It has been my distinct pleasure to discover the writings of Suzanne McCarthy of Vancouver, Canada. Suzanne has commented on this blog, which led me to her own blog to read several articles she has written. Out of the many that I found quite interesting, the following is a repost from Thursday, July 9th's blog, written the day before the 500th anniversary of John Calvin's birth. This post typifies the abilities of Suzanne to cause readers with a high view of the sacred text to pause before being dogmatic with particular - and often cultural - interpretations of the Word. Suzanne writes:(Beginning of Post)_______________
Twice recently, I have heard an interpretation of 1 Tim. 5:8. Here it is.
εἰ δέ τις τῶν ἰδίων
καὶ μάλιστα οἰκείων οὐ προνοεῖ,
τὴν πίστιν ἤρνηται καὶ ἔστιν ἀπίστου χείρων.
(Translation)If anyone does not provide for his relatives,
and especially for his immediate family,
he has denied the faith and is worse than an unbeliever.
Three masculine pronouns give the average English reader the notion that this verse is addressed to men. However, in the Greek there are no masculine pronouns, and only one masculine plural ending. Not an indication of a male only subject.
But I have listened to two sermons lately where the preacher just assumed that the original Greek was addressed to men.
First, Mark Driscoll says that this is the perfect memory verse for men. And here is what he said in his sermon on 1 Tim. 5:1-16 at minutes 36-38 . . .
If you men don’t take care of your family you are worse than a pagan. … We don’t have any member in the church who is married and is a mother who works outside of the home.
And in another sermon, a more egalitarian preacher said that, although this verse was originally addressed to men, women can provide also. Both of these seminary educated men, who believe they have the credentials to interpret the scripture for their congregation, have misunderstood the Greek.
So, what did Calvin write about this verse?
Erasmus has translated it “If any woman do not provide for her own,” making it apply exclusively to females. But I prefer to view it as a general statement; for it is customary with Paul, even when he is treating of some particular subject, to deduce arguments from general principles, and, on the other hand, to draw from particular statements a universal doctrine. And certainly it will have greater weight, if it apply both to men and to women.
________________________________ (End of Post)
As Colonel Klink on Hogan's Heroes used to say, "Interesting . . . very interesting!"
:)
In His Grace,
Wade Burleson
214 comments:
1 – 200 of 214 Newer› Newest»Suzanne's Bookshelf > Calvin and the intrusive pronoun.
Above Calvin's Commentary.
Look at v. 8
For anyone with special needs children, Suzanne does some really fine writing concerning them.
I highly recommend:
Sunday, July 06, 2008
The Dignity of Choice
It can be found on 'Suzanne's Bookshelf' and it wonderfully written. Love, L's
It has always puzzled me .. the notion of women being asked to stay at home, while the husband goes outside for work.
In the olden days, before medicine was advanced, and men were (and still are) stupid and went off to fight wars and kill each other, mostly for land, privilege, honor ... it was mostly the women who were providing for their families, when the men were killing themselves.
Now fast forward to modern SBC era ... women are still being asked to stay home, have LOTS of children, be completely dependent on their husbands. All without any job skills. Now what happens when these husbands die prematurely or they run off with younger women. Yes, it does happen to Christian Men. Sanford ring a bell? Of course in his case, it was not a younger woman, but you get the idea.
". Now what happens when these husbands die prematurely or they run off with younger women. "
Or get laid off from SBTS with 3 kids, no health care and a mortgage. When you cannot trust your Christian employer and go along with the teaching on wives being home, then what is the Body all about?
Touche, Lydia.
:)
I would like to make it clear that when either of the spouses decides to stay at home and take care of children, that is ok with my thinking. What I question is the blanket statements or dictats of Pastors or Seminary Professors preachng/teaching and insisting that women stay at home ... It might be ideal in their eyes, but it is not practical for lot of people. In the long run it is detrimental to lot of families. I feel strongly that these decisions need to made in the family level without coercion/manipulation from outside.
Gives us something to think about. Thanks Wade.
Thy Peace,
Amen.
Well said.
Dear THY PEACE,
Sometimes coercion comes from within the family, with very sad results:
My sister-in-law has a younger sister. We will call her 'Sherry'.
About thirty-five years ago,
Sherry married while just seventeen. Her husband was from a wealthy family that raised horses and were extremely conservative people. Sherry's husband worked in the family business and Sherry was expected to stay at home on the family's luxurious compound, and not seek employment. They had a son together and Sherry's life was supposed to be 'complete'.
But she wanted to be a nurse. She had always had this dream since her childhood: to be a nurse.
Sherry borrowed money from her father to study nursing, against the wishes of her in-laws.
They did not accept Sherry's decision. They put a lot of pressure on her husband to get her to conform to their wishes, and this led to a divorce, something neither Sherry NOR her husband had really wanted to happen.
Sherry became a surgical nurse. She did not remarry.
Her husband never remarried.
They did not reconcile.
Just popping in to mention that I'm a big fan of Suzanne's writings too. Excellent stuff!
I am no greek expert, (actually not even good enough to be a novice)
A genuine question for you who are good are good at greek:
can the word "provide" be translated "care" or "care for"?
thanks
wtreat
Wade, Lydia, believer333,
I'm back from vacation and responded if you are interested.
Wade--A Sincere Question For My Inerrantist Friends
Lydia/Believer333--An Exhaustive Study on the Meaning of "Head"
Pastor Wade, a small correction. I think Suzanne is Suzanne and not Susan. Unless that is ok with Suzanne.
Another resounding cry that the common Christian does not have a bible in their hand they can read and believe what it says.
Next Blog Title...
Why the Bible is not for everybody to interpret but only for certain scholars to interpret
or
Toss out your bible and listen to me
You get a peek of it in this blog...
Both of these seminary educated men, who believe they have the credentials to interpret the scripture for their congregation, have misunderstood the Greek.
For every non greek scholar you will have to trust someone and according to Wade, not every greek trained pastor is worthy to be listened too.
hmmmm
What's next, Jesus did not teach us to pray to the Father, the greek there has been mistranslated and it is really some sort of genderless idea we ought to focus on, not a Father. is it possible, maybe, Jesus isn't a Son.
Sticking up for the non greek scholars who have been led to read their bible and understand the masculine focus of scripture as the Holy Spirit has led them for the past 2000 + years. I don't want to tell them they don't need the Holy Spirit, they need to listen to the select few scholars.
Wade, How do you know they assumed? There are many how there who know all of what you wrote, but still see the text differently.
Wade, There are many other words with m. endings in that verse.
(anyone)tis---masc.
(the) ton---article. masc.
(own)idion---masc. This is an adjective.
households---masc. adjective
I could on. It is difficult to discuss all aspects of Greek. I am not an expert, but to me it is clear from context and other usages that the verse is clearly
addressed to men.
Related to this post is this:
Suzanne's Bookshelf > Software and the intrusive pronoun.
I have had this happen a few times. When discussing a passage like 1 Tim. 3 :1, (also 1 Tim. 5:8)
Here is a trustworthy saying: If anyone sets his heart on being an overseer, he desires a noble task.
Πιστὸς ὁ λόγος: εἴ τις ἐπισκοπῆς ὀρέγεται, καλοῦ ἔργου ἐπιθυμεῖ.
someone will say that it is clearly referring to a man because it says "he." I have asked if they think "anyone" is masculine only, and immediately they assure me that they have, in fact, checked the Greek and yes τις is masculine.
Try it - go to Greekbible.com and choose 1 Tim. 3:1 and click on τις - there it is, masculine. However, in the lexicons, τις is masculine and feminine, it is of common gender.
I daresay that a lot more men refer to software than to lexicons. I wonder what the leading retail software says about τις. I can just see a bunch of guys sitting there saying that since they designed the software, they could chose to make τις mean whatever they wanted it to mean. I think this is pretty shabby.
I am impressed that there are no cultural biases in this post. It amazes me that there are only a few places where we can find such pure translations for our benefit.
Now I can tell my wife to get out of the house and find a job and provide for me. I've been waiting for this day. I'll send her name to a few pulpit committees. do you have any churches in your area looking for a solid biblical preaching woman in your area, send me an email. They would love my wife.
Thanks Wade and Suzanne.
Jon, you need to chill :) Remember, Our Rock is Our Lord Jesus Christ. To me, all this discussion is similar to astronomy. When we gaze at the night skies, and when we see details with our eyes or with instruments, a whole new tapestry awaits. This is mainly to open our eyes to things we gloss over.
-------------------------------------
Some more posts on intrusive pronouns:
Suzanne's Bookshelf > The Intrusive Pronoun 2: the spirit itself.
I am not claiming to be a theologian. I would simply like to discuss some of the changes from bibles of the Reformation to today, and ask how these changes came about. In the introduction to my last series, I noted that the early English bibles have a neuter pronoun in John 1:3, which would normally be appropriate to refer to an inanimate object, the "word.".
Suzanne's Bookshelf > The Intrusive Pronoun: An Index.
When I first wrote about the intrusive "his" and "him" in the prologue to John's gospel, I had intended this passage to be one of three places where we see the masculine singular pronoun intrude into the English text with little or no justification. Since this first case still warrants some discussion, I will index these posts with a view to adding the other two passages later.
My apologies Thy Peace, I forgot disagreement and creative ways to express that is not welcome by some.
I'll refrain from posting again on this blog entry so everyone else can show up and pat each other on the back and tell each other how great they are that they agree with each other.
You keep looking at the stars (plural) and I'll keep my focus on the One, Bright and Morning Star.
Lexicons are not without bias so we cannot
appeal to them with absolute certianity
Jon,
sarcasm is... unfortunate. We can disagree and not resort to condescension.
But I have a question, if it were Sam, not Suzanne, who posted, would your reaction be different? Would it be less viseral?
And as far as your wife working, is that your choice only? Or does she have a say in it?
Thanks, Wade, I am glad you have discovered Suzanne, as many of us have apprecaited her scholorship for quite a while.
And we ate at Old Florida Seafood the other day and I thought of you and the frog's legs.
now with spell check! Sorry about that!
Jon,
sarcasm is... unfortunate. We can disagree and not resort to condescension.
But I have a question, if it were Sam, not Suzanne, who posted, would your reaction be different? Would it be less visceral?
And as far as your wife working, is that your choice only? Or does she have a say in it?
Thanks, Wade, I am glad you have discovered Suzanne, as many of us have appreciated her scholarship for quite a while.
And we ate at Old Florida Seafood the other day and I thought of you and the frog's legs.
This verse is a great example of the mis-interpretation trifecta: cherry picking, poor translation, and context ignorance. The poor translation has clearly been revealed. I have also often heard sermons where the pastor cherry picks this verse out to make some point to men. Which leads us to the grossest error of all - ignoring the context.
This passage is dealing with the care of widows. More to the point, it has nothing to do with the care of wife and children. In other words, the "immediate family" being spoken of is not a man's wife and children but a family unit's parents and siblings. The problem was that families had been dumping their less fortunate relatives onto the church creating a financial and social burden for the congregation. Paul reprimands this behavior and makes it clear that families should take care of their own. The "care" involved includes clothing, feeding, and housing these relatives which involves the contributions of both husband and wife. In fact, the whole idea of vs. 8 is reiterated, and the whole section on widows concluded, in vs. 16:
"If any man or woman that believeth have widows, let them relieve them, and let not the church be charged; that it may relieve them that are widows indeed."
Jon:
You said:
"Another resounding cry that the common Christian does not have a bible in their hand they can read and believe what it says.
Next Blog Title...
Why the Bible is not for everybody to interpret but only for certain scholars to interpret
or
Toss out your bible and listen to me
You get a peek of it in this blog...
Both of these seminary educated men, who believe they have the credentials to interpret the scripture for their congregation, have misunderstood the Greek.
For every non greek scholar you will have to trust someone and according to Wade, not every greek trained pastor is worthy to be listened too.
hmmmm
What's next, Jesus did not teach us to pray to the Father, the greek there has been mistranslated and it is really some sort of genderless idea we ought to focus on, not a Father. is it possible, maybe, Jesus isn't a Son.
Sticking up for the non greek scholars who have been led to read their bible and understand the masculine focus of scripture as the Holy Spirit has led them for the past 2000 + years. I don't want to tell them they don't need the Holy Spirit, they need to listen to the select few scholars."
