The 1.19 rule comes from James 1.19 and is the rule we are claiming must be followed when we are in conversation and debate with one another about controversial subjects. The first part of this series at Southside has been about our gender identity, we will soon move to our sexual identity and then to our spiritual identity, folders in which we place many conversations. We have outlined the complementarian and egalitarian views of gender participation in local churches. Our stream of thinking has come from Genesis 1.27 through Genesis 3.16 and to Galatians 3.28. Our Biblical conclusion is that
"there is no status/access/privilege advantage to a distinction of gender. Spiritually and ontologically the two are fully equal." We saw that the beautiful complementary aspects of God's image constituted in our maleness and femaleness have been restored to equality in Christ. However, we have some aberrant passages in which the Apostle himself seems to break rank with his own assertions and does seem to restrict access for women. The conversation that we could have here is:
In what circumstances could it have been necessary to limit women's access to ministry in Corinth and Ephesus. In what circumstances could it be possible today to make any such restrictions? Thoughts?
Hi pastor Ian,
ReplyDeleteIt is my hope that God will grant your the necessary encouragement, strength, wisdom and foresight to expound the will of our King in what appears to be a tough series given current societal norms.
As it relates to the 1:19 series currently underway, I agree with the principle of spiritual equity for both male and female. In my mind there was never a question about this aspect. I believe that the idea being challenged is that the male man should lead. The question therefore is whether or not this is an idea born out of scripture, and to a greater extent Gods design. How do you see this pastor?
If I were a complementarian I should answer that the qualification "male" is at issue as the institutional church socialized male man does not often look like the servant leader Jesus. If I were an egalitarian I would answer that the male man and the female woman should lead.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeletePart 1
ReplyDeleteI haven’t read a lot on gender issues; I did not know that I was a complementarian until recently. Sorting through the issues has left me with a few ideas, one of which I would like to discuss, even though I’m sure that my views have been well travelled by others.
The “fast and loose” interpretation of scripture. I would argue that without an agenda, you could not read the Bible and form an egalitarian view. Pressures of a changing culture, (perhaps not globally), make it difficult to stand on a view based on the words of Paul: I permit not a woman to teach. Yet there is little evidence that women were appointed as pastors and teachers in the early church, and if someone was considering it, Paul’s teaching was clear.
In order to syncretize the pressures of changing world opinion and the unchanging scripture, new ways of interpretation are explored that can bridge the two. But you would not think to do this without the pressure from outside, and they have consequences.
Here’s a hot topic that’s currently on the back burner. Six-day Creation versus Evolution. Various theories had emerged since Darwin’s time to syncretize Genesis’ creation story with the evolutionary theory of origins. The Day/Age theory meant to reinterpret the single days of creation in terms of huge swaths of time that evolution required. Never mind that the meaning of the word day, is at its most common a single day. Scripture was made as soft as a bed but no one wanted to lie in it. If Evolution replaces the Genesis origins account you would have to redefine creation, sin, death, redemption, God. You don’t have a reasonable base to any major Christian doctrine if you give up the intended meaning of scripture. The next generation rejects the whole story as bunk and leaves the dying church. Evolutionists on the other hand are not compelled to force their theories onto ancient texts that they don’t believe in any case. Responding to cultural pressures and the opinions of the half-converted is futile.
Part 2
ReplyDeleteIn the same way, it's hard to imagine that one without an agenda could read the Bible in a strictly egalitarian view. A church can go through a song and dance to get to the point that where every Pauline text that talks about women is nicely explained in an egalitarian way. But soon enough, the next generation, or the next day, you need to run through the whole explanation all over again. Until someone has the chutzpah to rewrite the Bible, we will open the Bible to see the same words. "I do not permit a woman to teach or to assume authority over a man; she must be quiet"
Why is that when Paul says 'No' here, he means 'Yes'? I thought 'No' means 'No'. If a woman were to reject a man's inappropriate advances, I'm sure the man could use all the the same lines of reasoning and twist the meaning of her words to get to what he wants to hear...to do what he wants to do. Why do we feel we can behave the same way to God? To the Holy Spirit? and to the Bible? God will not be mocked.
By the way, in creation/evolution debates, those that hold the religious middle ground, -those that soften the middle position are generally ignored. Staunch evolutionists don't bother messing with stupid harmonizing theories. They read Genesis more correctly than the retreating Christians and attack it for what it says. Christians will be made to look foolish for following Christ. This is unavoidable, so why try to soften the edges of a message that cuts through flesh and spirit both?
You don't need kid gloves to pick up your cross and follow!