in 1 Tim 2 with respect to the relationship between Adam/men and Eve/women in Ephesus.  I may be wrong here, but if Paul speaks in absolute terms across the ages (Adam/man is first, therefore he has authority over Eve/woman), then we create an unnecessary tension with his teaching on election.   Thus, while Paul does appeal to the order of creation in 1 Tim 2 to make his point,  I'm not sure the analogy has the universal reach some have attached to what he is saying, namely, that women can't ever teach men through all ages and under any circumstances.    If this were the case, then Josiah and his court, all of Israel during the judgeship of Barak and Deborah in pre-monarchical Israel, were in sin by consulting and receiving the teaching of the Law from women (of course, to find the Israelites in sin during the period of the Judges and in the late Judean monarchy is not a great stretch, but in the context of both the judgeship of Deborah and the reign of Josiah, these are times of spiritual renewal within the community, e.g. Judges 5, 2 Kings 22-23).  Much more to develop on these matters, but they can be taken up elsewhere and at another time.
 

The MDiv for stay-at-home wives, homeschooling moms and grandmothers

The title may sound controversial to some but it actually isn't, if you keep reading.
Traditionally the MDiv has been a degree designed for those preparing to enter the ordained ministry of Word and Sacrament. It includes courses in preaching, counseling, evangelism, missions, church history, theology and, of course, biblical studies.  It's usually the flagship degree at a seminary and a majority of students are typically enrolled in it (although trends also point to diversification). Depending on what seminary you attend, typically it is men who enroll in the MDiv.  The reason is well known: many denominations within evangelicalism don't regard the ordination of women as a doctrinally, exegetically and ecclesiologically viable option from the testimony of Scripture.  Other seminaries, like the one where I teach, feel that since the seminary itself doesn't ordain individuals, we leave this decision up to the students whether they want to enroll in the MDiv or not.
Regardless of where one stands on the issue of women ordination (or the idea of ordination itself), I think a good case can be made to encourage women to study in the MDiv.  Let's take the example of the stay-at-home future pastor's wife.  Oftentimes, economic considerations preclude her to study at the seminary, since somebody has to pay the bills and/or look after the children (this is of course a wonderful example of selfless sacrifice and true partnership in the ministry that is to be applauded).
However, if economics and other factors were in place (more on that in a later blog), should she not also avail herself of the opportunity to know Church history (and the history of doctrine), systematic theology, counseling, etc. ?  From the standpoint of partnership in the ministry, her husband would feel support and what all of us guys value so much in our wives: understanding of what I'm going through.  But it's more than that.  Would we not want our wives to bring up our children in the instruction of the Lord with as much precision as possible?  OT exegesis (what I usually end up teaching the most) is a wonderful tool to have for homeschooling moms, and moms who teach women Bible studies, and female directors of youth ministry, grandmothers, etc. (BTW, preaching classes also come in handy to get the point across in the right format).  I don't mean to be facetious here but I think everyone would say amen to the idea that children, other women and young adults deserve as much exegetical accuracy and doctrinal faithfulness as adult males deserve to receive from their pastors.
Some view the prohibition of Paul to women to be universal in 1 Tim 2, others don't. What is undeniable is that the text still says "let a woman learn."  I say, let every one learn as much as they can so that they can fully participate in the theological development of their children or gran-children or whomever the Lord puts on their paths.

The best culinary institutes in the world

CT has been asking if the MDiv has a future in seminary education.  Based on Fuller Seminary's changes to its own curriculum and other denominations' move toward relaxing their own requirements, the MDiv will become one among other options for future ministers.

First,  it's about asking the right questions concerning this debate.   If we are asking the question whether a person can enter the ministry and succeeds without a MDiv degree, the answer is, and has been clearly so for a long time,  yes.  But, if we are asking the question whether the MDiv still provides the best pathway to essential theological skills for future ministers, the answer remains unequivocally yes.  First, based on the qualifications for eldership (spiritual leadership) in 1 Tim 2 and Titus 2, a leader must be able to handle complex theological issues, counter false teachings and lead others with perspicuity, compassion and patience.  Without a deep awareness of the history of Christian doctrine and the development of theological systems, leaders will have quite shallow responses to the challenges of the Church today.  Answers to problems will not be resolved with tweets and blogs, but will require deliberate, thorough and informed responses.  We stand on the shoulder of giants and we need to know what they had to say in the challenges of their days. Otherwise, Heine's dictum, "we learn from history that we don't learn from history" will be true in our time as well. 