Are you serious in what you have said above? If you are you come off as mighty condescending.
Tom,
I will not comment further on the context of this blog entry but if you would like to seek answers to your question, feel free to email me.
jonestes@gmail.com
Jon:
You said: "I'll refrain from posting again on this blog entry so everyone else can show up and pat each other on the back and tell each other how great they are that they agree with each other."
It is not so much your disagreement but the way that you disagreed. But that is just my opinion.
Ok, Jon. You answered Tom but not me.... and we said similar things, except of course I had a few more questions.... hmmm
Jon, you are free to comment here. From my experience, it is very unsettling when one's frame of reference is shaken or shifts. So one might get defensive or question the messengers. But in the end, it is only a shifting of a frame of reference and we are all better off, because of that.
I find it interesting here that Calvin gets it right, mainly because he is a generalizer. That is, he is like the science hypothesizers who build concepts from details to general ideas. And his experience with Paul's reasonings helped him here. Very interesting. Now I do not know, why or how Erasmus deemed it fully in the feminine gender.
I do not know if Suzanne is still available. She has mentioned that she might be away for the next couple of weeks. Possibly on a vacation.
Kate,
Feel free to email me.
And just for giggles - a brief look at tic.
Matthew 16:24 - Then Jesus said to His disciples, "If anyone tic wishes to come after Me, he must deny himself, and take up his cross and follow Me."
Although the pronoun tic is gramatically masculine in gender, it does not ever mean "any male"; it means "any human" and is gender neutral in application. Incidentally, anthropos, the Greek word for human being, is also gramatically masculine in gender. Someone like to argue that all humans are males?
I have reviewed all of the 85 occurances of tic. Almost all refer to all humans, all Christians, or all something else without regard to gender. Only in a few instances can it rightly be translated as "any male", "any brother", "any husband", etc. In all of those cases, the gender of the group is clarified by other words in the surrounding text.
Incidentally, 1 Timothy 5:4 - right before our controversial verse - translates as "any widow" - clearly a female reference. Of course, again, the gender specificity comes from additional qualifying words (in this case, chera - "widow"). Note here that tic is still masculine - it can't be anything else - even though the group is feminine.
The point is clear - unless there are additional qualifying words which identify the group in question as being either males or females, tic means "anyone" or the like and is gender neutral, despite the masculine gender of the pronoun. Since vs. 8 has no such qualifying words, it applies to men and women alike. This is not cultural bias, it is plain Greek.
What is really interesting is that the KJV translators get this right, even though they insert words into the translation that aren't in the Greek. Very often, the KJV translators render tic as "any man", suggesting masculinity even though males are not the only ones in view. But they don't do that in vs. 8. And to somehow make the point, the insert "man and woman" into vs. 16 even though it isn't in the text. It is as if they wanted to make crystal clear that the requirement for providing for widows and other less fortunate family members falls on husband and wife equally. At any rate, clearly the KJV translators did not believe that vs. 8 was addressed only to husbands/fathers.
Wade, Lydia, believer333,
I'm back from vacation and responded if you are interested.
Wade--A Sincere Question For My Inerrantist Friends
Lydia/Believer333--An Exhaustive Study on the Meaning of "Head"
Mon Jul 20, 03:27:00 AM 2009
Benji, Welcome back. I am not real sure what you mean above. Did you respond on another thread? Suzanne has done quite a bit of study of Kephale and it's use in Greek.
We do know it does not mean authority over.
Jon, It seems this has rocked your world a bit and you believe we are saying one cannot trust scripture.
But that is certainly not true at all. What would have become of me and my mother if we had thought this verse meant that men only should provide for their families. My dad got sick when I was 11 and died when I was 14. Had my mother not been college educated and independent, we would have been in even bigger trouble.
I am not sure what you think the alternative is for the verse for those who are laid off or even crippled. I have a friend who fell off his roof at the age of 30 and was crippled for life. His wife was a stay at home mom with few skills. She had to go get a job and even go back to college while working so she could eventually earn a decent living for them.
What does your translation say to that man? He is worthless because he cannot provide for his family?
"What's next, Jesus did not teach us to pray to the Father, the greek there has been mistranslated and it is really some sort of genderless idea we ought to focus on, not a Father. is it possible, maybe, Jesus isn't a Son."
There are other passages when Jesus references praying to Him. Just fyi.
Anyway, These disinctions in scripture seem silly until your little daughter asks you if all those verses with 'he' or 'brother' in them apply to her, too.
Also, what about the Greek masculine in that you quote above verse? Would it mean that women are not included? And how can women be Christlike since He came as a male?
See where all this gender focus on spiritual matters lead us?
"Sticking up for the non greek scholars who have been led to read their bible and understand the masculine focus of scripture as the Holy Spirit has led them for the past 2000 + years. I don't want to tell them they don't need the Holy Spirit, they need to listen to the select few scholars."
Some of those scholars owned slaves or defended slavery. Some of them believed in the church/state and infant baptism. None of which we would teach today. Many of them also believed that Eve enticed Adam to eat and it is all her fault. So, what are we to make of that? Were they wrong? And how could they have been wrong on these things for so long?
It isn't that scripture has a masculine focus, and it isn't that the translators put a masculine bias in it. The problem is that today's culture is hyper sensitive to gender.
When my grandparents read the bible, and generations upon generations before them all the way back to 1611, they understood when "man" means "human" and they were much more comfortable with the gender neutrality of masculine pronouns used in a gender neutral context. The problem is with us - we are the ones either freaking about about masculine grammer or, conversely, putting too much stock in it.
None of that changes the Greek, though. vs. 8 is gender neutral regardless of how the English reads to any particular generation, culture, or individual reader. Moreover, the context is clearly NOT about what a husband does for his wife and kids (this idea that vs. 8 is about "husbandry" appears to be fairly new - I had never heard it growing up. It seems to be a knee jerk reaction in conservative circles to feminism and "Mr. Mom")
I am just thankful that we have the tools available now to dig into the Greek and literally "see with our own eyes" what Paul was saying. So, even with the cultural changes that fuel our biases, we are without excuse.
While the KJV may not have a heavy masculine bias, it certainly does have an authoritarian bias. Other translations have other biases as well. We even have to be careful of the dictionaries because of omissions or misleading entries at times.
There is strength in numbers...
Paula - LOL, of course! But I'm sure you see the irony in how they handled 1 Tim 8;16 compared to how most KJV lovers cherry pick and interpret vs. 8.
opps - that's 1 Tim 5:8,16
gengwall,
I don't remember ever reading a comment by you here or anywhere else on blogs I read. From what I'm hearing you say, that is an unfortunate thing indeed.
I wonder: has the Septuagint ever been used like a 'Rosetta Stone' to help with interpretation of translations?
I'm thinking here about the nuances that might have been lost over millenia:
a close look at the ancient Greek texts in the Septuagint, compared to their ancient Hebrew text sources (which can soundly be interpreted into English by Jewish scholars today). Surely someone has explored the possibilities ?
Has the Septuagint's Hebrew to Greek connection been fully examined for all the interpretive gold that it might yield to today's scholars?
There are two main focuses:
1. ME (a man - which mutates the principle of provision for the family into "male provider" resulting in gobblygook, which is "who does what")
2. THE NEEDS OF MY FAMILY
Far as I know, the LXX along with a variety of other pre-NT era translations has been consulted.
But what most people don't comment on much is the fact that there are no (or only fragments of) Hebrew ms. before then. We rely too much I think on the Masoretic text, made several hundred years AD.
Another issue is that in the early centuries AD the Jews made their own Greek ms. to compete with the LXX because the Christians were using it to prove Jesus as Messiah. So they fudged on any reference they could (yes, they would do to the written Word what they did to the physical Word).
And I rather doubt we can trust the Masoretes who came even later to correct such things. They would not be above perpetuating such deliberate errors.
The LXX we have isn't perfect, but it certainly is a major witness.
Thanks, PAULA
I do know that Jerome didn't trust the Greek Septuagint translations in his time, so he skipped the Greek and used the original Hebrew texts to translate the Scriptures from Hebrew directly into Latin.
Thanks again.
Love, L's
Do you have documentation for Jerome having access to the original Hebrew text, esp. before the vowel pointing?
BAG ( A Common Greek Lexicon) has under gone several revisions and not for the better. It's more liberal theology is now shows thru. So to appeal to any lexicon as an authority is not the best means to determine all aspects of a translation.
I am thankful for those scholars who do not have a feminist agenda.
I am thankful that the long tradition of a male-centric agenda is finally coming to an end, their sophistries exposed at last.
Hi PAULA,
I was doing some reading here:
"http://www.orthodoxstudybible.com/index.php/articles/who_decides/"
Thanks Christiane. I see there that Jerome used "an early version of the Masoretic text", which of course still post-dates the first century.
Glad to help you ANYTIME, PAULA.
I also came across this in the On-Line Encyclopedia under
'St. Jerome':
"Here he did most of his literary work and translated the Old Testament directly from the Hebrew, with the aid of Jewish scholars . He mentions a
rabbi from Lydda, a rabbi from
Tiberias, and above all rabbi
Ben Anina, who came to him by
night secretly for fear of the Jews . Jerome was not familiar enough with Hebrew to be able to dispense with such assistance, and he makes the synagogue responsible for the accuracy of his version:
" Let him who would challenge aught in this translation," he says, " ask the Jews."
The result of all this labour was the Latin translation of the Scriptures which, in spite of much opposition from the more conservative party in the church, afterwards became the
Vulgate or authorized version; but the Vulgate as we have it now is not exactly Jerome's Vulgate."
Those this is Wikipedia, here's an article on Jerome:
Jerome
There seems to be dispute over his knowledge of Hebrew:
He acquired a knowledge of Hebrew by studying with a Jew who converted to Christianity, and took the unusual position (for that time) that the Hebrew, and not the Septuagint, was the inspired text of the Old Testament. The traditional view is that he used this knowledge to translate what became known as the Vulgate, and his translation was slowly but eventually accepted in the Catholic Church.[27] The later resurgence of Hebrew studies within Christianity owes much to him. On the other hand, recent scholarship argues that Jerome knew barely a word of Hebrew, and that his "translation" was in fact based on the Greek of Origen's Hexapla.[28]
I think the article fairly paints him as a competent scholar, especially for his time, but balances it with reasonable concerns about his translation from Hebrew.
The 'tradition' tells that Jerome became very ill and experienced a 'conversion' of sorts steering him away from his love of classical literature and philosophy. Following this, he is supposed to have sought the help of rabbis to 'avoid' any Greek translations completely.
How 'true' the legends are ?
Sometimes 'corroborating evidence' shows up to support a 'theory', but to actually 'prove' truth is a different story. L's
Greek translation like this is pretty useless if one does not consider the social setting in which it was received. In the first century Mediterranean world there was a patron client system in place. The original recipients were under this and understood their culture and would not have comprehended it any differently.
Please check the comment stream in these posts, for the origins of this post in Pastor Wade's blog ...
Kristen said...
Suzanne McCarthy said...
You will have to read down the comment stream (down the page) from these links.
Lydia said ...
...
But that is certainly not true at all. What would have become of me and my mother if we had thought this verse meant that men only should provide for their families. My dad got sick when I was 11 and died when I was 14. Had my mother not been college educated and independent, we would have been in even bigger trouble.
I am not sure what you think the alternative is for the verse for those who are laid off or even crippled. I have a friend who fell off his roof at the age of 30 and was crippled for life. His wife was a stay at home mom with few skills. She had to go get a job and even go back to college while working so she could eventually earn a decent living for them.
What does your translation say to that man? He is worthless because he cannot provide for his family?.
God bless you, Lydia. The more I read of your writings, the more I am convinced of the need for correct and rightful interpretations of Scripture.
Not directly related to this post, but related ...
Suzanne's Bookshelf [Suzanne McCarthy] > Response to Grudem's Open Letter to Egalitarians.
Suzanne's Bookshelf [Suzanne McCarthy] > Index: CBMW, Grudem, kephale.
Women In Ministry [Cheryl Schatz] > Wayne Grudem’s “An Open Letter to Egalitarians” and “Six Questions”.
Women In Ministry [Cheryl Schatz] > Wayne Grudem - answering part 2 of his “Open letter to Egalitarians”.
