Another concrete example (which may be discussed in later posts) is the ordination of officebearers. Those who are called to preach and administer the sacraments are not "self-starters" who create the call for themselves. Rather, denominations collectively recognize God's call upon them; or, denominations discern that God has not called them, and spares the Church much pain. In an age when everyone has a megaphone and credibility is difficult to discern, God's ecclesiology blesses us with a standard (albeit imperfect due to our sin) that helps us verify trustworthy, biblical leadership. That flows out into the ability to exercise church discipline, without which a church cannot be a church! This is why it is imperative for denominations to have shared theological agreements, hence confessionalism.
A church building is a visible depiction of the Church of God. As such, it should reflect who He is, not who we are. The Church as a whole has no specific nationality as it is comprised of every nation. So, it would be a misrepresentation to adorn God's church with uniquely American symbols. Further, it would be a limiting of God's majesty to tie His rule to America since this country is a small piece of His Kingdom.
Relatedly, if a foreigner from another country were to walk in (which happens somewhat regularly) they might be given the impression that this is the American church and they therefore need to find an Indian, Chinese, Mexican church, etc.
If it helps, below are the questions that were submitted to our Council to persuade them to remove the flags:
Is the Church of Christ universal, or is it bound to a nation like Israel in the OT? If we highlight the fact that this is the “US Church,” are we setting ourselves apart from the “UK Church” or the “Chinese Church”? Since Christ “broke down in His flesh the dividing wall of hostility” (Eph 2:14; cf. 3:6) between Jews and Gentiles, do you think they would have flown their respective flags in Church where they were supposed to be radically unified?
Though we should honor those who have made the ultimate sacrifice for our freedom, is Church—the place where we honor Christ’s sacrifice—the place to do it? Whose death do we honor in church, God’s or man’s? If we honor both, what message does that send regarding the significance of Christ’s death? Why do we need to honor people in church? Is this man’s house or God’s? (1 Timothy 2:5) Should anything in the church point to what we do? Or should everything in the church point to what God does?
What does an outsider think when they see the US flag? Won’t the flag signal to a non-citizen that they need to look for the “Mexican” church or the “Indian” church?
We have more in common with non-American Christians (like Pakistanis) than the most patriotic atheist.
It is rather convoluted, isn't it? This was not written very well. In regards to the misuse of the Word, could you explain how the article does that explicitly?
I’ll try to focus on some highlights and respond where I have the most pressing question, or think a response would be most suitable to all the wonderful comments you’ve provided. In regards to this post, two things stand out.
First, you said, “I believe tradition of man/elders has elevated authority, power, titles, hierarchy, degrees, institutions at the expense of the Spirit & ALL the gifts especially prophecy (for both men & women), at the expense of the one another commands/principle, at the expense of the priesthood of all believers, at the expense of Jesus saying we (men & women) are not to "lord it over"/exercise authority over in the Body of Christ.”
To which I mostly agree! I think the Church, whatever the gender of the officer, has the unfortunate capacity to stifle the work of the body. I’ve also noticed that much of this stifling is bottom-up. That is, many people are content just being spectators and not, to use John Wimber’s phrase, “doing the stuff.” But, our difference lies here: I think the solution to this problem is a proper understanding of the priesthood of all believers. I think the CRC has endorsed a “dominee” understanding of pastors as if they are the only people allowed to pray, speak about the gospel, or teach. This is unfortunate and unbiblical. From my perspective, women should be empowered to teach women and children, share the gospel, pray for everyone in person or when absent, publicly share what God is doing in their lives, and yes, even share a prophetic word in submission to the elders if the woman (or man!) feels led. In sum, yes there’s stifling but I think the solution is in broadening our understanding of what lay Christians can do, not broadening our understanding of the pastorate. Ironically, from my perspective, the latter merely continues the unhelpful trend of intimating that only pastors, whether male or female, “can do the stuff.”
Second, you say, “Rob mentions that being pragmatic is secondary to God's word... I was thinking about this & I had to laugh... God forming Eve from Adam is very pragmatic! the only time God said "it is not good..." during creation is after Adam was created, when Adam was alone... the only time God said "very good" is after He created Eve! Problem solved! We are mandated to steward/rule over creation together, not over each other!”
