Gen 21:12 ... in all that Sarah hath said unto thee, hearken unto her voice; for in Isaac shall thy seed be called.
Abraham was about to make a mistake, when God told him to listen to his wife.
Why would God do that?
It's simple, really. Sarah was right, and Abraham was wrong.
Care to guess why I desire to submit to women in the church?
I know a 75 year old woman who knows the scripture and who knows pain. She's right and the men she follows are wrong a predictable portion of the time. She should be leading in that body. If she were, it would be a different and better place.
---
I was thinking about practical rules to put in place to move women into leadership in our churches.
First, turning the church entirely over to women is never what I wanted, so don't sweat that. It's not practical, and not profitable. Neither is making a rule that it is OK for women to lead, and waiting until the Spirit brings along Paulette the Apostlette. If a church waits for a woman so impressive that nobody could gainsay her appointment, no progress will be made.
I came up with the number, 20%.
20% seemed eminently practical. One in every five is enough to sway a vote, and few enough to allow women to mature into the position.
Then 2 details came to light that made me grin. First, DugALug let us know that 20% of the leadership in his church is female. Second, 20% of all legislators in America are female. I have not done an analysis of the names and roles mentioned in the new testament, but I'd just about bet that there's about a 1 to 4 ratio of women to men there, too.
So 20% really does seem like a good number. I think it's a great place to start. The next step is simple.
If your church has 4 elders, you should immediately appoint your most qualified woman to be the 5th elder.
---
Now, assume your church does the opposite. Your church decides that women's roles are limited by scripture.
What do I think will happen?
* Your explanation is going to have to get a lot better
You can tell a child that the "music truck" drives through his neighborhood every afternoon so that people can enjoy its (tired, boring, old) songs. That will last until the child notices his friends getting ice cream from it, and then things are going to have to change. You don't have to buy the ice cream, but you know you're going to have to come up with a real answer to his tough questions.
Today, I am prevented from being in a church led by my elder sister, my mother in the Lord, and I know that I could be. I've seen the ice cream in the workplace, and I've seen it in government, and I've seen it in my recreations. I want to see this woman leading in the church. I know she could be setting an agenda that would warm my heart, but she is prevented. She has no husband, and she has no other man's ear, so she will never have any kind of voice in her church. I want my ice cream. I need a better explanation why I cannot serve under her.
Throwing 1 Tim 2 and 1 Cor 11 & 14 at me and expecting me to stand down won't work, either. Even if I thought there was merit to the traditional interpretation, that's not an explanation. That's laziness. I need to hear how this church plans to ensure gender-based abuse will stop. I need to hear how they expect the full masculine and feminine sides of the image of God to be displayed before the world without direct feminine input. I need to hear how women with the gift of teaching will be encouraged to live out their calling. I need to hear how women with a vision for the church will be heard. I need to hear how, when the time comes that Sarah has a truth that Abraham lacks, Sarah will be heard.
If you want me to be happy in your church, build me a picture that I can get excited about.
No, I don't believe that you can.
* Women will continue to support your church
Women, please forgive me for what I am about to say. I know it is unpleasant, but I believe it is true.
You may not have noticed, but the most passionate defenders of complementarianism are women. You may also not have noticed, but most of the passionate defenders of the burka are the women who wear it. It's like Stockholm Syndrome, and it is a painful thing to watch.
Women, being dynamic living beings just like all of us, want to share in every facet of the church. They are told from the time they are 6 years old, though, that it is rebellion to want to speak truth to men. This is unnatural. It is confusing and painful.
Men, truly take a minute to imagine that you read in scripture that people with eyes the color of yours are not allowed to speak in a bible study - ever. Really, think about it. Eye color. It's a flawed, but useful analogy because it is completely out of your control. Imagine that Jewish men have thanked God for millenia that they were born with ANY other eye color than yours. From the time you were six, every bible teaching you received about speaking the truth had a little parenthesis added to it about your eye color. Before you were 20, you had been told 500 times or more that your eye color just doesn't see some truths of God, so you must submit to everyone else. You live in a community that will never, ever let you forget that you are different. Even in marriage, your sole job is to make sure your "other-colored" mate is able to do those things for God that you cannot.
You have a choice. Will you or won't you give up your desire to speak? Catch that. You must give up the desire to share God's truth. Anything less is a rebellion of the heart. You want to serve the Lord, but you mustn't do it by teaching. You want to talk about Him, even as you're sweeping floors for Him. You'll gladly be a janitor, but can't you just say a word or two? Can't you declare before the congregation the things that fill your heart?
You have a choice. You can either live with this secret rebellion in your heart, or you can turn fanatically against it. You love the Lord, so you will decide to purge yourself of this unholy desire to speak when your eyes are the wrong color. You will prove your zeal to yourself, to God and to your brothers by not even wishing your eye color was different, and squelching any who do. Your submission will be known to all when you argue against anyone who supports the holy hunger that still cowers in in the corner of your heart.
Women will support your church and its laws.
Shame on you for letting them.
---
Assume your church does put women in positions of true leadership.
What do I think will happen?
* The sun will rise in the morning, just like yesterday.
Hey. I know this isn't going to cure the common cold. It's likely to result in more chicken soup being handed out when the cold runs it course through the church, though. Let's face it. We men pretty much look at whoever is sniffling and tell them to buck up. But we all like it when someone we love brings us a cup o' soup.
Our problems won't go away because women are allowed to tackle them with us. We'll just have a more perfectly balanced set of tools with which to address them.
* The henpecking will go down by half.
Seriously, do we think it could be made worse? Do you complain more when you can or when you cannot directly improve your situation? Receiving authority always reduces complaints, or the whole of corporate America would not be singing the praises of empowerment. When you can control your own destiny, you don't complain; you throw your back into making things better. Much of the nagging in this world is an expression of helplessness, not bitterness. As soon as the disease is addressed, the symptom will fade on its own.
* Priorities will shift by about 20%, but that 20% will make a huge difference.
Women "do" life differently than men.
Take the example above with Sarah and Abraham. Women are criticized for being territorial, but Sarah was being territorial in that moment. That's cool because God needed someone to stand up and be territorial. Abraham was not going to be able to do it, so God placed Abraham into submission to Sarah. (OK, OK. Maybe God placed Abraham into submission to the truth that Sarah was declaring. :-)
Men and women cave on different issues, and stand firm on different issues. Women are caring and territorial. Men are goal oriented and hierarchical. Some men are more naturally caring than others, and some women are more naturally hierarchical. That's cool. The point is not to define the stereotype perfectly, but to get the benefits of balance. Yes, all men should learn to be more caring, and all women should learn to... well something, I'm sure. ;-), but that's peripheral. The point is to balance the church, and the balance will best come by putting women on the scales along with the men. Asking men to change their spots just ain't a recipe for success.
I don't even want to know what happens if women are running everything. I'm sure it would not be pretty. But, we already know what happens when men run everything. We get exactly what the male stereotype predicts. We get thousands of denominations, and the threat of another church split with every disagreement. We get doctrinal litmus tests, and a pecking order of theological machismo in every church. We get a church in which cool programs are launched to help widows and orphans and then forgotten as soon as the next goal shines just over the horizon.
* More needs will be seen
Women are amazed at how we men don't care about the needs all around us. But, that's exactly why we need women in leadership.
Us male creatures care deeply, once somebody helps us see what what to care for. Our eyes are on goals. The church is not praying. We are not deeply enough into the word. There are 34,827 people in our sub metro area, of whom 16,289 are probably unchurched and 853 may never have heard the gospel. You say Mary's roof is leaking? Wow! Why hasn't someone done something about that?! Let me get on the phone! We'll have Mary a new roof this week.
We may carry coffee around just like women, but we don't talk about the same things while we are doing it.
* Third party church leadership will end
The solution to unseen needs is not for women to, "tell their husbands."
Third party leadership is demeaning to everyone involved, and it is vastly less effective than first party leadership. Please, just let the woman who sees the problem have the power to call in every necessary resource to fix it. There is no good argument against this.
---
The status quo is gone. Grasping at the traditional interpretations is clinging to the railings of a sinking ship.
Our sisters have already tasted total freedom in every sphere of life, except the church, and that taste cannot be taken back. If you believe feminine freedom to be the curse of Pandora, and that it must be fixed, then do it wisely. It is the work of fools to try to turn back the hands of time, and to make believe that women cannot lead men. It is the work of slave masters to quote a verse, and to expect quiet obedience. It is the work of the kingdom to set captives free.
If you believe you can do this, and if you do cling to the traditional interpretation of Paul, then tell me how you will set my sisters free. If you believe you can draw out every gift God gave to women. If you believe you can stop the history of abuse that women have suffered under the church's care. If you believe you can find a way for my 75 year old mother in the Lord to be truly fulfilled and obedient to the scriptures while hiding truth she has received out of them under a bushel basket, then paint that picture.
I believe you will find your labors wasted. Paul is the only writer ever accused of saying anything against women being in charge, and he never said what you ascribe to him. An open look at each of Paul's statements shows that in every case he sets women free. We don't appeal weakly to culture, or to times having changed to sweep Paul's words under a rug. Paul worked easily and happily with women, and he wanted to see them trained and respected as leaders. His words to Corinth and Timothy show that clearly enough.
Instead, let's take a brave look at what it means for women to to be presbuteras - elders. Let's see how far the church can go when everyone in the ship has their oars in the water, and is rowing for all they're worth and according to the gifts God has given them. It may be that there are ways of loving God, loving each other, and overcoming the world that remain to be displayed before men and angels. Let's go through the door Paul threw open.
If you wonder how to make the church more effective, you could do worse than to remember the Lord said, "It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him a helper fit for him."
We need each other.
03 September, 2006
31 August, 2006
Bible Study: Repent
Tonight was bible study night, the last one before the three week "semester break."
The pastor chose the verse. He wanted us all to look at Acts 2:38 about repenting and being baptized. He wanted us all to study baptism together.