Women In Ministry [Cheryl Schatz] > Wayne Grudem - answering part 3 of his “Open letter to Egalitarians”.
Women In Ministry [Cheryl Schatz] > Wayne Grudem - answering part 4 of his “Open letter to Egalitarians”.
Women In Ministry [Cheryl Schatz] > Wayne Grudem - answering part 5 of his “Open letter to Egalitarians”.
off topic...
http://www.politicsdaily.com/2009/07/20/jimmy-carter-leaves-church-over-treatment-of-women/?icid=main|main|dl1|link4|http%3A%2F%2Fwww.politicsdaily.com%2F2009%2F07%2F20%2Fjimmy-carter-leaves-church-over-treatment-of-women%2F
Jimmy Carter leaves his church...
Thy Link/Peace, help me out here?
Just a note.
Thanks.
My head was 'spinning' in the confusion of all these comments, my own included.
And then, from the 13th Century,
I read this:
"it very much
strengthens Holy Christianity
That the unlearned tongue,
aided by my Holy Spirit,
teaches the learned tongue."
-St. Mechthilde
Finding that was better than taking an aspirin. :) Love, L's
Former insider,
Thanks for the link to Carter. I am afraid I am not a big tent egal. I have very little in common with Carter because of his anti- semitism and support for terrorists.
I would never leave a church for the reasons he gives. I would leave one that strays from primary doctrine.
I agree, I'm no fan of Mr. "give away the Panama Canal" either. ;-) The man is a globalist and openly supports the capitulation of the US to "the world". Such people are also against slavery, so if we're not all to be lumped together with them on that account, then neither should it be done on account of egalitarianism.
Jimmy Carter Leaves Church Over Treatment of Women.
Suzanne's Bookshelf > Jimmy Carter on Women.
My take on President Jimmy Carter ...
He was not a good politician. His heart was not meant to be a politician. As far as peace, he sides more with peace at any cost than just peace.
But I honestly believe he is a man of conscience. He lives a simple life. He has done wonderful work with Habitat for Humanity. He has spoken and done much for human rights for the past 30 years.
I personally have not been happy with the past administration, especially their war on terror. They only ended up terrorizing the american people. Had no respect for the rule of law.
I am not happy with the current administration either. They are coddling the oligarchs. In this both republicans and democrats are the same. The common man is always short circuited.
I am so wary of politicians, people who seek power and wish to retain it on earth.
Did Carter leave the SBC?
Or did the SBC leave Carter and so many others, under the command of Pressler and Company?
Sorry for all these off topic comments. This will be my last one for this post :)
Baptist Standard > Jimmy Carter says he can 'no longer be associated' with the SBC [October 23, 2000].
Jimmy Carter protests religion's treatment of women.
Editor's note: Jimmy Carter officially departed the Southern Baptist church in 2000, but still stayed on at Maranatha Baptist in Plains, Georgia, teaching Sunday School. He held on to a Baptist affiliation through many conflicts, including the denomination's anti-gay positions. This week, he issued a position paper indicting all organized religions for their treatment of women.
Ethics Daily > Upcoming Oklahoma Gathering Models Baptist Inclusiveness.
High-profile speakers include former President Jimmy Carter, Democratic Gov. Brad Henry of Oklahoma and his wife, Kim Henry, and former Republican Congressman J.C. Watts.
...
Norman's SBC leaders include Wade Burleson, pastor of Emmanuel Baptist Church in Enid, Okla., and past president of the Baptist General Convention of Oklahoma, and Dwight McKissic, pastor of Cornerstone Baptist Church in Arlington, Texas, and past president of the fundamentalist-controlled Southern Baptists of Texas Pastors' Conference.
It looks like Pastor Wade has been under some criticism because of this.
Christiane,
Now you’ve really done it. I mean you’ve stopped preaching and gone to meddling. :)
Your question can be answered in the answer given why a certain man had changed his doctrine to join the SBC:
“I haven’t changed my doctrine; the SBC has come around to my way of thinking.”
For a trivia question; who can tell me the name of the man?
"OUR CIRCLE OF FRIENDS"
FOR THOSE WHO ALWAYS ATTACK OTHERS.
----------------------------
A lot has been said about the people we run with or hang around with or serve with on a revival or preach for. I turn to God’s Word for examples of what God’s friends and leaders have been.
(1) If a preacher can wearing a camel hair robe and eating grasshoppers, would we hear the message of Christ or attack him for his lifestyle? Would we attack all those who talked to him and being his “circle of friends?” He was the first Baptist.
(2) If a man came to town and ran around naked for 3 years (Isaiah 20) would we hear his message from God or would we attack and slander him and his “circle of friends?”
(3) If a man came praising God and testifying that he and his donkey had conversation and saw an angel of the Lord (Numbers 22) would we believe his witness or attack the messenger bringing the news of God’s Redemption? Would we attack his “circle of friends” who believed his witness of God?
(4) IF a man claiming to be from God came and laid on his side for 390 days and cooked his food with human waste, would we believe him or attack him? (Ezekiel chapter 4) Would we slander and attack his “circle of friends?”
(5) Jesus went to a party that had dozens of gallons of wine. We all know what happened….ATTACK!!!
(6) Peter told 3 lies, (denying Christ) and cut a man with a knife. How would we treat him and his eleven friends??
Where does the Inerrant Word of God say it is ever right to attack one who is preaching
Christ?
If this is Godly behaviour, how do I explain to a lost person the difference between Christians and non-Christians? May God have mercy on us all.
wtreat
Stop Baptist Predators [Christa Brown] > Jimmy Carter says religion can't justify injustice.
“The justification of discrimination against women and girls on grounds of religion or tradition, as if it were prescribed by a Higher Authority, is unacceptable.”
-- Jimmy Carter, former U.S. president and recipient of the Nobel peace prize.
Please do yourself a favor and buy this book. You will not regret it. Eye opener.
:)))))))))))
Hi REX RAY,
Well, I like to have a little fun sometimes.
Seriously, I actually bought Carter's book years ago:
"Our Endangered Values: America's Moral Crisis"
THY PEACE left us a good web-site with Carter's thoughts on it and I think he really felt betrayed by the Pressler Gang. He explains it rather well.
How are you these days?
I've got the nuns praying for Belle. Once the nuns are on board, you can be a little more peaceful. :) Much Love, L's
Rex Ray,
If I remeber correctly, the answer to your bit of trivia is, "Who is Jerry Falwell?"
I think I understand Jon's point, with regard to interpreting the Bible (although I don't agree that tradition is worth much as an interpretive tool). If we have to be Greek scholars to get it right, why bother, because most of us aren't? Although Jon is coming at this favoring a traditional view, it is also the case that fundamentalists like to get into the original languages to discuss their evidence for interpreting a particular passage as they do. Therefore, I don't think this is a "liberal" vs "conservative" issue but a common man (= gender neutral = human being) vs highly educated man issue.
My first take on it is that I can't think of any of the essentials of the faith about which I have heard it said that they had been mistranslated or that we were reading the wrong things into the translation. I would suggest that the essentials can be grasped by anyone using virtually any translation. However, on some other issues, it might be necessary to evaluate the text in the original language to really come as close as possible to understanding it.
Which brings us back to the question raised by Jon. Why would a regular Jane or Joe carefully study their English translation of the Bible if doing so will give them the wrong impression about some passages, and they don't even know which passages? Does anyone have any thoughts on that?
Stephen,
The regular Jane and Joe can access commentaries, Bible dictionaries, translators and lexicons, etc. very easily these days. A personal favorite is www.blb.org (even if the translation it first brings up is always KJV). www.crosswalk.com is full of usefull tools also. I know several members of my home church who have used these websites to do the research to create qaulity Sunday School lessons for their classes. They also make a wide use of the church library. I was using Bible study tools long before I was taking classes in a Bible college or seminary.
If the "layman" wants to carefully study the English text, then they should hopefully have the discernment to realize that nuances of meaning or cultural context are not always conveyed by the actual English translations. Those who want to carefully study, then, are probably already aware that these tools exist.
If they have trouble understanding how a certain tool is to be used, I don't know a single pastor who wouldn't be thrilled to have a parishoner come into their office and say, "I've been trying to really dig into the Bible lately and I feel that if I could use certain tools I could better understand what is going on in texts that trouble me. Rather than having you simply tell me, I want to be able to use these tools, my Bible, and the guidance of the Holy Spirit to lead me towards the truth. My Bible and the Holy Spirit I have, would you teach me how to use a _________?"
Hi,
I have time to make a couple of bried comments. First, tis is not masculine, and I am not sure why this keeps coming up. It is common gender. Sometimes the adjectives referring back to it are masculine, as adjectives have to be either masc. or fem.
Second, BDAG is an excellent lexicon. However many refer back to the Liddell Scott Jones as the standard. We do have adequate reference works.
I am aware of Liddell Scott Jones--who are the many. BAG has been revised twice and each time it continues to become more liberal with it work.
Again, Who considers Liddell as a standard?
Christiane,
I believe if Wade ever decided to take a ‘vacation’ from blogging, you could sub in for him, but some might label you a ‘liberal Baptists’. :)
Thanks for your prayers. A home health-care nurse and therapist have started their ‘program’. We will see doctors today and tomorrow.
Chris Ryan,
Bing-go; you said it!
The only contact I've had with Jerry Falwell was a phone call from his ‘staff’ who seemed amazed that I did not want to contribute $75 to help with the expense of him being on radio to tell the truth about Clinton.
I believe once God was going to kill him if the ‘right amount’ of money wasn’t given.
Hey! Wonder if that would work in solving present Baptist money problems?
Stephen,
You got it.
To add to the foray of thoughts, when one scholar gives one interpretation and another scholar gives a differing interpretation, who do you go with?
Biases will lead us to go with those who think more like us or say what we want to be said.
The non-scholar in the pew needs to find an unbiased source. Well we do have the bible and must ask, can we trust what it says over one man's interpretaion of what it says.
The passage at hand says,"man" and the person int he pew will see "man" and understand "man". I will also say, these people are smart enough to know that it is dealing with an indictment on those men who do not when they can, not those who can't because of illness, handicap, inability...
The people in the pew will also read Ephesians 5 and Titus 2 and see that women are to submit to their husbands but some scholar will say, for the past 2000 years this has been interpreted wrong by an egalitarian (and they won't know what this words means) bone head, now you must lay aside 2000 years of teaching and listen to me tell you the bible is wrong in what it says.
Thanks for reading beneath the cynicism and seeing the content.
Was the cultural bias of the first century considered at all when we read this passage? We can not completely ignore how the original readers would have understood this passage.
Everyone has their own interpretation, and all translations are flawed. Even the educated have to check more than one dictionary, more than one expert. The solution is not to cover our eyes and pick one at random, then never pick again. Instead, we must **all** keep consulting many sources and experts.
The person in the pew, first of all, shouldn't be there. Why are they kept as perpetual children or students, never growing up or graduating? Why are they spoon-fed? Why are their gifts and callings treated as inferior?
Secondly, they can and have seen the contradictions of the "plain reading" method, when they get past the indignation of a "pastor" who refuses to allow dissent against his particular interpretation. Example: Paul cannot forbid women to speak in assembly and then give instructions on when and how they can speak. Another: the "priesthood of all believers" cannot coexist with clergy/laity or male above female. A third I've given often: "not so among you" cannot be overridden by a few cherry-picked verses.
I see much "pot calling the kettle black" here, much double-standard, much bias. It is prideful to think one's own personal conviction must rule over all others, forbidding discussion or dissent, labeling others as "liberal" for seeing through the overly-simplistic and wildly inconsistent "plain reading" method.
The fact remains that without the original autographs, we can only do our best, and that's all God expects from us. And without acknowledging the context in which the words were written, we are only making up stories. There is a vast difference between doing our very best as a community of believers, and stopping at our favorite spot and refusing to ever move.
This is not a war between the educated and uneducated, but a case of one part of the Body telling another, "I have no need of you!" Never do the educated tell the uneducated they are unneeded, but as in this thread, we see the uneducated telling the educated they are not needed. That is the issue.
What I find interesting in this post is that Calvin came to the "correct" interpretation without using or parsing Greek.
I strongly feel that anyone with the guidance of The Holy Spirit can come to the same conclusion. Of course, if you come to a different conclusion, it does not mean you are not guided by The Holy Spirit. I can not say that.
