Question #1:
Hi Bob,
Hope all is well and you had a wonderful Christmas.
We are discussing a scripture could you please help us understand it?
It feels like some may think it says that women don't have a say and that they
are to be submissive to their husbands and if they want to inquire about
something they have to ask their husbands first.
It comes across as if the husband has power and authority over the wife.
The key words are
"not allowed to speak" - speak what?
" inquire about something" - what is "something"?
"Disgraceful to speak in the church" - speak what in the church?
1 Corinthians 14-34
Thank you!
Response #1:
I've never seen a church where the women never opened their mouths and
so it seems clear before even discussing the issue that this is not what
Paul is calling for.
This verse is often misinterpreted and misunderstood. What it means, in
essence, is that women are not allowed to be sounding off in the
assembly while the Word is being taught. Talking and carrying on while
the teacher is trying to share the Word constitutes major disrespect and
is the opposite of being "submissive" to authority.
Of course, we are all supposed to be submissive to any legitimate
authority we find ourselves under, men and women both. What that
submissiveness looks like depends on the nature of the relationship. If
we are talking about the government, we are all responsible to submit to
paying taxes, e.g., whether we like that or not (Matt.22:17-22;
Rom.13:6-7); if we are talking about marriage, husbands must love their
wives and wives must respect their husbands' authority whether either
set wants to or not (Eph.5:33); if we are talking about the assembly,
all believers must show proper respect for the teacher's authority. In
the case of the latter, that means not being a distraction while he is
teaching.
Of course, while we usually have little to know choice about what
government we are subject to, and while we have already made our choice
when it comes to the marriage relationship we are in, no believer has
their arm twisted so as to have to sit under a particular man's teaching
ministry. That is voluntary. But IF we choose teaching ministry A over
teaching ministry B, then we are responsible to accept its authority as
long as we are "under that roof", so to speak, and not undermine its
authority (as many in the past have tried to do to this ministry). If it
is a question of meeting together in one place and listening to teaching
which was the case in the first century with no internet etc. then
behaving oneself while the teaching was going on was essential. Talking
or, even worse, questioning the teaching while it was in progress, would
undermine the entire exercise.
Why did Paul address this to the women of Corinth and not the men? For
two reasons, mostly having to do with problems on the male side. First,
while men were probably guilty of this too, Paul spares their egos by
addressing their wives and hopes to shame them into doing what's right
by casting their spouses in the "guilty" role (while they knew in their
heart of hearts that they were guilty of this too), because, men being
men, that approach was more likely to succeed; secondly, these men
should also be ashamed because of not instructing their wives properly
in any case where they personally were not guilty of this but their
wives were.
Anyone who has ever been to a church service has probably seen some of
this (even if the pastor is aided nowadays by a good PA system and an
exalted pulpit).
Hope this helps here's another link to where this is discussed (and
will lead to more links):
Culture and Christianity XXV.
Wishing you and your family a wonderful 2024!
In Jesus,
Bob L.
Question #2:
Thank you! This was very helpful!!
We know of some people that have a church here in the area where the wives are
told not to speak. They are very submissive to their husbands. I think they use
this scripture to support their ideas
We were invited to join their church many years ago. We attended a Christmas
gathering at their house around Christmas several years ago. When we arrived
they wanted to separate __ and I. The women were to be in a certain area of the
home with the kids and all the men in another. The Christmas party continued on
that evening for about an hour, I was wanting to be with __ so I left the group
of women and joined him.
The men I could tell did not like it. They would make remarks that insinuated
that I needed to be with the women and to go away. I'm not easily moved, I
didn't really care what they thought what I should do or wanted me to do.
I could see at one point they were trying to get __ to send me away but __
wouldn't do that, he isn't that kind of a person.
We eventually left and over the last 10 years we have ran into the family in
town. Last year the husband made the remark that we need to hurry up and receive
God's word so we can receive all that God has to offer.
We just brushed them off but left the conversation in a kind way.
__ and I were reading the Bible together a few days ago and we came across this
scripture. It brought back memories. We also had a hard time figuring out what
it truly meant.
Thanks for your help. We appreciate you!
Response #2:
My pleasure as always, my friend.
Yes, there are a lot of weird people in this world . . . which often
means in Christian terms "legalistic". After spending so much time in
Hebrews lately (link),
it's really mind-boggling to think that any genuine Christian who has
read that book even in English could think that the Law (and cheap
substitutes or shoddy interpretations of it) could still be valid. But
the legalistic mind-set has deeply infected the church-visible and
colors such people's interpretation even of the grace-laden scriptures
of the New Testament.
I thank God for you guys who, like Paul, who refused to "yield in
submission even for a moment" to any wrongful regression to the now
defunct Law (Gal.2:5).
Keeping you all in my prayers and thanks so much for yours!
In Jesus,
Bob L.
Question #3:
Hi Robert.
I have a vexing question I need to ask you. [issues of guilt over prior divorce
omitted]
Things are not going well with my son who has been a blessing to us but he is
very broken psychologically with gender dysphoria that he says he's been
struggling with since he was a little kid. I believe it says in Ezekiel that God
does not punish children for their parents sins or parents for their children's
sins. I have wondered if this is God's judgement. The same kind of temporal
judgement that happens so often in the old testament
I still can not understand how God's will (my son remaining the boy he was born)
and my prayers (same as God's will) intersect with my son's free will (changing
to a female). How do I pray in faith that he will remain a boy when his will is
to not?
I don't know how to deal with this situation.
Though I believe that God forgives sin when it is truly repented of, confessed
and turned away from,, I wonder if God is really angry with me because my
obedience had been so dismal in the past
Your friend,
Response #3:
First, I have been praying for you on this issue for a long time, and,
regarding your son, ever since you mentioned this other issue to me. I
pledge to keep doing so.
In terms of "dysphoria", let me assure you that this is one more satanic
attack (of which there are a plethora abounding in the world today).
So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.
Genesis 1:27 NKJV
Having been created by God, we are as He created us. We don't have the ability to change that as everyone clearly realizes in their heart of hearts. We all have things about our persons, bodies, brains, talents, temporal situations etc., that we'd like to change. Some small things we can address (getting in better shape physically, improving our minds through reading, e.g.), but for the most part we are what we are and we have what we have.
"Nor shall you swear by your head, because you cannot make one hair white or black."
Matthew 5:36 NKJV
The one major thing we CAN change is the spiritual status with which we are born as the seed of Adam: we can be saved through Jesus Christ. Committing ourselves to Him and following Him is the ONLY thing that actually matters in this world. Because it is coming to an end and none of us is going to endure longer than the blink of an eye in these present bodies and in this present corrupt world.
"What good is it for someone to gain the whole world, and yet lose or forfeit their very self?"
Luke 9:25 NIV
Recognizing the truth of the above and turning to Jesus Christ in faith is what this life is all about, both for those who do and for those who don't. Your son needs the Lord.
The LORD is compassionate and gracious, slow to anger, abounding in love. He will not always accuse, nor will he harbor his anger forever; he does not treat us as our sins deserve or repay us according to our iniquities. For as high as the heavens are above the earth, so great is his love for those who fear him; as far as the east is from the west, so far has he removed our transgressions from us. As a father has compassion on his children, so the LORD has compassion on those who fear him.
Psalm 103:8-13 NIV
God IS love (1Jn.4:8; 4:16). He is certainly worthy of our respect, reverence and godly fear, but even when He disciplines us He does so as a loving father would do, only as the One perfect Father (Heb.12:6-7) just as you would not seek to punish your own son in retribution but would only administer discipline for correction out of a desire for his absolute good. And we do so and the Father does so in closes proximity to the behavior needing to be corrected, NOT long after the fact like an angry accountant.
Because of the present crisis, I think that it is good for a man to remain as he is. Are you pledged to a woman? Do not seek to be released. Are you free from such a commitment? Do not look for a wife. But if you do marry, you have not sinned.
1st Corinthians 7:26-28a NIV
I have written a great deal about this and posted much at Ichthys about
it (here's a link to the most recent posting which will lead to many
more: Marriage and the Bible
XIII). As the passage just cited affirms, the main advice to us all
is to "stay as you are". Marriage is a commitment, one which we are
obligated to honor even if things are not perfect now or were not
perfect when it was contracted. That is the main thing. The time to
worry about these issues is before making the commitment. Once it's
made, it's made, and God expects us to honor it. Guilt, as I often say,
is the devil's ace trump. We all have a tendency to remember things
we've done that bother us whenever life is not going perfectly. But we
have to keep in mind that Jesus died for all of our sins, the ones that
bother us and the ones that don't, and that they are all equally damning
in God's eyes absent our cleansing by the blood of Christ. Having been
forgiven at salvation, and having been forgiven when we confess
afterwards, it is a big mistake to assume that God has not done what He
says He will do and forgive us when we do confess.
As always, it's my job to mention that the more spiritual momentum we
have, the better we are able to cope with these attacks of the evil one.
For those actually making the effort to grow and follow Jesus Christ,
there will be opposition (1Thes.3:4; 2Tim.3:12; 1Pet.4:12). We resist
and endure through the truth, through the Spirit, and through the grace
of God in whom we trust absolutely.
And we know that, for those who love God, He works everything together for good [that is to say,] for those who have been called according to His plan.
Romans 8:28
Keeping you and your family in my prayers, my friend.
In Jesus,
Bob L.
Question #4:
Hi Robert,, thanks for the quick reply.
Don't want to sound like a broken record here, but it crosses my mind sometimes
that if I struggle to believe the Lord has forgiven me for all of that,, maybe
He views me as an unbeliever. How can I be sure I am one of those called
according to His plan? These are just things that chew at me due to this horrid
situation in light of my previous (many) failures to obey the Lord.
I am afraid this is God's judgement on me for not listening when I should have
and maybe He is removing my house. I am NOT saying this is what I believe but I
see a lot of temporal judgement in the OT as I am reading through it and it
weighs on me (I mean, the Lord is the same yesterday, today and tomorrow). I
guess I just cant tell if the Lord has really forgiven me or maybe He's
unwilling after the number of times I repented and then ended up back in the
same sin again. (So you know,, I HAVE repented of it and am truly sorry for
disappointing God so many times but when God's patience runs out, the door is
closed)
Thanks for all your help and insight. I know you are a sound teacher and I
really AM reading and studying and praying. But the LORD seems so distant to me
and I am confused about this and whether I am actually saved.
