Corridors of My Mind

[Pro 20:5 NLT] 5 Though good advice lies deep within the heart, a person with understanding will draw it out.

(A) Father in heaven, most worthy of praise,
(T) we thank You for Your glorious majesty and grace
(C) in forgiving our sins. You do not condemn us though we deserve it.
(S) Grant that we may seek to lean into and learn Your will for our lives,
(Why?) so that we may truly understand the gifts You have given us and know how to use them to bless the world! AMEN.

[1Th 5:12-13 NLT] 12 Dear brothers and sisters, honor those who are your leaders in the Lord's work. They work hard among you and give you spiritual guidance. 13 Show them great respect and wholehearted love because of their work. And live peacefully with each other.

(A) Creator and Sustainer of all things, You are most worthy of praise.
(T) Thank you for Your goodness and kindness to us and to all whom You have made.
(C) We have not always reflected Your goodness and kindness,
(S) for this we ask for forgiveness. Increase our faith. Help us to lead and follow our leaders,
(Why?) so that we may grow in goodness and kindness. So that we may truly see Your goodness and kindness, because it is hard to see it sometimes. In Your Son's holy name, AMEN.

Saturday's prayer was more for clergy, while Sunday's prayer is more for Christian lay leaders. I am posting this one a day early because I may not get around to it tomorrow. Blessings!

[Heb 13:7, 17 NLT] 7 Remember your leaders who taught you the word of God. Think of all the good that has come from their lives, and follow the example of their faith. ... 17 Obey your spiritual leaders, and do what they say. Their work is to watch over your souls, and they are accountable to God. Give them reason to do this with joy and not with sorrow. That would certainly not be for your benefit.

(A) King of kings and Lord of lords, You are God Most High.
(T) You have revealed Yourself to us and given us representatives to lead and guide us, for this, we are thankful.
(C) We acknowledge our weakness in that we don't always obey them or respect their authority. Sometimes we downright despise them.
(S) Forgive us, O Judge. Help us, O Helper. Kindle in us the affections for our spiritual leaders as a child for his father.
(Why?) In this way, we may come to know Your leadership by their examples. We may come to know Your mercy by their kindness. We may come to know Your sacrifice by their service. AMEN

[Eph 2:10 NLT] 10 For we are God's masterpiece. He has created us anew in Christ Jesus, so we can do the good things he planned for us long ago.

(A) Holy Father,
(T) thank You for Your kindness to the children of men,
(C) we are not worthy of Your mercy or grace,
(S) but we humbly ask for the power of Your Holy Spirit to live worthy of the calling,
(Why?) so that we may show forth Your truth in love; so that people may see You as You are, through our lives! AMEN.

[Pro 9:9 NLT] 9 Instruct the wise, and they will be even wiser. Teach the righteous, and they will learn even more.

(A) Wise and merciful father,
(T) we thank You and praise You!
(C) Do not look down on our foolishness,
(S) but lift us up and grant us Your wisdom,
(Why?) so that we may learn to walk in Your ways and be established in Your paths. AMEN

[Heb 10:23-25 NLT] 23 Let us hold tightly without wavering to the hope we affirm, for God can be trusted to keep his promise. 24 Let us think of ways to motivate one another to acts of love and good works. 25 And let us not neglect our meeting together, as some people do, but encourage one another, especially now that the day of his return is drawing near.

(A) O Lord, my God,
(T) thank You for all Your people and all the worlds Your hands have made.
(C) We, who are small as compared to You,
(S) ask You for Your mercy, grace, and love. Teach us, we pray, to love one another,
(Why?) so that we may become the body and bride of Christ as You envision her to be. AMEN

[1Th 5:15-22 NLT] 15 See that no one pays back evil for evil, but always try to do good to each other and to all people. 16 Always be joyful. 17 Never stop praying. 18 Be thankful in all circumstances, for this is God's will for you who belong to Christ Jesus. 19 Do not stifle the Holy Spirit. 20 Do not scoff at prophecies, 21 but test everything that is said. Hold on to what is good. 22 Stay away from every kind of evil.

(A) O Lord God, King of the Universe,
(T) We thank You. We praise You.
(C) We humble ourselves before You. You alone are God. You alone are wise.
(S) Help us, we pray, to stay in communion with the Holy Spirit. This weekend we witnessed the power of Your Holy Spirit in the midst of the Healing Service. Help us to bring this depth of communion into our daily lives,
(Why?) so that we may be comforted. So that we may give You all praise, glory, and honor due Your name. So that Your name be lifted up for all the world to see and know that You are the Holy One of Your holy people. AMEN

[Mat 11:28-30 NLT] 28 Then Jesus said, "Come to me, all of you who are weary and carry heavy burdens, and I will give you rest. 29 Take my yoke upon you. Let me teach you, because I am humble and gentle at heart, and you will find rest for your souls. 30 For my yoke is easy to bear, and the burden I give you is light."

(A) O Lord, merciful father,
(T) You gave us a special time and place to draw closer to each other as we drew closer to You. We thank you for your goodness in our lives.
(C) We stumbled and bumbled over the weekend, we tried hard to make it work and alternatively let you work. We do not know how to "balance" those two ideas, but You showed up anyways and blessed our socks off!
(S) We ask for the physical, mental, and emotional recovery from (over) exertion on the weekend,
(Why?) so that You may be glorified in the minds, hearts, and by the lives of the men who participated. So that You can draw all men unto Yourself. So that the world may know You and have eternal life!

It may surprise you to learn that I, as an academic person, reduce a lot of my intellectual arguments to their ethical grounding. I often repeat the motif, 'the Tree of Life is superior to the Tree of Knowledge.' Did you know? I prayed for the wisdom of Solomon as a boy. I have been in pursuit of Wisdom ever since. Listen to the wisest man that ever lived. (Ecclesiastes 12:13)

Now all has been heard; here is the conclusion of the matter: Fear God and keep his commandments, for this is the duty of all mankind.

The Ordination of Women is a Non Issue
I believe the argument over the ordination of women to holy orders is a nonissue. It is not important, neither to fight it nor to promote it. People think it is important, but I posit its non-importance. I believe the issue of godly submission & authority is central to the arguments being waged. Get it right and the ordination questions will resolve as a matter of course.

It is Not Adiaphora
As a point of clarification, I do not believe the issue is adiaphora, ‘neither forbidden nor mandated,’ left to the neutral ground of permission. I believe there is no scripturally unassailable defense of the practice. But neither I do not find the practice abhorrent to scripture. What I find instead is a church which has abdicated its understanding and practice of godly submission & authority.

Roles are Not Exclusive
In the absence of the scripturally mandated practice of submission & authority (rightly understood), there is no issue, scripturally speaking, with the ordination of women. All Christians, regardless of sex, may pray, prophesy, teach, and lead the liturgy. There is no scriptural doctrine (unless I’ve seriously missed something) which refutes my previous statement.

Roles are Normative
In the presence of the scripturally mandated practice of submission & authority (rightly understood), the ‘ruling’ authority of a woman over a man is found to run counter to the direct reading of scripture. It also conflicts with the biblically mandated submission & authority structure in the home (rightly understood). Also note that women do not command other women, but teach them to be obedient to their husbands. God cannot have set up submission & authority structures (i.e., family and church) to contradict each other.

Eschatological Misappropriation
The best argument supporting the ordination of women cannot be sustained “in the long run.” No apparent, representative authority-structures will be required in the eschaton. So, the “eschatological argument” (i.e., “there is neither male nor female”) does not sustain the adiaphora claim. I do not know whether there will be a heavenly hierarchy or not. We will judge angels, whatever that means. Maybe there will be a representative authority-structure (it won’t be based on sex), but I don’t think we’ll know about that until we get there. Although there are some theological threads we can pull to tease it out …

Conclusion

Submission & authority are mutual concepts. It doesn't matter who the truth comes from, we must submit to it, if it's the truth. This is lost on us. We think we will out clever God. Submission is the eighty percent and authority is the twenty percent. First, learn how to submit. Second, learn how to exercise godly authority. It begins in the home, with your spouse, then your children. If you want to lead in the Church, this is where you will learn. Believe it. Obey it! Amen.

She is in the flower of her youth, no defense. No mother, no father. The boys are cruel. They do not honor her delicacy. “Suck it up, buttercup.” Instead of having valor, they are vulgar. It’s not their fault, they are only boys, they are not responsible, they reject it. One boy stops. He sees her worth. He’s teased, not for defending her, but because he's kind. She doesn’t need him to defend her. She only needs him to love her for who she is. His love beams for her. She basks in the brightness and relishes in the radiance. Will he woo her? Will his intellect ignite her imagination? Will his strength still her to stare? He avoids her gaze; he hangs his head. “I can’t, it’s too hard, I’m afraid.” The litany is lost on her. She is forgotten, forlorn. Who will find her? Who will heal her hurts? She will.

I'm supposed to be writing a paper on authority. It's going to defend Paul's words according to the direct reading, but it's also going to dig a little deeper and find some agreement with the egalitarian position, though my paper will likely be seen as "complementarian." The problem is that Paul only seems to tell "half the story." Here, in this post, I try to finish "the other half" so that I can crystallize my thoughts. This will allow me to get back to report writing.