I just could not get excited about the bunch of us getting all doctrinal together. Odd for me, of course, since I used to be SOOO doctrinal, but I really wanted to study experiential scripture.
Anyway, I studied like a bit of a stick in the mud.
:-
But I did study.
:-
We got together, and it turns out the Lord has been moving the message of repentance in his heart, and we talked about repenting all night long. It was fabulous! I had checked my stick in the mudness at the door, and I was so glad. (There were only 4 of us, so it was kind of important that we were all fully engaged.)
:-)
We talked about sin and repentance and how baptism is likened to pickling cucumbers. I thought that was so cool. The pastor's wife brought that one, and he had found it independently as well. A certain ancient Greek explained how to baptize a cucumber in vinegar to turn it into a pickle. We are preserved in Christ.
The conversation then moved into God Himself and our need to hear and talk about Him.
It was two hours of pure delight.
---
This post took about 10 minutes to write, once I turned off Agassi and Bagdhatis and got focused. The last presbuteras post will take longer than that, so look for it some time this weekend.
Love ya'll!
The pastor chose the verse. He wanted us all to look at Acts 2:38 about repenting and being baptized. He wanted us all to study baptism together.
I just could not get excited about the bunch of us getting all doctrinal together. Odd for me, of course, since I used to be SOOO doctrinal, but I really wanted to study experiential scripture.
Anyway, I studied like a bit of a stick in the mud.
:-
But I did study.
:-
We got together, and it turns out the Lord has been moving the message of repentance in his heart, and we talked about repenting all night long. It was fabulous! I had checked my stick in the mudness at the door, and I was so glad. (There were only 4 of us, so it was kind of important that we were all fully engaged.)
:-)
We talked about sin and repentance and how baptism is likened to pickling cucumbers. I thought that was so cool. The pastor's wife brought that one, and he had found it independently as well. A certain ancient Greek explained how to baptize a cucumber in vinegar to turn it into a pickle. We are preserved in Christ.
The conversation then moved into God Himself and our need to hear and talk about Him.
It was two hours of pure delight.
---
This post took about 10 minutes to write, once I turned off Agassi and Bagdhatis and got focused. The last presbuteras post will take longer than that, so look for it some time this weekend.
Love ya'll!
30 August, 2006
Verse of the Month: My Donkey in a Bind
Lu 14:5
And answered them, saying, Which of you shall have an ass or an ox fallen into a pit, and will not straightway pull him out on the sabbath day?
I will forgive anyone who thinks that I might have picked that verse just to be obtuse. Just remember, I don't have to work at all to be obtuse. It comes real natural-like.
---
Numbers 15
15:32 And while the children of Israel were in the wilderness, they found a man that gathered sticks upon the sabbath day.
15:33 And they that found him gathering sticks brought him unto Moses and Aaron, and unto all the congregation.
15:34 And they put him in ward, because it was not declared what should be done to him.
15:35 And the LORD said unto Moses, The man shall be surely put to death: all the congregation shall stone him with stones without the camp.
15:36 And all the congregation brought him without the camp, and stoned him with stones, and he died; as the LORD commanded Moses.
Focus on the words, "And the Lord said..."
Dude was picking up sticks! He was not hurting children, or stealing from widows, or worshipping other gods. He was going to build a fire for someone he loved.
And it was not some legalistic Pharisee who interpreted God's law so harshly. "And the Lord said..."
God had said,
Exodus 20
20:8 Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy.
20:9 Six days shalt thou labour, and do all thy work:
20:10 But the seventh day is the sabbath of the LORD thy God: in it thou shalt not do any work, thou, nor thy son, nor thy daughter, thy manservant, nor thy maidservant, nor thy cattle, nor thy stranger that is within thy gates:
20:11 For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the LORD blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it.
God meant it.
The sabbath was an expression of deep meaning, and deep symbolism. God would not allow His sabbath to be corrupted. The life of a man was forfeit for trying that command.
I harass the Jews for erecting hedge laws around the sabbath, for example codifying the number of miles that a man could walk on the sabbath without sinning against the day of rest. But could I have read about a man stoned until dead for picking up firewood, and not needed hedge laws? How many hedge laws did I erect even after Christ's Blood cleansed me? How far away and how frightening was God even after His Grace was shed abroad to all, even me?
The Jews learned every law, and kept them wholly.
And Jesus would have none of it.
Jesus got in their faces to heal on the sabbath. He went out of His way to do something bigger than picking up sticks before their very eyes. He violated the sabbath before them - but He did not violate God's law.
Matthew 12
12:11 And he said unto them, What man shall there be among you, that shall have one sheep, and if it fall into a pit on the sabbath day, will he not lay hold on it, and lift it out ?
12:12 How much then is a man better than a sheep? Wherefore it is lawful to do well on the sabbath days.
It is lawful to do well, even on the sabbath.
Let me be more clear.
It is lawful to violate the sabbath to do well.
A man was picking up sticks, and he was killed on God's own command. But, Jesus declares it divinely righteous to pick up a sheep, a donkey or even an ox on the sabbath. An ox weighs a lot more than a stick. Getting an ox out of a hole can be a whole day's work, and nothing restful about it.
Yet, Jesus doesn't even blink.
The sabbath is one of the 10 commandments. It was engraved on stone. But, Jesus places acts of love for animals above it. How much more so love for people?
How far below "love" is "law?"
I don't know, but may no law ever keep me from pulling a brother out of a pit.
(Said as a brother who knows what the bottom of a pit looks like....)
And answered them, saying, Which of you shall have an ass or an ox fallen into a pit, and will not straightway pull him out on the sabbath day?
I will forgive anyone who thinks that I might have picked that verse just to be obtuse. Just remember, I don't have to work at all to be obtuse. It comes real natural-like.
---
Numbers 15
15:32 And while the children of Israel were in the wilderness, they found a man that gathered sticks upon the sabbath day.
15:33 And they that found him gathering sticks brought him unto Moses and Aaron, and unto all the congregation.
15:34 And they put him in ward, because it was not declared what should be done to him.
15:35 And the LORD said unto Moses, The man shall be surely put to death: all the congregation shall stone him with stones without the camp.
15:36 And all the congregation brought him without the camp, and stoned him with stones, and he died; as the LORD commanded Moses.
Focus on the words, "And the Lord said..."
Dude was picking up sticks! He was not hurting children, or stealing from widows, or worshipping other gods. He was going to build a fire for someone he loved.
And it was not some legalistic Pharisee who interpreted God's law so harshly. "And the Lord said..."
God had said,
Exodus 20
20:8 Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy.
20:9 Six days shalt thou labour, and do all thy work:
20:10 But the seventh day is the sabbath of the LORD thy God: in it thou shalt not do any work, thou, nor thy son, nor thy daughter, thy manservant, nor thy maidservant, nor thy cattle, nor thy stranger that is within thy gates:
20:11 For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the LORD blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it.
God meant it.
The sabbath was an expression of deep meaning, and deep symbolism. God would not allow His sabbath to be corrupted. The life of a man was forfeit for trying that command.
I harass the Jews for erecting hedge laws around the sabbath, for example codifying the number of miles that a man could walk on the sabbath without sinning against the day of rest. But could I have read about a man stoned until dead for picking up firewood, and not needed hedge laws? How many hedge laws did I erect even after Christ's Blood cleansed me? How far away and how frightening was God even after His Grace was shed abroad to all, even me?
The Jews learned every law, and kept them wholly.
And Jesus would have none of it.
Jesus got in their faces to heal on the sabbath. He went out of His way to do something bigger than picking up sticks before their very eyes. He violated the sabbath before them - but He did not violate God's law.
Matthew 12
12:11 And he said unto them, What man shall there be among you, that shall have one sheep, and if it fall into a pit on the sabbath day, will he not lay hold on it, and lift it out ?
12:12 How much then is a man better than a sheep? Wherefore it is lawful to do well on the sabbath days.
It is lawful to do well, even on the sabbath.
Let me be more clear.
It is lawful to violate the sabbath to do well.
A man was picking up sticks, and he was killed on God's own command. But, Jesus declares it divinely righteous to pick up a sheep, a donkey or even an ox on the sabbath. An ox weighs a lot more than a stick. Getting an ox out of a hole can be a whole day's work, and nothing restful about it.
Yet, Jesus doesn't even blink.
The sabbath is one of the 10 commandments. It was engraved on stone. But, Jesus places acts of love for animals above it. How much more so love for people?
How far below "love" is "law?"
I don't know, but may no law ever keep me from pulling a brother out of a pit.
(Said as a brother who knows what the bottom of a pit looks like....)
29 August, 2006
Presbuteras: The Early Church?
Do me a favor before you read this post, and count the number of "F" 's in this sentence.
FINISHED FILES ARE THE RE
SULT OF YEARS OF SCIENTI
FIC STUDY COMBINED WITH
THE EXPERIENCE OF YEARS...
Now, it is going to come as no surprise to you if the number you come up with, and the number a computer would come up with are different. The difference is conditioning. We see what we are conditioned to see.
If you saw three of our letters in that sentence, you are a perfectly normal person. Four is rare, and seeing six qualifies you as a genius.
The tenor of the scripture is often brought into this discussion. The problem there is that the tenor of the scripture is a function of our conditioning much more than of the scripture itself. We all come to the bible with glasses on. What you make of this verse probably has more to do with your glasses than with the verse itself. But, if you see three or more female elders and deacons in the following verses, you are a genius. :-)
Philippians
4:2 I beseech Euodias, and beseech Syntyche, that they be of the same mind in the Lord.
4:3 And I intreat thee also, true yokefellow, help those women which laboured with me in the gospel, with Clement also, and with other my fellowlabourers, whose names are in the book of life.
I once saw this verse through male-colored glasses. Paul had a male yokefellow, Clement, and some other fellow laborers. He also had respect for some especially helpful women. Paul's yokefellow was supposed to help the women and the other coworkers. The women needed help because they were the weaker sex, and the men needed help because they were doing important work.
