Depending on how you count them, there are between 800 and 1000 commands in the New Testament. For the sake of space, I won’t list them all. :-)
I know no one who tries to keep them all. That statement, in and of itself, is enough to doom the use of CENI (commands, examples, necessary inferences) as a hermeneutic. No one tries to keep them all, not even the staunchest advocate of the CENI hermeneutic.
Take this command for example: “When you come, bring the cloak that I left with Carpus at Troas, also the books, and above all the parchments.” (2 Timothy 4:13) or this one: “Go south to the road — the desert road — that goes down from Jerusalem to Gaza.” (Acts 8:26) These are commands, but we can clearly see they aren’t for us.
Many leave out all commands found in the gospels. Why would we expect Christians to follow the teachings of Christ? No, those teachings were obviously meant for the months leading up to his death. They were recorded by Christians for Christians to read them and know what sort of things they aren’t expected to do. (I’m sorry… is my sarcasm showing?)
Other commands are trickier. In the United States, we’ve deemed the “holy kiss” as something that was for then and not now. (That command is given five times in the New Testament!) Paul’s instructions about widows in 1 Timothy 5 are generally disregarded. Lifting holy hands in prayer? Optional. Praying in Jesus’ name? Obligatory (even if that command is from the gospels!)
I think you get the point. It’s not enough to say, “Here we have a direct command.” Even when we find that command, we have to analyze it in light of who said it, to whom, under what circumstances, etc. To say, “We just do what the Bible says to do” isn’t very helpful.
In a couple of missions classes, we were given a list of commands from the Bible and asked to tell which we felt to be “eternal” commands and which were “temporal” commands (only applicable at that time). After doing that, we were asked to write a short explanation as to the basis on which we make our decisions. It’s an interesting exercise.
Anyway, in looking at the idea of “direct commands, approved examples, and necessary inferences” being a sufficient hermeneutic, my opinion is the concept falls flat right out of the gate. What do you think?
Just use common sense.
I could not agree more. Back in the late 60’s and early 70’s we began saying, “It is not the plan it is the Man.” Wish I had understood that better back then. CENI’S is supposed to provide a pattern, but no one agrees on what that pattern looks like or contains. The only pattern I am concerned about is a Person…Jesus. Everything else well you said it best, “just falls flat right out of the gate”.
I’ve been convinced for a while that Jesus is the pattern to which the Body of Christ is intended to conform. This hermeneutic definitely carries its own set of problems, to be sure. It doesn’t magically make difficult questions go away – but I believe the challenges it poses are challenges the New Testament is actually designed to answer. The challenges posed by CENIS – not so much.
Amen!
Nick,
i’m skeptical of the “common sense” response–mainly because i can’t think of any plausible way to define “common sense” that would result in the obviousness of that response. Do you really think there is a “sense” that is, in fact, “common” to all people or cultures in all times? i tend to think not.
[And even if there were, say, some core intuitions that counted as ‘the sense’ and was common to all normally developed human beings, i would still suspect that those intuitions could be added to or altered or even marred by a number of factors (none the least of which might be The Fall).]
For instance, cultures where kisses are still a common form of greeting and etiquette–i would think it’s fairly doubtful that a person immersed in such a culture will derive the same view of the “holy kiss” passages from his/her ‘common sense’ as i would derive from mine, no?
–guy
Sorry, guy – I should have added a #sarcasm or #tongue-in-cheek tag to my initial response! :)
Nick,
i was also thinking about the phrase “its own set of problems” which you conceded in reference to the Jesus-as-pattern view. Obviously any hermeneutic will have some difficulties associated with it. But what stood out to me was the phrase “its own.”
Isn’t it the case that the Jesus-as-pattern view would actually have the very same kind of problems as CENI? Among the actions/behaviors of Christ while on earth, which of them counts as exemplary to me and by what criteria will i discern between exemplary and non-exemplary behaviors? Among Christ’s various commands, which commands are generally binding and which are not? Etc. Aren’t these kinds of issues relevantly analogous to the difficulties faced by CENI-advocates?–the very kinds of difficulties that force those advocates to face questions like (and write books entitled) “When is an example binding?”?
