By John Jefferson Davis, PhD
Professor of Systematic Theology and Christian Ethics
“If you find yourself getting winded, just stop and relax. Take another 25 steps, stop, relax, do it again, and soon you will be at the top.”
That was the sage advice given to to me and my wife Robin by the Rev. Jurgen Lias of Christ Church, Hamilton, as we began with him the ascent to the top of the 14,000 foot Mount Quandary in the Rockies about an hour and a half from Denver.
“Am I crazy, or what,” I found myself thinking that morning. “Here I am, a rather sedentary 62 year old seminary professor whose idea of ‘vigorous exercise’ is a 30 minute walk around the indoor track at the Bennett Center, tackling a “14er” in the Colorado Rockies?! How did I let myself be talked into this?”
My adventurous wife Robin, had originally suggested that we accompany our pastor, who is an avid hiker and climber, on some preliminary “warmup” hikes in the foothills – but the game plan had suddenly morphed into a venture of Everest-like proportions. Have you ever found yourself in a situation like this when you felt totally over your head?
I began the ascent, trying to practice some “walking meditation” (“Help me, Jesus”), not really understanding at the time what a 3.5 mile climb in thin air would do to my aching and aging body. 25 or 30 steps, huffing and puffing, stopping to rest and to enjoy the magnificent mountain vistas, and even close-range views of mountain goats: we did not make it to the summit, but had to turn back at 13,500 feet elevation because of a threatening afternoon thunderstorm.
Push yourself outside the box:
So much of life is a matter of expectations, isn’t it? For me, not making it to the top was not a defeat, but a moral victory; reaching 13,500 feet was in fact a new personal high.
Push yourself outside the box:
As I reflected later on that day’s climb, I realized that our experience was in many ways a metaphor of life: we need to “push ourselves outside of the box” – physically, emotionally, spiritually – in order to experience personal growth and to resist our natural tendencies to stick to the safe and the predictable, to our personal comfort zones.
The next morning, Jurgen suggested that we do morning prayer together, following readings and lessons from the Book of Common Prayer. We read the psalms and lessons for the day, and had a time of free prayer for common concerns. Even this was a bit of “pushing outside the box” for me devotionally, for as a Myers-Briggs “INTJ” I tend to gravitate toward introspective rather than group-oriented forms of spirituality. But the experience was a good one, and Robin and I expect to continue the practice from time to time in the future.
Push yourself outside the box:
Are there ways that you need to “push yourself outside the box” in your ministry or in your relationship to God? Do you feel that you may be “stuck in the same old place” in your ministry or devotional life? You don’t need to go to the Colorado Rockies or attempt a 14,000 foot climb to break into some new areas of personal growth.
I hope that God will be leading you into new areas of personal and professional growth during the days ahead.
Monday, August 25, 2008
Monday, August 18, 2008
As You Go, Make Disciples?
By Roy Ciampa, PhD
Associate Professor of New Testament
One commonly hears that the opening line of the Great Commission is, literally, “… as you go, make disciples…” (a Google search for “as you go, make disciples” gets “about 787” hits). It is pointed out by many that the verb “go” is a participle and it is stated that the participle suggests “as [or while] you go…” From this a very fine pastoral and missiological point is made, namely, that we are all going here and there with our normal life activities and rather than making evangelism and discipleship a special separate part of our lives we should make evangelism and discipleship integral parts of our lives, using whatever opportunities normally and naturally arise as we go about our daily activities. While the point that we should take advantage our the opportunities our lives already present us is valid, as is the point that evangelism should be a natural and integral part of our lives, these miss the usage of the participle in the text, which actually emphasizes something different. First let me explain how we can tell what kind of participle we are dealing with in this case, then I will explain what difference it makes.