I think your point here is that God is pragmatic? I’m not quite sure what you were intending with the reference to God creating Adam and Eve as it relates to the question at hand. Perhaps you could flesh that out a bit?
On the other hand, I noticed that your dichotomy in the last sentence is this: we either rule together or over each other (“We are mandated to steward/rule over creation together, not over each other!”). Unfortunately, this is a caricature of complementarianism that I hear often. A CRC pastor recently told me the linchpin in his becoming an egalitarian was his belief that Genesis teaches men are women are equal. I said I wholeheartedly agree!
No complementarian believes men and women aren’t equal in their inherent value, or that men should “rule over” women. Rather, complementarians believe that women should willingly submit to the delegated male authority of the church. If women reject this leadership, they are free to do so. The picture is of willing submission and loving leadership, not unwilling submission and ruling over. Furthermore, **women do participate in the creation mandate to rule creation.** We are all prophets, priests, and kings. Women rule over creation with men, but they do not lead men, according to the comp. view. This is analogous to our position with God—we rule over creation as we follow God. For women in the church, it’s the same relationship. Hence, Paul says, “But I want you to understand that Christ is the head of every man, and the man is the head of a woman…” (1 Cor 11:3).
Hi Kathy, thanks for your response and patience (despite not being given a choice on my tardiness...)
Thanks for clarifying regarding pragmatics. But, I think there is often a divide between pragmatics and the Bible. Not always, but there is often. For example, do we search the scriptures to shape our worship? Or, do we shape our worship based on what we think will gain the most people? One is a pragmatic option that many take, and the other more biblical. Of course, the pragmatists will use the Bible. But the question is whether the Bible is the sole rule of life and faith, or if it is a contributing factor to other pragmatic considerations. That is the huge burden on my heart in this discussion. I'm not saying you do this, but I do get the sense that some enter this discussion—from whatever side—and look to practical considerations as if they held as much sway as Scripture.
That said, I share your desire to see the church lead in justice. Obviously, we have different views on what that justice is. For you, it's equal roles of women. To me, that isn't justice but is rather a modern invention that the Bible refutes all the while supporting equal status of males and females. So, that's probably part of the reason why the Church hasn't lead here—we can't figure out what we want to lead!
Thank you for this wealth of information! I'll try to respond to it more fully later. As I've been promoted to research regarding "authority" in 1 Tim 2:12 (as you mentioned above) I found something really helpful that you might like to see. I don't know if you've heard of Mike Winger, but he's a strong Christian who I've met. He has an 11 hour YT video on this topic (yikes!). But, it has chapters in it and there is a very helpful section on "authority." The most important thing to keep in mind, I think, is what the word meant when Paul wrote it. We see words changing meaning before our eyes in the digital word (see this article for 24 examples: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-intersect/wp/2015/10/15/24-words-that-mean-totally-different-things-now-than-they-did-pre-internet/). The same happened more slowly in Paul's day, as always. So, "authority" had a negative connotation at one time, but what was the meaning at Paul's time?
That's the key question addressed here: https://youtu.be/GvLqRpGCayA?si=1XI63M2IeWyvWSh8&t=13004
Sorry for the delay, Bev. You certainly are a wealth of information! Unfortunately, I don’t have time to respond to everything you wrote. Thus, I’ve selected some key points and responded in kind here. Thank you for your though provoking insights!
Are both words positive? This is unlikely since there are no good examples of authentein in a purely negative sense at the time of Paul. However, even if they are both positive, Paul would only limit women from teaching in a domineering way, but he should do so for the men especially. Which leads to the next point:
You say Paul’s switch from women (pl) to woman (sing) is significant, but I don’t see how. The only way that would be significant in my mind is if he had a specific woman in mind but then his prohibition would leave domineering teaching open to the other women. Furthermore, if Paul meant he was only speaking about a single woman, we would expect a definite object marker like “that” (ekei; εκει). Also, Paul could have just as easily said, "I don't permit a woman (sing) or a man (sing) to..." What if this community just had female teachers? That would be strange since Paul was writing to Timothy as their leader (a man) and gave other instructions to male leaders (1 Tim 3).
