Wednesday, February 10, 2010



Rod Thomas and the Reform statement on Women Bishops.


The recent Reform statement on the controversy over Women Bishops seems to have further fuelled the feelings of division between Evangelicals of differing viewpoints. An attempt to take the 'biblical high ground' (something that Reform appear increasingly keen to do) is the main thrust of his argument in which he tries to claim more faithful scriptural study than less extreme evangelical opinion.

"Our concern is derived from Scripture. It seems to us that the Apostolic teaching on male headship in church and family (as in 1 Corinthians 11-14, Ephesians 5, 1 Timothy 2 and 1 Peter 3) is clear enough in its principles: overall leadership in the church is to be exercised by men. The fierce debates that have surrounded the gender issue over the last twenty years or so have stimulated much careful analysis of these texts, and have only served to show that mainstream translations such as NRSV, NIV, REB and ESV are correct in their translation and may (and should) be taken as they stand."

Rod Thomas then argues that to study a passage with close reference to the culture in which it is set (as many open evangelicals do), is to somehow imprison it, making it ineffectual and an attack on scripture's authority.

"It is, of course, right to say that these passages in Paul and Peter have a particular cultural setting; but to make them prisoners of that culture and thus unable to challenge our culture, seems to us implicitly to deny the authority of Scripture."

In response to this I would like to make a few points...
1. I have always found it perplexing how most Conservative Evangelical women, (who uphold complementarian teachings) are happy to dispense with Paul's instructions not to leave their heads uncovered during worship, who shamelessly wear pearls and braid their hear without guilt. Their reasoning is that Paul's instructions are to be interpreted against the culture within which they were written and only suggest broad ideals to be extrapolated in a culturally relevant way by us today.
2. Many cessationist Evangelicals frown upon the practice of raising ones hands in prayer, seeing it as 'charismatic' and yet Paul specifically tells men to do it. Why then aren't all faithful christian men doing so regularly?
3. I know of Anglican Conservative Evangelical clergy who have children who are exceptionally badly behaved; yet these men have not been demoted from a position of leadership, despite Paul's explicit instructions in Titus 1:6. Why are they allowed to continue as leaders if the Bible forbids it and is always to be read and obeyed without any interpretation or contextual study at all?

Rod Thomas continues:
"It is surely the genius of the New Testament that what was spoken in a particular context is at one and the same time also God’s word to us. Far from being a prisoner of his culture, Paul is not afraid to challenge it, warning his readers “not to live as the Gentiles do, in the futility of their thinking” (Eph 4:17). Why, then, is it assumed he will uncritically reflect their values on this issue of gender?"

Rod Thomas is here arguing against himself. No-one except him has said that studying the bible with reference to context and culture is imprisoning the meaning, rather it is felt that studying context sheds greater light and insight on what was meant by the New Testament writers. No-one 'assumes' anything if they take the Bible's message seriously and God breathed. I have read some excellent egalitarian studies of the passages he speaks about which are some of the most serious and respectful biblical exegesis out there. The reason that many evangelicals believe wholeheartedly in women's ordination and women holding the office of a bishop is BECAUSE they have studied these passages in depth. In addition they also look at other passages which Reform seem to spend very little time explaining their less plain interpretation of: e.g. the story of Deborah leader of Israel, Huldah the Prophetess who advised the advisors or the King, Junia the apostle etc.) The reason we think Paul supports an egalitarian view is because of the scriptures and his acceptance of women within a culture which rejected their authority.

Lastly, Rod Thomas' appeal to reason seems odd against his 'sola scriptura' position above.

"If reasoned reflection of Christians down the ages (including the historic position of the Church of England) has been correct; we fear that the current pressure to overturn it comes not for biblical reasons but because we are losing our nerve in the face of pressure from society."