The rendering “..as [or while] you go…” suggests the participle is taken as a temporal participle, indicating when the main action (discipling the nations) should take place. But when a participle is used to indicate when an action took place or is to take place (the temporal use of the participle) the present tense is used for actions that are to be simultaneous. So to communicate the idea that we are to make disciples “as/while we go” a Greek would use a present participle, not an aorist participle, as we find in this case. (Of course, there are other uses of the present adverbial participle as well). If the aorist participle were functioning as a temporal participle the idea would be “having gone, make disciples” pointing to the disciple-making process as one that is to take place immediately after going. But that is not the most natural understanding here. It is does not work as well as a very common usage that fits perfectly here. None of the participles in Matthew 28:19 are temporal participles. (The participles [baptizing and teaching] that follow the main verb [make disciples] function differently from the one which precedes it and will be discussed in a separate post in the future.)
Students taking basic Greek are commonly taught to translate all adverbial participles as temporal participles, with the understanding that they will later learn other ways that participles might function (for a full discussion of adverbial participles I recommend Daniel Wallace’s Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics [Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1996], pages 622-650). All too often they never learn, or at least do not gain great familiarity with, other ways the participles might function.
The first participle in Matthew 28:19 (the one that precedes the main verb, usually translated “Go”) is a participle of attendant circumstance. The most common use of the participle of attendant circumstance, the usage found here, is one where an 1) aorist adverbial participle 2) comes before the main verb and 3) refers to an intentional action that had/has to take place as a prerequisite to the realization of the action of the main verb (adverbial participles that do not fit all the criteria do not fit in this category). This is one of the two most common uses of the adverbial participle in narrative texts and should be the default interpretation whenever a moment’s reflection makes it clear that the action of the main verb could/would not be realized if the action indicated by the participle were not realized first and is something that someone would intentionally do in order to accomplish the action indicated in the main verb. It would have been the default interpretation of any ancient Greek. When translated into English the participle of attendant circumstance is translated as a finite verb, sharing the mood (indicative, imperative, etc.) of the main verb.
Once this pattern is identified [aorist adverbial participle preceding the main verb and referring to an action that is a prerequisite for the realization of the action of the main verb] it becomes easily recognized. Here is a series of examples from the Gospel of Matthew (in some cases I abbreviate the text for brevity’s sake):
• Matthew 2:7: Herod summoned (← participle) and ascertained from them when the star had appeared (he had to summon them to ascertain anything from them).
• Matthew 2:8: Go (← participle) and search diligently for the child (one cannot search for someone while remaining stationary [without going]).
• Matthew 4:3: The tempter came (← participle) and said to him (this is a common usage – people typically approach others for the purpose of speaking with them, and with human subjects, at least, one cannot speak with another unless one goes to them first)
• Matthew 5:2: And he opened (← participle) his mouth and taught them. (Have you ever tried teaching something [verbally] without opening your mouth? In cases like this we open our mouths in order to say or teach something).
• Matthew 8:2: a leper came (← participle) to him and knelt before him (one cannot kneel before another without going to them first).
• Matthew 8:3: Jesus stretched (← participle) out his hand and touched him (touching in cases like this requires reaching out first – it’s a prerequisite)
Hopefully this is enough to give you the idea. When we exegete participles like these we should not be asking what all the possible interpretations are and which ones we like best or which ones fit our theology best. Rather, we should be asking which interpretation is the one to which the original readers would be expected to come based on the standard usage of the language. In cases where an aorist adverbial participle precedes the main verb and refers to an action that would be a natural prerequisite to the action given in the main verb (an action which one would intentionally take as a step towards the goal indicated in the main verb) a modern interpreter should work with the same assumption that would guide an ancient Greek, namely, that the participle refers to an action done as a step towards (that is, as a prerequisite to) the action indicated in the main verb.
