By Roy Ciampa, PhD
Associate Professor of New Testament
Karen Armstrong’s recent book, The Bible: A Biography (New York: Atlantic Monthly, 2007), provides an interesting discussion of some of the main emphases in biblical interpretation through the centuries. It is very narrow type of biography which, kindly, only occasionally mentions some of the dark sides or moments in interpretation of the Bible. One could write much more about many aspects of the history of the interpretation of the Bible, and much more about the dark side to the Bible’s biography. In Romans 7:12 Paul says “the law is holy, and the commandment is holy, righteous and good” (NIV). The same (and more) may be said about the Bible as a whole. But just as Paul points out that the holy, righteous and good law has been used by sin to produce evil and death, the Bible has continued to be abused by some people throughout church history.
I love the Bible. I have spent a good part of my adult life studying it and teaching others about it. Most semesters I teach a course called Interpreting the New Testament and I confess that it is an incredible privilege to help committed Christian men and women grow in their abilities as interpreters of Scripture. I am constantly reminded of the crucial role of engaging Scripture for the health of churches and believers. But I am also constantly reminded of the horrible damage that can be done and that has been done when Scripture has been wrongly interpreted and used as a weapon to oppress or abuse others.
Throughout history the Bible has been used to justify all kinds of injustice and to empower people with oppressive agendas. At different times and in different places, the Bible has been used to justify slavery, wife abuse, child abuse, the crusades, the inquisition, anti-Semitism, racism, apartheid, the use of violence (including deadly force) against those who were accused of not following its teachings, etc. In Armstrong’s view “A thread of hatred runs through the New Testament” (76). I would dispute that, but there is little dispute that a thread of hatred has appeared here and there throughout the history of its interpretation.
Ideological criticism needs to be added to the toolbox of evangelical pastors and leaders. Even those of us who have difficulty applying ideological criticism to the biblical texts themselves should not hesitate for a moment to apply it to the ways that people (including pastors) interpret the Scriptures. Christians need to be the first and the loudest to speak out against the use of Scripture to oppress and abuse others. Since there is such a history of people who consider themselves Christians supporting abusive and oppressive interpretations of Scripture, it might be a good thing for us to be slightly over-sensitive and to be on the alert for interpretations that empower the powerful rather than holding them accountable for the ways they use their power.
In the Old Testament, one of the differences between true and false prophets was that true prophets confronted the powerful people in society – including the king – while false prophets could be bought off or pressured to preach things that would empower the king to permit or sponsor injustice. Jesus said the two greatest commandments were to “Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind” and to “Love your neighbor as yourself” (Matthew 22:37-39, quoting Deuteronomy 6:5 and Leviticus 19:18). If these are the greatest commandments our teaching and preaching of Scripture should certainly be evaluated in terms of whether or not we are empowering people to abuse and/or oppress others rather than helping them grow in loving God and others. Jesus Christ used his power to liberate and redeem those who were under the power of sin. He sacrificed himself for those who were weak and who were powerless to help themselves.
As practitioners of the ideological criticism of biblical interpretations we need to ask ourselves some difficult questions: Is this biblical text being interpreted in such as way that it would empower some people (or person) to abuse others? Is this text being preached in a distorted way that serves the interests of some people at the expense of others? Is this text being taught or preached in a way that is consistent with Christ’s own loving and self-sacrificing commitment to the good of others, especially the weak and powerless?
Ideology often enters into biblical interpretation apart from any conscious intention on the part of the interpreter. Early on in my missionary career I taught some preaching courses. One of the first classroom sermons I ever heard was one in which a pastor’s son (a fine Christian and a good friend) took a text about the pastor’s sober responsibilities to shepherd a flock with love, wisdom and integrity and turned it into a message about the need for church members to obediently submit themselves to the authority of God’s anointed leader. The student was a fine Christian with a good heart, but his reading of Scripture was evidently being distorted by some of the difficult politics going on in his father’s church. He had taken a text that spoke of the pastor’s responsibilities to God and the flock and had unconsciously turned it into a hammer to beat his father’s flock into submission.
A few months ago I was chatting with a friend who had attended a conference of Bible translators in Kenya. One of the things that he heard while there was about the need for teaching on biblical interpretation to be given along with the preparations of Bible translations so that those translations are not interpreted in abusive ways. For example, he heard about men (pastors, if I recall correctly) with HIV/AIDS who were insisting that their wives submit to them by having unprotected sex with them because they did not want to use any protection. Their wives were supposed to just trust God not to let them become infected as their husbands were!
Of course in this country one may witness people using the Bible to teach warped views of God and of the gospel message through materialistic and egocentric “prosperity gospels” by turning to any number of “Christian” TV stations at virtually any time of day. These teachings lead their followers down destructive paths and pervert the good news into something perverse. Many passages of the Bible warn about those who would twist Scripture to teach dangerous things (e.g., 2 Peter 3:15-16; Acts 20:29-30; Jude 4; 1 Timothy 1:5-7; 2 Timothy 2:16-18; 2 Peter 2:1-2).
