Celebrating Diversity at Christmas

Christmas was not the sole focus of my holiday season this year. In the past months I have been learning about the celebrations of other people in the community and in my family.

In the month of December, the agency I work for encouraged each office to show their holiday spirit by decorating their doors. Many doors appeared covered in wrapping paper. Some were decorated as trees or snowmen. But the door to the Diversity Education and Resource Services office (where I work) was transformed into a holiday greeting card, decorated with symbols and pictures representing the various holy days celebrated by various faith groups throughout the winter months. We celebrated diversity.

One morning this month, upon arrival at the office, I found a decorated gingerbread cookie on my co-worker’s desk. It was left over from the previous evening’s LGBTQ youth gathering. It reminded me that celebrating the season, especially with family, can be difficult when you do not fit the cookie cutter mold.

This season I have been part of a planning committee for a Bridges of Faith event which is taking place in January 2012. I have had the privilege of meeting with Pagans, Muslims, Hindus, as well as people who ascribe to no specific faith tradition to plan an event where we strive to learn about one another in order to help create a more welcoming and inclusive community. We have learned much in the process and together we have celebrated our differences and our similarities.

A few days before Christmas, I was surprised with an email from my Jewish uncle, with whom I was planing to visit on Christmas day. It said, “Bone up on your Chanukah blessings. You are going to light the Chanukah candles when you are here. Hope you don't mind. PS: it isn't a big deal.” Of course I was thrilled at the opportunity to use Hebrew and I began practicing immediately. Barukh atah Adonai … It ended up going very well. I did’t drop the Shamash or light anything on fire.

Celebrating diversity this season has deepened my love for all people and fostered a truer Christmas spirit in me.

Maybe the 2012 slogan will be "celebrate diversity".

Jesus the ultimate subversion

Better late then never. Prior to Christmas Garret requested some thoughts on Mary’s Magnificat. Now, post Christmas, I finally find myself having some time to respond.

The text, Luke 1:46-55 (NIV):
46 And Mary said:
“My soul glorifies the Lord
47 and my spirit rejoices in God my Savior,
48 for he has been mindful
of the humble state of his servant.
From now on all generations will call me blessed,
49 for the Mighty One has done great things for me—
holy is his name.
50 His mercy extends to those who fear him,
from generation to generation.
51 He has performed mighty deeds with his arm;
he has scattered those who are proud in their inmost thoughts.
52 He has brought down rulers from their thrones
but has lifted up the humble.
53 He has filled the hungry with good things
but has sent the rich away empty.
54 He has helped his servant Israel,
remembering to be merciful
55 to Abraham and his descendants forever,
just as he promised our ancestors.”

Amid all the business of the Christmas season I find it easy to forget what it really means (cliché I know), but reflecting upon the opening section of Luke I find something tangible. Beyond all the sermons filled with theology about the incarnation, the miraculous, and the look forward to Jesus’ death, I find the story of one who shook things up from the very beginning.

Jesus was to be the ultimate subversion, completely reversing all the structures and norms of life. The humble are lifted up, the rich are sent away empty, such is the beginning we celebrate. It is a challenge to the empire, and therefore it is a challenge to you and me. Here is an excerpt from my work on empire in the Luke-Acts narrative:

“The thrust of Luke’s anti-imperial rhetoric continues as he uses the word “salvation”. God as saviour (1:47) in Mary’s song is a counter claim to that of Caesar, as Caesar was saviour to the barbarians the Empire conquered. The horn (power) of salvation coming through the line of David (1:69) continues this direct political challenge. This salvation is characterized as a tangible deliverance from enemies (1:71), nullifying any rebuttal that this use of “salvation” does not affect the Roman Empire, as Rome was understood as enemies of the Jews. This salvation through deliverance is told to be a path of peace (1:79), a direct rhetoric challenge to the Pax Romana the Empire enforced.”

This makes me excited. It pulls me into the story Jesus lived to tell. It is s story of alternative modes of living; a story of an alternative worldview. The birth of Jesus is the initiation of the freedom to think of a world not constrained by those in power.

Mary’s song is a foreshadowing of what Jesus would say about himself.
Luke 4:18-19
18 “The Spirit of the Lord is on me,
because he has anointed me
to proclaim good news to the poor.
He has sent me to proclaim freedom for the prisoners
and recovery of sight for the blind,
to set the oppressed free,
19 to proclaim the year of the Lord’s favor.”

Jesus freely shook up the status quo. As followers, we have been given the fullness of life, the fullness of freedom to subvert, to think, to encounter one another in ways that the powers of the world oppress. In this beginning, there is the opportunity to once again challenge everything.

Now as we approach the end of one year, and look forward to another (possibly the end of the world! Ya 2012), I am challenged to realign myself with a paradoxical worldview. I hope you are challenged to do the same.

No Room at the Inn?

I found myself retelling my experience of visiting Bethlehem in May yesterday. The primary point of interest -the argument by our intructor that the translastion "there was no room at the inn" is ridiculous. In the Middle East hospitality is an extremely high cultural value and that much more so within a family. Given Joseph is travelling to his ancestoral home it is inconcievable that they would not have family in Bethlehem and equally inconcievable that family would not have hosted them. However, given the census it is very possible that there was a lot of family in town and that this may have made accomadations cramped. A typical Judean house at the time was a four room house: the family's sleeping quarters, the kitchen, the storage/work/animal room and the front room - where guests were entertained. Therefore, our instructor argued that it is far better to understand the meaning as there was no space in the guest room (of the family house) and so Mary and Joseph stayed/gave birth in the storage/animal room (which was empty since the flocks were in the fields). This room would have contained a stone manger (as pictured below) for when the animal were there and being stone was not the type of item that moved much. So you can now spend the rest of Christmas break redesigning your nativity set...

CYOA: 1 Timothy 2:1-15 - Egalitarianism! - Team Effort

Finally! We will try and keep this conversation going just a bit longer before we transition to a couple Christmas posts.