Today, my glasses are of a different color. I see that those women labored with Paul in the gospel. They were doing important work, and needed help because of the importance of their work.
So, did my glasses change well?
I believe so with all my heart.
Did changing my glasses change the truth?
No.
Those women did whatever it was they did, and Paul doesn't tell us what it was. We are left to ruminate and pontificate on the matter. Still, there is a lot of material with which to form our opinions. Karen listed a bunch of them in a previous comment, I previously linked a post from God's Word to Women that lists a bunch of them, and back in February I did a post that listed them all over again.
I read those verses with glasses on before, and I still do. I know that. I've just changed the color. I changed them because the scripture pushed me back into a corner. I was one of those fellows who was mad at Bobby Riggs for tanking every man's rep by losing to a girl at what was clearly a man's game. I wrote posters and otherwise campaigned against the ERA. Chauvinism was clearly God ordained, when exercised with the same loving care that Christ had for His bride. I was a loving, Christian, giving chauvinist, and I was proud of it.
Then the edifice of scripture started coming down around me.
After finding that Paul in Corinthians probably did not say what I thought he said, in Titus probably did not say everything I thought he said, and in Timothy said vastly less than I thought he said, my world started to spin a little more slowly. When I searched out Apphia, Junia, Tryphena, and all the other women whose necks and lives were found at risk for their their work with Paul, they began to look different. These were women of stature and substance. With my newly colored glasses, there was nothing to prevent these women from being of equal stature with Clement or Archippus (and slightly above Apollos ;-).
The tenor of scripture is that fewer women are leaders than men, but that they are effective when God calls them. DugALug has defended this position ably, and I agree with him. It appears that our only difference is that I believe women should be elders, and not just peripheral leaders.
In my next, and probably last post in this series, I will talk about why. For a preview, see this from the Milly Times!
FINISHED FILES ARE THE RE
SULT OF YEARS OF SCIENTI
FIC STUDY COMBINED WITH
THE EXPERIENCE OF YEARS...
Now, it is going to come as no surprise to you if the number you come up with, and the number a computer would come up with are different. The difference is conditioning. We see what we are conditioned to see.
If you saw three of our letters in that sentence, you are a perfectly normal person. Four is rare, and seeing six qualifies you as a genius.
The tenor of the scripture is often brought into this discussion. The problem there is that the tenor of the scripture is a function of our conditioning much more than of the scripture itself. We all come to the bible with glasses on. What you make of this verse probably has more to do with your glasses than with the verse itself. But, if you see three or more female elders and deacons in the following verses, you are a genius. :-)
Philippians
4:2 I beseech Euodias, and beseech Syntyche, that they be of the same mind in the Lord.
4:3 And I intreat thee also, true yokefellow, help those women which laboured with me in the gospel, with Clement also, and with other my fellowlabourers, whose names are in the book of life.
I once saw this verse through male-colored glasses. Paul had a male yokefellow, Clement, and some other fellow laborers. He also had respect for some especially helpful women. Paul's yokefellow was supposed to help the women and the other coworkers. The women needed help because they were the weaker sex, and the men needed help because they were doing important work.
Today, my glasses are of a different color. I see that those women labored with Paul in the gospel. They were doing important work, and needed help because of the importance of their work.
So, did my glasses change well?
I believe so with all my heart.
Did changing my glasses change the truth?
No.
Those women did whatever it was they did, and Paul doesn't tell us what it was. We are left to ruminate and pontificate on the matter. Still, there is a lot of material with which to form our opinions. Karen listed a bunch of them in a previous comment, I previously linked a post from God's Word to Women that lists a bunch of them, and back in February I did a post that listed them all over again.
I read those verses with glasses on before, and I still do. I know that. I've just changed the color. I changed them because the scripture pushed me back into a corner. I was one of those fellows who was mad at Bobby Riggs for tanking every man's rep by losing to a girl at what was clearly a man's game. I wrote posters and otherwise campaigned against the ERA. Chauvinism was clearly God ordained, when exercised with the same loving care that Christ had for His bride. I was a loving, Christian, giving chauvinist, and I was proud of it.
Then the edifice of scripture started coming down around me.
After finding that Paul in Corinthians probably did not say what I thought he said, in Titus probably did not say everything I thought he said, and in Timothy said vastly less than I thought he said, my world started to spin a little more slowly. When I searched out Apphia, Junia, Tryphena, and all the other women whose necks and lives were found at risk for their their work with Paul, they began to look different. These were women of stature and substance. With my newly colored glasses, there was nothing to prevent these women from being of equal stature with Clement or Archippus (and slightly above Apollos ;-).
The tenor of scripture is that fewer women are leaders than men, but that they are effective when God calls them. DugALug has defended this position ably, and I agree with him. It appears that our only difference is that I believe women should be elders, and not just peripheral leaders.
In my next, and probably last post in this series, I will talk about why. For a preview, see this from the Milly Times!
28 August, 2006
Dorkman!
Our old friends, Rich and Ken, from The Realm of Possibility have finally put out their first child's website:
The Dorkman Cometh!
If you have never read Rich riffing on the Web, you have missed one of the true acts of beauty and genius this medium affords. This book cannot be anything but comic and personal brilliance. I don't not recommend waiting for my review to pre-order your case quantities. :-)
The Dorkman Cometh!
If you have never read Rich riffing on the Web, you have missed one of the true acts of beauty and genius this medium affords. This book cannot be anything but comic and personal brilliance. I don't not recommend waiting for my review to pre-order your case quantities. :-)
Tennis: Playoff summary
The life lesson at the end of this piece is that I need to take responsibility for how things get into my head. Other than that, I'm just writing it because it is fun to tell tennis stories. Sometimes it is nice to know that nobody is going to read this stuff.
Anyway, this is the record of two matches.
Last weekend I played for the Columbus 3.5 men's championship singles. Which is a pretty cool way of saying that the 8 playoff bound teams each sent any old loser they could find who was willing to give up 2 days to tennis for the right brag misleadingly about his tennis skills. In the end, 4 men actually tried for the title.
Hardly anything to write home about.
Ah, but plenty enough for blog fodder, right?
This makes it all the sadder that I lost.
My first match was a semi-final. Sandy was my age, and was personable. His strokes turned out to be solid, but not deadly. The situation was into my head, but not too badly. I was nervous, but I could still feel the ball, so that was cool. If the stress levels get high enough, I describe myself as "playing by braille." I cannot feel my body as it goes through the motions my mind is telling it to try. All in all, everything was working OK. I was trading games with Sandy, but I was hitting well enough to take my share.
I won the first set at 6-4, and immediately began getting nervous about losing the second. It happens. I come in wound tight for the first set, and blow through, then loosen up in the second and lose it. I usually have to lose a few games in the second set to fix my head, and get back to hitting. It's stupid and dangerous, but I have not figured that mental hiccup out yet.
I stayed tight enough, I guess, because I won the second set 6-1.
In the the final, I played Matt. I know him and his game. I'd never played him in singles, and only beaten him once in doubles, and then because my partner was stronger than I was. I started the match wound really tight, and went up 5-0. I was drilling the balls into the corners, picking on his backhand and throwing him with spin shots. In short, I was playing my match.
Next thing I knew, it was 5-2, and I was down 15-40 on my serve. This was unpleasant, because I was not sure whether I was choking, or whether he was suddenly doing better. I ratcheted things up a bit in my head, and served harder. It was enough. I finished the first set 6-2.
I kept things up in the second set, starting it 1-0, but suddenly I looked up to find the score was 1-5. I had dumped 5 games in a row.
The questions were flowing through my head like blood in a slaughter house.
It's hard to think when things are so slippery and icky in the old brain department.
I had to ask, was I choking, or was he playing better?
What I would not give to learn how to think during a tennis match. Instead of thinking, though, I buckle down harder, and play my game. There are worse strategies. Buckling down brought me back to 4-5. I had taken three games straight, and fought to achieve deuce in the deciding game. If I won the next two points, then we were level, and the set was fresh. I did not. Matt took the second set 6-4.
I had the lead in the tiebreak 7-4 at one point. Then 8-6. Then suddenly it was 8-10.
I spent the next 3 days asking myself why I lost that match?
I decided it was because I did not see what was happening. You see, we were playing on clay, which is a surface I hardly know, and on which I am not comfortable. I play on hard courts. On clay, my flattish placement game is easily defended against, because the ball bounces slow and high. Matt plays on clay 3 times a week, and has for years. He knows that you win on clay by cranking massive topspin onto the ball and forcing errors from your opponent.
Simply put, whenever I could enforce my hardcourt style on Matt, I was winning. Whenever he could force his claycourt style on me, he was winning. It being a clay court, it was easier for him to force than it was for me.
The biggest thing in my mind, though, was that I never objectively understood what was happening until the match was over. If I had "gotten it" before the match ended, I might have been able to rush the net for his moonball topspins, and taken that weapon away from him. (Insert sounds of kicking self here.) I only needed two points to win that match. On those critical points, he was able to bait me with balls that looked easy, but really were solid topspins on clay.
Lesson learned.
Yesterday ended better. My team lost the meet 2-3, but I won my match.
I've got to tell you, I wish someone had been rolling videotape, because it was one of my best ever. Doggone it's fun when thing are working like that. Both teams had placed their #1 player on court #2. It's a strategy my captain favors, so I play on court #2 a lot. (When Tom is there, he is our #1 player, but he was not there yesterday.) JR was their #1 player, so JR and I squared off. Before the warmups were over, it was clear to everyone on the court that he and I were equal, and that our partners were both pretty average. JR was more aggressive than I am maybe, but we hit the same serve, same groundstrokes and with the same intensity.
The first set was 6-0.
It was a pleasant surprise to me, and a complete shock to them. Everything was working. JR's serve was the best I'd seen all year, and I was returning it effectively with ease. My partner was having a little trouble with it, but he got back enough to close out the set cleanly. I probably had fewer than 10 shots in that set that I could complain about. It was massively wonderful and totally surprising.
