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.