Lets begin with a very basic, perhaps biased (feel free to correct us in the comments), definition of both the egalitarian position and the complementary position.

Complementary - Men and women are equal but different. One of the primary ways that the differences are worked out is in a difference of role particularly in relationship to teaching and leadership. For example the lead pastor and elder positions are reserved exclusively for men, or the title of pastor being entirely reserved exclusively for men.

Egalitarian - Men and women are equal and different. Gender is not a determining factor for roles, leadership positions are open to both men and women without distinction based on gender.

Keeping that in mind let's take a look at the text in question.

1 Timothy 2
1 I urge, then, first of all, that petitions, prayers, intercession and thanksgiving be made for everyone— 2 for kings and all those in authority, that we may live peaceful and quiet lives in all godliness and holiness. 3 This is good, and pleases God our Savior, 4 who wants all people to be saved and to come to a knowledge of the truth. 5 For there is one God and one mediator between God and human beings, Christ Jesus, himself human, 6 who gave himself as a ransom for all people. This has now been witnessed to at the proper time. 7 And for this purpose I was appointed a herald and an apostle—I am telling the truth, I am not lying—and a true and faithful teacher of the Gentiles.

8 Therefore I want the men everywhere to pray, lifting up holy hands without anger or disputing. 9 I also want the women to dress modestly, with decency and propriety, adorning themselves, not with elaborate hairstyles or gold or pearls or expensive clothes, 10 but with good deeds, appropriate for women who profess to worship God.

11 A woman should learn in quietness and full submission. 12I do not permit a woman to teach or to assume authority over a man; she must be quiet. 13 For Adam was formed first, then Eve. 14 And Adam was not the one deceived; it was the woman who was deceived and became a sinner. 15 But women will be saved through childbearing—if they continue in faith, love and holiness with propriety.

So the complementary position appeals to this text to validate only men holding positions of the highest authority. The accusation, either explicit or implied, is that someone who holds an egalitarian position ignores the "clear" message of scripture and/or does not take its authority seriously. We do not appreciate this accusation nor do we think it is founded. Rather, let us suggest it is the person who holds a complementary view that has significantly more explaining to do.

For example:
Why is it not acceptable for a women to hold the position of "Lead" Pastor (a non existent Biblical role), but generally acceptable to be worship or children's pastor/director and in such positions “hold authority over men”?
How do we make the interpretive leap from Paul's first blush universal and ontological prohibition of women teaching to specific contexts and subjects that this applies to?
How come the issue of authority is emphasized over that of dress code, or quietness?
If women are saved through childbearing, how does the complementary view address single women?

If we are intended to interpret this passage as a universal command for all time, why are there so many scriptural counter examples of women teaching and exercising authority positively?

Why does Paul redundantly clarify that he does not allow allow women to teach etc?

Why is it ok for Paul to appeal rhetorically to Genesis in a way that we would categorize as outrageous proof texting?

Good Biblical interpretation must be consistent and it is my contention that the complementary view is distinctly inconsistent even in the way it handles this passage by itself let alone the manner in which it synthesizes a Biblical position. With that being said, it is Duncan's distinct fear, that in pressing this point some moderates will feel the need to be even more oppressive in church hierarchy so as to avoid this accusation of inconsistency. So let us present Paul's ethic of mutual submission as one aspect of the key to interpreting this passage well in hopes of avoiding any negative reactionary impact.

It is of critical importance that we realize that reading the Bible is synonymous with interpreting the Bible. The Bible does not speak on its own and just because a word or phrase is in the Bible does not mean that it is an eternal law or principle for us to follow. For example it is perfectly accurate to say that it is Biblical to treat women as property, in so far as there are large chunks of the Bible in which this is the accepted reality, including the 10 commandments:
“You shall not covet your neighbor’s house. You shall not covet your neighbor’s wife, or his male or female servant, his ox or donkey, or anything that belongs to your neighbor.” (Ex. 20:17)

However, it would be my hope that we would agree that while this is in the Bible it is not actually Biblical in the best sense of the word. So is it Biblical to say women should not teach or have authority over a man? To answer this question one must address both the particular passage and the sweep of scripture which we find it in.

Let us begin with our presupposition that men and women were created equal and without role distinction.

God blessed them and said to them, “Be fruitful and increase in number; fill the earth and subdue it. Rule over the fish in the sea and the birds in the sky and over every living creature that moves on the ground.” (Genesis 1:28 Emphasis added)

It should be noted also that Eve does not receive her name, from Adam, until after the fall. The naming of Eve is distinct signal of her new position in submission to Adam's authority. Therefore, patriarchy, should clearly be understood as not part of God's intended ideal and thus also part of a broken world, which God is renewing to perfection and fulfillment. A vision of a united humanity best captured by Paul in Galations 3:28, “There is neither Jew nor Gentile, neither slave nor free, neither male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus.” This then is the broader context of the Biblical story that we must read.

Historical context in Ephesus:

Ephesus was the largest city in Asia minor and contained the temple of Artemis/Diana, one of the seven wonders of the ancient world. Needless to say, the cult of Artemis was incredibly powerful and prominent in Ephesus (Acts 19:35). Artemis was the goddess both of virginity and aid to women in childbirth. Furthermore, the Jewish myth of Lillith, Adam's first wife, was also wrapped up into the Artemis cult. The myth of Lilith also stated that Adam was created second.

Paul’s own logic hear begins to work against him, if we do not take into consideration the myth of Lilith. The creation story, if carefully read, works ups in complexity. Thus, the things that are created later are superior to things created earlier. The woman is called “a Helper”, a title often used for God’s self, drawing a closer connection to divinity. So it is reasonable to argue for the conclusion that woman is superior to Man (if we must differentiate gender, something which the Hebrew is a little less focused on). However, the best reading is clearly that which emphasizes equality until the curse upsets the order of equality.

