Golfing and Reading the Beatitudes

I am very far from being a good golfer, but I have spent a lot time on the course attempting to improve. When I first started trying to hit the ball, I received a lot of advice from those more skilled than myself: keep your head down, keep your eye on the ball, straighten this arm, rotate your hips, etc. Every time I would get up to the tee box to take a swing, all of these rules would go through my mind. It became a checklist of sorts to make sure that I was doing it "right."
There is an analogy here to reading the Gospels: when we approach the Gospels, there are a lot of things to keep in mind in order to understand the words and works of our Savior Jesus. This last week at church, I taught on the Beatitudes in Matt 5. They form the introduction to one of Jesus' most famous sermons and certainly his longest. How should we approach this sermon in order to understand it?
To start with we need to ask ourselves why these people were coming to hear Jesus in the first place. This was not a normal Sunday church event where the parishioners turned on autopilot and came to hear their pastor. This was a special speaker. Why do we go to hear special speakers? To hear someone famous; to get advice on a particular topic; to be encouraged/exhorted/fired up. In other words, when we go to hear a special speaker, we have expectations; we are going for a reason. So why did this crowd seek out Jesus to hear from him?
Of course trying to figure out what may have psychologically motivated various individuals would be impossible. But based on what we know about the social, economic, political, and religious milieu at the time we can envision some pretty clear corporate motivations. These motivations are helpful in understanding why Jesus started with pronouncements of blessing on the meek, the mourning, the pure in heart, etc. First of all, the majority of the audience was most likely very poor. They were probably farmers who did not own their own land, but rented it. Thus, they lived by the weather: rain equals crops and food, and no rain equals desperation and hunger. Despite any unfavorable weather, they were still required to pay the wealthy who owned the land. No government bailouts here. No subsidies. People were living season to season with little if any extra to sock away under the mattress. They had little hope of economic advancement, and in many cases little hope of justice if wronged.
Secondly, they were also politically captive to the Romans. Rome "conquered" Israel in 63 BC. Israel had only been independent for a brief period around 150 BC and they craved that freedom again. Of course, this was inseparably linked to the promises which God gave through the prophets before, during and after their exile. They had yet to be truly free, truly independent. They had hope, but they were desperate for God to act rightly, for God to act righteously according to His word.
This directly connects to a third situation: the people were intensely hopeful that God would act soon. God had promised them wonderful promises of a rebuilt Temple, a new heart by which to obey the Torah, a Davidic King, and to be an independent glorious nation which would host the nations and their worship of God. Unfortunately, these had failed to materialize to the degree expected in the prophets.
You can imagine that some in Jesus' audience may have thought that God's promises could be fulfilled through direct military action. Perhaps they should fight the Romans, and with God fighting their battles they would succeed and bring in the promises of God. Others probably thought that perhaps they should collude with the Romans. God was blessing the Romans and they should jump into that blessing by giving up their Jewish distinctives (e.g. circumcision, Sabbath observance, etc). Others would probably believe that if they just followed the Law as a nation more diligently then God would see their national/corporate righteousness and fulfill his promises. This is not a hope for individual salvation (the Jews believed they were already God's people), but a hope for national "salvation" (i.e. experience of the OT promises).
In part 2 of this blog post, I plan on working through several of the beatitudes in order to see how these expectations of the audience help us to understand and, therefore, apply Jesus' statements.

Women's ministry in the church Part 3: I Tim 2:9-3:1a

This is the third and final post regarding Dr. Earl Ellis' view of women in ministry. In the first post, I covered Dr. Ellis' observations noting the positive role of women in Paul's ministry and churches. In the second post, I examined I Cor 14:34f which in Ellis' view limits only the role of certain married women in the exercise of their gifts. In this third post, Ellis' view of another "limiting" passage will be examined: I Tim 2:9-3:1a.

Ellis begins by comparing I Tim 2:9-13 with I Cor 14:34f and I Pet 3:3-6. His purpose in doing this is twofold: 1) he wants readers to note the similarities in vocabulary and topic between these three passages, and 2) he wants readers to conclude that Paul is using a traditional "household code" in I Tim 2:9-13. The second point needs to be unpacked a bit. One of Ellis' contributions to scholarship has been his observation that Paul utilized several early church traditions in his epistles. A tradition can be understood as a hymn or statement of faith which the early church utilized in its meetings. Some of these may have been written by Paul himself, although that is not significant. Perhaps the most agreed upon traditional piece which scholars recognize is Phil 2:6-11. "Household codes" are common in the NT letters. They are exhortations given to those of the household: husbands, wives, children, slaves, and masters (e.g. Eph 5). Ellis argues that this I Tim 2 passage is a traditional piece which circulated in the early church that is also a "household code" which is primarily discussing the role of husbands and wives. What Paul has done here is to take the "household code" and juxtapose it with the church worship setting.

