I’ve been passing these kidney stones, and I have to take some pretty powerful drugs. And drugs lead to some very strange dreams.
I woke, or so it seemed, about 100 years from now. I was surrounded by kind but curious faces — like the faces you might see at a zoo looking at the strange animals transported away from where they belong. You know … that look. And they were looking at me.
“What’s the last thing you remember?” one man asked.
“I don’t know,” I said, because I didn’t. “Let me think a bit. Oh, yeah, it was skiing down a mountain in Colorado. I was going really fast!”
“That would make sense,” the gentleman said. “You see, you fell into ravine and were frozen. We just thawed you out. It’s 2108 — 100 years later, almost to the day!”
I was bemused, but it was a dream, you know. Time and emotion were distorted.
I just went from episode to episode. And somehow I found myself in a meeting in a conference room. There were about 12 men and women in there, and I was sitting at the table.
The woman at the head of the table said, “You must be badly disoriented. We thought we’d try to bring you up to date. You see, you were an elder at this very church, and when we learned that, well, we just had to get involved and try to help you adjust to the new world. At least it’s new to you.”
I truly felt disoriented. “Please forgive if my questions seem stupid or rude. I’m really clueless. Who are you all?”
“Well, we’re the elders of the church,” she answered. “Your congregation has been around for over 150 years, and so you’re one of us. We’re your spiritual family.”
“But you’re a …”
She laughed at my surprise. “The historian we met with said you’d be surprised at female elders. I guess your great-grandfather would have been surprised to have seen former slaves as elders. It’s really much the same.”
“Well, I always pushed for equality of women, but in my day …”
“I know. Let me tell you what happened. A few churches experimented with women elders. There were several church ‘splits’ I think you called them. My grandmother told me about it, but many churches pressed on.
“And a remarkable thing happened. Someone noticed that the churches with women in the elderships were better churches. I mean, they were more family-friendly. They were more focused on parenting and marriage skills and more concerned with the poor. And some of these early churches did some great things — they were pioneers in some of the greatest, most positive changes in world history.
“After a while, people just came to accept the idea.”
I had to speak up. “This is exciting news. I guess it was Galatians, ‘There is neither male nor female.’ …”
“No,” she said (she had a way of not letting me finish my sentences, and I was beginning to think we might be kin), “It was ‘It’s not good for the man to be alone’ God meant for men and women to be in full partnership, and the proof was in the pudding.
“You see, men are hardwired to be warriors. They want to take the next hill. Women are more relational. Churches just run better when both are together. History proved it very powerfully.”
My head was reeling. I just had trouble taking it all in. And then another woman gently walked over to me and said, “Do you mind?” I nodded, but had no idea what she wanted. She touched me on the sleeve, and the color and texture of my shirt changed into something much more attractive. I nearly fell out of my chair!
The group tried to suppress their laughter at my astonishment. She explained, “You probably had to buy a new shirt every time you wanted to wear a different color. We now wear just one shirt that we tune to our needs. Whoever set those colors for you at the hospital must have been colorblind!”
The chairwoman addressed the group. “When we finish with our newly-thawed-out brother, we’re going to need to meet to talk about our tax situation.”
“Well,” I laughed, “at that’s one thing that hasn’t changed! Folks still pay taxes!”
She looked at me with the same animal in a cage look I’d seen earlier. “We pay taxes, but we do so voluntarily now. You see, we’ve taken so much property off the tax rolls, if we didn’t, government couldn’t function!
“The mayor is coming by and we’re going to look over the city’s budget to see how the church can help keep things running.”
I asked, “Is that the major change you talked about … taking property off the tax rolls? I must say, we always saw the government as something of a rival. I mean, many churches even refused to send their children to public schools.”
And now the group looked surprised. An older, gray-haired gentleman smiled. Looking at the ceiling, he said, “Now, that takes me back. I can barely remember back when we had ‘public school.’! We got rid of those things before I was in kindergarten!”
The chairwoman explained, “There are no public schools anymore. Many, many years ago, the elders of the churches in town …”
“The elders of which churches?”
“The churches. We haven’t really thought in denominational terms, well, ever. I guess my great-grandfather might have. (I’m just so glad we had that historian in here!)
“The churches got tired of fighting, and their leaders began to meet for prayer. The prayer meeting became a planning meeting. The leaders decided that the gospel is big enough to solve society’s biggest problems. And the biggest problem at the time was crime and poverty.
“And so they pooled resources and opened private schools …”
“That’s hardly a change!” I said. “We’d been building private schools for our kids for years before I froze. We wanted our children away from poverty and crime. We were trying to protect them.”
She looked at me with (what can say?) pity. “No. They built private schools for the poorest of the poor, for children from what they used to call ‘broken homes.’ And they provided a free education starting at age 3, as I recall.