Paul's Midrashic interpretation is very similar to this 3^rd century Midrash, Genesis Rabba

Woman was not formed from Adam's head, so that she might not be haughty; nor from his eye, so that she might not be too eager to look at everything; nor from his ear, so that she might not hear too keenly and be an eavesdropper; nor from his mouth, so that she might not be a chatterer; nor from his heart, lest she should become jealous; nor yet not from his hand, so that she might not be afflicted with kleptomania; nor from his foot, lest she should have a tendency to run about. She was made from Adam's rib, a hidden, modest part of his body, so that she too might be modest, not fond of show, but rather of seclusion. But woman baffles God's design and purpose. She is haughty and walks with outstretched neck (Isa. 3. 16), and wanton eyes (Isa. 3. 6). She is given to eavesdropping (Gen. 18. 10). She chatters slander (Numb. 12. 11), and is of a jealous disposition (Gen. 30- 1), She is afflicted with kleptomania (Gen. 31. 19), and is fond of running about (Gen. 34. 1). In addition to these vices women are gluttonous (Gen. 3. 6), lazy (Gen. 18. 6) and bad tempered (Gen. 16. 5).--Gen. Rabba 18

This text shows the spectacularly negative opinion of women common in Jewish rabbinic tradition in which the Jewish man thanked God each morning he was not born a gentile, slaves or women. It should also be noted the similar connection between quietness and modesty that we find in 1 Timothy.

However, in contrast to this midrash, the issue of teaching is very prominent to Paul in this text. The Jewish context would have demanded that all teaching of Torah was an exclusively male domain (Johnson 207). However, even within this letter Paul is affirmative of Timothy's mother and grandmother playing significant teaching roles in his life. This example as well as other women such as Priscilla, Junia, Tryphosa, Euodia and Syntyche etc. are strong evidence against reading Paul's prescription here as universal. Furthermore, the personal nature of Paul's instruction (I do not...) should be understood as further evidence for the contextual nature of this instruction rather than divine universal principle, as it is entirely unnecessary and ground these words into their context rather than universalizing them. Gordon Fee suggests "I am not permitting..." as a better translation. In this sense the appeal to Genesis is a direct rebuttal to Artemis/Lillith related false teaching. Paul's emphasis on deception further supports an interpretation that some women in Ephesus have been problematically deceived by false teaching. The distinct link between women, not teaching, but learning further suggests that the issue is subject matter and education rather than gender. 

1 Timothy 1 clearly relates this theme of false teaching

3 As I urged you when I went into Macedonia, stay there in Ephesus so that you may command certain people not to teach false doctrines any longer 4 or to devote themselves to myths and endless genealogies. Such things promote controversial speculations rather than advancing God’s work—which is by faith. 5 The goal of this command is love, which comes from a pure heart and a good conscience and a sincere faith. 6 Some have departed from these and have turned to meaningless talk. 7 They want to be teachers of the law, but they do not know what they are talking about or what they so confidently affirm.

This then is the direct context regarding Paul's instructions in chapter. Note the textual connections between chapter one which emphasizes the priority in advancing God's work in love, purity and faith over and against meaningless talk. Therefore, there is strong reason to understand Paul's instruction in Chapter two as an admonishment against female false teachers influenced by the myth of Lilith. Thus Paul's corrective is perfectly appropriate to the situation, women are to learn the scriptures, they are to be quiet rather than engaged in meaningless talk, and they are to submit to the Genesis account rather than the myth of Lilith. The note regarding childbearing emphasizes the Biblical understanding of labour pain in contrast to Artemisian perspectives on both labour as well as sex in general.

Chapter 5 further suggests that there are women in Ephesus who are causing trouble,

11 As for younger widows, do not put them on such a list. For when their sensual desires overcome their dedication to Christ, they want to marry. 12 Thus they bring judgment on themselves, because they have broken their first pledge. 13Besides, they get into the habit of being idle and going about from house to house. And not only do they become idlers, but also busybodies who talk nonsense, saying things they ought not to. 14 So I counsel younger widows to marry, to have children, to manage their homes and to give the enemy no opportunity for slander. 15 Some have in fact already turned away to follow Satan.

Thus again Paul's instruction in chapter 2 are perfect prescriptive teaching to remedy a particular problematic situation.

Paul's instructions moves away from community strife and away from the influence of Artemis and Lilith toward social unity, a Biblical focus, the Roman ideal of the patriarchal family and and emphasis on God's work of renewal. Women are not cut out from participating but rather trained in Scripture and exhorted to righteousness. As always the corrective to false teaching is good teaching and right living. Interpreting chapter 2 as, entirely empirically unsustainable, ontological declaration of eternal gender roles rather than the obvious pragmatic prescription against problematic false teaching is incomprehensible and a symptom of our inability to read contextually.

Rather we should follow Paul's lead of upholding social ideals that are closest to God's intentions for restoration and shalom. It is our strong contention that egalitarianism is such an ideal and should be practiced in the church, a sacramental microcosm of hope for the world.

The questions for all Christians: “Where and how can I best serve the God who made me, uniquely enabled me to do His work, and now calls me into a relationship of Love through which I am gifted to love others?” and “Do our churches allow earnest, open and equal pursuit of this question for all people, in full mutual submission to each other?”

By Duncan, Danielle and Silas

Final edit by Duncan and open to adjustment/clarification...

Gender Roles: A response by Dan Renton

My best guess on God’s heart on this issue:
Here’s what I feel is the proper response to this. It’s who God is and how he functions that determines this issue for me.

The Trinity
Regarding the Trinity, Scripture teaches that God is three separate persons, each person is fully God, and yet there is only one God. God does not express himself as three separate persons, at three separate times. He can express himself as three separate persons at the same time. They are one. They are different, do different things, yet are equal. The Father is begotten of no one and is the eternal Father the Lord Jesus Christ who is the author of our salvation. Jesus Christ is the son of Father. He is fully God and fully human and the second member of the Trinity.