Perhaps the view could be stated and nuanced in such a way that it, in fact, would not have the same kinds of problems, but rather would have “its own” set of problems. i just didn’t see how that would be the case at least on cursory glance.
–guy
Nick,
Perhaps hashtags would be very helpful generally for blog comments. =o) But, of course, now i feel embarrassingly obtuse for not ‘sensing the tone’ in the first place. =oP
–guy
Guy, I agree that there are questions that they have in common – that’s a good point.
The differences appear when we bring questions about “what should I do now?” to Scripture. CENIS instructs us to go to the index of our lawbook, find all the verses that contain certain words, and analyze the command structure of those verses, etc.
The Jesus-as-pattern way of thinking approaches Scripture with our questions and asks, “What do I see my friend Jesus doing here? How does he address comparable issues?”
Also (on a related note), CENIS mangles parables. The Jesus-as-pattern method doesn’t – they’re still challenging, but you have tools for handling them. What can CENIS do with a parable (except for the one thing I’ve NEVER heard a CENIS user commend – “Jesus used parables, so we have a binding example to teach with them too!”)?
Nick,
Parables–do you mean to say that it doesn’t seem like a parable can be categorized as either a command, example, or necessary inference? i wasn’t sure in what way you meant that CENI lacks tools for handling parables.
i’m still not sure i see the distinction (i’m not trying to be thick-headed or coy, i promise). Now, if you simply mean that CENI-advocates by and large ignore the content of the NT directly related to Christ’s life and teaching in favor of the epistles, whereas the Jesus-as-pattern view does not, then i see that distinction. But when you examine the gospels with a Jesus-as-pattern view, aren’t you going to end up looking for commands, examples, and necessary inferences from those texts to tell you what you should believe or practice? That seems like a shift in source-emphasis, but not in method.
–guy
guy –
What I’m saying is that when people come to the NT with either method, simply looking for “what you should believe or practice,” many of the same issues do indeed arise.
But that isn’t what typically happens.
Most people come to the NT asking, “Should we continue doing this?” – “Should we stop doing this?” – “Is this an authorized practice?” or questions like that. CENIS provides a set of commands that might answer those questions, but doesn’t challenge whether they’re the right questions. The Jesus-as-pattern method (which follows into the epistles and beyond because the Spirit-filled Body of Christ continues the kingdom work of Jesus right into our postmodern era) asks, “How do I do what Jesus did in my own non-Jewish world?” It assumes that *all* the examples are binding, but that they must be understood in their own context and transformed in partnership with the Spirit to address our own world.
CENIS, in order to function, must operate by the assumption that the NT is a manual for church government and a roadmap to heaven. It is, in fact, that assumption (not really CENIS itself) that is the problem. You’re right – we *do* need to know about the different things that, by themselves, make up the acronym. It is the foundational assumptions that CENIS requires us to make about Scripture – that it is solely composed of commands, examples, necessary inferences, and silences coded and assembled by God in order to establish a governing order for his church (BEHOLD, THE PATTERN) – that are the true issue.
As we say at work, “Standards aren’t. Common sense isn’t.” I have yet to meet someone who follows a consistent set of views on commands, no matter from which location on the spectrum they’re coming. We all have a pet command that was clearly meant for the folks back then, but not for us. Oddly, those commands all seem to be ones that would inconvenience me or challenge my own desires/presuppositions. Good thing those don’t apply today, isn’t it?
Nick – I can assure you that some strict adherents to CENi do in fact teach using parables. They’re called “preacher stories” or “illustrations.” The *authority* carried within the parables told by Christ is up for debate. From my experience, parables are considered to be *authoritative* …. when it’s convenient. I heard it taught that dancing is sinful (slippery slope argument). I pointed out that we couldn’t make that claim since there was dancing in the parable of the prodigal son, at which time I was told “that’s not the point Jesus was trying to make.” So OK, maybe you’re right. :-)
Nick,
Hmmm–i’ll chew on that presentation of the distinction between the views for a bit.