This is my own point (not a response): Does not “in all submission” (v. 11) provide the opposite of “authentein”? Whether authentein means “domineer” or “have authority” Paul makes clear what he does want—submission. A woman cannot reasonably teach and have good authority while remaining in submission to the men that she has authority over.
Murder? As with the prohibition to domineer and teach doctrine based on heresy, Paul would not need to specify, “I don’t permit women to murder men” or “I do not permit women to rule in a sinful way and teach heresy.” These things are obvious. Paul was a busy man. He didn’t need to state the obvious. “Murder” being mentioned earlier in the letter doesn’t mean that’s what Paul was talking about here any more than my mention of singular and plural in the second paragraph above means I’m referring to singular and plural now. Mentioning something earlier doesn’t mean what is currently being written has the same theme as a topic.
Why did Paul / the HS choose such a rare word? Great question! But, I do not think this question is sufficient to overthrow the basic sense of the text. There are many hapax legomenae in the NT yet we never allow these to overthrow our interpretation if the general sense is clear. In this case, Paul’s positive exhortation (to submit) and his grounding it in creation (Adam and Eve) make for a clear passage. Even if we had much more evidence that authentein was used in a negative way in Paul’s day, it would still be difficult to overturn the basic sense of the text since these other aspects are clear (“Adam and Eve” “submit”).
So, I do agree this is a strange word. But, it would need to be convincingly negative for me to change my view. As I see it, there is a 80/20% chance it means “authority” / “domineer” respectively. I would need to know it meant “domineer” at least 99% if not 100% to change my mind, since the rest of the passage and Bible seem to clearly to accord with the traditional interpretation, not to mention—very importantly—the fact that reversing our interpretation would require that the church misunderstood not only this verse but it’s ecclesiology for ~2000 years. That is to say, reversing the Church's 2000 year old teaching would need a very solid argument that authentien is negative, but the argument is tenuous, as you point out. Furthermore, even if authentien was certainly negative, Paul could still prohibit women from teaching in a positive sense as well. E.g. "The women shouldn't be in authority at all. But, they're even domineering. I don't permit such domineering!" The third sentence obviously doesn't preclude the first.
Posted in: How Many CRC Churches Still Teach Catechism?
1st CRC of Artesia, CA teaches it year-round, open to all. We have Adult Sunday School class then Catechism class every Sunday.
Posted in: Gaslight Village
Amen! What a cogent and timely message.
Posted in: Why a Denomination?
Another concrete example (which may be discussed in later posts) is the ordination of officebearers. Those who are called to preach and administer the sacraments are not "self-starters" who create the call for themselves. Rather, denominations collectively recognize God's call upon them; or, denominations discern that God has not called them, and spares the Church much pain. In an age when everyone has a megaphone and credibility is difficult to discern, God's ecclesiology blesses us with a standard (albeit imperfect due to our sin) that helps us verify trustworthy, biblical leadership. That flows out into the ability to exercise church discipline, without which a church cannot be a church! This is why it is imperative for denominations to have shared theological agreements, hence confessionalism.
Posted in: Bible Verses for Parenting
This is very helpful, thank you Sarah!
Posted in: What Are Your Policies Concerning Flags in Church and Worship Spaces?
We removed the US flag for two reasons:
If it helps, below are the questions that were submitted to our Council to persuade them to remove the flags:
Posted in: The Beauty of Limited Atonement
It is rather convoluted, isn't it? This was not written very well. In regards to the misuse of the Word, could you explain how the article does that explicitly?
Posted in: The Beauty of Limited Atonement
Thank you, Jonathan!
Posted in: The Beauty of Limited Atonement
Well said; thank you, Aaron.
Posted in: A Christian Discussion on Women in Office
Dear Bev,
I’ll try to focus on some highlights and respond where I have the most pressing question, or think a response would be most suitable to all the wonderful comments you’ve provided. In regards to this post, two things stand out.