How does The Holy Spirit work in a believer's heart? I have heard that one needs to deeply study The Word. A rational person who does not believe in The Spirit, will say it probably is your subconscious collating information in the background and presenting insights of The Word at times. Clearly there are lot of instances in The Word and in people's lives to indicate of the presence of The Holy Spirit to guide people in their lives. Some feel The Holy Spirit constantly and some occasionally.
-----------------------------------
VTMBottomLine [Paul Burleson] > Being Church With People Who Are Different.
Reality Check [Mary Burleson] > Grandson Logan.
Secondly, they can and have seen the contradictions of the "plain reading" method, when they get past the indignation of a "pastor" who refuses to allow dissent against his particular interpretation. Example: Paul cannot forbid women to speak in assembly and then give instructions on when and how they can speak. Another: the "priesthood of all believers" cannot coexist with clergy/laity or male above female. A third I've given often: "not so among you" cannot be overridden by a few cherry-picked verses.
God bless you, Paula. Logical consistency is a powerful tool.
I read a lot of blogs but have never seen anyone link as much stuff as thy peace. I agree much needs to be exposed but the linking is over the top. I thought this was wade's blog but obviously thy peace has the full backing to be linking like this. It is his blog but I just don't understand the annoying constant links that are off topic.
Guilty as charged.
Most of the above links are on topic though. There was already a discussion taking place of Jimmy Carter, before I was asked to link and added some more links. The links on Grudem questions are relevant though not directly to this post, but to interpretive errors.
The only links that would be in question then are the ones I posted today. I accept your criticism.
Thank you, ThyPeace.:-)
Aaron: If you a problem with how a blog is being run, wouldn't it be better to go to the blog owner first?
Thy Peace has complete freedom to post any and all links, at any time, and for any reason.
I usually find I learn a great deal from Thy Peace's posts.
If they are not helpful to you, just scroll down.
Wade
Was the cultural bias of the first century considered at all when we read this passage? We can not completely ignore how the original readers would have understood this passage.
I think the cultural bias is secondary to faithfully trusting God to keep His Word as He wants it to be beyond the originals and multiple translations.
God knew 2000 years after the writing who we would be and what we would be thinking. He put it together and is keeping it as He sees fit.
God is not the author of confusion and therefore it would be difficult for me to think God would allow His word to be put down wrong and remain that way for 2000 years.
it would be difficult for me to think God would allow His word to be put down wrong and remain that way for 2000 years
Rhetorical questions for readers in general:
And which of the translations, comparing all languages, is the right one, since they all differ? Is this God's doing or man's? Why did Jesus quote a translation, the Septuagint, instead of the original Hebrew? Why has God allowed so many false religions, so many Christian denominations?
An excellent point was made earlier: If we had the original autographs, we'd worship them as Muslims worship the Quran. We'd make people simply recite it in Greek without concern for understanding.
God allows and makes concessions to man's imperfections. He expects us to recognize our limitations and strive for the truth. What other purpose is there in telling people to "study to show yourself approved" if STUDY is not required? And why would this need for study be restricted to interpretation alone?
Human history is playing out for reasons known only to God, but it is naive to think that simply because we have translations in our language then it must be God's ideal.
Thanks Wade and Thy Peace.
I posted the off topic Jimmy Carter article due to the past threads regarding gender that most posters on here were participants.
But Paula, if the KJV was good enough for Paul then shouldn't it be good enough for us? ;)
I still maintain that the main flaw in the "husbandry" interpretation is an ignorance of context, not an ignorance of Greek. The people being "provided" for are not wife and children, they are widows in the Body who have families that can take care of them and who otherwise would be a burden on the Church. Once that is understood, it matters little whether or not the provider is a male. Verse 8, in context, can't be used at all to argue that the husband should be the provider for the family. The verse simply is not about that. To cherry pick it completely out of context for use to promote a cultural agenda makes someone...well..."worse than an unbeliever" (IMO)
gengwall,
I was referring to passages like Titus 2 in reference to husbandry or wifery.
Thanks Jon. I wasn't speaking directly to your comments, but more in a general response to the flow of the discussion.
Why would a regular Jane or Joe carefully study their English translation of the Bible if doing so will give them the wrong impression about some passages, and they don't even know which passages? Does anyone have any thoughts on that?
Tue Jul 21, 01:41:00 AM 2009
How come there are so many different opinions on escatology?
And if folks are carefully studying the bible then why do we have pews, one guy preaching every week and pulpits? We do not see that modeled as the official structure for church.
Look at how many folks actually think there are 'offices' in an 'institution' when the word office was added by the translators. Maybe they like it because it benefits them?
And when I read 'brothers' or 'he' or 'his' in many passages, as a non Greek scholar why should I think ANY of them apply to me, a female?
Jon,
You wrote, "God is not the author of confusion and therefore it would be difficult for me to think God would allow His word to be put down wrong and remain that way for 2000 years."
That is a rather tired (and weak, IMHO) argument. Taken to its logical conclusion, it means that there is no error or mistake, not only in any of the ancient manuscripts, but in any translation either. This has been used to justify mistakes in interpretation for a very long time. As I see it, the real issue is not as much what "mistakes" are in either the translations we use or the manuscripts we possess, as they are interpretative errors, which occur from the pulpits, in the pews, and from the hands of translators.
The King James Version (following other traditional English translations--Geneva, maybe others earlier) of 1 Timothy 3:11 reads, "Even so must their wives be grave, not slanderers, sober, faithful in all things." The Greek literally reads, not "wives," but "women." The subject had been introduced in verse 8, and referred to "deacons." But the "translators" all came out of the Church of England, and the Church of England had already decided (1) that deacons were an order of the priesthood rather than an ordained, lay position as even Baptists of that time understood the title, and (2) that deacons were male-only. Consequently, they interpreted the phrase according to their cultural bias--that it had to refer to the wives of deacons, not even entertaining the piossibility that "the women" might refer to women who were themselves deacons rather than the wives of deacons. Even though the Greek was clear and without conflicting witness, it took literally hundreds of years before expositors (and translators) began to see even the possibility that the verse might possibly refer to someone other than the wife of a deacon.
Now here I get into my personal opinion, and some will disagree with it. I shan't cite references, because this is opinion--as essay of sorts rather than a scholarly argument. As I see it, fundamentalism and historic Baptist distinctives are are odds one with another. Fundamentalism says there are two ways to understand the text: my way, and the wrong way. Fundamentalism elevates the text almost (not quite) to be a fourth person of the Trinity, and thus defies anyone to question its interpretation or transmission. Fundamentalism values the lack of education, and thus disparages any with more education (as I said elsewhere, not all Baptists who disagreed with higher education for preachers left and joined the Prinitive Baptist movement). (And please understand Jon that I am not accusing you of holding these tenants; at most, I would ask if parts have become an unspoken part of your cultural bias.) Now the historic Baptist distinctives of faith are soul competency, the priesthood of the believer, and freedom in religion (or right of conscience). One element of soul competency is that any believer is competent to understand enough of the Bible to come to a saving faith in Christ Jesus, and consequently, each individual is competent to stand before God and be judged for what he/she has done and believed. Fundamentalism is uncomfortable with soul competency and either eleminates it altogether, or broadens it to say that reading and interpreting are two different things, and that a "plain reading" of the Bible is the same as "rightly dividing" the Word. But this was never the historic Baptist understanding. It can lead tio elitism, but does not necessarily do so. There have been tools available for studying the Bible in depth for hundreds of years, especially in the past hundred; and as others have commented, there are even more now through the internet, easily accessable and essentially cost-free.
John
Also wanted to stop in and admit without shame that I am a Suzanne's Bookshelf fan from way back.
The gift makes room for the man, or woman, so the case may be.
Suzanne is gifted in languages in ways I can only dream about.
Lydia,
What I am saying, at least regarding the text in question, is that the English translation is just fine as long as the reader takes in the full context around the verse. This passage is not talking about husbands in relation to wives and children, so to use it as such betrays the context, not the Greek. Verse 8 in the English poses no problems when taken in context. In isolation, on the other hand, it can be manipulated. That is why no verse should be taken in isolation and any preaching that does so should be eyed with suspicion.
That isn't to say that English translation in general doesn't cause problems. Any translation is going to suffer from "telephone" syndrome (you know, like the telephone game).
As far as understanding "man", "men", and other masculine English words as applying to both men and women alike, as I stated before, I think that is a relatively new problem. My grandparents generation and before didn't have issues with the word "man" representing all humanity. They simply looked to the context of the passage to know if males were really in view or people were.
Does culture induce bias in our interpretation of scripture?
Of course. In the past the cultural bias was toward moms at home and we read scripture that way.
Pastor Wade's wife desires work outside the home and so we are treated to his biased interpretation supporting her supporting him.
Again, cultural bias.
Now, I don't really give a fig if families can own more stuff, or have more money for golf or other adult play, or if someone feels more fulfilled being outside the home rather than inside.
When it is just two adults, do whatever makes you happy.
But I spend my days trying to put back the pieces for small children who rightfully feel very abandoned as dad merrily pursues his calling and mom goes out to be fulfilled.
We can exchange anecdotes all day. Yes, some men are jerks and some women and children have trusted them and been hurt in the process.
But you know what? That traditional pattern worked just fine for most people for centuries.
And if both partners follow that ploughboy understanding of the Bible today, instead of wandering around finding a scholar to tell them what they want to hear, it still works today.
So gents, go right ahead and walk away from the understanding you are to be providers. After all, it is soooo stressful, right?
And ladies, go right on out and find yourself and be fulfilled. It is your right, isn't it?
But PUHLEEZE, no whining when the kiddoes put you in the geezer home and never come around. What goes around comes around.
And don't ask why when they turn to gangs, or drugs, or whatever form of self destruction they choose.
And don't make excuses when they do not get saved because they cannot conceive of God's love and grace.
After all, it was YOU that taught them they are of no value.
John,
Strong's would say gune is a woman; specially a wife...
Therefore I don't think dismissing the idea of wife from this passage is a proper way to handle the word.
In Titus 2, the picture of a wife is spelled out clearly. Older women are to teach younger women several things, one of which is to be obedient (KJV), subject (NAS), adapting and subordinating themselves (Amplified), most others use the term "subject, even the more gender friendly Today's NIV.
So here is the crutch of my position. A person in the pew looks at various translations, even looking at Strong's and the word used and the meaning behind it.
The person in the pew will walk away seeing the bible teaching that older women are to teach younger women to live a certain type of life, not just obedient to their husband but a homemaker.
I side with John McArthur on this, as I have been reading him lately on Titus for reference to the series I am preaching through.
Back to the passage bout men provide for the family...
The passage gives an indictment on men who won't, when they can, not those who can't when they would.
If a woman works outside the home that is between them their husband and God. From personal experience, there is a price that is paid by not having a mom at home.
"But PUHLEEZE, no whining when the kiddoes put you in the geezer home and never come around."
LOL - Ironically, that sentence is the only one in your post that has anything to do with this passage.
The reality is that God has never laid out "roles" for husbands and wives, at least that relate to the activities of daily living. The "Leave it to Beaver" model is just as fine with God as the "Mr. Mom" model or the egalitarian model exemplified in Proverbs 31. None of these are "THE" model for a family; they are all valid variations.
The problem we are confronted with in this post is the manipulation of scripture to try to dictate that one model is God's chosen model. Nothing is further from the truth and such a manipulation to promote one's cultural agenda is quite despicable.
"Strong's would say gune is a woman; specially a wife...
Therefore I don't think dismissing the idea of wife from this passage is a proper way to handle the word."
I don't follow you. Are you referring to the dismissal of with as provider or providee?
(Sorry - the was "dismissal of wife", not "dismissal of with".)
Or were you addressing the Titus passage?
The problem we are confronted with in this post is the manipulation of scripture to try to dictate that one model is God's chosen model. Nothing is further from the truth and such a manipulation to promote one's cultural agenda is quite despicable.
There you have it. No other line of thinking is worth wasting time reading. It is all manipulation to promote one's agenda and is quite despicable.
I wish you would have said that earlier, it could have saved so much wasted bandwidth and eye strain.
Do you have a web site or blog I can read each morning to make sure I have quality devotions?I don't want to be thinking or living in a despicable manner.