In the meantime, how then is the NT to be viewed according to the Jesus-as-pattern view? i see a clear denial of “The NT is merely a church manual” and “The NT is comprised solely of C’s, E’s, and NI’s.” But “merely” and “solely” i take it are the off-putting terms in those propositions. Surely you can’t affirm “The NT is in no sense a church manual,” can you? There is going to be some sense in which the NT functions as source of information by which you derive and formulate beliefs and practices for your church at any given time. So what’s the upshot of affirming “The NT is a church manual, but not merely a church manual”?
Part of what i’m getting at is that i suspected something was underlying the CENI as the root problem. And i see how a certain view of the nature of the 27 is part of that root, but it seems to me that the coc-brand dispensationalism has to be in play in the dialectic as well, no?
–guy
I don’t want to play semantics *too* much – I’m really good at it and it really doesn’t do a lot of good, but I think there is some value in clarity of terms – especially genre terms.
The NT is *not* a church manual.
The NT *is* a source of information for those things you listed, but that no more makes it a *manual* than it makes it a catalog of early church activities, or an encyclopedia, or a thesaurus, or a recipe book.
I would affirm, I think, that the New Testament is an anthology of ancient documents that comprise a narrative of the events surrounding God’s fulfillment of his ancient promise to Israel, and to the world.
I haven’t been part of the CoC long enough to really be able to address your question about CoC-brand dispensationalism. Could you expand on that a bit, or could someone more familiar with the idea help me out?
Nick,
Well, i can understand the “semantics” characterization, although this is pretty much what i do for a living as a philosophy professor/researcher. i happen to think it does do some good in some cases. But i understand analytic philosophers make up (and likely always will make up) a minority on that point.
Anyway, it’s true i shifted the use of terms in my question. But you have affirmed that the NT functions as a “manual” *in the minimal sense i presented,* but i understand you to be objecting to the term because “manual” is rightfully or commonly understood in a more robust way. And it is this more robust sense where a significant difference between the hermeneutic approaches lie–have i got you right there?
If i’ve got you right, then yeah, that seems right. But i think it’s still an important distinction (not merely semantic). If the distinction is legitimate and a locus of much of the disagreement, then saying “CENI-advocates are wrong because they treat the NT as a manual” is an insufficient criticism because there is a sense in which everyone has to treat it as a manual–namely, in the minimal sense i presented. A sufficient or successful criticism, i think, has to focus on the particular ways in which the CENI-advocates’ position depends on that more robust understanding of “manual.” If you can prove that it does, then i think that “The NT is a church manual [in the robust sense]” is fairly easy to argue against. Why is the distinction important?–because until you make that distinction and treat the problem accordingly, a CENI-advocate can always play the tu quoque card and say “i’m only treating it as a manual in precisely the same minimal sense you do.”
So now the important question: How is the CENI position dependent upon the more robust sense of “manual” in a way that the Jesus-as-pattern view is not?
(Notice, i think there’s another important difference: (a) Do CENI-advocates hold that the NT is a church manual in a robust sense? (b) Does the CENI-position entail or presuppose that the NT is a church manual in a robust sense? i think (b) is what you need to show.)
CoC-Dispensationalism: This set of views underlies the reasons why some CoCers say things that sounds like “nothing before Pentecost counts in this discussion” or “After Pentecost, x is always true” etc. This would give a CENI-advocate resource, say, to emphasize or prioritize epistles over the gospels, and thus grounds to reject conclusions based heavily on the gospels–on Jesus’ life and teaching.
–guy
I like Robert’s phrase “Standards aren’t. Common sense isn’t.”
Too often I hear people appealing to common sense as the epistemological foundation for how they read and appropriate scripture. That is when I like to remind them that scripture eschews the wisdom of this world (which is what conventional wisdom or common sense often is) and calls the church to the wisdom shaped by the cross (cf. 1 Cor 1.18-25).
