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?
Bev! Thank you for your patience with me and for reposting your comment. I'll repost my response so we can get this rolling again. Thank you so much for thoughtfully engaging this important topic with me!
Hi Bev,
Thank you so much for this post. I love the idea of moving this discussion somewhere so that more could get involved. But, I'm not sure how to do that. Until then [now were here!] here's my thoughts:
I hear what you're saying about the use of authentein in Paul's context. I don't disagree that the word was frequently used in a negative context. However, here's my hesitations:
First, I did my own TLG search for authentein and the earliest source it provided was Athanasius (4th Cent.). I can't put up a screenshot here of my search, but I can provide the link of my search and maybe if you click on that you can see what I'm talking about: https://stephanus.tlg.uci.edu/Iris/demo/tsearch.jsp#s=11 I'm by no means a TLG power-user and maybe I did something wrong. But the same search parameters for agape turn up results as early a 2nd cent. BC. I tried different lexical forms of authentein (authenteo) and all the different search parameters I could try. So, I would want to see those sources that allegedly use authentein as if it only applies to witchcraft. For me personally, it's not enough that a blog cites a book that says this word was used in this way. I want to see the original source. This is a motto of the Reformation: ad fontes -- back to the sources!
Secondly, if Paul meant this word in such a negative way, why does he couple it with didasko (teach) which is a positive term throughout the Bible? It would be strange, in my mind, to say, "I don't permit women to domineer in witchcraft cults and I don't permit them to teach men." Wouldn't Paul want to specify something like: "I don't want them teaching witchcraft." Or, "I don't want them teaching until they stop doing witchcraft and the elders determine that they're ready to teach." Or, "I don't want them teaching unless they've never been tainted with witchcraft." Also, wouldn't the word "witchcraft" or something like it occur at some point somewhere?
Thirdly, Paul says women must "learn quietly" (v. 11). The biblical context for v. 12's authentein is v. 11's "learn quietly." So, authentein doesn't seem to be contrasted with witchcraft, but with learning in an outspoken way.
In the same way, fourthly, the context for authentein (v. 12) is obviously the preceding verse (v. 11) which says that women should learn "in all submissiveness" (hupotage). What is the opposite of authentein? Contextually the answer must be hupotage—submissiveness. This is the same positive word used in 1 Cor 9:13 "... they will glorify God because of your submission (hupotage) that comes from your confession of the gospel of Christ..." So, Paul is saying, "Women should not exercise authority (authentein) rather they should be submissive (hupotage)." To me, this means: women should do the opposite of authentein. What is that? Hupotage.
So, in my opinion, whatever the precise meaning of authentein is isn't all that important. We know what "submissiveness" (hupotage) means (v. 11). We know what "learn quietly" (hesuxia) means (v. 11). We know what "teach" (didasko) means (v. 12). All these things point to the traditional understanding of women in church since the early church up until the 1970s.
Finally, we know what "for" (gar) means (v. 13). It's a logical connector. BDAG says it's "used to express cause, clarification, or inference." The cause or clarification of Paul's instruction for women to not teach or excercize authority isn't witchcraft, but it is the creation order: “**For** Adam was formed first, then Eve; and Adam was not deceived, but the woman was deceived and became a transgressor” (1 Timothy 2:13–14, ESV). The logical grounds (gar) for Paul's statement comes in verse 13 where God's order in creating humans is mentioned and witchcraft is not.
I understand there is potentially some witchcraft background to 1 Timothy. But there is certain context for 1 Timothy--the book itself. When we read the context of the book the meaning seems plain. If we assume there is some witchcraft in the background, that doesn't invalidate the biblical commands given because they are not grounded in Timothy's or Ephesus's context, but in the created order.
Anyways, those ar my thoughts. I'd love to hear yours in response.
What do you think about this, Bev (or anyone)? Thank you again for stimulating conversation! God bless you!