Let's begin with Psalm 3:3 (NIV).

But you are a shield around me, O Lord; you bestow glory on me and lift up my head.

The Head of the Woman is Man

As I was thinking about the nature of "male-headship" (in I Cor 11:3-10), I wondered what it could possibly mean, other than "authority over," which is a forced concept. Although this is the nature of systematic theology: you are trying to tie loose scriptures together into a coherent system of thought. Sometimes it looks like Picasso.

Paul uses the word "head" for a reason (I think he means head) and it's not directly apparent when you have the debates between Christian feminists and patriarchalists bouncing around in your head! As I continued to read, I realized that Paul is talking about this in relation to head coverings. I wondered, 'is Paul insinuating the head as a form of covering?'

As I thought about coverings, the shield as a motif of scripture popped into my mind. I searched for verses on shields and pulled up a page with ten verses on God being our shield. I noticed one verse that talked about God being our helper and shield. Then I thought of woman as helper. My next thought was, "Is woman as helper also shield?"

The Shield Lifts the Head

I then realized the connection between the shield and the lifting up of the head. Warriors hang their head in defeat when they have no "shield." It is when they feel fortified that they can lift their heads and face their enemies! The shield's effect is to protect and as a byproduct, lift the head ("lift the head" means so much more than that, but it also means just that too, so it's enough for now).

This dovetails cleanly with the imagery of the husband as head. That means the wife is the "body." Yes, she even turns the head! Lifting up of the head is one of the ways in which she has the power to turn the head. The head needs the body, the body needs the head.

Woman Represents God as Protector

In any case, I am seized with the idea that woman represents God as protector. This cuts against the grain of so much of what I have heard. But as I ponder what my "momma bear" would not do to protect her children, I know it is true. Woman is the protector.

Most of us also know woman as the nurturer. Putting them together, I see the woman as the nurturer-protector. It is in this way that she represents God. God is nurturing. God is our protector. Woman is the nurturer to the little ones. Woman is protector of her home. This is normative. I'm not speaking about theories.

What is Woman?

Woman is life: she is the mother of all living. Woman is occupier: she carries the life of the child within her. Woman is nurturer: she feeds the babies. Woman is protector: when evil comes to hurt her child, she contends with evil.

Woman is intelligent. The studies show it. Women know it. Interestingly, in the paradigm where man is "the authority," and the woman must appeal, the more complex position requiring greater intelligence is the appellate role. It's easy for a simpleton to say, "No!" It's eminently more difficult and requires greater intelligence and finesse to appeal the decision, thereby "turning the head."

You may think I'm justifying a broken system. I disagree. And I'm willing to have a discussion about this. I have thoughts about what this means for man.

Man Represents God's Authority

In the direct reading of scripture, man is the head. Traditionally, when taking all of scripture together, man is understood to be the leader of the home and the prototypical leader of the church. If woman is nurturer-protector, then man is leader-and what?

Is it a stretch to look for symmetry? I don't think so. What emerges is that man is leader-'judge.' In the servant leadership paradigm, his leadership is a "submissive" function. It's in the judging that the power-under-authority is exercised. Wait a second.

Woman Also Represents God's Authority

What does this mean about the role of women? The protector role is also an authority function! This makes the nurturer role a submissive function, as it expresses servant-hood, similar to leadership. So men and women both represent the authority of God, but in different, dare I say 'complementary,' ways. Likewise, men and women both represent the submission of God, but in different ways.

Men and Women in Unity Actually Represent God's Authority

Each without the other, we cannot represent God fully in his authority nor can we represent him fully in his humility. But there are differences in roles. So if Paul says that he does not permit a woman to exercise authority over men, it's in the leading-judging way that is meant. Women are not meant to cast their own vision, but to flesh out the vision of the man (similarly, men are not to cast "their own" vision, but to cast the vision which belongs to Christ; I know you'll think I'm equivocating, I'm not. However, it's too big to discuss in a parenthetical). And when I say man and woman, I really mean husband and wife, in the sense that marriage is normative in Christianity.

But women are to exercise authority in the form of protection. No man will oppose this, not in his right mind!

Why Do We Need Authority Anyways?

While there is evil in this world, God will need judges (those who sentence) and protectors (those who implement) on the earth. He has set up a paradigm *in the creation order* along the lines of sex, however unfair it may seem. I take this to be normative, but I don't take it to be exclusive ("I do not permit ... " would seem exclusive, but as I've stated, I think it's because it's a judging authority, vice a protecting authority, which is an authority under the judging authority. Think 'judge and bailiff').

Also note that in the absence of men exercising the judgment function of leadership (i.e., leading authority), women have risen up to exercise their protection function (i.e., nurturing authority) as a substitute. Because I don't view these roles as exclusive, I do not argue against temporary, limited, or minimal role-reversals. It is not normative, but I don't think it is forbidden. "All things are lawful, but not all things are beneficial."

Back to the Beginning

Over the years, my wife and I have worked out these concepts in our marriage. You may say that it is only for our marriage. Okay, but is true peace only for my marriage too? What about happy, obedient children? Is that only for my family or is it for all families? There are scriptural principles which apply to all.

Whether you accept or reject them is another issue entirely. I know my wife has been my shield. I know how she has protected this family. I know how she has protected others outside of our nuclear family. That is her role. It is normative. She does it without thinking about it.

Those of us who ponder things could learn a lot by observing those who do not. I didn't have to tell my wife to be a shield, she just is. But, ya know, now that I've told her that she's a shield, she understands her role much better. She can live in freedom. And so can I, because she's got my back! She is my earthly shield, protector, helper, and defender!

UPDATE 8/24/19:
I read an article which refined my thinking about the paradigm (see edits above inside the asterisks) being tied to creation order vice the curses at The Fall. Check it out: http://www.rabbisaul.com/articles/childbearing.php

Subtitle: It's Worse Than You Think

When Love Grows Cold

Another Christian "leader" walks away from the faith.

I skimmed this article: https://cogentchristianity.com/2019/08/13/skillets-john-cooper-on-apostasy-among-young-christian-leaders/

I don't want to read the whole thing because of the pain it will cause me. Even knowing that John Cooper's post has gone viral in Christian circles is disconcerting to me (though I appreciate what I read).

Why?!

God has given us everything we need to know to live and grow in godliness. These reports are a black eye to a Church which is not holding fast to what it has been given by the apostles. I can hear it now, "We hold fast!" Yes, you do. You have been passed down a faith which has been subject to incrementalism, specifically syncretism.

My message is as old as the faith. Prophets always call for renewal. Is this wrong? No. The apostle Paul said that he wished that all of his original hearers would prophesy. I take this injunction as still active. We should all prophesy, which means speak the scriptures into our local (i.e., time and place) contexts. We must judge, but with righteous judgement.

Do we need to be careful who we choose as Christian leaders? Yes, of course! Is there a biblical guideline? Yes, there is. Are we rigorously following this guideline?

Why We Are Smarter Than God

God has given us guidelines. Many disagree. "The bible can be used how we like." Uh...No. You may use it how you like, then you will answer to the author how you used it! If you are okay with the prospect that you might misunderstand the author, move on. This blog post is not for you.

I was raised in fundamentalist Christian circles. I suppose I haven't shaken off the basic fundamentalist approach, but I have shaken off many of the "conclusions" that fundamentalists have drawn. I largely disavow Christian fundamentalism.

I will say one thing as positive. If you start and end with the bible, you can reason to all of the positions to which the "integrationists" also reason. This is the strength of the fundamentalist approach. Now to their weakness. They are infected with intellectual hubris as much as anyone.

They hold to their conclusions as if they are the "very word of God." They may be right, they may be wrong. There should be a humility that says, "I will obey God, as I understand him, being open to his correction of my understanding." I walk this road, Join me. I need accountability and so do you.

Obedience is Better Than Sacrifice

When we draw conclusions about what "we should believe," we are more likely to look around for people who don't believe the same thing. Once we find them, we spend the rest of our time trying to convince them and almost no time implementing those beliefs in our own lives. This is a problem.

We implicitly believe that obedience is less important than the "sacrifice" of fighting "for truth." But if you read scripture, this is not so. I believed in fundamentalism for a time. I stopped believing over a period of time. I did what they told me to do: read your bible. I read it. The bible doesn't command us to "read your bible everyday."

It does instruct us to pray everyday, multiple times a day, even without ceasing. But it doesn't say, "read your bibles." You see, the bible is less concerned with the "sacrifice" it takes to read it than it is in obedience to the words on its pages. (Now all the conservatives are mad at me; the liberals are nodding.)

What is Truth?

We are not good readers. We are not good readers because we are not good listeners. (Arguments over education are pointless in this post. In the West, we have likely been operating at an "eighth-grade level of education" for over a century. Character has more importance to the building of society than education. Let's argue about that at another time. For now, understand I am writing from that perspective.)

We also do not read literature well. No one knows sarcasm when they read it. See what I did there? I used a universal "no one," which I try never to do.

We also bring our assumptions to scripture. This is where we get philosophical for a moment. Everyone has assumptions. They color everything we experience through our senses. But we can acknowledge them. In math, you acknowledge them so that they can be scrutinized.

