Last month the President of Bob Jones University publicly apologized for his school's racism. The President spoke on behalf of all of American Christianity and the problems that Christians, particularly in the south, had with slavery and racism. There are some who feel that any discussion of American Christianity's sins regarding race should never be discussed, much less used as a teaching tool for the present. I am of a different opinion, however, and so it seems is the President of Bob Jones. A discussion of our past sins is important for the integrity of our future. Bob Jones was absolutely correct in offering a public apology. However, though I commend the President for his apology, there was an interesting statement he made about the reason his university was racist:
(L)ike any human institution, we have failures as well. For almost two centuries American Christianity, including BJU in its early stages, was characterized by the segregationist ethos of American culture. Consequently, for far too long, we allowed institutional policies regarding race to be shaped more directly by that ethos (i.e. American culture) than by the principles and precepts of the Scriptures.
Did you catch that? American Christianity's view on "race," including two centuries of southern slavery, was because American Christianity followed culture rather than Scripture.
Sigh.
Christians in America, particulary conservative Baptists in the South during the 19th Century followed their interpretations of Scripture regarding slavery. Southern Christians, including Southern Baptists, promoted slavery because of their interpretation of Scripture, not the "ethos" of culture.
Let me illustrate. One of the passages that addresses slavery is found in Genesis.
"Cursed be Canaan! The lowest of slaves will he be to his brothers. He also said, 'Blessed be the Lord, the God of Shem! May Canaan be the slave of Shem.'" (Genesis 9:25-27).
Baptists, Presbyterians and other southern evangelicals in the 19th Century took passages like the above and taught that the Bible not only condoned slavery, but advocated it as a proper and just institution. For example:
"The right of holding slaves is clearly established in the Holy Scriptures, both by precept and example." Rev. Richard Furman, D.D., a Southern Baptist pastor from South Carolina.
"[Slavery] was established by decree of Almighty God...it is sanctioned in the Bible, in both Testaments, from Genesis to Revelation...it has existed in all ages, has been found among the people of the highest civilization, and in nations of the highest proficiency in the arts." Jefferson Davis. (Dunbar, Rowland, "Jefferson Davis" Vol. 1, page 286).
Now, fast forward a couple of centuries and we have conservative, evangelical Christian Bob Jones University apologizing for their racism - but the fault lies with the "ethos" of culture, not their faulty interpretations of Scripture.
A Modern Application
Some modern evangelicals, including we Southern Baptists, would do well to remember history. There is nothing wrong with interpreting the Bible and coming to conclusions about what you believe. In fact, every Christian should study the Word and hold fast to that which we believe the Bible teaches, always being willing to elucidate for others our beliefs when asked.
But other than the diety of Christ, salvation by God's grace through faith in Christ, and the foundational Christian doctrines it would be wise for all of us to have a little humility about our "interpretations" of God's Word.
Any Christian who acts mean-spirited toward those who disagree, or tries to bully other Christians to believe a certain way through intimidation, would do well to remember Christian history and the number of times we have wrongly interpreting the infallible Word of God. Advocates of closed/open communion, or a particlar ecclesiology, or those who are pro/con women in ministry, or promoters of cessationism or continuationism, etc . . . should always LISTEN to others, COOPERATE with those evangelicals who disagree, and REALIZE that one day we may end up apologizing for our previous understanding of what the Bible teaches.
If you don't see yourself as possibly being wrong in your interpretations, you are precisely the kind of Southern Baptist that would have kept slaves and justified it by claiming God's "infallible, inerrant" Word condones it - without ever questioning that your interpretation could be wrong.
A little humility and a great deal of love should characterize all of us Christians when it comes to our interpreting the infallible Word of God.
And when we discover a mistake, we ought not blame it on "culture."
In His Grace,
Wade
213 comments:
«Oldest ‹Older 201 – 213 of 213Kevin,
Thanks for demonstrating your humility as a servant of the Body. :o)
So you are saying that humans have authority over others in the church. How does that work? With a title is it automatically conferred? Apostalic succession? Jim Jones had a title conferred by men. He was even ordained!
I can understand why you did not want to answer the last question seriously. Here was your original statement:
"But to place a female pastor in spiritual authority over men is just contrary to Scripture, to the design of the home, and a slap in the face to the design of the Godhead, the Christ, and His relationship to His Church."
I was asking you about the 'slap in the face to the design of the Godhead, the Christ and His relationship with the church'.
You are implying that men and woman parallel this relationship and I am asking you how. Who represents whom in this parallel?
