seeing in a mirror dimly

Introductory hermeneutical issues:

• Paul has no clear prescriptive statements about gifts and gender in ministry.
• Paul’a answers are as per the particular New Testament problems.
• We seem to want to (and to an extent have to) pick and choose between statements.
• Post-NT history strongly influences us.

Five main points:

1. Is there a stipulated form of ministry in the Bible?
2. How does Paul approach ministry in the New Testament?
3. What does Paul allow?
4. What are the implications?

Stipulated Form of Ministry?

Old Testament: Sinai, priestly code where men hold the positions of high priest, priest, and Levitical order.

New Testament: No clear restrictions. There is a discontinuition as to who are the people of God. Under the Old covenant it is an ethnic distinction, under the New covenant it a Spirit-filled distinction since Pentecost. The Holy Spirit is the marker of the people of God. No clear structure of Government. There seems to be a synagogue structure (James 2:2, Hebrews 13:17), and a household structure (Pauline). No clear leadership roles and responsibilities. There is no such thing as “office” 1 Timothy 3:1 is the only place in the New Testament for somelike like an “office”. Adolf von Harnack sees the term elder as older demarcating an age distinction of leadership. John Knox went not with “office” but with function. Hans Küng went against office also. The New Testament emphasis is on attitude. Offices do not exist. F.F. Bruce’s commentary on 1 Thess. 5:12 emphasises that ordination is to affirm those who are leaders already – not to ‘fill’ gaps.

How Does Paul Approach Ministry?

Holy Spirit driven. Romans 12:3-8 – Diversity of functions, diversity of gifts. 1 Cor. 12:4-11 – Hans Küng went against office, but emphasised gifts. Ephesians 4:11-12 – People are in view, not offices. Leadership is gift-based. Leadership is plural.

Are these ministries restricted according to gender?

Paul doesn’t simply say all women can do everything. Nor does he say this about men. Gal. 3:27-29 is a celebrated text here. New realities are created: no more discimination between Jews and Gentiles, slaves are emancipated, and women are affected similarly in the church. 1 Cor. 11:4-5 – Men & women were prophesying. This passage has to do with “how” it was taking place. Prophecy includes all forms of verbal ministry (cf., Acts 2). 1 Cor. 14:26-40 – (CC gives four different options too quickly for me to take down accurately. It is passed through quickly). 1 Tim. 2 – Context is about proper conduct against false teaching. There is no such thing as a teaching office.

What does this allow in practise?

Romans 16:1-16 – Junia, a woman apostle. Phoebe, a deacon and ‘prostasis’. Priscilla, a fellow-worker of Paul’s. Nympha, cf. Col 4:15.

Implications

Gift-based ministries are missional, whereas office-based ministries are institutional. Gift-based ministries are prophetic, office-based ministries are priestly. Gift-based ministries are organise, office-based ministries are structured. We need giftedness to be the criteria, not gender.

(ME: There were no headings for Kevin’s talk, so I hope that my brief notes can summarise the content of the lecture as accurately as possible.)

Genesis 1-3 is the most important text in the whole Bible for understanding men’s and women’s roles. Another way to go, is to start at 1 Tim. 2 and then read that back into everything. In some circles, 1 Timothy 2 is used as the hermeneutical key to understand the Bible. Thus, we need to read Genesis 1-3 in its historical context. Most evangelical commentators and the Roman Catholic church read Genesis this (egalitarian) way – we should also.

Four things to note about Genesis 1:26-28:

1. One species – male and female made in the image and likeness of God. Same dignity, value and worth.
2. Image implies dominion.
3. The cultural mandate is a joint statement here. Both male and female are to be fruitful and multiply.
4. Equality is the ideal.  Some subpoints:

• Egalitarians don’t deny difference.
• No-one is arguing for same-ness in biological structure. All complementarian books claim that Egalitarians deny difference within gender (Giles was in a meeting with complementarians once where he said let’s get undressed and I’ll prove you wrong!).
• Social equality is hard to put into practise.
• Scholarly commentators who hold to complementarian readings of Genesis 1-3 are like Climate skeptics! They are far against the tide of research.

Genesis 2:

Chapter two is harmonious with chapter 1. It’s not a correction to it. Adam is the archetypal person – incomplete without the woman.

Philip Payne, in his book (Man and Woman, One in Christ: An Exegetical and Theological Study of Paul’s Letters) notes 7 incorrect interpretations of Genesis. Here are the 4 most common:

1. The animal naming is by the man, thus women are subordinate. But chapter one says that man and woman have dominion. Naming doesn’t define dominion.
2. Woman was created second, thus subordinate. But the order of creation of generic things doesn’t imply subordination (ie., man was created after the animals). Admittedly, what that means in Timothy is that there is disorder in the church.
3. The ‘helper’ term proves subordination. But when you help sometimes, it doesn’t mean subordination. KG gives lots of examples. Woman is his partner – not inferior, nor superior.
4. Women are more prone to error. This is taking a presupposition to the text. Ie., why not argue that the devil thought: ‘if I can trick the woman, the man will be a pushover’?

