Eileen (A Pastor’s Wife) Shares
Posted on November 29th, 2006 by catalyst into the Why We Blog categoryI'm one of those crazy liberals who thinks that women should be elders in the church. However, after reading this recent confessional from Eileen Button, a Pastor's wife in Michigan, I've decided that women should be pastors. And if Ms. Button ever starts a church in DC, I'll attend.
Here Eileen discusses the stereotypes associated with being a pastor's wife:
For those who suppose they have me pegged, I'd like to dispel a few stereotypes. I don't believe Jesus would be a Republican or a Democrat. I am suspicious of our presence in Iraq and mourn the loss of lives there. I applaud those who may not be churchgoers but whose actions and generosity reflect Christ more than the lifestyles of many professing Christians. I believe God wants for us to prosper, but not necessarily in the way our American culture dictates, and certainly not just for personal benefit.
By the way, I don't wear stockings, pumps or flowered dresses with lace collars. Nor do I don Tammy Faye-style false eyelashes, wigs or sequins. I prefer jeans, khakis and classic T shirts. I don't volunteer in the nursery or children's church (I've had three children of my own; that was more than enough). I don't perform with the music team. With a voice like mine, no one will let me on, and the only song I know how to play on the piano is "Chopsticks."
However, I try to use the gifts I have been given in the church and community as a teacher, writer and friend.
This is the kind of honesty I would like to see from all Pastors. I know Pastors are not perfect, and it would be great if they would stop acting like it.
November 29th, 2006 at 9:26 am
I wouldn’t call gender equality a “crazy liberal” idea, but rather a biblical idea since some of Jesus disciples were women.
Women leaders in archaic conservative churches often find some creative way around the gender barrier whether it be in the role of the pastor’s wife, music leaders, youth leader, etc. As a kid at a small conservative church in the early 1980s, I saw a pastor’s wife take the role of the de facto pastor. I’m sure the church’s board got more than they bargained for when they hired this demur man who gave uninspiring Sunday sermons while his wife led the service and gave orders during the rest of the week.
****
Of course, I doubt Jesus would be hired by any churches today. After all, what church today would hire an unmarried, degree-less, carpenter’s son?
November 29th, 2006 at 10:59 am
Good point –I love the qualification insight.
November 30th, 2006 at 3:01 pm
I think that if we are talking about church leadership, we whould stick with what the Bible says about the subject. Community standards shouldn’t be held above biblical truth. Men and women are created equal but have different roles. The roles do not denote value before God, man of course makes this mistake a lot. I was impressed with the article about Eileen and I thought she had a great attitude however, I hardly see how that qualifies her for eldership. Please reference 1 Timothy 3:1-3 (English Standard Version)
1The saying is trustworthy: If anyone aspires to the office of overseer, he desires a noble task. 2Therefore an overseer must be above reproach, the husband of one wife, sober-minded, self-controlled, respectable, hospitable, able to teach, 3not a drunkard, not violent but gentle, not quarrelsome, not a lover of money.
Norm! what do you mean when you say gender equality? Is there a reference to women being disciples? There is reference to them being with the disciples but not actually disciples and certainly not among the 12. I think that it would be a mistake to try to fit our present culture’s feminist social morals into scripture. I believe that there is much more freedom for everyone when we make an effort to live a life that formed from the word of God and not someone’s opinion of what the word of God says. Sure there have been abuses, as illustrated by Norm’s story of the pastor’s wife but, that doesn’t make it right.
November 30th, 2006 at 4:14 pm
“I believe that there is much more freedom for everyone when we make an effort to live a life that formed from the word of God and not someone’s opinion of what the word of God says.”
Huh? Somewhere you have the word of God and it’s not someone’s opinion of what the word of God says?
November 30th, 2006 at 4:30 pm
One of the great contradictions of scripture … how can Paul write “there is neither male nor female …” and Jesus say “the flesh counts for nothing” (John 6:63) … clearly IN THE SPIRIT there is no difference, and so the person who sees difference between men and women in terms of serving Christ is looking at the flesh … where we are told to live by the spirit, and that it is living by the spirit and by faith that pleases the Father, why do we default to the fleshly judgment when dealing with the gender issue?
Jesus even said “who are my mother and brothers? … those who do the Father’s will”. So Jesus set a standard of gender equality where matters of serving the Father and living by the Spirit are concerned …
Is there any difference between a man and a woman other than flesh and bone? If the answer is no, and like Jesus said “the flesh counts for nothing”, then I don’t see why women can’t serve in any capacity as the Father see’s fit.
November 30th, 2006 at 5:14 pm
John444,
None of the scriptures you quote have anything to do with leadership, which is clearly described in Genesis and Pauline literature. You are taking scripture out of context, trying to bend it to some cultural interpretation where it doesn’t apply. There is no difference in the spirit however, there is a clearly defined difference in roles.
November 30th, 2006 at 5:56 pm
I agree!!! But what do you mean by “contradiction”?
November 30th, 2006 at 6:13 pm
Did you ever consider that the role of women as defined in Genesis, has to do with the fall, and not what God intended originally? When the Lord said to the woman “your desire will be for your husband and he will rule over you” it was post-fall. Pre-fall woman was made to be man’s comanion (it is not good for man to be alone) and his help-mate. God took from man’s side to make someone who would walk beside him - an equal. He did not take from man’s back that she would walk 6 paces behind him, nor his foot that he should be above her.
I must apologize for the gas I’m certain it will cause you, but I see nothing in the words of Jesus that sets up the kind of male female division that Paul establishes. It was Paul, not Jesus who established the so-called 5 fold ministry, etc. It was Paul, not Jesus who established the rule for women being silent in the assembly.
Personally, I think Jesus appearing first to Mary in the garden after his resurrection, had to do with the restoration of women to their God given role beside men and not ruled over by men. Looking back to the garden after the fall, woman was the ‘first cursed (disciplined)’ and apparently the first restored.
As a man, I believe I am given a choice - to treat my wife as if she still under that genesis curse, or, treat her as one who is IN Christ, filled with the same Spirit I am, and my equal. You see, I don’t see Jesus establishing any heirarchical roles in ‘church government’, rather, I see Him teaching us to aspire to SONship.
I think a lot of what Paul established as ‘church rules’ had to do with cultural / social problems. And I also think Paul would role over in his grave if we woke Him up and told him we folded his letters into a book, called it ‘holy’ and the ‘word of God’. In fact, having been in the presence of the Father now for millenia, I doubt Paul would even recognize his letters.
Yes, I’m a heretic. But I’m also the husband of a happy wife.
November 30th, 2006 at 6:58 pm
I’m 51 Cowboy and subject to the occasional senior moment.
I see at least 2 contradictions; 1 between what Jesus said (”the flesh counts for nothing” and “who are my mother and brothers…”), AND the teachings of Paul which clearly show a gender bias. The 2nd contradiction is between Paul (Galatians?) and Paul Timothy 3 - where in the former he says “there is neither male nor female” but writes in the latter that ministry is limited to men (not to mention the whole “women silent in the assembly” thing).
