catapult magazine

just a quick intro to a topic i’ve been meaning to post about for a couple of days now…some folks at our church have been discussing what to do about gender language in liturgy, hymns, Scripture, etc. as it refers to God (ex. “seek the Lord while He may be found”).

does anyone have any thoughts on this or want to offer arguments on either side of the debate?

Correct me if I?m wrong, but I don’t believe that I’ve yet to hear anyone in this discussion ever presume that God’s ongoing revelation means a parting-of-the-ways with Scripture. Certainly anton’s position of caution regarding those who claim to be speaking for/with God needs to be taken seriously. Most of us, I’m sure, would agree that there is a great deal of danger when someone starts claiming that God is speaking directly to them and telling them to do something (i.e. like take the life of a doctor who performs abortions or strap on a bomb with the promise that they will receive their reward in heaven). We should also add, however, that equal caution needs to be taken regarding those who attempt to simply piecemeal together various parts of Scripture in order to justify a position of hatred, abuse, prejudice or control – claiming that because it is contained within God’s Word, this makes it somehow okay.

To speak of God’s ongoing revelation is not to speak of a [b:2e74433259]new[/b:2e74433259] revelation, at least not in the sense of adding something new to Scripture or to the fullness of God’s revelation as it is centered in Jesus Christ. It may, however, be new to us as we encounter (or if you prefer rediscover) it within the context of our own place and time.

Certainly even those church reformers such as Luther and Calvin would have acknowledged the Holy Spirit’s intervention and direction within both the church and the culture of their time. In fact, Luther held in very high regard such Christian mystics as Bernard of Clairvaux, Johan Tauler and others who sought greater clarity of God’s Word. Luther, himself, even went so far as to state in his Lectures on Hebrews:"that this is the one and the greatest thing God requires of all people, that they hear His [God’s] voice."

Now I may be way off the mark here, but I do not believe that the real issue regarding God’s ongoing revelation has anything to do with adding to, embellishing, or changing what is already contained within Scripture. In fact, I would venture to guess that most of us in this discussion can easily accept the canonical scriptures of the Old and New Testament as the written and inspired Word of God. Where I’m not so clear has to do with our positions as to what happens now?

Matt, no one has claimed to part ways with Scripture, but laryn at least has agreed that we’re discussing about God’s direct self-revelation “apart from Scripture.” What does this mean but new revelation?

You seem to be arguing for ongoing revelation regarding proper interpretation of Scripture. We screwed it up before, now God reveals the right interpretation. Is this what you’re claiming, Matt? This wouldn’t be apart from Scripture or beyond Scripture; it simply assert that God inspires our interpretation of Scripture so that we now have not only Scripture, but authoritative, normative interpretation of it on the same level as Scripture (precisely because it is ongoing revelation and is inspired). So are you arguing for an inspired Scripture and an inspired interpretation? Are you ready to affirm that you or someone else is a prophet with the normative, “right” interpretation?

Also, I’m wondering why you jump to those who “justify a position of hatred, abuse, prejudice or control—caliming that because it is contained within God’s Word, this makes it somehow okay.” I’ve always understood that if Scripture truly asserts it, then we had better listen. Now I’ve also said that some parts should be interpreted as normative within a particular culture, but this discernment takes place on the level of uninspired interpretation (it takes discernment precisely because it does not come directly from God).

But I can’t help but wondering if you have a standard over and above Scripture, as thought you think that it is inherently evil to tell a woman to keep silent in the church or to tell a wife to ask her husband about an issue. You seem to cling to “ongoing revelation” as an escape hatch, almost implying that God can’t reveal himself in a culture without the sinful (i.e. not “okay”) habits of that culture perverting it. We need ongoing revelation to correct this inevitable perversion. But this only puts our cultural values above Scripture, so that we judge something NOT to be “okay”, not on the grounds of Scripture, but on the grounds of our autonomous sensibilities.

This is not necessarily to say, by the way, that telling a woman to keep silent in the church, etc, is okay today. This conclusion has to result from discernment on the level of non-inspired interpretation (though prayerfully guided by the Holy Spirit). It just means that we do not need ongoing revelation. God’s revelation in Scripture is sufficient and God now no longer normally reveals himself throught prophets.

Again, if there is ongoing revelation, where are the prophets? This has to be answered if position three and its ongoing revelation claim are to be received.