Genesis 3:

Adam blamed eve, Eve blamed the snake, and the snake didn’t have a leg to stand on!

Correct interpretation of this passage is that subordination is the consequence of sin. If this presupposition is true, then Christ’s dealing with the consequences of sin brings a reversal of subordination.

Concluding thoughts:

What about roles without subordination? Complementarians introduce the word “role” to obfuscate the subordination. They tell us that it is a reversal of ordered roles. It is not.

Introduction. Using the Trinity for defining relationships if very common: social trinitarianism, hierarchical Trinitarianism outlined.

Texts that Perplex (The Hermeneutical Challenge). Our concern is a difference between rank or class (the Tiered Trinity). Outline of the Athanasian Creed (co-eternal and co-equal Persons). Different understandings of John 14:28 (Hilary vs. Creed of Sirmium, D.B. Knox, John Piper, etc). Cole respects complementarians who are consistent in their positions – even if he finally disagrees with them. Other key texts which will be discussed in this lecture are: 1 Cor. 3:21-23, 1 Cor. 11:3, 1 Cor. 15:20-28.

The Arian Solution. Historical overview of Arianism (4^th AD). Arius invoked the ‘Twitter’ of his day – used drinking songs to communicate his ideas! But on this view (the subordination of the Son of God) you lose a real Trinity.

The Eternal Subordination Solution. Bruce Ware and Wayne Grudem hold this position. Notes that Ware is bolder than Grudem in holding this position. Ware ranks the Father, Son and Holy Spirit (1^st, 2^nd, 3^rd). Ware holds to three wills in God and that authority, honour, and majesty are ranked also. Grudem doesn’t go as far – he doesn’t see the subordination reaching into society generally. GC notes that these authors are not Arians, but they see a hierarchy within the Trinity.

The Economic Subordination Solution. Whilst Charles Hodge (Old Princeton) held to Eternal Subordination, his commentaries on 1 Corthinthians teach an economic subordination. His Eternal Subordination is determined on other grounds. Millard Erickson wrote Who’s Tampering with the Trinity: An assessment of the Subordination debate. He asks – how how do you go about deciding on the issue when Godly Christians come up with different solutions? He concludes – these texts are not ontological statements, but economic (Messianic son).

Addressing the Challenging Texts. In Augustine’s De Trinitae, he tried to work out this economic subordination. Eg., John 11:35 – how does the Word weep in light of his Incarnation as divine and human? 1 Cor. 11:3 – as per Ambrosiastor and Didymus the Blind and others, GC interprets Incarnate actions as economically obedient acts. 1 Cor 15:20-28 – Regnum Christi becomes Regnum Dei at the eschaton. Communicatio Idiomatum is the key. What does it mean in Acts 20, when Luke speaks of the church purchased by the blood of God? Calvin and Hodge see this as language of accommodation because they refuse to read ‘upwards’ into the ontological Trinity (ME: my words in this last sentence).

Time for a Moratorium. Graham Cole calls for a Moratorium on doctrines detailing the inner life of the Trinity. McGrath echoes this, as does Gerald Bray. Also, Mike Bird has an article in the Trinity Journal which specifically calls for this Moratorium! Graham Cole notes that the Complementarian position is highly variegated. Soft Complementarians (Blomberg, Stott) allow for women to preach, but not be the ultimate (though, under Christ) head of a church. Harder complementarians are similar to those of his Brethren background. Graham Cole notes that one motivation for the moratorium on descriptions on the inner life of the Trinity is that the NT speaks a great deal about the imitation of Christ as the motivation (1 Cor. 11:1, 1 Peter 2:21, 1 John 2:5-6). Philippians 2 is a great point at hand.

To hold to an Eternal Subordination position is speculative, with little Scriptural support. It embraces some sort of principle from outside, not inside. Rahner’s rule does this. Barth had something like it. It fails in light of the Scriptural testimony. Eg., in Luke-Acts, the temporal changes in Spirit-Christology would lead to a eternal change in the authority-submission relation of Father-Son essentially. In other words, does Rahner’s rule allow for the Pneumatalogical change in the Incarnate Christ?

Graham’s main fear is that strong complementarians may just keep going in this direction and lose the integrity of the Trinity in the next generation.