The second set started out 3-0. We had kept up the roll. That turn into the second set is one of the hardest things in tennis, and we had made it. We dropped one game for 3-1, but that was no sweat, because I was serving again, and my serve was on.
JR looked at me and politely said, "I need you to watch out for those foot faults."
We lost the set 3-6.
Yes.
Just like that, I lost 5 games in a row for us.
That's what it takes to beat Kevin Knox at the game of tennis.
I have no clue how to fight that kind of head game.
That's embarassing.
And not very effective.
You see, my style of serve is engineered to ensure that I never, ever foot fault. I place my left foot one inch back of the service line (just to be sure,) and then never move it. My right foot ends up safely behind my left, so at no moment is there any risk that I have foot faulted. Therefore, JR was saying that strictly to get into my head. He wanted to mess up my serve a bit by getting me to start thinking about my motion and delivery. Little did he know that I was going to start a mental meltdown of epic proportions. He was happy to take the next 5 games straight, though.
The third set started on my serve again. I had just finished losing two service games in a row, but I managed to successfully mentally reset. How much of that was because a pretty girl started watching the match, I'll never know. She was there for 4 games, watching everyone. I don't know why that settles my mind the way it does, but we won those 4 games, and started the third set up 4-0.
Somehow, imagining that someone is watching me allows me to quit thinking about myself and start thinking about the job at hand. I don't know why that is, but it surely is.
We ended the third set 6-2. We had effectively crushed the best team our opponents could field, and it felt good. It felt great.
I was really angry about JR having resorted to such a cheap trick, and I told a former parnter about it. Steve looked at me and said, "So really, it was your fault. You should never have let him get into your head like that."
I told him to keep telling me that, because I needed to hear it. I guess I will have to figure it out somehow. It was my fault. I knew what he was doing, and why, and I am solely at fault for us almost tossing the whole match. Thank goodness for random pretty girls. ;-)
---
There were several highlights. I will mention two.
They dropshotted me all through the match. That makes me smile from a very deep place in my heart. :-) I wear right side knee and elbow braces whenever I play. They are mandatory, but only from a maintenance perspective. Without them, the pain makes play impossible. They don't indicate any actual weakness, though. I don't believe they won a single point that they dropshotted me. I will cross 40 feet before that little ball bounces twice every time. Yesterday, I got there and did something effective with the ball every time. That is more fun than almost anything.
They also tried some lobs on us. I got to most of them as well. There was one in particular, though, that was a highlight. They hit one deep into our backhand corner. I tracked that sucker all the way back to the fence, and put a particularly sucky backhand on it. It was nowhere even near the court.
What makes that a highlight is that there is a 4 inch steel lamppost back there, square shaped. It was not even in my mind.
I have no idea how fast I was going when I hit it, but I know that I keep my head up on my backhand, because I hit it square in the center of my chest, instead of hitting it with my head (which would have been more dangerous for the lamppost.) It was just like on the cartoons. My whole body kept moving at full speed, but my chest stopped. My arms and legs flew straight ahead, and then ended up wrapped rather intimately around my insensitive new friend. I just hung there for a second until my mind concocted a likely story to explain what on earth had just happened. :-)
I wish and double wish that I had that on tape. It had to be hilarious.
They asked me how I was feeling, and I admitted that I had felt better.
I must not have been going too fast, though, because it hurts today, but not badly enough to slow my trip back from Atlanta to Columbus.
I love that game.
---
The trip down to Atlanta was uneventful, and I expect the trip home to be the same.
---
Yep, uneventful. I'm home now, and should get back to presbuteras shortly.
Anyway, this is the record of two matches.
Last weekend I played for the Columbus 3.5 men's championship singles. Which is a pretty cool way of saying that the 8 playoff bound teams each sent any old loser they could find who was willing to give up 2 days to tennis for the right brag misleadingly about his tennis skills. In the end, 4 men actually tried for the title.
Hardly anything to write home about.
Ah, but plenty enough for blog fodder, right?
This makes it all the sadder that I lost.
My first match was a semi-final. Sandy was my age, and was personable. His strokes turned out to be solid, but not deadly. The situation was into my head, but not too badly. I was nervous, but I could still feel the ball, so that was cool. If the stress levels get high enough, I describe myself as "playing by braille." I cannot feel my body as it goes through the motions my mind is telling it to try. All in all, everything was working OK. I was trading games with Sandy, but I was hitting well enough to take my share.
I won the first set at 6-4, and immediately began getting nervous about losing the second. It happens. I come in wound tight for the first set, and blow through, then loosen up in the second and lose it. I usually have to lose a few games in the second set to fix my head, and get back to hitting. It's stupid and dangerous, but I have not figured that mental hiccup out yet.
I stayed tight enough, I guess, because I won the second set 6-1.
In the the final, I played Matt. I know him and his game. I'd never played him in singles, and only beaten him once in doubles, and then because my partner was stronger than I was. I started the match wound really tight, and went up 5-0. I was drilling the balls into the corners, picking on his backhand and throwing him with spin shots. In short, I was playing my match.
Next thing I knew, it was 5-2, and I was down 15-40 on my serve. This was unpleasant, because I was not sure whether I was choking, or whether he was suddenly doing better. I ratcheted things up a bit in my head, and served harder. It was enough. I finished the first set 6-2.
I kept things up in the second set, starting it 1-0, but suddenly I looked up to find the score was 1-5. I had dumped 5 games in a row.
The questions were flowing through my head like blood in a slaughter house.
It's hard to think when things are so slippery and icky in the old brain department.
I had to ask, was I choking, or was he playing better?
What I would not give to learn how to think during a tennis match. Instead of thinking, though, I buckle down harder, and play my game. There are worse strategies. Buckling down brought me back to 4-5. I had taken three games straight, and fought to achieve deuce in the deciding game. If I won the next two points, then we were level, and the set was fresh. I did not. Matt took the second set 6-4.
I had the lead in the tiebreak 7-4 at one point. Then 8-6. Then suddenly it was 8-10.
I spent the next 3 days asking myself why I lost that match?
I decided it was because I did not see what was happening. You see, we were playing on clay, which is a surface I hardly know, and on which I am not comfortable. I play on hard courts. On clay, my flattish placement game is easily defended against, because the ball bounces slow and high. Matt plays on clay 3 times a week, and has for years. He knows that you win on clay by cranking massive topspin onto the ball and forcing errors from your opponent.
Simply put, whenever I could enforce my hardcourt style on Matt, I was winning. Whenever he could force his claycourt style on me, he was winning. It being a clay court, it was easier for him to force than it was for me.
The biggest thing in my mind, though, was that I never objectively understood what was happening until the match was over. If I had "gotten it" before the match ended, I might have been able to rush the net for his moonball topspins, and taken that weapon away from him. (Insert sounds of kicking self here.) I only needed two points to win that match. On those critical points, he was able to bait me with balls that looked easy, but really were solid topspins on clay.
Lesson learned.
Yesterday ended better. My team lost the meet 2-3, but I won my match.
I've got to tell you, I wish someone had been rolling videotape, because it was one of my best ever. Doggone it's fun when thing are working like that. Both teams had placed their #1 player on court #2. It's a strategy my captain favors, so I play on court #2 a lot. (When Tom is there, he is our #1 player, but he was not there yesterday.) JR was their #1 player, so JR and I squared off. Before the warmups were over, it was clear to everyone on the court that he and I were equal, and that our partners were both pretty average. JR was more aggressive than I am maybe, but we hit the same serve, same groundstrokes and with the same intensity.
The first set was 6-0.
It was a pleasant surprise to me, and a complete shock to them. Everything was working. JR's serve was the best I'd seen all year, and I was returning it effectively with ease. My partner was having a little trouble with it, but he got back enough to close out the set cleanly. I probably had fewer than 10 shots in that set that I could complain about. It was massively wonderful and totally surprising.
The second set started out 3-0. We had kept up the roll. That turn into the second set is one of the hardest things in tennis, and we had made it. We dropped one game for 3-1, but that was no sweat, because I was serving again, and my serve was on.
JR looked at me and politely said, "I need you to watch out for those foot faults."
We lost the set 3-6.
Yes.
Just like that, I lost 5 games in a row for us.
That's what it takes to beat Kevin Knox at the game of tennis.
I have no clue how to fight that kind of head game.
That's embarassing.
And not very effective.
You see, my style of serve is engineered to ensure that I never, ever foot fault. I place my left foot one inch back of the service line (just to be sure,) and then never move it. My right foot ends up safely behind my left, so at no moment is there any risk that I have foot faulted. Therefore, JR was saying that strictly to get into my head. He wanted to mess up my serve a bit by getting me to start thinking about my motion and delivery. Little did he know that I was going to start a mental meltdown of epic proportions. He was happy to take the next 5 games straight, though.
The third set started on my serve again. I had just finished losing two service games in a row, but I managed to successfully mentally reset. How much of that was because a pretty girl started watching the match, I'll never know. She was there for 4 games, watching everyone. I don't know why that settles my mind the way it does, but we won those 4 games, and started the third set up 4-0.
Somehow, imagining that someone is watching me allows me to quit thinking about myself and start thinking about the job at hand. I don't know why that is, but it surely is.
We ended the third set 6-2. We had effectively crushed the best team our opponents could field, and it felt good. It felt great.
I was really angry about JR having resorted to such a cheap trick, and I told a former parnter about it. Steve looked at me and said, "So really, it was your fault. You should never have let him get into your head like that."
I told him to keep telling me that, because I needed to hear it. I guess I will have to figure it out somehow. It was my fault. I knew what he was doing, and why, and I am solely at fault for us almost tossing the whole match. Thank goodness for random pretty girls. ;-)
---
There were several highlights. I will mention two.
