Skip to main content

We removed the US flag for two reasons: 

  1. 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. 
  2. 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: 

  1. 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? 
  2. 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? 
  3. 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? 
  4. We have more in common with non-American Christians (like Pakistanis) than the most patriotic atheist. 

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).

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

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 

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. 

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." 

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
 

We want to hear from you.

Connect to The Network and add your own question, blog, resource, or job.

Add Your Post