Graham Cole’s keynote address came in 5 main points (below). The intro began by stating that Christianity is under scrutiny (New Atheists etc), which means that the way men and women relate in church is also under scrutiny. How we address the issue of Better Together either undermines the Gospel or underlines the Gospel. The main question of the keynote address therefore is, how redeemed do we look to a sceptical, watching world?

The Great God. Starting with the doctrine of God, and more particularly, with the Trinitarian fact that the triune God acts in togetherness (Opus Dei Ad Extra), Graham proceeded to link our redeemed human activity to this triune togetherness.

The Great Ideal. The image of God is male and female (Gen. 1), and relationality one of the the ways we image God. Gen. 1 shows the cultural mandate is in togetherness Graham made reference to Gen. 2, but I didn’t quite catch his point (I’ll ask him to clarify tomorrow). The Genesis picture contrasts with the ancient world’s view of men and women (Eg., Plato, Aristotle).

The Great Rupture. Things aren’t the way we’re supposed to be (Plantinga). Defection from God brings relational havoc (Gen. 3:16). This is our theological context – a groaning creation (Romans in the last days (Heb.1 ).

The Great Repair. God has a project, and Gal. 3:28 is a classic statement about it (note: in Q&A time Graham clarified this point by stating that it is primarily about salvation, not gender relationships). The repair has togetherness as a characteristic One another language used positively 30 times in the NT, used negatives 7 times (references given by GC). The story of the Bible is not just Ruin → Redemption → Regeneration, but also Restoration!

The Great Challenge. What is the scandal we proclaim? Let’s make sure it’s the right scandal. Are men and women better together in a restricted or unrestricted way? Are we reflecting a broken world or the new creation? How can we be salt and light, the city of a hill, to the world if we cannot be a showcase of better together? Does the world see the new creation, or a broken creation? There is a scandal at the heart of the Christian gospel that can bring us into cultural disrepute. My (GC) hope is only that it is the right one, not the wrong one.

Well, the CBE International Conference runs with the motto of “Better Together” in 2010 and promises to be a fascinating and challenging time of engaging with God’s Word.  Held in Melbourne, Australia, this conference features a star-studded line-up of theologians and experts in various fields, from various backgrounds: Graham Cole, Kevin Giles, Tim Foster, Shane Clifton, Funmi Para-Mallam, Cheryl Catford, and many others (listed here).

The mission statement of CBE International is as follows: CBE International “affirms and promotes the biblical truth that all believers—without regard to gender, ethnicity or class—must exercise their God-given gifts with equal authority and equal responsibility in church, home and world.”

The conference will be covering theologial topics such as: Trinity and Gender Roles, Reading Genesis 1-2, an Egalitarian reading of 1 Tim. 2, Equality and Difference, Gift-based ministry, Submission, Authority, Headship, and Ecclesiology.

It’s my aim to present the material from the conference in such a light as to be fair to the speaker and not insert too much of my own opinion into the matter (yet – that’ll come at the end!).  Also, though I have recorded them, I should note that I won’t be uploading the questions nor answers from the Q&A sessions.

There are various lectures given to all throughout the day, and a number of workshops throughout the weekend as a whole.  Here’s a list of the lectures and workshops on offer.

Lynley Giles closed the first evening tonight with wise words: although there are people at the conference with different opinions, we ought to be loving and respectful as we seek to search the Scriptures and build one another up in Christ.  I trust these blogposts will reflect this.  And be as challenging and interesting to you as the conference will be for me.

Just as I’ve just blogged about the SRE and Ethics debate currently going on, a new development has taken place.  A conversation between Sydney Anglican dot com’s Jeremy Halcrow and the St. James Institute’s Simon Longstaff.  It’s very, very interesting and enlightening.  Read it here.

Well, the banter’s back.  And our esteemed guest, Rev. Andrew Thorburn can sure match us in banter.

Andrew’s a really great bloke who Steve knows from the good old days at St. Andrew’s, Wahroonga.  These days, Andrew Thorburn is enjoying greener pastures working for Anglican Youthworks, and specialising in Schools Ministry.  Exciting stuff!

In this podcast, we get to know Andrew a bit, and get to hear lots of great things that the Lord is doing in schools around NSW.  One very interesting item of discussion is the current debate over the St. James Ethics trials which are taking place in our schools.  Andrew outlines what’s going on, and why it’s threatening the place of Special Religious Education (SRE), or as it’s often called, Scripture.  He gives us some good tips on how to get involved.  One of which, is a why for Church planters to link into Schools and use them as great platforms for reaching the community. Great stuff here.

All up, Andrew’s a great guy to listen and learn from.  With a wealth of experience, and great insight, he’s a bloke well worth listening to! (dunno about Steve and I though – we just like bantering as we learn!)