His Character
I believe that God’s character tells us that God is advocating for us. God is not a God who inflicts evil, sickness and suffering for some sick sadistic enjoyment. He is here to give us a life to the full. He has plans to give us a hope and future. It is God’s kindness and goodness to us that lead us back into right relationship with him. I believe that God is for us and therefore we shouldn’t worry about who or what can stand against us. While it is true God loves his own glory, I believe His glory leads to our good and therefore an examination of God’s character revels to us that we can trust God because He is good!

God is Love. God’s love means that He has a strong intimate and affectionate devotion first to His name and to His creation. God loves himself. God loves his creation. He saved us for many reasons, to show his justice, for his name sake, but he also saved us because he delighted in us. I’m of the opinion that everything about God stems from God’s love of his name and his people. God’s anger, jealously, wrath, justice, even Hell itself is an expression of God’s great love for us.

This love of God means that God eternally gives himself for others. This love for us is unselfish. God self initiated this love for us. It was not motivated by our prior love for him (for he loved us even when we where his enemies) nor was it moved by anything superior we have done. His love is not motivated by a desire to get something from us. If He needs something, He’ll do it himself. He simply loves. God’s love is the epitome of genuine intimate affection and devotion. The greatest display of that love was when God chose not to consider equality with himself something to be grasped but lowered himself and made himself nothing taking on the nature of servant and made in human likeness became obedient to death in the place of humanity.

God’ love for his name and for his people cause him have an intense feeling of displeasure that stems from wrongdoing against Him and those He loves. This is otherwise known as anger. God is slow to anger, so when he is angry it must be something worth getting angry about.

He is perfectly within his right to be wrathful and angry. When a wife is crying because her husband spent hours looking at adult material instead of her, God is angered because of his love for her and He is grieved at the pain that sin is causing. When a socially isolated person comes to God’s house and is treated with disrespect, God is angered because of He loves the outcast. When God sees a child that covered their ears to drown out his father's physical abuse of his mother, God is angered because he loves this child. When people do acts of sin in God’s name, God is angered because He loves his name and desires people to trust Him.

God’s Love means that He is righteous and just. God always does that which is correct and free from error in relation to what he has degreed ethical and moral. God always acts in a way that is appropriate for the, condition, occasion and purpose. Love demands justice. You cannot have a loving God withou having a just and righteous God, because a correct and fair response communicates a measure of concern, affection and devotion for His name and His people. No response from God, would communicate God's lack of interest in the cause of the victim. Therefore when God condemns humanity, He is perfectly loving and fair in doing so.
Even though God is perfectly fair and just in his dealings with us, God has chosen to act favorably upon us. God has chosen not to stay angry forever. God is a God that is full of grace. God deals with us not on the basis of what we deserve - God is simply gracious to us because He is. God’s love for us is not based on our skill. Yet Egalitarianism claims that we are not equal unless we do the same things, but God himself did not function that way and yet all members are equal. The Holy Spirit did not die for me yet he is equal. Consider what Paul says on the issue:

Now if the foot should say, “Because I am not a hand, I do not belong to the body,” it would not for that reason stop being part of the body. 16 And if the ear should say, “Because I am not an eye, I do not belong to the body,” it would not for that reason stop being part of the body. 17 If the whole body were an eye, where would the sense of hearing be? If the whole body were an ear, where would the sense of smell be? 18 But in fact God has placed the parts in the body, every one of them, just as he wanted them to be. 19 If they were all one part, where would the body be? 20 As it is, there are many parts, but one body.
21 The eye cannot say to the hand, “I don’t need you!” And the head cannot say to the feet, “I don’t need you!” 22 On the contrary, those parts of the body that seem to be weaker are indispensable, 23 and the parts that we think are less honorable we treat with special honor. And the parts that are unpresentable are treated with special modesty, 24 while our presentable parts need no special treatment. But God has put the body together, giving greater honor to the parts that lacked it, 25 so that there should be no division in the body, but that its parts should have equal concern for each other. 26 If one part suffers, every part suffers with it; if one part is honored, every part rejoices with it.
27 Now you are the body of Christ, and each one of you is a part of it.


Do you know what it says here? Right from the outset value is not determined by our function or job in the church but some how the Complementary position is shunned because it says men and women are equal but have different roles to play, just like the hand and eye do. It’s kind of weird to me to say your value isn’t determined by what job you do in a genderless topic like gifts but as soon as a penis or vagina is involved all of sudden our value is determined by what we can do - even though the Bible says the opposite. What ever happened to there is no Greek or Jew, slave or free, we are one in Christ? Seems like we do judge how important we are on what we do… Weird, and a bit of a logical fallacy, It’s okay here for the this reason but not okay here for the same reason, weird.

Any doctrine we come up with Egalitarian or otherwise must best reflect these things so that our worth is not based on what we do. The trinity and spiritual gifts show us the differing roles do not equal value.
It must be God's image and his character since God made us in image.

Here’s also what I know
● God created men and women… so women are good!
● God Created men and women in his imagine so that must mean God created women to reflect his image in a different way then in men. This also means that there is something in women that God values different than he does in men. The same is true in reverse.

And that is BEFORE THE FALL. If this is not true, why didn’t God not create two women? He could have done that... So there must be something unique in both. This is also the reason I think marriage should be between men and women because if it is same sex, you don’t get the full image of God and marriage was meant to reflect the image of God. I think this is fair of me to argue because we also argue that murder is wrong because we were made in the image of God, at least that’s what God said to Noah after the Flood.