They dropshotted me all through the match. That makes me smile from a very deep place in my heart. :-) I wear right side knee and elbow braces whenever I play. They are mandatory, but only from a maintenance perspective. Without them, the pain makes play impossible. They don't indicate any actual weakness, though. I don't believe they won a single point that they dropshotted me. I will cross 40 feet before that little ball bounces twice every time. Yesterday, I got there and did something effective with the ball every time. That is more fun than almost anything.
They also tried some lobs on us. I got to most of them as well. There was one in particular, though, that was a highlight. They hit one deep into our backhand corner. I tracked that sucker all the way back to the fence, and put a particularly sucky backhand on it. It was nowhere even near the court.
What makes that a highlight is that there is a 4 inch steel lamppost back there, square shaped. It was not even in my mind.
I have no idea how fast I was going when I hit it, but I know that I keep my head up on my backhand, because I hit it square in the center of my chest, instead of hitting it with my head (which would have been more dangerous for the lamppost.) It was just like on the cartoons. My whole body kept moving at full speed, but my chest stopped. My arms and legs flew straight ahead, and then ended up wrapped rather intimately around my insensitive new friend. I just hung there for a second until my mind concocted a likely story to explain what on earth had just happened. :-)
I wish and double wish that I had that on tape. It had to be hilarious.
They asked me how I was feeling, and I admitted that I had felt better.
I must not have been going too fast, though, because it hurts today, but not badly enough to slow my trip back from Atlanta to Columbus.
I love that game.
---
The trip down to Atlanta was uneventful, and I expect the trip home to be the same.
---
Yep, uneventful. I'm home now, and should get back to presbuteras shortly.
23 August, 2006
Presbuteras: Subjecting the Daughters of the Lord - 1 Tim 2:11-15
Finally, it's time to throw caution to the wind, and jump into the core passage of this discussion. I had considered knocking down a few more of the supports under it, but I have probably tried everyone's patience enough as is.
1 Tim 2:11 & 12 is the rock against which everyone shipwrecks in this discussion. We egalitarians cannot tiptoe around it, and complementarians won't step off it. If it is taken at face value, then everything else I have said in this series is whistling through the graveyard. This passage means something, and whatever that is should decide how women serve God through the church.
For this interpretation of 1 Tim 2 I am entirely in the debt of:
Richard Clark Kroeger and Catherine Clark Kroeger, "Rethinking 1 Timothy 2:11-15 in Light of Ancient Evidence: I Suffer Not a Woman."
and
Dr. Ann Nyland, "The Source" New Testament, especially "1 Timothy with Notes."
Any time you spend reading these two sources will be highly valuable. Dr. Nyland's gritty interpretation of Paul is truly eye-opening.
1 Timothy 2 (KJV)
2:11
Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection.
2:12
But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence.
Paul never meant that women can only serve the church by learning in silence, and we have gravely erred in subjecting our sisters to this misapprehension for millenia. It is time to break the chains of this fiction.
In this letter Paul is coaching Timothy through solving several particularly knotty problems in Ephesus. One of them has to do with a contingent of lazy philosophers and a few rich women recently converted from the synagogue. These philosophers have discovered that there is a good living to be sucked up in mooching off these powerful, rich, recently converted women. These men earned their bread by preaching downtown for alms, but they found out after they converted to Christianity that these women would support them totally. They don't need to go out and beat the bushes looking for new prospects for their ideas. To fill their bellies, they need only set up shop in these ladies' homes and blend all the wisdom of the age for them.
These philosophers joined the church, but failed to meet the Lord. They succeeded in learning the doctrine and lingo of the Christians around them, but not in meeting the Master. These women are used to having the lead in religious life, and have naturally begun to take charge of things in Ephesus. Unfortunately, they have succumbed to these philosophical flatterers (2 Tim 3:6), and are mingling gnosticism into their Christianity.
Let's start with the "verse by verse" this time.
1 Timothy
2:9
In like manner also, that women adorn themselves in modest apparel, with shamefacedness and sobriety; not with broided hair, or gold, or pearls, or costly array;
In the churches, there was a tradition of addressing each other only by first name. Family names said too much about station in life, so they simply quit using them. Even so, to flaunt your position over everyone else in the church by apparel was wrong.
I drift from the standard interpretation in that most people consider this to be a verse about sexual display, where I consider it to be about the display of power and wealth. The words "modest," "shamefacedness," and "sobriety" all admit of my meaning, but the translators seem to have been focused on women as sexual objects. The preceeding and following verses address politics far more directly than carnality.
2:10
But * (which becometh women professing godliness) with good works.
Again, good works of love excel over displays of power and position. Dr. Nyland, however, adds a deeply significant interpretation of the parenthetical phrase. By it, she turns this verse on its ear.
The word for "godliness" is actually directly translated, "God-fearer." This was a bit of jargon for a person who was a practicing Jew, but not circumcised. That understood, the word, "professing," easily takes the meaning of "instructing." Paul says here that it becomes a woman who is teaching the God-fearers to adorn herself with good works. Dr. Nyland at this point documents several women who are historically identified as elders and teachers in the synagogue, thereby establishing that women could indeed have been teachers of the God-fearers.
These are our rich Jewish women, who were used to taking the lead in religious matters. As Jews, they had been teachers. Now they were Christians, and trying to get back into the driver's seat as quickly as possible.
2:11
Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection.
These women should not be teaching. They should be learning. They were teachers of the law (as Paul references in 1 Tim 1), but all their old knowledge is just vain jangling in the church. By their ignorance, they were causing a fuss, and that needed to end.
The word, "silence," here is not a verbal silence, but a practical one. It is used in Acts and Thessalonians, and in both cases it means to quit making a fuss. So these women were to quit being a disturbing issue in Ephesus. They were to learn without disturbing the lessons with their ignorance, and as we quickly learn, with their errors.
2:12
But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence.
Richard and Catherine Clark Kroeger have reworked this passage based upon their understanding of the word, "authentein," which is translated here, "authority." The core of their findings from ancient texts is that authentein (which appears only once in the bible) was a word co-opted by a local fertility cult. Dr. Nyland pursues the same conclusion, finding something even more amazing.
Dr. Nyland has Paul suffering not a woman to say she is before the man. She quotes one of several gnostic creation myths that has Eve breathing the breath of life into Adam, and therefore becoming the mother of all the living. Eve, they see as the source of all secret knowledge. She was the one who broke open the veil of mystery by taking of the fruit of knowledge. She was Vulcan who brought fire to God's creatures. Eve was their source of gnosis.
Paul says that he suffers not these Jewish women, mislead as they have been by their philosopher buddies, to teach that they are superior to men.
2:13
For Adam was first formed, then Eve.
Paul corrects the first error of this gnostic myth by a simple reminder from Genesis.
2:14
And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression.
Paul goes further in correcting this error. Far from doing the wisest, bravest thing ever for mankind, Eve blundered when she took in that fruit. The word translated here as transgression is actually a weaker Greek word for sinful blunder. The word for direct, rebellious sin is much stronger, and is used much more often.
Eve did not bravely risk death by choosing knowledge over subservience, as the gnostics taught. Eve made a childish mistake. She sinned stupidly.
2:15
Notwithstanding she shall be saved in childbearing, if they continue in faith and charity and holiness with sobriety.
Some believe that the childbearing referenced here is that of a Christian woman giving birth to hers and her husband's children. That is a very unlikely and weak understanding of this verse. Paul is still refering to the promise of Genesis, that the Seed of the woman would crush the serpent. This is in keeping with the entire argument. Eve was no hero for taking the fruit of knowledge, but Eve's gender can rejoice in being the bearer of the Redeemer. Contrary to gnostic fantasies, women and men are together in everything, including their dependence upon Christ for every blessing.
The entire argument goes like this.
Timothy, those rich women are causing a ridiculous fuss and stir because of their pride. They should quit with the ostentatious display of wealth, and begin acting the part of teachers, if that's what they think they are. But before they teach, they must first learn. They are asserting foolish things, and I cannot allow you to allow them to do this. Woman is not the source of all wisdom, and woman did not precede man in creation. Go back and read Genesis to them, and teach them that the birth of the Messiah is the only thing that matters. Let them rejoice in Him.
The follow-on to the argument is that women and men should both desire the office of elder.
1 Tim 3:1
This is a true saying, If a man desire the office of a bishop, he desireth a good work.
The word translated "man" here is not gender specific. To a Greek, it would have read, "If anyone desires..."
Let the sisters be trained, and let them learn the truth, then let them desire the office of elder.
Again, I wish to point out that I am taking Paul quite literally. Paul says that he suffers not a woman to teach, and I believe him. I just believe that Paul knew exactly which women it was that he was not allowing to teach and why. I even believe that he tells us.
Now, about those millions of other women who are alive today, and have a storehouse of treasure to offer the body....
---
It is late now, and I will be gone Thursday through most of Saturday, so I am going to leave off addressing counter-arguments to this scenario. I'm sure they will arise, and I'm sure they will be worthy, so I will try to comment as much as possible until I leave, then address the biggest one(s) when I return.
Thank you to all for your patience with my plodding pace on this. You have certainly made it a joy for me to keep after it.
1 Tim 2:11 & 12 is the rock against which everyone shipwrecks in this discussion. We egalitarians cannot tiptoe around it, and complementarians won't step off it. If it is taken at face value, then everything else I have said in this series is whistling through the graveyard. This passage means something, and whatever that is should decide how women serve God through the church.
For this interpretation of 1 Tim 2 I am entirely in the debt of:
Richard Clark Kroeger and Catherine Clark Kroeger, "Rethinking 1 Timothy 2:11-15 in Light of Ancient Evidence: I Suffer Not a Woman."
and
Dr. Ann Nyland, "The Source" New Testament, especially "1 Timothy with Notes."
Any time you spend reading these two sources will be highly valuable. Dr. Nyland's gritty interpretation of Paul is truly eye-opening.
1 Timothy 2 (KJV)
2:11
Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection.
2:12
But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence.
Paul never meant that women can only serve the church by learning in silence, and we have gravely erred in subjecting our sisters to this misapprehension for millenia. It is time to break the chains of this fiction.