A. Are the men, God, and the women, Christ?
B. Or, are the men, Christ, and the women, the church?
Which one is it? A or B?
Lin,
Please forgive me for wanting to skirt the question at this point, but that is exactly what I will attempt to do. I will however say two things. 1. the sentence of mine in question could have been worded better, but I do think you got the point. No hidden meaning should be taken from my poor wording. 2. YOUR option letter "B" sounds to me like something Paul said in his letter to the believers in Ephesus in the 5th chapter...oh say around the 22-33.......pay close attention to the profundity of verse 32.
Peace!
K
Lin,
I will also add that I have "spiritual" authority over no one. But as a servant of the body and a sevant of the Christ, I will endeavor to be a tool of the Spirit and "preach the Word..."
I also clean toilets and replace baptistry heater elements and shovelsnow. :)
K
"2. YOUR option letter "B" sounds to me like something Paul said in his letter to the believers in Ephesus in the 5th chapter...oh say around the 22-33.......pay close attention to the profundity of verse 32."
It never fails. They ALWAYS ignore verse 21. :o)
(Maybe because they just don't like it)
BTW: I think a man who cleans toilets is sexy. (wink)
Lin,
I am not a masterful Greek scholar, but I know enough to do some very basic exegetical work. So here is Kevin's semi-literal translation of 21-22.
...submitting to one another in the fear of Christ: wives to your husbands as to the Lord.
The Greek does not have the second "submit" but is implied through the continuing thought of verse 21. Paul might be beginning a new paragraph in verse 22, but he is doing so only as his first supporting paragraph to his thesis which is verse 21. His second supporting paragraph begins in verse 25, then 6:1, and finally 6:5.
So we have, backing up to 5:1:
Be imitators of God...look carefully how you walk...giving thanks always to God for EVERYTHING! and while your are doing all of that, Submit to one another in the fear of Christ. And here is how it is done:
1. Wives submit to your hubands...
2. Husbands love your wives...
3. Children, obey your parents...
4. And by the way my brothers and sisters, submit to your employers, your teachers, and all those whom God has given authority over you. the Lord our God is in heaven and he makes no distinction between the Master and the Servant. So Masters, treat your people with the respect and dignity they deserve because God make you all. Do His will from your hearts.
There you have it Lin. My humble attempt to deliver to you what I think Paul is really trying to say here.
Btw, anyone who posts a YOOTOOB video of Bryan Chappell in their blog is AOK with me! Dr. Chappell is one of my heroes.
k
that is Byan Chapell
one too many P's :)
I appreciate this post.
One thing to add, we need to be really careful in accepting the theologies and commentaries of the 16th and 17th centuries devotionally. We need to read them - but critically.
We do not know Calvin, Luther, Zwingli or some of the others, and therefore we cannot assume that they are not bringing their presuppositions and personal interests to their works. With regards to Calvin, I have heard many Baptists say that they accept TULIP without accepting Calvin's view on Church-state issues, infant Baptism ,etc. I think that it is wise to consider that these positions are interelated with Calvin's theology, rather than each doctrine existing independently.
What were Calvin's motivations, etc.? We may never know. But, these are questions well worth asking.
Tim
Anonymous said,
The times they are a-changin' and the call of women to the ministry by God is alive and well.
Sorry Anonymous (Missionary in Another Country)
God and God’s Word never changes to suite Culture. God The Creator is the Same Today, Yesterday, and Tomorrow. I’ am Sure Brother Wade Will Agree with this Statement. What Say Yea Brother Wade?
THE ATTRIBUTES OF GOD
THE IMMUTABILITY OF GOD
This is one of the Divine perfections which is not sufficiently pondered. It is one of the excellencies of the Creator which distinguishes Him from all His creatures. God is perpetually the same: subject to no change in His being, attributes, or determinations. Therefore God is compared to a rock (Deu. 32:4, etc.) which remains immovable, when the entire ocean surrounding it is
continually in a fluctuating state; even so, though all creatures are subject to change, God is immutable. Because God has no beginning and no ending, He can
know no change. He is everlastingly "the Father of lights, with whom is no variableness, neither shadow of turning" (James 1:17).
Im·mu·ta·ble
im·mu·ta·ble [i mytəb’l]
adj
unchanging or unchangeable: not changing or not able to be changed
[15th century. From Latin immutabilis , literally “unchanging,” from mutare “to change.”]
Wayne
Kevin, a few things:
Does verse 21 apply to all believers in the body?
Are husbands in the body with believing wives exempt from verse 21?
How can husbands love their wives in the way Paul teaches without submitting to them?