You may have done the math problem correctly but started out with poor assumptions. You can get most of the credit in engineering school if you show your assumptions, then show your work. "Great job! You did the problem right, but you transposed these two numbers. Watch out for it next time!"

Of course we will interpret based on assumptions. Let's be honest though, how many people start out with great assumptions? The beauty of scripture is that if you read it everyday (as I was taught), your assumptions will be challenged. Mine were. I found out that many of the fundamentalist "conclusions" could not be sustained by a close reading of scripture.

Narrow is The Way

So I started to walk a lonely road. I upset fundamentalists and theological liberals. I upset "Calvinists" and Pelagians (or the less consistent semi-Pelagian Arminians). I upset Republicans and Democrats. I upset intellectuals and non-intellectuals.

But it's not me, is it? It's the gospel that's upsetting. Sometimes I get in the way and do a terrible job of representing Christ. It's apparent when that happens. But other times, I represent the pure, unadulterated message and it stings the heart of the hearer. The sword drops. It's not me.

The sword has dropped many times within my mind and heart (and I pray it continues to do so, "Oh Lord, show me where I separate myself from your love!"). It has divided between the thoughts and intentions of my heart. I am left bare before God Almighty with no excuse. I only have two witnesses: the word of God and the spirit He put in me. Fortunately, these two witnesses are all that is initially needed.

The Call to Humility

I do not say this to vaunt myself. If you think I boast, I boast only in what Christ has done in me. I could not do this on my own. Often people think about the egregious sins like murder, theft, and adultery. Some may think about the "seed sins" of anger, envy, and lust. Few think about intellectual pride.

In my teens, I heard the fundamentalist call to [anti-intellectual] intellectualism. It appealed to me. I started to read dense theological works. It was labor-intensive to do this as a teen. I had to have a dictionary in hand to do this. I began to adopt the "high falutin" language of the writers.

I experienced negative reactions to my use of formal English in colloquial contexts. I read critiques of high falutin language users by, presumably, envious non-academics. Regardless of the source, it stuck with me. I repented of hubris. It would not be the last time, it was merely one of the first times.

I recognized pride and arrogance among intellectuals. I dove deeper into non-intellectual circles and associated with the pain they felt from the poor treatment they had experienced from pseudo-intellectuals from every hierarchical level and in every area of their lives. There is a latent suspicion of intellectuals by "common" people. I love common people.

The Detour

I also suffered from these common people. "You ask too many questions. You are over analyzing." I got a respite when I joined an advanced academic program in the Navy. But I saw intellectual pride and arrogance in full force. It was promoted without shame. I slipped back into intellectual pride.

I have been in recovery ever since. It pains me when I see it in others. Does a fish know it is in water? How do I warn them of intellectual pride? I do not know how to talk to people. That's hyperbole, I'm learning how to talk to people. I have not done well in the past. I hope to do better in the future.

The Truth

The bible is not an easy book. It is simple and profound but it's not complex. Some writers are confusing and complicated but the bible is not complicated. We are complicated. When we stare simple truth in the face, we squirm. We writhe intellectually. Our stomach "flips." We do not believe what we read.

We do not obey it. We "figure" out what the bible really means. We reject the clear teachings in favor of focusing on interpretations of the unclear portions. Then we take those methodological approaches and foist it on the "clear" passages in order to make them of null effect in our lives.

We should not do this.

Obedience

We should obey the clear portions without "doing violence" to the text. We should realize that this may not work out. But if we have the humility to follow what "we know" won't work, we have the opportunity to learn what actually does work.

I have done this over and over. I do not like doing it. Let me be clear. Denying yourself is not fun, but it brings peace beyond understanding and joy unspeakable. It is in obedience that we learn. Eat first from the tree of Life and the giver of life will feed you from the tree of knowledge only what you need.

What Are the Qualifications for Ordained Ministry?

In this way, I commend to you, dear reader, the qualifications for ministry as proposed by the Apostles and first elders of our faith. It's there in scripture. Do I need to give you citations?

I feel no need. We would devolve to fruitless arguments in a hurry, but I suggest we actually attempt to impose God's order on ourselves and see how it fits. I suggest that we test God's election and make it sure. I'm suggesting that we will only learn "in the doing." You cannot learn how to fish only by reading a book on fishing.

You must put what you know into practice. If it doesn't work, ask God to change your mind and heart. Cultivate affections for what God has called "good." If it still doesn't work, pray for wisdom in applying scripture. If it still doesn't work, consult the people of God. If it still doesn't work, look again to the Word and see what you misunderstood.

Conclusion: Hold Fast to the Faith

We are subject to many false teachers. There are qualifications for teachers as well. Do we follow them? Though I am citing no scripture in this blog post, readers who are conversant in scripture will note where I have scattered the Word through my writing.

However, I will not leave you without a guide. Look for character. Lift up the lowly. Do not look for abilities and charm. Look for someone who will place himself under authority. You will have to look hard. People who are working do not spend as much time promoting. People who are promoting do not spend as much time working.

Test your people for leadership. Place them into apprenticeships. If you do not have a leader who will take on an apprentice, you are in a tough position.

Review the qualifications. Review the lives of your leaders. Do not be afraid to hold your leadership accountable. Revoke their orders as necessary. Raise up qualified leadership. Is this not the goal of Christian parenting? That is a topic for another post.

8/18/2019 Update: I was re-watching Dr. Matthew Stevenson, of All Nations Chicago, talk about witchcraft and he talked about people manipulating their way into positions of influence (it's good for me to check my own motives). For the pertinent portion on how to not give influence, watch from 51:40-58:30 (it's all pretty good, if you can spare the time!).

https://youtu.be/lh-fjPICaXM?t=3100

Some people ask tough "questions of the week" in my Introduction to the New Testament class (online through Trinity School for Ministry). It's fun, but sometimes I have too many thoughts or ways of approach. Some of them might not be conducive to the structured learning environment, which is why I have been putting them here, in an unstructured (hopefully) learning environment!

Paul’s writings this week have covered many issues, many of which deal with our horizontal relationships.

So in my first question, I’m throwing you a bone. It’s been a launching pad for countless discussions. I’m referring to Ephesians 5:22-33 (wives submit to your husbands; husbands love your wives). COMMENT: Listening to various discussions over the years, I’ve heard an entire range of definitions for the word “submit” as it applies to this passage. I’ve also heard discussions on how balanced the mandate is or is not for husbands and wives. I KNOW some of you want to comment on this. What’s your take?

In 2 Timothy 4, Paul tells Timothy “preach the word; be ready in season and out of season; reprove, rebuke, and exhort, with complete patience and teaching.” I infer here that Timothy’s audience would not necessarily be inclined peaceably to receive the reproving, the rebuking, or the exhorting. In Matthew 7, Jesus says, “Do not give dogs what is holy, and do not throw your pearls before pigs, lest they trample them underfoot and turn to attack you.” How do you thread this needle? When, in your thinking, is it better to stop evangelizing, if ever? It’s rather like conducting CPR, isn’t it? You do it as long as you can to save a life, but once you’re completely exhausted, it serves no purpose to continue… but when is that? (Not that I wish to associate people who need CPR with pigs!) Additionally, when is it appropriate to stop LISTENING to people? These days, a lot of people talk trash. When is it appropriate to finally say as graciously as you can to the other person, “Okay, my ears aren’t garbage cans! This conversation is over!”

My First Attempt:
1. I am naturally inclined to egalitarianism. However when I've tried to follow my egalitarian leanings to its conclusion, it has failed miserably. Is it because my wife adopted a weird patriarchal vision (IBLP) right before we got married? Is it because the people in my circles were vehemently against egalitarianism? I think not. The people weren't against it as much as they were for following their nature. "If momma ain't happy, ain't nobody happy," is just a restated version of "and her desire shall be for your head." I've talked to many men and their wives "rule the roost." This is acceptable to most men as long as they can "check out" when it comes to training the children.

I've learned experientially, aka the hard way, that Paul really meant what he said. My failure to lead self-sacrificially nearly ended my marriage. I say this as if I learned this right away. In fact, this could not be further from the truth. I have been wrestling with the idea of male headship ever since then (2009). After what happened, I was angry, embittered. I became a tyrant. This did not help me to learn Paul at all. I still doubted.

When I was released from the anger/forgave/was forgiven, my marriage was set on the road to recovery (2013). I joined an Anglican church where the pastor was a proponent of women's ordination. This may seem out of place in the discussion of submission, but I believe it's central to the discussion. I was swayed, or at least I wanted to consider it. After all, I leaned egalitarian by nature. I read up on the arguments in favor and saw Paul in a new light.

Then I started to see cracks in the arguments. I would switch sides multiple times over the last several years. I even considered going to college to get a philosophy degree from the University of Washington (they specialize in feminist philosophy). There were many proto-feminist things I found myself supporting, and still do (proto- means original). Every time I thought I was settled comfortably on one side, I would see a crack on that side.

So I kept strengthening (in my mind) the argument for each side (as I bounced between them). The argument which I believe to be the strongest in support of women's ordination is what I refer to as the eschatological argument. It is an inductive argument and can hardly be found to be at fault. In fact, it's true in so many parts. It's only weakness (as is the case for every inductive argument) is it's inductive jump. Once I realized that and fully embraced a robust covenant theology as regards the family, I ceased to be in support of women's ordination.