● I also know that the Bible says, “This is both bones and bones and flesh of my flesh… for this reason a man shall leave his parents and be one”
● The whole Biblical idea is that we work as one. Just like God, each member unique and yet one. Egalitarianism only focuses on the one but dismisses the uniqueness in the name of equality therefore in my mind it does not best represent the oneness and uniqueness of God.
● Men were leaders. By that definition they provided, they produced they protected, for whatever area of life there were in. God held Adam more responsible than Eve for the fall. It was to Adam that God demanded an accounting, it was to Adam that God cursed all humanity and creation.
● Women lead and taught in the Bible – Like Esther. Women taught in the new NT. Women were prophets
● Elders were mostly men
● Paul taught Prisicilla who taught Apollos
● Men must serve there wives
● Women must submit to their husbands
● Women served as deacons
● The Bible does say that men should be the primary leaders in at least two passages in the NT both of which have been dismissed as cultural.

I don’t agree with this 1) If it were true I doubt very much that should culture ever return today to this situation Egalitarians would be ready to give up the “right” to preach. This goes against God’s character since GoD did not consider equality with himself something to hold on to. So I cannot support a culture even a Christian one that would find it difficult to give up rights, even for the greater good. I don’t think the heresy argument is enough, since there is no clear statement that women were actually teaching false doctrines. 1 Tim 5:13 mentions women gossiping but does not mention false doctrine. I know we mentioned what was going on in the city of the time but to me even if we were correct it is still not strong enough. I could use that reasoning to justify everything, “ When Peter was writing to children to obey parents it was because kids were disobeying the parents in that city. Now we are well behaved kids, so kids don’t need to obey their parents” See what I mean? I know this statement is ridiculous yet we use it for this women in ministry thing because its such controversial issue. We can’t justify what we believe because we want to avoid being hurt. Some may object because they said women were not educated enough.I find the argument weak especially when it comes to Priscilla... “....... Paul was writing to Ephesus, which was the home church of Priscilla. It was in this very church that she knew the Scripture well and taught Apollos. She probably learned it from Paul himself. Although they later went to Rome, we find her back in Ephesus at the end of Paul’s life. Therefore it is likely that they were in Ephesus in 65 AD about the time Paul wrote 1 Timothy. Yet Paul does not even allow well educated Priscilla or any other women at Ephesus to teach men in the public Assembly of the church. In order to establish the order of creation God established between men and women” (Grudem 939)

The best model - the best guess I have on God’s heart:
We therefore need a model that shows equality and diversity as one. We need a model were the image of God of women and men is celebrated because it's different, not the same. The Trinity is the best model equality and diversity celebrated. Uniformity is a no. We need a model that expresess both the male and female images of God - for men this would mean we need model where men can protect, fight for and produce for the church just as God is fighting for us, protecting us, and providing for us. Egalitarianism is insufficient because it does not define the uniqueness of the image of God in both sexes.


God created men and women in his own image so they must be seen as equal worth. The fact they were created differently means we must celebrate the differences and find ways in church to put men and women in places they excel at. Like I said earlier, as a youth pastor with no kid's I’m not the best to teach Dad’s how to deal with the terrible twos. Godliness is the defining line between who can lead and who can’t, not a vagina - not a penis. If the woman was more mature than me, I would submit to her leadership.

That said we see throughout the Bible that God still holds men more accountable in the areas of producing, protecting, and providing therefore we need to put men in places within the church where they can do that. That means eldership. Men should lead if a) they are godly 2) there is a need

Under the authority of a godly men we should allow godly women to preach and teach.
What are you afraid of?
“Wait a minute, that still makes me subject to men therefore not an equal.” Umm Yes and no. Yes in that you have to submit to someone (but really we all do), no in that you are not equal. Jesus submitted to the Father and YET he was equal. Are you greater in Jesus in this way? And plus when you let guys lead in this way, you take guys natural tendency to do this out of the video game world... Where marketers exploit this trait to sell games, and bring it in the church. Is there a chance that women can be oppressed? Yes, but only when men live outside submitting their lives to Jesus. When men lead godly lives the result is protecting women, giving them a safe church to lead in, providing them the means and ability to serve, and producing godly men and women. Wouldn’t you just love to work in a place like that without having to worry about protecting yourself? That’s the Biblical ideal. That’s why I don’t think you can blame abuse on the doctrine because when you articulate it like this men must encourage and bless women. So when its not being followed, its not the doctrine, it’s the individual, warping something that was meant to protect women into something that can hurt them. Label this whatever you want, it’s not Egalitarianism, because men still lead primarily, but it doesn’t suppress women either. So I will label it moderate Complementarianism... or maybe its better just to call it the view that attempts to try to get at the heart of the issue.

Liberation Theology and Gender by Dan Renton

Freedom, it is what we all dream of attaining and in the West, we have much of it. In Canada we have the freedom to have individual morals and religion. We have the freedom of our own thought belief, and expression without the fear of being punished. We have the freedom to meet as an assembly and we also have the freedom of association. It is amazing that we can think and act out on our opinions with any fear of punishment, like this blog perhaps. We have the freedom to enjoy life, and to pursue what we want when we want it. Yes, we love and value our freedom. In fact we love it so much we take for granted what a privilege it is to be free. The West thinks it has a right to be free and free they are, at least in the realm of politics and individual thought.

There are those however that feel that they have been oppressed by stronger powers that exist. They rightly feel that the minority they associate with has been unfairly persecuted because of who they are as a minority. Those specific people are Latin Americans, Black people, and Women. Each minority has been persecuted and oppressed by another people group and the oppressed have fought to be treated equally.
Along with the quest for equal treatment, there has arose differing theologies to justify the differing causes. They are formally termed, Liberation Theologies and each minority has its own liberation theology. All liberation theologies rightly exist because of a failure of traditional theology to meet the needs of the people. Traditional Western theology does not always meet real life and therefore for these minorities are left questioning if God is real when then see a failure by western theology or at least the people to hold to it fail to intervene. James Cone said that traditional white theology cannot move past intellectualism into real life. Thus these minorities take it upon themselves to create a theology that meets people where their situation meets them. There would be no need for liberation theologies if traditional theology was not so obsessed with rationalism and intellectualism. Real theology is intellectual, but also meets people practically. If it does not, then God is just some abstract idea and never becomes anything more than an academic exercise. The failure over 2000 years of traditional church theology was to translate intellectualism into practicality and because of that oversight liberation theology was born. Latin American, Black, Feminist theologies are different in their own right, but they are all termed liberation theologies because they have one common belief. That belief is that the basic problem in humanity is the need for freedom. Each theology views it self as the weak group being oppressed by a forceful people. People that hold to these views would hold that the Holy Bible always deals with the oppressed. They would point out that Jesus always went to the outcasts of society. They would also look to the exile of Israel as justification of this view. Liberation theologies hold to the view that God is active in our world, that he is involved with those who are suffering. According to them, they do not see God is active in traditional western theology. 