This reasoned reflection and the historic position of the C of E, was actually based upon a basic theology that women were inferior to men and somehow lacking mentally! I recognise that Reform are not making this point, but their forebears believed it. Therefore if it is possible to reinterpret one's theological position in one regard, why not in others? To assume that Open Evangelicals are somehow 'losing their nerve'in the face of cultural pressures; are lacking 'biblical reasons' and by inference, that they care less for the true will of God and more about what people think is at best severely misguided and at worst, insulting. A little more respect for Evangelicals who disagree with Reforms interpretation of scripture and their doctrine of headship would be welcome. In addition, an appreciation of open Evangelical integrity and faithful reference to scripture in coming to their position would also be welcome...and long overdue!

9 comments:

Suem said...

Reform! They really annoy me (sorry!)I honestly can't see that their reasons for being opposed in conscience to the ministry of women are any more than a misogynistic belief that women are lesser than men and not made in God's image in the same way. As you say, their arguments are full of holes and very selective, completely failing to look at the whole sweep of the gospel and the radical inclusion of women in Christ's ministry and teaching and in the early church.

Well, that's got that off my chest for now...

Curate Karen said...

Have you read Cheryl Schatz' blog, 'Women in Ministry'?
http://strivetoenter.com/wim/

She has such excellent bible studies on all the verses the 'complementarians' argue with.

Crunch said...

Hi Karen,

Sorry I haven't replied sooner..my email didn't tell me that you had aleft a comment and I only noticed it whrn I was trawling through the settings today.
Thank you for the link..i have visited her blog on occasion and it does look very helpful.

Gill

A. Amos Love said...

Crunch

Maybe you can help me?

From the little I’ve read
seems you want women to be
“Leaders” “Priests” and “Bishops.”

Why?

The word “leader” seems like a “high place.” Yes?
Jesus always recommended the “low place.” Yes?

Jesus humbled Himself,
made himself of no reputation
and took on the form of a “servant.”
Php 2:7

How do “you” reconcile the use of the word “leader”
when “Jesus” told “His disciples”
“NOT to be called leader?”

If the men have NOT obeyed scripture?
Why do you want to follow them?

Jesus in Mat 23:10 told His disciples “NOT” to call
themselves master/“leaders”
for you have one master/"leader” the Christ.

King James Version -
Neither be ye called masters:
for one is your Master, even Christ.

The Interlinear Bible -
Nor be called leaders,
for one is your leader the Christ.

Phillips Modern English -
you must not let people call you leaders,
you have only one leader, Christ.

Today's English Version -
nor should you be called leader.
your one and only leader is the Messiah.

The Amplified-
you must not be called masters ( leaders )
for you have one master ( leader ) the Christ.

Jesus told His disciples not to be called "leaders"
and “none” did.

Ro 1:1 Paul, a servant of Jesus Christ,
Php 1:1 Paul and Timotheus, the servants of Jesus Christ,
Col 4:12 Epaphras...a servant of Christ,
Tit 1:1 Paul, a servant of God,
Jas 1:1 James, a servant of God
2Pe 1:1 Simon Peter, a servant

His disciples all called themselves "servants,"
none called themselves "leaders." None? None.
None called themselves "servant-leader." None.

If Jesus instructed “His disciples”
NOT to call themselves “leaders”
and someone calls them self a "leader"
or thinks they are a "leader;"

Are they a "Disciple of Christ?"

If that is your choice...
"Disciple of Christ?" Or, “Leader?”

Which one do you choose?

Be blessed and be a blessing...

Crunch said...