“They didn’t replicate the public schools. They raised these children as though they were their own. They taught them the power of the gospel. They taught them how to be good parents and good husbands and wives. They taught them how to handle money. They taught them leadership.
“And they taught everything, from algebra to zoology, through the gospel. Everything is about Jesus, you know. They actually created a new epistemology — they retooled education from a gospel perspective. They created a new worldview — not really ‘new’ so much as more thorough. Gym, recess, lunchtime, homework — everything was dedicated to Jesus. It’s hard to explain to someone with your background, as it’s all just so obvious to us. (We’d have to get that historian back here.) …
“There were people who prayed for each child by name every day. They just poured themselves into those kids.
“And those kids became the leadership of the next generation — preachers, elders, public servants. It just worked better than anyone had dared hope!
“They married, didn’t commit crimes, and completely broke the cycle of crime and poverty. It was so successful, the politicians wanted to take the program over and let the state own it and pay for it. But the elders were wise men and women. They refused. They knew the government can’t be anyone’s parent!
“But the money came in anyway. Foundations, charities, individuals just gave and gave. Pretty soon, only the middle class and wealthy were in the public schools! But Christian boys and girls were invited into the church schools early on, so they could be missionaries and mentors to the poor. They were given special training at church on how to be Jesus to their classmates. They were an essential part of the process.
“So, no, the Christian children didn’t escape poverty. They went in to confront and damn poverty! And to love and befriend its victims. Oh … I’ll tell you some incredible stories when we have the time!
“Over time, the government had to sell empty schools to the churches. Too many people had left to keep all the old schools open! Eventually, the government couldn’t defend maintaining schools for only the well to do. In fact, many unbelievers sent their children to church schools, where they were met by a building full of missionaries! And so eventually the government had to get out of the school business altogether!
“The unbelievers started their own schools, but they didn’t last. Nearly everywhere, parents saw the good the Christian schools were doing and they refused to send their schools to the old-fashioned, faithless schools. They knew the schools without Jesus would be just like the failed public schools.
“You can imagine how society changed in just two generations! Well, actually, you may not be able to. Because something else happened. These kids all actually believed what their teachers taught them.
“When they graduated, they insisted on living simply. Smaller houses are more environmentally friendly. Living in communities where resources are shared is better than living in neighborhoods with strangers. They completely rebuilt the urban landscape.
“Each of the new communities is literally built around a church building, which serves as the focal point of the community. Most people walk to church. They have shared playgrounds. When they want to entertain, their houses are too small, so they entertain at church. And the churches have spaces available for sharing and for community living.
“When neighbors act badly, the elders talk to them to remind them of their faith. Unbelievers are invited into these communities as well, and find the shared love and community irresistible.
“The schools are connected to the churches, too, of course, so there’s no ‘car pooling.’ (Now, that’s a funny sounding word we learned from the historian!) The children walk to school with their friends in the neighborhood.
“A lot of our work is handled by computer and video screens, and so children grow up with both parents at home most of the time.
“Very little energy is consumed in our smaller homes, and very few commodities are wasted on gigantic houses filled with rooms that are only occasionally used.
“Now, this was great for the environment. And it eliminated much of the traffic.
“We learned to help each other parent and support each other as husbands and wives. And by not relocating as our earnings increased, we keep our same neighbors for decades. We even have three or four or even five generations living in the same neighborhood! My grandparents live two houses down from me!
“When they need a little help and I’m tied up, any of my neighbors are glad to help out. I mean, my grandparents helped them all with their children. And several were counseled on their marriages by them. We’re really all family!
“But the biggest impact was financial. Our members have huge amounts of excess cash because they live modestly. I mean, their homes are nice. No one has taken a vow of poverty. But we enjoy living beneath our means because that lets us give more to the church. And we can see how the Kingdom is changing the world.
“The schools were just the beginning. So much more has happened …”
At this point I found myself scratching my neck. A kindly man in the back said, “That’s just your implants healing. I’ve been there myself. Give it 30 minutes and the circuitry will be just fine.”
He must’ve have noticed the shock on my face, because before I could say anything, he said, “Oh, they must not have told you. You’re the (what did the historian say?) oh, yeah, the ‘Bionic Man.’ You lost a bunch of body parts in the freezing. But I bet you don’t even know how many! The doctor said I had to make you guess before telling you …”
The chairwoman interrupted. “Let me finish with this, and then you can tell him about his full-body transplant.”
She continued, while I stared at my hands and any other exposed flesh, wondering if she was teasing me. “The churches now have bigger budgets than the government! With crime and poverty and traffic reduced, people insisted on major tax reductions. Our teachers taught us well. Rather than spending our extra money on self-indulgence, we delight in giving it to good causes — missions, programs to help the three or four countries that still struggle in poverty, environmental clean up. (You all left us with some really bad messes.)