First, you said, “I believe tradition of man/elders has elevated authority, power, titles, hierarchy, degrees, institutions at the expense of the Spirit & ALL the gifts especially prophecy (for both men & women), at the expense of the one another commands/principle, at the expense of the priesthood of all believers, at the expense of Jesus saying we (men & women) are not to "lord it over"/exercise authority over in the Body of Christ.”
To which I mostly agree! I think the Church, whatever the gender of the officer, has the unfortunate capacity to stifle the work of the body. I’ve also noticed that much of this stifling is bottom-up. That is, many people are content just being spectators and not, to use John Wimber’s phrase, “doing the stuff.” But, our difference lies here: I think the solution to this problem is a proper understanding of the priesthood of all believers. I think the CRC has endorsed a “dominee” understanding of pastors as if they are the only people allowed to pray, speak about the gospel, or teach. This is unfortunate and unbiblical. From my perspective, women should be empowered to teach women and children, share the gospel, pray for everyone in person or when absent, publicly share what God is doing in their lives, and yes, even share a prophetic word in submission to the elders if the woman (or man!) feels led. In sum, yes there’s stifling but I think the solution is in broadening our understanding of what lay Christians can do, not broadening our understanding of the pastorate. Ironically, from my perspective, the latter merely continues the unhelpful trend of intimating that only pastors, whether male or female, “can do the stuff.”
Second, you say, “Rob mentions that being pragmatic is secondary to God's word... I was thinking about this & I had to laugh... God forming Eve from Adam is very pragmatic! the only time God said "it is not good..." during creation is after Adam was created, when Adam was alone... the only time God said "very good" is after He created Eve! Problem solved! We are mandated to steward/rule over creation together, not over each other!”
I think your point here is that God is pragmatic? I’m not quite sure what you were intending with the reference to God creating Adam and Eve as it relates to the question at hand. Perhaps you could flesh that out a bit?
On the other hand, I noticed that your dichotomy in the last sentence is this: we either rule together or over each other (“We are mandated to steward/rule over creation together, not over each other!”). Unfortunately, this is a caricature of complementarianism that I hear often. A CRC pastor recently told me the linchpin in his becoming an egalitarian was his belief that Genesis teaches men are women are equal. I said I wholeheartedly agree!
No complementarian believes men and women aren’t equal in their inherent value, or that men should “rule over” women. Rather, complementarians believe that women should willingly submit to the delegated male authority of the church. If women reject this leadership, they are free to do so. The picture is of willing submission and loving leadership, not unwilling submission and ruling over. Furthermore, **women do participate in the creation mandate to rule creation.** We are all prophets, priests, and kings. Women rule over creation with men, but they do not lead men, according to the comp. view. This is analogous to our position with God—we rule over creation as we follow God. For women in the church, it’s the same relationship. Hence, Paul says, “But I want you to understand that Christ is the head of every man, and the man is the head of a woman…” (1 Cor 11:3).
Posted in: A Christian Discussion on Women in Office
Hi Kathy, thanks for your response and patience (despite not being given a choice on my tardiness...)
Thanks for clarifying regarding pragmatics. But, I think there is often a divide between pragmatics and the Bible. Not always, but there is often. For example, do we search the scriptures to shape our worship? Or, do we shape our worship based on what we think will gain the most people? One is a pragmatic option that many take, and the other more biblical. Of course, the pragmatists will use the Bible. But the question is whether the Bible is the sole rule of life and faith, or if it is a contributing factor to other pragmatic considerations. That is the huge burden on my heart in this discussion. I'm not saying you do this, but I do get the sense that some enter this discussion—from whatever side—and look to practical considerations as if they held as much sway as Scripture.
That said, I share your desire to see the church lead in justice. Obviously, we have different views on what that justice is. For you, it's equal roles of women. To me, that isn't justice but is rather a modern invention that the Bible refutes all the while supporting equal status of males and females. So, that's probably part of the reason why the Church hasn't lead here—we can't figure out what we want to lead!