We are all grateful for tremendous good has been done out of obedience to the teachings of Scripture. But we must not shrink back from admitting that much harm has also been done and we must never stop speaking out against those who would use the Bible in abusive ways. I’m curious about ways in which you might have observed the Bible being used to the detriment of those exposed to the teaching (without naming names or places...). Do you have any suggestions about how we might all guard more effectively against adding to the dark side of the Bible’s biography?
Monday, September 22, 2008
Monday, September 15, 2008
Falling In Love
By David Horn, ThD
Director, The Ockenga Institute
This column originally appeared in the Summer 2006 edition of the Ockenga Connections.
Let’s call her Martha Kavinski. She was my first secretary at the first church I served as pastor just out of seminary. When they invented New Englanders, they carved her in New Hampshire granite and pointed to her thereafter as the model for the rest of us. She was tough as nails, she was utterly undiplomatic, and most of all, she did not like me. She met me at the stairways leading up to my office at the church on my first day, and right then and there, I felt like a first grader on the first day of class looking up at raw authority.
It did not take me long to realize that Martha was not the only one not immediately enthralled with my presence. The congregation was peppered with individuals who had been at the church a long, long time, and they wanted to make it clear to me early on that life had gone on reasonably well before I arrived and probably would go on just as well after I departed.
My experience, I am sure, is not unusual to most of you in ministry. Although my first years were not a disaster, they were not easy. Who would have thought that moving the church library to a more public location so that it actually could be used by the children of the congregation would provoke three meetings and an act of the full board of the church?
In hindsight, perhaps the only thing that saved me was what many would consider a grave liability on my part. I entered into the world of this three hundred year old church without a clear set of ambitions for the congregation. Perhaps too naïve for a clear plan, I fell back on something far more basic: Gradually, unconsciously, seemingly against my will, I found that I began to fall in love with this congregation, Martha and all.
In working with students and young pastors these past years at the seminary, I have noticed a growing trend that hints at good news and bad news. Perhaps buoyed by a cottage industry of church resources, pastors are entering their ministries with a growing awareness of the envisioning process required for healthy congregational life. That’s the good news. The bad news is that often time these well-intended visions of what a congregation should become comes with airtight, tone-death agendas.
A look at these agenda-driven processes from the inside looking out bears reflection. As a person who is now facing his mid-fifties, I can more readily fit into the skin of the long-time parishioner who has committed years of labor and well-intended, if often misguided, leadership in a church. The parishioner’s kids may have been born and nurtured in the church; he or she may have helped to develop and taken ownership of a program that at one time clearly met the needs of the congregation; he or she may have spent countless Saturday mornings toiling over the church lawn.
What does that parishioner see and feel when a pastor enters into the life of a church with a satchel full of good ideas on how his or her church needs to change. Change the worship service. Eliminate the hymnal. Get rid of a timeworn program. Re-organize the committee structure of the church. No doubt many of these things might benefit the church greatly and might be essential for new growth, both spiritually and numerically. But, on the face of it, what do these things say to those who, apparently, are in need of change?
I am convinced that churches are less in need of pastors’ well-designed agendas than their love. Falling in love with a congregation is an amazing legacy to give to a church. The measure of that love, like marriage, involves loving churches exactly as they are, with all their imperfections, before seeking more of them.
Martha died at 75 and I count one of the high moments of my ministry at that church the eulogizing of her at her funeral. We became fast friends in Christ. In the end, she saw what I saw in the subsequent six years of our ministry together. That creaky old church grew ten fold. I am convinced it changed and grew in large measure because the congregation genuinely felt loved by its pastoral staff. It is amazing what love can do when love comes without strings attached.
Director, The Ockenga Institute
This column originally appeared in the Summer 2006 edition of the Ockenga Connections.
Let’s call her Martha Kavinski. She was my first secretary at the first church I served as pastor just out of seminary. When they invented New Englanders, they carved her in New Hampshire granite and pointed to her thereafter as the model for the rest of us. She was tough as nails, she was utterly undiplomatic, and most of all, she did not like me. She met me at the stairways leading up to my office at the church on my first day, and right then and there, I felt like a first grader on the first day of class looking up at raw authority.
It did not take me long to realize that Martha was not the only one not immediately enthralled with my presence. The congregation was peppered with individuals who had been at the church a long, long time, and they wanted to make it clear to me early on that life had gone on reasonably well before I arrived and probably would go on just as well after I departed.