Have you considered that you may like your interpretation best because you get to be a 'master'. (In authority over others in your vernacular)
However, in my view the interpretation is that we all are to mutually submit to one another. This follows along with all the other 'one anothers' in scripture. Husbands and wives should practice 1 Corin 13, too. Right? Or is that only for wives, too?
Lin,
Verse 21 does not come with a mandate that EVERYONE should submit to EVERONE ELSE. That to me would be imposing something on the text that simply is not there. This is evidenced by the fact that Paul goes on to explain how this submitting should be done. But understand that this Greek Word hypotassomenoi is not a standalone command. It is a passive participle.
"and while you are doing all of that, Submit to one another in the fear of Christ." (KLT)
[Please do not tell Brent I quoted myself again]
Also this "submitting" is a voluntary submitting. (to place one's self under).
Lin,
Most people have a problem with the word "submit" and "authority" because too many men have abused this power throughout history. Women today cannot see the value in "supporting their husbands. Too many men have issues truly "loving" their wives.
The whole issue is not about power. It is about obedience to the Lord. Sure 1Cor.13 applies to all as well. Love is one of those attributes of the heart which guide our pattern of thought. But with that sphere also comes other duties and responsibilities which some say would render love void. Yet God who is love, practices his wrath and judgment within the sphere of His love so too should we do all things in love. Tough love is very real and should not be dismissed.
I would like to know how you define "submit?"
Because I did not have in mind handcuffs, rope, a blindfold, or even a raised voice.
Also, (ADD kicking in) According to your theory, the church should submit to the Christ, as the Christ submits to the church. Yet Christ never once gave up His authority over the church.
*off to clean toilets*
Think about that while you respond. ;)
"Verse 21 does not come with a mandate that EVERYONE should submit to EVERONE ELSE.'
I agree that it is not a mandate.It is something we do because we have the Holy Spirit. All of it is a voluntary submission out of love
But to try and imply that verse 21 does not apply to husbands, pastors, elders in the Body is a very bad interpretation. But we do see it a lot. Many also teach there are 'offices' so what do we expect. Funny how those teaching that have what they think is an 'office'. Hmm.
" That to me would be imposing something on the text that simply is not there. This is evidenced by the fact that Paul goes on to explain how this submitting should be done. But understand that this Greek Word hypotassomenoi is not a standalone command. It is a passive participle."
There is a lot of scholarshp on that word you might want to research. I am finding that many seminaries are quite limited in what they teach for specific reasons.
"and while you are doing all of that, Submit to one another in the fear of Christ." (KLT)
[Please do not tell Brent I quoted myself again]
Also this "submitting" is a voluntary submitting. (to place one's self under)."
I totally agree with that.
"ost people have a problem with the word "submit" and "authority" because too many men have abused this power throughout history. Women today cannot see the value in "supporting their husbands. Too many men have issues truly "loving" their wives."
This is a one sided view. Men should support their wives, too. To follow Pauls teaching in that passage men would have to submit. There would be no other way. It is a mututal submission that is for all believers, one to another, and then for husbands and wives which Paul gives examples.
You guys are the ones who are making it a primary doctrine of salvation and ignoring the mutuality that verse includes elders, pastors, husbands and wives.
":e whole issue is not about power. It is about obedience to the Lord. Sure 1Cor.13 applies to all as well. Love is one of those attributes of the heart which guide our pattern of thought."
Unfortuantly, it is taught as a power stance in too many venues. It is used as a club by too many. Including your hero, Mohler.
"ut with that sphere also comes other duties and responsibilities which some say would render love void. Yet God who is love, practices his wrath and judgment within the sphere of His love so too should we do all things in love. Tough love is very real and should not be dismissed."
Too many confuse power with responsibility. Leadership and being a servant.
"I would like to know how you define "submit?"
As mutual in the Body. :o)
"Because I did not have in mind handcuffs, rope, a blindfold, or even a raised voice."
No, but I bet you have ROLES in mind.
"Also, (ADD kicking in) According to your theory, the church should submit to the Christ, as the Christ submits to the church. Yet Christ never once gave up His authority over the church."
Not at all. The Kephale/ Head metaphor is about unity in this passage. We are one in the Body of Christ. Christ and God are one. Completely united. WE are to be one in marriage. Being ONE we submit to one another. WE put others above ourseleves. When everyone is doing that, it is beautiful.
*off to clean toilets*
Think about that while you respond. ;)
I am proud of you. And I mean that with all my heart, friend.
I believe that God doesn't pre-arrange that some men will be evil: He leaves that decision up to mankind.
Post a Comment