A great theme of the Bible is God's desire for oneness and restoration with everything he has created. The disobedience of Adam and Eve messed up the relationship between people and God, between men and women, and between people and the rest of creation. But we learn that through Jesus we can be reconciled to God, to each other, and to creation (Colossians 1:15-22).
Since the church is God's body, we continue this reconciliation until it is complete at the 2nd coming of Jesus. An example of this reconciliation is the issue of race and slavery. If I decided that I was going to move to another country, start a plantation, and buy some slaves, how would the elders at my church react? Would they quote Ephesians 6 and remind me to treat my slaves well? And if I brought the slaves back to Tulsa for a visit, would they quote Colossians 3 and remind the slaves that they need to obey everything I say?
Both of these are biblical New Testament responses, but can you see the shepherds of the flock saying these things? Hopefully they would reference Galatians 3 and say in Christ "There is no longer Jew nor Greek, slave nor free." Because Christ has freed us from bondage, we no longer bind other people.
If this is the way we interpret the Bible when it comes to race and slavery, why do we interpret it so differently when it comes to women? Mary and Elizabeth prophesied at the beginning of Luke's gospel. Anna prophesied about Jesus to both men and women. She did not do this in her house but in the Temple of God. The four daughters of Philip were all prophets. And Peter himself said at Pentecost that God would pour out his Spirit on both men and women, and they would prophesy.
Why have I always gone to 1 Timothy 2 and read about women learning in silence without balancing it with the numerous examples of God pouring his Spirit out and speaking through women? Priscilla shared the load in educating Apollos because she had knowledge about Jesus through the Spirit that Apollos needed but did not possess. That passage in 1 Timothy also prohibits braided hair and pearls, yet I have never found it necessary to be legalistic about those commands. Why have I lived my whole life being legalistic about women using their gifts to teach others about the glorious good news of Jesus Christ? Why do I feel comfortable snuffing out the Spirit of God as long as the person was born a woman?
In one of the best lines from The Blue Parakeet, the author says that Paul would roll over in his grave if he knew that his letters were being treated like Torah (the law). I think one can read Galatians and agree that this is certainly true. Paul destroyed the early Christians' reliance on the law not so that we could create a new law based on his letters, but so that we could actually live out a life where the only thing that counts is faith expressing itself through love.
Before the Fall, there was no concern between man and woman about who was in charge. God was in charge and they were in complete union with him and each other. Why do I have so much pride and arrogance now that I would not want to hear the words of God coming from one of my own sisters in Christ who has been given the gift of teaching or encouragement? Should we not let the Spirit of God determine what each person's roles and talents should be?
As a wise man once said, "We have different gifts, according to the grace given to each of us. If your gift is prophesying, then prophesy in accordance with your faith; if it is serving, then serve; if it is teaching, then teach; if it is to encourage, then give encouragement; if it is giving, then give generously; if it is to lead, do it diligently; if it is to show mercy, do it cheerfully." I need to let these verses sink into my soul.
I have defended the silence of women in the church for much of my life. I think the time has come to humble myself and learn from whomever God chooses to teach me through his Spirit. I no longer want to demand respect but to live a life that is worthy of respect. I want to do more than read the New Testament as the new law. I want to realize that it is the new covenant being lived out daily as the Spirit works through us just as he worked through Paul.
I wonder if the Christians of the 22nd century will look back at our times in bewilderment just as we look back and can hardly comprehend the use of the Bible to defend slavery in the 19th century. And I'd love to hear what you, my 21st century family, have to say about it.
4 comments:
That sounds like an amazing book! I am right there in what you said. So many times I think I have adapted to a certain way of believing and know verses that would back it up but I never really spend the time looking to test if I have bound myself to my own set of laws instead of the grace and freedom that comes from Christ. Thank you for challenging my heart!
Melissa Smith
Whit,
Thanks for the thoughts. A few by way of reflection/response.
The slavery analogy seems to be problematic for me. Slavery in our context was far different than that in the 1st-century. Slaves then could own property, businesses, accumulate wealth, etc. Some even sold themselves into slavery for better opportunities than they would have as [poor] freemen. Even in his dealing with a Christian slaveholder (Philemon), the master/slave relationship in a Christian context is the concern, not the abolition of slavery. If you were in a culture that had slaves today (of which there are ~27 million worldwide, but not in an overt context as in 19th century South), the Christian response may be the general welfare of the slaves, not the abolition of a social structure that may not be detrimental to them. There really is no analogous situation today, however, and our [correct] abhorrence of slavery makes the issue difficult. If you were to tell your elders that your plantation would provide jobs, food, and a decent life for people that would otherwise starve (though it is hard for us to conceive of such a system), I would hope they would quote Eph. 6. (I also hope the point is not lost by its absurdity)
Regarding Galatians, the issue with the Law seems to be more about entrance requirements: i.e. what does it mean to be an acceptable/approved heir of Abraham. Chapter 2 suggests that dietary requirements, circumcision, and special days (ch. 4) can no longer determine who belongs to the people of God. To rely on these 'works of the law' to define membership is to deny the Gospel, the message that all people will be blessed through Abe (3:8-14). The blessing/gospel given to Abraham is symbolized in baptism, a ritual that admits all as heirs regardless of social status. Freedom in Christ ironically becomes slavery to him and the Spirit, and yet seems to deal more with boundary definitions than social distinctions -- something Paul works within rather than trying to abolish. Our concept of legalism to please God (whatever that means, Paul and the NT don't deal much with it) seems to be to be anachronistic at best, a product more of Luther's introspection rather than NT racial divides.
Having said that, I am overall sympathetic to your point. It seems to me that there were women deacons in the NT (1 Tim. 3:8 especially seems to suggest this with the ambiguity between women/wife and the otherwise strange requirement on deacon's wives that isn't present for elders). Our movement, as many others, has so emphasized the assembly time as prime examples of leadership that the more mundane, and significant, expressions are de-emphasized. I would like to see women play a greater role, though not at the expense of unity (i.e. I'd prefer a slow process if necessary).
To be sure, women need a greater voice. Part of this, however, is the emphasis we place on what males do rather than authentic spirit-led living. Your NT examples of women prophesying/teaching are significant as is, in my mind, the absence of women in leadership roles. Luke's emphasis in Acts, as in his Gospel (1-2; 7:36-50; 8:1-3; 22-23) is to show the inclusive and open nature of the early Christian communities, something we would do well to emulate better.
Also, hopefully the "enlightenment" of future Christian centuries will not be our guiding light :-). I think Paul wouldn't recognize most variants of Christian praxis after 150AD or so, but I think he could find himself comfortable in some of them. Hopefully we can work to ensure the Spirit would be comfortable in ours.
The library finally got THE BLUE PARAKEET to me. Oh, my. How many years--and experiences--have passed since we read, fasted, prayed, but couldn't get beyond the words on the page. I found McKnight's personality and comprehensive approach thoroughly winning. You may remember Bob Rowland's book years ago that made substantially the same scriptural observations about women in the church. But his arrogant, argumentative approach did his case a disservice. McKnight's wisdom and humility make all the difference. What a joy it is to see the person YOU have become and are becoming! I suspect one has to be prepared by intense life in the Spirit to accept a truly liberating view of scripture. Love, Mom
Post a Comment