“Wisdom shaped by the cross.” That’s meaty.
Is there as much beauty in the ability to sacrifice one’s freedom for the sake of another, as there is in the ability to express it for the sake of others?
Nick,
You’re making me think…which is a good but I don’t have an answer.
Me either, and it is a hard place to be when you teach young people.
As a preacher/teacher of God’s word, it does feel like a hard place to be in. But then again, sometimes it might serve us well to admit we don’t have all the answers.
The whole thing makes me wonder if we aren’t putting way too much pressure on the “law.” Could it be that because of our Western legalistic minset we tend to put “relationships” into a “legal framework?” Relationships are very seldom controlled by the legal statues around them… rather they are personal. Could it be that the purpose of the “law” has always been to reveal the “lawgiver?” Not, to govern the relationship? I know that creates more problems than it solves… but could it be?
And I thought I was being profound when I suggested that we should search the Scriptures to see Jesus to follow Him!
Guy, If I look at the Scripture as a church manual, then I will be looking at it in a different way than if I look at it to see Jesus. In fact, I would be doing much the same as the Jews to whom Jesus said that they searched the scriptures because they thought that in them they had eternal life. Instead, Jesus said they needed to see Jesus in the Scriptures and come to Him that they might have life. (John 5:39-40)
Am I mistaken in thinking that Bible study for the sake of knowing the Bible is different from Bible study for the sake of knowing Jesus?
Jerry,
If you look at the NT as a church manual *in the robust sense,* then i see the difference you’re talking about. But what my question had to do with whether or not the CENI-advocate’s position necessarily entailed or presupposed that robust sense. i think it’s obvious that it needs a more minimal sense. But like i said, so does everyone.
For instance, i think it’s really interesting that you’ve couched it in terms of third person knowledge (say, knowing facts about Scripture) vs. second person knowledge (knowing a person). i definitely agree with the point your making.
But my guess is that “knowing Jesus” requires that i keep some of his commands, follow some of his examples, and take notice perhaps of some necessary inferences from his life or teachings (if there are any). If that’s true, then even if my aim is to “know Jesus,” then the gospels will still function as a manual for me in the minimal sense.
So what’s still at stake here is showing that the CENI-advocate’s position depends on *more* than that.
i hope it’s clear that i don’t mean to endorse CENI. i’m just trying to identify precisely what is mistaken about it especially through the lens of Jesus-as-pattern view.
–guy
Nick, I don’t think it’s a problem not having answers for young people. I thinkj we are meant to grapple with the issues in a community of believers and not be content that we have found “the truth”. The truth is Jesus, not an interpretation of Scripture.
Guy,
If I understand what you mean by CENI “in the robust sense,” many CENI advocates do view the NT in that way. For instance, they read, “Now the first covenant had regulations for worship and also an earthly sanctuary….” (Hebrews 9:1) – and then proceed to try to identify “rules for worship” in the NT comparable to the Leviticus Code. Hence, rules about the kind of music we may use, how many cups we may use in serving the Lord’s Supper, when the Lord’s Supper is to be observed, the recipe for the bread in the Eucharist, whether to use wine or grape juice, and so on ad nauseum until worship is much more about the rules than it is about Jesus and Our Father. The sad thing is that most of these rules are “inferred” from thin air – or at best without giving any attention to contexts.
The result has been splintering divisions of still earlier splinters off of divisions. The fruit of CENI is evidence it is not a valid method of interpreting Scripture – when it is pushed to the extremes such as above. And all of these are real examples of actual congregations that hold to one or more of those “issues” and damn all who do not see things their way. THAT is why you see a lot of skepticism about that entire approach. Those who use it in this rigorous way cannot agree among themselves about what the Scriptures teach, although some of them insist that any error damns unless it is renounced. Some even insist that the error damns even if it is privately held without acting on it or teaching it.
Jerry,
“in a robust sense” was not meant to modify “CENI,” but rather to modify “manual.”