Amen! Men and women are both agents of God's redemptive work for humanity. From my perspective, this use of men and women by God is most beautiful when men and women's complementarity is in view. I agree with the assertion of the linked article, "Hierarchy and the Biblical Worldview" that the neo-platonic notion of the analogia entis or the "great chain of being" is pagan in origin and it has been abused to represent women as lower on an ontological totem pole. Sad! I take a different response, however, as I'm sure you know and as I hinted above.
On another note, I finished Sandra Glahn's book Nobody's Mother yesterday and found her work refreshing in its attention to the biblical data, whether exegetical or grammatico-historical. She argues persuasively that Artemis is in the background of 1 Timothy. Usually, I'm uncompelled by that argument, but her use of new inscriptional archaeological data is enlightening. I still don't think there's enough solid evidence to claim Paul was only precluding female preaching in an Artemisian context, especially since, if he was, his alternative would not be "learn quietly and in submission" but "teach humbly and not like Artemis." Nevertheless, the real gem for me was her very persuasive reading of "she will be saved by childbearing" as a potential (there is no evidence of the quote origin per se, but the concept is certainly Artemisian) quotation of the Artemisian cultic literature. Therefore, Glahn reads Paul as subversively fulfilling Artemis's promise by saying it can be fulfilled only in faith in Christ. I.e., ""She will be saved in childbearing" as Artemis promises, if they continue in faith in Christ."
Indeed, page two of a fruitful discussion! I am so grateful to God for the ability to discuss these important things in this way.
Thank you for the very interesting background to the other gods in Ephesus. I haven’t studied that, but from what you say I’d agree that that background is very important indeed. Anytime I hear someone say, “this or that god is what this or that author had in mind” I am sceptical because we all know how polytheistic Rome was. So, your point that there may be other gods / witchcraft at play in Ephesus sounds right on the money. It’s most definitely a fruitful area of study and it seems scholars aren’t giving it its due. This is another reason why I’m very cautious to take an alternate meaning to a text based on such things—we find out new things every day and the evidence would need to be near 100% certain to overturn a traditional interpretation. The Church can misinterpret for a time, but to hold that she has misinterpreted for two millennia would need the sort of evidence that would convict someone in a court of law: “beyond reasonable doubt.” There are lots of reasonable doubts to be dealt with!
In regards to Matt 20:25-26, I think the verb that scholars base their interpretation on is the first one: κατακυριεύω which is translated either “lord it over” or “dominate” in the 9 standard translations I checked. The softest translation is in the KJV which has “exercise dominion over.” BDAG has these meanings for this word “1) to bring into subjection, become master, gain dominion over, subdue; 2) to have mastery, be master, lord it (over), rule.” It seems that this first words helps us understand the meaning of the word you mentioned, the second one in the verse, which is less frequently used in the NT (κατεξουσιάζω). For the latter, BDAG notes that it may inherently have negative connotations: “exercise authority, perhaps tyrannize τινός over someone.” Therefore, I think Jesus’s point in this text is not that there should not be any good authority over one another in the Church, but that the authority must be expressed in a way different from Gentile domineering.
The NT has a lot to say about authority: elders are “shepherds” (1 Tim 3). Shepherds have authority over the sheep, which is why Jesus is referred to as the “over shepherd” (1 Pet 5). Good authority is very present in the biblical data when considering the Church: Timothy is to “command certain ones not to teach a different doctrine” (1 Tim); wives are to “submit to their husbands” (Eph 5); children are to “obey their parents” (5th commandment recited in Eph 5); the elders in Jerusalem made binding decisions regarding circumcision in Acts 15; the author to the Hebrews says, “Obey your leaders and submit to them—for they keep watch over your souls” (13:17). Many more references could be made. The Bible unequivocally teaches that good authority must be present in the Church.