Firstly I need to point out that the word 'leader' is commonly used by both sides of the discussion. Rod Thomas himself talks of leadership in the first quotation I cited.
Secondly and more importantly: you are mistaken that the writers of the New Testament did not refer to the apostles and other notable servants of the early church as leaders...
Acts 15:22 "Then the apostles and elders, with the whole church, decided to choose some of their own men and send them to Antioch with Paul and Barnabas. They chose Judas (called Barsabbas) and Silas, two men who were leaders among the brothers."
Romans 12:7-8
"If it is serving, let him serve; if it is teaching, let him teach; 8if it is encouraging, let him encourage; if it is contributing to the needs of others, let him give generously; if it is leadership, let him govern diligently; if it is showing mercy, let him do it cheerfully."
Hebrews 13:7
"Remember your leaders, who spoke the word of God to you. Consider the outcome of their way of life and imitate their faith."
Hebrews 13:17
"Obey your leaders and submit to their authority. They keep watch over you as men who must give an account. Obey them so that their work will be a joy, not a burden, for that would be of no advantage to you."
Hebrews 13:24
"Greet all your leaders and all God's people. Those from Italy send you their greetings."
Thirdly: the Greek word in Matthew 23 that you used to argue that Jesus commands us not to be called a leader is actually usually translated teacher or master. The Greek is rarely translated 'leader' because that isn't really the meaning of the word. Strong's Greek dictionary says the following about it: "Original Word: καθηγητής
Transliteration: kathégétés
Phonetic Spelling: (kath-ayg-ay-tace')master, teacher

From a compound of kata and hegeomai; a guide, i.e. (figuratively) a teacher -- master."
Therefore as I have shown, the Bible DOES use the word 'leader' to describe those chosen to help, nourish and support the people of God. Yes of course we are called to be servants. I passionately believe in servant leadership as Christ himself modelled when he washed the disciples feet. No, I do not see leadership as a 'high place' as you suggest. Finally, yes I do take my discipleship of Christ very seriously! He is my Lord and I will have no other. You seem to jump to many conclusions about my integrity and my theology in these matters...maybe you need to re-examine your theological understanding of the notion of judgementalism which Jesus warns us so sternly against? I do not know, I know not what is in your heart. You do however, need to balance your quotations from scripture with careful exegesis of the original Greek (rather than relying on translations which suit your own arguments) and to develop a more considered understanding of other Christian perspectives.

A. Amos Love said...

Crunch

Ouch!!! That hurt... :-(...

You write...
“You seem to jump to many conclusions about
my integrity and my theology in these matters...
maybe you need to re-examine your theological
understanding of the notion of judgementalism
which Jesus warns us so sternly against?”

My deepest apologies for offending you.
I was not thinking about or arriving at
any conclusions about your integrity.

Please forgive me...

I would love to continue the conversation,
the debate, about “Leaders,” “Priests” and “Bishops.”

If you’re willing...

If not, I’ll understand...

We seemed to have arrived at
some different conclusions from the scriptures.

Believe it or not,
I’m FOR women using ALL the gifts of the Spirit,
being free to minister as the Lord leads them,
in “The Church of God,” in the body of Christ.

In His Service, By His Grace.

Crunch said...

I will reply..but I have a busy day ahead...

A. Amos Love said...

Crunch

Thanks - If you don't answer right away
That's okay by me. I'll understand.

Like the way you went to the scriptures to
advocate for “Leaders” today, in “The Church.”

From your “Bible version” and “Tradition”
I can understand your strong feelings.

I do wonder why you used those scriptures?
Most all spoke about “Men” being “Leaders.”
“None” spoke about “Women” being “Leaders.”

You’re not advocating that
“only men” should be “Leaders” are you? ;-)

You did a fine job, BUT,
I’m still not convinced about “Leaders.” Oy Vey!
Yes, I’ve been called stuborn and hard headed.
Please, treat me gently. Have mercy.

You write about Mat 23:10...
“The Greek is rarely translated 'leader' ‘

Here is what I’ve found for Mat 23:10 in 32
Bible versions on my computer and book shelves.

LEADERS - 14
ED - Neither be ye called leaders;
one for of you is the leader, the Anointed.

GLT - Nor be called leaders,
for One is your Leader, the Christ.

LO - Neither assume the title of leaders,
for you have only one leader--who is the Messiah.