Interestingly enough, I am not against it. I don't "know" that it's wrong. I think the effort to force the issue is misplaced. I found Alastair Roberts (through his blog) to expound most closely what I believe. In this mindset, I read through Paul this week. I must say, he presents a unified vision (though sparse), which dovetails with my experiences. This class has solidified my approach to scriptural interpretation (leaving a full explanation of it out, at this point). Part of that is a direct reading with little-to-no nullification due to "cultural" contexts. A close reading can show that the intention is made to contextualize "submission" outside of the culture to the church in all times.

I have come to this conclusion after a decade of hemming and hawing. I don't really want to take this position. For the past year I have "returned" so to speak, to the complementary position, whatever that means. I believe that the man is the "alef" and the woman the "bet" (I learned this from a Jewish Rabbi a couple of years ago). The man is to receive the vision from God, and the woman is to "flesh" it out (most notably, child birth, but Proverbs 31 envisions other ways this is done).

To me, to submit is to help me achieve my vision. I will make the call; I will bear the responsibility. I need help, boy do I need help! She needs to support me, even if that means holding me accountable, which is humble support, though it does not feel good to either. I must love her. I do not do what she wants as much as I do what she needs. I listen to her, but if I do exactly what she says, I tend to miss the mark. But if I listen to her and understand what is driving her feelings, I can dwell with her with understanding.

Honestly, I (we) hardly know what submission is "supposed" to look like. She was exposed to a distorted view of it and we are still, to some extent, dealing with the effects of it in our marriage. She was so stuck on "submission" meaning "not influencing your husband" that she would not talk to me early in our marriage. It was disastrous. This was the effect of false teachings. Yeah, maybe I was a bit too egalitarian for her liking, but come on, talk to me!

The problem with defining "submission" is that most people cannot take the principle and extrapolate it based on the situation. I hope none of you are "most people" that I've dealt with, but chances are good. I believe that the woman was created to be the helper. I don't think this is an inferior position, not do I believe it means that women are to "lose themselves."

Insofar that I have "lost myself" in Christ by dying to self, Yes, women and men alike are to lose themselves. But no one is to give up their humanity.

2. I believe the first chapter of the Epistle to Titus (NIV) has the short answer to your question(s) #2.

9 He must hold firmly to the trustworthy message as it has been taught, so that he can encourage others by sound doctrine and refute those who oppose it. 10 For there are many rebellious people, full of meaningless talk and deception, especially those of the circumcision group. 11 They must be silenced, because they are disrupting whole households by teaching things they ought not to teach—and that for the sake of dishonest gain. 12 One of Crete’s own prophets has said it: “Cretans are always liars, evil brutes, lazy gluttons.” 13 This saying is true. Therefore rebuke them sharply, so that they will be sound in the faith 14 and will pay no attention to Jewish myths or to the merely human commands of those who reject the truth. 15 To the pure, all things are pure, but to those who are corrupted and do not believe, nothing is pure. In fact, both their minds and consciences are corrupted. 16 They claim to know God, but by their actions they deny him. They are detestable, disobedient and unfit for doing anything good.

In my longer answer (immediately following), I synthesize many more passages of scripture, hence the length.

I think there are different groups of people being referred to by these passages ("preach the word" and "don't cast pearls before swine"). It may be that people can be viewed along a continuum (spectrum) by degree of repentance. I draw a line in the sand between evangelism and discipleship. I believe we should call all people (believer and unbeliever) to repentance in every area of thought and life. When someone initially repents, we refer to this as conversion and the preaching that got them there as evangelism. As they continue to repent, we find more areas in which they can repent. This is called discipleship.

In my mind, the difference is only by degree. Because we cannot know who is elect, to a person (save Jesus, "The Elect" one), we must call everyone to repentance (but not necessarily in the same way) and treat everyone as sincere if they say they believe (for none can say Jesus is Lord unless it is given to them). So, can we ever stop calling people to repentance? I say, No. Even if they apostatize, I must still call them to repentance, but there is a nuance which must be achieved in each of these cases.

For evangelism specifically, here are the patterns I see. Jesus sent out his disciples in pairs. (Compare with this, "in the mouth of two or three witnesses shall the truth be established," as well as, "where two or three are gathered in my name I shall be in the midst of them.") Take no money. Go to a city. Say peace be on this house. If they accept you, remain in that house and don't move from house to house (a laborer is worthy of his hire). If they reject you, the peace of God will return to you. Shake the dust from your feet and move on.

The fields are white to harvest. We should not over exert ourselves with those who are not interested (maybe we're only meant to plant the seed there and someone else will come along and water and another reap the harvest!). Maybe we are to reap where we have not sown. There are hearts which God has prepared to receive his word, they are the ones we should scour the earth to find. In a way, we should be canvassing people "are you ready?" That's how white to harvest people really are. Think: dragnet (the dictionary definition, but also the parable!).

If they are not ready to hear and repent (i.e., the swine), the only thing we'll be doing by "calling people out" is to invite violence upon ourselves. The kingdom of heaven suffers violence and the violent take it by force. Essentially, we are told that we don't need to go and make ourselves martyrs, it will happen soon enough! So, instead, live at peace with your neighbors. Love the brethren. Some (not all) are called to be evangelists, by the way. But everyone should be ready to give an answer, again when the people white-to-harvest ask you about the hope within you! Walk circumspectly; be wise as serpents and gentle as doves.

On the question of discipleship, we should not weary with doing well. You who are spiritual should restore such a one, taking heed lest ye fall. This task is not given to the immature in the faith (and we cannot count the years as a Christian, because some are still drinking milk, when they should be eating meat!), but to the mature, who will gently work with the wayward, foolish, and immature. The minister of God must have endurance.

If one is called to such an office, one should never stop (70x7) having faith, loving the brethren, rebuking the wayward, teaching pure doctrine, opposing the proud, suffering for righteousness, speaking with authority, and taking up ones cross daily (and so much more). The ability to teach well, is curiously included in the list of qualifications for overseers. Those who intend to lead, need to cultivate the critical leadership skills to do so. Where does one do this? Did God provide us with a "leadership factory" of a sorts? This goes back to your first question on what a godly ordered home looks like. This is the most fitting place for leadership to be learned.

If there are swines in the church, it would be easy to drive them away in my estimation. Use the stench of death to do it! Church discipline (excommunication) does not have to be daunting. Hold the line on accountability. "If you want access to the table, you need to repent of ... "

I don't know what context you intend to "stop listening" to people. I'd recommend you never start listening to fools (who say in their heart there is no God) anyways. If it's fruitless conversation, we need to avoid it (I need to repent in this area), such as quarrels and arguments over theology where it's clear that people don't need to be convinced by arguments when they really just don't want to obey the clear teachings.

Humanly speaking, I would rather attempt to prove my theological point than call people to repentance in light of the argument they're trying to have. We must stop with the debate over theology and simply follow the clear teachings. I know as far as epistemology is concerned, that last statement can be torn apart. Don't misunderstand me. I realize that even "clear" teachings come laden with interpretation. But most don't require interpreting beyond basic comprehension (itself an interpretive function). The parts that are more difficult can be interpreted in light of the ones which are more easily apprehended, especially, I believe, in a life which conforms to them.

My Second Attempt:
1. After much reflection, I take the straight forward reading of it. I don't believe it's only culturally relevant or only written to deal with some particulars of their situation. That being said, I also take the straight forward reading of the husband and father's responsibilities.

I have erred more in my role as a father and husband than my wife in her roles of mother and wife. In fact I think her submission (or lack of it), is more a reflection on my suitability to be followed (or lack of it). Granted, like Eve, she doesn't get to excuse it, but, like Adam, I bear the greater sin in the failings of our marriage due to my poor leadership.

I am naturally more egalitarian and I think this is part of the reason (another reason was immaturity) why I have failed to lead as I tried to implement my views of marriage. My wife brings a more complementarian perspective to the marriage.

What I don't believe in is dominance, from either party. Both must serve sacrificially; both must submit mutually. But men have certain roles in the family and women have certain roles. It may sound like I side with every complementarian out there, I don't. I probably agree with the egalitarians in most things except for the view of the biblical doctrine of authority. They are close to a good explanation of it, except that they reject hierarchy (rightly understood).

In other words, I'm a complementarian who has never heard a single complementarian actually explain the biblical views, merely worldly views superimposed on marriage. "Well, the man leads so..." conjuring up images of 'lording it over,' "it looks like [this]." They have the "right words," except that they accept a distorted view of hierarchy. *sigh*

I want both: right words and right concepts. Adam was created first, then Eve, to help him. Man is to serve the Lord by tending to creation ("the garden"), Eve included, but also Eve is to help him. That's the basic principle. If it's not based there, it's foundation is made of sand.

We can try to get more sophisticated in our reasoning, but to me, it's always a game of obscurantism and obfuscation. That's why I try to keep things simple. Truth should be spoken of with accessible language, it takes more work by the scholars to do it, but they have the responsibility to do so.

They (as a group, and I have been party to this) suffer from laziness and intellectual pride. These concepts and debates are accessible to all spirit-filled Christian, but they are not being included in the discussions leading to theological 'ink to paper.'