You seem to be arguing for ongoing revelation regarding proper interpretation of Scripture. We screwed it up before, now God reveals the right interpretation. Is this what you’re claiming, Matt?

Not at all! If anything I guess what I’m trying to say is that we screwed it up before and we continue to screw it up today. That’s part of our brokenness, which is the direct result of sin. That’s part of what God is revealing to us in the story ? God’s own inspired words through the canonical Scriptures. And that’s the inherent danger that we will always face in light of our own human attempts to interpret God’s Word.

And yet, in spite of [b:b3bbe33f67]us[/b:b3bbe33f67], God is still able to enter our world and make [His] God’s will known to us.

Anton, what is the Holy Spirit other than God’s direct self-revelation? If God had no need of continuing in this relationship with us, if everything that is contained within Scripture is now fully self-evident and revealed to us, then why bother sticking around?

I think the answer to that question is found at the very heart of Scripture itself. It is because God loves us and desires to be in relationship with us. And in order for this to happen, God is the one who chooses to enter into our brokenness and extend to us the way of keeping this relationship happening.

I agree with you that "God no longer normally reveals [Himself] through prophets." Why would God need to? God is able to do that fully through the risen Christ and gift of the Holy Spirit. What has been revealed to us about God in the Scriptures, made real to us in the life, death and resurrection of Jesus, is now continued and carried out in the Church today through the presence and workings of the Holy Spirit. This is what I mean by ongoing revelation – God continuing to meet us where we are, in every place and time,

Am I, or someone else I know, a prophet? I certainly wouldn’t claim that handle for myself. However, I do believe that God’s prophetic voice can be (and still is) heard and experienced today in many places and in many different ways. It comes through the witness of fellow Christian believers, whose words and actions speak volumes about God to me. It comes through the means of grace, when I experience the very real presence of Christ in the Sacraments. It comes through preaching, praying, study and thoughtful discussion (such as what we are having right now). And the list can (and does) go on. None of this either adds to or takes away anything from God, as revealed to us in the Scriptures.

Anton, you wanted to know if I "think that it is inherently evil to tell a woman to keep silent in the church or to tell a wife to ask her husband about an issue." No, I don’t think this at all. That is probably because I’ve never attempted to understand these two edicts by Paul outside the total witness of Scripture. Having said that, I should point out that if Paul’s concern regarding women keeping silent in church and a wife waiting until she is home to discuss a religious question with her husband is meant to address an issue over disruption and confusion that was taking place in the church at Corinth, then we might also want to ask ourselves what disruption and confusion do we see taking place in the church today. Is Paul speaking here of the subordination of women and wives, or is Paul speaking in favor of good order and respect toward God when it comes to our public worship? If it’s the latter, then I suppose we could well include men, children, etc. into that list. I will admit that this is non-inspired interpretation on my part.

Perhaps, Anton, I need to ask you a similar question: Do you understand these same two statements of Paul, because they are contained within Scripture, as God speaking directly here against a woman taking a public place of leadership within the church, or serving as the family theologian to her husband and children? It would be interesting to know your answer in light of our present-day culture, where women are increasingly burdening the greater responsibility of upholding and teaching the faith within the family – certainly not the situation that Paul faced with the church at Corinth.

It may be that we are just talking past one another at this point. As you can probably tell, I’m still pretty much a novice when it comes to sharing my thoughts in this fashion. Perhaps I would understand position one better if you could explain to me how this position takes into account the workings of the Holy Spirit within God’s people today. If God isn’t continuing to be revealed to each new generation (ongoing revelation) through the Holy Spirit, and it is instead solely through Scripture that we find God fully revealed, how can we understand God at work in our present-day world? For me, I can only see this happening when both are present.

Matt, we may be closer to an agreement that it seemed to me at first. I think we are talking past one another to a certain extent.

My question with respect to ongoing revelation at this point is one of authority. In the many ways you see God speaking, does God speak with the same authority? Would you place this discussion, for instance, on the same authoritative level as Scripture, because as you claim, God in a certain sense is speaking through it? I would guess you would say no. This discussion is not God-inspired in the sense of being infallible, or inerrant. Scripture is God-inspired in the sense of being infallible and inerrant.