The last point of commonality between all liberation theologies is that all four theologies interpret the Bible in light of their experience. Most liberation theologies will see the Bible as a history book and teach that the message that comes from it, is that God lifts humanity up out of the dark pit of slavery. This can be good but it can also be a tiny bit misguided. Instead of reading the Bible and then applying what it has to say to our life circumstances, they are letting their life circumstances determine what the Bible dictates. This can be dangerous for liberation theologies because although the theme of freedom does run throughout the Bible and that does apply to when people oppressed, it doesn't mean that the main oppression comes from that particular group's experience. Main oppression is a result from sin and Christianity is about freedom from sin which results in freedom from other situations like slavery. Feminist theology is, “is the critical, constructive and creative re writing of Christian Theology. It regards women and their bodies, perspectives and experience as relevant to the agenda of Christian theology.” Like all liberation theologies, this one arose because men, even Christian men were treating women poorly. Women wanted to be treated as an equal. Women were thus being oppressed and men were the oppressors. Feminist theology seeks to free women from this oppression by showing the value that God places on women. However, if the focus is on the external issues, the underlying problem will not be dealt with, only the symptom. When the oppressed feel freedom from their various oppressors they will find themselves frustrated because they will deal with similar issues that deter themselves from living life abundantly. The core issue, humanity's natural tendency to live life selfishly in sin, will manifest itself in a different way.

To be fair, every Christian who does not identify himself through a liberation theology needs to take time to seriously evaluate if their own theology is lacking in the areas the discussed theologies represent. Would there be a need for feminist theology if we properly addressed the value of women in the first place? 

Feminist Theologies seeks to explore what God is like beyond is “male” characteristics. Feminist theologians seek to prove to women and men that God values women and Christianity isn't a man's religion. People who hold to this view have trouble using strictly male language to describe God. They would argue that using only male terminology excludes women from relating to God. They foresee two main problems that occur when God's maleness is focused on to the extreme. The first extreme teaching is because God is strictly referred to as male it subtly teaches that men are closer to God. The second issue would be that because Jesus was male, men resemble Jesus more because they are physically alike, which in turn gives way to the idea that women cannot be saved the same way women can. 

The fact that Jesus was a male raises questions about the extent of atonement, if a male messiah can actually save women. Feminist Theologians struggle what it means for Jesus to be male in light of that fact that this theology interprets the Bible in light of women. 

Lessons Learned:
A positive outcome of Christianity from this perspective, is that it shows that God does value women every bit as much as he values men. It points out that we as a Christian culture have not given women the respect that they deserve. The social stigma that we have given to women is that God created them as an after thought. Nothing could be further from the truth. Women were created as the finishing touch on creation. That's not to say that they're above anything else in creation; it just means that when women were created it was the last thing to display the glory of God.

This theology shows us that God created men and women in the image of God. That shows that there is something about women that reflect the glory of God in a way that masculinity is not able to reflect. We have to thank feminist theologians for making us aware of these facts.

Unhealthy Results:
Egalitarianism is not the same as Feminest theology. Egalitarianism is the idea that because men and women are equal there is no difference as far as roles are concerned. However, in practice it shares a similar goal of making women equal to men. This is a good goal!!! However, just like feminist theology (in practice not in doctrine or idea) Egalitarianism is ONLY focused on making women equal. Which is the wrong idea because God’s heart on the issue is men and women would be one AS HE IS ONE. Each member of the Trinity plays different roles and even submit to another member. Although we do have a lot to be thankful for because of Egalitarianism there is a huge danger if men and women use this theology as their core belief. The danger is that if emphasized too much, it will contribute the all ready growing problem of men not going to church. In his book, Why Men Hate Going to Church,, David Murrow states that todays church is driving men away. He states that we have overemphasized the female characteristics of God at the expense of the male characteristics. We have made the church too feminine. This is not the oneness that we see God desires. As a result, unchurched men don't go to church because they feel it's for women or extremely effeminate men. (How do you get an Alpha male jock who has never been to church before to sing love songs to Jesus, another guy ?To the unchurched man singing I could sing of your love forever to Jesus, a man, is - well -weird). The two demographics that are more likely to attend church are women and older adults aging from fifty and up. (Even with male leadership) The demographic that is least likely to attend church are men and young adults ages eighteen to twenty-nine.

Egalitarianism could be harmful because it is contributing to the cause of why there are a lack of males in churches today. It is almost as if they are fighting a battle they've all ready won - a church more feminine. Because the church has emphasized masculinity for so long, feminist theology seeks to make itself known. The church has focused on the feminine so much that we have lost the masculine. If that is true, then we are in danger of losing our men and also a part of God's image that cannot be seen through femininity. A good example of this trend is in the emphasis on women's ministry at church. It's not uncommon to have a fully developed women's ministry, with someone in the church directing the whole sphere of women's ministries. But men's ministry is a breakfast once a month and a church work bee.

Egalitarianism could also be dangerous because of its lack of teaching on the value of masculinity. In an effort to make women feel valued, as they should, we have stopped talking about the value of men and as a result there are men who feel like they don't understand what it means to be a man anymore. Our culture makes fun of men by portraying them as dumb, stupid, and uncommitted. Feminist Theology can be dangerous in this regard because there little to no affirmation of what masculinity is truly about. All that men hear is that men are bad for suppressing women and therefore we need to talk about the value of women. The problem is it happens at the expense of the value of men.