Response #4:
First, this is all about Jesus Christ, not about us.
And He Himself is the propitiation for our sins, and not for ours only but also for the whole world.
1st John 2:2 NKJV
Since Jesus died for all sins, sins are not the issue. Faith in and faithfulness to Him is the issue. God says we are forgiven when we confess (Ps.32:5; 1Jn.1:9). Our job is to believe that this is true and follow through.
Then Peter came to Him and said, Lord, how often shall my brother sin against me, and I forgive him? Up to seven times? said to him, I do not say to you, up to seven times, but up to seventy times seven.
Matthew 18:21-22 NKJV
God expects unlimited forgiveness from us and He offers unlimited forgiveness to us. Is that not what we pray every day?
"And forgive us our sins, For we also forgive everyone who is indebted to us."
Luke 11:4a NKJV
God's patience is unlimited . . . towards those who are doing what He tells us to do NOW. All examples you can find in scripture of God's patience being exhausted is with those who not only repeatedly in the past proved faithless but who are continuing to prove faithless NOW. So if we are doing something faithless NOW, we should repent and confess, stop it and straighten out. But if we are doing what is right NOW then we need to recognize that trouble which comes our way is NOT discipline (which is given in close proximity with our need for it to train us) but is a TEST.
Blessed is the man who stands firm in testing, because when he has been [tested and] approved he will receive the crown of life which [God] has promised to all who love Him.
James 1:12
When we suffer adversity, it is natural to examine ourselves to make sure that we are not in some way doing something terribly wrong; but we have to be objective and understand that if we WERE continuing to be doing something terribly wrong we would surely know it. Therefore, if we are striving to do what is right, adversity that comes is a test, trouble, often from the evil one, allowed by God, in order to test us to see if we will remain faithful even under pressure.
In anticipation of this ultimate deliverance, your joy overflows, though at present it may be your lot to suffer for a time through various trials to the end that your faith may be shown to be genuine. This validation of your faith is far more valuable than gold, for gold, though it too is assayed by fire, ultimately perishes. But your faith, when proven genuine in the crucible of life, will result in praise, glory and honor for you at the glorious return of Jesus Christ.
1st Peter 1:6-7
Excessive guilt, as mentioned, is not appropriate for believers, especially not if it is focused on the distant past. God has already dealt with us about that; we have already confessed and been forgiven that; whatever natural consequences came from that fell out also in the past. New trouble, if it is not directly related to some present unfaithfulness, is a test of faith. And the correct response to tests is to TRUST God, not doubt Him, to take refuge in His mercy, love and faithfulness, not to attribute to Him negative qualities that are not appropriate whatsoever.
And immediately Jesus stretched out His hand and caught him, and said to him, "O you of little faith, why did you doubt?"
Matthew 14:31 NKJV
"Do not be unbelieving, but believing."
John 20:27b NKJV
It's always difficult to advocate for other believers when they seem convinced that they must prosecute themselves to oblivion. But remember, even when we do find ourselves under discipline for something we have actually done recently, we have an Advocate with the Father who loves us and defends us always, our dear Lord and Savior Jesus Christ.
My little children, these things I write to you, so that you may not sin. And if anyone sins, we have an Advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous.
1st John 2:1 NKJV
Keeping you in my prayers, my friend.
In Jesus,
Bob L.
Question #5:
Hi Robert, thanks.
Please don't give up on me as I struggle through one of the hardest,
possibly the hardest most painful situation I've had to deal with. I'm
sure I am/can be frustrating but I'm not trying to be, truly. I get
vexed over things I read in scripture, in light of my repeated periods
of sin in the past
As I read through the OT there are A LOT of mercy passages and there are
A LOT of judgement passages and there is A LOT of mercy offered in the
NT followed by A LOT of warning passages. How do/can I know whether I
really am one who God is still willing to forgive or one who has been
denied restoration? I ask myself if I know him because I don't feel
close to Him or Him close to me as before.
Proverbs says children are a blessing and a reward. My son was born both
physically broken (a defective heart valve) and psychologically broken
(this gender issue has been with him since he was a little kid he says).
He's one of the 12 percent caused by a broken world. How should I view
all that in relation? Just asking as I search for understanding.
I will continue to pray constantly for you and always appreciate your
help and your prayers Bob.
Your friend,
Response #5:
No worries about me.
Re: "possibly the hardest most painful situation I've had to deal
with", they're called "tests" for a reason. Abraham was commanded to
sacrifice his son. I doubt many of us could have handled that one. But
he did (would have, if God had not prevented him) . . . in faith that
God was going to work it out for good even though he couldn't see the
"how" of it (Heb.11:17-19). And that is exactly what God did for him.
I would not want to generalize on scripture. If you have one that is
bothering you, as always, I'm happy to discuss it. I've never read a
passage that suggested to me that God would destroy one of His own long
after the fact for something done in the past long ago confessed and
long ago forgiven.
For I am persuaded that neither death nor life, nor angels nor principalities nor powers, nor things present nor things to come, nor height nor depth, nor any other created thing, shall be able to separate us from the love of God which is in Christ Jesus our Lord.
Romans 8:38-39 NKJV
We have to have faith that the Lord loves us and is merciful to us, and
that He will bring us through whatever tests come. This does take faith.
Giving into guilt and agonizing about the past is not the way to pass
tests. Trusting the Lord, committing ourselves to Him and His
deliverance is. Just because something seems impossible to us and it
may be for us does not mean it is impossible for Him.
I'm very sure the Lord did not give you a beloved son in order to
destroy your heart and your faith. Just the opposite.
Now faith is confidence in what we hope for and assurance about what we do not see. This is what the ancients were commended for.
Hebrews 11:1-2 NIV
Keeping you and your son in my daily prayers,
In Jesus,
Bob L.
Question #6:
[question about dark fiction with gender role reversal]
Please don't be upset. I am trying to learn the reality, and am open to
correction.
Response #6:
I suppose this is one potentially positive feature of fiction. Namely,
we can say after we've read or watched something like this, "Thank you
Lord, that this is not my situation and has nothing to do with me!" Sort
of like a bad or troubling dream from which we are happy to awake. That
was the point of "catharsis" in ancient tragedy, according to Aristotle.
A better equivalent for believers, of course, is the Bible. When we read
about the failures of even the greatest believers in scripture, we are
at once reminded that no one is perfect, but also encouraged NOT to make
the same mistakes, now that we've been warned.
For everything that was written in the past was written to teach us, so that through the endurance taught in the Scriptures and the encouragement they provide we might have hope.
Romans 15:4 NIV
In Jesus,
Bob L.
Question #7:
Doc, You buy the position that women are equal but have "different roles" than men? So what's acceptable to a man that's not to a woman other than preaching and "being head of the house", whatever that last part actually means, and why do you believe so?
Response #7:
It's not as simple as all that. We all have the image of God and we are all here for the same reason, believers especially.
There is no Jew or Greek, slave or free, male and female; since you are all one in Christ Jesus.
Galatians 3:28 CSB
We are all different in ultimately superficial ways; we are all
responsible to the Lord to make use of what He has given us to His
glory. That is the path to receiving the "well done!" from Him we all
should deeply desire more than anything else. Getting overly fixated by
issues and details and circumstances in this world clouds one's
spiritual vision. Getting involved in politics or crusades about them
can be spiritually deadly.
If you want to know more what the Bible teaches on this subject, please
see the links:
Marriage and the Bible XIII
Peter #35: Undeserved Suffering in Marriage and in Life and the Example of Christ
In Jesus,
Bob L.
Question #8:
So if I understand right, Paul was saying that women shouldn't do the tearing hair thing that the pagan women did. Because it was the same as her head being uncovered. So praying with the hair torn like that was the same as the head being uncovered. Which is a sin? If so, is it the same as a woman who doesn't do her hair (I mean I am sure you have an idea how messy hair is in the morning) and then prays like that?
Response #8:
On hair, yes: in 1st Corinthians chapter eleven, Paul was combating two abuses: 1) women engaging in pagan mourning customs (gentile converts); cf. Deut.14:1; 2) women engaging in Jewish vows and oaths (but the Law's rituals had been revoked: Heb.7:18-19). Here are a couple of links on this:
In Jesus,
Bob L.
Question #9:
Hi Dr L,
I will look at the links, thank you!
I think I was not communicating clearly, sorry about that. Please let me
try again.
Is it a sin for a woman to pray with her hair disheveled from pagan
mourning? I am leading into this question: is it a sin to pray with
messy hair?
Respectfully,
Response #9:
What 1st Corinthians is talking about is the actual tearing out of the hair in
ritual mourning (or, alternatively, actually shaving the head in making a vow).
The former was inappropriate for believers because it displayed a lack of faith
in eternal life (we mourn, but not as those without hope: 1Thes.4:13); the
latter because the Law has been replaced by the New Covenant (Heb.8:13).
So this doesn't have anything to do with messy hair (fortunate for me, since I
have had an unruly cowlick since birth!).
In Jesus,
Bob L.
Question #10:
[details about abuse omitted] I agree with what you said about it
showing a lack of love. I'd add that it doesn't make logical sense to me
in that the idea behind a pre-nuptial agreement is that you are afraid
the spouse will turn into a sort of vindictive selfish greedy person,
that you can't trust them not to, but then you are intertwining your
life with that same person? I mean if you don't trust them, don't marry
them. Marrying someone gives them a lot of influence over you and access
to everything in your life. And someone who is like that can come up
with all sorts of ways to take what they want from you, etc. But if they
aren't that kind of person and are a good person, I really find it hard
to believe even the most selfless person wouldn't have to fight against
resentment that their spouse did that to them. And they can also easily
reason that it is only fair to even things out because it will seem like
that to them. So to me it doesn't help with the wrong person, and only
sours the right person towards you (even if over time).
I think I do not want to marry. All this just seems so awful.
Response #10:
I'm happy that you survived all that abuse in the past . . . and are now moving forward spiritually.
It just goes to show that like everything else, loving the Lord and
responding to Him is not a matter of "environment" but comes straight
from the heart.