Unfortunately, as you point out, this clear biblical teaching has been hijacked, as Glahn points out, by neo-platonic / Aristotelian conceptions of femininity as a deformed masculinity. That is, the Church took the good biblical teaching and assumed it meant that women were ontologically inferior. But, as Glahn must concede, there was always a minority report who held to true biblical femininity as not ontologically inferior, but just functionally distinct, as nature itself teaches.
Therefore, as you point out, the language of “serving” is a very good one when considering good, biblical authority. As a pastor, my primary role is to serve my flock. I must also lead them, but this leadership should be modeled after Jesus who was a servant-leader (e.g. washing the disciples’ feet). This does not negate leadership, but it refocuses it in a biblical frame rather than a Gentile one where leaders are permitted to “lord over” or “domineer” their people. Unfortunately, the Church has often failed that test and has indeed allowed—and even encouraged—leaders to lord, rather than serve.
I think you’re on the right track in the sense that leadership should look more collaborative than it does. But I do not think this means that ὑποτασσω and words like it do not mean “submit.” We submit to God everyday but it is a beautiful, even collaborative thing! The Church must do the same.
Grace and peace to you my ontologically equivalent and spiritually superior sister in Christ!
Indeed, may the Lord give you peace and fresh vistas of His love, Bonny. I totally understand and don't expect you to feel the need to defend your pastorate here. This is just an opportunity for those interested to discuss this important question. May the Lord bless you and your family. I pray the Lord gives you His comfort in this extremely difficult time.
Thank you so much for this comment, Kathy! I really appreciated the historical context regarding the 1960/70s WIO debate. Indeed, women are just as gifted and important to the church as men!
I wonder, however, if it's true that we need women in leadership to avoid abuse. That seems to me to paint male leadership in a demeaning light, as if men can't but be abusive without women by their side. What about single men? Churches where women aren't available to lead? Are they doomed to be abusive? This is my response to your statement: "The lack of women in any leadership positions was named as an important part of what prevents abuse from being taken seriously. My experience in Safe Church work confirms the importance of having both women and men in leadership positions to deal effectively with abuse within church communities."
To your third point, it sounds like you're saying complementarianism is unjust toward women. Is that correct? Perhaps I misunderstood your third point. But if that is what you meant, again, I find that demeaning to God-honoring people—both men and women (like John Piper and Jackie Hill Perry)—who are complementarian. In my experience, complementarianism is very just toward women because it honors the roles God has given them (raising children, teaching women and children, and serving the church in non-teaching roles, etc. etc.).
Finally and most importantly, though you raise excellent pragmatic arguments for your position, I think pragmatic arguments are always secondary to Scripture. If God says, "Don't do it," but we think "doing it" is better for us, that doesn't excuse not following Scripture. Hence, the main topic of this post is hermeneutical, not pragmatic. As an example, your argument that the fruit of women in office is good fruit is the exact same argument proponents of same-sex marriage use. They say same-sex marriage is good for the church, so we should do it. But again, the argument is about what God says, not what we think it best for us.
Thanks again for engaging and may the Lord bless you as you serve His church.
Hetty, I know this can be frustrating for some. I regret that it is. My prayer is that we all settle into the roles God has given us and we flourish under His will which is always best for us. Also, though I'm not among them unfortunately, I know many men who are just as empathetic and caring as women! For example—Jesus! But, I don't know any men who can bear a child. That is a God-given task only women who are called to do it can fulfill.
Hetty, I understand that frustration. Also, I'm not saying you should have a baby. I'm saying the roles of men and women in the church are different. Though we disagree over the extent of the difference, biology requires you to agree that there are some things essential to the church that men cannot do, like have babies (no babies, no more church militant). To that extent, we have some agreement. Of course, this assumes you agree that only women can have babies.
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
Bev! Thank you for your patience with me and for reposting your comment. I'll repost my response so we can get this rolling again. Thank you so much for thoughtfully engaging this important topic with me!