Are you married?
gengwall,
It doesn't matter what I meant, you have already said my line of thinking is quite despicable.
Where is the discussion to go from here?
I wonder whose wife the diakonon Phoebe was? (Rom. 16:1)
Jon,
I am married, and I'm quite sure you are being very sarcastic so I think I'm offended.
So, help me out here. What agenda am I promoting in trying to get people to focus on the context of this passage instead of the completely out of context usage that claims vs. 8 is addressed to husbands in realtion to their wives and children? Do you reject the notion that the passageas a whole is dealing with the care of widows?
BTW - you are free to read my blog every morning if it will brighten your day. It is linked via my name in my comments.
Linda:
You said--"Pastor Wade's wife desires work outside the home and so we are treated to his biased interpretation supporting her supporting him."
Please come on back and tell us you were just funin in your last post.
"It doesn't matter what I meant, you have already said my line of thinking is quite despicable."
No! Sorry if I have not been clear. I have not been addressing your comments directly. What I am saying is that to cherry pick a passage out of its context and try to use it to promote an agenda which has nothing to do with the verse opne has cherry picked is despicable. I don't think you are doing that at all. You are not in my sights at all - it is the people who Wade exposes that are the focus of the post and my comments.
Jon,
Unless you can show conclusively that gune always and only means "wife," I stand by my interpretation of the cultural bias in the traditional English rendering. Instead, it seems that the translation is dictated by the usage, and in the Timothy passage, the usage is unclear at best.
But please note: this was merely an example of what I see as cultural bias in translation. Cultural bias/interpretative errors are the main point, regardless of any one example. Do you still stand by, "therefore it would be difficult for me to think God would allow His word to be put down wrong and remain that way for 2000 years," or would you like to qualify that in some way?
John
John,
Can you conclusively show that gune means woman alone and never wife? I can't. Therefore, I must consider both meanings and see which one fits in all situations or best in all situations as we can comprehend what is being said. I'll take wife.
You might be surprised. I don't argue against women deacons, if deacons in the modern church were serving, not leading, as deacons in scripture teaches about.
Now there's a curve ball.
Jon and John - what passage are you talking about? Certainly not 1 Timothy 5. Are you on Titus? gune isn't even used in Titus 2:3-5. What did I miss, and what does it have to do with 1 Timothy 5:8?
Acts 5:14 says that multitudes of both andrwn and gunaikwn were saved. No single men or women, eh?
The Millenia Gap ???
How can we, in our 'modern' culture (I don't know about you, but I'm not impressed),
possibly interpret a translation of a translation of a translation ad infinitum (or so it seems)
into something meaningful that echoes with integrity from the writings of the apostles?
The more I read of the ancient Christians, the more I begin to understand that we are not so different from them.
Same Creator, you know.
Same make and model: homo sapiens.
Same arms reaching up for God.
"Perfect" was not something you could use to describe the Apostles, not when you think of Peter, as in 'denial'; and Judas, as in 'betrayal'.
(Ever denied and betrayed Your Lord, modern Christian?)
But of course we are not like the martyrs of old, so strong in their faith? Not so fast: think of the martyrdom of the blessed Lottie Moon, a modern saint of the Church, dead from starvation for the love of Christ's Chinese people, then say no more.)
What then is the problem in OUR culture? That we cannot 'know' from the translations ( our hopeful human-copied remnants of the original autographs, with little extra-added human glitches here and there?)
How can we know 'truth' when we read ? Particularly when we consider what we have 'developed' from the seeds of Scripture: doctrines like the Trinity and the Nature of Christ?'
I was reading the works of John Henry Newman, and found one possibility.
According to Newman, for the development of 'doctrine' to be in alignment with it's seeds in Scripture,
"it (a development in doctrinal thinking) must correspond to its rudiments;
it shows a continuity of principle;
it assimilates and absorbs;
it is a logical result of original teaching;
it can be seen in earlier anticipations;
it conserves orthodox teaching from the past;
and it shows energy and permanence.
In short, a faithful development is one which truly develops from what is in the biblical vision, and does not conflict with “the whole counsel of God.”
No wonder the brilliant 'thinker' John Hentry Newman believed
that in order to find truth,
you must seek it 'on your knees'.
When we are more enthralled with our 'theologies' than with Christ Himself, have we have taken our attention away from Christ the Lord, and become more self-aborbed in with our own thinking ?
Love, L's
I wonder whose wife the diakonon Phoebe was? (Rom. 16:1).
Suzanne's Bookshelf > Phoebe and the gender of deacon.
I have noticed that when a discussion of Phoebe comes up, the Greek word diakonos comes in for some interesting analysis. Some report firmly that this word is masculine, arguing that her office was the same as the other "deacons;" and some report that it is feminine, and Phoebe was only a servant. Sometimes the argument is organized in the reverse. I am not sure how, but almost every permutation turns up.
However, one thing I can assure you of, and that is that in software, the Greek word diakonos is technically tagged as feminine in Romans 16:1.
Jon,
Frankly. . . that sounds like the Jon whose comments I have grown to appreciate, even when I disagree with them.
As for myself: I think too many of "us" understand "authority" when we should read "service," and consequently, twist Scripture into some rather unnatural positions. Hmmm. . . is that a cultural bias? I don't know.
Gengwall: my reference was to 1 Timothy 3:11, as what I suspect is an example of cultural bias in traditional translations.
John
Thanks John. I was wondering what parallel universe I had wandered into.
ThyPeace, thanks for the link to Suzanne's blog.
But in case anyone didn't catch it, my point in the question is that there is no mention of Phoebe having a husband or children. And if we must assume such to be the case in spite of scripture's silence, then we must also assume that Paul was married and a father at one time as well. So here we have a woman clearly described as a "deacon" but in the absence of any mention of a husband.
"But you know what? That traditional pattern worked just fine for most people for centuries."
What traditional pattern? The 1950's? That era seems to be the litmus test but hardly a true indicator for women.
Poor women have been working for centuries whether in the fields or on the family farm, in sweat shops, sewing factories, piece work or the mom and pop merchantile.
Then you have the example of missionaries sending their kids to boarding school very young. Read about some of the famous missionaries and you will find they did not raise their own children. (I do not agree with this and thankfully, this is no longer the case)
Or the wealthy sending their children away to school. Such as Winston Churchill at age 6.
There are plenty of kids who grew up with stay at home all the time mom who got into drugs. You will find that in many wealthy suburbs. And there are plenty of kids raised by single moms who grow into responsible adults.
Can we stop with the cliches meant to to accuse working moms of neglect? One can be home al the time and neglect their kids.
John Fariss,
Your "opinion" portion of your post paralells what I have experienced as well. I've witnessed a lot of the "Fundamentalism says there are two ways to understand the text: my way, and the wrong way. Fundamentalism elevates the text..." and also that it "can lead to elitism".
You've expressed my experiences (opinion) very well. I'm just throwing in an "Amen".
(I too am not Jon Estes of holding these tenants.)
BTW Jon Estes, I too was able to read beneath the cynicism and see the content of your earlier post.)
: ))
I think those of us who are sarcastic in personality and wit seem to recognize it clearly.
Off Topic:
A developing story ...
NPR > Harvard Scholar's Arrest Stirs Race Debate.
Morning Edition, July 21, 2009 · A distinguished professor at Harvard University was arrested after police investigated claims that he was trying to break into a house. The professor is Henry Louis Gates Jr., and the house was his own. Gates, who is African-American, has written many books on race relations, hosted a public TV series and more. His race factors into the incident because of how it started — with a call to police about what "two black males" were doing.
Gates chastises officer after authorities agree to drop criminal charge.
Wow! Very sad.
Lydia,
"Did you respond on another thread?"
Yes, this one below:
[An Exhaustive Study on the Meaning of "Head"]
God Bless,
Benji
WOW is right Thy Peace.
Thanks for that info.
I cannot believe what has happened to him.
What a great documentary this will be!!
Sad, very, very sad.
From the Oremus Bible Browser:
"Romans 16:1-2
Personal Greetings16I commend to you our sister Phoebe, a deacon* of the church at Cenchreae, 2so that you may welcome her in the Lord as is fitting for the saints, and help her in whatever she may require from you, for she has been a benefactor of many and of myself as well."
Is 'Oremus' an acceptable translation for Southern Baptists?
?
Love, L's
"The person in the pew, first of all, shouldn't be there. Why are they kept as perpetual children or students, never growing up or graduating? Why are they spoon-fed? Why are their gifts and callings treated as inferior?"
Probably the comment of the day or at least part of it.
As a firm believer in the plain reading method, I will say that the Bible has something different to say to me every time I read it.
Could it be that my bias changes as a result of reading it? Could it be that some of the truths I learned the first reading changed the way that I understood it the second time I read it? 3rd time?
4th time? I think so.
But now lets talk about all those saved souls that couldn't read. Or the ones that were saved before the bible was all wrapped up in that piece of leather and divided into old and new. Does my skill in reading or lack thereof, my education or lack thereof in any way hold open or pry open the gate for me? I don't think so.
We know that there are different gifts, different callings, different genders. But at the end of the day, the Body isn't complete without the least learned or the most learned among us, all bound together in a bond of peace.
We can draw a line between the pulpit and the pew or between the two genders but at the end of the day, all that is division.
1 Cor 12:25 or Titus 3:10 anybody? Maybe Eph 4:11-16?
ezekiel,
I always admire your comments.
Thank you.
Those passages are the crux of Christianity, ezekiel. People tend to think of division as only disagreement over minor issues, but there are no greater divisions than those that are based on the race, class, or gender (Gal. 3:28), things that are intrinsic and not gift-based. It's high time we all got serious about rebuking those who create or sustain such major divisions.
Love your common sense wisdom Paula.
Tanx ezekiel and FFBCI! :-) Needless to say, I always enjoy your comments too.
""But now lets talk about all those saved souls that couldn't read. Or the ones that were saved before the bible was all wrapped up in that piece of leather and divided into old and new. Does my skill in reading or lack thereof, my education or lack thereof in any way hold open or pry open the gate for me? I don't think so."
In the same vein, I was thinking of folks in the Dark Ages who only had a handful of people who were allowed to read the scriptures and interpret for folks.
Off Topic:
Clearly this might not apply to most of us here, but might apply to missionaries and others who are working in volatile or repressive regime settings:
EFF > Surveillance Self-Defense International.
6 Ideas For Those Needing Defensive Technology to Protect Free Speech from Authoritarian Regimes and 4 Ways the Rest of Us Can Help
Introduction: The Internet remains one of the most powerful means ever created to give voice to repressed people around the world. Unfortunately, new technologies have also given authoritarian regimes new means to identify and retaliate against those who speak out despite censorship and surveillance. Below are six basic ideas for those attempting to speak without falling victim to authoritarian surveillance and censorship, and four ideas for the rest of us who want to help support them.
Dear EZEKIEL,
Not to worry for the early Christians. There is evidence of their understanding of the Gospel and of their deep faith.
Deep underneath the Basilica of St. Peter in Rome, lies a necropolis (a city of the dead).
When it was excavated, note was made of a curious sign, found around the tombs of Christians who died in the earliest Christian centuries:
The signs: ALPHA and OMEGA
but this time appearing
in reverse:
OMEGA then ALPHA
We know that in this way,
the early Christians gave witness to their hope for eternal life
in Christ.
This is the meaning:
Having died in the faith of Christ,
the END of their earthly existance
was the the portal to the BEGINNING of their life with Christ eternally.
Sometimes we need to remember that, for them, the Gospel was still ringing fresh in their ears, and was not to be found in a leather-bound book, safely stored, somewhere on a shelf. Love, L's
Paula said...
Why did Jesus quote a translation, the Septuagint, instead of the original Hebrew?
Did He? It seems likely He would have used and quoted a Hebrew Bible, but that the gospel writers would have referred to and quoted the LXX when writing the account in Greek. It bemuses me when people "wax elephants" over the tense and mood and other minutae of the Greek when referring to words spoken by Jesus, when He probably spoke Aramaic most of the time, and what we have recorded in the gospels in Greek is most likely a translation of His actual words.
(But your point still stands -- why would the gospel writers use the LXX instead of doing their own translation of passages directly from Hebrew?)
