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)
Monday, June 29, 2015
Saturday, November 22, 2014
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.
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.
Friday, October 24, 2014
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/
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/peterenns/2014/01/review-of-the-lost-world-of-scripture-walton-and-sandy-by-carlos-bovell/
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)