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/
Friday, October 24, 2014
Sunday, October 19, 2014
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.
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.
Friday, October 3, 2014
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.
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.
Tuesday, September 30, 2014
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.
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.
Saturday, September 27, 2014
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.
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.
Wednesday, July 16, 2014
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.
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.
Friday, June 27, 2014
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)