2. If at all possible live at peace with everyone. If you cannot speak peaceably, then don't. If you are an elder/overseer, part of your role is to deal with these things. If you cannot, you should not be an elder/overseer.

It's easy to preach at people; it's difficult to speak with people. Open up to the vulnerability of learning why people are in their sins and you will gain compassion and learn how to cure their souls. It may take a lifetime to cure them, one must be patient.

I have offered advice to people (including unbelievers) and have not had many people "turn and rend me." For those who have approached that level of vehemence, I learned that they will not accept what I have to say, so I could stop being pushy. I had to stop preaching at/to my brothers. They were all raised in the church, but have walked away/apart.

It was straining my relationship. I stopped preaching and started listening. But, like you, I can only spend so much time with unbelievers. I try to stay on good terms with them (live at peace). But there is really not much of a relationship. Part of that is my fault. I'm terrible with long distance relationships (but that's also just a human thing).

I was starting to ramble ... so I went for a short answer and left my long, incomplete answers for the blog.

My Third (Final) Attempt:
Short answer:
1. I take the straight reading to be the correct one.

2. I find it remarkable that Paul calls Timothy to endurance. I would base my discernment on how people respond. If they turn and rend me, then I will stop casting, but not until then.

"Listening" is another thing entirely. I agree with John Bunyan's characters Christian and Faithful, "We only buy the truth!"

Long answer:
I posted lots of thoughts, though it's not as coherent as I like:
https://michaelsei.blogspot.com/2019/08/one-tough-question-this-week-other.html

If you are in my class, I disable the comments to prevent robots/spam comments. Feel free to comment in Google Classroom.

My thoughts after reading, "The Holy Spirit, The Missing Finger: Comparing the Pneumatology of Alexander Campbell and Don Basham." by Cletus L. Hull III

I'm a Recovering Cessationist

Have you been "baptized by the Holy Spirit" in the way you described it? If so, how does that happen? Admittedly, I come from the "rationalist school" and yet I was exposed to Pentecostalism as a boy (5-10 yrs old), so I don't want to give up on the idea that signs and wonders may still exist (I hear the reports but I do not see them personally).

Even though I was among the cessationists (Reformed Presbyterianism) for a time, a young charismatic on the submarine (below several hundred feet of water) asked me if I "believed in the gifts of the Holy Spirit". I knew what he was driving at, so I said, "Honestly, I don't know. Let me read the passages about the gifts and I will get back to you." After an honest read, I couldn't sustain an argument for cessationism.

I went back to him and said that I do believe in them but I don't believe that speaking in tongues is singularly required or even preferred. He was okay with that response, though I think he disagreed to some extent. I have been in suspense since then (6 years). I have a couple of friends, one who was in the Vineyard movement and another who is a Wesleyan. Both have talked to me about these things, but haven't given me any practical direction.

My church hasn't been much help either. We've done the 'uber' rationalist spiritual gifts inventory (I'm an INFP and I forget what my enneagram number is, you get my point). Then we followed up with exercises to encourage word of knowledge (I think) and speaking in tongues (my wife's group). "Say the first thing that pops in your head." My wife and I both laugh about what popped in our heads (we were not in the same group, but we both thought it kind of silly, after the fact). So not helpful.

Disciples of Christ
It's like everyone talks about the few who have experienced signs and wonders, but no one seems to be able to do them. I have some experiences with Disciples of Christ at college. Do you want to hear about it?

I sat through their "bible studies" at lunch. They were pretty well-scripted and made clear points (though I didn't believe the points to be correct and/or of the priority they designated them to be). I asked questions which they could not answer, though they tried. They passed me off to a disciple attending Cornell. We had an email exchange or two and then nothing.

I eventually roomed with several of the guys for a while. They never got me to go to the Syracuse Church of Christ, but I did hang out with them that Halloween. They all had their daily lives scheduled out. If they had free time, they were expected to be spending it with members of their church. It seemed a bit too controlling to me, though I recognized the benefits.

My Feelings
My "experience with the supernatural" has been extremely limited. I have "felt" things, but I have a hard time knowing what it is. Some people say it's the Holy Spirit. I have no need to deny it, but cannot know for certain that it's not emotionalism: feelings arising because of my thoughts (which they oftentimes are, so why not those times as well).

I have felt what I call spiritual oppression (before and during some arguments with the wife). I have seen what has appeared to be the face of a demon on a couple of occasions, where the person in question has had some kind of malice directed towards me (two people on the submarine). I have also seen it in my children during "battle of the wills" as I train them in the way they should go.

Experiences While Parenting
Maybe it's merely extreme selfishness and not a demon, but they literally shiver when I see them go from having a rebellious attitude to a submissive one. I had one child giving me an extended (many months) antipathy. I asked him why he was upset with me and he said it was because I spanked him.

I explained why and he understood it. Then the antipathy left him as sure as a demon was exorcised. Instantly the next younger son had that antipathy, which he did not have prior to that very day. I have dealt with my personal "demons" and as I fall prey to temptations, I see the negative consequences on my family members (I learned about this idea from IBLP, but have actually seen it play out).

When I am relying on the power of Christ to resist the devil, it seems there is more peace in my home. It's like the demons know they are not welcome and the head of the household is not allowing them any quarter in his heart, so neither in his house (generally speaking). I have seen the demons of pride, selfishness, rebellion, fear, and more in my wife.

Experiences While Strengthening the Marriage

This is not fun to talk about, by the way. I fear I might be completely misunderstood. Anyways, I have worked hard to get the log out of my eye. When I was in my twenties, I was trying to help with the speck in my wife's eye, but I should have been worrying more about my log.

Fast forward 10 years or so and I'm working with my wife. And oh boy are we dealing with demons (it seems). We have experienced increasing pressure as we began to pursue ministry and declared a desire for ordination. As I've worked with my wife in her parenting to get her to maturity, the attacks have been fierce.

Recently, a lot of that is me not being able to win her to my side of the argument. So her flesh sides with the "whispers of the enemy" as I call it. I'm learning how to reason (aka employ "sales") in order to be able to tell people what they need to be able to resist, let alone the whole idea of resisting temptation and it's relation to demons.

She is coming around but it's a fight. The enemy has used the world to capture the minds of Christians on such basic topics as faith, hope, love, personal ethics, and all the fruits of the spirit for that matter.

The Rationalists' Spiritual Warfare

I have rationalized that I don't need to see signs and wonders (it would be cool in a scary sort of way, so I don't know that I really want to see that stuff). I figure, it's real. It's happening unseen even in me. But the effects are seen. And the effects are ethical. All I really need to do is to hold my self, wife, and children accountable to the highest standard. The fight to do so, is the spiritual battle requiring prayer and fasting.

The battle for the heart and mind is where the war is being waged, in my home and in my country. Other countries may require the sign gifts, but this country doesn't seem to need them, yet. We are quickly approaching full open paganism (wondering if it will also be accompanied by magic, etc.). At least in the Pacific Northwest, there is a strong presence of wiccanism (there's a wiccan seminary in WA) and I hear of satanism (in several of the port cities). I think there may also be earth-based religions among the native peoples.

Is it possible that my approach works? It's a covenantal approach with an acknowledgment but not a hyping-up of the supernatural. Mt idea is to hold people to the highest of ethical standards and help them rely on the power of the Holy Spirit to resist the devil. It's been said that if you don't believe in the supernatural, just try resisting a temptation, any temptation. You will believe in the supernatural if you simply try to do it. You cannot resist, not without help. It almost constitutes proof that God exists.

Is my approach still too rational? Does it achieve the same end? I think my approach will work until I come face-to-face with blatant demonism. But because I don't deny it, in fact I acknowledge it, I would like to think that I would discern it, and recognize that a more proactive exorcism (etc.) would be required.

Talking to Others About This Stuff

I see the boy falling down in the gospels, afflicted with a demon. I think about the rebellious children I see acting in (if not identical, certainly in) similar ways. Do I start talking about exorcism? I think not! But if I start talking about, the parents learning how to train their children, they will write me off...as the demons of pride, rebellion, fear, and anger have their ears. How do we approach this? I'm not so sure that I can link these sins/vices to demon influence like I have, but I'm not so sure that I cannot do otherwise either.

I do not mean "the devil made me do it" kind of thinking, but a "demons are tempters" like in the Screwtape Letters, kind of thinking. Is this too rational? I cannot see the wind, but I can see the effects of the wind, and I'm kind of suspicious of those who say they can "see the wind." I really want to believe them. But they tend to be immature people (at least the ones I've met).

There seems to be a huge divide between the spiritual school and the rational school. I feel like I've moved away from rationalism, but I can't embrace the spiritualism I see. I prefer objective covenant with subjective confirmation, to be sure. I know how difficult enough it is to simply hear Jesus' words and do what he says (the general call). As a special call, He only gave the power to cast out demons to his apostles (directly, I guess, there were others who cast out demons).

It does seem that there may be a correlation of demonic activity with sexual immorality, drugs, and rebellion. At least when consulting contemporary history. And my brother's experiences (while drifting from the faith). Though I think they've left him alone now that he claims agnosticism.