MNT - And call no one ‘Leader,’
because One is your leader, even the Christ.

NAS95 -Do not be called leaders;
for One is your Leader, that is, Christ.

NASB - And do not be called leaders;
for One is your Leader, that is, Christ.

Phil
And you must not let people call you ‘leaders’
you have only one leader, Christ!

Roth - Neither be called leaders,
for, your leader, is one, the Christ;

TCNT
Nor must you allow yourselves to be called ‘Leaders,’ for you have only one Leader, the Christ.

Wey - And do not accept the name of ‘leader,’
for your Leader is one alone--the Christ.

The Interlinear Bible
Nor be called leaders,
for one is your leader the Christ.

Phillips Modern English
you must not let people call you leaders,
you have only one leader, Christ.

Today's English Version
nor should you be called leader.
your one and only leader is the Messiah.

The Amplified
you must not be called masters ( leaders )
for you have one master ( leader ) the Christ.


MASTERS. - 11
ASV - Neither be ye called masters:
for one is your master, even the Christ.

KJV - Wes Neither be ye called masters;
for one is your Master, even Christ.

DRV - Neither be ye called masters:
for one is your master, Christ.

HNV - Neither be called masters,
for one is your master, the Messiah.

KJ21 - Neither be ye called masters,
for One is your Master, even Christ.

NLT - And don’t let anyone call you ‘Master,’
for there is only one master, the Messiah.

RSV - Neither be called masters,
for you have one master, the Christ.

RWB - Neither be ye called masters:
for one is your Master, even Christ.

WB - Neither be ye called masters:
for one is your master, even Christ.

WEB - Neither be called masters,
for one is your master, the Christ.

Wes - Neither be ye called masters;
for one is your Master, even Christ.

Part 1

A. Amos Love said...

Part 2

TEACHER - INSTRUCTOR - 5
MKJV - Nor be called teachers,
for One is your Teacher, even Christ.

NIV - Nor are you to be called ‘teacher’,
for you have one Teacher, the Christ.

NKJV - And do not be called teachers;
for One is your Teacher, the Christ.

Dby - Neither be called instructors,
for one is your instructor, the Christ.

NRSV - Nor are you to be called instructors,
for you have one instructor, the Messiah.


BBE - And you may not be named guides:
because one is your Guide, even Christ.


YLT - nor may ye be called directors,
for one is your director--the Christ.

Leader - 14

Master - 11

Teacher - instructor - 5

Guide - 1

Director - 1

There does seem to be room for debate.

The reason I use to use “Leader” in Mat 23:10.
Is in Mat 23:8 Jesus tells “His Disciples”
NOT to be called Rabbi ( teacher - Yes?)
for one is your master/teacher, even Christ.
And all ye are brethren.

On My computer there are 27 versions.
17 versions have teacher or instructor in the verse.

In my simple thinking; why would Jesus say in
Mat 23:8 Don’t be called rabbi/teacher. And in...
Mat 23:10 Don’t be called master/teacher.
Does He really say don’t be called “Teacher”twice?

That’s why I’m just a little bit stubborn on this.

And I like your take on the compound for
master - #2519 kathegetes in Mat 23:10.
#2596 kata + #2233 hegeomai
There is a sneaky reason I like it.

In Heb 13:7. Heb 13:17. Heb 13:24.
Where “Leader” or “have the rule over’ is used.

It is #2233 hegeomai. Hmmm?

Did you know #2233 hegeoma is also “esteem?”

Php 2:3
Let nothing be done through strife or vainglory;
but in lowliness of mind let each
“esteem” #2233 other better than themselves.

1Thes 5:13
And to “esteem” #2233 them very highly
in love for their work’s sake

Yes, I do enjoy reseaching and debating the scriptures.
I hope you do also.

IMO - “Pastor/Leader” is a very dangerous postion.
For both the “Leader and those being ”Led.”

In my experience...

Titles become idols.
Pastors become masters.