“Frankly, we became a nation of homebodies. I mean, why go out to eat alone when you can walk a block and enjoy a meal with beloved neighbors? We still travel, but we travel for recreation … we don’t commute. Most shops are close by. And the stores deliver to those who can’t walk — it’s cheaper to have one truck make several deliveries than to have many cars drive to one store. And it’s better on the environment.
“Travel is for missions, for meeting our partners in service projects and making plans — computers haven’t replaced the value of personal contact. We still do missions. China, India, and Africa are nearly totally Christian, but Europe and Latin America and Canada have been resistant. And it shows. Their economies are a mess and they continue to waste resources on police and public schools. But God is faithful. He’ll help us find a way.”
She paused, and I couldn’t find the words. I mean, it was just too much, too good. And so I just kind of mumbled something. “And it all started with the churches deciding to work together?”
She rolled her eyes. I don’t think she meant for me to notice it. I must have seen like a total backwoods bumpkin!
“Yes! I studied history, and I can’t tell you how surprised I was to learn that people — Christians! — used to think that the best thing they could do for the Kingdom was to compete and divide and fight! I mean, I can’t imagine how awful it must have been in your time. As we were talking to the historian yesterday, my heart just went out to you and your generation.
“When the churches in one town decided to actually be the church, to love each other, to stop competing, and to let God’s word set the agenda, well, it just didn’t take long. Oh, there were naysayers! People protested. No one remembers their names. These ideas had all been around for a long time. But it took the church — the power of the gospel and the Holy Spirit — to make it happen. You have to change people before you can change the world.”
And then I woke up, with an email on the computer about another ad in the Daily Oklahoman where $12,000 was spent to loudly damn a brother in Christ. I really, really wanted to go back to sleep.
Now, I don’t know if that’s the right dream. Dreams are hard to remember at my age. I may have some of the details wrong. Maybe it’s nearly all wrong. It’s pretty fuzzy. But something about it seemed right, you know?
StarTrek theology–abandon God and do everthing man's way and you'll become the perfect 'evolved' human society of nothing but peace (so long as the aliens stay out of the picture). You and Gene Rodenbury must have a doctor in common.
Let's see…Jay describes a world in which the church (not a bunch of competing churches) is sold out for the kingdom of God and is therefore transforming society. Josh reads Jay's description and sees a world that has abandoned God in order to do everything man's way. Didn't the Bible say something about the lion and the lamb lying down together? From the time of Cain and Abel, doing things man's way has never achieved peace.
Very provocative post, Jay. I think in the last ten years there have been significant new impulses for unity in the churches, but I think most of us are so busy maintaining our own little kingdoms that it is hard to make significant progress. Maybe we need to find ways to make small steps of progress and let those little victories fuel our imaginations. As Bill Hybels likes to say, "The local church is the hope of the world."
Blessings,
Mark
I have no problem explaining what I meant, Mark, if you feel it necessary for me to do so. Therefore, I will. Jay's little journey down the rabbit trail starts with women elders and the notion that women make such better elders because they are more concerned with the poor and family oriented, etc. and that this is really what jump started the whole future utopia thing. Considering that "A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, vigilant, sober, of good behaviour," (1 Tim 3:2 ) I can't find any way for a woman to be an elder without being a lesbian, but since the Bible condemns homosexuality, a lesbian can't be considered "blameless" and "of good behavior" so women elders is clearly an abandonment of God and doing things man's way. In his drug induced stupor, Jay interpreted "there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus" (Gal 3:28) as meaning that a woman can be an elder. I would assume that when sober and off his meds, he would not do so, seeing as how that kind of argument could also allege that since there is "neither male nor female" in Christ, there is no such thing as fathers and mothers, but merely gender-neutral-parental-units (kind of like what the text-books says in California now). This is not good biblical exegesis! What is meant in Galatians 3:28 is that everyone is acceptable for salvation, that the gospel, the plan of salvation, is for everyone, and that male or female makes no difference nor does Jew or Greek make any difference for salvation. Yet, clearly, only a man can be a father and only a woman can be a mother, even in Christ! And clearly it is still true that only a man may be a husband and only a woman a wife! And it is also still true that "the head of the woman is the man;" (1 Cor 11:3) and "it is a shame for women to speak in the church" (1 Cor 14:35) and "if a woman have long hair, it is a glory to her" and "if a man have long hair, it is a shame unto him" (1 Cor 11:14,15) There is still a gender distinction in Christ, with regard to function, but not with regard to acceptability for salvation.
