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:
Saturday, December 3, 2011
CYOA: 1 Timothy 2:1-15 - An Old Issue by Sarah Nickerson
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Sarah,
ReplyDeleteThanks so much for writing this. I feel like I remember talking about you getting into it with a pastor about this issue/passage... am I remembering correctly?
Can I also ask if Christian gender controversy has played into choosing not to currently pursue teaching as you had previously been interested in?
Hey Duncan,
ReplyDeleteFir your first question. I had an experience @ a Bible college that was of the complementarian way... we all took a spiritual gifts test, went to lunch, and came back (This was in a Leadership class) and the first thing our professor said when we came in was "I have had some students come up to be before and say, "I have the gift of pastor/shepherd, but I am a woman and don't believe women should be pastors." And the professor said, "I told her she was right, women should absolutely not be pastors." Well, that is exactly what I had as one of my own spiritual gifts, and I did not feel the same way. The reason I became interested in studying the Word and even went to Bible College was BECAUSE of a woman who was a preacher and spoke at Intervarsity's URBANA conference.
The gender controversy has not swayed me in my choice to not pursue teaching further. I know I could rock it. Hahaha. But, I'm not ready (yet) to spend 5+ more years in school and lots of money to (most likely) not have a job at the end of it. Other factors have changed the path I was on. I do hope, in the future, to teach/lead small group or teach a class in church if the opportunity arises and I have time in my schedule enough to do a stellar job with it.
*Fir = For
ReplyDeleteHaha.
Awesome, I love good discussions! For discussion sake, I will take the opposite view, but maybe a moderate view. To clarify I think it would be best to list the views there are on this
ReplyDelete1) Women should be allowed to preach and lead
2)Women are allowed to lead and teach but under the authority of GODLY male leadership
3) Women should be silent and not teach or lead in church at all.
This issue won't go away in twenty years. To hope for that would come from an ignorant knowledge of church history. When I hear people say that this issue would simply go away like slavery did in the church it kind of implies the idea the the issue of women leading/ teaching in church is a relativity new issue. (new as in the last 200 years). What people sometimes are unware of is the very first church split were over two issues that are still controversial in church today... tongues and women. The montantist movement was a char mastic movement (lead by three people two of whom were women) that threated to split the church even before the church split into Eastern Orthodoxy and Western Catholicism. The role of women has been an argument in the church long before the women rights movement happened
I'll argue for position number 2 as my best understanding of what I sense the Holy Spirit's heart on the matter. But again before I do I want to state that what I have noticed in this issue is that people that argue for egalistim do so on the basis that the other view is somehow puts down women. Someone commented on an earlier blog about this issue``I am not a big fan of using complementarianism as a foundation for oppression/suppression of women``
ReplyDeleteI do not think it is wise to choose a theological stance based on what the practical results have been, good or bad. You should choose a theological stance on this issue because you are trying to come as close to the character of God that you can. If someone rejects Complementarianism because they have experienced suppression that is an intellectual fallacy. Even if Egalitarianism was the correct way or biblical way or godly way to think about this issue, the reasoning most people choose to get there is flawed. As Christians we need to making choices based upon the healing God has brought in our life not our woundness. Anytime we make a in woundness its bad choice, even if the choice is the right one, its made for the wrong reasons. Mainly because the choice we make is based on not wanting to be hurt again. A choice based in the healing God brings in our lives says `` I don``t want to be hurt again but I`m willing to risk it because its the best choice`Choices made in aversion to pain or suppression can`t do that and when I look at this whole issue I think more people choose Egalitarianism not because they think its the closest to the heart of God, but rather they have seen women suppressed and abused under Complementarianism. If you say to me that I choose Egalitarianism BECAUSE I see this wrong with Complementarianism
reason a
reason b
reason c
you must be ready for people to criticize Egalitarianism on those same issues and whats great about this issue is that`s been around long enough for us to witness the results and what I have witnessed the same abuse and suppression of the sexes in both camps so choosing a stance on this issue based upon which one makes men and women more equal is void because the sinfulness of men exists in both camps. That`s why I argue that people should pick a side based upon what is closer to God`s character rather than they sin they have experienced because i have seen women and men horribly treated in the name of Egalitarianism so stay that this is a better option doesn`t really work well for me. It is you and me that are responsible for the abuse of women, not Complementarianism, not the idea. I worked at Reformed church, that prompted Complementarianism. It also had women pastors that taught but they were never allowed to serve as elders or be the lead pastor or even teach a small group, THEY would argue that they felt more empowered as women than in the other view. Ask them yourselves (Willindon Church) so choosing a view based on what one empowers women the most is also void. No you`re only option is choose based up the healing power Jesus has brought in your life and what view is closest the heart of God and the best way I have understood that Christian Egalitarianism does not foster that. BUT I do believe that a moderate Complementary view does but I don`t have enough time to write about it tonight so I will finish this post tomorrow.