In Closing

If you've read this far, you've given me grace. Thank you. I know I shouldn't blast all of my thoughts, but it's a topic that dogs me a bit. As I have indicated, I've tenuously settled. But I'm open to learning. Any direction (spiritual, educational, or otherwise) would be appreciated. Jesus said, "Your faith has healed you." Can I go to a demon-possessed person and ascertain that their faith would do the same? I suppose not without prayer and fasting, but then after that I still see no guarantees. Oh Lord, increase my faith!

--

Peace and Grace,

Michael Sei Davis

St. Charles Anglican, Bremerton

Diocese of Cascadia (ACNA), Washington

My Prologue:

My thoughts spun and spun for a while. You'll see that I craft my final answer from a lot of spread out thoughts (mostly seen in bold through the blog post) with which I hope to have said something succinct. For my Intro to the New Testament class, this week, I have to answer this student posed question:

Drane shows that, while the book of Matthew reflects a “strong Jewish interest,” nevertheless it has “a great emphasis on the universality of the Christian message” and “a striking emphasis on the missionary work of the church” (p.196). As an example, he points to the Great Commission (Matt 28:16-20), where Jesus commands his disciples to go, teach and baptize “all nations” (vv.19-20a). Jesus also says, “this gospel of the kingdom will be proclaimed throughout the whole world as a testimony to all nations, and then the end will come” (Matt 24:14; also Mark 13:10). The book of Revelation shows a multitude of ransomed in heaven “from every tribe and language and people and nation” (Rev 5:9).
The Greek word translated above as “nations” is ethnos, which has been defined as “ethno-linguistic people groups” (thecgcs.org). 11,755 people groups have been identified worldwide, of which about 60% are classified as “unreached” (imb.org). In light of the above Scriptures and this definition/understanding of the Greek word ethnos, what does it mean today for the church to be (as Drane puts it) “universal in its Christian message?”
Does it mean targeting anyone and everyone in all geographical areas, as Paul and his coworkers appear to be doing in their missionary journeys? Or does it mean targeting particular people groups at home and abroad, like some mission agencies are busy doing today? Are some people groups being neglected in our evangelism and discipleship efforts because, for whatever reason, we are not crossing ethnic/linguistic lines? Is there another way to translate/understand the Greek word ethnos or interpret the above Scriptures, and thus arrive at a different conclusion, with different implications, regarding home and foreign missions? Is “the end” of the age really pending our completing the Great Commission? Didn’t Jesus’ disciples complete the task when they received the Holy Spirit at Pentecost and became his “witnesses in Jerusalem and in all Judea and Samaria, and to the end of the earth” (Acts 1:8)? What does Paul mean when he says, “from Jerusalem and all the way around to Illyricum I have fulfilled the ministry of the gospel of Christ; and thus I make it my ambition to preach the gospel, not where Christ has already been named, lest I build on someone else’s foundation” (Rom 15:19-20)?
Are all these questions and issues relevant to the church today, such that we need to be concerned with them? I look forward to your responses.

My First Attempt:

Wow! Great questions. I have a "love/hate" relationship with evangelism. I feel guilty whenever the subject comes up. Is it me? Or is it the way it's presented? Something else?

I have found that more people talk about evangelism than actually do it. Are we missing the mark as a church? Are all members hands only, feet only, mouths only, etc.?

I have stood on a street corner (a couple of times) and handed out tracts and/or talked to people about Jesus using "The Way of the Master" stuff, which is pretty neat by the way. I have shared my faith with people at college, work, bars, etc. (I went to sunday school at a Pentecostal church, so I had the fire put in me as a kid, haha!)

I have read through the scripture and come to some conclusions, which may or may not be correct or popular. Please let me know if you think I am off-base or there are other things I need to think about.

My working thoughts:

The average Christian is commended to be ready to have an answer for the hope that is within them. Study to show yourself approved and live at peace with your neighbor as much as possible.

In a pastoral epistle Christians leaders are commended to do the work of an evangelist. They are on the "pointy end of the spear" and should lead by example, not by prodding (which may be how a few actually apply "equipping of the saints"!).

The church is a body made up of many parts. Some are called to be evangelists and if that's not you, it's okay. But we have a responsibility to support each other, so if you're not evangelizing you should be praying for those who do, give them encouragement, and if possible support (i.e., food, shelter, clothing...money(!), rest/furlough from fieldwork, etc.).

Evangelism isn't very different from discipleship, or at least it doesn't have to be viewed so differently. If my basic message is one of repentance, that message applies to the believer as much as it does the non-believer. The depth of the call is different, as much as the response we would expect to receive based on the work of the Holy Spirit in someone's life.

So the vision I have looks like this. Missionaries go out and evangelize, raising up local leaders who really do the work of discipleship with their people. The people are taught to live a life worthy of the calling and encouraged to share their faith. From their midst, God calls some to be evangelists and the process continues. Visually it's like what strawberries do.

Naturally it would spread gradually across the geography. But in this age of transportation, we can of course go much further than a strawberry's stolon/new plant can! This is good.

But we can't all be evangelists, it would subvert the building of the kingdom. Not all citizens are in the military at the same time, it would be unsustainable. And like Jesus said, the poor you will have with you always (I'm not against the poor! We just can't get them all help at this exact moment, I have to feed my kids first).

I like what Jesus said, go and preach and if they accept the message, stay in the same house, don't move from house to house. But if they do not accept it, leave that city and shake the dust off of your feet (I take those words like this, try and pass on the message but if they're not ready, move along. Someone else will come by when they are ready to hear!).

I was raised on a fare of Christian stories. I loved the story about the leader of a tribe in Papua New Guinea who became a Christian and converted his whole family. They prayed for bible teachers. People who wanted to evangelize the tribal peoples of Papua New Guinea came over and worked with this leader to teach them the bible! This fills me with hope that IF WE LISTEN, the Holy Spirit will direct our missionary efforts.

The reality is that we cannot “target everyone”. With human limitations (i.e., time and space), we are forced to make choices, which would seem to be life or death in some salvific sense. If we do this continually and learn from our choices, my suspicion is that as we look back, we would see that the Holy Spirit was always involved.

God does not override our choices and we cannot subvert the will of God. With this in mind, we need to evangelize in faith and not worry. We can seek the best use of our time, for sure. I would absolutely be in favor of conversations which would seek to maximize effort.

But unfortunately, I usually see these kinds of questions leading to “conclusive answers” which are then used to judge other Christians for not doing it “the way we decided to do it, because our motives are pure and if yours was, you’d do it our way”!

I don’t think you mean it that way. At least I hope not. Some of the hardest people to talk to are the spiritually proud. And it’s not always easy to spot. “Everyone should be evangelizing!” goes the common refrain. Why? “Because it’s all about Jesus and if you’re not aggressively evangelizing, you must not have a burden for the lost.”

My burden is for “the lost sheep of the house of Israel.” I grew up in the church and see the brokenness in our own ranks. Judgment must first begin at the house of God. My version of an evangelistic program looks like what most people would call discipleship.

When the flock is healthy (in the process of healing, at least), other sheep which are not of the flock will be drawn in because of the Great Shepherd! I truly believe that we need to focus on growth in maturity, and that will take care of the growth in numbers.

Are people more concerned about numbers for the sake of the kingdom or the budget? If people knew what it took to “save a life”, they would not be so quick to say “we need more people!” Helping one or two is grueling work. Why would you want to help a hundred?

Are you equipped to lead a hundred sick sheep to the great healer? I’m not. I’m trying to learn how to be a leader to my wife and six children. I am a terrible leader. Some may think me a good or even a great leader, but I’m not...yet. I want to be one. I want to follow my master.

“Who do I evangelize?” seems like the wrong question to me. For most of us, the scriptural paradigm is to “bloom where we are planted.” If we thought about the people in our lives who “need Jesus” we could come up with a few names.

The first task is to start praying for them by name, asking God to send someone into their lives. The next task is to start asking who that person may be, while praying for them, so as to prepare the way. Then you should ask, “Lord, is it me?”

To me, this is the normative process. How do we apply this process to the “ethnos”? I don’t know. How do we apply Jesus’ advice to his apostles? I don’t know. Maybe we’re already doing it. It’s easy to criticize what other Christians are doing if it doesn’t fit our mental model.

It’s a preeminently more difficult task to seek out how they are already fulfilling the mission to which they have been called. This is the task of ecumenism on the denominational scale. This is the task of irenicism, at any scale.

My Second Attempt:

Presuppositions matter. I think I may disagree with how you frame the discussion, but we can come back to that later.

"What does this mean?"

"How may this be applied?"

These are two separate questions. Confusing them will get us into a lot of trouble (for example, "is Jesus present? how is Jesus present? in the Eucharist"; sadly we have division over the "how" when most would exclaim "Yes!" to him being present).

"Ethnos" means "a race (as of the same habit), i.e. a tribe; specially, a foreign (non-Jewish) one (usually, by implication, pagan):—Gentile, heathen, nation, people" if Strong's Definitions can be trusted. It is used 162 times in 150 verses of the NASB.

It can be applied as generally as the word was used, but it can also be applied as specifically as the Holy Spirit leads you to do so. If there are groups trying to ascertain the will of the Lord, God bless them!