"Didn’t the Bible say something about the lion and the lamb lying down together?" I beleive that's in Isaiah 11:6 and Isaiah 65:25. There's also that old song that says "And the beast from wild shall be led by a little child, and I shall be changed from the creature that I am….oh yes! There is peace in the valley for me, someday. There will be peace, in the valley, for me, O Lord I pray! There'll be no sadness, nor sorrow, no trouble, I see–there will be peace, in the valley, for me….oh yes!" This seems to be connected to the doctrine of the new earth, for he says in Isaiah 65:17 "For, behold, I create new heavens and a new earth: and the former shall not be remembered, nor come into mind. But be ye glad and rejoice for ever in that which I create: for, behold, I create Jerusalem a rejoicing, and her people a joy." This same new earth, Peter speaks of as after the "dissolution of all things" in 2 Peter 3:12-13 "Looking for and hasting unto the coming of the day of God, wherein the heavens being on fire shall be dissolved, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat? Nevertheless we, according to his promise, look for new heavens and a new earth, wherein dwelleth righteousness." If you've read any of N.T. Wright's stuff on the "New Perspective on Paul" you know that he sets forth the idea that we can make the new earth happen here and now by fighting for political change etc. and this is what he thinks the gospel is primarily about. He is wrong, as are the New Agers. Someone named Eckhart Tolle has a book out now called A New Earth: Awakening to Your Life's Purpose which I have not read but have seen discussed on at least one blog, and which from an article I can see teaches that there is no heaven or hell but that heaven is merely a state of consciousness and if we can all think happy thoughts we will be in that state of consciousness and thus bring about the new earth without the conflagration that the Bible promises and without Jesus returning to take his saints into the air, etc. This is the stuff that medically induced dreams are made of, but the Bible says "ye have the poor always with you" and "evil men and seducers shall wax worse and worse, deceiving, and being deceived." I beleive the Bible. I don't know about you. Choose ye this day.
Pingback: Colorado Senior Living Communities and Retirement Homes » Blog Archive » The Future of the Progressive Churches of Christ: A Drug-Induced Dream
You've said crazy stuff before, Josh, but I've never read you just tell us a bold-faced lie.
Where, pray tell, does NT Wright teach that "we can make the new earth happen here and now…?"
He definitely teaches that we can "hasten the coming of the day of the Lord." We can participate (koinonia) in the work of our Lord. But a Christian like you ought to have facts to back up their claim that NT Wright teaches that "we can make the new earth happen."
Deepak Chopra has a new book out about Jesus. Should we throw away all Jesus-talk too?
Jay,
I like everything about the dream except the part about women being elders. I just don't feel right about dismissing the scriptural passages on gender roles. Maybe I am the old fogey.
Aside from that, I think you described a beautiful picture. I suspect Satan will always be working against that kind of unity, and he will probably always have some degree of success, until he is finally taken out of the way.
Jay,
Your vision sounds remarkably like the parts of the 1st century church nobody in the C of C wants to talk about emulating. For instance Acts 4:32-35. Are you a Commie?
Keep up the visions, brother!
Chris C
A new version of the slippery slope. You start out as Jay Guin on drugs. Then you morph into N. T. Wright saying something that N. T. Wright doesn't really say. The next thing you know, you are Eckhart Tolle. (Jay, could you hook us up with some emoticons? I need one rolling its eyes right here.) The bad news is that you are going to hell. The good news is that in the meantime, you are rich because Oprah has gone off the deep end and started hawking your stuff.
Josh,
There is an interesting little triad of distinctions in Galatians three. You have Jew/Greek, slave/free, male/female. On the first two, we recognize that in addition to salvation there is a social dimension concerning life in the church. With the male/female distinction, we want to say, "Oh, no. That just has to do with salvation." Paul tells them that they all have become one in Christ. Therefore, all of them, including the females, are sons of God and heirs according to the promise. The standing that was once reserved for free Jewish males is now conferred on all who are in Christ.
I think there is a legitimate discussion to be had about women serving as elders, and I don't believe it is legitimate to dismiss Galatians 3:28ff from the discussion.
Mark
Deborah is a judge.
Huldah is a prophet to whom the King himself goes to seek God's will.
Junia is an apostle.
Priscilla teaches evangelists.
There is no gender-neutral singular human pronoun in Greek or English, and the he/she ugliness in language had not yet been spawned.
1 Tim 3:11 suggests quite a keen understanding of the situation – how could a woman in 1st century society be expected to have "led" her household like a husband would have? So the standards are the same (in the same manner) but shifted to appreciate the differences in experience that a woman would have brought to the table.
Nick,
This probably isn't the place for an in-depth study on gender roles. But when Paul spoke on the subject, he also gave his reasons. Those reasons include things like the order of creation; the fact that woman was created for man, and not the reverse; the fact that Eve sinned first and then tempted Adam to sin. Those things have not ceased to be true. If they were sufficient reasons when Paul wrote them, they are still sufficient.
The examples you cited (Debora, Huldah, Junia–perhaps female, perhaps not, and Priscilla) don't prove anything about the woman's role in the church. At most, someone might infer something from those examples. But such an inference cannot overrule a clear command (actually, quite a few of them… and gender-neutral pronouns are not the issue in any of those passages). The clearer teachings should govern our inferences.