My experience, I am sure, is not unusual to most of you in ministry. Although my first years were not a disaster, they were not easy. Who would have thought that moving the church library to a more public location so that it actually could be used by the children of the congregation would provoke three meetings and an act of the full board of the church?
In hindsight, perhaps the only thing that saved me was what many would consider a grave liability on my part. I entered into the world of this three hundred year old church without a clear set of ambitions for the congregation. Perhaps too naïve for a clear plan, I fell back on something far more basic: Gradually, unconsciously, seemingly against my will, I found that I began to fall in love with this congregation, Martha and all.
In working with students and young pastors these past years at the seminary, I have noticed a growing trend that hints at good news and bad news. Perhaps buoyed by a cottage industry of church resources, pastors are entering their ministries with a growing awareness of the envisioning process required for healthy congregational life. That’s the good news. The bad news is that often time these well-intended visions of what a congregation should become comes with airtight, tone-death agendas.
A look at these agenda-driven processes from the inside looking out bears reflection. As a person who is now facing his mid-fifties, I can more readily fit into the skin of the long-time parishioner who has committed years of labor and well-intended, if often misguided, leadership in a church. The parishioner’s kids may have been born and nurtured in the church; he or she may have helped to develop and taken ownership of a program that at one time clearly met the needs of the congregation; he or she may have spent countless Saturday mornings toiling over the church lawn.
What does that parishioner see and feel when a pastor enters into the life of a church with a satchel full of good ideas on how his or her church needs to change. Change the worship service. Eliminate the hymnal. Get rid of a timeworn program. Re-organize the committee structure of the church. No doubt many of these things might benefit the church greatly and might be essential for new growth, both spiritually and numerically. But, on the face of it, what do these things say to those who, apparently, are in need of change?
I am convinced that churches are less in need of pastors’ well-designed agendas than their love. Falling in love with a congregation is an amazing legacy to give to a church. The measure of that love, like marriage, involves loving churches exactly as they are, with all their imperfections, before seeking more of them.
Martha died at 75 and I count one of the high moments of my ministry at that church the eulogizing of her at her funeral. We became fast friends in Christ. In the end, she saw what I saw in the subsequent six years of our ministry together. That creaky old church grew ten fold. I am convinced it changed and grew in large measure because the congregation genuinely felt loved by its pastoral staff. It is amazing what love can do when love comes without strings attached.
Monday, September 8, 2008
Of Second Miles and Boundaries
By Maria L. Boccia, PhD
Professor of Pastoral Counseling and Psychology
Director of Graduate Programs in Counseling Charlotte campus
The Sermon on the Mount contains many teachings which challenge us deeply, so much so that some commentators retreat from the challenge by saying this it is an ideal and perfection never to be attained in this life, but only aspired to. One passage in the Sermon on the Mount that I've been thinking about entails some teachings on personal relationships. Jesus tells us not only that we should not take revenge when someone does something against us, but that we should actually extend ourselves:
You have heard that it was said, 'An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth.' But I say to you, do not resist an evil person; but whoever slaps you on your right cheek, turn the other to him also. If anyone wants to sue you and take your shirt, let him have your coat also. Whoever forces you to go one mile, go with him two. Give to him who asks of you, and do not turn away from him who wants to borrow from you. - Matthew 5:38-42 (NASB)
As a counselor, I have listened to sincere Christians who desire to grow spiritually struggle with the demands of this passage. This sounds like Jesus requires us in all in every circumstance to do whatever a person demands of us and then some. Could this possibly be how God wants us to live?
Another important teaching of Jesus is contained in the familiar story of the good Samaritan. In response to a challenge from a lawyer, who, when Jesus adequately answered his question about what he must do to have eternal life, challenged him with a second question, 'who is my neighbor?' Jesus responded with the parable of the good Samaritan:
A man was going down from Jerusalem to Jericho, and fell among robbers, and they stripped him and beat him, and went away leaving him half dead. And by chance a priest was going down on that road, and when he saw him, he passed by on the other side. Likewise a Levite also, when he came to the place and saw him, passed by on the other side. But a Samaritan, who was on a journey, came upon him; and when he saw him, he felt compassion, and came to him and bandaged up his wounds, pouring oil and wine on them; and he put him on his own beast, and brought him to an inn and took care of him. On the next day he took out two denarii and gave them to the innkeeper and said, 'Take care of him; and whatever more you spend, when I return I will repay you.' Which of these three do you think proved to be a neighbor to the man who fell into the robbers' hands?' And he said, 'The one who showed mercy toward him.' Then Jesus said to him, 'Go and do the same.' - Luke 10:30-37. (NASB)
Now, at first blush, this might resemble the previous passage in which we are taught to extend ourselves to others, in this case on the basis of need, rather than demand, as in the previous case. But recently, as I was reflecting on this while listening to a client struggle with the unreasonable demands of some relationships, I noticed something else about this story. The good Samaritan had good boundaries!