We don't have to look backwards because of all the inestimable
blessings in store for us ahead. Whatever we've suffered in this
life, there will be nothing but bliss in New Jerusalem with all of our
brothers and sisters and with our dear Lord Jesus Christ and our dear
heavenly Father forever.
And I heard a loud voice from the throne saying, Look! Gods dwelling place is now among the people, and he will dwell with them. They will be his people, and God himself will be with them and be their God. He will wipe every tear from their eyes. There will be no more death or mourning or crying or pain, for the old order of things has passed away. He who was seated on the throne said, I am making everything new! Then he said, Write this down, for these words are trustworthy and true.
Revelation 21:3-5 NIV
In Jesus,
Bob L.
Question #11:
[omitted]
This also isn't related to anything, and maybe this isn't something that means
anything for me to say, but out of the parts of the Basics series, I like the
Hamartiology portion the best and getting the most out of it. Though maybe on a
reread I will see things I missed on the earlier pieces.
[omitted]
The context of this was that I was thinking about that guy who caught me in the
rain, as it was getting dark, trying to get groceries into my apartment (though
he may not have noticed that last one), and asked me out. And, before, I would
have made all these allowances about how guys are just oblivious and just don't
notice things like a woman (that it was raining, and getting dark, and to see if
the person was in the middle of something urgent, or struggling with a load).
And I was disappointed because I would have liked for a guy to do what Boaz and
Jacob did, and then I realized, wait...those are ancient guys and they still
figured it out. So it isn't just a guy thing to be like that. And if that
happened again, I would just remember that I need a guy who cares enough to see
how I am doing at that moment, if I am in trouble, etc. and, because if not I'd
resent it over time. And I want someone who is a believer, and someone who is a
believer should be thinking like a Good Samaritan anyway.
Response #11:
Glad you're enjoying the Basics
series. I find that sometimes when I'm rereading it also depends on
the frame of mind I'm in. That is to say, also with reading the Bible,
it's sometimes easier to be receptive than at other times. That's part
of the discipline as well.
In terms of "guys", well, it takes all kinds and it's pretty hard to
generalize. When I first arrived at OCS and looked down at the 70 other
crew-cuts in PT gear, everyone looked and seemed pretty much the same
outside of obvious physical characteristics. But personalities soon
became very apparent and of course they were all so different that I
could not possibly come up with categories to lump them in. They were
all unique one way or another.
If you do have an experience with someone who is so totally insensitive
as that person was, well, that is good sign that this is a person to
avoid.
Just remember that the Lord knows you better than you know yourself. If
you put Him first, He will continue to work things out for you for good
in this area as in all others in your life. It's never a mistake to
"wait on the Lord".
Wait on the LORD;
Be of good courage,
And He shall strengthen your heart;
Wait, I say, on the LORD!
Psalm 27:14 NKJV
Finding the right person in this world is difficult. In fact, it's
impossible . . . without the Lord's help. But if it's His will for
you, then you can count on Him in His perfect faithfulness to provide
that person at just the right time. As always, it all comes down
to trusting Him.
Wishing you a good back-half of the week!
In Jesus,
Bob L.
Question #12:
[omitted re: defending the Bible]
I am fellowshipping tomorrow. I suddenly felt tripped up though as the husband
of the couple wants me to lead it as part of my ministry. As a woman am I able
to do this? I have often read that women should only minister to women. Is this
true?
What about what Paul says about staying silent. What will that mean for my
ministry? What if men join my ministry? What then?
Response #12:
My pleasure!
On this first email, sounds to me as if you answered wonderfully well.
When pigs trample our pearls, it's not the fault of the pearls.
On this new question, I don't get what the problem is if you and these
other folks are going to be chatting with the Bible and our joint
fellowship with the Lord being the common point. Why do you need a
"leader" anyway? That doesn't sound much like fellowship to me. As I've
often made the point, "be silent" applies to men as well since that
verse is speaking about a formal church/Bible class setting wherein the
teacher/pastor has the floor, so to speak, and interrupting is not only
rude but also compromises other believers' ability to hear and
concentrate.
I certainly don't want you to be uncomfortable! "Taking the lead" in
introducing yourself and talking about your background and Christian
experience, e.g., certainly sound fine to me.
To be specific, if you were doing a podcast where you taught the Bible
to men sitting right there in person in the audience, that would be one
thing. But fellowshipping doesn't sound to me anything like teaching (it
sounds more to me like Laodicean "church" from top to bottom). And if
you had a podcast without a "studio audience", well, I really don't
think you'd have to give it up if it came to your attention that men
were out there listening too.
I have written a good deal about the issue, although it is split out at
various points on the site. Most recent detailed link is in
BB
6B under "Women in Leadership".
The proof is in the pudding, as we say, and things never seem to develop
exactly as anticipated, and it does matter how things develop. I hope
these folks will turn out to be good friends in the end and I
certainly don't have any problem with discussing the Bible with my
friends . . . like you!
In Jesus,
Bob L.
Question #13:
[omitted]
Recently I have been realizing how much certain things like how we dress, and
how our environment looks, impact us. Even little actions like going for a walk.
And I was putting it together in my head. And I am realizing I am beginning to
follow the old fashioned feminine ideas, and starting to think that there was
something to those things (and I am not even saying it has to be women, but I
mean something to the ideas of what I just said-taking care of and beautifying
your surroundings, yourself, a healthier lifestyle (food, etc)). And these
things do take time and work and I can see how even today they could be a full
time job. And if I did not say the words "old fashioned" or "feminine" or etc,
and just mentioned each of these one by one most people would agree. But for
some reason using those words would make them disagree with the importance of
those things and that they take time and work. Anyway it is really something to
think this way, a realization but also a feeling like I am discovering the
wheel. That those things do strongly affect you over time. That they do matter.
They are useful tasks. Just goes against modern programming, and that is
annoying.
And I have never seen a woman pull off both the modern career and homemaking
thing at the same time. Something gives, and it is usually the latter. A lot of
that stuff just doesn't get done. And everybody is run ragged. So no, I don't
believe you can bring home the bacon and fry it in the pan if you mean actually
do the work of both the career and homemaking, and also without blowing fuses
all the time.
Response #13:
Our culture really did change in the ca. 60's when women entered the
work force en masse as a permanent phenomenon (as opposed to WWII or the
"until I get married" scenario that previously largely applied).
Economics had a lot to do with this, when it became difficult for most
families to have the lifestyle of the previous generation on only one
income. How people have coped with this, enjoyed it or hated it,
supported it or opposed it, embraced it or avoided it, these are social
and political issues.
I will say that in my view all this has made it much harder for
Christian women, that is, to do right by their families on two fronts at
once, the home and the workplace.
But life is difficult for men too. Being in the world is difficult for
any Christian who is really trying to do what the Lord wants us to do,
namely, to grow, progress and minister to others. Anyone with family
obligations will find this even harder (although being single has its
own challenges).
Bottom line: God loves us all, and everyone's sins have been paid for by
Jesus Christ so that all may be saved in spite of where the culture or
the country or the world may be situationally. And for all of us who are
believers, we know what is important and are able to separate all of
these essentially unimportant peripheral issues from job #1: doing what
Christ wants us to do. Or at least we should.
His lord said to him, Well done, good and faithful servant; you were faithful over a few things, I will make you ruler over many things. Enter into the joy of your lord.'
Matthew 25:21 NKJV
In Jesus,
Bob L.
Question #14:
I did, however, happen to read some stuff from other ladies online. Apparently, it is not uncommon when a guy is on a FIRST DATE with a woman to just start choking her and what I now realize is reenacting what they watched on _________. Because I get that rejection for guys suck, but rape and possibly murder for us is a real concern. And the thing is that, these guys outside of that (like leading up to it) are like decent guys, but then something like switches in the brain and they turn into different people (?). This is just extremely scary to my mind. We can't tell if a guy is smacking the daylights out of us because he is reenacting his fav scene or because he wants to abuse us (though thinking about that-is there a difference? I am not sure). I mean they just suddenly start up (these women talk like that is what happens). I just suddenly want to keep guys at an arm's length.
Response #14:
Nowadays, with all the craziness in this world, I think any woman would
be very well-advised to be extra cautious in dating, especially if she
doesn't really know the other person very well when it starts. This
society is melting down and the lid is beginning to come off.
Believers have a right to be confident that the Lord will protect us no
matter what, but that still does not relieve us of the responsibility of
acting prudently.
The prudent see danger and take refuge, but the simple keep going and pay the penalty.
Proverbs 27:12 NIV
So please do take care of yourself!
In Jesus,
Bob L.
Question #15:
Hi Bob,
I have of late been considering the question of women who lead (adult)
Sunday school groups, and "small group" (adult) Bible studies. My
understanding coming into this (from here on Ichthys, for example), goes
something like this:
In 1 Timothy 2:11-15 Paul prohibits women from holding authority in the
local church, including the office that teaches the congregation as a
whole -- being the elders/leaders of an assembly, who by default are the
"main teachers." Two exceptions that are clear are women teaching
children, and women teaching other women (compare Titus 2:4)
Aside from this, there is a large swathe of things that I am trying to
puzzle out. Were the 1 Timothy passage to leave off the bit about
authority, it seems like things would be quite clear cut -- no teaching
adult men, ever. End of story.
But given that that is not the case, is it proper to view the "sort" of
teaching in view here to be the "sort" having final authority? Or is
"limiting" the prohibition on teaching in such a way doing violence to
the clear sense of the passage?
Here's sort of what I mean:
What happens if a woman takes on the facilitating role in a Bible study
(and elaborates and gives examples here and there -- definitely a form
of teaching), but the main teaching material was prepared by a gifted
male teacher (be that her pastor, or a study guide from some other
publisher, for example)?
What happens if the woman does not presume to be the final authority on
certain questions asked, and past a certain point, will defer questions
to the main teachers of their local assembly? If she defers in such a
way (i.e., is always clearly deferring in the final say to the "main"
male teachers), is she "exercising authority"?
What happens if the group being taught is not the entire assembly, but a
smaller subset (as in a small group Bible study, or Sunday school
class)? Does reducing the audience of the teaching change anything?