Note that I am not ‘bible school’ or seminary trained - just a seeker. I have this feeling / understanding deep down that there are perhaps levels of truth, where Jesus taught us from the highest truth - to aspire us to sonship. Jesus selected his disciples and as seen in John 6, saw his flock culled / pared down to a small handful of faithful followers. Paul on the other hand, took the message to gentiles practicing idol worship and dealt with so-called temple-shrine prostitutes. Jesus dealt with Jews who were already familiar with and observed Torah law; Paul dealt with the ceremonially unclean. And so I think Paul came up with rules and tools to deal with the people he was sent to - who were carnal, and less mature, than the handful of followers that remained with Jesus throughout His earthly ministry.
It doesn’t mean Paul was wrong, or a chauvinist, etc., rather he made flesh-based rules to deal with flesh based behavior until such time as people aspired to the higher spriitual truth (meat).
One of the things that makes me think that Cowboy, is something Jesus said about the law - He said “these you have kept, but you have ignored the more important elements of the law, justice mercy and faithfulness …” … I remember the first time “mercy” caught my eye there as I had never considered mercy an element of the law as far as men dealing with men were concerned … the prevailing attitude of the Jews at the time seemed to be IF you were caught committing a capital sin you were stoned - there was no mercy. But we saw Jesus show mercy with the woman who committed adultery … looking back at the OT - we see Moses standing in the gap, David offering himself up for the Lord to stop the plague, Joseph quietly sending Mary away … each could have hid behind the law and cheered the stoning, but instead, each inserted himself between God and sinner to show mercy. So there was a choice of turning a blind eye to ones own sin and stoning a fellow sinner, or, one could intervene and see mercy. Sometimes I think the Father’s greatest mercy is shown when we aspire to that Jesus-like Sonship and show mercy / forgiveness ourselves. It’s as if God gave us the law to cover us when we judge each other and act out of the flesh, but also to wear us out and drive us to search for something better - the way of love, mercy and the Spirit.
Both are truth, one is just better. Thanks for listneing to my rambling.
November 30th, 2006 at 8:48 pm
–Why didn’t God form Eve out of the dust of the earth just like He did man?
–Why did He take a portion out of man to make a help-meet ’suitable’ for him?
–Why do you think Satan went after the ‘weaker vessel’ to trip up humanity?
–Why didn’t Jesus pick any women as His 12 disciples?
–After Judas committed suicide, why didn’t the other disciples pick a female to replace him?
–Why didn’t Paul instruct Timothy to tell the older women to teach the younger women to DOMINATE those husbands? To let the world raise their children? NOT to bother keeping their home? To NOT let those husbands boss them around?
–Why did Paul say that he who desires to be an elder must be the husband of one wife?
Which other cultural suggestions can we leave out in the many verses that deal with a woman’s role in the church and in the marriage?
How about husbands loving their wives as Christ loved the Church, giving Himself up for it?
How about husbands nourishing and cherishing their wives just as the Lord does the church?
Husbands, love your wives, and be not bitter towards them?
Husbands, dwell with your wives with understanding, giving honor to the wife, as to the weaker vessel, and as being heirs together of the grace of life…?
Shall we toss out these archaic and cultural references to the role of the husband, placed conveniently right alongside the role of the wife?
How presumptious to tell God He didn’t get it right when He ordained the authority structure in the church and in marriage. Thanks to this ‘twisting of scriptures to our own destruction’, humanity is fast becoming a backward culture of effeminate, spiritually lazy men shrinking back from ‘masculine’, dominating women that have abandoned their glorious, feminine, God–given design, and, ironically, STILL aren’t happy with their lot in life….
A woman who is fulfilling her role as a proper ‘help-meet’ to her husband is the one who may have the greater honor. Didn’t Jesus say to the disciples, “If anyone desires to be great among you, let him be your servant, and whoever wants to be first, let him be your slave”? Yet we grasp and claw for the ‘upper hand’….physically, intellectually, emotionally, spiritually, then wonder why life at the ‘top’ is so empty and ‘lonely’….God didn’t make a ‘help–meet’ for women…
December 1st, 2006 at 5:54 am
I think that you are on dangerous ground when you start say that some scripture is more inspired than others. Must cults start with the attitude that they have the “deeper Truth” that no one else has seen.
There is no apparent contradiction, only an effort to try to make two non-related portions of scripture say something that just isn’t there. You need more context and much more back up than just your feelings. Be careful that you don’t try to bend scripture around our current social morals in an effort to justify something that just can not be proved biblically, i.e.; women elders and pastors.
December 1st, 2006 at 7:55 am
Don’t say I didn’t warn ya about gas …
Do you get the drift at all what I said about God telling us one thing (stone the adulterer), yet desiring of us mercy toward one another?
How often we have said as a church that Jesus lived in accordance with OT law, yet among the things He taught by exmple (not a narrative/parable), was an order of precedence within the law. For example, keeping the sabbath, but what person who owned an animal would not fetch it from a ditch on the sabbath to save its life? Likewise, saving the life of a man (delivering him) on the sabbath? In so doing, Jesus demonstrated an order of precedence / importance in the law. In saving an animal or man on the Sabbath, Jesus demonstrated that the law of mercy (compassion, love, whatever you want to call it) was more important than the law of the sabbath.
In so doing, Jesus taught his followers to “use their heads”, not hide behind the law while others suffer. Such would be a selfish use of the law, where Jesus is clearly looking for selflessness - as in I’d rather transgress this law (of the sabbath) to save my brother, than let him perish.
Joey and Hungry, you take issue with what I say about women, that I believe Paul was addressing local / historical problems within the cultures to which he was sent - teachings of Paul that you apparently adhere to and express alarm that I don’t … that same Paul who promoted men only in leadership also said women are to be silent in the assembly and must cover their heads.
So tell me Joey and Hungry, do you make your women-folk observe silence in the assembly and wear head coverings? Hungry on the Harbor, you go to CLF which has a woman pastor or three, don’t you? Yup - just checked. In accordance with your strict intepretation of “Genesis and Pauline” teachings, CLF needs to demote and silence 3 of their pastors. Boy, the HR person at CLF is going to be really busy firing the women, interviewing honest monogomous men (if any can be found) … poor Cheryl Gebhart, Amy Moyer, Fran Marzioli - it’s back to barefoot and preggers for you!
OK - I’m done poking fun at ya - I’ll be serious now - promise - what kind of logic system do you two employ, that lets you ignore one portion of ‘Pauline’ teachings (sorry, I just think it’s funny to call him Pauline) but embrace others? You warn me of selectively embracing scripture, or discounting one scripture over another … when apparently you are doing the same? I’m just curious what logic you are using, and how that differs from my logic about which you seem so alarmed?
December 1st, 2006 at 8:26 am
Wow, are we arguing about this again?
December 1st, 2006 at 8:31 am
‘willfully’ blind….polluted by the ‘acceptable norm’ of society, afraid to believe and follow scripture in the uncomfortable, challenging areas…since when does God operate on a democratic platform, making sure He doesn’t offend the PC masses or hurt anyones feelings??
…take it up with the Lord Jesus, Who, BTW, ‘lowered’ Himself to the form of a servant–seeking, ministering, healing, feeding, washing dusty feet, bleeding on a cross…didn’t seem to think a ’subservient’ role was beneath Him….amazing love….how can it be, that my King would die for me….