Jay,
I also thought that your comments about women elders were a little odd. The passage from Genesis about it not being good for a man to be alone would have to be stretched in incredible ways to imply that it calls for women to be elders of churches. The passage was about marriage rather than church leadership. I think that you took it out of context and missed the intent of the passage entirely.
Alan,
"…the fact that Eve sinned first and then tempted Adam to sin…"
I appreciate your positions and arguments on the subject of gender roles in the church. I personally am no expert, and at this point, I am still studying and not willing to take a position on the issue. However, the first sin argument really gets under my skin.
We men, have long disregarded our responsibility in the "fall". If you read Gen 3:6 closely you will find that the last phrase of the verse says "…She also gave some to her husband, who was with her, and he ate it." (NIV) You see, Adam was right there with Eve the entire time and made no effort to stop her from violating God's command. That makes the first sin really Adam's failure to lead– "to be the head of the woman" as Paul writes. Therefore, the first sin argument for setting gender roles is just not valid.
Quite a few, eh?
"If ANYONE desires the office of elder…" 1 Tim 3
1 Tim 2:8-15
8 So this is what I want: the men should pray in every place, lifting up holy hands, with no anger or disputing. 9 In the same way the women, too, should clothe themselves in an appropriate manner, modestly and sensibly. They should not go in for elaborate hair-styles, or gold, or pearls, or expensive clothes; 10 instead, as is appropriate for women who profess to be godly, they should adorn themselves with good works. 11 They must be allowed to study undisturbed, in full submission to God. 12 I’m not saying that women should teach men, or try to dictate to them; they should be left undisturbed. 13 Adam was created first, you see, and then Eve; 14 and Adam was not deceived, but the woman was deceived, and fell into trespass. 15 She will, however, be kept safe through the process of childbirth, if she continues in faith, love and holiness with prudence.
And your "clearer teachings" in 1 Cor 14 come three chapters AFTER Paul defends the right of a woman to prophesy in the assembly, so long as her head is covered.
So much for "clearer teachings."
Ric has a strong point. Also, Paul seems to be making the point that Eve was DECEIVED because she was not taught properly, while Adam, who had the perfect revelation from God about the fruit, was NOT DECEIVED. He rebelled! How do we twist this clear point (Adam rebelled, Eve was tricked) into a support of continued male-only leadership?
Paul is saying that he doesn't allow the women to take over the show like the priestesses in Diana's temple in Ephesus run the show, because Adam was made first.
But women must be allowed to learn in peace and freedom, because they were tricked into trespass.
That is the message of 1 Tim 2:8-15; it is contextual and fits the tenor of Paul's teaching in other places, with the admitted exception of the passage in 1 Cor 14 (which must be reconciled with 1 Cor 11 before it can be clearly understood and applied).
Jay, while you and I might not agree on every jot and tittle of your dream, I think the most incredible thing I find in it is the time frame. All this in just a hundred years? Historically, we have never moved FORWARD at this kind of velocity. But, hey, someone has to believe. I really like your take on schools and divesting property. But in my view, there will have to be some kind of cataclysm to change the modern church's trajectory onto the path you envision. Currently, we — in America at least — are not even pointed in that general direction.
Ric,
Your argument is with Paul, not with me. (1 Tim 2:14) I can understand why someone wouldn't like what Paul said. But he said it, and he did so under inspiration of the Holy Spirit.
Nick,
Paul clearly spoke of Eve's sin in that passage (as also God himself did in Gen 3:16) Eve was responsible and held accountable for her decision. Paul tells us that woman's subordinate role in the church is one consequence of Eve's sin.
Everyone,
I'm not at all eager to debate this topic here. I do wish people on the other side of the issue understood what it is like to hold a conviction like mine. While this is the first discussion I've been a part of on the topic here, I've been in so many elsewhere that I'm weary of the debate. I think this is an area where we need to be considerate of each other's views for the sake of unity, rather than trying to win an argument.
Re women elders, see
/books-by-jay-guin/buried-t…
and
/index-under-construction/h…
I guess I'd just assumed that everyone had read all of last year's posts.
And so, give me a few weeks, and I'll start a series on the role of women. April is going to be on gay Christians, sacraments, and baptism in light of modern physics.
Josh,
Are you opposed to Star Trek? Surely not. Personally, I'm a big DS9 fan.
The original series had a pro-Christian episode where they discovered a parallel culture where a persecuted people worshiped the "Son," but Kirk and Spock thought they were "sun" worshipers until they later realized they worshiped the Son of God.
But do I get my theology from ST? No. If I did, the Prime Directive would prohibit the sending of missionaries.
Chris,
Nope. I'm no commie. Nor a pinko. I'm a card-carrying capitalist. I just don't think a capitalistic economic system justifies a selfish lifestyle. (I know you're kidding.)