Hi Bev,
Thank you so much for this post. I love the idea of moving this discussion somewhere so that more could get involved. But, I'm not sure how to do that. Until then [now were here!] here's my thoughts:
I hear what you're saying about the use of authentein in Paul's context. I don't disagree that the word was frequently used in a negative context. However, here's my hesitations:
First, I did my own TLG search for authentein and the earliest source it provided was Athanasius (4th Cent.). I can't put up a screenshot here of my search, but I can provide the link of my search and maybe if you click on that you can see what I'm talking about: https://stephanus.tlg.uci.edu/Iris/demo/tsearch.jsp#s=11 I'm by no means a TLG power-user and maybe I did something wrong. But the same search parameters for agape turn up results as early a 2nd cent. BC. I tried different lexical forms of authentein (authenteo) and all the different search parameters I could try. So, I would want to see those sources that allegedly use authentein as if it only applies to witchcraft. For me personally, it's not enough that a blog cites a book that says this word was used in this way. I want to see the original source. This is a motto of the Reformation: ad fontes -- back to the sources!
Secondly, if Paul meant this word in such a negative way, why does he couple it with didasko (teach) which is a positive term throughout the Bible? It would be strange, in my mind, to say, "I don't permit women to domineer in witchcraft cults and I don't permit them to teach men." Wouldn't Paul want to specify something like: "I don't want them teaching witchcraft." Or, "I don't want them teaching until they stop doing witchcraft and the elders determine that they're ready to teach." Or, "I don't want them teaching unless they've never been tainted with witchcraft." Also, wouldn't the word "witchcraft" or something like it occur at some point somewhere?
Thirdly, Paul says women must "learn quietly" (v. 11). The biblical context for v. 12's authentein is v. 11's "learn quietly." So, authentein doesn't seem to be contrasted with witchcraft, but with learning in an outspoken way.
In the same way, fourthly, the context for authentein (v. 12) is obviously the preceding verse (v. 11) which says that women should learn "in all submissiveness" (hupotage). What is the opposite of authentein? Contextually the answer must be hupotage—submissiveness. This is the same positive word used in 1 Cor 9:13 "... they will glorify God because of your submission (hupotage) that comes from your confession of the gospel of Christ..." So, Paul is saying, "Women should not exercise authority (authentein) rather they should be submissive (hupotage)." To me, this means: women should do the opposite of authentein. What is that? Hupotage.
So, in my opinion, whatever the precise meaning of authentein is isn't all that important. We know what "submissiveness" (hupotage) means (v. 11). We know what "learn quietly" (hesuxia) means (v. 11). We know what "teach" (didasko) means (v. 12). All these things point to the traditional understanding of women in church since the early church up until the 1970s.
Finally, we know what "for" (gar) means (v. 13). It's a logical connector. BDAG says it's "used to express cause, clarification, or inference." The cause or clarification of Paul's instruction for women to not teach or excercize authority isn't witchcraft, but it is the creation order: “**For** Adam was formed first, then Eve; and Adam was not deceived, but the woman was deceived and became a transgressor” (1 Timothy 2:13–14, ESV). The logical grounds (gar) for Paul's statement comes in verse 13 where God's order in creating humans is mentioned and witchcraft is not.
I understand there is potentially some witchcraft background to 1 Timothy. But there is certain context for 1 Timothy--the book itself. When we read the context of the book the meaning seems plain. If we assume there is some witchcraft in the background, that doesn't invalidate the biblical commands given because they are not grounded in Timothy's or Ephesus's context, but in the created order.
Anyways, those ar my thoughts. I'd love to hear yours in response.
What do you think about this, Bev (or anyone)? Thank you again for stimulating conversation! God bless you!
Posted in: A Christian Discussion on Women in Office
Amen! Men and women are both agents of God's redemptive work for humanity. From my perspective, this use of men and women by God is most beautiful when men and women's complementarity is in view. I agree with the assertion of the linked article, "Hierarchy and the Biblical Worldview" that the neo-platonic notion of the analogia entis or the "great chain of being" is pagan in origin and it has been abused to represent women as lower on an ontological totem pole. Sad! I take a different response, however, as I'm sure you know and as I hinted above.