Also, the role of “God’s direct self-revelation” has traditionally been assigned to God the Son, not God the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit testifies in our hearts to God’s self-revelation in Jesus Christ. In this sense, God is very much active through the Holy Spirit, changing our hearts so that we are able to please God in Christ. In this way the Holy Spirit applies the work of Christ to us. God has promised to change hearts normally through the preaching of the Word and the sacraments, and on account of these promises, we call them the means of grace. So God does continue to meet us wherever his people call upon his name, but he does not do so in the same way every time he meets us.

Are discussions, fellow Christians words and actions, and the many other ways you mention also means of grace? I am somewhat troubled that you place them right next to the sacraments as though there were no difference. The church can exist without a great many things, which are the blessings of Christian fellowship. But it cannot exist without the means of grace, because preaching of the Word and sacraments preach Christ, through which the Holy Spirit works to transform us. A kind word, a kind act of charity, a really, really great discussion can’t transform a person apart from the means of grace. If this were true, all religions would be valid, and Christ would not be special.

So let us make a distinction the way God meets us in Scripture and sacraments and the way he meets us elsewhere. Scripture has authority that is unparalled. I would prefer not to refer to “ongoing revelation” because it clouds the distinction between Scripture and wise interpretation of Scripture. Scripture is a rock upon which we can build; we can be sure it is true. I would not build upon discussions or kind deeds.

If you disagree, Matt, please let me know.

As to your question regarding how to interpret Scriptural passages referring to the role of women in the church, I argue that they have to be taken on a case by case basis. Also, these must be understood as involving interpretation that is not inspired but guided by Scripture, to which the Holy Spirit testifies. It is also crucial to pray that sin will not blind our reading of Scripture. In short, my point is that Scripture must arbitrate any disagreement between interpretations. Scripture is its own best interpreter, and its no use if some comes along claiming to have ongoing revelation regarding THE right and true interpretation. Scripture must check our interpretation. I think we all agree on this point. I just wanted to be sure we all had the same mind during this discussion.

Most Scriptural passages regarding women had specific application, and I argue that these are of two sorts:

1) Those that no longer apply. Take for example 1 Cor 11:6. I don’t believe that women need to wear head coverings. I think I understand why it was given to the church, but we can get into that if we need to. Suffice it to say that the original application was cultural, not creational.

2) Those that do apply. Take for example 1 Tim 2:12. This passage, I believe, speaks against placing women in positions of official authority (e.g. pastors, elders). Paul gives two reasons to Timothy for observing this rule: Adam was formed first, then Eve; and Adam was not deceived, but the woman was decieved… Thus, Paul roots this rule in both creation and the Fall. The application of this passage therefore transcends culture, because Paul roots it in creation and the Fall. I can offer further substantiation for this position, but this is basically what I believe.

Does this denigrade women? Are women inferior? By no means! I want to be clear here, because I anticipate objections. Men and women are naturally equal, but officially unequal. God, I believe, has created them equal, but assigned them different, complimentary tasks.

Here are some examples of what I mean. Note in the creation account that the woman is brought to the man, and the man names her. After the Fall, he renames her. Naming is a sign of authority. Also, as Paul I think teaches, the order was important, the man first, then the woman. Because of this order, Paul does not permit a woman to teach or exercise authority. Finally, with respect to the Fall, God told the woman, “Your desire shall be for your husband, and he shall rule over you.”

All this for today is that women are not permited to occupy the office of elder or pastor. Women have a great many gifts. In my experience, women often excel men in ways that would make them superior elders and pastors. This is because men and women are equal; men and women bear many wonderful gifts to be used in building up the body of believers. Yet, God assigned men and women different roles. Though women may excel men, still we are creatures who love to order our lives in accordance with God’s will. And for the present life, that means that women are not allowed to hold offices in the church.

anton can you explain what the difference is between the explicit command that women wear headcoverings and the explicit command that women keep silent in church? Don’t both seem a bit “cultural.” ie. inappropriate for our culture. And if you agree with that, then what makes those commands different from the ones forbidding women to hold leadership roles in church?

Also, if your church includes women who are university professors and CEOs, doesn’t it seem a bit rediculous to tell them them they cannot have a leadership role? Wouldn’t that be an example of inappropriately applying 2000 year-old cultural values to our vastly different culture?

Also, how can you possibly say that your view of men and women implies “equality”? Sure, as you expressed it, they both have their roles, but the role of women is to submit to men, which means that men have power over women. That is not equality.