December 1st, 2006 at 8:42 am
You didn’t answer my question, Hungry.
Do you make your women remain silent with heads covered at CLF? Are you going to fire your women pastors, demote your women elders, et al, in accordance with Pauline (that name kills me) teaching?
How does the logic system behind your personal approach or corporate approach of CLF to women in ministry (leadership) differ from mine?
FICM - apparently so.
December 1st, 2006 at 8:59 am
John444,
Where is your scriptural basis for women in leadership? Not your opinion or feeling about it, but rathr where is it stated clearly that women can be elders or pastors (shepards)? Lets stay on topic here.
December 1st, 2006 at 9:23 am
I do not need to answer your questions or defend myself with smokescreens and endless circular arguments. Your questions are best directed to the One who authored the difficult passages so often twisted to fit our itching ears instead of believed to our benefit and blessing….
I am confident and comfortable just simply believing His word, not expecting to be treated any better because of it than my Lord Jesus was treated when He graced this earth with His glorious but challenging presence.
I can peacefully co-exhist in a body where all members are not perfect clones of my beliefs, yet I should be free to share my own beliefs without fear of being condescended to, wouldn’t you say? I’m pretty sure that is what this blog is all about….:o).
December 1st, 2006 at 9:24 am
Chicken.
December 1st, 2006 at 9:42 am
:o) We resort to name calling when we don’t get to argue?
I don’t think Jesus ever did that….:o)
December 1st, 2006 at 9:54 am
You guys are funny. Does this all matter in the whole scheme of things?
If a woman wants to be called a pastor and scream from the platform at church services, let her. If people wanna sit and listen to her screech, let them. I won’t be there.
Remember when CBC was big on Cindy Jacobs… she was a screecher… had strange ideas on things too….
December 1st, 2006 at 10:23 am
Joey, how about Deborah for a Biblical example? Would you consider judging all of the Israelites to be a leadership position?
It really telling to me that you and Hungry have both lashed out at John for being unbiblical and reinterpreting Scripture, yet you won’t explain your thoughts on women being silent in church with their heads covered. That’s part of the “Pauline” teachings on women in church, so do we need to be following all of Paul’s instructions or not?
December 1st, 2006 at 10:55 am
I’ll answer about women being silent, when and if I can get a straight scriptural answer about women in leadership.
I thought someone would eventually mention Deborah in attempt “to apply an exception to the rule” smoke screen. There will always be a woman ready to take the reins when men are to weak and passive to lead. I think you guys need to look through all of scripture and look at what it says through out and not take one instance to try an invalidate my argument.
December 1st, 2006 at 11:48 am
How is Deborah a smokescreen? You can’t ask for Biblical examples if you’re going to dismiss them out of hand because they don’t fit with your argument. If God saw fit to elevate one woman to a leadership role, who are we to say there can’t be any modern day Deborahs? You’re going to have to provide some Scriptual backing to justify your dismissal of my example.
December 1st, 2006 at 11:49 am
I’d chime in but I’m remaining silent. And besides I can’t see the monitor screen with this covering-thingy on my head anyway!
It would be nice if we could successfully twist the scriptures to fit our personal world view (isn’t what Frank D. is accused of doing?). The reality is we need to be careful that our world view conforms to the word of God. The Bible doesn’t say women can’t lead, it just says they shouldn’t be leading men. Men need to step up to the plate and lead in the church and in their own homes and fill those leadership “gaps”. Churches need to stop expecting free labor from women in exchange for a leadership title (like that episode of Cheers when Woody goes to ask Rebecca for a raise and instead gets promoted to “Chief Assistant Bartender”, but comes out feeling like that was better than any raise).
Allowing feminism to creep into doctrine does not open up better opportunities for women, it opens up more opportunities to abuse and take advantage of them by using their talents for the advancement of the church instead of in their home homes. I am woman, hear me roar.
December 1st, 2006 at 12:18 pm
Fezzik,
One example does not make a trend. The point is that God has consistently chosen for the men to lead.
John444,
Still looking?
December 1st, 2006 at 1:04 pm
Except when he chose a woman. I understand your point, but I think you’re making an absolute statement without justification. My point is women shouldn’t be absolutely shut out from leadership.
Also, you asked for an example, not a trend.
So how about that head covering and being silent in church? I’m honestly curious to hear your take on that passage given your other viewpoints.
December 1st, 2006 at 1:17 pm
Fezzik,
Just spent 3 hours with a snow blower clearing my drive and my elderly neighbors so he can get out to dialysis tomorrow. We got 3-4 foot drifts and average 16″ depth back here in the Illinois River valley over night … now enjoying some hot chocolate with peppermint schnapps … Mmmmm …
Hungry,
Re: name calling - I was just looking to invoke the ‘Marty McFly’ response from you’s guys. Here’s the way I see it - scripture tells us “come, let us REASON together” … to me, that means to meditate on scripture, let the whole of it work trough our being, and let the Holy Spirit shine light in areas we may not have considered before - how often have we come upon new revalation (individually and corporately) from simply considering the whole counsel of scripture together with the Holy Spirit in our midst? By “higher truth”, I don’t mean anything extra biblical, rather, I mean those wonderful revelations which come from the Spirit through meditation, life application of the word, etc. Too many believers are literalists and never get past the face value of scripture. There’s so much more there IF we will let our religious guard down for a minute and let the Spirit teach us and open our eyes to new facits / applications of what is already there.
I have stated rather matter of factly what I have reasoned out, not by myself, but with many of my brothers and sisters in the Lord. And I’ve been vulnerable / open enough to put what I think (emphasis on “I”) in print. I really haven’t heard from you Hungry or Joey what YOU (emphasis on “YOU”) think so much as I’ve just heard you parrot scripture. I’d really like to hear what YOU think about apparent scriptural contradictions; and how your particular assembly (presumably CLF) turns a blind eye to those scriptures I mentioned about women. You see, even IF you believe differently than CLF practices (for the sake of argument let’s assume you both are die-hard fundy literalists) you STILL agree with CLF’s UNbiblical approach to installing women in leadership roles by virtue of your attendence/membership and financial support of CLF. That’s called tacit approval or agreement - or implied - can’t remember - Cowboy will correct my grammar if needed
So my request to you both, since you are taking issue with what I have expressed and why, is that you quit hiding behind “the Bible says” (hence: my calling you chicken) and tell us what the difference is between ignoring Paul’s teachings about women being silent and covered in the assembly, and my ignoring Paul’s teaching about women only in leadership? Do you not arrive at your application of scripture through social/cultural compromise? Or is it just your flesh rebelling (Paul’s a chauvinist pig and I’m NOT going to wear a hat or shutup)? Or have you arrived at a scriptural basis for ignoring Paul? You either agree with the practice personally, or corporately by belonging to an institution that ignores those scriptures.
While out throwing snow, I did consider a few things that acknowledge women in leadership …
The 5-fold for example identifies leadership functions - some say “offices” - but I’m more incined to call them gifts. Apostle, Prophet, Evangelist, Pastor, Teacher … so if we find any women in scripture operating in any of those capacities, they are in fact “leaders” in the church, right?
Any women prophets in the Bible? Yes. Teachers? Yes.