The other significant piece is of course the Word of God itself.  It is amazing that discussions (see my blog "the myth of the calculator" April this year) are going on about discarding the requirements of Hebrew and Greek for the MDiv, when, at the same time, people are lamenting the lack of biblical literacy in the Church (Biola Magazine).  I would venture to say these two trends are related to each other.  To be sure, you and I know many people who love God's Word and know God's Word without the benefit of knowing the languages.  However,  the commitment it takes to spend these endless hours memorizing Hebrew words and Greek words and syntax (the way God chose to communicate to us) results in a deeper love and devotion to the Word.  I stand as a witness (as many others alongside and before me) that the study of the languages inspires me to dig deeper!  In the course of a a lifelong pursuit to study the Word, to probe the Hebrew and the Greek text of a passage for preaching and teaching challenges me in terms of how much I have yet to learn about the depths of God's Word (in a way that merely looking at the ESV or NIV won't).  For men and women called to proclaim the Word, to limit ourselves to the texts in translation is entirely too restrictive!  The best analogy to me is a diet of prepared meals in the frozen food section versus a Tuscan menu in situ (how about Montepulciano?) or a déjeuner at a brasserie in Lyon, France.  The people of God is starving (already in the days of Amos in the 8th century BC, Amos 8:11), it's time to give them solid training in the best culinary institutes available: the MDiv with the full load of language requirements. 

on Writhing and Diving (and yes, biting)

It's amazing to watch and observe American attitude toward football (I refuse to call the sport soccer).  I grew up remembering the name "Pele" and his famed 1970 World Cup; how Brazil kept the Rimet Cup permanently (whoever wins the cup three times keeps it) and actually rooting for Germany in 1974 (when everybody else wanted the Netherlands to win).  I just loved Gerd Muller "Der Bomber" and Beckenbauer "Der Kaiser" (very martial nicknames), Berti Vogts, Paul Breitner, Sepp Maier, these guys were awesome.

So it's been pure delight to watch the World Cup after a few decades recess (missions work, grad School, life getting in the way).  The first observation is the incredible tempo with which the players play now.   Players today are much more athletic than before, which results in a higher number of goals.  No-one is complaining there.

So, the main beef people have here in the US about the game is "diving" and "writhing" (ok, and biting too).   The Wall Street Journal even computed how many minutes per game each team spends rolling on the ground in pain: 6 minutes, less than 2 minutes, it varies.  Obviously, the good folks in Midtown Manhattan coming up with these stats have never had aluminium cleats jammed into their ankles.  I still remember all the blue marks we got from one another when we were playing as kids (we had these screwed-in cleats, just like the pros today; now kids are spared with these fake soft cleats).  The game is tough and, yes, painful.  And when the players actually fake it, it's their way to break the tempo,  slow the game down, give a chance to catch their breadth, creating "time outs." Same with diving.  The players are attempting to induce error on the part of the referee; it's psychological warfare.

Obviously these plays don't quite fit as written notes on the arm of the quarterback and they can't be phoned in from the side-lines.  I know it's been chronicled many times before, but the way football is choreographed is fundamentally different:  strategies are much more fluid and exhibit far less control during the game from the top-down structures of American football coaches (I can never keep up with how many coaches are on the side-lines).  Creativity to generate plays is left to the players after the clock starts and pretty much until it ends.  This means the human dimension of the game is an essential part of it, including referee's mistakes, unfair outcomes, etc.  In the other game of football, nothing seems left to chance or human error (even if it takes some dude 20 minutes to stare at a screen to figure out there was interference).  So, I'll take the short-lived drama (WSJ assures us it's 6 minutes) over the excruciating slow pace at which what is supposed to be a one-hour game can take place. 