Dan, the way you’ve put the question makes it difficult to answer. You seem to ask, “How can we continue apply Paul’s prohibition against women in office in our vastly different culture?” I think this is the wrong question. For one, a great many things may seem “cultural” and may seem inappropriate to our culture. Christ himself is inappropriate to much of our culture. So, is this really the best way to approach Scripture, asking what seems “cultural”? Don’t get me wrong, the question of culture is important, but it’s not the first question we should ask when we study Scripture.

I think a more edifying way of putting the question is, “How can we not apply Paul’s instructions about headcoverings?” Or, “How can we NOT apply Paul’s explicit command?” I think this is a better question for following reasons:
1) What we have in Pauline Epistles are the very words of God. God is speaking through Paul.
2) Paul is issuing an explicit command, as you note. This seems to be a case where Scripture positively asserts something, in this case, a command. If the Corinthians reading Paul’s letter had to apply Paul’s instruction, for instance, we ought to consider seriously why we are free not to apply it.
3) Paul gives strong reasons for the commands, at least in Corinthians and Timothy. In rooting his commands in creation, Paul is authoritatively interpreting Gen 1-3. So when we read Paul’s instructions, we should understand the seriousness of Paul’s commands (since they are rooted in creation). Also, as we proceed, we ought to start by understanding Paul’s exegesis of Gen 1-3. What is Paul saying about what God said through Moses? What did Paul think it meant for believers in the first century? If Paul applied creation principles to his day, on what ground can we NOT also apply those principles today?

If we proceed by studying Scripture, I think we will be more faithful to Scripture than if we begin by first asking whether it would be appropriate to apply such commands in our culture. We shouldn’t say from the beginning, “This seems cultural.” We should rather say, “What is Paul saying?” or “What is God saying through Paul?” We must listen before dismissing, and interpret before applying. Otherwise, our cultural sensibilities will drive our reading of God’s word.

So, my question in response is this: What is Paul saying? On what basis can we ignore Paul’s instruction, given that he roots them in creation itself? Doesn’t this suggest that Paul’s commands apply across every culture? Given our cultural sensibilities, it is not easy to read Paul’s argument in 1 Cor 11. If we take it seriously, as I think we must, what should we do with these “offensive” remarks Paul makes, especially if we presuppose that it is actually God speaking through Paul?

Ok, so the question then is why is a Christian free to disobey a specific command. No problem. Your answer seems to be: when the command is not explicitly rooted in creation. Did I get that right? So with the following verse, since the command is rooted in creation, you would feel obliged to encourage women to obey it?

11 Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection. 12 But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence. 13 For Adam was first formed, then Eve. 14 And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression.

Would you hold such a view for women in general, or just women in church?

Because, frankly, I don’t think very highly of women who just “learn in silence with all subjection” without questioning anything. I had better stop before I get into trouble here…

Once again, it seems to me as though we are dealing here with the question of how we approach Scriptural interpretation. To be fair, Anton, would you describe your approach toward Scriptural interpretation to be [i:2d641539ad][b:2d641539ad]Scripture interprets Scripture[/b:2d641539ad][/i:2d641539ad]. In other words, unclear passages of Scripture are understood in light of those that are clear.

I just want to make sure that I understand where it is you are coming from.

Matt, I do think we have to use the method of Scripture interpreting Scripture. I think it’s just part of giving Scripture priority in our interpretation.

Dan, is your answer that Christians have license to disobey whatever specific commands that don’t seem sensible to us? Maybe it’s just me, but that seems rationalistic and autonomous. Didn’t Eve sin in saying, “Did God really say…”?

Just playing your vituperative game. I’m asking you to justify your dismissal of explicit commands of Scripture. I assume you have some reason, especially since you admire those who do not learn in silence. Thus far, though, you’ve only offered ostensibly rationalistic/automonous arguments on the level of “My God wouldn’t do that.” I hope you won’t be too upset if I see “Well it’s just cultural” as a weak argument.

My answer is not that a Christian can dismiss any command not rooted in creation, nor is my argument that any command rooted in creation must be applied no matter what. If you read my last post, I was asking on what basis we can ignore such explicit commands. I think when Paul roots his arguments in creation, he is giving his commands teeth, a seriousness which should not be blithely ignored.

I doin’t think you want to ignore blithely God’s commands. So I’m asking why you are choosing to say they don’t apply in our (sophisticated, “beyond all that”) culture.