We should note that the exact form of the participle used in Matthew 28:19 (poreuthentes) is used seven times in just that gospel and fifteen times in the New Testament as a whole (Matt. 2:8; 9:13; 11:4; 21:6; 22:15; 27:66; 28:19; Mark 16:15; Luke 7:22; 9:12, 13, 52; 13:32; 17:14; 22:8), and it is almost always used in this way. It never means “as/while you go.” It is most often used, as here, in conjunction with imperative verbs, indicating that the hearers are to go (and do something which could not be done if they just sit there). Remember, the mood of the main verb casts its shadow over the participle of attendant circumstance so that when the participle introduces an imperative it gains an imperatival force as well, even though the main point is found in the main verb and the participle points to a first step that must be undertaken to accomplish the action of the main verb. That is the usage we find in Matt. 2:8; 9:13; 11:4; 28:19; Mark 16:15; Luke 7:22; 13:32; 17:14; 22:8. In all these cases it is best translated, “Go and ….”
Sometimes it is used with indicative verbs to indicate that someone (or some people) went and did (that is, went in order to do) something that needed to be accomplished elsewhere. That is the usage found in Matt. 21:6; 22:15; 27:66; Luke 9:52. It is used in a similar way with subjunctive verbs in Luke 9:12, 13 to refer to something that might be done to accomplish something elsewhere (they may have to go [← participle] and buy food).
Whether it is used with indicative, imperative or other moods, this kind of participle of attendant circumstance highlights intentionality or deliberateness. The participle is not the main point (that is indicated by the main verb) but it is used for an action intentionally or deliberately carried out with a view to realizing the action mentioned in the main verb.
So what does all this tell us about Matthew 28:19 and the Great Commission? It means no ancient Greek would take it to mean “while/as you go, disciple the nations” but would understand, from intimate familiarity with this common usage, that the meaning was “Go and disciple the nations” and that the main point was not to go but to disciple the nations, but that the nations would never become disciples if the apostles and those converted by them did not take the gospel to them. Going is not the ultimate point, but it is a prerequisite, a necessary step towards the goal of making disciples of the nations and we must be intentional, deliberate, about going everywhere and leading all peoples to (willingly) obey the Lord Jesus Christ. Jesus never suggested that the nations would be discipled as long as we simply shared the gospel as we went about the normal routines of our lives. He indicated that we needed to be intentional/deliberate about making sure all nations got the message and were taught how to follow Jesus.
This does not mean that every Christian must up and move to the far corners of the Earth to make disciples. If the CEO tells his leadership team (of, let’s say, eleven people) that they needed to take their product global (and, yes, I cringe at my use of a commercial analogy), it would not mean that those particular eleven people needed to go to all the nations. It would mean that they needed to take whatever steps would be necessary to make sure people all over the world had sufficient knowledge of and easy access to their product. In the case of the church it means we must accept the fact that there are people who will never hear and respond to the gospel message if we do not take it to them. The disciples could not all stay on that mountain or stay in Jerusalem, but needed to get the gospel to those who would never hear unless it was brought to them. That challenge is still ours. Some of us may contribute best to that mission by staying where we are and partnering with others who go, sent and supported by the rest of us. And even those of us who do not go to distant lands must not simply wait for people to come to us but must be intentional about finding bridges that can be used to take the good news to others in our communities and we need to be intentional about supporting the growth and health of the church around the world. After all, Jesus commanded us, as a church, to “go and make disciples of the nations….”
Associate Professor of New Testament
One commonly hears that the opening line of the Great Commission is, literally, “… as you go, make disciples…” (a Google search for “as you go, make disciples” gets “about 787” hits). It is pointed out by many that the verb “go” is a participle and it is stated that the participle suggests “as [or while] you go…” From this a very fine pastoral and missiological point is made, namely, that we are all going here and there with our normal life activities and rather than making evangelism and discipleship a special separate part of our lives we should make evangelism and discipleship integral parts of our lives, using whatever opportunities normally and naturally arise as we go about our daily activities. While the point that we should take advantage our the opportunities our lives already present us is valid, as is the point that evangelism should be a natural and integral part of our lives, these miss the usage of the participle in the text, which actually emphasizes something different. First let me explain how we can tell what kind of participle we are dealing with in this case, then I will explain what difference it makes.