The "beautiful game" is one of multi-layered nuances, many of them lost by those who don't know the game.  I suppose the best analogy is baseball with all the rituals surrounding the psychological warfare involving  the pitcher, the hitter, the umpire and the catcher.  If you don't know anything about baseball, you won't catch half of what is really going on. But once you do, it is a beautiful thing. 

Climate Change vs. the Glory of God

Just a quick note on the excellent report in NYT on Bowdoin's decision not to allow Intervarsity to meet on its campus.  At issue is, of course, the question of sexual ethics.  The university has decreed what sexual ethic is appropriate and what is not.  Any Christian group that doesn't fit their idea cannot meet in a formal way on campus.

There are a number of questions raised by this posture, but the one I have is, what does the administration seek to achieve by banning Intervarsity on campus?  Do they really believe wielding the big stick will cause these committed believers simply to "recant" and change what these students (rightly) perceive as a non-negotiable ethical standard?

All this new climate of intolerance (for another illustration, see Michael Bloomberg's 2014 commencement address at Harvard; starting at about 7:30 min) will achieve is to galvanize Christians precisely to meet together to pray and worship the Living God.  The One who has an absolute territorial claim to every square inch (I prefer centimeter) of HIS green earth scoffs at these human-engineered restrictions: His glory will not be suppressed.  History has many examples of the powerful effect persecution and discrimination against Christians produces.  Expect (and pray) for revival to break out at Bowdoin!  Authorities won't be able to put a lid on this, anymore than the authorities tried to stop Peter, et al in Jerusalem (as recorded in the early chapters of the book of Acts): "we must obey God rather than man."


 

D-Day+70 years

Tomorrow we remember that 70 years ago a bunch of teenagers and young adults took on the might of Nazi power on the Atlantic coastline of northwestern France.  We sometimes forget that the Nazi war machine, while weakened by the tremendous drain caused by the Eastern Front was still formidable in the West: the fortress that represented the Atlantic Wall; elite armored divisions in reserve; their general was a legend and probably (along with Erich Von Manstein) one of the best the OKW (Ober Kommando der Wehrmacht/German High Command) could provide in Erwin Rommel.

This was not going to be an easy crossing of the Channel in the month of June (a rainy cold month in this region of the world, not unlike Massachusetts right now).  Intelligence was on the allies' side but somehow the "résistance" forgot to tell the allies about the hedge rows in the "campagne Normande."  Every one with a sense of tactical logic expected the passage at the Pas-de-Calais, the shortest distance between England and France, but instead Ike crossed La Manche/English Channel into the region of Normandy.  The effect of surprise (crucial in special ops doctrine) was achieved in the most brilliant ways. 

Still the Normandy campaign would be hard fought (as 100's of accounts tell us).  Once the OKW and their demented/demonic corporal-turned-Commander realized what was going on, the fighting intensified in Normandy and it would be a few weeks before the allies could break through into Paris.  Read about the "Kessel" (caldron), the "Hitler Jugend" SS division, along with other elite Nazi troops thrown into the fight,  and you  quickly realize what a bitter and uncertain campaign this was going to be.

All this seems so distant now, but for me, growing up on the late 60's in the neighboring country of Switzerland, we heard about the "débarquement" as if it had happened yesterday. For us "les ricains" were the coolest guys around.  So, thank you to the "greatest generation" for your sacrifice for our freedom. 

Academic freedom vs. doctrinal faithfulness in evangelical colleges

Academic freedom is a significant value in scholarship and should be promoted and encouraged.  Without free scholarly inquiry, there is not much point in organizing into learning communities/universities.  In recent times, evangelical Christian colleges (the schools that were founded around evangelical values in the past 100+ years) have especially emphasized academic freedom.  In the desire and need for more majors, the curriculum has shifted from the old 'Bible College' model to a 'university' model.  The consequence, with some exceptions, is that core requirements in Bible and theology have been reduced in emphasis and institutional significance.