Also:
As mentioned in the podcast, the Anglican Church League is holding an excellent panel discussion over the SRE vs. Ethics issue.  Speakers include: Bryan Cowling (CEO Anglican Education Commission), Karin Sowada (CEO of the Anglican Deaconess Institution), Russell Powell (CEO Anglican Media), Zac Veron (CEO Anglican Youthworks), Janet Simpson (Scripture Teacher and Youthworks Executive).  7.30pm, Thursday 15th July, 2010. Come and join me there! Details here.

Listen:
 

Download this episode of the Pilgrim's Podcast!

This is probably the most theologically sharp article I’ve read in the Briefing for a long time.  It concerns the very serious doctrine of hell.

Jonny Gibson, a good friend, and constant source of encouragement and theological sharpening, has put together the article for the Briefing.  Simply put, I have not read such a biblically comprehensive and pastorally sensitive account of the doctrine of hell for a long time, if ever.  Can I seriously commend this to you to read – I’ve been stirred up and challenged in my thinking, evangelism, preaching and pastoral duties as a result of reading it.  Above all however, I’ve found that these articles have brought me back to gratitude, and a desire to give glory to God.

It consists of a short version for print, an extended version online, a theological reflection, and a pastoral reflection.  Get them here:

Extended version online: here.
Theological reflection: here.
Pastoral reflection: here.

(h/t: The Briefing)

Oliver Crisp is a name serious evangelical thinkers should know.  He’s written some incredibly brilliant books on the Incarnation, and his style of writing is something I greatly appreciate.  I really struggle with reading theologians who write such obfuscated prose, and Crisp certainly does not do such.  He’s an analytic theologian, who basically means he uses logic and argument carefully in his theology and sets it out as such.  Oh, and he’s also a fine artist.

Anyway, here’s a brilliant interview with him regarding: theology for the church, creeds, election, Christology, theological method, zombies, religious art, and blogging.  Here’s a snippet from the full interview:

Q: How do you see the relationship between your work in academic theology and the Church’s task of proclaiming the gospel?

A: Theology that is not done in the service of the Church is seriously defective, in my view. Although I work in a so-called ‘secular’ university, I am very conscious of the need to address the Church in what I do. I hope that in some small way my own work may be of use to the Church through the trickle-down effect of students of theology and prospective ministerial candidates getting trained in theology and reading the sort of stuff I write. I have taught in both secular and confessional contexts in the UK and North America, and I think effective theological education is of vital importance for the life of the Church. If we want an educated and effective laity, we need an effective and educated clergy to teach them.

Q: You are an artist and the cover of God Incarnate features your painting, “Jesus of Nazareth”. What is the theological reasoning behind your attempt to portray Christ in that way? I mean, isn’t it Nestorian to try and depict Jesus’ humanity apart from his divine person?

A: It would only be Nestorian if I said ‘this is a picture of a human person called Jesus of Nazareth’.  But this is not supposed to be a portrait of a human person; it is supposed to be a portrait of God incarnate.  So I’m not really sure why this is Nestorian. I think more Protestants should read St John of Damascus’ Three Treatises on the Divine Images.  There is much more there to challenge Protestant sensibilities about religious art that one might think.  As to the theological reasoning for my portrait of Christ, I wanted to depict Jesus as a Semite (not a white European) and in an aspect that emphasized the seriousness of dealing with the God-man. I was tired of seeing the sort of saccharine, ‘Gentle Jesus, meek and mild’ portraits of Christ one often sees in popular religious devotion and on the cover of books.

This is a cracker of a podcast! Punk music, Latin, Skateboarding, Christology, Purple hair, Impassibility, and Haggis – all in one episode!

Seumas MacDonald, a great bloke whom I’m had the pleasure of meeting recently joins us on this podcast.  Seumas is currently undertaking his MTh at Moore Theological College and is putting his Latin skills to use as he studies through St. John Chrysostom’s sermons! I’ve found Seumas to be a really lovely and thoughtful bloke who has a serious love of theology – check out his blog here.  And his recently installed languages blog here.

In this podcast, we discuss how Seumas came to faith in Christ, find out a bit about St. John Chrysostom, and delve into the subject of Impassibility: Does God Suffer? Really great thoughts and insights from Seumas, and I heartily recommend his thoughts and suggestions on how to think Christologically.

Read:
Seumas has some follow-up thoughts from the podcast.  Great resources particularly on the subject of Impassibility.

Listen:
 

Download this episode of the Pilgrim's Podcast!

PS:
I have no idea what happened at 34:52.  It sounds we were possessed for 5 seconds.  But I can assure you that it probably has more to do with the encoding of the file!