Christianity imposed by government is despotism. Christianity practiced out of celebration of Jesus is freedom.
Mark
Emoticons are available 🙂
See the latest post. Thanks for getting me to look this up.
Alan says "I suspect Satan will always be working against that kind of unity," which is quite true. And one of the ways that Satan works against unity is by convincing us that the only way to obtain it is to go against Scripture, such as convincing us that we can't obtain unity without women as elders.
Nick emphasizes “If ANYONE desires the office of elder…” from 1 Timothy 3. Yes, anyone may desire the office, but read the whole sentence. "If anyone desires the office of overseer he desires an excellent work: THEREFORE an overseer must be blameless, the husband of one wife, vigilant, sober, of good behaviour," etc. etc. The point Paul is making is not that everyone who desires the office out to be put in the office, but rather that because the work is so noble or excellent only a noble or excellent man ought to exercise that office. IF we are going to disregard the qualification that says "must be the husband of one wife" and allow women to be elders, we might as well also disregard the qualification that says "not a novice," that way the lament of the prophet will be wholly fulfilled "As for my people, children are their oppressors, and women rule over them. O my people, they which lead thee cause thee to err, and destroy the way of thy paths." (Isaiah 3:12)
As to the sin of Adam and Eve and why women can't speak in the church, I see two possible explanations for why Adam sinned:
(1) Eve was deceived but Adam was whipped by his wife. That is, he ate the fruit simply because she told him to, and he cowered down and said "yes dear."
(2) Eve was deceived but Adam was love-sick. That is, although Eve believed the lie that she would not die for eating the fruit, Adam immediately recognized that in eating the fruit Eve would die. And in good Romeo fashion, he ate the fruit too, in order to die with her. That is, his sin was in loving his wife more than God.
Either of those explanations of Adam's sin explains why women are not allowed BY GOD to speak in the church. Men in their natural state worship women. Paganism has always had women gods. You can't convince me that men are just in the business of holding women down. In their natural state, men want women running things, or want to allow women to run things if it will make the women happy enough to give them what they want from them. Carnal men have no problem with letting women run the show (although they may pretend to in order to look cool to their buddies). Read Acts 19 and all the trouble Paul got into when his preaching against idolatry in general was recognized as condemning the worship of the carnal menfolk's favorite female deity and how they kept chanting for hours "Great is Diana of the Ephesians."
Now, since men in their natural and carnal state worship women, and God saith "I am the LORD: that is my name: and my glory will I not give to another, neither my praise to graven images," therefore God must takes measures against this idolatry. We can see the idolatry that men have towards women in the medical-dream, for it is stated in the medicinal-haze that when women are running the show everything is perfect. What could be more or better proof that men worship women than the notion that if reject the Scriptural teaching on the matter and make women elders, the whole world will be magically fixed? Thus, in order to curb out natural idolatry for women, God forbade them from speaking in the church, lest we begin to be carried about by every wind of doctrine because (as the teenagers say) "she's hot," and here the phrase would be referring to the preacher or the elder. Do you recall the old hymn that says "I dare not trust the SWEETEST FRAME but wholly lean on JESUS' NAME–On Christ the solid rock I stand, all other ground is sinking sand, all other ground is sinking sand"?? What does the song-writer mean "sweetest frame"? Men have a tendency to so trust sweet frames and God would curb that idolatry by allowing male only leadership of the church.
And Nick, concerning N.T. Wright's statement that we can realize the new earth here and now, he did say that very thing. When the title of John Piper's book "The Future of Justification: A Response to N.T. Wright" was announced, I became curious as to what he was going to be responding to, so I went and downloaded a whole slew of lectures by N.T. Wright in mp3 format, burned them to a CD and listened to them in my car. I also read a bunch of articles by him. It could be in any one of these. Maybe I will go back through and see which one and give you exact quote if I get bored or something, but I don't consider it a top priority. In several of the lectures I listened to he states that Paul was very much into undermining Caesar (Although not by revolution) and says that although Paul basically told Christians to "stay below the radar screen" by paying taxes and being good citizens, yet he believes that if Paul were around today he would change his tune and have us become political activists. He then bragged about how that the Anglican Church is unlike churches in America and has an established relationship with the state and therefore can effect political change, and this he believes is one of the most important aspects of the gospel and he relates it to "realized eschatology" and the notion that we can make the world into a perfect utopia essentially by getting heavily involved in politics. As I'm thinking this was in one of the audio lectures, I can't just search for the text real quick. I can give you this link to this article which contains the statement "Wright is often criticized for an over-realized eschatology which leaves no place for a future parousia" where parousia obviously means the second coming. When I listened to what he was saying on this point I got the feeling that he saw the elements melting with a fervent heat as symbolic rather than literal, much like preterism but yet very different from preterism in that he wasn't saying it already happened but that we can make it happen by getting involved in the government. Anyway, there is no need to call me a "liar" just because you haven't read the article I read or heard the lecture I heard. I hear what I heard.