Another thought occurs; why did the writers of scripture quote the words of many women through out Biblical history, who through scripture TEACH US down through the ages, but in live assembly, we silence them? Is what a woman has to say in/to the assembly only valid when she’s quoted by a man?
Scriptural basis? How many times does Paul have to acknowledge women in his letters for you to see / recognize that they were leaders in their respective churches? Priscilla was the teacher of Apollos, who already had proven himself as a scholar before he met her. Mary sister of Martha and Lazarus studied at Jesus feet; women financed Jesus; Mary mother of Jesus presumably taught him; etc. There’s plenty of examples in scripture IF you want to see them.
As for the whole “submit to one another” thing, note that Ephesians 5:21 precedes the marriage passage and does not limit submission by gender. Becoming least of ALL and servant of ALL does NOT say anything about being limited to men only.
Anyway - if your answer is “the Bible says”, please don’t bother replying; I’m looking to find out what YOU think persuant to “reasoning together”. If all you can do is say “the Bible says”, well, I can read that for myself.
December 1st, 2006 at 2:57 pm
This will be my last thoughts on this since a biblical answer is apparently too much to ask.
1. ” ..Come let us reason together..” Refers to Isaiah 1:17-19 Where the lord is talking to Isaiah, not lets reason together about what scripture says. Please use scripture in context.
17 “learn to do right!
Seek justice,
encourage the oppressed. [a]
Defend the cause of the fatherless,
plead the case of the widow.
18 “Come now, let us reason together,”
says the LORD.
“Though your sins are like scarlet,
they shall be as white as snow;
though they are red as crimson,
they shall be like wool.
19 If you are willing and obedient,
you will eat the best from the land;”
2. If we are followers of God, then shouldn’t his word be foremost in our lives and not how impressed we are with our own reasoning? Our foundation must built of something absolute. Man is neither infinite or absolute.
3. I just asked for a simple answer to what I thought was a clever and interesting rebate and all I get are rambling diatribes.
4. I’m done with this thread, good night.
December 1st, 2006 at 3:01 pm
You forgot “Enjoy hell” (see The 5 Stages that make this worthwhile thread).
December 1st, 2006 at 3:05 pm
My answer is–’the Bible says’…..I’m quite comfortable with that, I’m sorry you’re not….:o)
I, personally, don’t speak in the church.
If you follow Paul’s exhortation on head covering to the full end, you will find him saying. (er…”the Bible says”…:o) “Nevertheless, we have no such custom….” It is not a requirement of the Gentile women to cover their head in order to have fellowship with the saints. There were only four absolutes for the Gentile converts to follow; no eating meat offered to idols, no blood, no strangles, and no sexual immorality…those were the very basic requirements laid out by the church. None of those requirements are a personal challenge for me, and fellowship in my church doesn’t require that I am clones of them, either.
As far as my personal views regarding difficult passages, I have enough faith in God and His word (’the Bible says’ again…:o), and trust that He is smart enough (That ‘omniscient’ thing..:o) to be able to write a book that is simple enough for me to understand both how to have fellowship with Him, and how He expects His child to behave. With the help of His Spirit, which Jesus promised He would send to help me, guide me, and remind me of what He said, I can stumble through working out my salvation with fear and trembling. (”The Bible says, again
) He wants us to have fellowship with Him, and wouldn’t make knowing Him so difficult that the “not many wise according to the flesh, not many mighty, not many noble” (OOPS! there’s that Bible again…) man gives up or miss it entirely. I can take things at ‘face value’ and simply obey without looking for legal loopholes and exceptions to the rules…
December 1st, 2006 at 3:14 pm
What about the rest of us?
Putting aside John444’s points for the moment. I am also curious.
Here’s my homeschool background:
Women had to wear dresses. Mostly home made jean jumpers.
Many women, and girls, would wear white lace caps pinned to their heads.
Men were taught to lead, women were taught to cook and submit.
Hungry, or Joey, or anyone else: in all seriousness do you, or your sig. other, wear a headcovering? If so, how do you make that work? If not, why not?
Also I’m wondering: Do you attend a church that requires it? If so, approx. what percentage comply? If not why not?
I’d love to hear your perspective.
Thanks
December 1st, 2006 at 3:25 pm
Interesting scripture that precedes “come let us reason together” … mentions the oppressed (um, you mean, like women who have been systematically gagged?!?), widows, orphans … clearly the context is compassion for and right treatment of people … so reasoning together within context DOES have to do with how people are treated and provided for.
And the exortation to “learn to do right”? That implies that the hearer / reader is doing it wrong? Why say “learn to do right” unless the reader is being unjust, oppressing people, failing to meet the needs of widows, orphans, and needs to be corrected?
“Come let us reason together” has EVERYTHING to do with giving consideration to how we treat people.
Ya gotta love them fundy literalists.
December 1st, 2006 at 3:42 pm
Sorry Hungry, your post came too soon!
I’m do not want to argue or debate. I thought it was crazy to expect women to wear littly lacy hats, and to have waist long hair, so I spent way to much time arguing with them. However, I don’t see the scripture you quoted “Nevertheless, we have no such custom…”
Rather I see
“All God’s churches see it this way; I don’t want you standing out as an exception.”
or
“If anyone wants to be contentious about this, we have no other practice—nor do the churches of God.”
or is you prefer:
“and if any one doth think to be contentious, we have no such custom, neither the assemblies of God.” (they also belived that KJV was the only word of god)
That pretty much shut me up at this point in the conversation. Can you do better than I?
December 2nd, 2006 at 11:26 am
i invite you boys to come to The Bridge here in Portland and see a community where men and women lead side by side in harmony and biblical equality.
December 2nd, 2006 at 1:31 pm
Sorry, Pam, but the Bridge is a MESS, as big a mess as CBC. The leadership there is not an example of effective leadership.
December 2nd, 2006 at 5:59 pm
Joey,
My unsaved sister in law just told me recently that she thinks people who believe the Bible as truth and take it literally are stupid. She says the Bible is a bunch of stories at best and weird violent fairy tales at worst. She also said ‘all these people who worship the bible and then judge everyone around them but secretly participate in the same perverted stuff themselves’ are just like the rest of us.
With that said, Joey, if you look at the big picture of those without God who surround us, do you really think all your scriptural prowess and debating ability is really helping anyone at all? I’d like to see you try to convince someone like my sister/friend/treasured mother of my nephews and nieces how she needs to believe the bible or the God of the Bible. I’m at a loss with her. All I can do is pray for her and love her for the person she is and God forbid that I ever throw scripture around to try to convince her how wrong she is. She would just tell me to go xxxx myself.
December 2nd, 2006 at 6:41 pm
Truly I don’t know how we went from discussing egalitarianism to evangelism. However that being said, I would characterize the preceding as a debate about something within the church and definitely not something that I would ever discuss with an unbeliever.
In reference to your sister in law; all you can do is pray for her and love her. You can’t save her, I can’t convince her of anything. Only God can save and He can use you as an example of his grace in her life. All you can do is try your best to live out the gospel in front of her, so that she knows that you are not perfect and that God loves us anyway. We all have sin and will continue to have to deal with it until the day we die, so really we’re all hypocrites by that estimation. Thank God for grace!