What happens if a woman is co-leading a study? (One thinks of Priscilla
and Aquila). Could it only be a formal husband-wife pair, or could two
people not married to each other do the same?
What happens if the woman in the pairing is the "more talkative" one,
and ends up speaking more than the man in the pairing?
So, in the first case, I suppose the question is whether any of this
matters at all? If "teaching" means "any teaching, period", then none of
the above would matter at all, right? So the things I'm asking about
(small group Bible studies and adult Sunday school) would never be
legitimate for a woman to teach.
If not, then I'm curious if you think we can sort out any of the four
points.
The example of Priscilla and Aquila does make me think that we at least
have evidence that married team-teaching is fine (for example, both
Priscilla and Aquila are mentioned in the correction of Apollos in Acts
18:2426, not just Aquila). Do you think the fact that Priscilla also
seems to always be the first named is also evidence of anything?
That leaves (1), (2), and (3). It seems to me that with (1), (2), and
(3) -- all three -- an argument could be made that a woman is not
exercising "final teaching authority." But is that a legitimate
argument, or just improper redefinition of terms?
And then what about all the subgroups:
(1) only
(2) only
(3) only
(1) and (2)
(1) and (3)
(2) and (3)
What do you think?
No rush on this one. This one is just my own curiosity for once (so no
forum involvement here).
Random closing note: __ and I both called out sick today, and I will
probably do the same for a day or two more. Probably just a nasty cold,
but no fun nonetheless. Prayers appreciated.
Your friend in Christ,
Response #15:
Sorry to hear you guys are under the weather. I will say a prayer for
you both.
On the teaching question, I'm not sure I'd put much weight on the Prisca
(Priscilla) and Aquila example. The book of Acts is not meant to be
taken as doctrinally dispostive, even though it is historically
accurate. This was a time of transition, moreover, and on top of that,
we aren't given enough information to know exactly what went on between
them and Apollos. This does bring up what I would consider the main
take-away: the principle is pretty clear; the application can be
flexible as long as it doesn't violate the principle.
Having authority over a man is pretty clearly being in a position to
tell him what to do. As a pastor-teacher, when you explain a passage,
you are in the position as one who is speaking "the oracles of God" to
your congregation (1Pet.4:11). It is an awesome responsibility. No man
who is not sufficiently gifted and prepared should think to take it on.
Anyone in his congregation to whom this authority is "sublet", so to
speak, is responsible to reflect the pastor's teaching without knowingly
disagreeing with it. Does someone in the congregation disagree on some
point? Of course. It happens all the time and always has (all we need do
on that is read Paul's letters). But anyone who is not willing to
reflect the truth the pastor-teacher has been given to teach is not to
be in authority either, regardless of gender. I have noted before that
in my opinion Paul had as much of a bone to pick with the men in various
churches as the women, but figured (in the Spirit) that the men would be
doubly brought up short if they heard this principle applied to the
women. If we focus on keeping the teaching straight, then I think the
mechanics of the "subletting" will not matter so much. But if this
authority principle, the authority that is inherent in the truth, is not
being adhered to, then it won't much matter the gender of those who are
disrespecting the teaching.
So even if there was some technical violation of a literal and strict
application of this principle "around the edges", if the teaching
absolutely reflected the teaching from the pulpit, there would probably
be minimal damage if any. But even if this particular principle was
strictly adhered to, but there were women teaching women and men
teaching men the wrong things, there is no end to the damage which could
be done. In the end, it's all about the truth, the message, not so much
the messenger.
In Jesus,
Bob L.
Question #16:
Hi Bob,
1) This does bring up what I would consider the main take-away: the
principle is pretty clear; application can be flexible as long as it
doesn't violate the principle.
What is "the principle"? That women can't have authority over men? That
women can't teach men? Those would lead to different outcomes, I'd
think.
2) Can you let me know if this is correct (me putting it in my own
words):
Both and men and women can operate with "sublet" authority given that
they are willing to reflect the truth the pastor-teacher of the
congregation is teaching.
Meaning that as long as the pastor-teacher is teaching the truth, and a
woman is leading an adult Sunday school class/small group Bible study
but reflecting that teaching from the pulpit, there is no issue with her
being in such a position?
3) I have noted before that in my opinion Paul had as much of a bone to
pick with the men in various churches as the women, but figured (in the
Spirit) that the men would be doubly brought up short if they heard this
principle applied to the women.
Could you explain how this works in a bit more detail? That somehow 1
Timothy 2:11-15, while speaking to women, is supposed to chasten men in
the church who were dropping the ball so much that not only was the
truth not being taught, but they were even letting women take over?
I'm just trying to see where we get such an idea from the passage, and
on what evidence we can make such an inference. Could you explain more?
In Him,
Response #16:
1) "Authority" . . . in the church, is what is meant. Paul is not
dictating societal norms.
2) Agreed but only if there aren't adult men present.
3) Any consideration of the whole passage necessarily brings up the
issue of behaving in church, paying attention, accepting the authority
of the teacher, etc.; namely, all of the elements of humility necessary
to produce spiritual growth and also to further an environment where all
can learn without being distracted. A man/husband can't very well delight in
his wife/other women being put in their place if he is doing the same
sort of things: NO ONE is supposed to be gabbing in church; NO ONE is
supposed to be teaching without authorization, preparation, hewing to
the teaching of the pastor. If the men in Corinth were perfect, then
they could gloat, I suppose, about the speck in their wives' eyes being
pointed out; but it's much more likely, given what we know about that
church's many offenses and problems that when, e.g., Timothy was
teaching, that the behavior of the men was not perfect either (which is
why Paul has to warn them on that score as well as encourage Timothy).
Methinks there was many a log in a male eye there as well, and when this
passage was read, for those with enough humility to consider themselves
objectively, a little male blushing would have been in order as well.
In Jesus,
Bob L.
Question #17:
Hi Bob,
This was the whole question though... that is, does a woman teaching
mixed gender (i.e., with adult men present) adult Bible studies and/or
Sunday school classes run afoul of 1 Timothy 2:11-15, if they are only
"subletting" authority from the congregation's pastor-teacher?
Bits of your first response were making me think you were saying that
only an (improperly?) narrow interpretation of the text would outlaw
this, although this last comment makes me think perhaps I was misreading
you.
Could you clarify in a more yes-or-no fashion, or is there some reason
we can't neatly box this one like that?
In Him,
Response #17:
When you have your own church, you will have all manner of issues such
as this to cope with no doubt. I am sure that there will be situations
which will straddle the line, so to speak. Some things will work; some
won't; so sometimes you'll have to intervene. People will be upset with
you when you do and also when you don't. You have to do what you feel
is right in your heart based upon what the Spirit directs: because we
work for the Lord, not for the congregation (not even if they are paying
us a salary).
I can only tell you what I read in the scriptures. Clearly, they do not
cover all potential eventualities. That is deliberate. I have often
remarked that the organization of the local church is not specifically
lined out in scripture precisely in order for there to be flexibility in
the implementation of what is the prime purpose: disseminating the
truth.
See
the link.
To me, the principle is pretty clear: no woman excising authority over
any man in the church, and that includes teaching him. It is possible to
envision lots of gray areas after that. But I wouldn't worry about it
too much. This is the kind of organizational issue that comes up once a
fellowship increases in size (probably around 100 or so at least?).
Which reminds me of an old Steve Martin joke: "How do you not pay taxes
on a million dollars? First . . . get a million dollars". You'll have
plenty of time to straighten out the kinks on this one once that million
dollars rolls in.
In Jesus,
Bob L.
Question #18:
Hi Bob,
1) I don't need to personally have a church with 100+ people to be
curious about specific questions regarding church polity, right? As a
pastor-teacher, is it not my job to learn all facets of truth, not just
those personally relevant to my exact circumstances?
I got onto this question because I was documenting passages about church
polity, and then wanted to be precise in exactly what "woman teachers"
meant. I have been viewing it as an exercise in establishing the truth
in a particular area of study, nothing more and nothing less. So I
definitely agree it is not some sort of burning urgent question or
anything, but I'm just interested in the topic because I'm interested in
the small number of actual rules we do have for outlining biblical
church polity, and figuring out a reasonably representative list of
those.
2) Let me try rephrasing one more time: Does a woman teaching mixed
gender (i.e., with adult men present) adult Bible studies and/or Sunday
school classes necessarily run afoul of 1 Timothy 2:11-15, or are these
two cases part of the "gray areas"?
Clearly, there are different ways in which a woman can "lead" a Sunday
school class. She could presume to interpret the scriptures as one with
final authority, and boss all the men in the room around (obviously
wrong). She might also more-or-less read from notes a male
pastor-teacher gave her, and reflect his teaching while only injecting
her own comments here and there to provide additional examples for some
of the points made, for example.
The question is whether the second case could ever be allowable. Not if
all women teaching all Sunday school classes are allowable. But rather
whether there is some set of circumstances in which a woman in charge of
a Sunday school class containing adult men could ever fall into a gray
area rather than black and white violating 1 Timothy 2:11-15.
Put simply, then, I am asking whether it is a black and white matter, or
a gray matter. It is either one or the other. In my mind, a woman taking
the pulpit in the main assembly is always wrong. In my mind, a woman
being the person in charge of a mission effort (a soup drive, say) that
is largely organizational but necessarily involves some dissemination of
truth (as essentially all Christian endeavors do to one extent or the
other) is perfectly fine.
A woman being in charge of an adult Sunday school class containing adult
men or small group Bible study/discussion group containing adult men is
neither one of those cases, but something between them. It involves more
authority and more teaching than the second case, obviously. But either
it is always wrong (there is a form of "teaching" and "authority"
involved in these situations -- so depending how strictly one views the
passage's meaning...), or it could potentially be alright given certain
criteria are met (that is, it would be a gray area too -- just like the
more organizational soup drive case, albeit with more potential for
wrongness). So which is it?
3) I am somewhat curious about the manner in which some of our
conversations (including this latest one) seem to me to have gone, and I
wonder if you might indulge my curiosity a bit.
Put quite simply, sometimes it seems to me like you dodge the main thing
I am asking (in essence, refuse to answer), and I'm just curious as to
why. What reasons are behind that?
Sometimes people come asking questions having already made up their
minds; they are "asking for permission." I understand not giving such
people a clear answer. However, I don't believe that describes me asking
in good faith about a point of truth I am still turning over in my head.