"Are you opposed to Star Trek?" To watching it? No. To basing theology on it? Yes.
Wright does not teach a realized eschatology. He does teach that Christians should work toward a greater realization of the Kingdom on earth. One of his favorite texts is the Lord's Prayer, "thy will be done on earth as it is in heaven." If we should pray for it, we should also work for it.
He further teaches, and I'm convinced that he's right, that God's will is what's best for humanity. The more we do his will, the better this world will be.
Charles,
History tends to move in spurts. Consider the incredible things that have happened in the last 50 years. Imagine how changed things would look to a Polish man frozen in 1958 — or a South Korean or a Rwandan.
Even in the relatively stable US, just the moral changes are staggering. If we can go from the morality of the 50s to today's morality in 50 years, we can go back just as fast.
Of course, the 50's aren't where we should be either. We just need an equally radical change in a different direction.
Terry,
I understand your concerns. I probably shouldn't have gotten into the gender thing. I blame the oxycodone. 😉
But men have been running the church for 2,000 years, and we're not doing that well with it. In this country, we're losing ground. And so I have trouble imagining radical change from the same brand of leadership. It just made sense to my drugged mind.
Of course, it seems absurd to those who've not been down the trail with me. I'll lay my case out nice and plain in a month or so. It's been a few years since I got into the study in a serious way. It's time to update my notes anyway.
In the meantime — those of you who disagree with me (which is an entirely respectable position), prove me wrong by showing that men can reach out to meaningfully cooperate with "sister" congregations.
"Wright does not teach a realized eschatology." He literally used the phrase "realized eschatology" in the lecture I heard, as paraphrased something that Paul said as "you need more realized eschatology in your life."
"In the meantime — those of you who disagree with me (which is an entirely respectable position), prove me wrong by showing that men can reach out to meaningfully cooperate with 'sister' congregations."
If anything, Jay, the problem is that there are a lot of weak men as elders who are being bossed around into unscriptual practices by their unfaithful wives, because they don't meet the qualifications and yet they were ordained as elders anyway. Replacing those men as elders with their wives won't change anything, since they're just doing what their wives want anyhow, unless it will change things to be worse since the wives would then be unrestrained in totum. What we need is strong men who will follow Scripture even when their wives don't like it, or better yet, strong men who are totally dedicated to Scripture AND who have wives who are totally dedicated to Scripture.
Okay, boys, keep your wives away from the computer, lest they see this last post from Josh.
Mark
Jay,
There need to be more men like you in churches. That's all I've got to say. 🙂
Oh, Summer, now Josh is going to think you're my hen-pecking wife! 🙂
NT Wright teaches INAUGURATED eschatology, not REALIZED eschatology. They are closely related, but different at the key point of where we are now.
NT Wright never said, "we can make the new heavens and new earth happen here and now." He teaches that we are to be about our Father's work, but we cannot MAKE IT HAPPEN. That lays in the power of God alone.
Josh, what do you believe Peter means when he says we can HASTEN the appearing of the Lord? You seem to be teaching that nothing we do will have any effect at all on God's timeline.
Alan – Paul says, "Adam was not deceived." Which is the greater sin? Being tricked or rebelling open-eyed? The fact that you and Josh can't imagine bold-faced rebellion as Adam's motive is really odd when Paul clearly says that Adam knew exactly what he was doing. Adam WAS NOT deceived in any way.
How can you plead for special treatment because of your deeply-held convictions and in the same statement suggest that those who disagree with you are merely trying to win an argument? That is really low.
At Reformation21.org, you can use the keywords Wright eschatology realized and find the whole article from which the following quote is borrowed. I hope that it helps clear the air.
"He [Wright] describes his view of the future as 'inaugurated eschatology.' What does he mean by that? It is clear that Bishop Wright is not a futurist, where he sees no present power and reality of the intrusion of the Kingdom of God in this world. We live on the other side of the cross, of the resurrection, and of Pentecost, where the power of the Kingdom has been set loose with manifold force.
"Nor do we find Bishop Wright embracing the kind of realized eschatology that was set forth by C. H. Dodd and others in the 20th century. Rather, his view of eschatology is closer to that of Herman Ridderbos and to Oscar Culmann, who saw the Christian pilgrimage of the present day to be worked out in what was called the “already” and the “not yet.” There is indeed the presence of the Kingdom in our midst, which indicates the “already,” and there has been a tremendous victory over the powers of evil already, yet the final battle has not yet been fought. We remember Culmann’s famous analogy of his “already” and “not yet” schema, which was the analogy of D-day in World War II. On D-day, the war was not over, but it spelled the turning point for the certain victory of the allies.