Hey Dan if you are going to write a bunch we could make it a guest post as well... If you like that idea just email what you write or send it via facebook and I'll put it up. We're hoping to write at least one more post on the subject before letting it go for a while. My one comment on what you have written so far is that I both appreciate how you attempt to elevate the conversation and at the same time it seems to me that your solution is effectively the equivalent of the position you critique. You argue against using experience or "practical results" as a guide for theological decisions and yet your primary alternative seems to be deciding based on "the healing power Jesus has brought in your life" and based on God's character. To me that sounds a lot like making decisions on "practical" results, not just that but very subjective results as well. Now I'm not against that necessarily but it seems contradictory to your argument. I am also tantalized by your agreement with Sarah that this issue should be rooted in God's character. I am fascinated by how you are going to draw a moderate complementary view out of God's character...
ReplyDeleteOne of the primary issues I think that this topic raises is to what degree are we to live in and fight for ideals and how does one discern and work toward those well. I am egalitarian but have often overpowered female opinion or perspective in conversation or discussion. This is something I am working on. It is because I am egalitarian that both I am sometimes blind to overpowering people and that I am committed to doing better. It is not a simple task as a powerful party to genuinely empower someone else, it is much easier to subordinate or dominate.
All this to say that I think that practical results and experience both good and bad is impossible to keep out of the conversation regardless of how messy it makes things. It is important if for no other reason then I think it must influence how we discuss things for precisely some of the reasons you have said.
I can out shout most people.
ReplyDeleteDuncan, I think that's an awesome idea. I would love to post.
ReplyDeleteIn regards to the rest of your comment, I think you're right. I think it may be wrong to say that you can't factor in experiences into the discussion. so I concede to that experiences count for something. I think maybe what I was trying to get at and maybe threw the baby out with the bathwater is that I sense people often choose what theology they ascribe to based on an aversion to pain in contrast to what is the best decision possible. Even if their theology is correct the reason why is bad. For example - a girl dates a guy - guy treats the girl bad and she understandably says I don't want to be hurt again, so she comes to the conclusion that all guys are evo;. While she may not get hurt again, and she will will likely not experience a healthy respectful relationship with a guy because has chosen to cut guys out BECAUSE OF hurt. While it may be a good idea for a time for her to be in that state when the time comes for to have a healthy friendship with a boy boy she will understandly have a tough time 1) because she had a bad experience 2) because she has based how to interact with boys on not getting hurt again INSTEAD of working to get to the place in her life where she can have a healthy frienship with a guy. People tend to avoid pain but in reality, the only way to deal with an issue is deal with an issue
I find lots of theological issues in the Christian world are made based on what won't hurt us and I think that's a dangerous way of thinking because our choices are based on what won't hurt us instead what is the best choice to make. When we make choices out of our aversion to pain we choose the one that's less painful even if its not the wisest, healthiest choice and I hear people say " I'm Egalitarian because I experiences suppression INSTEAD of saying I'm Egalitarian because I feel its the closest to the character of God. Although I don't feel like that the thrust for this argument. but I just wanted to throw it out there because sometimes we come up with great agruments why we believe what do when in reality its more of an emotional isssue and we're using our reasoning to cover the REAL reason why and I want to bring that up front before I argue on a more non emotional/rational/ whatever you want to call it leve
Dan, thanks for bringing underlying reasoning for decisions into the conversation. My response, however, is that it is exactly in the areas where we have been harmed or hurt that we are most effective in responding to.
ReplyDeleteHere is how I am seeing it:
Underlying much of Christ's ethic, and Paul's and John's for that matter, is the premise of doing no harm. It is this care for the other, the protective nature of God, that prompts us to act in the best possible way. Underlying Christ's maxim to love the other as the self is self-interest. It is a basic instinct to protect the self. Christ takes this and instructs those who follow him to give in charity this same protective instinct to others.
So we come to application of this principle. We attempt to live this out because of the understanding that it is the best way to live. However, we do not know where to apply it until we experience harm. Think about it in terms of a child. He or she does not comprehend the reason of not hitting another until he or she has been hit. Once experiencing the physical pain the child can then understand why hitting is wrong. There is harm and that harm has consequences, pain.
Relating it back to egalitarianism and complementarianism, we have seen and experienced the harm both positions can do. Either we harm by not hearing the voice of the other with equality, or we harm by assuming equality (as Duncan offered) and still do not hear the voice. To not hear the voice of another is to do harm, as it is through both voice and actions that we dignify the other, his or her identity, and physicality (as Caitlin offered in her guest post).