When the good Samaritan came across this man who had been robbed, he interrupted his journey to attend to the immediate crisis and get him situated in a place where he could be adequately cared for by another. He then went about his business, returning to check on him and pay the innkeeper for the care he provided. He met this man's needs, but he did not abandon his own. He did not take care of the man himself, abandoning his responsibilities for his own life and work to do this. Rather, he did what was necessary to deal with the crisis and then left others in his place to do the rest while he returned to his responsibilities.
I think there is an important lesson here. I believe God wants us to be available to others. He wants us to be available whether, as in the first Scripture, because others demand it of us, or as in the second Scripture, when others are in need. But the story of the good Samaritan suggests to me that God wants us to take care of ourselves as well. God wants us to have healthy boundaries. This makes sense to me because without healthy boundaries we cannot have healthy relationships, and we cannot sustain the energy and resources necessary to continue to help others. So sometimes we respond to others' needs directly ourselves. Other times, we may need to let others respond. At the same time, in either case, we need to maintain healthy boundaries to ensure we remain healthy and energized and enabled to continue to serve others.
Professor of Pastoral Counseling and Psychology
Director of Graduate Programs in Counseling Charlotte campus
The Sermon on the Mount contains many teachings which challenge us deeply, so much so that some commentators retreat from the challenge by saying this it is an ideal and perfection never to be attained in this life, but only aspired to. One passage in the Sermon on the Mount that I've been thinking about entails some teachings on personal relationships. Jesus tells us not only that we should not take revenge when someone does something against us, but that we should actually extend ourselves:
You have heard that it was said, 'An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth.' But I say to you, do not resist an evil person; but whoever slaps you on your right cheek, turn the other to him also. If anyone wants to sue you and take your shirt, let him have your coat also. Whoever forces you to go one mile, go with him two. Give to him who asks of you, and do not turn away from him who wants to borrow from you. - Matthew 5:38-42 (NASB)
As a counselor, I have listened to sincere Christians who desire to grow spiritually struggle with the demands of this passage. This sounds like Jesus requires us in all in every circumstance to do whatever a person demands of us and then some. Could this possibly be how God wants us to live?
Another important teaching of Jesus is contained in the familiar story of the good Samaritan. In response to a challenge from a lawyer, who, when Jesus adequately answered his question about what he must do to have eternal life, challenged him with a second question, 'who is my neighbor?' Jesus responded with the parable of the good Samaritan:
A man was going down from Jerusalem to Jericho, and fell among robbers, and they stripped him and beat him, and went away leaving him half dead. And by chance a priest was going down on that road, and when he saw him, he passed by on the other side. Likewise a Levite also, when he came to the place and saw him, passed by on the other side. But a Samaritan, who was on a journey, came upon him; and when he saw him, he felt compassion, and came to him and bandaged up his wounds, pouring oil and wine on them; and he put him on his own beast, and brought him to an inn and took care of him. On the next day he took out two denarii and gave them to the innkeeper and said, 'Take care of him; and whatever more you spend, when I return I will repay you.' Which of these three do you think proved to be a neighbor to the man who fell into the robbers' hands?' And he said, 'The one who showed mercy toward him.' Then Jesus said to him, 'Go and do the same.' - Luke 10:30-37. (NASB)
Now, at first blush, this might resemble the previous passage in which we are taught to extend ourselves to others, in this case on the basis of need, rather than demand, as in the previous case. But recently, as I was reflecting on this while listening to a client struggle with the unreasonable demands of some relationships, I noticed something else about this story. The good Samaritan had good boundaries!
When the good Samaritan came across this man who had been robbed, he interrupted his journey to attend to the immediate crisis and get him situated in a place where he could be adequately cared for by another. He then went about his business, returning to check on him and pay the innkeeper for the care he provided. He met this man's needs, but he did not abandon his own. He did not take care of the man himself, abandoning his responsibilities for his own life and work to do this. Rather, he did what was necessary to deal with the crisis and then left others in his place to do the rest while he returned to his responsibilities.
I think there is an important lesson here. I believe God wants us to be available to others. He wants us to be available whether, as in the first Scripture, because others demand it of us, or as in the second Scripture, when others are in need. But the story of the good Samaritan suggests to me that God wants us to take care of ourselves as well. God wants us to have healthy boundaries. This makes sense to me because without healthy boundaries we cannot have healthy relationships, and we cannot sustain the energy and resources necessary to continue to help others. So sometimes we respond to others' needs directly ourselves. Other times, we may need to let others respond. At the same time, in either case, we need to maintain healthy boundaries to ensure we remain healthy and energized and enabled to continue to serve others.
Monday, August 25, 2008
Pushing Yourself Outside the Box: Colorado Rocky Mountain High
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.
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 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:
Comments (Atom)