I don't expect them to impose their view on me; neither will I attempt to impose my specific application onto them. But the basic understanding of the intention of the text must not be misconstrued. It is not intended to be a manual on how to conduct evangelism.

It is merely a commission to go and do evangelism! Furthermore, it's a commission to evangelize every individual person of every nation on earth!

My Third Attempt:

If we are commanded to go to all nations, should we skip any? No. We should go to all nations and preach the gospel. If it is accepted, we stay and teach. If it is rejected, we move along. It may be that someone else will come along and try again when they are ready to hear!

My Final Answer (drawn from the material above):

Wow! Great questions. "What does this mean?" "How may this be applied?" These are two separate questions. Confusing them will get us into a lot of trouble (for example, "is Jesus present? how is Jesus present? in the Eucharist"; sadly we have division over the "how" even though I think most would exclaim "Yes!" to him being present).

"Ethnos" means "a race (as of the same habit), i.e. a tribe; specially, a foreign (non-Jewish) one (usually, by implication, pagan):—Gentile, heathen, nation, people" if Strong's Definitions can be trusted. It is used 162 times in 150 verses of the NASB. It can be applied generally (which is how I believe it was used), but it can also be applied as specifically as the Holy Spirit leads you to do so!

If we are commanded to go to all nations, should we skip any? No. We should go to all nations and preach the gospel. I like what Jesus said, go and preach and if they accept the message, stay in the same house, don't move from house to house. But if they do not accept it, leave that city and shake the dust off of your feet (I think it also means that someone else will come by when they are ready to hear!).

I have more extensive thoughts, and if you read them, please don't take them as combative. I tend to be sharp in my analysis, but I don't intend to be sharp with people, if that makes sense. Anyways, God's peace be with you. (Go to the following link for my extremely "long answer"! https://michaelsei.blogspot.com/2019/06/too-many-questions-so-little-time.html)

My Epilogue:

I really want to address the eschatological (last things/end times) questions.

Interpreting prophecy and parable, I believe that the church will grow and grow to fill the whole world until the earth is full of the knowledge of the Lord as the waters cover the sea! I believe that one day swords will be beaten into plowshares and spears into pruning hooks!

I believe that Christ is reigning now and that one day all nations will "bow the knee" to Christ (not a utopian vision, mind you). At which point, he will deliver the world to the father, so that God may be all in all. I believe that the apostles did fulfill the call to evangelize the nations as it says in scripture.

But that is the "here now, but not yet" paradigm. Their work will continue, however Christ could return at any moment. We are to "occupy till he comes". These questions are relevant because they reflect our (mis)understanding of the purpose of the church.

We understand it in broad brush strokes, "It's all about Jesus!" But we misunderstand it in the details as he said we would, "Jesus when did we love you with our whole hearts? When you properly nurtured your children, you were nurturing me" for instance.

If you are still reading, feel free to comment on this in the Google classroom. Every topic is deep and wide, but we only have so much time.

--

Peace and Grace,

Michael Sei Davis

St. Charles Anglican, Bremerton

Diocese of Cascadia (ACNA), Washington

Michael, I also appreciated your blog post. I am curious about the danger you see in studying too deeply the arts of the Enemy. Do you mean something along the lines of what Jerome meant when he dreamt that Jesus told him, "thou art not Christian, thou art Ciceronian?" Do you think there's danger in learning about Greco-Roman culture because it can lead to what happened in the Renaissance, a turning away from Christian orthodoxy to classical ideals? (Extreme, gross simplification, but just wondering if that is kind of what you meant.) Or do you mean we should be careful about immersing ourselves too deeply in contemporary culture or philosophy that is un-Christian or anti-Christian, in secular learning, etc? I think that would be a very fascinating discussion!

Yes. Haha! I think all of those are dangers because there as many ways to stray as there are people! The way of truth and life is narrow and found in a person. Jesus was scrupulous, ethically and philosophically. It behooves us to mimic him.

Lara, generally speaking, I'm thinking of what we often do to quantify sin and measure our success in overcoming it. Some groups I've been in seem to be preoccupied with sin and cannot seem to get past staring at the thing as they fall into it.

As regards intellectual pursuits, specifically, I must warn that nothing is ingested without some influence. Maybe I'm easily influenced or maybe I'm very sensitive to feeling the influence.

I've read things from secular philosophy or eastern religions that I thought presented interesting (dare I say useful!) categories of thought. The danger here is in the framing of the discussion, what we might call presuppositions. If the enemies of God are allowed to dictate the field of battle, they are nearly ensuring a short term victory.

We know God wins ultimately, but why should we lose so many battles? If God is for us, who can be against us?

I prefer, where possible, to get my categories of thought from scripture. I like to start with a holistic philosophy that is theologically informed and a theology that is philosophically valid (factually true and internally consistent).

There are only two holistic philosophies that can be derived from scripture. All others entertain inconsistencies in order to present as suitable alternatives. To illustrate, at the root, you must ground your holistic view in God's foreordaining of all things or not foreordaining of all things.

Whichever starting point you choose, a consistent philosophy will develop along certain lines detailing the implications of these starting points. Many people like to include in their thinking ideas that come from both camps.

This undermines consistent reasoning. If we had all of the time in the world, I would love to sit with everyone and work through the implications of what they believe, but alas we don't have that time.

Given limited time, I say start with scripture and go to the furthest extent possible without consulting extra-biblical sources because you will be grounded with ideas that conform to a consistent worldview even if not interpreted in that manner.

In an even more dramatic way, secular philosophies or eastern religions, which do not acknowledge God, do not reason out conclusions that consistently conform to the idea of the existence of the Christian God, let alone debating over whether or not he foreordains all things.

If we have a hard enough time as Christians figuring out a rigorously consistent theology with the biblical account, how much more difficult will our task be if we fill our minds with the vain philosophies of the world?

The task of filtering and integrating is one best left to those specifically called to it. They have to be mature Christians, who will not lose their faith as they read through literature produced by fools and scoffers.

I made the decision at 18 to delay reading Greek philosophy to ground myself in the word of God. I'm not saying I've lived perfectly because of that decision. I have succumbed to worldly pressures in my twenties, but otherwise held onto my faith even in the darkest days.

I still don't think I am ready to enter a PhD program. I want to be so thoroughly grounded, that as I learn the Greek categories of thought at the highest academic levels, I can challenge them and propose alternates.

I would still be required to be conversant with accepted theological definitions of words, but they are so inadequate sometimes. As an eschatological postmillennialist, I believe the church will be around for millennia more. Let's fix our categories of thought in scriptural (more or less, Hebraic) ones instead of Greek ones.

After we have exhausted resetting the ancient landmarks, we may begin the task of filtering and integrating. This is in part a speculative tasking, but one that derives from empiricism. In the world of cause and effect, we can apply theology and see if it works.

If it doesn't work, then our theology is bad or the way in which we applied it is bad. That will teach us to improve our theology and/or how we apply it. This nets us, relevancy and efficacy, which is not something we have to strive for singularly. Instead it will be a by-product.

Knowing that secular philosophies are like bad maps from the outset should always allow us to have a healthy skepticism of every aspect they present. Do leftist ideologies really result in saving the world? Do far right ideologies preserve a holy way of life? Only Christ does these things and yet you will find Christians on both sides of the political divide saying "Yes" to one my questions.

Secular philosophies and eastern religions are even more treacherous. They tend to "feed our flesh" and seem 'so right' at times. When they do, we tend to be disarmed and accept what is being presented. Rhetoricians have been practicing these methods for thousands of years.

Do we fashion ourselves to be too clever to be beguiled? You betcha! And it is then that we are taken. Every time. Whether as an individual "Hey look guys, we were wrong this whole time..." or as a body "Miracles were their way of explaining..." (at least the part of the body that chose "science").

Some may consider me uncultured. Sour milk is cultured, well, it's on its way to be! But I believe strongly in reading the bible devotionally, primarily and critically in support of devotion. And I am a critic. I will take the word of God to task, but as a son demanding to understand his father.

That is the only safe premise, or as safe as we can be with the God of the universe! Academic theology is a waste of our resources when we are producing PhD theses on the "cutting edge" which are not internally consistent. These guys are convinced they are right because of their much studying.

Their depth exceeded their breadth. I am too broad, which is why I am trying to gain some depth by working through the MDiv (and a masters of theology? I don't know).

I know what I subscribe to and I have barely plumbed the ideas core to my theological camp. I may never get around to reading the pagan literature myself. I trust those whom I read who have done so. If God sees fit to promote me to the service of slogging through the swamp to rescue some pearls, I will do so.

But we have so much work to do with what we already know we are supposed to be doing. Why entertain fantasies? Are we so good with love, joy, peace, patience, goodness, kindness, gentleness, meekness, faithfulness, and self-control (did I get 'em all? ha!).

Once we have mastered (as a church) all virtues, let the speculative theology begin! We will be so grounded in the truth that we will never accept speculations which would turn our hearts away from God. But maybe I'm describing our life in glory.

I think we should be very careful how much time we spend advancing our knowledge while our character remains underdeveloped. Character first; knowledge second! Tree of life first; tree of the knowledge of good and evil second (if at all).