What other purpose is there in telling people to "study to show yourself approved" if STUDY is not required? And why would this need for study be restricted to interpretation alone?
Ah, but ... this verse is just for the professional "man of God", ya know, not for Average Joe. Plus the plain reading says "workman", not "workwoman" -- so don't you worry you're pretty little head with all that study stuff. :P
Did He?
Here is an interesting perspective on the scriptures Jesus quoted.
(But your point still stands -- why would the gospel writers use the LXX instead of doing their own translation of passages directly from Hebrew?)
Why, silly, it's because they were allowed to reinterpret and rewrite the OT on the fly (which, as you know, is harder than putting a camel through the eye of a needle!). Which also means nobody before the NT could possibly have a correct understanding of the OT. ;-)
so don't you worry you're pretty little head with all that study stuff.
Ifn somebody dun call me "pretty" he kin say whatever he want. :-)
Leo Perry (or whatever your real name is) at letzstop@gmail.com what is the deal? You can disagree with me but to email me and call me a vulgar name is quite childish.
If you would like to discuss the subject in a more adult manner, let me know, I'll buy the coffee and maybe we can discover, even the greatest differences may not make the other person what you called me.
Yet, your MO may be to remain hidden in the shadows. We will see.
Welcome to my world, Jon. I get blind e-mails all the time calling me a man hater, radical feminist and my personal favorite, a Jezebel!
Lydia,
I am sorry you would ever get such emails but there seems to be some coward lurkers or coward posters. Such is not right but I guess some people care not about right and wrong.
You would almost think they were from Westboro Baptist. But then again, they would not hide themselves if they were. What can be worse that the Phepl's gang... people who drive by and shoot insults from the dark lands.
Welcome to my world, Jon. I get blind e-mails all the time calling me a man hater, radical feminist and my personal favorite, a Jezebel!.
Wow! Lydia, what a shame! People do not know your worth. I do not always agree with you politically, but I learn much from you.
I would like to say that it is mostly the women of the commentators to this blog who have welcomed me first and have always encouraged me. It is sad to see this name calling. More so that more than half the Christian believers are not taken seriously.
When all these men get to heaven, they will see The Truth then. Women who are put down on earth for their gender, but who persevere in Christ's Name will shine in heaven.
And on top of the name calling, there's also the condemnation: being consigned to burn in hell, labeled insane, having your name and address advertised to the world as that of a false teacher, etc. And it happens on other topics too, like prophecy theories, predestination, security...
It seems "Christians" never run out of ways to spew venom at each other.
Paula,
These things are not only happening on passive blogs like this one but there are church members who are blogging and people are writing awful things about their pastor.
Now I am not saying the pastor is in the right but the things being said fall into the catagories:
being consigned to burn in hell, labeled insane, having your name and address advertised to the world as that of a false teacher, etc.
you mention.
It all hinges on differing views of events and beliefs. i don't see it as a gender focused thing but rather a hard heart issue.
Jon L. Estes,
I'd like to think that you are not saying that it is wrong to voice opinions about your pastor or your experiences with your church/pastor on blogs.
I would agree that "being consigned to burn in hell, labeled insane, having your name and address advertised to the world as that of a false teacher, etc." is indicative of an ugly heart.
I would also say that it is just as ugly for the pastor to label one of his church members as being a sociopath and unstable on the front page of the newspaper.
Being able to blog and post regarding what is deemed to be wrong doings by your pastor is certainly acceptable.
Stating the facts, posting the video and audio links to the pastor's very own words allows that pastor to paint his own self portrait.
Paula put it best on a previous post when she mentioned how it can be done without rancor.
It is unfortunate, but it is reality for many of us.
I can see that this frightens a lot of pastors. But there is no need for fear if you truly love your brothers and sisters and treat the calling that God has given you with respect and with as much transparencey as possible.
Former,
The blog does not bother me as much as many of the hateful and ugly things stated about the pastor(s).
Not all things are that way, just as not all things are ugly here from those who post.
Speaking of posting a video. many of the videos posted have been altered to make a certain pastor look worse than it probably was. repeating one liners, over and over....
I don't think the pastor I am thinking of said "shut 'em down" 36 times in a row. That type of editing is intended to draw an uglier picture of the moment. That is wrong, hateful and ugly.
Jon,
I've seen those as well.
The ones I'm speaking of are of the original content. I think the ones you are speaking of are of course meant in jest.
I wish I could remember Lincoln's quote about if we couldn't find the humor in some ugly situations, we might die.
I assure you, living through this fiasco is not funny. It is painful to so many.
Former,
Jest or not, ugly is ugly.
Just because the ugliness from some supports our side of the argument does not give cause to support it.
Jest or not, how do those who read it, see it?
Those who like their pastor - offended.
Those who dislike their pastor - appreciative.
Those who drop by and don't know the pastor, first hand - see the pastor in a very ugly light.
To many who post on the blog in reference and a few others, the intent seen from this reader seems to be to paint an ugly face on the pastor.
If you really care about what your pastor does, don't you think you ought to make sure what you do is above board in all things? Like even making a way for drive by hate shooters to spray their venom.
Pastor, pastor, pastor, pastor, pastor...
That's half the problem.
Off Topic:
A developing story ...
NPR > Harvard Scholar's Arrest Stirs Race Debate.
Did anyone read this story? What's there to debate? I would hope that if one of my neighbors or someone passing by saw two men, regardless of their race, pushing against my door as if they were trying to break in, they would be concerned enough to call the police, too!
The police were doing their job. Not to say that police can't and don't cross the line sometimes, and maybe in this case they did. None of us was there. However, if the distinguished professor had calmly cooperated instead of initially refusing to show his ID and screaming "discrimination!" it's likely the situation would have ended differently.
One time our monitored alarm system dysfunctioned and was silently calling 911 in the middle of the night. Three times in about two weeks the same sheriff's deputy showed up at our front door at 2:30 or 3:00 in the morning, waking me alone since the rest of the family could have slept through anything. The first two times he made me show my ID and open the door and step outside while he looked behind the door to make sure (I assume) no one was holding me hostage. (By the third time we were on a first name basis. LOL!)
While it was unnerving and an inconvenience to be awakened like that, I appreciate that we have law enforcement to protect us. I'm also thankful for people who look out for each other and aren't afraid to get involved. For every story of "police brutality" there are thousands more we don't hear about where police are laying their lives on the line every day and saving people's lives and property. It's unfortunate that today people are still singled out and discriminated against solely because of their race, but in this case it sounds as if the distinguished professor has only himself to blame for this situation getting out of hand.
As for the neighbor describing the two men as black, well... they were! Regardless of their race, she was giving a physical description of them to the police. If they'd been white or Asian or Hispanic or two different races, it still would have been appropriate to describe them as such.
It always gets me when you see a news report on TV about a suspected fugitive or a missing person, and they tell you everything about the person's appearance -- all the way down to the brand shirt he was wearing and his shoe size, but they fail to mention his race. ("His" being a generic term denoting male or female.) Often they report hair color, eye color, height, weight, what the person was wearing, etc., but they bend over backwards to avoid mentioning the person's race. I'm using the case of a black male only as an example, but this applies to all races. How much better it would be in helping the public help authorities find someone who's "a black male approximately 25-30 years of age, between 5'9 to 5'11 with a medium build, medium skin tone, a short Afro, and brown eyes" than someone who's "a male approximately 25-30 years of age, between 5'9 and 5'11 with a medium build, black hair, and brown eyes." Being black is no crime nor is simply observing that someone else is. The man knows he's black!
If anyone wants to witness a real crime, check out Joe Blackmon's new profile pic!
Two sides to Gates arrest at his home ...
Guardian (UK) > Henry Louis Gates arrest: it's never a good idea to get angry with the police.
Huffingtonpost > A Stranger in Mine Own House: Henry Louis Gates, Jr. and the Police in "Post-Racial" America.
"These things are not only happening on passive blogs like this one but there are church members who are blogging and people are writing awful things about their pastor."
I guess that depends on the view. Pastors are not a special protected class of Christian. They are not 'touch not thine anointed' as if they were a king of Israel. They are simply part of the Body with a spiritual gift.
Their teaching and behavior should be assessed. None of us should expect to have public lives as Christian leaders and not expect scrutiny.
An 'anti-pastor' blog would be a wonderful opportunity for that pastor to model true humility, love and compassion. To turn the other cheek and walk the extra mile. What a witness that would be for so many!
Jon, the nasty e-mails, calling me names, telling me I am unbiblical and a sinner for my views on women in ministry do not bother me one bit. It comes with the territory. They have simply been taught to be dogmatic on this issue and treat it as a primary salvic issue. I feel more sorry for them than anything.
I was simply pointing out that is happens on both sides of this issue.
L:ydia,
"These things are not only happening on passive blogs like this one but there are church members who are blogging and people are writing awful things about their pastor."
I guess that depends on the view. Pastors are not a special protected class of Christian. They are not 'touch not thine anointed' as if they were a king of Israel. They are simply part of the Body with a spiritual gift.
-
If they are equals then hold them to equal status, not a person with greater accountability. That is for leaders and other persons who have authority over others.
-
Their teaching and behavior should be assessed. None of us should expect to have public lives as Christian leaders and not expect scrutiny.
As equals, then their behavior and teaching (something all of us do) should be assessed. That is my only contribution to the blogs in question. Assessing the behavior and teaching of the anti pastor crowd.
-
An 'anti-pastor' blog would be a wonderful opportunity for that pastor to model true humility, love and compassion. To turn the other cheek and walk the extra mile. What a witness that would be for so many!
-
How does one who promotes equal standing before God demand turn the other cheek, walk the extra mile behavior from one person and not from themselves? True humility should be demonstrated equally among equals.
-
Jon, the nasty e-mails, calling me names, telling me I am unbiblical and a sinner for my views on women in ministry do not bother me one bit. It comes with the territory. They have simply been taught to be dogmatic on this issue and treat it as a primary salvic issue. I feel more sorry for them than anything.
-
Agreed.
I was simply pointing out that is happens on both sides of this issue.
Tom Parker--funning? In a sense, yes.
I totally agree that gender bias has tainted our interpretation of scripture.
But here's the kicker:
gender bias works both ways. Just as my grampa would have seen strong warnings against bobbed hair, bossy wives, and women preachers, today's interpretations are also driven by our lives. So yes, Pastor Wade and his wife have chosen their lifestyle, and it is just human nature to see it backed up in scripture.
The traditionalist is not a demon or woman hater. They are folks honestly seeing that life backed up by scripture.
I believe the egalitarians are also not demons (although a few come across as men haters LOL). They are folks honestly seeing that life backed up by scripture.
Now, if I have learned anything from Pastor Wade, it is that we should agree on the essentials of salvation and agree to disagree on the rest.
But reading the posts lately, it does seem that women's lib has become one of the essentials of salvation.
And as an aside, yes, there will always be the truth that a bad mom in the home is worse than a good mom on the job. But can we not also agree that the issue needs to be addressed not by anecdotes of individual cases (the exception that proves the rule) but by statistical norms? I see no good statistics correlating with the time men ceased being providers and women went to work. Seems to me to be the same time drug abuse rose, crime rose, divorce rose, depression and mental illness rose, etc.
So maybe we should pay more attention to that leather bound book and less to our intuitive knowledge?
So I suggest this:
women who believe God has called them to ministry should serve in a denomination and church that accepts it, rather than trying to change all to accept it.
Both men and women should make decisions regarding their churches, marriages, and lives based on God's word.
And God's word tells us to put others first. That being the case, there is no room to endlessly debate what makes adult men or adult women feel better, more financially secure, or fulfilled. The question (assuming children are involved) becomes what is best for my child in light of the clear teachings of scripture.
We can always rationalize why scripture doesn't apply today. We've done it before and will again.
The real challenge is to let it change us and our ideas rather than come up with novel new ways to understand it so it fits with our ideas.
Jon, I am at a loss for words that you really do hold up pastors/elders as a special class of Christian. They have NO authority over others. Jesus Christ is the authority. You are simply a servant. And another part of the Body with a spiritual gift.
When implementing church discipline, Paul wrote the ENTIRE church to do it. Not just the pastor or elder.
As to stricter judgement for those who teach, that includes anyone not just a special class with a title or man's ordination.
I think it would really help career pastors who think too highly of themselves as authorities to start making tents. I find it sort of amusing that some pastors insist on being in authority over those who pay their salary.