Peace to you,
Rob
Posted in: A Christian Discussion on Women in Office
Hi Bev,
Thank you for this wealth of information! I'll try to respond to it more fully later. As I've been promoted to research regarding "authority" in 1 Tim 2:12 (as you mentioned above) I found something really helpful that you might like to see. I don't know if you've heard of Mike Winger, but he's a strong Christian who I've met. He has an 11 hour YT video on this topic (yikes!). But, it has chapters in it and there is a very helpful section on "authority." The most important thing to keep in mind, I think, is what the word meant when Paul wrote it. We see words changing meaning before our eyes in the digital word (see this article for 24 examples: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-intersect/wp/2015/10/15/24-words-that-mean-totally-different-things-now-than-they-did-pre-internet/). The same happened more slowly in Paul's day, as always. So, "authority" had a negative connotation at one time, but what was the meaning at Paul's time?
That's the key question addressed here: https://youtu.be/GvLqRpGCayA?si=1XI63M2IeWyvWSh8&t=13004
Peace,
Rob
Posted in: A Christian Discussion on Women in Office
Sorry for the delay, Bev. You certainly are a wealth of information! Unfortunately, I don’t have time to respond to everything you wrote. Thus, I’ve selected some key points and responded in kind here. Thank you for your though provoking insights!
Are both words positive? This is unlikely since there are no good examples of authentein in a purely negative sense at the time of Paul. However, even if they are both positive, Paul would only limit women from teaching in a domineering way, but he should do so for the men especially. Which leads to the next point:
You say Paul’s switch from women (pl) to woman (sing) is significant, but I don’t see how. The only way that would be significant in my mind is if he had a specific woman in mind but then his prohibition would leave domineering teaching open to the other women. Furthermore, if Paul meant he was only speaking about a single woman, we would expect a definite object marker like “that” (ekei; εκει). Also, Paul could have just as easily said, "I don't permit a woman (sing) or a man (sing) to..." What if this community just had female teachers? That would be strange since Paul was writing to Timothy as their leader (a man) and gave other instructions to male leaders (1 Tim 3).
This is my own point (not a response): Does not “in all submission” (v. 11) provide the opposite of “authentein”? Whether authentein means “domineer” or “have authority” Paul makes clear what he does want—submission. A woman cannot reasonably teach and have good authority while remaining in submission to the men that she has authority over.
Murder? As with the prohibition to domineer and teach doctrine based on heresy, Paul would not need to specify, “I don’t permit women to murder men” or “I do not permit women to rule in a sinful way and teach heresy.” These things are obvious. Paul was a busy man. He didn’t need to state the obvious. “Murder” being mentioned earlier in the letter doesn’t mean that’s what Paul was talking about here any more than my mention of singular and plural in the second paragraph above means I’m referring to singular and plural now. Mentioning something earlier doesn’t mean what is currently being written has the same theme as a topic.
Why did Paul / the HS choose such a rare word? Great question! But, I do not think this question is sufficient to overthrow the basic sense of the text. There are many hapax legomenae in the NT yet we never allow these to overthrow our interpretation if the general sense is clear. In this case, Paul’s positive exhortation (to submit) and his grounding it in creation (Adam and Eve) make for a clear passage. Even if we had much more evidence that authentein was used in a negative way in Paul’s day, it would still be difficult to overturn the basic sense of the text since these other aspects are clear (“Adam and Eve” “submit”).
So, I do agree this is a strange word. But, it would need to be convincingly negative for me to change my view. As I see it, there is a 80/20% chance it means “authority” / “domineer” respectively. I would need to know it meant “domineer” at least 99% if not 100% to change my mind, since the rest of the passage and Bible seem to clearly to accord with the traditional interpretation, not to mention—very importantly—the fact that reversing our interpretation would require that the church misunderstood not only this verse but it’s ecclesiology for ~2000 years. That is to say, reversing the Church's 2000 year old teaching would need a very solid argument that authentien is negative, but the argument is tenuous, as you point out. Furthermore, even if authentien was certainly negative, Paul could still prohibit women from teaching in a positive sense as well. E.g. "The women shouldn't be in authority at all. But, they're even domineering. I don't permit such domineering!" The third sentence obviously doesn't preclude the first.