"I think that Wright goes beyond that with his inaugurated eschatology. What has happened on the cross, in the resurrection, and in Pentecost is more than D-day. It is more powerful than D-day was and leaves us with an even greater certainty than D-day did to a troubled world during the great war. And what it does for us, as we look to the past and then look to the future promise of the complete triumph of God over evil, is that it enables us now to have a real, present, and vital spirit of reconciliation and forgiveness to those whose evil has brought pain upon us."
Oops… I didn't even read the part where Josh says that he disagrees with the vast majority of written history.
If men wanted to be ruled by women,
AND if women want to rule as badly as Josh suggests,
THEN one would think recorded history would skew in that direction.
Amazing that in one series, Josh can say that men don't want to rule, and in another can complain about evil male rulers implementing female genital mutilation.
Truly you have a dizzying intellect.
"Josh, what do you believe Peter means when he says we can HASTEN the appearing of the Lord? You seem to be teaching that nothing we do will have any effect at all on God’s timeline."
First, let's ask a question of methodology: if we can make the appearing of the Lord occur sooner, how will we do it? By finishing up everything that can't be finished until after he returns? Obviously not! The warmongering Protestants (among whom many would class George W. Bush) think that we can make the Lord come sooner by jumpstarting Armageddon in the middle east, and many suggest this is where American foreign policy is heading. That attempt at hastening the day of the Lord actually seems like it could work better than a utopia, since all end-times prophecy points to this earth getting WORSE before the Lord returns, not better. However, I think both methods do wrongly go about things. The way to hasten the day of the Lord is by prayer. Now, I do not mean that we should not try to make the world a better place. But I do mean that we will not establish a utopia, and especially not by disregarding Scripture.
"Alan – Paul says, “Adam was not deceived.” Which is the greater sin? Being tricked or rebelling open-eyed? The fact that you and Josh can’t imagine bold-faced rebellion as Adam’s motive is really odd when Paul clearly says that Adam knew exactly what he was doing. Adam WAS NOT deceived in any way."
I never said Adam was deceived. Being hen-pecked is not being deceived. Nor is playing Romeo being deceived. In either case, he knew what he was doing. But Paul's argument, you will note, is NOT that Eve's sin was worse but that she caused Adam's sin by her deception. That is how "the woman being deceived was in the transgression." Adam had never rebelled against God before, as you will note. Nor does it seem he would he ever have rebelled against God, had Eve not been deceived. This is why Paul places the blame on her "the woman being deceived was in the transgression." We would retort to the chosen vessel and apostle of Christ "but Adam's part in the matter was worse, since it was rebellion!" But Paul would retort on our lowly unlearned non-apostolic brains that Adam would not have sinned had Eve not been deceived, and therefore, her sin was greater in scope although not in offensity. Adam rebelled because he loved his wife more than God, but if his wife had not been deceived he would not have been placed in the position where there was a temptation to rebel. If his wife had been perfectly faithful to God but not being deceived, then he would not have chosen parts with his wife against God. This is why Paul says women may not teach in the church. Because when the woman, being deceived, teaches false doctrine, men who know better will put up with it and go along with it, will rebel against God, not wanting to offend her. But when a man teaches false doctrine, men will react against it with the needed response. In any case, if my understanding of the issue is not palatable to you, God's ways are higher than our ways and his thoughts as much higher than ours as heaven is higher than earth, so whether we understand the reasons or not, he says through Scripture that it is a shame for women to speak in the church, and by the apostle adds "If any man think himself to be a prophet, or spiritual, let him acknowledge that the things that I write unto you are the commandments of the Lord." Therefore, even if we can't comprehend what God's reasons are, we should accept his teaching because he is God and we are not.
How can you plead for special treatment because of your deeply-held convictions and in the same statement suggest that those who disagree with you are merely trying to win an argument? That is really low.
I don't know how that last paragraph ( "How can you plead for special treatment….") got in there, but that was something pasted from someone else and not my words
Josh writes, "Adam rebelled because he loved his wife more than God."
BCV, please?
“Josh writes, ‘Adam rebelled because he loved his wife more than God.’ BCV, please?”
Nick, Nick, Nick. Paul says in 1 Timothy 2:12-14 explains that women may not teach in the church because Eve was deceived and Adam wasn’t. But you want to accuse Paul of being a liar of stupid. Yet you dare ask me for book chapter and verse on this thing? Nick, if Adam was just a puredy ole rebel, why didn’t he eat the fruit long before? Why waited he until after his wife had been deceived by the devil and had already eaten? She gave the fruit to him to eat after she ate, and it is obvious that he only ate it because of her. His rebellion was in loving her more than God, whether it was in being hen-pecked and doing what she said or in a desire to die with her. This is one of those hated things you hate so much called necessary inference without which a man, such as yourself, will without fail accuse the apostles of being liars, because the man does not understand God’s logic.
Pingback: Buried Talents: That’s All I Have to Say About That « One In Jesus.info