Based on the conclusion that these are traditional "household codes," Ellis argues that the words for "women" and "men" should be understood to be "wives" and "husbands." These are the same Greek words used in the I Cor 14:34f passage (surprise! surprise! See the second post for more details). Since their semantic range encompasses both possibilities, it is up to contextual clues to tip the scale one way or the other. Ellis notes three contextual clues to support a "wife/husband" reading: 1) the relationship of this passage with other "household codes", 2) Paul uses the illustration of Adam and Eve which points to the marriage relationship, and 3) the promise to the "observant woman, which is connected with childbirth" (Ellis, Pauline Theology, 72). This appeal to women giving birth points to the household setting and not the worship setting.

Thus, Ellis concludes that Paul does not allow a married woman to teach or exercise authority over her own husband. A single woman, however, is not limited by this and has more ministry flexibility. What is key here in understanding Ellis is that he views Paul as limiting certain women not because they are women, but only if their practice of gifts would violate the roles in marriage. In other words, Paul is very open to women exercising their gifts and assuming various roles in the church, but if their exercise of ministry causes them to violate their role in marriage, then they should limit themselves.

One final point which Ellis makes concerns the role of bishop which is discussed in I Tim 3:2. This post is in danger of being too long already, so I will just give Ellis' conclusion. Ellis notes that Paul may also exclude women from becoming bishops in the church if we understand the bishop to be a single leader of a church. Another option, which Ellis also states is valid, is that women are not excluded from this role if the leadership structure of the church has multiple leaders (i.e. multiple bishops/plurality). Once again, however, if this role causes the women to be teaching or in authority over her husband, then she would have to step down.

Women's ministry in the church Part 2: I Cor 14:34-35

This is part 2 of my summary of Dr. Earl Ellis' thoughts regarding women in ministry. As I mentioned last week, there are at least three major textual areas which need to be discussed: 1) Paul's positive statements regarding women's ministry, 2) I Cor 14:33-34 which commands women/wives to be silent, and 3) I Tim 2:11-12 which commands women/wives to learn in quietness and not to teach and usurp authority over men/husbands. Last time I summarized some of the positive statements which Paul made in regards to women in the church, and we saw that there are verses which show a significant role which Paul gave to women. Originally, I had thought to deal with both I Cor 14 and I Tim 2 in one blog post, but I now think I will divide them into separate posts in case we want to comment on each passage individually. So this entry is Dr. Ellis' thoughts on I Cor 14: 34-35.

Here is the text, "...women should remain silent in the churches. They are not allowed to speak, but must be in submission, as the Law says. If they want to inquire about something, they should ask their own husbands at home; for it is disgraceful for a woman to speak in the church." (I Cor 14:34-35 NIV)

Ellis first notes that this passage has four qualifications to it. Before mentioning them, however, it is important to note that the word "women" (Gk: γυνη) can be translated as "women" or as "wife." Context decides. Ellis understands the word to be "wives," but is this justified? Several contextual clues point to the more specific reading of "wives":1) Paul mentions that they should ask their husbands. Surely Paul would not be so careless as to assume that all his female church attendees are married. It makes sense that he is limiting his discussion to married women. 2) Paul mentions that the Law states that wives should be in submission. This is most likely not a reference to the regulations given on Sinai, but is more generally a reference to the first five books of the OT - the Pentateuch which are also regularly called "the Law." Paul is probably referencing Gen 3:16 and the results of the Fall for women which states that the husband will "rule" (NIV) the wife. "The Law" does not speak about women being silent, but it does speak of wives being submissive to their husbands.

Now to Ellis' qualifications: First, the teaching is directed to married women and not to women in general. This is seen by the reference to asking "their own husbands." Obviously, if you are not married then you cannot ask your husband. Second, this only applies to wives of Christian men because a saved women would not go home from church and ask her unsaved husband. The image is laughable. Third, it seems to apply only to Christian wives married to Christian husbands which are actually present at the service. This makes sense in that a wife would most likely ask her husband about some teaching/event happening at the church service. If he is out of town, then he cannot answer as he wasn't at the meeting in the first place. Lastly, this passage is probably specifically written to instruct gifted wives of male prophets. These specific wives should be silent and submissive when their husbands are prophesying. For Paul, it is disrespectful for the wife to publicly challenge her husband as he is exercising his gift of prophecy. She should wait and talk with him at home so that the marriage roles are not violated.

Since the last point is the most significant and debatable, I will separate out his reasons supporting it in a new paragraph. First, the immediate context surrounding the text is about the proper use of the gift of prophecy in the worship service (14:29-33 and 39-40). This significantly supports Ellis' argument that the restriction regards the proper way for married couples to exercise their gift of prophecy in the church. Second, in verses 29-30 Paul directs prophets to speak in an orderly manner, to keep their numbers limited, and then weigh carefully what is said by the other prophets. In other words the prophecy/prophet needs to be tested. This involves discussion - orderly discussion. But what if the situation involves a husband and wife who both have the gift of prophecy? Does Paul want husbands and wives to be debating each other publicly as they practice their gifts? Ellis concludes that this is the specific situation happening in Corinth.