Lydia,
I never stated that Pastors are a special class of citizens. Those are your words, not mine. Please don't put words in my mouth.
Pastors (Elders (a term of dignity), Bishops (a term of duty) - terms used in scripture have a calling from God into His service, to serve Him, first.
These men have a higher responsibility because they lead. This is there calling of God, in His service. Does this make them a special class? Not at all.
Yet, if you believe they are just part of the body why have higher standards for them?
You have no idea how I, as pastor, think of myself. SO I would not fit into your idea of such a pastor. I can promise you it would not be defined as "too highly", as you set labels. Those I serve Jesus and lead would be laughing at your thoughts if you pointed them my way.
Jon, I only go by your own words here.
And why would a mature believer need a human leader in the Body besides Jesus Christ? Isn't your goal for all believers to be mature and eating meat? Or, to keep them babes?
The Body does need more servants.
Servant-leader is an oxymoron. Just a soft way to say, benevolent dictator.
James 3:1
Not many of you should presume to be teachers, my brothers, because you know that we who teach will be judged more strictly.
Don't see a verse like that for "pastors".
Jon, I only go by your own words here.
Lydia, Please show me the words wher I stated or inferred that pastors are a special class citizens
[1] And why would a mature believer need a human leader in the Body besides Jesus Christ? [2] Isn't your goal for all believers to be mature and eating meat? [3] Or, to keep them babes?
[1] Mature Believers ought to be, being a human leader for others. Of course yo now bring in the idea of mature, that narrowing of the demographic can change the line of discussion.
[2] Absolutely. That is why I am leading many forward. To become mature followers of Christ.
[3] Not at all but as pastor I have many babes I lead. I have seen many of these babes, leave babe land and take on the role of leader.
I have discovered not all who think they are mature, are.
The Body does need more servants.
I agree.
Servant-leader is an oxymoron. Just a soft way to say, benevolent dictator.
I disagree but those who despise leadership of others or submission for themselves might see it this way.
Luke 18:22
When Jesus heard this, he said to him, "You still lack one thing. Sell everything you have and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me."
Salary? Title? Office? Final say?
The true and humble servant knows nothing of those things. Let those who claim to be humble servants put their claim to the test; let them give up all of those things, and then still "serve".
Salary? Title? Office? Final say?
The true and humble servant knows nothing of those things. Let those who claim to be humble servants put their claim to the test; let them give up all of those things, and then still "serve".
The men I know who serve the Lord do not do it for these reasons, though these things come with the responsibility of God's call upon them, it is not something they seek. Defending God's word on this subject (pastoral authority) is different than seeking it or using it as a club.
I will not deny there are men who only do it for these things or seem to do it for these things but I would say they are in the very small minority
...though these things come with the responsibility of God's call upon them,
No, they don't.
And even if you insist that they do, then show us the scriptures, and explain why Paul, at every turn, declined to use his rights, and why any believer should be exempt from following Jesus in laying them down.
God "calls" all of us; there are no superior callings.
it is not something they seek. Defending God's word on this subject (pastoral authority) is different than seeking it or using it as a club.
It is man's interpretation you're defending, not God's Word. There is no such thing as "pastoral authority". There is only leading by example.
Anyone who thinks they have been given privileges should nonetheless lay them down as Jesus did.
The guards on the city wall are responsible for protecting the entire city, yet they are not the magistrates. Nobody puts the king and court on the walls to guard! And no under-rower is found at the helm of the ship.
Food for thought:
worthy of double honor
But can we not also agree that the issue needs to be addressed not by anecdotes of individual cases (the exception that proves the rule) but by statistical norms? I see no good statistics correlating with the time men ceased being providers and women went to work. Seems to me to be the same time drug abuse rose, crime rose, divorce rose, depression and mental illness rose, etc.
I agree. The statistics are available. In industrialized societies, those which have the highest number of mothers in the workplace, have the most children.
This is getting desparate in Europe where countries with a conservative ethos regarding the traditional family and mothers not working, now have a fertility rate of 1.2. This is Spain, Poland, and Italy.
France, Sweden etc, where more mothers work (also the US) have a fertility rate of 2.1. (The Moslems in France account for possibly 10% and they come mainly from Algeria and Tunisia where the fertility rate is about 2.8. Therefore, the Moslem minority is not significantly altering the fertility rate of France.)
There has been no time in history (apart from the 1950's) where women have been excluded from making economic contribution to their household. Women in the Bible, not only reproduced, but they also produced household goods.
There is no scriptural reason for mothers to be either at home or work or whatever. Mothers ought to do the responsible thing to do as a mother, depending on the structure of the economy.
This is one of the most important reasons for my post on Mark Driscoll. It is wrong to discover in the 20th and 21st century that women should not contribute to the means of production.
Did God include or exclude women from making the temple fabrics and fittings. Were the mothers in the days of building the temple at home taking care of their children, or were they at home weaving and beating precious metals into adornments for the temple?
Women should live in a responsible way according to their economy.
There is no scriptural reason for mothers to be either at home or work or whatever. Mothers ought to do the responsible thing to do as a mother, depending on the structure of the economy.
Titus 2:4-5 (NKJV)
[4] that they admonish the young women to love their husbands, to love their children, [5] to be discreet, chaste, homemakers, good, obedient to their own husbands, that the word of God may not be blasphemed.
homemakers = oikouros, oy-koo-ros'; from Greek 3624 (oikos) and ouros (a guard; be “ware”); a stayer at home, i.e. domestically inclined (a “good housekeeper”) :- keeper at home.
I see this scripture speaking about mothers, at home... How do you see it?
"Lydia, Please show me the words wher I stated or inferred that pastors are a special class citizens "
Jon, Every single time you you mention anything about pastors...it comes off that way. Going all the way back to your rebuke to the BBCopenforum to 'touch not thine anointed' when it came to Gaines. That is your attitude toward the title of pastor. You think they are a sort of king.
I realize that your rebuke was before your realized that he coddled a pedophile minister but the fact remains that you really do believe that pastors are God's special anointed.
You have tried to play down that rebuke but it still stands that you thought their sin was daring to touch what you see as 'God's anointed'.
Now, if that does not imply special class, I do not know what does.
However, if you have studied the Word over the last few years and realize that one cannot map a king of Isreal (when God was angry they wanted a king in the first place) to an undershepherd in the New Covenant, then fine. You still get mighty upset at anything you see as daring to question pastoral authority.
Just my perception because you have toned down the God's anointed over here but still are very touchy about anything to do with pastors. I think Paula is on to something. You might want to give it up...the money, title, office and final say. It is a sin trap for some. Come join the nobody club with us. It is freeing.
Paula,
It is man's interpretation you're defending, not God's Word.
And your position is from God or an interpretation of mankind?
My problem when someone accuses another person of having man's interpretation is that they seem to be making their interpretation more than an interpretation from mankind.
Can you explain why my interpretation is of man and yours is not?
Jon,
The context of Titus 2:4-5 must be considered. Paul's admonition to the church in relation to the world was to be 'quiet.' The church was not to draw unnecessary attention to itself vis-a-vis the culture. I think that is whole key to understanding Paul's admonition to women in the Pastoral Epistles.
It seems that many conservative's call to women to stay at home, have kids, and not serve in public ministry - that call is making more 'noise' than is realized.
My wife stays at home to raise our children, because she wants to, not because she must. But that is not a shoe that fits every woman's feet.
Lydia,
Every single time you you mention anything about pastors...it comes off that way. Going all the way back to your rebuke to the BBCopenforum to 'touch not thine anointed' when it came to Gaines. That is your attitude toward the title of pastor. You think they are a sort of king.
Well, how it comes off in print is hard to control. As I stated my defense is not for a position or title but for God's word and its teaching.
I learned much about "touch not God's anointed" from the late Adrian Rogers. I learned much about the role, calling, sancitifcation... of the men God's call to pastor and their call to pastoral authority. I learned it is not a dictatorship but it is servant minded and Jesus focused. I learned that standing for the truth, on this matter will be seen as some as trying to dictate but it is the opposite. It is preaching and teaching God's word as he gave it.
The bible speaks of touch not His anointed, I refuse to downplay it or make it what it isn't.
I think you saying I get upset when someone questions pastoral authority is wrong. I am not upset but defending the truth of God's word.
That you see my heart and attitude differently does not make it what you think.
Paula is not on to anything concerning me. The things she mentioned: the money, title, office and final say are not what I get up to live for. Giving them up proves nothing but that I would be trying to follow Paula and her idea rather than God's provision. I'll stick to following God. I'll make you this promise, if God (not Paula) says walk away from these things I will do it post haste.
And your position is from God or an interpretation of mankind?....
Can you explain why my interpretation is of man and yours is not?
Straw man. I never claimed I was "defending God's word" as you did. We ALL defend our own views.
I learned much about "touch not God's anointed" from the late Adrian Rogers.
Not the Bible, but Adrian Rogers. He ripped that phrase and concept out of context, and now so do you.
Who is God's Anointed now, in Christ?
John 2:27
As for you, the anointing you received from him remains in you, and you do not need anyone to teach you. But as his anointing teaches you about all things and as that anointing is real, not counterfeit—just as it has taught you, remain in him.
Giving them up proves nothing but that I would be trying to follow Paula and her idea rather than God's provision. I'll stick to following God. I'll make you this promise, if God (not Paula) says walk away from these things I will do it post haste.
Another straw man, and a false accusation against a fellow believer. Should I, based on your words, accuse you of calling your opinion DIVINE INSPIRATION? It is you who claim your opinion is the Word of God.
I have prayed for your eyes and heart to be opened, because I know full well that it is the HOLY SPIRIT who convicts, not me. It is up to you, then, to listen to His voice and obey. But first you have to pull your fingers from your ears.
I agree. The statistics are available. In industrialized societies, those which have the highest number of mothers in the workplace, have the most children.
The below links are from Suzanne's Bookshelf:
France's high birth rate.
The pope on birth rates.
Birth Rate Trends.
Tim,
I am presently preaching through Titus.
From one of my resources in my studies...
Concerning chapter 2...
The entire chapter deals with the evangelistic impact of a spiritually healthy congregation and gives direct, practical instruction about how believers are to live for the purpose of showing sinners the power and joy of salvation.
Paul is telling Titus to teach these things so that the church will be healthy and lost people will be saved. Titus is also to proclaim these things with a certain authority.
Titus 2:15 (NKJV)
Speak these things, exhort, and rebuke with all authority. Let no one despise you.
Paul tells Titus to address five specific groups of people.
1 - Older Men
2 - Older Women
3 - Younger Women
4 - Younger Men
5 - Employees (bondslaves)
I don't see anywhere it is a call to be quiet, rather a call to let the world know who you are, who you belong to and you will not accept wrong.
In chapter one Paul calls for Titus to take a stand against those who are insubordinate. v. 10 - anupotaktos. Near the end of chapter one he says first to rebuke then renounce.
Again, I don't see a call to be quiet in the passage.
Suzanne's Bookshelf > Which Bible?.
With reference to gender issues in the text, I was asked,
How does an ordinary person who doesn't know Greek trust the scriptures anymore?
I don't think it is all that difficult. Without any Greek at all, one can simply cross-check three translations and find much of the bias against women exposed. Take the King James Version as a base, compare it to the ESV and then compare that to the TNIV. You can basically assume that the one with the meaning more favourable to women is accurate.
I don't think it is all that difficult. Without any Greek at all, one can simply cross-check three translations and find much of the bias against women exposed. Take the King James Version as a base, compare it to the ESV and then compare that to the TNIV. You can basically assume that the one with the meaning more favourable to women is accurate.
WOW! I have never seen scripture being approached in such a manner.
What if men, took the opposite view and stated, interpret the passage in a manner which is more favorable to men? I don't think the Christian feminism supporters would let that go unnoticed.
But this one sentence does say a lot as to the foundation of the approach to scripture from some.
What does that post on Titus have to do with anything said here? Who has told anyone to be silent? The only silence remotely related is that which some men command women to have in meetings.
And is it not the clear intent of organizations such as CBMW to make sure that masculinity is given prominence in translations?
You still have issues on the table to deal with; distractions will not make them go away.
Jon,
What was ugly was that this pastor's behavior happened in the first place. That is what is ugly to those of us who are living through this nightmare.