The rendering “..as [or while] you go…” suggests the participle is taken as a temporal participle, indicating when the main action (discipling the nations) should take place. But when a participle is used to indicate when an action took place or is to take place (the temporal use of the participle) the present tense is used for actions that are to be simultaneous. So to communicate the idea that we are to make disciples “as/while we go” a Greek would use a present participle, not an aorist participle, as we find in this case. (Of course, there are other uses of the present adverbial participle as well). If the aorist participle were functioning as a temporal participle the idea would be “having gone, make disciples” pointing to the disciple-making process as one that is to take place immediately after going. But that is not the most natural understanding here. It is does not work as well as a very common usage that fits perfectly here. None of the participles in Matthew 28:19 are temporal participles. (The participles [baptizing and teaching] that follow the main verb [make disciples] function differently from the one which precedes it and will be discussed in a separate post in the future.)
Students taking basic Greek are commonly taught to translate all adverbial participles as temporal participles, with the understanding that they will later learn other ways that participles might function (for a full discussion of adverbial participles I recommend Daniel Wallace’s Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics [Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1996], pages 622-650). All too often they never learn, or at least do not gain great familiarity with, other ways the participles might function.
The first participle in Matthew 28:19 (the one that precedes the main verb, usually translated “Go”) is a participle of attendant circumstance. The most common use of the participle of attendant circumstance, the usage found here, is one where an 1) aorist adverbial participle 2) comes before the main verb and 3) refers to an intentional action that had/has to take place as a prerequisite to the realization of the action of the main verb (adverbial participles that do not fit all the criteria do not fit in this category). This is one of the two most common uses of the adverbial participle in narrative texts and should be the default interpretation whenever a moment’s reflection makes it clear that the action of the main verb could/would not be realized if the action indicated by the participle were not realized first and is something that someone would intentionally do in order to accomplish the action indicated in the main verb. It would have been the default interpretation of any ancient Greek. When translated into English the participle of attendant circumstance is translated as a finite verb, sharing the mood (indicative, imperative, etc.) of the main verb.
Once this pattern is identified [aorist adverbial participle preceding the main verb and referring to an action that is a prerequisite for the realization of the action of the main verb] it becomes easily recognized. Here is a series of examples from the Gospel of Matthew (in some cases I abbreviate the text for brevity’s sake):
• Matthew 2:7: Herod summoned (← participle) and ascertained from them when the star had appeared (he had to summon them to ascertain anything from them).
• Matthew 2:8: Go (← participle) and search diligently for the child (one cannot search for someone while remaining stationary [without going]).
• Matthew 4:3: The tempter came (← participle) and said to him (this is a common usage – people typically approach others for the purpose of speaking with them, and with human subjects, at least, one cannot speak with another unless one goes to them first)
• Matthew 5:2: And he opened (← participle) his mouth and taught them. (Have you ever tried teaching something [verbally] without opening your mouth? In cases like this we open our mouths in order to say or teach something).
• Matthew 8:2: a leper came (← participle) to him and knelt before him (one cannot kneel before another without going to them first).
• Matthew 8:3: Jesus stretched (← participle) out his hand and touched him (touching in cases like this requires reaching out first – it’s a prerequisite)
Hopefully this is enough to give you the idea. When we exegete participles like these we should not be asking what all the possible interpretations are and which ones we like best or which ones fit our theology best. Rather, we should be asking which interpretation is the one to which the original readers would be expected to come based on the standard usage of the language. In cases where an aorist adverbial participle precedes the main verb and refers to an action that would be a natural prerequisite to the action given in the main verb (an action which one would intentionally take as a step towards the goal indicated in the main verb) a modern interpreter should work with the same assumption that would guide an ancient Greek, namely, that the participle refers to an action done as a step towards (that is, as a prerequisite to) the action indicated in the main verb.