In the process, the role of the doctrinal statements upon which these schools were founded has shifted from being a driving force in terms of ethos among faculty and replaced by academic freedom as the more significant value.  While faculty have to sign these doctrinal statements, in reality, the value of academic freedom supersedes the documents.  So, the adage seems to work, "Values on the wall vs. values down the hall." To paraphrase the words of a president (who is himself theologically conservative) at a famous evangelical college in the midwest, doctrinal disciplinary matters are the purview of the Church, not the college.  I think it's fair to say we are in a phase that is "accommodationist."  If a prof has views that are in some ways in contradictions to the doctrinal statement, the "don't ask, don't tell" approach will be applied.  No one college wants the publicity of a "witch hunt" or "heresy trials" on the front page of the CT website!

In my field (Old Testament exegesis and history and archaeology of the ancient Near East), the debates have shifted considerably among Christian college professors. A previous generation of  evangelical scholars in evangelical colleges (say, 20 years ago) would have been trained at the best universities in the world and produced (and continue to produce) first rate research.  So in this respect, nothing has changed. Younger profs also receive their degrees from great programs and conduct their research at the highest levels of scholarship. The marked difference is that a former generation  deeply anchored their research within a confessional framework and a broad apologetic context: "We are studying archaeology and history to demonstrate that the Bible is true." Theological loyalty and accountability was first and academic freedom came second.  Profs knew they were ultimately serving the Church at the college.  World missions and world evangelization, coupled with a deep conviction of the authority, sufficiency and normative nature of God's Word were all strong identity markers.

Nowadays, however, the focus of research in Christian colleges and universities has shifted from this apologetic bend and is now directed more specifically toward academic inquiry divorced from theological considerations.  While this is clearly not the case everywhere, the sense of obligation to a doctrinal statement stems out of heritage rather than deep personal convictions.  The sense that the ground is/has shifted is real when you consider some of the discussions going in these colleges.  The  question of the historicity of Adam is now an accepted debate.  As Biologos (a group with deep evangelical ties; see the endorsements) says on their website: we don't make a value judgment whether Adam was real or not.  I can't imagine this statement to have stood without an uproar only a few years ago.  Now, however, it's pretty much accepted that you can actually be evangelical and hold to a non-historical view of Adam.   Within this accommodationism, inerrancy is re-imagined so that it conforms to views on the Biblical text that clearly align with the classical higher critical tradition:  David didn't write the Psalms that have the "of David" superscription (but see Hebrews 3 and 4 on Ps 95); the Pentateuch has a Mosaic "core" but we're not sure at all "how much" was actually written at the time of Moses (some of its composition, it's argued, occurred as late as the 7th cent. BC).  Deutero-Isaiah is taken as fact (as opposed to a compositional unity of the book of Isaiah that harks back to Isaiah in the 8th Cent. BC).   What is striking is to read previous generations of mainstream critical scholarship (G.E. Wright, G. Mendenhall,  John Bright, among others) and find the discourse of current evangelical scholars remarkably similar. In this climate, I often ask myself, where is the sense of wonder at God's providential activity in empowering these writers to write the very word of God? Unfortunately, it seems this sense of awe is now "ein Anachronismus."
 
The real challenge for these schools will be how they choose to define themselves in the short-term future:  Christ-centered schools? Or schools with a Christian heritage?  There is a world of difference between the two!  You know the narrative: When Harvard moved away from its Puritan-evangelical roots, other colleges were founded. Let's pray history doesn't repeat itself and let's pray our flagship evangelical institutions remain the "Harvards [or Stanfords] of evangelicalism" rather than only other "Harvards" and "Stanfords" of the world.  