Sometimes people come picking a fight -- wording things as questions,
but really wishing to argue instead. I also understand not giving this
type a clear answer either, or truly "biting" with regard to the bait
they dangle. But in the same way, I do not think this generally
describes how I ask questions of you. Times when I've felt like I
properly understood what you were saying and truly disagreed (hasn't
been often at all), I try to let things drop instantly, because I know
your email ministry is for questions not debate. This means that usually
if I keep responding, it is because I feel like I don't fully understand
what it is you are saying. (Not that things don't get blurry from time
to time, I'll acknowledge).
As a final example, sometimes people are looking for ammunition to
justify legalistically codifying something the Bible doesn't actually
make black and white. They push for making something black and white
that in fact does not have sufficient support in scripture to be black
and white. I would suppose this is the closest to how some of my
questions might seem, although much of the time (including in the case
of this specific email chain) I think what I am asking is not whether
something is black or if it is white (so to speak), but whether we
should even be looking at it as black and white to begin with (or if it
is instead a matter of gray, to be left up to individuals). All this to
say... while I'm biased, I don't think I'm this problematic type either,
at least not really.
So this is why I am a bit confused as to why sometimes it seems to me
like you intentionally dodge my questions. You don't necessarily have to
explain why you do this, I suppose (as if I were somehow necessarily
entitled to an explanation), but it just doesn't make sense to me. To
the extent that I am a Christian seeking after the truth, and you are my
Bible teacher whose teaching authority I accept, and the truth is
logically binary (meaning it must either be one way or the other, for
certain -- if something is not true, then it is false), then... why not
answer good-faith questions about the truth? Is it because you think I
need to learn how to stand on my own feet or something? Some other yet
different reason?
For my own part, whenever people who look up to me come with questions,
I generally only refuse to give straight answers when I sense a problem
in motivation somewhere. Otherwise, I will happily answer yes or no
questions of doctrine from the get-go. Because truth is black and white,
so long as I think it is actually something the Bible speaks to enough
for us to be dogmatic about, then I'll seldom dodge questions. Most
relevant here, this includes whether or not I view things as matters of
application, or whether or not I view things as black and white areas.
In most circumstances, I would see no reason to shy away from saying
whether I thought matter X was "of the former sort" or "of the latter
sort". This has always seemed like the right thing to do to me, so I am
just curious in hearing whether there are maybe other considerations I
should be aware of, things that might make me likewise less quick to
answer things directly?
It just doesn't make sense to me, as previously stated. Could you try to
explain it, perhaps?
Yours in Christ,
Response #18:
1) "As a pastor-teacher, is it not my job to learn all facets of
truth, not just those personally relevant to my exact circumstances?"
While I wouldn't disagree with this, I would also point out that if we
are not talking about exegeting scripture or interpreting principles
from it but rather are discussing applications from these, that there is
no end of variation in application because there is no end of
possibilities in circumstances on this issue, not to mention all others.
As to 1Tim.2:12 " I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp
authority over the man, but to be in silence." KJV:
I've already explained that I see this as the rule for the main worship
service with application to other situations in the local church. But
precisely how this double principle should/would apply when used to
govern other aspects of a local church (most of which weren't present or
anticipated at time of writing) would, in my view, be all about the
circumstances. Some things would be obviously wrong; some obviously no
problem; others judgment calls of the pastor-teacher in question . . .
in the actual circumstances of that time. These would include all manner
of variables, so many, in fact, that I could not personally commit to
making rules about it or giving blanket permissions if I weren't looking
at the actual case myself.
2) "In my mind, a woman being the person in charge of a mission
effort (a soup drive, say) that is largely organizational but
necessarily involves some dissemination of truth (as essentially all
Christian endeavors do to one extent or the other) is perfectly fine."
No argument there.
As to "which is it", my default would be "don't do it", but because
there are a lot of variables, I'm reluctant to say "never ever under any
circumstances" because there are a lot of possibilities. I could no
sooner say "yes" than the exact situation would be a highly questionable
one; or "no", and a situation could be envisioned or occur where it
might not just be OK but actually a very good thing. As I may have
mentioned before, I am a man of limited imagination and even I can
think of dozens of variables what would flip this around sufficiently to
require a lot of chewing on to make a decision. One thing that occurs to
me in this hypothetical (and you know how I feel about those in
general), is to ask "What is wrong with the men in the audience that
they haven't stepped up to do what the woman up front is being asked to
do?" Deborah was a great believer, but she was in the position she was
in because the men were not worthy or willing to do what the Lord wanted
done (as is evident from, e.g., Barak's attitude; and as is reinforced
by the Lord's honoring of Jael).
3) I'm sorry if you are frustrated with me. I assure you that I am not
trying to "dodge the main thing I am asking you". I always try to give
the answer the Spirit leads me to give which is not necessarily to
answer precisely what the person asks. I think if you would read the
gospels with that perspective in mind, you'd see a lot of that there
too.
One thing I can say is that of late your interrogatives have focused on
questions of application and attempting to parse things which can't
really be parsed to everyone's satisfaction for precisely the reason
that they are situations of application, namely, situations
(hypothetical at that) which are not necessary yes/no because they
depend upon applying absolute truth to variable circumstances. Apologies
if you feel I'm unfairly characterizing some of these discussions, but
that is how I see it. There's nothing wrong with you asking questions
like this, but I do have to answer the way my conscience in the Spirit
moves me to answer. For example:
Question #1: "Who are the two witnesses of the Tribulation?"
Answer #1: "Moses and Elijah."
Question #2: "Does a woman teaching mixed gender (i.e., with adult men
present) adult Bible studies and/or Sunday school classes necessarily
run afoul of 1 Timothy 2:11-15, or are these two cases part of the "gray
areas"?"
Answer #2: "It's not either or: the principle(s) is(are) clear but the
precise application of them depends upon too many variables to make
universal rules that will be valid in each and every case without
confronting an actual situation and considering all the facts." If I
said otherwise, I would be "going beyond what is written".
Keep up your good work for the Lord, my friend! I have you in prayer
every day.
In Jesus,
Bob L.
Question #19:
Hi Bob,
Apologies for the delay here: been a busy week, and I wanted to go back
and actually look at some of the referenced past conversations too. I
would like to talk a bit more -- less about this "women teaching Bible
studies/Sunday school" thing specifically now (I think your last
response helped me better understand what you think on that one --
although see (4) below), but more about the asking questions process
itself.
1) Is "discussion of specifics in application" different from the
question of "is this matter application/circumstance-dependent, or is it
black and white?"
I read you loud and clear re: being vague when discussing "specifics in
application." I have long known that sometimes you don't answer the
exact questions I ask, and always figured there were good reasons for
when that happens. I can see how I came into the present conversation
asking about "well, what about this variable X in application (e.g., how
many people are in the Bible study/Sunday school class), or this other
variable Y (e.g., whether or not the materials being taught on come from
a male pastor in authority rather than the woman herself), or this other
variable Z (e.g., whether or not the woman defers hard questions/cedes
final authority to the male pastor of her assembly)" and so on. So I can
definitely see how we ended up here. With some hindsight, that seems
clear. As you say (cf. "There's nothing wrong with you asking questions
like this"), I don't think it's inherently such a terrible thing to
wonder about some of these variables (so, e.g., if it ever does become
relevant, well, it's not like it's impossible that we might have to make
judgement calls with respect to some of these variables), but I can also
very much appreciate the fact that it kind of makes more sense to only
cross that bridge when we actually need to, rather than spending our
very limited time trying to parse out specifics for something that might
never even be relevant for us. That makes sense.
However -- and I'm aware I've had a hard time articulating this, so
apologies if this doesn't come out clearly, even now -- where I am still
getting a bit hung up is on the question of whether something is even
application/circumstance-dependent to begin with, or is instead black
and white (i.e., circumstance independent = not a matter of application,
but an absolute). I think examples might make clearer what I have in
mind here:
A while back __ and I pressed pretty hard on the question of whether or
not it is ever possible that pastor-teachers might be truly called to go
to other local churches to participate in Bible studies and the like, to
meet believers local to them. Not whether or not it was right or wrong
for me specifically to go do this at church X (and so on), but if it
were ever possible that this could be a path one would be called to. The
Bible obviously doesn't say something like "as a pastor-teacher, thou
shalt never set foot in a local church that you are not presently a
leader in" (at least not in so many words), but that doesn't mean that
it is necessarily something that it is impossible to be dogmatic about.
The Bible doesn't say many things directly, yet we still ought to be
dogmatic about them. But on the other hand, some things truly aren't
black and white too. So the question would be if it is always wrong,
period (no exceptions can exist), or whether it is less clear cut than
that = it is a matter of application?
As a second example, a while back, __ and I were talking through how the biblical principle of self-defense interacts with the biblical principle of submitting to government authority. At that time, I was trying to ask whether it is always wrong to resist people claiming government authority in any way, or whether it is possible that this is circumstance-dependent = a matter of application. So, again, not whether women X in exact situation Y would be justified in defending herself against a corrupt police officer sexually assaulting her (e.g.), but whether it could ever be the case that one might defend oneself against corrupt government authority that is obviously out of line, and be justified in such. Is it black and white always wrong (some people -- including ___, as best I understand -- argue such), or is it circumstance-dependent, and therefore application?
As a third example, in the recent-ish conversation we had about timing in receiving the truth, the question was whether or not people always receive the truth/are led to a teaching ministry as soon as they truly want the truth deep down in their hearts, or if there could be other circumstances that exist (reasons/purposes God might have) that make that principle less than absolute and black and white. Is it a global principle, or can we not be so dogmatic about it, since it really depends more upon individual circumstances?
As a fourth example, in this present conversation, I'll acknowledge that
I asked specific questions about application that no doubt muddied the
waters, but the underlying question has been whether or not 1 Timothy
2:11-15 blanket-prohibits women from ever being in charge of anything
church-related, or whether it is circumstance-dependent (when not
talking about the main assembly, that is) and therefore application
rather than being black and white?
Several of the longest conversations we have had over the last year or
two seem to me to have been about "matters like these." That is,
something where I am asking "Is principle X absolute and black and
white, or are there circumstances where the principle is overruled by
something else = the matter is actually circumstance-dependent and
therefore application?"