In this letter Paul is coaching Timothy through solving several particularly knotty problems in Ephesus. One of them has to do with a contingent of lazy philosophers and a few rich women recently converted from the synagogue. These philosophers have discovered that there is a good living to be sucked up in mooching off these powerful, rich, recently converted women. These men earned their bread by preaching downtown for alms, but they found out after they converted to Christianity that these women would support them totally. They don't need to go out and beat the bushes looking for new prospects for their ideas. To fill their bellies, they need only set up shop in these ladies' homes and blend all the wisdom of the age for them.
These philosophers joined the church, but failed to meet the Lord. They succeeded in learning the doctrine and lingo of the Christians around them, but not in meeting the Master. These women are used to having the lead in religious life, and have naturally begun to take charge of things in Ephesus. Unfortunately, they have succumbed to these philosophical flatterers (2 Tim 3:6), and are mingling gnosticism into their Christianity.
Let's start with the "verse by verse" this time.
1 Timothy
2:9
In like manner also, that women adorn themselves in modest apparel, with shamefacedness and sobriety; not with broided hair, or gold, or pearls, or costly array;
In the churches, there was a tradition of addressing each other only by first name. Family names said too much about station in life, so they simply quit using them. Even so, to flaunt your position over everyone else in the church by apparel was wrong.
I drift from the standard interpretation in that most people consider this to be a verse about sexual display, where I consider it to be about the display of power and wealth. The words "modest," "shamefacedness," and "sobriety" all admit of my meaning, but the translators seem to have been focused on women as sexual objects. The preceeding and following verses address politics far more directly than carnality.
2:10
But * (which becometh women professing godliness) with good works.
Again, good works of love excel over displays of power and position. Dr. Nyland, however, adds a deeply significant interpretation of the parenthetical phrase. By it, she turns this verse on its ear.
The word for "godliness" is actually directly translated, "God-fearer." This was a bit of jargon for a person who was a practicing Jew, but not circumcised. That understood, the word, "professing," easily takes the meaning of "instructing." Paul says here that it becomes a woman who is teaching the God-fearers to adorn herself with good works. Dr. Nyland at this point documents several women who are historically identified as elders and teachers in the synagogue, thereby establishing that women could indeed have been teachers of the God-fearers.
These are our rich Jewish women, who were used to taking the lead in religious matters. As Jews, they had been teachers. Now they were Christians, and trying to get back into the driver's seat as quickly as possible.
2:11
Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection.
These women should not be teaching. They should be learning. They were teachers of the law (as Paul references in 1 Tim 1), but all their old knowledge is just vain jangling in the church. By their ignorance, they were causing a fuss, and that needed to end.
The word, "silence," here is not a verbal silence, but a practical one. It is used in Acts and Thessalonians, and in both cases it means to quit making a fuss. So these women were to quit being a disturbing issue in Ephesus. They were to learn without disturbing the lessons with their ignorance, and as we quickly learn, with their errors.
2:12
But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence.
Richard and Catherine Clark Kroeger have reworked this passage based upon their understanding of the word, "authentein," which is translated here, "authority." The core of their findings from ancient texts is that authentein (which appears only once in the bible) was a word co-opted by a local fertility cult. Dr. Nyland pursues the same conclusion, finding something even more amazing.
Dr. Nyland has Paul suffering not a woman to say she is before the man. She quotes one of several gnostic creation myths that has Eve breathing the breath of life into Adam, and therefore becoming the mother of all the living. Eve, they see as the source of all secret knowledge. She was the one who broke open the veil of mystery by taking of the fruit of knowledge. She was Vulcan who brought fire to God's creatures. Eve was their source of gnosis.
Paul says that he suffers not these Jewish women, mislead as they have been by their philosopher buddies, to teach that they are superior to men.
2:13
For Adam was first formed, then Eve.
Paul corrects the first error of this gnostic myth by a simple reminder from Genesis.
2:14
And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression.
Paul goes further in correcting this error. Far from doing the wisest, bravest thing ever for mankind, Eve blundered when she took in that fruit. The word translated here as transgression is actually a weaker Greek word for sinful blunder. The word for direct, rebellious sin is much stronger, and is used much more often.
Eve did not bravely risk death by choosing knowledge over subservience, as the gnostics taught. Eve made a childish mistake. She sinned stupidly.
2:15
Notwithstanding she shall be saved in childbearing, if they continue in faith and charity and holiness with sobriety.
Some believe that the childbearing referenced here is that of a Christian woman giving birth to hers and her husband's children. That is a very unlikely and weak understanding of this verse. Paul is still refering to the promise of Genesis, that the Seed of the woman would crush the serpent. This is in keeping with the entire argument. Eve was no hero for taking the fruit of knowledge, but Eve's gender can rejoice in being the bearer of the Redeemer. Contrary to gnostic fantasies, women and men are together in everything, including their dependence upon Christ for every blessing.
The entire argument goes like this.
Timothy, those rich women are causing a ridiculous fuss and stir because of their pride. They should quit with the ostentatious display of wealth, and begin acting the part of teachers, if that's what they think they are. But before they teach, they must first learn. They are asserting foolish things, and I cannot allow you to allow them to do this. Woman is not the source of all wisdom, and woman did not precede man in creation. Go back and read Genesis to them, and teach them that the birth of the Messiah is the only thing that matters. Let them rejoice in Him.
The follow-on to the argument is that women and men should both desire the office of elder.
1 Tim 3:1
This is a true saying, If a man desire the office of a bishop, he desireth a good work.
The word translated "man" here is not gender specific. To a Greek, it would have read, "If anyone desires..."
Let the sisters be trained, and let them learn the truth, then let them desire the office of elder.
Again, I wish to point out that I am taking Paul quite literally. Paul says that he suffers not a woman to teach, and I believe him. I just believe that Paul knew exactly which women it was that he was not allowing to teach and why. I even believe that he tells us.
Now, about those millions of other women who are alive today, and have a storehouse of treasure to offer the body....
---
It is late now, and I will be gone Thursday through most of Saturday, so I am going to leave off addressing counter-arguments to this scenario. I'm sure they will arise, and I'm sure they will be worthy, so I will try to comment as much as possible until I leave, then address the biggest one(s) when I return.
Thank you to all for your patience with my plodding pace on this. You have certainly made it a joy for me to keep after it.
21 August, 2006
Engaging: Working out our salvation with fear and trembling
Philippians
2:12
Wherefore, my beloved, as ye have always obeyed, not as in my presence only, but now much more in my absence, work out your own salvation with fear and trembling.
2:13
For it is God which worketh in you both to will and to do of his good pleasure.
Thursday night was way cool.
I have been invited to help out by teaching my pastor's small group. On my first two nights, we went over the same lesson twice. It is the lesson that I posted a couple weeks ago on studying the scripture using Crosswalk.com. (I have not told anyone about e-Sword yet, but it could still happen.)
I have heard bible studies called, "share your ignorance sessions." I don't want to go down that road, so I figured we would get serious about the endeavor. The pastor chose Phil 2:12 & 13 for us as our first verse, and Thursday we looked at it together.
This passage is an interesting choice, because it is highly theological. Some people don't even see the conflict, while others obsess about it. "Work out your salvation with fear and trembling?" What could that possibly mean? I thought we were saved by faith, not works, much less fear? "It is God Who works in us to will to do His good pleasure?" I thought exercising our will to turn to Him was supposed to be the one thing we did on our own? And these two opposite problems are put by Paul immediately next to each other?
Amazing.
Like I said, it was an interesting choice for a first lesson.
The meeting was about like usual. Only half the people showed up, and we started way late. Of those who attended, everyone had spent some time in the verses. That's a little unusual, but really good news. The fact was that I was not going to be teaching what Paul meant, so that was almost mandatory.
Nobody had anything to say, but I resisted the urge to just start teaching. I began asking questions. Questions are funny things. They can be so powerful, or so boring. It's all a matter of whether the answers are known to the teacher. No adult wants to answer a question only to find out that the teacher knew the answer, and is going to correct some little nitpick every time anyone hangs an answer out there. Who wants to be exposed to ridicule for no reward?
Anyway, everyone had a hard time getting their mouths open. That's OK. I had all night, and I made sure that every answer I received was right. The questions were like, "Doesn't this seem hard?" It's really hard to answer that question wrong. ;-)
We had gone down a handful of rabbit trails, and had a pretty tame discussion when the pastor pretty much declared the meeting over. I resisted, because I knew that more was possible if we just gave it another second. I launched another trial balloon, and Rachel took that as her cue to read two verses she had brought. I forget the first. The second made the meeting.
I will not tell every story of how these things come up, but I really thought it was cool that the bible study idea "worked." Rachel, and everyone else, brought the richness of a little time alone with the word to a meeting, and we gave her time to bring up what she found. In return, she saved the meeting. I sincerely hope that we can develop a habit of looking at scripture openly and together on Thursday nights. It is a weak idea if everyone comes to the meeting cold, but with a week to study the passage, it can be very cool.
---
Let me tell what we found, because it was beautiful.
Rachel quoted:
John
6:28 Then said they unto him, What shall we do , that we might work the works of God?
6:29 Jesus answered and said unto them, This is the work of God, that ye believe on him whom he hath sent.
The work of the Father is to know His Son. Our work is to be intimately joined into the living interchange of the Godhead. We are to know Jesus, not as a science project, but as a Friend, and even as a Fiance. We are to pursue Him as the chief joy of our lives, because He is.
This does not happen by chance. You don't stumble into intimacy with God. Pain and effort and success and failure and joy all play their roles in coming to know and trust the invisible One Who loves us. There is a work involved in our salvation.
And there is fear and trembling. There is fear in every relationship. If no other, then the fear that you might waste opportunity for more joy. But there is always a genuine fear of offense given, and of distance not crossed. There is a dread that 40 years from now I might learn how my heart's weakness caused me to miss knowing, really knowing, the God of Love.