The State of Evangelicalism

I have been thinking a lot about the identity of evangelicalism in the second decade of the 21th century.  The coalition of the post WWII created by the like of Harold Ockenga (founder of Fuller and Gordon-Conwell Seminaries), Billy Graham, Bill Bright, etc. has simply faded away.  Instead, we have silos throughout the fruited plains:  The Gospel Coalition, Christianity Today, Together 4 the Gospel, Patheos (and others I am not listing) along with individual voices such Brian McLaren, Rachel Evans, Pete Enns, John Franke who are pushing the boundaries of evangelicalism further than anyone could have imagined even 10 years ago.  The debates also take place in evangelical colleges and among publishers rooted in the evangelical tradition.  We are in an age where everything is questioned, especially the givens of Protestant evangelical identity.  The very idea of evangelical "tradition" seems suspect and should be scrutinized and usually needs, it is argued, serious re-thinking.  So it's fair to say the old liberal "hermeneutic of suspicion" has come to our shores.   This makes you long for the good old days when evangelicals argued whether there would be a 1000-year reign of Christ, arminianism vs calvinism, spiritual gifts today and the role of women in the Church. The days of chivalry are over.   Now the debates have moved to a total war approach and deal with far more fundamental issues, including:
1.  Inerrancy and the normative nature of Scripture  ("the Bible is a human product, therefore not a perfect record")
2.  Historicity of the Biblical record ("theologically true, but not always historical")
3.  Creationism (traditional reading of Genesis account is not compatible with the scientific record)
4.  Justification by grace alone through faith alone (redefinitions of justification)
5.  Sexual Identity ("as long as people love each other, they should be able to fulfill their sexual desires")
6.  Uniqueness of Christ ("not everyone needs to hear the Gospel in order to be saved")


At the same time, those who defend a traditional definition of these doctrines tend to be dismissed as "fundamentalists."  While we have to be careful in drawing tight connections, the situation is not unlike the modernist-fundamentalist controversy of almost a century ago, except now the modernists are intellectual evangelical progressives and the "fundamentalist" role is taken by those who would question the necessity to jettison these doctrines.

I will take up these issues in future blogs as each of these categories need to be unpacked in more details.  

Inerrancy

In our ever-shifting culture, including within evangelicalism, why is it that we have to defend inerrancy?  Here is a quick clip from the Gospel Coalition that addresses this fundamental question.

The other question I have is, why is it that if you do defend inerrancy, some will accuse you of being a fundamentalist? (which, in case you didn't know, is just about the worst sin one could commit within the progressive branch of the evangelical family.)  For example, if one believes in the reality of creation in Genesis 1 (as opposed to an exclusively functional interpretation of Genesis 1 as John Walton argues), does it make this person de facto a fundamentalist?  In other words, are all creationists fundamentalists? Is theistic evolution the only viable option for "thinking" evangelicals?  I have a hunch some would not be entirely happy with this idea (full disclosure, neither would I).  

For a more developed definition of what it means to be an inerrantist (and what it does not mean), check out also Zondervan's new book on the topic.  While it's part of the "Views" series Zondervan has put out, it's clear that a consensus still exists within mainstream evangelicals on the topic, which is a very good thing.

GCTS Class of 2014

This past weekend was commencement at Gordon-Conwell's main campus in Hamilton.  No one will forget Jim Singleton (Allan Emery)'s illustration of that turtle on the fence post and how it got there (or how it didn't get there, ie. by itself).  And how Claude Alexander talked about how to deal with the mess (the word "manure" was mentioned a lot)  that ministry can be at times.  But to me the real highlight came from the students testimonies on Friday night and on Saturday morning:  the narrative in each case was one of sufferings, crushed dreams and outright tragedies.  In a way, these graduating students who shared their experiences while in seminary have understood something no classroom experience will ever be able to give them:  ministry is a call to a war zone and there will be casualties, co-lateral damage, minefields, etc.   One of my favorite WWII movies and one of my favorite John Wayne movies is "In Harm's Way."  While John Wayne in it survives unbelievable battles (he does die in "The Sands of Iwo Jima"), the point is clear: the days ahead are not "safe," "controlled,"  and "happy,"  but will be filled with extraordinary challenges for each of these graduates.  Hostile environment is also the narrative of Rev 12, "because the devil knows that his time is short."  In the midst of these unavoidable dangers, however, the tone of the students' presentation was not dour, downcast and pessimistic at all.  Instead their spirit was filled with joy and the hope that only the Holy Spirit can give to us in the midst of our trials.  So I felt uplifted and encouraged even as I heard their stories because I got the sense they passed perhaps the hardest exam of their time at GCTS (and it's not even on their transcript!):  how to get through hard times without hardening our hearts against the Lord.  Instead they have grown strong in their faith .  In that, they have shown themselves to be ready for what's ahead and the greater tests that are sure to lie ahead for them. 