Having re-read a couple of these past discussions, I see I have been
rather bad at completely keeping discussion of specifics in application
out of things. I'm sure that has been a large contributing factor in why
things played out as they did. Part of the reason for that (in terms of
"how it works in my head") is that all it takes to disprove a logical
absolute is a single valid counterexample, so a natural way to develop
"intuition" for how something might not be so black and white is coming
up with example situations that certainly seem to be less than clear
cut. Maybe that has been a poor approach?
That being as it may, I would nonetheless like to hear your thoughts
about "this sort of question" -- the sort of question where I am asking
whether some principle is absolute and black and white, vs. it being
circumstance-dependent and therefore a matter of application. While I
said above that dodging (to use that phrasing) specific questions of
application makes perfect sense to me, it seems to me like this present
thing is something altogether different. That is because either
something is absolute/black and white, or it is circumstance-dependent
application. The two are completely mutually exclusive. And it seems to
me like we really do very much need to teach black and white things as
black and white, and matters of application as matters of application.
If we teach that something that is in fact black and white is a matter
of application, we have done wrong. And if we teach that something that
is in fact a matter of application is black and white, we have also done
wrong. We have mislead people, and not accurately handled the truth. As
it seems to me.
So why would we ever go so far as to refuse to say whether something is
black and white instead of application, or vice versa, when someone is
asking us in good faith which sort of thing it is? Are there any reasons
for not answering such questions?
I'll apologize here if you are likewise frustrated by me in this, but
for some of these mentioned past conversations (some more than others),
I still legitimately do not know which way you take things (i.e., as
black and white vs. as a matter of circumstance-dependent application),
despite all the ink spilled. Or at least, even if I think you might go
more one way or the other based on XYZ things you have said, it is much
more of an inference than I would like it to be. As I say, I probably
mixed in there actual questions of application specifics -- which does
probably merit a somewhat reticent tone on your part, when discussing
the things that really are just application -- but I am still left to
wonder if you perhaps fundamentally disagree with my "take" on questions
of this "which sort is it?" nature? Or have I just been really terrible
at explaining what I am actually asking about?
To restate clearly, as I see things, I see no reason to ever be shy
about answering whether something is black and white or whether
something is circumstance-dependent and therefore application. It is
either one or the other. And what has me a bit puzzled is why, when I
think I am asking things along those lines (i.e., "which sort is this
matter?"), sometimes those questions too seem to not be taken head-on --
at least that is sort of how I "feel" about some of the conversations I
used as examples. These sorts of questions don't seem to me to be the
same as application proper (which does merit reticence due to how varied
circumstances are -- I think we agree there 100%).
What do you think?
2) Hypotheticals and their utility, or lack thereof
I do understand the danger of us trying to cook up some set of
circumstances to somehow "settle" specific matters of application,
because true matters of application depend upon an uncountable number of
variables, such that no situation is ever truly apples to apples with
any other. Roger. But then, well, without relevant examples, how does
one talk about the question of whether things are black and white or
circumstance-dependent application, as above in (1)?
I am wondering if this is where there has been somewhat of a
communication divide. For example, I pushed very hard in our past
conversation regarding a hypothetical woman being sexually assaulted by
a corrupt police officer. Bringing up such an example had seemed to me a
logical step, given the absolute position being put forward in the forum
discussion -- that no Christian can ever resist government authority
with force, that self-defense would run contrary to such no matter what,
and would thus always be wrong, black and white. No exceptions or
nuance.
___, in that conversation, completely refused to engage on that example
situation I raised, saying it was "just a hypothetical" and therefore
did not need to be addressed, somehow. ___ and I both found that
unreasonably dismissive, since it is something that has plenty of actual
historical occurrence; it is far from contrived. (As in, throughout most
of history, government officials overseeing occupied/conquered
territories took what they wanted with force, including, unfortunately,
women -- no matter what the laws of the given nations might actually say
about such. Since rich and powerful people throughout history always act
as if the laws don't apply to them, even or perhaps especially when they
have a badge and/or government position).
What the conversation truly turned on is not this specific situation of
sexual assault at the hands of a corrupt police officer (that's merely
an example situation), but whether or not it is proper to take a black
and white stance that says self defense must always be sacrificed in
submission to government authority, no matter how far out of line said
government authority might be. From the very beginning, I knew I
disagreed with viewing things as black and white here.
So should I have just tried to ask you whether or not it was black and
white without using any counterexamples to try and introduce
nuance/intuition for why the absolute position is unworkable?
Or, to phrase that differently, since I know you generally have a
distaste for hypotheticals, then how ought I approach conversations
wherein I am trying to argue against a position that makes a matter
black and white when it shouldn't be? I will readily acknowledge that so
far, coming up with what appear to me to be reasonable counterexamples
has seemed to me to be a decent way to build intuition for why things
may not be so clear cut as all that, but I am open to suggestions if
there is some better way.
3) Being explicit about not answering questions?
I should be very clear that I have no problems with you not answering
some things by conscious choice -- it doesn't really upset me or make me
frustrated, per se. I also do that myself when asked certain sorts of
things by the people who ask me questions. I agree with the practice
when we believe it is what is best, and that is between us and the Lord,
to an extent.
One thing that all this new "meta" discussion has made me think of is
this, however: do you think it might make sense for one to be really
explicit when one sidesteps a particular question by conscious choice,
providing a brief explanation as to why? (E.g., because the question is
related to specifics in application, which we really can't know for
sure?)
The general idea is that sometimes things get long, and it is easy for
things to be missed. So, if you just don't answer something, I might try
to rephrase it or recopy it, perhaps repeatedly. And if this goes on for
multiple exchanges, then maybe that wastes your time and my time,
because it's not that you've missed something or not understood what I'm
asking, but have just decided that it's not something you'll tackle
head-on for various reasons.
Well, how am I supposed to know that if you don't say so? Wouldn't it
kind of make sense to "short-circuit" things as soon as possible, for
the sake of your time and my time?
Would you view that as being too blunt, maybe? I think I have the sort
of personality that oftentimes prioritizes straight-shooting and
bluntness over finesse, so this would seem to me to make perfect sense,
but maybe that's just because of my N=1 preferences.
What do you think? Do you think this explicit rejection of certain
questions (i.e., much clearer communication above-board about whether or
not certain questions will be addressed) would help save time for all
parties? It seems that way to me.
4) Back to the present conversation as a test case
In your last response, you say:
"I've already explained that I see this as the rule for the main worship service with application to other situations in the local church. But precisely how this double principle should/would apply would, in my view, be all about the circumstances. Some things would be obviously wrong; some obviously no problem; others judgment calls of the pastor-teacher in question . . . in the actual circumstances of that time. These would include all manner of variables, so many, in fact, that I could not personally commit to making rules about it or giving blanket permissions if I weren't looking at the actual case myself."
And
"It's not either or: the principle(s) is(are) clear but the precise application of them depends upon too many variables to make universal rules that will be valid without confronting an actual situation. If I said otherwise, I would be "going beyond what is written". "
Vis-a-vis what I was discussing in (1), what I have been trying to ask all along
is what is black and white and what is not. You mention that there is a "rule
for the main worship service" (making that case black and white = not
application?), with the rule also having "application to other situations in the
local church" (making all things other than the case of the main assembly
meeting circumstance-dependent application)?
Is that correct?
I appreciate you bearing with me on all this. In part, I'm interested in
discussing these "meta" matters out in the open, so that afterwards I might
perhaps be better able to only ask you questions that you'll actually answer, if
that makes sense. Because then I think that is better for both your time and my
time, in the long run.
Your friend in Christ,
Response #19:
It's no problem at all, my friend. Thank you for bearing with ME!
I'm going to take #4 first. As I have always maintained (see
BB 6B for the more recent discussion:
"Organization and Function of the Local Church" at the link), the lack of
detailed prescriptive information in the New Testament about how a local church
is supposed to be organized and function is deliberate. As I state at some point
in that study, "administration cannot be allowed to be the handmaiden to the
main concern of the local church: teaching the Bible" . . . or words to that
effect. So things are left vague on the application of the principles even while
the principles (e.g., "feed My sheep"; "rightly divide the Word of truth";
"suffer not a woman to teach") are clearly stated. Just HOW to feed the sheep,
divide the Word and restrict the teaching function are not stated, discussed or
explored. One main reason for that is that every culture, time, country, ethnic
group, particular bunch of Christians is different. As long as people are being
fed the actual truth without the authority of the pastor-teacher being
undermined (corresponding to the three exempla above), then all is well. On the
other hand, going to great lengths to make rules is likely going to confuse
people (when the rules trip over each other as they always do), distract people
(when the rules take on a life and momentum of their own as they always do), and
eventually lead people away from the truth (when the rules come to be more
important than the teaching itself as they always eventually do: that is the
history of denominations in a nutshell). So how I would really want to answer
you is, "Look, you know what you are supposed to be doing as a pastor-teacher;
as long as you are doing that and not letting anyone seriously undermine your
authority (regardless of gender), then all is well; make the best applications
you can and don't be shy about changing things up if something you try doesn't
work or back-fires".
On to #1): As to "I am still getting a bit hung up is on the question of
whether something is even application/circumstance-dependent to begin with, or
is instead black and white", that depends on the specific issue we're
talking about. There is a lot of overlap and gray area with these sorts of
things. If I feel personally that something is in fact black and white (e.g.,
water-baptism vs. no water-baptism) then I will say so. If, however, I do not
have that conviction (e.g., should a husband and wife team be allowed to teach a
married persons Bible study group?), my preference is not to weigh in on the
question. That is not to say it's not a reasonable question to ask. But we all
have to make our own decisions (that is what the Christian life is all about) .