We should note that the exact form of the participle used in Matthew 28:19 (poreuthentes) is used seven times in just that gospel and fifteen times in the New Testament as a whole (Matt. 2:8; 9:13; 11:4; 21:6; 22:15; 27:66; 28:19; Mark 16:15; Luke 7:22; 9:12, 13, 52; 13:32; 17:14; 22:8), and it is almost always used in this way. It never means “as/while you go.” It is most often used, as here, in conjunction with imperative verbs, indicating that the hearers are to go (and do something which could not be done if they just sit there). Remember, the mood of the main verb casts its shadow over the participle of attendant circumstance so that when the participle introduces an imperative it gains an imperatival force as well, even though the main point is found in the main verb and the participle points to a first step that must be undertaken to accomplish the action of the main verb. That is the usage we find in Matt. 2:8; 9:13; 11:4; 28:19; Mark 16:15; Luke 7:22; 13:32; 17:14; 22:8. In all these cases it is best translated, “Go and ….”
Sometimes it is used with indicative verbs to indicate that someone (or some people) went and did (that is, went in order to do) something that needed to be accomplished elsewhere. That is the usage found in Matt. 21:6; 22:15; 27:66; Luke 9:52. It is used in a similar way with subjunctive verbs in Luke 9:12, 13 to refer to something that might be done to accomplish something elsewhere (they may have to go [← participle] and buy food).
Whether it is used with indicative, imperative or other moods, this kind of participle of attendant circumstance highlights intentionality or deliberateness. The participle is not the main point (that is indicated by the main verb) but it is used for an action intentionally or deliberately carried out with a view to realizing the action mentioned in the main verb.
So what does all this tell us about Matthew 28:19 and the Great Commission? It means no ancient Greek would take it to mean “while/as you go, disciple the nations” but would understand, from intimate familiarity with this common usage, that the meaning was “Go and disciple the nations” and that the main point was not to go but to disciple the nations, but that the nations would never become disciples if the apostles and those converted by them did not take the gospel to them. Going is not the ultimate point, but it is a prerequisite, a necessary step towards the goal of making disciples of the nations and we must be intentional, deliberate, about going everywhere and leading all peoples to (willingly) obey the Lord Jesus Christ. Jesus never suggested that the nations would be discipled as long as we simply shared the gospel as we went about the normal routines of our lives. He indicated that we needed to be intentional/deliberate about making sure all nations got the message and were taught how to follow Jesus.
This does not mean that every Christian must up and move to the far corners of the Earth to make disciples. If the CEO tells his leadership team (of, let’s say, eleven people) that they needed to take their product global (and, yes, I cringe at my use of a commercial analogy), it would not mean that those particular eleven people needed to go to all the nations. It would mean that they needed to take whatever steps would be necessary to make sure people all over the world had sufficient knowledge of and easy access to their product. In the case of the church it means we must accept the fact that there are people who will never hear and respond to the gospel message if we do not take it to them. The disciples could not all stay on that mountain or stay in Jerusalem, but needed to get the gospel to those who would never hear unless it was brought to them. That challenge is still ours. Some of us may contribute best to that mission by staying where we are and partnering with others who go, sent and supported by the rest of us. And even those of us who do not go to distant lands must not simply wait for people to come to us but must be intentional about finding bridges that can be used to take the good news to others in our communities and we need to be intentional about supporting the growth and health of the church around the world. After all, Jesus commanded us, as a church, to “go and make disciples of the nations….”
Monday, August 11, 2008
"I Enjoy Being a Girl"
By Maria L. Boccia, PhD
Professor of Pastoral Counseling and Psychology
Director of Graduate Programs in Counseling Charlotte campus
To me, the song "I Enjoy Being a Girl," sung by the Linda Low character in Rogers and Hammerstein's 1958 musical Flower Drum Song, has always represented the nadir of the entertainment industry’s presentation of women’s values, motives and desires. Low enjoys being a girl when she can wear makeup and frilly clothes, and celebrates how the curves of her body attract men, using that to manipulate them and get what she wants from them. Her total focus and only goal in life is to get married, it hardly matters to whom. If one examines TV characters from that decade, this is typical of how women were presented and portrayed.