More blessed to give than to receive

In our culture of greed and constant acquisition of more goods, this is a great moto to live by that we should promote and pass on to our children (Act 20:35).  We are reading some books as a family these days on financial giving.  One of which is Daring to Live on the Edge by Loren Cunningham, the founder of Youth With A Mission, one of the largest missionary organizations in the world.  It's a quick read but it is chock-full of wonderful principles regarding finances and giving.  Another compelling reason to read the book is that Loren practices what he preaches.  Not a smidgen of corruption there in his life.  If anything, in instances where there have been financial troubles on certain YWAM bases (and what Christian ministry doesn't run into difficult situations), the turn around has come in sometimes extraordinary ways.  One of the (open) secrets of Loren's approach to fundraising is that he doesn't do fund raising.  He speaks of his great vision to fulfill the Great Commission in our generation and that's enough for people to open their pocket books, give away their houses (I've seen it happen at one of these epic worship services in Kona, HI) and/or go into full time missions. 

The other principle Loren often talks about is to act in the opposite spirit.  Financial problems? Give more!  Injustice in the way you have been treated?  Give some more! I call that the "entitlement slayer."  We all have that little voice inside of us that whispers and sometimes shouts: "I deserve more" to which we say, by acting in the opposite spirit:  "God deserves more" (Rom 12:1-2, we are living sacrifices).  In this spirit, there is no sense of a prosperity "gospel" and a mechanical one-to-one relationship between our giving and our own financial increase.  Instead, there is a strong confidence in the prosperity of the Gospel more than anything else.  This gospel-focused giving results in the multiplication of the health and prosperity of the Gospel, rather than of ourselves and our own portfolio. 

musings on the idea of future rewards

Attending three funerals of close family members in the past 16 months has made me think a lot about eternity and how I should prioritize or re-prioritize my life.  Another related question is the matter of rewards.  Can we speak of future eternal rewards? As a good Protestant who takes his justification doctrine straight, I know that my sins are forgiven past, present and future.  So the future of justification is already here in my life in that the final judgment of the End has invaded my present with the verdict of "not guilty."  This verdict rests solely on the completed work of Christ and His obedience in life and death and resurrection.  But what about rewards?  Do we get to have awards, like at a graduation where some receive distinctions while other don't (e.g. Tommy Boy)?  What about the texts that speak to giving an account at the end? 2 Cor 5:10, "for we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ, so that each one may receive what is due for what he has done in the body, whether good or evil" (see also Roman 14:10).  Or the other famous one in 1 Cor 3:13, "each one's work will become manifest, for the Day will disclose it, because it will be revealed by fire, and the fire will test what sort of work each one has done." 

One way to look at this question is to affirm  both a salvation based on Christ's completed works, with the resulting transformed life (= a living faith), and accountability for our lives on earth.  The justified life will be lived out by righteous actions, which will then result in rewards on the last day when our good works will be revealed before the judgment seat of Christ.  Our ultimate "Graduation" (=life eternal) is based on Christ's work on the Cross, but we are still held to account for what we do in the body (see Titus on this in particular) and this is where we'll have the different GPA's, as it were, revealed.  This is perhaps what Paul meant, also in 1 Cor 3, when he concludes his thought in v 14, "If the work that anyone has built on the foundation survives, he will receive a reward."  Then comes the contrasting outcome in v 15, "if anyone's work is burned up, he will suffer loss, though he himself will be saved, but only as through fire."    The same sense of urgency to "do good" is also reflected in Revelation and the stern messages to the churches in Asia Minor (see Thytira in particular, Rev 3: 26-28).    So, our works won't justify and thereby save us before the Holy One of Israel (ask the hapless Isaiah in Isa 6!), but we must be committed to a life of holiness and obedience (1 Peter). 

In the end, however, any notion of future rewards in fact circles right back to God Himself.   He is the One who empowers His servants for service by the Holy Spirit, as Paul makes clear in Romans 8.  God Himself actually gets ALL the glory for our faithful service/rewards (e.g., the visual aid of the elders casting down their crowns before the throne, Rev 4). So we can all take courage in our brief wilderness wanderings on this earth, knowing that the Lord Himself will be our reward!