. . and I am not the pope. No doubt you will be doing many things differently
from what I would likely do in the running of your group/church when it gets up
and going. Doesn't mean you'll be wrong. Doesn't mean my way would be wrong
either . . . or better or worse. And if what we are talking about does not
violate a true "black and white" biblical principle, then what we really have is
a case of apples vs. oranges since all groups are different and all
pastor-teachers are different as well.
sub 1) This is a matter of conscience in applying the truth. I try to stay out
of weighing in on such things . . . except when I feel that someone is about to
get themselves into trouble. I'd rather let people make their own decisions when
it's not written in stone as in this case; but if I feel it's a case of not
speaking up when someone is about to make what could be a bad mistake, I make an
exception (Prov.24:11-12). It's not a perfect science.
sub 2) If this happened, it's already happened; if it hasn't already happened,
then we don't need to worry about what isn't happening; if someone finds
themselves in a similar situation, they should apply the truth the best they
know how to apply it in the Spirit in that moment because there will be so
many variables in the actual situation that it can't be decided ahead of time .
. . except to remember that the Lord is with us and helps and protects us (much
better than we could ever protect ourselves).
sub 3) No one really even knows well enough what is going on in their own hearts
so as to be able to say dogmatically that, e.g., they wanted the truth at such
and such a point for how long? how much? how consistently? willing to
sacrifice what? etc. And of course we are not even talking about what actions
might have been taken by this hypothetical person. Add to this that it is never
profitable to worry about the past. Yesterday is gone it can't be changed. We
have today. If we spend even a fraction of today worrying about yesterday we
risk messing up today (and maybe tomorrow as well). To me, this one is really
"spinning wheels" regardless of the merits (of which I see none).
sub 4) The text is clear enough. But Paul never envisioned 99% of the things
that a "modern church" has/does/expects, etc., not to mention that our modern
world is different from his day and age in very many ways. All of these
innumerable variables affect how one might want to apply this principle. The
main application is that a church is not to have a female pastor-teacher. Woman
are not given the gift of pastor-teacher, so that ought to reinforce the
principle clearly enough. Does that mean that women can't teach, ever? Paul
doesn't say that. He doesn't say anything about children, or Sunday school (he
never heard of that, obviously); he doesn't mention the different circles and
sub-groups that virtually all churches have nowadays (no mention of anything
like that in the Bible either), or various outreach groups or para-church
groups. Is there no role for women in any of these? As mentioned, I would not
make a rule one way or the other. I'm pretty sure it would be clear to me what
works and what doesn't . . . but that would be up to the pastor-teacher (and
elders, if there are any) of the church in question. It's not up to me.
As to "Several of the longest conversations we have had over the last year or
two seem to me to have been about "matters like these." " These things are
up to you guys. I think you'd be better off investigating and discussing
theological points, or perhaps going through a book of the Bible (Zechariah,
Ephesians). But if you all feel these discussions are helpful to you, then it's
not my call, after all.
As to "Maybe that has been a poor approach?" I'm not going to second
guess your methodology. What I worry about is what you are applying it to. I've
never given a lot of thought or effort to "case law", especially not
hypothetical "case law". My focus has always been to see what the Bible says
before I need to apply the truth to anything . . . then worry about application
when I bump into an actual situation, making use of the truth I've learned and
applying it in the Spirit to do so. No exercising of hypotheticals is going to
help much on this, I'm afraid. It might even tend to confusion when reality
crops up.
As to "If we teach that something that is in fact black and white is a matter
of application, we have done wrong. And if we teach that something that is in
fact a matter of application is black and white, we have also done wrong. We
have mislead people, and not accurately handled the truth." I agree. But
consider: WE choose what to teach. We do NOT have to spend hours on some subject
that the Bible does not actually address. This is what church-visible groups do
all the time. They spend hours and hours most of their valuable "teaching
time" on dating, on relationships, on marriage matters . . . etc., etc. Now if
an issue comes up, we may have to address it, but we do so by positively
teaching what the Bible says and bringing things around, away from the tangents
and back to the cross and Jesus Christ. Always.
As to "Are there any reasons for not answering such questions?" If we are
asked a question, it's fine to answer it. But we are not bound by the construct
of the person asking the question any more than our Lord was. We answer with
the truth which is appropriate to the question asked . . . even if the person
asking finds our answer insufficient. As long as it actually IS sufficient in
the Spirit focused on the greater truths and meant to lead those listening
back up onto the strait and narrow and out of the ditch then we have done our
job.
As to "What do you think?", let me give YOU an example:
Question #1: "Can women transition to men and vice versa?" Answer #1: "No"
(Gen.1:27)
Question #2: "Should Christian women with small children work outside the home"
Answer #2: "It may be a yes/no question, but no pastor-teacher should answer
this yes/no or get sucked into a discussion about something which is between a
husband and wife even if it seems clear to us on viewing the particular
situation what we would want them to choose".
In my opinion, #1 is "black and white" (even though some see it as gray); #2 is
gray (even though some see it as black and white). So the first question to ask
is "which of the two is it?"; the second point would be "even if we see it as
black and white, we can't use that to make rules about other
things". For example, we can't take my answer on #1 to say "well then, I'm going
to throw confused teenager X out of my church until he/she gets his/her thinking
straightened out on this principle". Maybe that's the right thing to do; maybe
not. THAT would be a matter of application (depending on the person, the church,
whoever else might be getting influenced, etc.).
#2) "But then, well, without relevant examples, how does one talk about the
question of whether things are black and white or circumstance-dependent
application, as above in (1)?" Why would one want to? Why would one need to?
Not saying it's wrong to do. I'm just not convinced that it's useful. I do see
how it sucks up a lot of time and energy, frays relations with those one is
discussing with, and leads nowhere (since whatever conclusion one may come to
can be upended by changing any variable).
As to "but I am open to suggestions if there is some better way." I don't
think there is a good way to "wrestle the tar-baby". Let me give you an
example. We are told to "honor the king". Scripture is very clear about our
responsibilities in regard to being law-abiding citizens. But we could argue for
hours, days, years, on the topics of "You are a colonist in 1775. Should you
join the rebels or support the king or stick your head in the sand or move if
you can?" or "You are a resident of Ohio / Virginia. Should you fight on
behalf of your state or pick the cause you feel to be godly or at least superior
or stick your head in the sand or move if you can?" or "You are a German
in 1938. Should you oppose Hitler or reluctantly do your bit when drafted or
move if you can?"
Answer: you are not any of those things. If you stay out of politics as much as
possible, you will be unlikely now to be pressured to do things that violate
your conscience and/or place you in compromised or compromising situations. But
if you DO find yourself in something like the above, at that time God will give
you an answer if you pray in the Spirit. He is capable of leading you to the
right decision for you and those dependent on you and He is able to deliver you,
giving you the "right words" in any situation in which you may find yourself
(e.g., Matt.10:19-20; Mk.13:11; Lk.21:14-15). Passing judgment upon others in
the past is questionable; worrying about what "we would have done" is fruitless
speculation; being overly concerned about how to handle future similar
situations we may or may not find ourselves in is wasting time and energy:
spiritual growth and progress, learning how to follow the Spirit and apply the
truth in little things leading up to whatever big things we may be called to
navigate is what we are supposed to be doing.
#3) As to "do you think it might make sense for one to be really explicit
when one sidesteps a particular question by conscious choice", I believe I
do this . . . sometimes. That also depends. It may be, however, that one is
being guided by the Spirit to be cautious without knowing precisely why. It also
greatly depends on the person asking (who are they and how well do we know
them?) and how much he/she has invested in the question (are we even sure?). We
don't want to make a rule here either because we might end up giving unnecessary
offense for the sake of a rule that we made up.
As to "because it's not that you've missed something" I do miss things
. . . especially when they are contained in very long emails.
As to "Wouldn't it kind of make sense to "short-circuit" things as soon as
possible, for the sake of your time and my time?", I don't ever deliberately
not address something at all (at least as far as I am aware). So feel free to
re-ask any time.
On bluntness, LOL, you would have liked Col. Thieme! But I doubt you'd have
gotten many answers. As for myself, I'm not likely to change the way I do
business at this late stage. So I guess that is blunt. The way I do it is the
way I do it, like it or lump it (sorry too blunt!).
On #4, that is where we started.
I hope work is going well for you, my friend. I keep you in my prayers daily for
that and for your ministry and for all your concerns.
Say hi to ___ for me.
In Jesus,
Bob L.
Question #20:
Hi Bob,
This last one was very helpful. Thanks!
I appreciate us being able to have a conversation about having
conversations... as it is becoming more and more common now for me to be
on the "other end" here (which will probably continue to be ever more
the case), and I suppose it's about time that I need to be making my own
decisions on how I approach these matters. Towards that end, as I went
about thinking about your approach as you've explained it, and my own
feelings on the same, I wonder if you might have a look at the sort of
application I think I'm personally leaning towards. At least that's
where this email will start. Things got a bit long again, so sorry about
that.
1) The sort of approach to answering questions I'm thinking I may try to
pursue in my own ministry efforts
I value being blunt and eminently straightforward in conversations
(while still trying to avoid giving offense so as not to present a
stumbling block) -- perhaps "explicitly stating how I am
answering/coming at things and why" is a better way of putting it. It
just makes some inner part of my brain warm and fuzzy to have zero
ambiguity about where things stand, and I have a hard time letting
things drop if I'm not absolutely sure I understand the position/point
-- if I feel like I am at all having to make inferences about what the
other person really thinks/is really saying, rather than actually
hearing it in so many words. In other words, I'm the sort of person that
personally wants to hear the words "it's a duck!" rather than "well, it
looks like a duck, walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck." And
therefore, in the spirit of "doing unto others as you would like done
unto you", I think I will personally try my best to offer this courtesy
of unambiguity and frank directness to others as much as I am able.
Does that mean that anyone who doesn't do as I would do in this does
wrong (or does worse somehow)? I suppose not. I suppose that some sheep
might in fact do better with a less blunt approach. So, for example,
perhaps people like this would bristle and get offended if, as is my
general habit, I were to immediately come right out and say something
like "I don't think I can take a hard position on this question you
asked because I view it as a matter of application." Even if I mean
nothing negative by that (e.g., some implication of "it's shameful you
even asked this, you should have known better!"), well, some people
might be put off by it anyway (given that we are all different in
personality). So I guess some might be better served by pastor-teachers
that tread a bit more gently when it comes to staking out positions and
giving answers and so on.
On the other hand, I'm assuming there are others like me out there who
just want to hear things straight, without the slightest hint of
deflection. No "interpretation" required to see how answers tie back to
what was asked. Either things are answered head-on, or a response is
given that clearly communicates that no direct answer will be given, for
whatever reason. (So that the person in question knows that upfront). I
guess we're weird like that, for finding comfort in our nice clear lines
and unambiguity.