But there is a reassurance too. For it is God Who works in me to want the good things that He wants. Because God works in me to will these things, and even to do them, I can turn to Him in trusting reliance. He taught me to fear, and He is my relief for those fears.
We do not fear that we may not be clean before Him. We don't work out our justification. He has taken care of that. We do fear failing to do the work of the Father, though, because that work is our highest good. Fortunately, He works in us daily and deeply, so there are grounds for hope.
---
I hope to do more on this "engaging" topic. I have no idea what it will look like, but I hope to make it about engaging God.
2:12
Wherefore, my beloved, as ye have always obeyed, not as in my presence only, but now much more in my absence, work out your own salvation with fear and trembling.
2:13
For it is God which worketh in you both to will and to do of his good pleasure.
Thursday night was way cool.
I have been invited to help out by teaching my pastor's small group. On my first two nights, we went over the same lesson twice. It is the lesson that I posted a couple weeks ago on studying the scripture using Crosswalk.com. (I have not told anyone about e-Sword yet, but it could still happen.)
I have heard bible studies called, "share your ignorance sessions." I don't want to go down that road, so I figured we would get serious about the endeavor. The pastor chose Phil 2:12 & 13 for us as our first verse, and Thursday we looked at it together.
This passage is an interesting choice, because it is highly theological. Some people don't even see the conflict, while others obsess about it. "Work out your salvation with fear and trembling?" What could that possibly mean? I thought we were saved by faith, not works, much less fear? "It is God Who works in us to will to do His good pleasure?" I thought exercising our will to turn to Him was supposed to be the one thing we did on our own? And these two opposite problems are put by Paul immediately next to each other?
Amazing.
Like I said, it was an interesting choice for a first lesson.
The meeting was about like usual. Only half the people showed up, and we started way late. Of those who attended, everyone had spent some time in the verses. That's a little unusual, but really good news. The fact was that I was not going to be teaching what Paul meant, so that was almost mandatory.
Nobody had anything to say, but I resisted the urge to just start teaching. I began asking questions. Questions are funny things. They can be so powerful, or so boring. It's all a matter of whether the answers are known to the teacher. No adult wants to answer a question only to find out that the teacher knew the answer, and is going to correct some little nitpick every time anyone hangs an answer out there. Who wants to be exposed to ridicule for no reward?
Anyway, everyone had a hard time getting their mouths open. That's OK. I had all night, and I made sure that every answer I received was right. The questions were like, "Doesn't this seem hard?" It's really hard to answer that question wrong. ;-)
We had gone down a handful of rabbit trails, and had a pretty tame discussion when the pastor pretty much declared the meeting over. I resisted, because I knew that more was possible if we just gave it another second. I launched another trial balloon, and Rachel took that as her cue to read two verses she had brought. I forget the first. The second made the meeting.
I will not tell every story of how these things come up, but I really thought it was cool that the bible study idea "worked." Rachel, and everyone else, brought the richness of a little time alone with the word to a meeting, and we gave her time to bring up what she found. In return, she saved the meeting. I sincerely hope that we can develop a habit of looking at scripture openly and together on Thursday nights. It is a weak idea if everyone comes to the meeting cold, but with a week to study the passage, it can be very cool.
---
Let me tell what we found, because it was beautiful.
Rachel quoted:
John
6:28 Then said they unto him, What shall we do , that we might work the works of God?
6:29 Jesus answered and said unto them, This is the work of God, that ye believe on him whom he hath sent.
The work of the Father is to know His Son. Our work is to be intimately joined into the living interchange of the Godhead. We are to know Jesus, not as a science project, but as a Friend, and even as a Fiance. We are to pursue Him as the chief joy of our lives, because He is.
This does not happen by chance. You don't stumble into intimacy with God. Pain and effort and success and failure and joy all play their roles in coming to know and trust the invisible One Who loves us. There is a work involved in our salvation.
And there is fear and trembling. There is fear in every relationship. If no other, then the fear that you might waste opportunity for more joy. But there is always a genuine fear of offense given, and of distance not crossed. There is a dread that 40 years from now I might learn how my heart's weakness caused me to miss knowing, really knowing, the God of Love.
But there is a reassurance too. For it is God Who works in me to want the good things that He wants. Because God works in me to will these things, and even to do them, I can turn to Him in trusting reliance. He taught me to fear, and He is my relief for those fears.
We do not fear that we may not be clean before Him. We don't work out our justification. He has taken care of that. We do fear failing to do the work of the Father, though, because that work is our highest good. Fortunately, He works in us daily and deeply, so there are grounds for hope.
---
I hope to do more on this "engaging" topic. I have no idea what it will look like, but I hope to make it about engaging God.
16 August, 2006
Presbuteras: Phebe - "Deacon?" - Demoting the Daughters of God - Rom 16:1&2
DugALug comments on my suggestion that Phebe was a deacon, in the truest spiritual sense of the word:
Nice try, but we use the work Deacon in english to mean that you are a person of leadership in the church... or you could be someone who attends wake forrest.
With that logic I could also conclude that Jesus was a physical door. It is all about context, and you haven't established that the context is the same.
I like that you keep me honest, sir. :-) As I started answering this, the comment block on the previous post began begging for mercy. So, I gave up trying to fit it all in a little comment. Establishing a context seems to take a little verbiage. ;-)
Here goes.
16:1
I commend unto you Phebe our sister, which is a servant of the church which is at Cenchrea:
16:2
That ye receive her in the Lord, as becometh saints, and that ye assist her in whatsoever * * business she hath need of you: for she * hath been a succourer of many, and of myself * * also.
Let's start with the word, "commend". With this word, Paul defines himself as an apostle (by affirming that he need not defend his commendation from the Lord.)
2Co 3:1 Do we begin again to commend ourselves? or need we, as some others, epistles of commendation to you, or letters of commendation from you?
2Co 5:12 For we commend not ourselves again unto you, but give you occasion to glory on our behalf, that ye may have somewhat to answer them which glory in appearance, and not in heart.
Paul is giving Phebe some exceptionally high praise, if she is just a servant to some member of the church in Cenchrea.
2Co 10:18 For not he that commendeth himself is approved, but whom the Lord commendeth.
Phebe does not commend herself here, but rather Paul does. And I might say that whom Paul commends is probably worthy of some attention.
---
Now on to the word, "receive".
[Prosdechomai]
Phil 2:29 Receive him therefore in the Lord with all gladness; and hold such in reputation:
(Of Epaphroditus, whom Paul is sending back to Philippi as a faithful servant.)
[dechomai]
Col 4:10 Aristarchus my fellowprisoner saluteth you, and Marcus, sister's son to Barnabas, (touching whom ye received commandments: if he come unto you, receive him;)
Php 4:18 But I have all, and abound: I am full, having received of Epaphroditus the things which were sent from you, an odour of a sweet smell, a sacrifice acceptable, wellpleasing to God.
Ga 4:14 And my temptation which was in my flesh ye despised not, nor rejected; but received me as an angel of God, even as Christ Jesus.
2Co 7:15 And his inward affection is more abundant toward you, whilst he remembereth the obedience of you all, how with fear and trembling ye received him.
[Of Titus]
Paul uses this word, "receive," often to talk about accepting profitable workers into the church's heart. There is no textual reason to assume that he means any less here. Add to that simple command to receive Phebe, the fact that Paul tells this church to receive her "in the Lord," and it becomes an almost irresistible weight pulling us in the direction of seeing Phebe as a worker in the Lord on a similar plane with Epaphroditus, Marcus or Titus.
---
As to the business she had in Rome. Pragma can mean any number of things. The assumption of many is that she was on a business trip or some such. She was certainly a woman of some means, so there is just cause to lean in that direction. Still,
2Co 7:11 For behold this selfsame thing, that ye sorrowed after a godly sort, what carefulness it wrought in you, yea, what clearing of yourselves, yea, what indignation, yea, what fear, yea, what vehement desire, yea, what zeal, yea, what revenge! In all things ye have approved yourselves to be clear in this matter.
The word, "pragma," appears 3 times in this passage, talking about the business of repentance.
Heb 11:1 Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.
Again, pragma is the substance and evidence in Heb 11:1. Her business could as easily be spiritual as not.
---
Succourer is never again used in the New Testament, so it is hard to know what Paul might have meant by his use of that word in that place. A student of Greek could go to extra-biblical references, but I am certainly not one of those. Instead, I turn to a lexicon.
Thayer's and Smith's lexicon has this to say:
1. a woman set over others
2. a female guardian, protectress, patroness, caring for the affairs of others and aiding them with her resources
Hmmm. Leadership and/or guardianship. Paul uses a strong word to describe her position in the church.
---
Lastly, she was entrusted by Paul to deliver the word of God to the church in Rome! That needs more exclamation points!!! And Paul himself testifies that he knows that what he is writing is the very word of God.
Find me another of Paul's letters that was delivered by a Christian businessman, just because he happened to be heading in that direction. It doesn't exist. And this is not just some simple letter. This is Paul's magnum opus, and he knows it. Paul always, always sent his letters by the hands of church leaders whom he trusted. (Well, there's Onesimus carrying the letter to Philemon, but that was kind of special.) Why would he send this treasure by the first businesswoman who happened to be headed West on Tuesday?
Paul had all of the brothers in Corinth and Cenchrea (they're what, 6 miles apart?) to choose from when he was deciding by whom to send this letter to Rome. Paul chose Phebe. She was not a scullery maid who cooked great biscuits for Paul! She was not even merely a woman of human wealth who opened her home to Paul. She was the single person, of all the members of two commendable churches, whom Paul believed should deliver this letter to a fledgling church with awesome potential.
Phebe was the deacon sent by Paul and the Spirit to minister to a young church made up of elder Christians, and Paul commended her, commanding that she be received as such.
If Phebe had been "Jason" or "John" or "Gaius," we would not be having this discussion. All the textual evidence points to "deacon" meaning "deacon", and emphatically so.