December 2nd, 2006 at 7:00 pm
I’m just astounded how un-thinking and un-reasoning Christians can be.
For example, how often have we said “the Bible is the inspired and inerrant word of God” or “God breathed”, etc., as if to attribute the entire content, down to the very “choice of words” as Judah says, to GOD HIMSELF.
So, here we have this teaching of Paul that women can NOT teach men (I do not permit a woman to teach a man), and the instruction for women to be silent in the assembly, yet the BIBLE, which we believe is the word/voice of God, contains the stories of many great women and what they had to say to the assembly of saints at the time, and continue to say to us through scripture in the assembly even today. IF God were really behind the “no women teachers” and “silencing of women” instruction, don’t you think He would have made the Bible about men only?
The scripture WTFWJD shared has a key word for me …
Isn’t custom just another word for tradition? If we take the time to understand the Bible as a historical, cultural document, written by Jews 2000 years ago, whose religious background was temple worship in Jerusalem and synagogues in the outskirts of Israel, we might see that the men-only / women silent approach to gatherings is rooted in old Judaism. So here comes Jesus, NOT teaching in the temple or in the traditional ways of Judaism, rather, He’s teaching in the wilderness, free of buildings and religious structure, teaching equally men and women and children. What does he have to say to his disciples who are trying to direct crowds around Him? He chastens His disciples with such as “Let the little ones come unto me”, “he who is not against us is for us”, etc.
In Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, there is no mention of apostles or any of the other 5 fold ‘offices’; the followers of Jesus are simply called disciples (talmidim). The rules and structure and offices were all introduced by the disciples now apostles, after Jesus had ascended - and I have to wonder how much of what they introduced to the Church was imported from their OT temple worship, separate priesthood type paradigm - in other words, how much of what they implemented was TRADITION vs. truly God breathed.
I don’t think it is such heresy to compare Matthew, Mark, Luke and John, with the rest of the NT, and note the differences. Surely the gospels are the purest form of the “word of God” (via Jesus) - Jesus who overcame the flesh … but Paul for example said in 1 Cor. 13 that He saw “dimly” and elsewhere Paul lamented the battle he had with overcoming the lusts of his flesh and called himself “wretched” - there are even places in Paul’s writings where he says specifically that it is his words and his practice - and sometimes he says it is from the Spirit …
Joey said:
How can you NOT weigh scipture that way, when there are obvious contradictions, and when the authors themselves said that some of the words they were writing were their own and not the Spirit? Yes, it is God inspired, but sometimes, because we see dimly and we war with our flesh, we get it wrong.
I’m convinced that the scriptures pertaining to women in leadership and silence is rooted in Jewish OT tradition. Just as temple worship is rooted in OT tradition. Heck, the modern institutional church with its clergy/laity divide and temple worship is no more less than continuing OT tradition and trying to squeeze Jesus into tradition. Could that be what He meant when He said “come out of her, my people”? To leave that old temple-worship paradigm, and join Him outside the camp, where men and women are equally his disciples and learn at His feet?
What would the Church look like, if the NT were just Matthew, Mark, Luke, John and Revelation?
Jack
December 2nd, 2006 at 7:01 pm
Emigre,
I appreciate your tender heart for your sister in law…our unsaved family members can be the most intimidating and challenging people to witness to, especially if they have observed behavior in us that dishonors our Lord. That should make us acutely aware of our own walk, and make sure it is fully representing the name of Christ. However, that doesn’t let us off the hook to talk to them urgently at least one time about eternity.
I think the biggest problem with witnessing (besides the hypocracy–it’s funny how the world is more aware of how Christians should act than many ‘Christians’ are..:o) ) is the focus on the here and now. The whole “convert to Christianity so you can be ‘fixed’, do poor ol’ grampa/Santa God a favor and give your life to Him so’s He will bless you and make you happy, then you can give all your time, talents and treature to some rich pastor who is nothing but a wolf in sheep’s clothing” is nauseating.
Whether the world likes it or not, death will come knocking on their door someday, and they will have to face the God they say they don’t know and don’t care to know without excuse (Rom. 1:19-20), and, even though He doesn’t want to, (2Pet. 3:9) out of His Holy standard of perfection, He will cast them into the agonies of eternal fire.
These same people who mock us will be the same ones who will be accusing us if their terrified eyes meet ours on the Day of Judgment, wondering why we didn’t care about them enough to warn them of the wrath to come….
An excellent place to learn how to confidently share your faith is here.
December 3rd, 2006 at 7:01 am
For God loved the world so much that he gave the Bible, so that everyone who believes in it may not die but have eternal life.
December 3rd, 2006 at 7:24 am
John 1:1-5
” In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God. All things were made through him, and without him was not any thing made that was made. In him was life, and the life was the light of men. The light shines in the darkness, and the darkness has not overcome it.”
December 3rd, 2006 at 7:45 am
Eternal life does not come through the scriptures, but the scriptures direct us to the Son (John 5:39) and provide a pattern for us to emulate as we follow Him. How can we follow Him if we know not what He does?
The Bereans (Acts 17:11) were commended by their daily searching of the scriptures to ensure that what the disciples said was true and trustworthy. If you do not have a standard, how, pray tell, do you decide what is true and what is false in your Christian walk??? Please don’t tell me that you just rely on the ’spirit’, because God’s ‘word’ clearly tells us to test the spirits, to see if they are from God. (1 John 4:1)
December 3rd, 2006 at 9:04 am
hey anon, can you email me at jamnperry@comcast.net with your concerns about the bridge. (do I know you?)
i’ve been a church-going woman for over two decades. i have yet to find a church community that is not a mess to some degree in some capacity. at the bridge, they are at least a mess in the open and not hiding behind religious masks.
December 3rd, 2006 at 9:39 am
Interesting point, ‘Scrupe … it is Jesus who saves, not the Bible. And my faith in Jesus to save me is not shaken if there are errors, ommissions, mistranslations, contradictions in the Bible …
Compare any of the quotations of Jesus in MMLJ and see that they are not identical, but still sufficient to get the gist of what He said; see the footnote in the last several verses of Mark 16, which say they are not found in the oldest most reliable manuscripts, so we know they were added somewhere down the line by some zealous translator; read the introduction to translations like the NIV and see that it was a translation by men trained in the seminary schools of men, and by virtue of membership in their non/anticharismatic mainline denominations are almost certainly not baptized with the Holy Spirit, and so their translations are likely the result of doctrinal slant and institutional bias.
Ignore scriptures like the last verse or 2 of John which say that IF all Jesus said were written down, the whole world wouldn’t be able to contain the books, meaning, the Bible is just a minute subset of what Jesus said, and not the ALL in ALL people make it out to be. Or, ignore that wonderful passage in 2 Cor 3 (?) which says WE ARE EPISTLES OF CHRIST written on by HIM on our hearts. So if the epistles of Paul are considered the “word of God”, why not the epistles of Christ (US?). We are every bit as much the ‘word of God’ as the Bible is. If Christ is IN me, and I IN Him, am I not a walking talking witnessing “word of God”?