Once we experience the harm, we can act to prevent, protect, and reduce harm. So it is exactly in the places where harm has been experience or made known that we can most adequately respond. We cannot promote what we do not know. Until we see the harm we do not know it exists, but once we know it exists and have become aware of it there is an obligation as a Christian to respond to it. This is similar to the obligation placed on God by the people of Israel to respond when they cry out. It is the beauty of a living God, who participates in mutuality with us as a yielding and asserting person in relationship (if you have questions about that yielding and asserting direct them to Duncan, he preached a duzy of a sermon on it one time).
This same harm ethic underlies my thought as I come to make a stand for either position. It will be, as it always is with binary decisions, to choose one is a choice of the lesser of two evils. In my decision, I must look at the positions, the results, and the structure of the thought.
What I see is this:
Egalitarianism rests on assumptions of equality. (Yes it can still be messed up). BUT at the root of Complementarianism is inequality. One voice is heard over and above the other. (sure it can be done well, but at its most base level it rest on inequality).
I strive for equality because the heart of equality is dignifying the other. Thus, in my attempt to reduce the harm I inflict, I opt to stand for a position that values the identity, voice, and physicality of the other through valuing them as equal to me.
Silas, thank you for your assessment of this issue through the lens of the ethic of harm. I too have been realizing that the commands of Jesus are not arbitrary. Instead, he commands us to live in such a way that avoids harming the other. Indeed, he goes further than that. Jesus' desire is that we dignify, love, honor and respect the other.
ReplyDeleteSilas,
ReplyDeleteI'm in no way `arguing we should ignore pain. but trading one problem for another isn't exactly the best way to deal with it. Whenever people make theology out of a desire to avoid pain it just fails. The Emgerment movement is a great example of this. It failed as a movement because it's theology was largely founded on what they didn't like about church. Brian Mclaren once wrote that he hoped it would be the same as the Jesus movement. But the emergent movement could never be a Jesus movement because the Jesus movement at its core was hippies and drugs finding healing in Jesus. They were finding healing and freedom. The emergent movement on the hand are Christian hipsters debating the social matrix of society and complaining about what they don't like about church over coffee at Starbucks. I've never read any Emergent Literature (save for Erwin Mcmanus) that did not come off cynical. One movement is about healing - one is about complaining. For example people complained, " We don't like to be talked at" Solution - lets talk about it and have a conversation" Nothing wrong with that idea. The problem was when it people started complaining they were tired of talking about it and they started saying "lets make a decision about what we believe" the emergent movement didn't do that BECAUSE they were HURT by people that told them what to believe.They saw making a declarative statement about what to believe as the same kind of entrapment they experienced so they kept up the conversation, not because it was the best choice but because they didn't want to experience the same hurt in church they did before. When they failed to choose in the name of the conversation they lost the following and it's probably the reason more people enjoy Francis Chan over Rob Bell or Mark Driscol - Americans most downloaded pastor over Brian Mclaren. They're own aversion to pain stopped them from becoming the predominant movement in Christianity and its own woodenness pushed people away from the conversation (the very thing they wanted people to do) to the Reformed camp. The reason Reformed Christianity is the predominant "cool" thing right now is because the Emergent movement could not move past its own pain, questioning everything but not willing to move past it.
In the same way choosing a theology based upon how people use another one as justification to sin is only trading one problem for another. People need to choose doctrine because it's the closest to the character and working of God not because they have been hurt. Could you imagine how much doctrine we would have to change because people have used it to justify sin? The church was hugely anti semtic because it was the Jewish leaders that handed Jesus to Rome. Should we change the story and make it a different culture because the Jews were hurt? Should we tell children not honor their parents just because Dad would not let their children stay out late. Should we tell people thats its wrong to ask God for anything because of the Health and Wealth movement Should we stop telling people to pray for the sick because we prayed for our mom who had cancer and God didn`t heal her Should we tell people its okay `not to forgive because when they have forgiven they have been taken advantage of Should we tell people its okay to lie because when they were honest, it cost them a job a tax break or even their relationshipÉ Do you see why we can`t use our pain AS primary means by which to decide what we believe. We`re too broken to think rationally. We would not know where to stop... but yet we do... Are we choosing the place of women in church because weve been hurt or because its true
Are we looking for something other than ourselves to blame for the suppression of women Are we doing the same thing Adam did when He sinned and blamed it on Eve. How can we make a healthy and intelligent choice on this issue unless we are aware that our own pain could cloud our reason. Im almost finished the blog post I think I should have it ready by tomorrow
ReplyDelete