So, at any rate, in terms of what you say here
No doubt you will be doing many things differently from what I would
likely do in the running of your group/church when it gets up and going.
Doesn't mean you'll be wrong. Doesn't mean my way would be wrong either
. . . or better or worse.
I think what I propose above would in fact be one such difference in
approach, should I go through with it. It seems to me like I would
perhaps fall further towards the blunt side on this "straight shooting"
spectrum.
Does it seem like I've understood the "different ministries can do
things differently" point, and made an appropriate personal application
with it? This is the sort of thing you had in mind when you penned the
above quoted words, correct?
2) What happens when we as teachers in our discussion realize one side
thinks something is application and the other side thinks it is black
and white?
___ and I talked this through some today, and it really has seemed to
the two of us that all of the conversations on the forum that ended up
not going as well as the others ultimately boiled down to this
application vs. black and white case. What has tended to happen is that
the conversation turns to hypotheticals when the "it's application" side
attempts to appeal to example cases that would seem to challenge a
completely black and white view. Then suddenly we get off in the weeds
arguing various points of application rather the principle itself. But
that's sort of the whole problem -- that the principle itself is not
agreed upon, as to its fundamental nature.
It has so happened that I have found myself on the "it's not black and
white, but a matter of application" side of most of the discussions
we've had on the forum. In the last little bit I've been very interested
in trying to figure out how to make things go better in future
conversations, and towards that end, now that this observation popped
out at us, the big question I have is what to do the next time in a
conversation I legitimately believe that someone is making something
black and white when it shouldn't be, in a manner I worry tends towards
legalism.
___ and I thought that perhaps the best approach would be to just
acknowledge that this particular sort of application vs. black and white
conversation is likely to be unproductive if it drags, so that it is
perfectly fine for us to say "I don't think that this is actually is
black white for XYZ reasons," and then dip out of the conversation after
that single response. No discussion of application coming up as it has
the last few times, because we just don't go there.
So, as an example of how this disagreement would start, it might look
something like:
Person A (black and white person): Per 1 Peter 2:13-17 and Romans
13:1-7, nobody ever has the right to resist government authority for any
reason.
Person B (application person): In the case of someone finding themselves
on the receiving end of horrible abuse at the hands of corrupt
government authority, then "if someone finds themself in a similar
situation, they should apply the truth the best they know how to apply
it in the Spirit in that moment -- because there will be so many
variables in the actual situation that it can't be decided ahead of
time." (Your wording from your last response). This is decidedly less
than completely black and white.
Person A (black and white person): No, that's wrong because... [more
words]
Then given the above, the question is what should Person B do after
this? Is pulling out of the conversation then and there appropriate?
Something else? How should someone correctly teaching that a given
matter is application handle the case when a discussion partner insists
that the matter is a black and white principle instead?
3) But what of the side that is wrong in these disagreements?
I can't speak for the other folks on the forum, but one of the reasons
I've tended to keep going on some of our threads when I never would with
a group of people I don't know as well is because I can give folks in
our group the benefit of the doubt more, and so am not so quick to label
conversations as "pearls before swine."
Per the above, ___ and I have, I think, sort of come to think that these
specific application vs. black and white disagreements really are a mild
case of pearls before swine. As fellow teachers, it's not necessarily
our job to go convince someone else among our number on some point of
doctrine they disagree with. If they are in fact in the wrong, then the
Lord will lead them into the truth eventually, if they are willing to
listen. And if they are not, well then, us pushing things won't amount
to anything then anyway, right?
This seems to make reasonably good sense to me (and would seem to
definitely prevent conversations from dragging on so much, as they have
some in the past), but I confess that just leaving a good friend in a
state of believing something I view as wrong and even a little dangerous
(to the extent it really does seem to me to border on legalism) has
seemed a bit difficult to me. Like, it feels kind of like this sort of
laissez-faire "just leave things there, after perhaps planting a seed"
approach is a cop-out, and could end up indirectly causing harm,
inasmuch as the person who holds the wrong position might end up
teaching it to their sheep, right?
Do we really not have any responsibility there to try and push back
more?
4) How are pastor-teachers ever corrected then?
If we adopt some position more along the lines of the above -- where we
try to steer away from pushing on these matters of disagreement, even if
someone is teaching something wrong -- then how do pastor-teachers who
are in fact teaching something wrong ever get corrected?
Is it just between them and God -- God will sort them out eventually?
But what about sheep that might be harmed in the interim?
As a parting thought, I think I may try to be hyper-explicit when
emailing you in the future about these matters of application vs. black
and white, to try and make it clear when I am asking for your view on
which sort it is. I think that this is perhaps the biggest upshot of
this entire wider email chain -- that I realize it would probably be
good for me to ask that very directly, if it's actually the question I
am interested in exploring, rather than exploring facets of application
so much in what I ask.
Again, I appreciate with your patience with me on all this.
Your friend in Christ,
Response #20:
I have no problems with any of your intended approaches and future
actions contemplated here. A few observations (in no particular order).
First, when you connect "black and white when it is not
really black and white" with legalism (making up rules when it is not
authorized by the Word to do so), you are exactly correct. The Word of
God is a sharp sword; none sharper. It divides perfectly in two things
which are otherwise not divisible. There are believers and there are
unbelievers . . . and it is the truth which divides the one from the
other with an unbridgeable chasm. Truth vs. lies. No gray area there.
Life, however, is not all black and white because we are imperfect. We
have sin natures. We do not have perfect biblical knowledge. And even if
we did, we have not absolutely perfected listening to the Spirit. So,
indeed, in life there are many situations where different principles
collide because of the imperfect world we live in and because of our own
imperfections, and because of the less than perfect decisions we have
made earlier in life. There are no hypothetical situations. We are "in
the boat we are in", whatever that looks like, and we have to make
decisions about "now" as best we can. Since no two boats are the same
and since even ours is different today than it was yesterday I find
hypothesizing about matters of application a poor use of time . . . and
potentially very dangerous. That is because it might lead others to rely
on such analysis for making their own decisions. What they really need
to do is listen to the Spirit and do the best they can to objectively
analyze their own "boat" based upon principles of absolute truth in the
Word of God.
Your example of "ever right to resist govt. or not?" is a perfect one.
"Which government? Who is resisting?" And, most importantly, "Of what
does the resistance consist?" Engaging in politics to turn out the
present regime could be considered resistance. Demonstrating could as
well. Passively refusing to do certain things also. One could go on. But
that is only hypothetical. I personally am not doing any of these things
(or other such things one might easily imagine). But if I as a member of
his flock were considering it, I might ask this very question.
Which brings me to the main point vis-ΰ-vis what you are trying to sort
out as a pastor-teacher. Just as I don't always answer the question
asked as it is asked, it is also fair to point out that often times the
question asked is not really what the person wants to know. When a
pastor-teacher is asked a straight-forward Bible question, no problem:
answer it (if you know the answer). But anything involving hypotheticals
is usually fronting for a request for advice or worse: for permission.
Example:
Q: "Is it EVER right to resist the government?"
A1: "No"
Q-er: "Great, then you've just taken away my freedom to evaluate my own
situation on this point; so I guess I won't go ahead and sue my govt.
employer even though they have treated me illegally by any reasonable
measure, wrongfully firing me and ruining my career".
A2: "It depends on the circumstances";
Q-er: "Great, so I now have a green light to begin installing an
air-defense system on my farm for those black helicopters (hoping to
test it ASAP)".
A3: "Here are the Bible passages on that; and here are some examples of
how believers in scripture interacted with govt. in the past."
Q-er: "Great, so I can't get a straight answer out of you on this I
guess".
Me: "That's right. On the one hand, I'm not authorized (nor do I want
to) take away your freedom AND responsibility to make your own decisions
in important matters of application; on the other, I'm also not going to
give you carte blanche to do something really stupid because, in your
view, I said it was 'OK'."
I try to limit "advice" to technical things without great spiritual
import and to situations where the person has already granted
him/herself permission and is looking to me as the last potential stop
sign in which case I will at least suggest that stopping before flying
off of the cliff might be something to strongly consider
(Prov.24:11-12).
In terms of how to comport yourselves toward other PT's, the reason I
was excited about the "forum" was precisely so that you future teachers
could bounce these sorts of ideas off of each other (Prov.27:17). If
these matters are being discussed outside of the PT-only venue, however,
I think that is unwise for reasons suggested above.
In terms of who corrects a PT, the only biblical guidance on that is
regarding his behavior: if he "sins openly" in some serious way, he is
to be corrected by the church leadership (1Tim.5:20). Ultimately, we are
responsible to the Lord alone. But that is also true of every single
believer in the Church. Setting up regimes of "accountability" either
for clergy or lay is the beginning of the end of all spiritual growth.
Is it an awesome responsibility? You bet it is.
I can tell you that I have, over the years, received very many
gratuitous offers of such "corrective help". I have always counted it my
responsibility to listen to what readers/parishioners have to say as
long as they are making such suggestions in a truly helpful way as those
who accept the authority of this ministry. If they are right, I like to
think that I would respond (and have on occasion in the past). If they
are wrong, clearly it's not right to let oneself be bullied away from
the truth. If they are not really of my flock, do not really accept my
authority, then my patience in trying to correct them (and vice versa)
is limited usually limited to pointing out the truth and letting
it/them go pretty quickly if they are not responsive. And yes the Lord
is well able to correct us if and when we are in the wrong . . . as long
as we are willing to listen to the Spirit and the Word in a humble way.
We should always be growing and "finding things out" as we study the
Word. We pastor-teachers get our correction from the Lord and the Spirit
and the Word as we study (in private); then we give the truth to our
congregations publicly (and they process any needful correction
privately).
One of the great advantages we have is to be in the line of men of faith
who put the truth of the Word over any and all organizational and
denominational affiliation and loyalty. It's made all the difference to
this ministry, I can tell you. So while it may seem problematic for us
to be effectively corrected when and if that's necessary, when it's the
group/organization/denomination needing correction, that is virtually
impossible and almost never happens at all.
In Jesus,
Bob L.