On another note, I finished Sandra Glahn's book Nobody's Mother yesterday and found her work refreshing in its attention to the biblical data, whether exegetical or grammatico-historical. She argues persuasively that Artemis is in the background of 1 Timothy. Usually, I'm uncompelled by that argument, but her use of new inscriptional archaeological data is enlightening. I still don't think there's enough solid evidence to claim Paul was only precluding female preaching in an Artemisian context, especially since, if he was, his alternative would not be "learn quietly and in submission" but "teach humbly and not like Artemis." Nevertheless, the real gem for me was her very persuasive reading of "she will be saved by childbearing" as a potential (there is no evidence of the quote origin per se, but the concept is certainly Artemisian) quotation of the Artemisian cultic literature. Therefore, Glahn reads Paul as subversively fulfilling Artemis's promise by saying it can be fulfilled only in faith in Christ. I.e., ""She will be saved in childbearing" as Artemis promises, if they continue in faith in Christ."
Posted in: A Christian Discussion on Women in Office
Hi Bev!
Indeed, page two of a fruitful discussion! I am so grateful to God for the ability to discuss these important things in this way.
Thank you for the very interesting background to the other gods in Ephesus. I haven’t studied that, but from what you say I’d agree that that background is very important indeed. Anytime I hear someone say, “this or that god is what this or that author had in mind” I am sceptical because we all know how polytheistic Rome was. So, your point that there may be other gods / witchcraft at play in Ephesus sounds right on the money. It’s most definitely a fruitful area of study and it seems scholars aren’t giving it its due. This is another reason why I’m very cautious to take an alternate meaning to a text based on such things—we find out new things every day and the evidence would need to be near 100% certain to overturn a traditional interpretation. The Church can misinterpret for a time, but to hold that she has misinterpreted for two millennia would need the sort of evidence that would convict someone in a court of law: “beyond reasonable doubt.” There are lots of reasonable doubts to be dealt with!
In regards to Matt 20:25-26, I think the verb that scholars base their interpretation on is the first one: κατακυριεύω which is translated either “lord it over” or “dominate” in the 9 standard translations I checked. The softest translation is in the KJV which has “exercise dominion over.” BDAG has these meanings for this word “1) to bring into subjection, become master, gain dominion over, subdue; 2) to have mastery, be master, lord it (over), rule.” It seems that this first words helps us understand the meaning of the word you mentioned, the second one in the verse, which is less frequently used in the NT (κατεξουσιάζω). For the latter, BDAG notes that it may inherently have negative connotations: “exercise authority, perhaps tyrannize τινός over someone.” Therefore, I think Jesus’s point in this text is not that there should not be any good authority over one another in the Church, but that the authority must be expressed in a way different from Gentile domineering.
The NT has a lot to say about authority: elders are “shepherds” (1 Tim 3). Shepherds have authority over the sheep, which is why Jesus is referred to as the “over shepherd” (1 Pet 5). Good authority is very present in the biblical data when considering the Church: Timothy is to “command certain ones not to teach a different doctrine” (1 Tim); wives are to “submit to their husbands” (Eph 5); children are to “obey their parents” (5th commandment recited in Eph 5); the elders in Jerusalem made binding decisions regarding circumcision in Acts 15; the author to the Hebrews says, “Obey your leaders and submit to them—for they keep watch over your souls” (13:17). Many more references could be made. The Bible unequivocally teaches that good authority must be present in the Church.
Unfortunately, as you point out, this clear biblical teaching has been hijacked, as Glahn points out, by neo-platonic / Aristotelian conceptions of femininity as a deformed masculinity. That is, the Church took the good biblical teaching and assumed it meant that women were ontologically inferior. But, as Glahn must concede, there was always a minority report who held to true biblical femininity as not ontologically inferior, but just functionally distinct, as nature itself teaches.