Listen to what Mark Driscols address about this issue:

►Snippet◄ Christian Egalitarianism Marriage... by TamilianPonnu

If this doesn’t sway you because it’s all theory and conjecture, let me make it real for you: The Majority of people that attend make up a church conjection in North America are women. The split is varies between 60/40 with male leadership. That’s traditionally what it looks like. When women are the lead role that ratio changes from something close to almost 85 female. So right away guys don’t go to church even when men lead. It doesn’t seem wise to me from a purely practical point to make the situation worse by making women the primary leaders in church. I can hear you now, “ Dan, that’s a weak argument. It’s not my problem if men are too insecure to come to church because women are the primary leaders. They should get over it.” Fair. I can see that but I want to suggest two things in response to this:
1) Men think that church is too feminine even when men lead. So women leading compounds the fear that women will not be able to relate God to men.
2) If you’re response is to just get over it, I question the true motives of women in ministry. The Gospel never requires people to believe the same things we do before they come to church. If the attitude is to simply get over it, they may never come to church, they may never know Jesus. No you don’t wait for people to get to a certian level - you take them as they are and train them and teach them to the level you want them. You might say, “That's fine they can go to a church were men lead. There are plenty of those” But again, where is your heart at? What's more important to you, fighting for the right, or the gospel? Why would you intentionally turn people away from church who would otherwise go, just because it is your right? I would gladly give up my rights as a youth pastor to a female sponsor who could teach my girls how to be awesome women of God. I could go on, about all the problems that come along with Egalitarianism, like how a growing number of women who don’t want to feel required to lead because if they don’t they are somehow fostering a spirit of suppression by encouraging men to lead. Listen to what Ms. Jensen says in her address to the Australian government ( a woman speaker I might add) on this issue on.  Listen to what she says about being too tired….


You see what we’ve done? In an effort to make women equal (which is something to fight for) we devalued men, and well they have given up and fallen silent. Should it happen? No. Did it happen? Yes. Egalitarianism doesn’t have an answer to it because we made the focus women being equal instead being one as God is one. We’ve made men feel devalued in the name of making women strong. We have even seen in the last decades a push to give women equal status. For years prior in our civilization and in many other Western Civilizations, women have been treated at times, as the lesser sex. That has been wrong and needed to change. Men over the years have abused and mistreated women. But now, we are an enlightened civilization; recognizing that it doesn't matter what sexual organs we have; we are equal. We as Christians know our worth is not from what we do, but what God sees in us. However, we think like the world when it comes to this issue of value and women. While it is an advancement in our civilization to give women equal status, there have been unintended consequences in our current society.

We have devalued the role of men. Don't misunderstand, women are equals and needed to be treat as people, not as objects but because we as a culture don't want offend women, the timeless value of a man has been devalued. It is politically correct in our culture to make fun of men, portraying them as stupid, dumb, lazy sexual animals that cannot control their sex drives (Peter Griffin, Homer Simpson). If we protrayed women like that in our commecials, we would get sued. In some ways, in postmodern culture, we are no longer equals, but the lesser human. On Mother's Day in churches, we give our women flowers and tell them how great they are and on Fathers day, we beat up men by telling them they need to do better job. Do you know what the curse of a man is? In Geneisis God tells Adam that from now on weeds will come out of the ground. So in other words Adam still had to do the same job he did before but this time with endless weeds. Could you imagine how that felt? No matter how hard he worked it would never be good enough, there would still be weeds. In the same way in the heart of every man is this fear or thought that no matter how hard we work, no matter hard we try - to be a good father, or husband or worker, even if we try our best to correct the sins of our fathers by making sure our women feel equal, our toils will never be good enough. And we have created a church culture that that presses into this wound.

A church in Vancouver BC, surveyed its men (150) and asked them what they want women to know about men. One man responded by saying, “Men struggle with what it means to be a man in society today.” How did this happen? Over the years we have downplayed the role and value of men in order not to offend women in the feminist movement. If we are taught that women can do everything a man does what is the benefit in being a man? This is why I stated that picking a theology based upon the pain another one has caused is not good. Often what happens is we say I choose Egalitarianism because I was hurt but when it’s pointed out that Egalitarianism has done similar things the only options are to a) ignore the failures of the doctrine b) Place a value on which person’s pain is more important and pick one. This is known as picking the lesser of two evils. But who are we to tell other people that their sin should be tolerated for the greater good? This is why you can’t pick what you believe on this issue based upon what happened, because there are both good and bad experiences and it just becomes a merry-go-round about who has the best war wound. This is also known as the victim mentality. The healthiest way to go about this to to ask what is the character of God like? THEN ask if people have been abused within this camp? THEN determine why? Is it because of the doctrine? Or is it because people are using it an excuse to sin just like the church used the passion story as excuse to be racist against jews? Repent. Then we ask ,"Since we are made in his image, which doctrine best represents this?

By Dan Renton

CYOA: 1 Timothy 2:1-15 - Caitlin Kellog, A Bunch of Brokeness

I’ve been trying to avoid this conversation for a long time. Every time I turn around, it is smacking me right in the face. First of all, because I am a woman, secondly a single woman, and thirdly, a single woman studying at seminary. Though I don’t want to be a pastor, I do want to teach the Bible.

I am literally exhausted by this conversation. Mostly because it is 1 AM in the morning and I had two beers with my brother (who is also going to seminary). But also because this question, this “issue” has been a thorn in my side, for years, but in particular this semester. It just causes one too many emotions. And in the end, both sides are able to explain quite eloquently (and without vile, psyche!) “the correct” position based on the scriptures. So let’s just say we’re tied.
And get back to more important questions like why there are still no hotels on the moon.