Our hurt is not from bloggers or posters. It is from the reality of what we have endured under the hands of a pastor that we were supposed to be able to trust.
If his behavior had not been what it's been, then people would not be able to post or blog about it in a way that is upsetting to you.
I give readers a lot more credit than you are giving them. The ones who disagree, don't or won't come back to that blog. The ones who agree will continue to find an outlet for their grief and their frustration. There are many of us who have experienced the same hurts and disappointments and have found a fellowship of sorts on these blogs.
You said, "If you really care about what your pastor does, don't you think you ought to make sure what you do is above board in all things?"
Again, I say that the pastor/s paint their own self portrait, just as I paint my own and you painting yours. The pastor is held to a higher standard, to be above reproach. I don't understand how you can overlook that point.
We are not instructed to ignore what we discern to be wrong doings by our pastor or anyone else in a position of leadership.
I think the pastor ought to make sure what he does is above board in all things.
Former,
I'd just like to add to your points, that while scripture is filled with injunctions for all believers to strive for that higher standard, only those who have reached it are to be recognized as elders. And that higher standard begins with humility and selflessness.
And when some people see "responsibility" they automatically presume "authority over", but that is false. As I've said before, we don't put the king and court on the city walls to guard it. Yet those who do guard are very much responsible for everyone's safety. At the same time, they have no authority over anyone.
Spiritually speaking, the guardian is one who sees false teaching approaching, fights it off, and teaches the people the truth so that they are not easily swayed. This has nothing to do with authority but with service and protection.
This "higher" calling is actually "lower" in the world's eyes. Jesus turned authority upside down; the cornerstone is not on the roof but in the basement. And if Jesus, our Cornerstone, could humble Himself, then so also must His followers. We do have great responsibilities, but not great authority.
Paula,
"And if Jesus, our Cornerstone, could humble Himself, then so also must His followers."
Yes, all of us, no matter what position we are in. It seems to be very difficult for some when they are handed a microphone and a spotlight.
What was ugly was that this pastor's behavior happened in the first place. That is what is ugly to those of us who are living through this nightmare.
-
OK but as I have told my kids umpteen times growing up... Two wrings do not make a right. That is a major problem with the blogs... the way in which a pastor is being treated (whether he is right or wrong), mocked, called names, labeled... Much more is going on than exposing ill behavior.
-
Our hurt is not from bloggers or posters. It is from the reality of what we have endured under the hands of a pastor that we were supposed to be able to trust.
If his behavior had not been what it's been, then people would not be able to post or blog about it in a way that is upsetting to you.
-
So, the pastor does wrong and we are justified in the wrong being done on these blogs when defamation is being praised.
I give readers a lot more credit than you are giving them. The ones who disagree, don't or won't come back to that blog. The ones who agree will continue to find an outlet for their grief and their frustration. There are many of us who have experienced the same hurts and disappointments and have found a fellowship of sorts on these blogs.
-
That's a cop out to wrong behavior of many who post on the blog. If fellowship is needed, make it a blog where only those invited can gather, not the world to read and hear the demeaning remarks which should be kept silent.
You said, "If you really care about what your pastor does, don't you think you ought to make sure what you do is above board in all things?"
Again, I say that the pastor/s paint their own self portrait, just as I paint my own and you painting yours. The pastor is held to a higher standard, to be above reproach. I don't understand how you can overlook that point.
So, is it your position that those who spew ugly words, as believers, on these blogs should not be above reproach?
I don't understand how you could overlook such a dynamic within the whole of the situation. Do you find it problematic that those who refuse to be above reproach on the blog are granted freedom to judge the pastor and demand from him something they refuse for themselves?
-
We are not instructed to ignore what we discern to be wrong doings by our pastor or anyone else in a position of leadership.
-
But you are instructed how to handle other believers and I don't find making it a public hearing to crucify the one disliked as Christlike.
I think the pastor ought to make sure what he does is above board in all things.
And church members? Do they get a pass and a global megaphone to complain against such behavior from their pastor and not apply holiness to their own lives?
it is possible the best thing some on the blog could do is really listen to someone who does not have a dog to hunt in your fight. I know that can be difficult but maybe someone without an agenda can see a bigger picture.
People make better targets when they get up on a high horse.
Jon,
I will agree to disagree with you.
You want complete protection of someone with the title of pastor and for that mere reason.
I say their are two sides and both sides can have their say, some people post on blogs, and some people tell newspaper reporters.
You put the pastor above the other believers. We are all accountable for our own actions.
We will continue to disagree.
Freedom is a wonderful thing.
I say their are two sides and both sides can have their say, some people post on blogs, and some people tell newspaper reporters.
Two sides yes and neither should make this stuff being said, public. I wold also disagree that both sides can have their say. That may be a freedom we are granted as American citizens but not one we are granted as Christians.
You put the pastor above the other believers. We are all accountable for our own actions.
I don't know why you say this because, although I believe the bible teaches pastoral authority... that does not make him above anyone, but over (as in oversight). I understand the difference.
If pastors are not above anyone, and you know the difference, then why all the fuss about women pastors?
If pastoral authority is not "over", and women cannot have authority "over", then women can have pastoral authority.
If pastors are not above anyone, and you know the difference, then why all the fuss about women pastors?
If pastoral authority is not "over", and women cannot have authority "over", then women can have pastoral authority.
Hmmmmm... God says it is not to be done.
For your clarification.
Above, in the sense of better than...
Over, in the sense of dictator...
Overseer, in the sense of a leader who is responsible for leading and directing. Sheep are not shepherds or undershepherds.
God made the rules, I refuse to change them.
Nice try, redefining terms to avoid facing contradictions. Not buying it.
No redefining simply clarifying. Understanding how I use these terms is helpful but wanting to use these words in your own terms only benefits you. Sorry if knowing what I say doesn't fit your ideal.
Even in my faith, the conscience of a woman takes precedence over external authority, in the final decisions that she makes.
She is asked to do these things:
to consider the teachings of the Church, to consider the realities of her situation, and to pray, for Guidance from the Holy Spirit before making her decisions.
In the end, her conscience must take precedence as her ultimate guide: she will answer personally for her decisions on the Day of the Lord, and may NOT 'cop out' with 'he told me to do it' or 'he told me not to do it'.
In my faith, after informed consideration and prayer as a prerequisite to decision-making, women must obey their OWN consciences as the final authority in their lives.
I don't have any opinion on whether a mother should work outside the home or not. This seems to me to be a personal decision.
However, it is worth pointing out that all women in the scriptures were occupied either in the home or without, in producing goods which contributed to the finances of their family. Our situation is different. We need to allow people to work out whatever is the best for their own family.
I also said that whatever interpetation is most favourable to women is most accurate, because I have never seen any Bible which translated something in favour of women just because they wanted to. Men control Bible translation and they do not bias translation in favour of women.
"The bible speaks of touch not His anointed, I refuse to downplay it or make it what it isn't."
Jon, this is simply disingenuious from a teacher of the Word.
you most certainly made something of it using it as a rebuke to those who dared to speak out against someone you see as 'God's anointed' and you referred to the passage in the OT. You were mapping a king of Israel to a 'pastor' in the New Covenant.
So, you are right that the Bible 'speaks' of it. You just took it out of context and tried to make it fit the New Covenant Body of Christ. Where Jesus is King. Not the pastor.
Perhaps your sheep do not study on their own to test to your teaching and this sort of thing works with them.
it is possible the best thing some on the blog could do is really listen to someone who does not have a dog to hunt in your fight. I know that can be difficult but maybe someone without an agenda can see a bigger picture.
Thu Jul 23, 11:18:00 AM 2009
Such as another pastor protecting his "agenda" of man made authority, too?
We ALL have a dog in this fight, for the sake of the daughters of the Church who come after us.
Problem is, ladies, with all of the evidence in Scripture regarding 'prophetesses' and women 'judges' and warriors and messengers: with ALL of this evidence that God uses women to proclaim His Word: will men listen to US WOMEN, when they choose to ignore God?
Still, we try . . . . WHY?
Something about those daughters of ours, I think, pulls us to our feet and strengthens us and once our hands are set to the plow, we must not turn back, for the sake of our children.
What is true, is true.
What is right, is right.
There is no turning back.
Love, L's
will men listen to US WOMEN, when they choose to ignore God?
We choose to listen to God and ignore women. Listening to women got man in trouble in the beginning.
Genesis 3:17 (NASB)
Then to Adam He said, "Because you have listened to the voice of your wife, and have eaten from the tree about which I commanded you, saying, 'You shall not eat from it'; Cursed is the ground because of you; In toil you shall eat of it All the days of your life.
"Cursed is the ground because of you"
BECAUSE OF YOU
You = Adam.
Common blunder here: "listened to" is turned into "obeyed" but that is not what God said. Adam HEARD his wife speaking and DID NOTHING. She simply HANDED the fruit to him after that, and he ate it WILLINGLY and KNOWINGLY.
At whose feet alone does the NT place blame for sin? (And no "federal head" nonsense either.)
Men are still saying, "That woman you gave me..."
Paula,
I have no problemlaying the blame for sin in the hands of man... because, as God says... he listened to his wife.
Listened = shama -- you can't make it mean obey alone. This word is deeper than that. But I would agree that when Adam listened to Eve, he obeyed her... And upon this choice God blames the fall of man.
Men, take heed to God's word. :-)
Men are still saying, "That woman you gave me..."
And sometimes, I'm sure, it fits...
Listened = shama -- you can't make it mean obey alone.
I'm not the one trying to make it mean obey at all.
he obeyed her
Obeyed her WHAT? Did she SAY anything to Adam? NO. She handed him the fruit. There is no hint in the text that she gave Adam an order to obey. Show me the order she gave him VERBALLY.
And if you seriously want to follow Adam in blaming GOD for "that woman", then you have some serious issues to deal with.
Obeyed her WHAT? Did she SAY anything to Adam? NO. She handed him the fruit. There is no hint in the text that she gave Adam an order to obey. Show me the order she gave him VERBALLY.
Well, there we have it. God said Adam did something that he could not have done because the woman did not say anything (Now there is a picture hard to comprehend).
Does the bible have to record what Eve said for her to have spoke? I think God's indication that she spoke is enough to let us know she said something. At least it is for me. The alternative is that God got it wrong.
So to what did Adam hearken (KJV), listen (NAS), heeded (NKJV) too? Or is the bible in error?
Eve spoke to the serpent. Adam was there with her. He heard her speak.
That's what scripture says.
Everything else is made up.
God saying Adam listened to his wife is made up?
I've heard people say this part of scripture is a myth but never made up.
Since you say Eve did not speak to Adam, to what then do you see God was referring? Adam listening to the serpent? If so, then God got it wrong.
I'll wait for your answer.
It would seem ,what she said was not important (HMMMMM) but that Adam listened and followed her knowing what God had already said concerning the issue, was.
Jon,
..."although I believe the bible teaches pastoral authority... that does not make him above anyone, but over (as in oversight). I understand the difference."
a⋅bove = adverb
1. in, at, or to a higher place.
2. overhead, upstairs, or in the sky: My brother lives in the apartment above. A flock of birds circled above.
3. higher in rank, authority, or power: She was told to speak to the person above.
over = –preposition
1. above in place or position: the roof over one's head.
2. above and to the other side of: to leap over a wall.
3. above in authority, rank, power, etc., so as to govern, control, or have jurisdiction regarding: There is no one over her in the department now.
It is obvious that you enjoy that place 'up yonder' (so as not to use above or over)that you have created for yourself.
You just have farther to fall.
If Humpty Dumpty had not placed himself up/above/over all the king's men, well the story would have a different ending.
God saying Adam listened to his wife is made up?
No Jon. The part YOU made up is what I'm talking about.
I'll wait for your answer.
Why bother? You're making up your own. I only point out your fallacies and contradictions for the sake of others.
Gosh Former, I tell you how I meant the words and you don't like it and want me to mean something else.
Enjoy the expedition... if you shoot at nothing you hit nothing.
Since you say Eve did not speak to Adam, to what then do you see God was referring? Adam listening to the serpent? If so, then God got it wrong.
I'll wait for your answer.
Thu Jul 23, 03:23:00 PM 2009
What did Eve say to Adam?
Post a Comment