Nice try, but we use the work Deacon in english to mean that you are a person of leadership in the church... or you could be someone who attends wake forrest.
With that logic I could also conclude that Jesus was a physical door. It is all about context, and you haven't established that the context is the same.
I like that you keep me honest, sir. :-) As I started answering this, the comment block on the previous post began begging for mercy. So, I gave up trying to fit it all in a little comment. Establishing a context seems to take a little verbiage. ;-)
Here goes.
16:1
I commend unto you Phebe our sister, which is a servant of the church which is at Cenchrea:
16:2
That ye receive her in the Lord, as becometh saints, and that ye assist her in whatsoever * * business she hath need of you: for she * hath been a succourer of many, and of myself * * also.
Let's start with the word, "commend". With this word, Paul defines himself as an apostle (by affirming that he need not defend his commendation from the Lord.)
2Co 3:1 Do we begin again to commend ourselves? or need we, as some others, epistles of commendation to you, or letters of commendation from you?
2Co 5:12 For we commend not ourselves again unto you, but give you occasion to glory on our behalf, that ye may have somewhat to answer them which glory in appearance, and not in heart.
Paul is giving Phebe some exceptionally high praise, if she is just a servant to some member of the church in Cenchrea.
2Co 10:18 For not he that commendeth himself is approved, but whom the Lord commendeth.
Phebe does not commend herself here, but rather Paul does. And I might say that whom Paul commends is probably worthy of some attention.
---
Now on to the word, "receive".
[Prosdechomai]
Phil 2:29 Receive him therefore in the Lord with all gladness; and hold such in reputation:
(Of Epaphroditus, whom Paul is sending back to Philippi as a faithful servant.)
[dechomai]
Col 4:10 Aristarchus my fellowprisoner saluteth you, and Marcus, sister's son to Barnabas, (touching whom ye received commandments: if he come unto you, receive him;)
Php 4:18 But I have all, and abound: I am full, having received of Epaphroditus the things which were sent from you, an odour of a sweet smell, a sacrifice acceptable, wellpleasing to God.
Ga 4:14 And my temptation which was in my flesh ye despised not, nor rejected; but received me as an angel of God, even as Christ Jesus.
2Co 7:15 And his inward affection is more abundant toward you, whilst he remembereth the obedience of you all, how with fear and trembling ye received him.
[Of Titus]
Paul uses this word, "receive," often to talk about accepting profitable workers into the church's heart. There is no textual reason to assume that he means any less here. Add to that simple command to receive Phebe, the fact that Paul tells this church to receive her "in the Lord," and it becomes an almost irresistible weight pulling us in the direction of seeing Phebe as a worker in the Lord on a similar plane with Epaphroditus, Marcus or Titus.
---
As to the business she had in Rome. Pragma can mean any number of things. The assumption of many is that she was on a business trip or some such. She was certainly a woman of some means, so there is just cause to lean in that direction. Still,
2Co 7:11 For behold this selfsame thing, that ye sorrowed after a godly sort, what carefulness it wrought in you, yea, what clearing of yourselves, yea, what indignation, yea, what fear, yea, what vehement desire, yea, what zeal, yea, what revenge! In all things ye have approved yourselves to be clear in this matter.
The word, "pragma," appears 3 times in this passage, talking about the business of repentance.
Heb 11:1 Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.
Again, pragma is the substance and evidence in Heb 11:1. Her business could as easily be spiritual as not.
---
Succourer is never again used in the New Testament, so it is hard to know what Paul might have meant by his use of that word in that place. A student of Greek could go to extra-biblical references, but I am certainly not one of those. Instead, I turn to a lexicon.
Thayer's and Smith's lexicon has this to say:
1. a woman set over others
2. a female guardian, protectress, patroness, caring for the affairs of others and aiding them with her resources
Hmmm. Leadership and/or guardianship. Paul uses a strong word to describe her position in the church.
---
Lastly, she was entrusted by Paul to deliver the word of God to the church in Rome! That needs more exclamation points!!! And Paul himself testifies that he knows that what he is writing is the very word of God.
Find me another of Paul's letters that was delivered by a Christian businessman, just because he happened to be heading in that direction. It doesn't exist. And this is not just some simple letter. This is Paul's magnum opus, and he knows it. Paul always, always sent his letters by the hands of church leaders whom he trusted. (Well, there's Onesimus carrying the letter to Philemon, but that was kind of special.) Why would he send this treasure by the first businesswoman who happened to be headed West on Tuesday?
Paul had all of the brothers in Corinth and Cenchrea (they're what, 6 miles apart?) to choose from when he was deciding by whom to send this letter to Rome. Paul chose Phebe. She was not a scullery maid who cooked great biscuits for Paul! She was not even merely a woman of human wealth who opened her home to Paul. She was the single person, of all the members of two commendable churches, whom Paul believed should deliver this letter to a fledgling church with awesome potential.
Phebe was the deacon sent by Paul and the Spirit to minister to a young church made up of elder Christians, and Paul commended her, commanding that she be received as such.
If Phebe had been "Jason" or "John" or "Gaius," we would not be having this discussion. All the textual evidence points to "deacon" meaning "deacon", and emphatically so.
Presbuteras: Passing Over the Daughters of God
Because of these three passages, we pass over women as potential elders and deacons in the church. Titus 1: 5-9, Titus 2: 3 -5, 1 Timothy 3: 1-13
Needless to say, I believe this is a mistake, and for pretty simple reasons.
This morning, I posted a ridiculous comment about the PBR and Ice Dancing. I specifically addressed "Gentlemen," asking them to answer with their opinions on the subject. Knowing, of course, that only Milly knew anything meaningful about bull riding it was a pretty safe assumption that I should get her opinion, but I didn't ask for it. I simply knew I could count on it, and I was glad when she responded with a wink and some solid information.
When I did not forbid women to answer my post, I just assumed that the one who knew the answer would jump in and give it.
Even so....
Search those three passages all day long, and you will not find any word forbidding women to take the position of elder or deacon. You will infer from the fact that 1 Tim 3:1 says "man" that only a man can desire this position. Of course, the Greek does not say, "man." The Greek says, "any." The same is true in Titus 1. If "any" desire the office of bishop, he desires a good work. If "any" be blameless.
I will cut through a bunch of my usual rambling to make the point directly.
1 Tim 3:10 & 11
And let these also first be proved; then let them use the office of a deacon, being found blameless. Even so must their wives be grave, not slanderers, sober, faithful in all things.
This is the best verse for "proving" that Paul only meant for men to be deacons and elders. The word for wife here is not the word for "spouse," if such a word exists, so it surely means that only a husband can be a deacon.
The only problem with that argument is Rom 16:1.
Romans 16:1
I commend unto you Phebe our sister, which is a servant of the church which is at Cenchrea:
The word, "servant," in Greek is Diakonos. Yep, exactly the same word as is found in 1 Tim 3:10. So, "Phebe our sister" directly violates this very popular inference.
There is no command in any of these three passages forbidding a woman to lead in the church. These three passages reveal clearly that it was uncommon for a woman to be a leader, but that's small potatoes. It was utterly forbidden for a woman to read the scripture just 60 years prior, when Christ was toddling! In ~20 years to have reached the place that Phebe could be a living challenge to our modern inferences is beyond amazing - it is miraculous.
And we have fallen back from that high water mark.
Shame on us.
There remains only one more passage to discuss, 1 Tim 2:11. I hope to rein it back in Sunday night. Until then!
Needless to say, I believe this is a mistake, and for pretty simple reasons.
This morning, I posted a ridiculous comment about the PBR and Ice Dancing. I specifically addressed "Gentlemen," asking them to answer with their opinions on the subject. Knowing, of course, that only Milly knew anything meaningful about bull riding it was a pretty safe assumption that I should get her opinion, but I didn't ask for it. I simply knew I could count on it, and I was glad when she responded with a wink and some solid information.
When I did not forbid women to answer my post, I just assumed that the one who knew the answer would jump in and give it.
Even so....
Search those three passages all day long, and you will not find any word forbidding women to take the position of elder or deacon. You will infer from the fact that 1 Tim 3:1 says "man" that only a man can desire this position. Of course, the Greek does not say, "man." The Greek says, "any." The same is true in Titus 1. If "any" desire the office of bishop, he desires a good work. If "any" be blameless.
I will cut through a bunch of my usual rambling to make the point directly.
1 Tim 3:10 & 11
And let these also first be proved; then let them use the office of a deacon, being found blameless. Even so must their wives be grave, not slanderers, sober, faithful in all things.
This is the best verse for "proving" that Paul only meant for men to be deacons and elders. The word for wife here is not the word for "spouse," if such a word exists, so it surely means that only a husband can be a deacon.
The only problem with that argument is Rom 16:1.
Romans 16:1
I commend unto you Phebe our sister, which is a servant of the church which is at Cenchrea:
The word, "servant," in Greek is Diakonos. Yep, exactly the same word as is found in 1 Tim 3:10. So, "Phebe our sister" directly violates this very popular inference.
There is no command in any of these three passages forbidding a woman to lead in the church. These three passages reveal clearly that it was uncommon for a woman to be a leader, but that's small potatoes. It was utterly forbidden for a woman to read the scripture just 60 years prior, when Christ was toddling! In ~20 years to have reached the place that Phebe could be a living challenge to our modern inferences is beyond amazing - it is miraculous.
And we have fallen back from that high water mark.
Shame on us.
There remains only one more passage to discuss, 1 Tim 2:11. I hope to rein it back in Sunday night. Until then!
Sidebar: PBR versus Ice Dancing
Gentlemen, let me know what you think about this thesis.
Professional Bull Riding is not a real sport, any more than is Ice Dancing.
They are both subjectively scored by judges, and neither involves head-to-head competition. In fact, should they change the name to Professional Bull Dancing?
Professional Bull Riding is not a real sport, any more than is Ice Dancing.
They are both subjectively scored by judges, and neither involves head-to-head competition. In fact, should they change the name to Professional Bull Dancing?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
