If Paul wanted to suppress the Artemis cult, he could say, "I don't permit anyone to teach about Artemis." Rather, he said, "I don't permit a woman to teach or exercise authority over a man." He makes no mention of Artemis whatsoever. What he does mention is creation, the Church, and how it should be structured. He doesn't say, "I don't permit women ... because Artemis" but "I don't permit women ... because Eve." Even if Paul's primary target is the Artemis cult, that doesn't mean he is providing a context dependent instruction. If males are the only ones allowed to teach in the Church, and women are spreading Artemis falsehood, Paul would obviously use the means already available to him to squelch this problem—these Artemis women shouldn't be teaching anyway! The argument above is like responding to a teacher saying, "There are some 8th graders usurping my authority and teaching about Pokemon in class. I don't permit 8th graders to teach in my class!" By claiming, "This teacher isn't against 8th graders teaching per se, it's just those who teach about Pokemon. If they were teaching math, it would have been OK." This line of reasoning is supplanting the textual evidence with historical evidence. History and word studies simply do not provide enough evidence to implant the Artemis cult as Paul's express intention here. It's very doubtful God allowed such an important passage for Church history to go misunderstood for millennia. It's very disturbing that so many see tenuous evidence as sufficient to radically alter the order of Christ's Church. To do so, we need evidence beyond a reasonable doubt. But we don't have that. We have a hapax (authentien) and a cult plausibly operating in the background. This is not sufficient.
Thanks for this comment, Sarah! It's interesting that we often bristle at God's sovereignty, but it can actually provide great comfort knowing we're meant to learn through periods of doubt, as you put it.
This is very refreshing. I read a very balanced and pastoral account of the suffering in the author's heartland and heart. Thank you, Christian, for being a thinking Christian who is able to rightly divide the truth, steering clear of political ideologies and sticking close to Christ.
James, your disdain for US policy belies a misunderstanding of current events and a failure to read the post itself. As Christian said, the fact that 8 million people left Venezuela indicates that the leadership is causing serious distress to the people. Furthermore, Maduro is charged with narco-terrorism and sending tons of cocaine to the US, which is a punishable offense. Both of these crimes make the US responsible for removing him, as an act of justice for both Americans and Venezuelans. If you're against violence, then think about the violence that is occurring. Many were harmed and killed in ousting Maduro. Yes. Yet, many more were actively being harmed, disposed, and killed with him in office. A reformed conception of the 6th commandment requires actions that will reduce harm, even if those actions are harmful themselves. You'd be a bad parent if you didn't forcibly, that is, violently resist a predator trying to harm your children. Your "violence" in that scenario is required if you are to be a good father. It is the same in this case. One must see the full picture to have an adequate estimation of the ethics involved here.
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?
Posted in: Getting the Whole Picture, Part 10: False Teaching in 1 Timothy 2:12
If Paul wanted to suppress the Artemis cult, he could say, "I don't permit anyone to teach about Artemis." Rather, he said, "I don't permit a woman to teach or exercise authority over a man." He makes no mention of Artemis whatsoever. What he does mention is creation, the Church, and how it should be structured. He doesn't say, "I don't permit women ... because Artemis" but "I don't permit women ... because Eve." Even if Paul's primary target is the Artemis cult, that doesn't mean he is providing a context dependent instruction. If males are the only ones allowed to teach in the Church, and women are spreading Artemis falsehood, Paul would obviously use the means already available to him to squelch this problem—these Artemis women shouldn't be teaching anyway! The argument above is like responding to a teacher saying, "There are some 8th graders usurping my authority and teaching about Pokemon in class. I don't permit 8th graders to teach in my class!" By claiming, "This teacher isn't against 8th graders teaching per se, it's just those who teach about Pokemon. If they were teaching math, it would have been OK." This line of reasoning is supplanting the textual evidence with historical evidence. History and word studies simply do not provide enough evidence to implant the Artemis cult as Paul's express intention here. It's very doubtful God allowed such an important passage for Church history to go misunderstood for millennia. It's very disturbing that so many see tenuous evidence as sufficient to radically alter the order of Christ's Church. To do so, we need evidence beyond a reasonable doubt. But we don't have that. We have a hapax (authentien) and a cult plausibly operating in the background. This is not sufficient.
Posted in: Good Doubt Friday
Thanks for this comment, Sarah! It's interesting that we often bristle at God's sovereignty, but it can actually provide great comfort knowing we're meant to learn through periods of doubt, as you put it.
Posted in: A Pastoral Statement on Venezuela, Justice, and Truth
This is very refreshing. I read a very balanced and pastoral account of the suffering in the author's heartland and heart. Thank you, Christian, for being a thinking Christian who is able to rightly divide the truth, steering clear of political ideologies and sticking close to Christ.
Posted in: A Pastoral Statement on Venezuela, Justice, and Truth
James, your disdain for US policy belies a misunderstanding of current events and a failure to read the post itself. As Christian said, the fact that 8 million people left Venezuela indicates that the leadership is causing serious distress to the people. Furthermore, Maduro is charged with narco-terrorism and sending tons of cocaine to the US, which is a punishable offense. Both of these crimes make the US responsible for removing him, as an act of justice for both Americans and Venezuelans. If you're against violence, then think about the violence that is occurring. Many were harmed and killed in ousting Maduro. Yes. Yet, many more were actively being harmed, disposed, and killed with him in office. A reformed conception of the 6th commandment requires actions that will reduce harm, even if those actions are harmful themselves. You'd be a bad parent if you didn't forcibly, that is, violently resist a predator trying to harm your children. Your "violence" in that scenario is required if you are to be a good father. It is the same in this case. One must see the full picture to have an adequate estimation of the ethics involved here.
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.