Therefore, as you point out, the language of “serving” is a very good one when considering good, biblical authority. As a pastor, my primary role is to serve my flock. I must also lead them, but this leadership should be modeled after Jesus who was a servant-leader (e.g. washing the disciples’ feet). This does not negate leadership, but it refocuses it in a biblical frame rather than a Gentile one where leaders are permitted to “lord over” or “domineer” their people. Unfortunately, the Church has often failed that test and has indeed allowed—and even encouraged—leaders to lord, rather than serve.
I think you’re on the right track in the sense that leadership should look more collaborative than it does. But I do not think this means that ὑποτασσω and words like it do not mean “submit.” We submit to God everyday but it is a beautiful, even collaborative thing! The Church must do the same.
Grace and peace to you my ontologically equivalent and spiritually superior sister in Christ!
Rob
Posted in: A Christian Discussion on Women in Office
Indeed, may the Lord give you peace and fresh vistas of His love, Bonny. I totally understand and don't expect you to feel the need to defend your pastorate here. This is just an opportunity for those interested to discuss this important question. May the Lord bless you and your family. I pray the Lord gives you His comfort in this extremely difficult time.
Posted in: A Christian Discussion on Women in Office
Thank you Bev for this and the other comments! What I've read so far is very interesting and thought-provoking. I hope to respond soon!
Posted in: A Christian Discussion on Women in Office
Thank you so much for this comment, Kathy! I really appreciated the historical context regarding the 1960/70s WIO debate. Indeed, women are just as gifted and important to the church as men!
I wonder, however, if it's true that we need women in leadership to avoid abuse. That seems to me to paint male leadership in a demeaning light, as if men can't but be abusive without women by their side. What about single men? Churches where women aren't available to lead? Are they doomed to be abusive? This is my response to your statement: "The lack of women in any leadership positions was named as an important part of what prevents abuse from being taken seriously. My experience in Safe Church work confirms the importance of having both women and men in leadership positions to deal effectively with abuse within church communities."
To your third point, it sounds like you're saying complementarianism is unjust toward women. Is that correct? Perhaps I misunderstood your third point. But if that is what you meant, again, I find that demeaning to God-honoring people—both men and women (like John Piper and Jackie Hill Perry)—who are complementarian. In my experience, complementarianism is very just toward women because it honors the roles God has given them (raising children, teaching women and children, and serving the church in non-teaching roles, etc. etc.).
Finally and most importantly, though you raise excellent pragmatic arguments for your position, I think pragmatic arguments are always secondary to Scripture. If God says, "Don't do it," but we think "doing it" is better for us, that doesn't excuse not following Scripture. Hence, the main topic of this post is hermeneutical, not pragmatic. As an example, your argument that the fruit of women in office is good fruit is the exact same argument proponents of same-sex marriage use. They say same-sex marriage is good for the church, so we should do it. But again, the argument is about what God says, not what we think it best for us.
Thanks again for engaging and may the Lord bless you as you serve His church.
Rob
Posted in: A Christian Discussion on Women in Office
Hetty, I know this can be frustrating for some. I regret that it is. My prayer is that we all settle into the roles God has given us and we flourish under His will which is always best for us. Also, though I'm not among them unfortunately, I know many men who are just as empathetic and caring as women! For example—Jesus! But, I don't know any men who can bear a child. That is a God-given task only women who are called to do it can fulfill.
Posted in: A Christian Discussion on Women in Office
Hetty, I understand that frustration. Also, I'm not saying you should have a baby. I'm saying the roles of men and women in the church are different. Though we disagree over the extent of the difference, biology requires you to agree that there are some things essential to the church that men cannot do, like have babies (no babies, no more church militant). To that extent, we have some agreement. Of course, this assumes you agree that only women can have babies.