Our society has seen two major women's movements, one starting in the mid-1800s, which culminated in women winning the right to vote in 1920, and the second starting in the 1960s, which had more-difficult-to-measure goals about the quality of women’s lives. [It has always fascinated me that both of these movements followed on movements related to race (abolition in the 19th century, and the civil rights movement in the 20th century), when women involved in these movements recognized their own disenfranchisement and lack of social and political power.] Both of these movements have resulted in significant improvements in the lives of women in this country. When considering this, we may be tempted to think of sociological indicators, such as changes in legal standing or economic well-being, but I’d like to focus on a more personal, psychological impact.
I did not enjoy being a girl. When I was growing up, that is. As an adult, I have had to “work through this issue,” as we say in the trade, doing the hard emotional/psychological work of understanding why I felt this way, from where this feeling about myself came, and changing it. At one point, I asked my therapist, "I wonder how common this is among women." Her response was, “you’re the researcher; do the research!” I did not do a formal, NIH-funded, multi-million dollar research project. But I did do a little internet-based study.
I had access to two email listservs focused on evangelical women (this was not a “representative sample” but a sample of convenience, with all the limitations that implies). I sent them an email questionnaire in which I asked them about whether they enjoyed being a girl (or not), and why. I also asked some other questions like birth year, if they had brothers or sisters, and so on. I found that a significant percentage of women, like me, did not enjoy being a girl. But there was an interesting phenomenon in the data. Things like having brothers or sisters and such did not effect how likely the women were to report not liking being a girl. The year 1960, however, seemed to be an important year. Among women born before then, who would have been taught to be like Linda Low, over two-thirds of the women did not enjoy being girls. The reasons they gave tended to be about the restrictions they felt: things they could not do, games they could not play, stuff they could not have, because they were girls and not boys. Women born after 1960 were much less likely to say they did not enjoy being girls: less than half responded this way. They reported feeling no such limitations on what they could do or aspire to do or be.
I was born before 1960 and I saw myself reflected in these women’s answers. That was pretty heady, and healing, stuff. There are things to criticize about the women’s movement of the 60s, including some excesses. But I cannot criticize the empowering effect on young girls and their aspirations of being told “I am woman, hear me roar . . . I am strong . . . I can do anything,” to quote a different old song by Helen Reddy. To my mind, that was the power and success of the modern women’s movement. Women discovered that it is a good thing to be a woman. We could enjoy being a girl!
According to the gospel accounts, Jesus reached out to lift up the disenfranchised and powerless, including the women. Women flocked to him because his affirmation helped them see themselves as he saw them, as daughters of the King. Peter, quoting Joel, told the first hearers of the gospel on Pentecost that “your sons and daughters shall prophesy” as God promised. The Holy Spirit came and fell on both male and female disciples, in equal measure, with an outpouring of power and gifts for ministry. Those first disciples spread out from Jerusalem, using those power and gifts to spread the good news of Jesus’ saving work on the cross to the world.
Unfortunately, the church has too often sided with Rogers and Hammerstein, telling women they need to be satisfied with the life of Linda Low. Not only does this rob God of the gifts he places in women’s bodies, but it sends messages to little girls about who they should aspire to be and what they can and cannot aspire to do. They grow up to be women who do not like being girls. Sadly, they also grow up to be women who do not like the church or the God the church reflects to the world. As a professional scientist, I have been the sad listener of many intelligent, educated women’s explanations about how they would have nothing to do with a God who devalues women so much. The irony of this is that many of the passages of Scripture used to restrict women’s opportunities in the church were initially written with the intent of helping the church to avoid allowing anything to interfere with unbelievers hearing the gospel.
Well, I have done the hard work. I have made peace with my gender. Sometimes, I even enjoy being a woman. I know that God has made me this way and that he has declared that very good. I also know that being a woman does not mean I cannot do this or that. I am satisfied knowing that it is God who chose to make me a woman, and that he has called me and given me gifts to fulfill that calling. I am definitely with Helen Reddy on this one. I can do anything, . . . through Christ who strengthens me.