Our thought life has a very real impact on our moral life. If we cannot discern truth well, we have a good chance to be swept with every new teaching (Eph 4:14, the first part of that chapter is on 'unity in the body', which should be our premier task).

I do believe we should interact with the world, but how we interact matters. We should influence, not be influenced. This proposition is not a simple one to implement.

--

Peace and Grace,

Michael Sei Davis

St. Charles Anglican, Bremerton

Diocese of Cascadia (ACNA), Washington

NT 500: Introduction to the New Testament
Dr. Cletus Hull
Starter Question (in italics) - Week 1 (posed by a classmate)

My first question is: I wonder if there is anything instructive for us today in looking at how the Hellenistic world received the gospel.

Do we know such things? Can we homogenize the Hellenists that came to faith into a single group in order to do such things? If so, we should figure it out and employ what we learn.

We are saved as individuals and a body...Yes, but can we really talk on grand scales? I see balance between objective/corporate faith and subjective/individual faith, but I have a hard time talking about overarching schemes at the expense of the introverts of the world.

I think we need to be careful about viewing our efforts on the grand scale. Did the "Hellenistic world" receive the Gospel, or did individuals receive the Gospel? I ask these questions, but as I come to the end of these thoughts, I realize that half of people (possibly more than half) are extroverts.

But this thought only complicates matters. Some people align themselves along social norms. Are they to be condemned for doing so if they are aligning themselves with the Christian faith?

Does this bear out the necessity of the Christian nurture of our covenant children? If so, shouldn't we be fighting for Judeo-Christians ethics as the basis for civil law? More than that? I think I raise more questions as I attempt to share my thoughts!

Are there any similarities with how people are inclined to hear the story of Jesus today?

I hear your question about similarities, but first I have to address a dissimilarity so that I can move past it to your questions. The Greeks and Romans lived in a time before Christ and the ascendancy of the Christian church.

We, in the West, live among pagans who know that Christianity is/was the dominant religion of the West. I think it's important to keep this in mind as we talk about the enemies (aka, the mission field) of the cross. It is especially important if/when we discuss a special case: militant/hostile ex-Christians.

"It's all about peace man." I feel like a lot of people (in the Pacific Northwest) hold to the idea, "It's okay to do whatever you want, as long as you don't hurt anyone." Partnering with the idea of peace, we can talk about the Prince of Peace.

People will resonate with the idea that Jesus was "all about peace." It gets tricky when we have to talk about forsaking all else to follow Jesus (i.e., the point of what Jesus was saying in Matthew 10:34). Ultimately Jesus said, "Blessed are the peacemakers."

We will eventually have to teach ethics, which will run contrary to "do whatever you want." I think we need to learn how to understand, then teach the concept of accountability as a tool for promoting peace (cf. Matt 18:15). I believe there is a way to have these discussions with pagans, ex-Christians, "unchurched," etc.

Could we describe certain aspects of our culture as neo-pagan, and should this impact how we minister and bear witness in our own present day?

Absolutely! Self-consciously so, in fact. People in the West are purposely throwing off the "schackles" of Judeo-Christian ethics. You don't have to look far to see the cultural fascination with pre-Christian paganism.

Before we got rid of Netflix, there was a whole slew of new shows coming out which heavily featured pre-Christian paganism. While we had Netflix I watched/knew of several shows featuring magic (the practice of which was a capital crime in the OT).

As the ideas which are diametrically opposed to the Gospel spread, we will come to face violent opposition (until/unless revival really happens; I'm neither a doomsdayist nor a revivalist).

Understanding where people are coming from will always help in how we frame the discussion. Ultimately, that's what we're talking about, right? How should we frame the discussion knowing what people believe?

See Matthew 10:16ff.

I wonder what their experiences of living under oppression and waiting for a messiah can teach us about bearing witness to Jesus in our own age, in which we wait not for a messiah but for his return.

As long as we understand a few things. Jewish captivity came as a result of covenant breaking. We are not under severe oppression in the West, though it could happen. Anything can happen!

Did they obey the law of God? Did God bless them as He promised to do so in the law? I think these would be strong indicators of what model of faith to follow. Even after God could have rejected them for breaking covenant with Him, he continued to bless them when they were faithful, even in the years of captivity and oppression (brought about by their own disobedience!).

But this is the pattern shown to us by scripture. God's mercy endures forever! He wouldn't bring back the Israelites from Egypt too soon. He wouldn't bring judgment on the Amorites before their time. God is gracious and we should not presume on His kindness.

He left a Priestly order in the city of Salem (Melchizedek, cf. Hebrews 7:3) calling them back to repentance. How many generations scoffed and God was patient? We don't know. We only know the bits we have in scripture.

So we wait. We occupy till He comes. No matter what. I believe that's what the faithful Jews did.

Overall, my question is: What is important about the religious and cultural milieu into which Jesus was born?

For me, understanding this milieu helps me tie in even more strongly to what Jesus did and said. If he had grown up in an ascetic community, it might be easy to write him off as a product of his upbringing.

However, he astounded people because a "person of the land" was not 'supposed' to live a holy life or speak with such authority/doctrine. But he did. We would be wise to hear him. I am encouraged that what I learned as a Pentecostal youth still applies.

I can live for Christ with abandon! If this statement does not make sense, try to follow Jesus words explicitly and see what opposition you find. Apply Jesus' words principally and even more resistance will develop.

Jesus grew up around people like us. He gave us an example of holiness we can follow. He gave us an example of learnedness that we can follow! Praise be to God!

Should we study it purely to understand the history of the early church, or can we see in that world a parallel to our world, especially now that we are living in a society that many are calling post-Christian?

History is as bad as memory. We can learn from it. We can also "rewrite" it. How we frame the narrative matters a lot. I think we should study history so that we can learn from it. In my mind, there would be no greater purpose for "understanding" the history of the early church.

Of course, I'm a fish in water. I live in a "post-Christian" world (haha). Transport me to a different time and place; maybe I would think otherwise.

Dr Hull chimed in:

I would love to hear about the methods people in the class are reaching others for Christ in a neo-pagan and post-Christian world. What can we learn from how the apostle Paul dealt with this situation?

See Ecclesiastes 12:9-12. I think there is wisdom in understanding Greco-Roman culture and beliefs but there is also a danger. I think there is wisdom in learning what people today believe, but there is also a danger.

As Tolkien said in the Fellowship of the Ring, “It is perilous to study too deeply the arts of the Enemy, for good or for ill.” Be careful in trying to integrate worldly philosophies/ideas (note: I am an "integrationist" according to the Assoc. of Certified Biblical Counselors; though I consider Biblical counsel 'alone' to be the starting point. I know, I know, we always read from our context!). Colossians 2:8 may apply here.

See Ecclesiastes 12:13-14.

Truth is truth. Philosophers will eat me alive for saying what I just said but [T]here is a simple truth (wisdom) in obedience. It is not complex, but it is true.

Growing up in fundamentalist circles, I have seen the misuse of Scripture as pretexts for whatever rules seemed right. And yet, I also see that the scriptures may be reduced to principles and adapted/applied.

However, I have come to learn that a lot of people do not read things the way I do. For those who can get to the principles of scripture using an English bible, the study of languages, history, and culture will move us from reading "black and white" to reading in "technicolor"!

For our more linear thinkers, these studies are indispensable. They must get to the original mindset of the writers with more effort (they have incredible strengths elsewhere, but intuitively getting to the writer's mindset is not one of them. The ability to predict what someone would say is reason enough to assume you understand them. Take 'em or leave 'em; those 'er my thoughts!).

--

Peace and Grace,

Michael Sei Davis

St. Charles Anglican, Bremerton

Diocese of Cascadia (ACNA), Washington

Corridors of My Mind

Friday, September 27, 2019

Prayer for Christian Teachers (Day 8 of the Fourth Day)

Saturday, September 21, 2019

Prayer for Christian Leaders (Day 7 of the Fourth Day)

Prayer for Spiritual Leaders (Day 6 of the Fourth Day)

Friday, September 20, 2019

Prayer for New Creation (Day 5 of the Fourth Day)

Prayer for Reflection (Day 4 of the Fourth Day)

Wednesday, September 18, 2019

Prayer for Intentional Small Groups (Day 3 of the Fourth Day)

Tuesday, September 17, 2019

Prayer for Communion with the Holy Spirit (Day 2 of the Fourth Day)

Prayer for Rest (Day 1 of the Fourth Day)

Saturday, August 24, 2019

The Conclusion of the Matter, For Me

Friday, August 23, 2019

Who is She?

Thursday, August 22, 2019

Woman as Shield and Protector

Saturday, August 17, 2019

How to Fix Christian Leadership

Wednesday, August 7, 2019

One Tough Question This Week; The Other Frustrating

Wednesday, July 10, 2019

Do we need Deliverance beyond Shepherding people to Obey?

Tuesday, June 25, 2019

Too Many Questions, So Little Time

Thursday, June 13, 2019

My Terribly-Stream-of-Consciousness Answer

Wednesday, June 5, 2019

The Long Answer to a Fairly Complex Question (Short Answer is Bolded)

Cookies Notification

Blog Archive

Sites of Interest

Blog links

Labels

Coram Deo