What I can tell you is some of my experience.

My parents are a lovely mixture of egalitarian and complimentarianism. My dad never lets my mom mow the lawn, mostly because I think he secretly loves the smell of cut grass mixed with gasoline. But they share other duties, like cooking or doing the dishes, etc. I think it works out quite lovely actually. I grew up going to church, but have never had a woman pastor, sure lots of Sunday school teachers, and reading books about women missionaries and who would preach and baptize overseas (which is ironic and racist, because it is “good enough” for “those people” but not for us to have women in leadership). I went to Bible college where I felt affirmed as a woman studying theology, but it was lonely. Now I am attending a seminary with affirming professors who ask me to speak up in class. But again, it is lonely. The 3 professors I have are males; the majority of students in classes are married men. And the only other single woman entering in seminary this year isn’t even in the same program!

In the end, I claim both egalitarianism and complementarianism.
Why not? Why do we always have to say one or the other? That’s stupid.
I think it is impossible to be in real life friendships/relationships/what-have-you without both.
I believe in and hope for equality. And I long for a day when power does not corrupt. But I would hope that relationships are also about give and take. I always come back to interlocking fingers while holding hands with another person; the weakest parts of your hand (all that squishy stuff in between) are covered by the strongest parts of my hand, the fingers. This is what I can offer you, it is quite a basic human transaction really. I need you and you need me.

Currently I am working on a paper for my Christian History and Theology class (which is due on Monday, adding to the exhaustion), on the virgin martyrs. These were a small group of women, who chose Christ and death over the socially and culturally demanded marriage. They were tortured and threatened with sexual assault, often dying in the most inhumane ways; one woman even had her breasts sliced off. At the heart of this persecution, was the body. These women rejected the very thing which defined their “femaleness”, marriage and child-birth; it was a “renunciation of social insignificance”. For a time their stories were the precedent for women to carry on in ministry and leadership, baptizing and preaching. Eventually they were first women to be venerated as saints, standing alongside Mary, the Mother of Jesus. However, along came the Church Fathers and Christian society a-la Constantine (who actually didn’t establish Christianity as the state religion, that was his grandson), exerting culturally-based misogyny and control over the new virgins. The only way they could describe these martyrs’ bravery and self-control was to say that they became men, that they literally took on the male form; because those kinds of qualities could not exist within women (and there are so many cultural reasons why this was a NORMAL concept to have of women, that to call them misogynists is really to say, they were just men of their time, unfortunately).

Now today feminists see the virgin martyrs as symbols of liberation from man’s control of women’s bodies. These women were subversive and able to overthrow the dominant culture by claiming virginity, thus claiming their sexuality, thus claiming their identity. But the tension lies in the fact that we simply cannot read twentieth century ideology into the 3rd. It is absurd and just terrible exegesis, even I know that as a woman.

What has been the most difficult for me in this project and this discussion on the blog is that while I agree with Duncan and Danielle about Jesus loving women too, it seems that the following apostolic tradition did not love women like Jesus did, that there was a reversion back to the maintenance of the dominant cultural norms surrounding the religious and civic roles. And it is excruciatingly depressing. Jerome, Tertullian, Augustine and all the other Fathers wrote brilliant theologically treatises. I cannot deny that. But then to read their views on women, and women’s bodies in particular, the loneliness creeps back and screams in my ear: “there is no historical precedent for women to have power!” I just wanted to excommunicate them all and when I get to heaven I will punch them all in their faces.
But I can’t.
And I won’t.
Because 2 Corinthians 12.
At the heart of what I believe about Jesus, the Incarnation, redemption and how we are to live our lives as Christians, is not of power but of weakness; of foolishness instead of wisdom.
The things men have deemed ugly and contemptuous is that which brings glory to God.

The virgin martyrs were subversive because the Gospel is subversive.
Grace is sufficient for us, for Christ’s power is complete in weakness.
When I am weak, then I am strong.
And if I am weak because I am a woman, then I am strong because of Christ. And so are you.

By Caitlin Kellog

CYOA: 1 Timothy 2:1-15 - An Old Issue by Sarah Nickerson

• 
  This isn't "backed up" by Bibles and commentaries and what the pastor said a few years ago on Sunday but by the theological presuppositions of God's nature. God is loving. God is loyal. God is protective. God is intimate.
  
  On top of all of that awesomeness, God is our father. Somehow I can't imagine a woman who has preached or taught His word in her life (to people other than women or children), coming to the end of her life and standing before the Father and God tells her, "Didn't you read those verses in 1 Timothy? You failed. Even though you led many to my love and peace and blessed countless through the preaching and teaching of my Word, you really shouldn't have. I only made men for that job."
  
  No! I imagine God saying, "Well done, good and faithful servant. You served me with your time, your talent and your heart."
  
  The New Testament doesn't say to me, "You need to have a penis and a beard in order to preach and teach in your communities and in your churches." It is very sad that many Christians believe this. What I gather from the New Testament and the roles of gender in church is that they don't matter. Rather, gifting/talent/time seems to matter. Paul talks about gifts and talents and using them to glorify God. There are many gifted teachers and preachers who are female--women who follow God's heart, study his Word with passion and speak with wisdom. Why shouldn't they be allowed to teach?
  
  
  I feel like this issue is going to be old in ten or twenty years, meaning that people will "come out of the dark ages" about it, so-to-speak. I hope it will be. I hope my children will come and ask me, "People used to argue about this?" Just like the church used to argue about slavery and burning witches and whether or not indulgences helped you out with your spiritual standing. Come on.
  
  And in the end I don't imagine God will be dividing us up by race, gender, sexual orientation, intelligence, body type or what career we had as we come into his presence. I see his open arms for ALL who loved him, who followed him, who suffered for him, who taught others about him, who loved others in his name, and who invited him into their lives and did the best they could to live in his way.
  
  
  Written by:
  Sarah Nickerson