Professor of Pastoral Counseling and Psychology
Director of Graduate Programs in Counseling Charlotte campus
To me, the song "I Enjoy Being a Girl," sung by the Linda Low character in Rogers and Hammerstein's 1958 musical Flower Drum Song, has always represented the nadir of the entertainment industry’s presentation of women’s values, motives and desires. Low enjoys being a girl when she can wear makeup and frilly clothes, and celebrates how the curves of her body attract men, using that to manipulate them and get what she wants from them. Her total focus and only goal in life is to get married, it hardly matters to whom. If one examines TV characters from that decade, this is typical of how women were presented and portrayed.
Our society has seen two major women's movements, one starting in the mid-1800s, which culminated in women winning the right to vote in 1920, and the second starting in the 1960s, which had more-difficult-to-measure goals about the quality of women’s lives. [It has always fascinated me that both of these movements followed on movements related to race (abolition in the 19th century, and the civil rights movement in the 20th century), when women involved in these movements recognized their own disenfranchisement and lack of social and political power.] Both of these movements have resulted in significant improvements in the lives of women in this country. When considering this, we may be tempted to think of sociological indicators, such as changes in legal standing or economic well-being, but I’d like to focus on a more personal, psychological impact.
I did not enjoy being a girl. When I was growing up, that is. As an adult, I have had to “work through this issue,” as we say in the trade, doing the hard emotional/psychological work of understanding why I felt this way, from where this feeling about myself came, and changing it. At one point, I asked my therapist, "I wonder how common this is among women." Her response was, “you’re the researcher; do the research!” I did not do a formal, NIH-funded, multi-million dollar research project. But I did do a little internet-based study.
I had access to two email listservs focused on evangelical women (this was not a “representative sample” but a sample of convenience, with all the limitations that implies). I sent them an email questionnaire in which I asked them about whether they enjoyed being a girl (or not), and why. I also asked some other questions like birth year, if they had brothers or sisters, and so on. I found that a significant percentage of women, like me, did not enjoy being a girl. But there was an interesting phenomenon in the data. Things like having brothers or sisters and such did not effect how likely the women were to report not liking being a girl. The year 1960, however, seemed to be an important year. Among women born before then, who would have been taught to be like Linda Low, over two-thirds of the women did not enjoy being girls. The reasons they gave tended to be about the restrictions they felt: things they could not do, games they could not play, stuff they could not have, because they were girls and not boys. Women born after 1960 were much less likely to say they did not enjoy being girls: less than half responded this way. They reported feeling no such limitations on what they could do or aspire to do or be.
I was born before 1960 and I saw myself reflected in these women’s answers. That was pretty heady, and healing, stuff. There are things to criticize about the women’s movement of the 60s, including some excesses. But I cannot criticize the empowering effect on young girls and their aspirations of being told “I am woman, hear me roar . . . I am strong . . . I can do anything,” to quote a different old song by Helen Reddy. To my mind, that was the power and success of the modern women’s movement. Women discovered that it is a good thing to be a woman. We could enjoy being a girl!
According to the gospel accounts, Jesus reached out to lift up the disenfranchised and powerless, including the women. Women flocked to him because his affirmation helped them see themselves as he saw them, as daughters of the King. Peter, quoting Joel, told the first hearers of the gospel on Pentecost that “your sons and daughters shall prophesy” as God promised. The Holy Spirit came and fell on both male and female disciples, in equal measure, with an outpouring of power and gifts for ministry. Those first disciples spread out from Jerusalem, using those power and gifts to spread the good news of Jesus’ saving work on the cross to the world.
Unfortunately, the church has too often sided with Rogers and Hammerstein, telling women they need to be satisfied with the life of Linda Low. Not only does this rob God of the gifts he places in women’s bodies, but it sends messages to little girls about who they should aspire to be and what they can and cannot aspire to do. They grow up to be women who do not like being girls. Sadly, they also grow up to be women who do not like the church or the God the church reflects to the world. As a professional scientist, I have been the sad listener of many intelligent, educated women’s explanations about how they would have nothing to do with a God who devalues women so much. The irony of this is that many of the passages of Scripture used to restrict women’s opportunities in the church were initially written with the intent of helping the church to avoid allowing anything to interfere with unbelievers hearing the gospel.