So, to me, the whole “sola scriptura” - the Bible is all there is (so it must be perfect) thing is just barking in the dark … my confidence is in a person - the son of God - not a book, which clearly has some problems with it. My faith survives if the Bible is less than perfect. Don’t get me wrong, I love to read it, it waters my soul, it’s words when stirred by the Holy Spirit heal me and teach me, but, I recognize that it is the person who is the real word, and it takes the person to breathe life into the written (logos) word.
The Bible is to the Father, Son and Spirit, what a business card is to me. If 2000 years down the road, some nincompoop sect discovered my business card and began worshipping me, teaching that my business card was the sole authority for knowing and discerning all things about me, well, I might just have to come down there, show them the real me, and endure their crucifixion when I didn’t measure up to their interpretation of me. How I wish people would cling to the Son with the same fervor with which they cling to the Bible.
My dad used to tell it this way: you use a road map to get to where you are going. When you get there, do you continue studying the road map or do you shift your focus to the one you went to see?
December 3rd, 2006 at 1:13 pm
More power to you, Pastor Eileen. You are why I so strongly support the ordination of women. We need more of you. Think of yourselves as missionaries to men.
December 3rd, 2006 at 9:16 pm
Well, just for the fun of it all, someone help me with a few perplexing questions:
Which has greater authority, The Word of the Lord, or Scripture?
And, before you just answer “The two are one and the same thing” please prove that statement before making it, otherwise you won’t help me resolve my questions.
And one more teaser…
For those who champion the doctrines of Infallibility and Inerrancy of Scripture, do they not plant those doctrines on the original texts, of which we have none? And if we have none of those, then are we not dishonest if call the Scriptures we carry around with us “infallible and inerrant?” And if they are not inerrant then at what point would we cease requiring everything we believe to be sola scriptura, I.e. based 100% on scripture alone?
And finally, I’ve heard that of the thousands of ancient manuscripts that historians and archeologists have found, that no two of them agree 100%. And before someone replies, “Yes, but their places of disagreement are often just minor spelling changes,” still, I want to know what this tells me about the personal practicality and confidence I can place in the doctrine of an inerrant bible?
You see, I’m perplexed if inerrant means anything doesn’t it mean 100% inerrant? If infallible means anything doesn’t it mean 100% infallible? And if this is true, then what does 99%, or 89%, or 79% tell me? Ie. anything less than 100%. How is it then “infallible” (I.e. not fallible in any way), or “inerrant” (I.e. not errant in any way)
Sorry if these questions are unsettling, but my last questions are even harder - “What is the possibility that we believe in the scriptures more than we do in the God of the scriptures? What is the possibility we tend more to worship scripture and our interpretation of it than we do Jesus? Should we really have so little value in “The Word of Lord,” when for 4100 years, the readers and writers of scriputre listened more for the Word of the Lord than they did in studying the scriptures, either because they couldn’t read or there were no manuscripts any where near where they lived?” The early Church didn’t have a compiled set of the apostles teachings, until long after the apostles and themselves died, much less have a full copy of the Old Testament, which was just about as scarse as hen’s teeth.
Is it just possible Church history has fed us a line that we have accepted, for reasons other than the pure divine logic of confidence in the scriptures, and more for reasons of what placing too much confidence in written scripture does to our confidence to listen to the Head of the Church, than to Ecclesiastical/Hierarchical leaders? Is it not true that Ecclesiastical leaders have, throughout Church history, either told us directly or indirectly, that our chances of rightly interpreting Scripture without their scholarly understanding was anywhere from slim to none, and their status as keepers of the truth won them salaries, control, and power to abuse, contort, and misinterpret scripture over the centuries leading to some of the greatest atrocities and abominations of human history, all in the name of Jesus and proper biblical interpretation?
I’ll pause now and go refresh myself by reading and studying the scriptures on my daily reading schedule. How I do love the scriptures. They are my soul’s delight and the refreshing of my spirit. I can literally sense the breath of Jesus throughout my times before Him and the scriptures.
December 4th, 2006 at 7:44 am
*sigh*….(Job 16:3) *chuckle* I just couldn’t resist taking a litle scripture out of context…:o)
Therein lies the biggest problem with so many dogmatic stands we tend to make. We assume the Almighty God is as simple as we are. We assume the we can ‘figure Him out’. We assume that He thinks as we think, His ways are our ways, (Isaiah 55:8) and that we can put Him in a predictable, comfortable box that we can trust will not confuse us or trouble us.
The same God Who said “Thou shall not lie”, used Rahab to fool those who were after the spies (Joshua 2:4-6) and the Hebrew widwives tell Pharaoh that they couldn’t get to their babies in time to kill them. (Exodus 1:19) In fact, even Jesus seemed to decieve the disciples right before the Jews feast of the Tabernacle (John 7:6-10) Does that mean that we have a license to lie? Just because there are a few ‘exceptions”?
Do we comb the scriptures like modern day lawyers, looking for any excuse to ignore the commands of our Lord, taking advantage of His precious Grace and trampling the cleansing blood under our feet, as a license to sin? This is why Jesus made His warning in (Matthew 7:21) that only those who do the ‘will of the Father’ will enter the Kingdom of Heaven, in fact, He boldly called those who didn’t, “Those who practice ‘lawlessness’”. What nerve.
)
If we find any exceptions to God’s ‘law’, does that give us an excuse to live any way we want to ‘making it up as we go’? Paul, Peter, James, John obviously thought that there were necessary assumptions and expectations for believers to behave, otherwise they wouldn’t have bothered with most of the New Testament telling believers to ‘examine themselves’, to ‘walk worthy of the calling’ to be ‘filled with the fruits of righteousness’….do you figure the New Testament authors were just a bunch of bossy, controlling windbags who liked to hear themselves dictate?
)
You sure don’t have to read very far to see that the Law of God has moved from the external to the heart, which is where pretty much all of our trouble comes from. (Luke 6:45) (Matthew 15:18) (Mark 7:21) (Matthew 15:19) A heart that is self willed and rebellious will always question authority, whether it is God’s word, or His Spirit. They will use a few examples of ‘abusers’ to throw the baby out with the bath and rely on their own ‘wisdom’, which God called ‘foolishness’ (1 Cor. 3:19)
(2 John 9-11) (Jude 17-25)
December 4th, 2006 at 10:05 am
Hungry,
You are aware that everywhere the NT uses the word scripture, it is referring to the Law of Moses (Torah), Prophets and Writings (i.e., the Old Testament)? By what authority do you call the New Testament scripture? By what authority do you include the letters of Paul, John, Peter, James and Jude as scripture, and of equal weight as the OT and Gospels, while ignoring what is commonly called the apocrypha?
The same men (catholics) who decided to include Acts through Jude in the ‘canon of scripture’ could just as easily have excluded those books as they did the apocrypha.
Your arguments for an infallible Bible are really silly, all things considered, and your legal posturing for rote obedience to the Bible is laughable in as much as you belong to a corporate body that ignores many scriptures. Have you pleaded your case for rote obedience to all the NT to your church board and membership?
If you loved the law of the Lord like you claim, I should think you’d be leading the charge to defrock your women pastors; replace your women elders and teachers; silence your women and make them cover their heads!