To summarize Ellis' argument for this passage: Paul's command is that in situations where both a husband and a wife have the gift of prophecy, then the wife should wait until they get home if she needs to disagree or discuss the husband's prophecy. In this way, the marriage roles are kept in place as per the Genesis passage.

This blog has already broken a key blog rule: keep it short. However, I am very interested in hearing critical readings of Ellis view. Is this reading tenable?

Women's ministry in the church

To be honest this is not a topic of which I have done much thinking. In the last few weeks, however, I have been reading several books on early church order which discuss this topic. In the past when I have looked into this topic, the arguments seemed to revolve around whether or not Paul's commands for women to be silent were culturally limited to the ancient world and, therefore, should be "upgraded" because of our more progressive understanding. This line of discussion was not very persuasive to me personally.

One of the books I have been reading is from conservative theologian and former (he is deceased) Southern Baptist professor Dr. Earl Ellis. He has brought to light some new thoughts (at least new to me) in this discussion. It seems there are three Scriptural areas which need to be explained/discussed: 1) Paul's positive statements regarding women's ministry in his letters, 2) I Cor. 14:33-35 which commands women/wives to be silent, and 3) I Tim 2:11-12 which states that women/wives are to learn in quietness and submission while not usurping authority or teaching over men/husbands.

Just to clarify the discussion: no one that I know of explains these passages in terms of women being inferior to men. The issue is one of roles in the church, at least that is how most conservative thinkers explain it. Both men and women are equal in their salvation and unified in Christ (Gal 3:28), however, roles may be distinct as between husband and wife or between the Father and Jesus Christ.

In this post, I want to present Dr. Ellis' arguments regarding the positive role of women in Paul's ministry. In another blog post I will present his exegesis of the I Cor and I Tim passages. All of this information can be found in his book Pauline Theology pages 53-86 which is very readable.

Paul mentions many women who are involved in ministry with him: Prisca (Priscilla), Junia, Euodia, Syntyche, Nympha (not mentioned by Ellis), and Phoebe. In fact, when we look at the biblical evidence nearly 1/4 of the names mentioned in regards to Paul's ministry are women (not from Ellis). Significantly, Phoebe (Rom 16:2) is called a "minister" or possibly "deaconess" in the church of Cenchreae. The other ladies, exluding Nympha, are called "coworkers" which is a term Paul uses elsewhere of those involved in various ministries including teaching, preaching, and prophecy. Junia was imprisoned (Rom 16:7) most likely because she was involved in some ministry which drew the ire of the Roman government: preaching and evangelism. Ellis does not mention Nympha (Col 4:15), but she needs to be added to the list as well in that her house was used for a church meeting. When we realize that only wealthy people owned homes large enough to accommodate 30-50 people for a church meeting, then we realize that Nympha was probably wealthy. Also, if the church met in her home, then there is no reason to assert that she did not administrate some aspects of the meeting. Lastly, Paul mentions that women can have the gift of prophecy (I Cor 11:5). Since prophecy is exhortation, encouragement, consolation and probably has significant overlap with what might be defined as teaching this becomes a significant point. It also creates tremendous tension with I Cor 14 where Paul tells women/wives to be silent.

Obviously Paul has a high regard for women in ministry. In fact if it were not for I Cor 14 and I Tim 2 this would most likely be a non-issue. So how does Ellis handle/explain these other passages? Does he give priority to this evidence or does he give priority to I Cor 14/1 Tim 2? Tune in next time to find out (and hopefully "next time" will be relatively soon).

Pants on fire

I’m reading through Augustine’s take on lying for a seminary class. So far, I’ve concluded that he’s pretty much against it. It’s a tough read on a couple of different levels, as a piece of literature it features long sentences and obscure pronoun referents. It also seems that he uses reductio ad absurdum, where an argument is reduced to the absurd, without a really clear explanation to bring it home. On another level, it causes you to really think through how you view integrity. 

In our world, public figures offer explanations and caveats for controversial statements and we consider this a normal course of events. When a crime occurs in our neighborhoods, nobody sees anything to help the police catch the criminal. In Augustine’s thought, and in our own minds, these events raise the question of the speaker’s integrity. Since we cannot see the heart, we must rely on someone’s words to truly represent his thinking on a matter. When the words and the heart do not match, the person is lying. There’s a difference, however, between a person who loves the truth but tells a lie and the true liar who speaks falsehood for the love of lying. 