Well, I have done the hard work. I have made peace with my gender. Sometimes, I even enjoy being a woman. I know that God has made me this way and that he has declared that very good. I also know that being a woman does not mean I cannot do this or that. I am satisfied knowing that it is God who chose to make me a woman, and that he has called me and given me gifts to fulfill that calling. I am definitely with Helen Reddy on this one. I can do anything, . . . through Christ who strengthens me.
Monday, August 4, 2008
An Examination of I Timothy 2:12
By John Jefferson Davis, PhD
Professor of Systematic Theology and Christian Ethics
I have recently written an article titled “I Timothy 2:12, the Ordination of Women, and Pauline Use of Creation Narratives,” which is currently being considered for publication by the Priscilla Papers. Since many students have expressed interest in this article, and have copied it from the hard copy posted on my bulletin board, I have decided to make it available to a wider seminary audience through White Papers.
Here are the first two introductory paragraphs of the article, which will give you a sense of what the article is about, and whether you might want to read it for your own study on White Papers this month:
"I Timothy 2:11-15, and especially v.12, has long been a focal point in modern discussions of the ordination of women. Traditional reservations about the ordination of women as pastors and elders have generally made two assumptions in the interpretation of this passage: 1) that the meaning of authentein in v.12 is clearly known and should be translated simply as “have authority”, and 2) that the appeal to the creation narrative naming Adam and Eve in vv.13 and 14 implies a universal, “transcultural” principle that prohibits the exercise of ecclesiastical authority by women over men in all (or some) circumstances.
The purpose of this article is to argue that both of these assumptions are faulty, and that I Timothy 2:11-15, rightly understood lexically and contextually, does not teach any universal prohibition of the ordination of women as pastors or elders. The primary focus of this discussion will be the second assumption, regarding the appeal to the Genesis creation account of Adam and Eve.1 It will be argued that Paul’s contextual and church-specific appeal to creation texts makes it not only possible but preferable to see the limitation on women’s teaching roles in I Tim.2 as a circumstantial and not universal prohibition. Before proceeding with this analysis, however, a few observations will be made regarding the meaning of authentein in v.12."
To read the remainder of the first installment of the paper, visit White Papers. [This link no longer works]
Professor of Systematic Theology and Christian Ethics
I have recently written an article titled “I Timothy 2:12, the Ordination of Women, and Pauline Use of Creation Narratives,” which is currently being considered for publication by the Priscilla Papers. Since many students have expressed interest in this article, and have copied it from the hard copy posted on my bulletin board, I have decided to make it available to a wider seminary audience through White Papers.
Here are the first two introductory paragraphs of the article, which will give you a sense of what the article is about, and whether you might want to read it for your own study on White Papers this month:
"I Timothy 2:11-15, and especially v.12, has long been a focal point in modern discussions of the ordination of women. Traditional reservations about the ordination of women as pastors and elders have generally made two assumptions in the interpretation of this passage: 1) that the meaning of authentein in v.12 is clearly known and should be translated simply as “have authority”, and 2) that the appeal to the creation narrative naming Adam and Eve in vv.13 and 14 implies a universal, “transcultural” principle that prohibits the exercise of ecclesiastical authority by women over men in all (or some) circumstances.
The purpose of this article is to argue that both of these assumptions are faulty, and that I Timothy 2:11-15, rightly understood lexically and contextually, does not teach any universal prohibition of the ordination of women as pastors or elders. The primary focus of this discussion will be the second assumption, regarding the appeal to the Genesis creation account of Adam and Eve.1 It will be argued that Paul’s contextual and church-specific appeal to creation texts makes it not only possible but preferable to see the limitation on women’s teaching roles in I Tim.2 as a circumstantial and not universal prohibition. Before proceeding with this analysis, however, a few observations will be made regarding the meaning of authentein in v.12."
To read the remainder of the first installment of the paper, visit White Papers. [This link no longer works]
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)