Continuing yesterday’s discussion (thanks for the comments!), I want to give a good example of how our conversations are shaped by our current situation. Churches of Christ are part of the stream of belief that is called the Restoration Movement. The Restoration Movement flourished in the United States in the 19th century, and many of the doctrines that we hold were shaped around what was and wasn’t practiced in churches in general at that time (particularly Presbyterian and Baptist).
I know that idea is distasteful to many, which is why I want to offer an example. My colleague, Steve Ridgell, is doing a series of blog posts on gender roles in churches of Christ. Yesterday he brought something that is rarely discussed: the list of widows, as described in 1 Timothy 5.
“Honor widows who are truly widows.” (1 Timothy 5:3)
“Let a widow be enrolled if she is not less than sixty years of age, having been the wife of one husband, and having a reputation for good works: if she has brought up children, has shown hospitality, has washed the feet of the saints, has cared for the afflicted, and has devoted herself to every good work.” (1 Timothy 5:9–10)
“If any believing woman has relatives who are widows, let her care for them. Let the church not be burdened, so that it may care for those who are really widows.” (1 Timothy 5:16)
So there was to be a list of widows that would be honored and cared for by the church. (Context shows that this care includes financial support) These women were to be active in the church, and there seems to be an implication that they will be expected to continue to serve. Seemingly, according to verse 12, they made some sort of pledge of devotion to the church.
Do you know of any congregation that does this? Do you know of any congregation that has seriously discussed how to fulfill this?
My thought is that we are quick to dismiss this passage because it hasn’t been a part of our practice nor that of churches around us. We may talk about it out of curiosity, but few seek to practice it in any way, despite it meeting all of the standards that command-example-inference hermeneutics would demand.
Some would argue that the lack of clarity on the exact practice is what limits us, but shouldn’t that merely be a call for further study and investigation as to what Paul is talking about?
We don’t practice it because nobody practices it. Which means our beliefs come less from the Word than from the beliefs of those around us.
Or am I missing something?
photo by Ariadna on www.morguefile.com
I think this plays into a fundamental flaw in biblical restorationist thought. The idea that there is a precise pattern in Scripture that must be practiced down to the letter, regardless of circumstance, is believed by many but nowhere (that I know of) practiced. Among Christian Churches/Churches of Christ/Disciples of Christ we don’t keep lists of widows, practice the holy kiss, require head coverings of women (yes, I know they do in some developing nations) or — except in the case of special ceremonies that we all consider exceptional — wash each other’s feet. We would chalk these up to context (with which I agree), even though a rigorous application of restorationist principles would seem to require at least some of them.
I’m sure I’ll have many disagree with me, but I see this also in the way people in theologically conservative Stone-Campbell churches approach the question of spiritual gifts. The argument is that we don’t have them at all any more, or else that only the lists in Romans and half of that in Ephesians is still in effect. I tend to think that none of the lists were exhaustive or written in stone, and that God gifts his church as needed in the best ways for the situation, according to faith.
In any case, I really don’t lost a lot of sleep about any of this any more. Jesus is Lord.
Tim – I can say with 100% certainty that these congregations exist, particularly among the fundamentalist “anti” wing of the CoC. I was serving as a deacon in such a congregation about four years ago and witnessed it first-hand when we had a widow (whose husband helped found the congregation in the 1970s) who was in need of assistance. My wife and I helped as we could, but it was more than we could do every day on our own, so we asked the elders for help. We were told that she had a son living in another state, and it was his responsibility to help his mother, so the church wouldn’t be burdened (1 Tim. 5:16). This congregation and others like it hold a very strict adherence, and any disagreement is met with the decree that you’re just guilty of making a decision based on emotion instead of fact. And yes, this congregation would not even consider providing any type of assistance to any woman who did not meet those requirements listed in 1 Tim. Few qualifying widows even asked for assistance, as it was considered a sign of weakness and robbing the church of her true function.
Also, per Adam’s comment, there’s plenty of sub-groups within that wing that are strict followers of women wearing head coverings. They consider the congregation where I used to attend liberals for women NOT wearing head coverings!
Thanks Tim. First-rate as always!
I see that list of widows in 1 Timothy as a general practice in the early church, a practice that eventually morphed in the Catholic Church into the order of nuns. Of course, that has things exactly backward – young girls who have never been married or raised a family making life-long commitments instead of seasoned veterans of service. This would seem to fly in the face of the warning in 1 Tim 5:11-15 where even younger widows are told they should marry and have children.
No, I have never seen a church that has consciously followed this as a “pattern.” The closest I have seen is a church that used a preacher’s widow as a church secretary and paid her for her services until she was no longer able to perform them.
Travis,
Just curious… have you seen this practiced positively? That is, having a list of widows who were recognized and honored by the church. Or have you just seen this used regarding who could and couldn’t receive help from the church?
Tim, that’s probably a matter of perspective. “They” think very positively about their efforts at upholding this law in the face of emotion-based opposition; it is a sign of their “faith” in obeying these requirements to the letter (the inference being that those who do not adhere to these verses are “without faith” in their actions). I will give them credit for being consistent in how they apply this.
Unfortunately, my experience has been to use these verses in an exclusionary manner. Widows have received “honor,” so to speak, but it has typically been as a compliment to their attendance in spite of their age and physical health (and as an indictment against those with “uncommitted” attendance patterns — “look, sister so-and-so is 96 and blind, yet she’s still here every Sunday….). When seeking the support of the congregation (whether widow, orphan, poverty-stricken, medical emergency, etc.), the thought process begins with an assumptive “no” unless the person can prove B-C-V that they would qualify for any type of assistance. Honor is not freely given to anyone, except a few men who are the “leaders” of the congregation. In my view, the congregations I have worked with have not shown women in general much respect, regardless their age. But that’s a different subject…
———————————————–
Wow, I just re-read that before submitting. Not going to change anything, but it really is quite negative, isn’t it? How in the world did I convince myself to stay with that group for so many years….. Sorry to be a Debbie Downer on a holiday weekend!