December 4th, 2006 at 11:39 am
“…as also our beloved brother Paul, according to the wisdom given to him, has written to you,
16 as also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things, in which are some things hard to understand, which untaught and unstable people twist to their own destruction, as they do also the rest of the Scriptures.
17You therefore, beloved, since you know this beforehand, beware lest you also fall from your own steadfastness, being led away with the error of the wicked; (2 Peter 3:15-17) emphasis mine…:o)
I see ‘rest’ as an inclusive word that links Paul’s word with the ‘rest of scriptures’?
) Of course, you are wiser than Peter, who assumed/recognized that Paul’s writings were ‘inspired’?
The fallable men who decided on cannonizing scripture were led by God, just as the original authors of the manuscripts were inspired by God, Who is perfectly capable of using each of us weak, imperfect, followers to accomplish His will and further His kingdom. Is He not capable of making sure each generation has the recorded means to know and understand their Creator? God–haters have tried throughout the centuries to eradicate the Bible, while God has tenderly watched over and preserved His written word.
I do not worship the Bible, any more than I worship the elements of communion. It is, however, a practical study tool that the Spirit teaches me from daily. I’m sorry that you have such a difficult time accepting the word as a necessary part/pattern of Christian living. I’m ever so curious; what do you use as a guide for your Christian life? How do you know what Jesus did in order to follow Him? How do you know if you are being led away from the Truth that has released you from the bonds of sin’s deadly snare? What is the ‘point’ of your salvation?
All of Christianity is a delicate balance;
Paul emphatically wrote to the Galations to quit trying to go back under the law, yet James was just as adamant that faith without works is dead. Those kind of paradoxical statements do not trouble me. I can have confidence that it is not by my works or how well I follow the law that I please God OR gain eternal life, yet I can also believe that if my Christianity is not demonstrated by a transformed, thankful life and does not affect humanity in a positive way, I have deceived myself and do not have saving faith.
I can believe ALL of scripture, knowing that the God I serve is beyond my limited comprehension, yet He has graciously given me the ‘mind of Christ ‘ (1 Cor. 2:16) to guide me, and promises that if I am lacking in wisdom, all I have to do is ask, and He will give it to me (James 1:5-8) then I can walk with confidence that my life is fully pleasing to Him, not based on my own ‘wisdom’ but on His direction.
There is no perfect church, just as there are no perfect people. God has put me in the body I am in, and my role is to let my life be a living epistle, that others may be ministered to, loved, encouraged, edified, exhorted and/or convicted in whatever capacity God uses me.
December 4th, 2006 at 12:36 pm
So were the translators inspired too? If so, why was the KJV translator allowed to change the 6th commandment from “Thou shalt not murder” (original Hebrew meaning) to “Thou shalt not kill”? I’d be willing to bet the large majority of Christians today believe the incorrect translation is the actual commandment because of a translation mistake that has existed for over 200 years. How does a Bible flaw like that line up with your previous statements?
This isn’t about finding a flaw with the Bible so we can rebel. It’s about accepting the possibility that the Bible has accumulated human-based errors over the years and we need to use our God-given discernment instead of blindly following every last letter of Scripture without question.
December 4th, 2006 at 12:38 pm
I highly recommend the book “Misquoting Jesus” by Bart D. Ehrman. It is a layman’s explanation on the origin of the New Testament and why we only have the copies of the copies and no original texts. It’s an eye opener for sure, and something that will make anyone question the idea of an “inerrant” Bible that is clearly full of errors. It is probably not the only book you should read on the subject, but it is a good start.
However, after reading it, I tend to think my faith is stronger, for the reason that in spite of all the numerous problems, the basics of the Christian faith still hold together under scrutiny. It’s like looking at a large photograph with small faded spots and stains. Some details have been obscured, but the overall gist of the image is still there and the lost details have little or nothing to do with the Eternal Purpose. Christians who quibble over these details are being petty in most cases. Christians who still insist that the photograph is “perfect” have their heads up their asses.
Misquoting Jesus on Amazon.com
December 4th, 2006 at 1:04 pm
Hungry,
Twice now you have stated:
I feel quite certain you are correct, as otherwise how could we have confidence that God is greater than our ability to error, HOWEVER, I’m still perplexed.
If God did exert His omnipotent power to preserve an infallible and inerrant Bible, in the same manner with the copiests and the canonical councils, as with the original writers, then why is that of the thousands of Greek, Aramaic and Hebrew manuscripts, we find no two manuscripts 100% agreeing with each other?
What does this do to our understanding of “inerrant?” My question is not focused towards a conclusion that we have a useless Bible, because I know we don’t, but what about this matter of inerrancy?
And, if the doctrine of inerrancy is predicated 100% on the belief that the original manuscripts were 100% inerrant, of which we have none of these original manuscripts, how does that commute confidence to me that my bible, which is based on “errant” copies, should still justifiably be considered “inerrant.” Maybe I don’t know what “inerrant means.”
I don’t understand this. Can someone help me with this matter?
December 4th, 2006 at 1:33 pm
Since Pilate washed his hands of Jesus execution, believers have been absolving themselves of their involvement in corporate evil. How can anyone be so adamant about obeying scripture, yet be a card carrying / contributing member of an institution that habitually disobeys scripture?
Come out of her (the institution) my people - do not take part in her (the institution’s) sins … (Revelation 18:4) …
So, Hungry, you never said how you feel about women in ministry - how you resolve the issue of women ministers at your church, or ignoring Paul’s instructions regarding women.
December 4th, 2006 at 1:34 pm
Tom, it will probably sound like I am picking on you but I have a question. Are you telling the truth when you say
I think you know exactly what you believe and are not really expecting someone to ‘help’ you.
December 4th, 2006 at 1:36 pm
I am sorry I thought I was only highlighting the inserting the phrase “I don’t understand this. Can someone help me with this matter?”
December 4th, 2006 at 1:44 pm
Great to hear from you again JB, even if it is to pick my words to pieces.
You are partially correct. I actually do reserve a place within me for unanswered questions about such a controversial subject, but because direct confrontation of this issue is sooooo over the top for IC trained people, I have couched my partial beliefs in genuine questions. I’d rather have people think than just emotionally over react and lead this subject into the morass of human personality conflicts and angry emotion.
I have pondered this subject for years and years, and I have more questions about it today than back when I went to Bible College. My current “beliefs” in this area are more like “strong leanings,” so, rather than just make folks here angry, I’d love to have some of these good thinkers express the fruit of their journey, and at the same time challenge some of their conditioned answers to a subject I suspect some have failed to adequately explore, based on the answers they’ve been fed.
That’s the rest of the story…
December 4th, 2006 at 1:45 pm
Purl,
If you have a hard time with sarcasm, then you probably won’t like this blog much.
:P
December 4th, 2006 at 1:52 pm
JB,
As best as I understand inserting quotes here, you click the small box above the comments box, that reads “b-quote,” then you travel up the blog and copy the section you want to quote, and then paste it in after the “b-quote” you placed in the comments box, and at the end of the quote you click the same “b-quote” box again, and voila…you have just inserted a quote.
Hope this helps!