I wonder what happens to the world when the liars outweigh honest people? In Augustine’s thought the liar was sent to Hell and the true follower of God should rather forfeit bodily comfort and even suffer death rather than lie. What a contrast to our world of political spin and intentional ignorance! We should be able to assume truth and be shocked at a lie, we often must assume untruth and look for verification. Wouldn’t it be great if a liar’s pants really did catch fire?

Attempted Communion Without Consent

I caught an interesting article in USA Today about a week ago. They reported on a Catholic priest’s refusal to grant communion to a lesbian woman at her mother’s funeral and the consequent uproar. But think about it for a minute: who’s the ‘bad guy’ in this situation? Which of the characters is making a political statement? Don’t we automatically believe that the priest was unreasonable? Have some compassion for crying out loud! 

The Catholic Church has to deal with the denial of communion to its parishioners for violations of various moral standards and they have a procedure to deal with such things. From my understanding of communion in the Catholic Church, the parishioners get up from their seats, and move to the front of the church to receive communion from the priest. Parishioners who are guilty of various moral infractions simply remain seated and do not receive communion. So it’s sort of like being the religious guy at the family gathering when all the uncles are going to the bar. We know you’re not going, so we’re not going to ask you if you want to come along. (Notice how I’m playing both sides of that equation?)

With regard to this lesbian woman at her mother’s funeral, we all feel compassion for her loss. But we must also realize that she was the one who initiated the confrontation over communion. She forced the priest to make a decision about serving communion which clearly violated his conscience, requiring him to refuse the cup and wafer. You might even call this a rape of conscience…

Her political statement and the priest’s response is interesting, but it brings to mind something deeper. In society's quest for ‘tolerance’ we see conflicting tensions about ‘social control.’ What’s social control you might ask? In a nutshell, social control is that aspect of a culture which identifies and attempts to correct deviant behavior. In this situation, the woman wanted to publicly call out the man’s deviance, with his crime being that of intolerance. His response was to exercise social control by denying communion. In this situation, (and many others) social control gets applied against ‘older’ societal norms, and particularly matters of Christian conscience, without thinking critically or Biblically about the situation. Without a standard against which to judge our actions, we remain subject to the whims of society, and Christians will become the object of an extreme form of social control: persecution.

Curiouser and curiouser...

This weekend I was curious about curiosity. It is a word which I do not find myself using regularly. When I think about my experiences of curiosity, I remember feelings of excitement, energy, and a drive to exhaust myself until I find "the answer." I find myself regularly curious about a great many things. Some of this comes from the privilege I have of being in school; being surrounded by ideas, wondering whether I agree or disagree, and why or why not. Ironically, I wonder if my children experience much stimulation towards curiosity in their daily experiences of elementary, middle and high schools. This probably has to be one of the single greatest challenges for teachers who instruct large groups of people who are required to be in class. At the PhD level, no one is forcing anyone to attend.

But why do some people experience more curiosity than others? And if we find ourselves not curious, is there anything we can do to regain that sense of energy, excitement, and drive to find "the answer"?

There are probably many factors which affect curiosity, but I thought of two: one positive and one negative. The positive factor which creates and feeds curiosity is the ability to ask questions. As soon as we stop asking questions, our curiosity dries up. Questions are the lubricant to mental activity. This is also true when we stop listening to the questions of those around us. If we tell ourselves that the answer to so-and-so's question is unimportant and push it to the side, then our curiosity take a hit. This may sound judgmental, but I find that ignorant people regularly do this. I have heard people say, "Well, I've lived my life without knowing that, so I guess it must not be important." This is nothing more than pride; when a person considers himself/herself as the guide for what is and what is not important, then they have taken the place of God.

A negative factor which kills curiosity is fear. Fear keeps us from wanting to find the answer to a question, because we fear that what we may find will challenge our prevailing thinking or behavior. Fear is powerful, and change can be disconcerting and painful. When we learn something that causes our worldview to shift in some way, our world seems fragile and our hooks which provide stability seem relative. We see the rabbit from the duck, and experience a Gestalt shift. Once we realize that the world we thought so stable is actually spinning, then our stomachs become sick and our proverbial anchor is cut loose. We may also fear being inadequate. The desire to feel in control and knowledgeable is a powerful motivator. Fear of that self-image being damaged will kill curiosity.

As believers we have a unique position in regards to curiosity. We have the privilege of understanding curiosity to be a gift from God. We also have the privilege of recognizing that God is the center of all things, therefore there is always room to think God's thoughts after Him, to feel God's emotions like Him, and to obey God's commands like He wants us to. Lastly, we have the privilege of realizing that fear of the truth is ultimately a sin. It reminds me of a scene in C.S. Lewis' The Last Battle of a group of dwarves hiding out in a barn ignoring the reality around them. The scene is too lengthy to describe here, but for those that have read it, hopefully it will resonate.