December 4th, 2006 at 4:37 pm
(1 Timothy 6:3-5)
)
Once one senses a frothing mouth and sees that rabid glow in somebody’s eye, (or post) you know that you are involved in something that will serve no purpose…it is at that point that one needs to amicably agree to disagree…:o)
It’s sure been fun…I’m not leaving…just watching until I feel I have something less ’subjective’ to share…:o)
December 4th, 2006 at 6:12 pm
Dear Hungry,
I’m not sure if you were referring to me in your statement:
But, if so, well, I surely don’t want that to be true, and if all I’ve done is anger or frustrate you, that was not my intention, though I will have to admit, that frustration and confusion are often the gateways to further insight.
I love the scriptures, and I study them all the time. They are continually a deep well of the inbreathing of God into my spirit man. However, as time has gone by I believe the Lord has been showing me, that what motivated the Church, from the time of Adam and Eve, up through the apostolic writers, is “The Word of the Lord.” I know theologians have equated “The Word of the Lord,” with Scripture, but I believe this is a grave mistake.
I surely believe the scripture reflects the Word of the Lord, but the Word of the Lord is more specifically that which the Living Word, the Lord Jesus, speaks at any given time, to those who hunger for His Word. With the “canonization” of scripture, while they “may” have had good intentions in this development, the down side, from my perspective, is that it turned the Church away from listening for, responding to, and thriving in, “The Word of the Lord.”
Along with our doctrines of inspiration, infallibility, and inerrancy of scripture, we have placed such an emphasis on the written scriptures to the down playing of “The Word of the Lord.”
Certainly I’m a huge proponent of not accepting every prophecy as necessarily being “The Word of the Lord,” but I want my ear to be opened to hear Him speak, and while I revere the scriptures, I resist the outcomes of these Church council doctrines to diminish my respect for, appreciation of, and obedience to “The Word of the Lord.”
The Church quickly detoured from a creation view of life, to an Aristotelian, Socratic, and Platonic rationalism, that filled the Catholic Church, and has led all of Church history down the pathway towards an over emphasis on a rational, intellectual, cerebral approach to God. I’m convinced this has been a very unhealthy outcome, and we would do well to question it, and see if God would deliver us from it. In some cases it has led to a worship of scripture over God, and in others a worship of human skill in hermeneutically, exegetically, and contextually working with scripture. It has all too often led to hero worship of the scholars, the preachers, and the doctors of theology. We gave them too much of our trust, and allowed, unwittingly, them to lead us off course from the living God Himself.
One of the great dangers of the IC is that it distracts the believers from the centrality of Jesus, and places their focus on man, on programs, on scripture interpretation, etc. etc., and away from Jesus Himself.
Certainly I’m not advocating for an “irrational/crazy” approach to God and His Word, but I am suggesting that an approach to His Word that values, even longs for “The Living Word of the Lord,” coming to His people, is more in line with what the Old and New Testament writers anticipated for God’s people, especially with the coming of the Holy Spirit.
Listen to Psalm 138
Psa 138:1 Of David. I give you thanks, O LORD, with my whole heart; before the gods I sing your praise;
Psa 138:2 I bow down toward your holy temple and give thanks to your name for your steadfast love and your faithfulness, for you have exalted above all things your name and your word.
Psa 138:3 On the day I called, you answered me; my strength of soul you increased.
Psa 138:4 All the kings of the earth shall give you thanks, O LORD, for they have heard the words of your mouth,
Psa 138:5 and they shall sing of the ways of the LORD, for great is the glory of the LORD.
Notice how David speaks of the lofty place of His name and word. Then notice he’s not directly referring to the scripture, but to “The words of your mouth,” which God had answered David with.
Before we are too quick to say, “Yes, but David is a writer of scripture,” what is the likelihood that David knew that? To David he just saw himself as a man, like any other man, who loved to have God speak to Him.
Is there great danger in man saying “God said this, or God said that?” Sure, but look how, for at least 4100 years God took that risk. He identified false prophets and teachers as those who led His people away from Him, and towards false gods, idols, and abominable practices of human sacrifice and immorality. He didn’t sweat the ones who were doing their best to hear from Him and faithfully communicate that to His people, but who undoubtedly didn’t get it 100% right. He worked with them, and we believe He guided men to consider scripture writers as being those writers who got it more right, perhaps even perfectly right, than others.
The point is, when the Church gave such emphasis to “canon,” and all the Catholic Church councils, and even non Catholic councils, somewhere in all those discussions a resultant rationalism developed in the Church, and common men and women lost their anticipation of the “Word of the Lord” coming to them. They learned to turn to the theological doctors to tell them what God had said, what scripture meant, and for centuries they stopped even hoping for a bible to read.
We are still coming out of all that stuff. The dark ages were dark for all kinds of reasons, but one of the reasons it was so dark is because the Church so corrupted the image of God and His Word that men became slaves of a religious system and an institutional Church, which devasted millions of people worldwide.
We look at history myopicly, and fail to see that God is working with history in the bigger picture. The bigger picture for today is that God is bringing millions, worldwide, out of the IC Church, with its over emphasis on rational/cerebral approaches to Scripture, and teaching them to hear Him in Scripture, to wait on Him for His Word to come to them, and to believe that even if they don’t have some high falluting title or seminary degree they can still hear the ever living God speak.
I surely hear Him in scripture, and I’m not comfortable with hearing things in Him that contradict scripture, but I don’t want to restrict His voice to that which is written in scripture.
I no longer feel as great a need for an infallible or inerrant bible, as much as I see a great need for people to walk intimately with our God, and let Him teach us afresh to hear His voice.
I’m not as concerned if all that Paul wrote is infallible or not. It wouldn’t surprise me if it was and if it wasn’t. I don’t worship Paul, though I love and respect him. I’m leaning away from needing scripture to be inerrant for it to still be a source for the inbreathing of God.
To some this represents a move towards heresy, and I sure hope not, but I believe multitudes are coming to recognize that their personal approach to scripture is far less “scholarly,” and far more personal and intimate an experience with God.
He is alive, and He is still speaking, and I’m no longer fearful that if the bible is less than flawless that I can’t hear and follow God. I can, I am, and I believe you are too.
December 4th, 2006 at 7:06 pm
Rest assured, Tom, I’m neither angry NOR frustrated…I had a great time sparring with you and the other ‘anti-scripture’ folks (just teasing!
) I think it’s always good practice to be able to articulate clearly what you believe and why, as well as exercise the spirit and get to know those amazing Scriptures better… *Grin*
I’ve just found that there comes a time when I know that I will not be convinced in a particular area that my beliefs are wrong, and the person I am communicating with is just as convinced that their view is correct, that it does no good to circle around, chase rabbit trails and wade your way through a fog of verbiage to try to agree.
)
I don’t have to convince anyone that my way is the only way, or that I have an enlightened handle on the Truth. I just like to say what I believe about my passions…not that anyone particularly cares but me…*Cheezy grin*
Bless you!
)
December 4th, 2006 at 7:21 pm
Hungry,
That’s nice! I’m glad you weren’t too miffed by the interchange.
As for me…I admit, it’s a mix. I enjoy some theological interaction. I’m sure I still have a latent “need” to be agreed with, thus too pushy at times, and finally I really do feel very passionate about some things. This matter of “The Word of the Lord,” I guess is one of them.