The robust sense of “manual” would be something like the view that the NT belongs to the literary genre of a “manual.” A more minimal sense of “manual” would be the view that the NT is a source of information from which i will *somehow* derive commands or examples that apply to me.
i definitely agree with you that many CENI-advocates hold the more robust sense of “manual” when viewing the NT. But notice, that’s different than saying that the position of CENI itself necessitates that view. If *only* the former is true, then it is proper to say “there is something wrong or mistaken about the claim that the NT is a “manual” in a robust sense”, but it would not be proper to say “It’s false that the NT is a ‘manual’-robust, and it follows from this that CENI is also false.”
That’s the distinction i got to with Nick. What i’m thinking now is that you still need more than that to argue against CENI, don’t you? Why? Because couldn’t a CENI advocate say, “okay, you’re right, the NT is not a manual or a code book or a law book. But even if i think of it as a different genre or collection of genre, i still come to the same conclusions that it gives me the exact same set of commands, examples, and necessary inferences that i had when i did view it as a manual.” Even if that person is mistaken, i think you need to show that CENI somehow depends on the more robust sense of “manual.” Otherwise, you end up saying that CENI is guilty of something that any hermeneutical approach will be guilty of–treating the NT as a manual in the minimal sense. In that case, there would be something mistaken about the claim that the NT is a “manual” in a robust sense, but that wouldn’t show that there’s anything mistaken about CENI in particular.
–guy
The thing I’m noticing from various comments (and please correct me if I’m wrong) is that there seems to be evidence of elevating “words in red” above the importance of the “words in black” that appear throughout the rest of the NT. That is, words spoken by Jesus are of more importance than words delivered through the Apostles. The same for the “pattern of Jesus” theory, that what we see in the actions of Jesus is of more importance than what we see in the actions of the apostles and church throughout the rest of the NT. I believe the essence of the Christ is the Pattern theory, but also believe that what we see in Acts and the epistles IS that pattern in action. There is no difference. When we read Paul’s epistles, what is written is divinely inspired and directed by the Holy Spirit and has the same weight as what Christ said. When we read of certain acts of worship being performed, it is according to what was divinely revealed to them through the Spirit — it IS the pattern of Christ. CENI is not necessarily a faulty hermeneutic, if our heart is in the right place. The problem is on our heart as we try to turn our service to Christ into a series of laws (where we define our faithfulness by a series of checkmarks out beside various regulated items) instead of realizing that the specifics that are revealed pertaining to corporate worship and everyday living (commands, examples, etc.) are not the end result, but were given by God for the larger purpose of shaping our lives into something that is pleasing to Him.
CENIS has its uses – I don’t think it should be thrown out with the bathwater.
But it needs to be put back in its place, as one tool in the interpretational toolbox with specific, well-defined limits on its use, rather than the Procrustean monster that it has become.
CENIS became a problem when it (a tool we never see Christ or the apostles apply to the Scriptures) became the be-all and end-all of Biblical interpretation.
The Christ-as-pattern hermeneutical framework (within which CENIS would, I think, have a role) at least has this going for it:
I read this as Jesus saying that He, as the Messiah, is the focal point of the whole of Scripture – so if our interpretation of a passage leads to un-Christlike behavior, it isn’t the passage that is wrong – it is how we’re reading and applying it.
Nick,
I hope that I can make that point along the way. THe idea of looking at commands, examples and inferences isn’t a bad thing. Pretending that it can somehow be considered as a hermeneutic is extremely harmful, in my view. It allows people to be entirely subjective while pretending to be objective.
Grace and peace,
Tim
Nick, I get what you’re saying as far as looking back toward the OT. But we also have these verses in the NT to deal with. John 15:10 and John 15:14, both dealing with keeping Jesus’ commandments as a sign of our love for Him and being in Him (and yes, I think this applies to more than just “loving one another,” which is part of the context of that passage). Also Phil. 4:9, when Paul states “What you have learned and received and heard and seen in me—practice these things, and the God of peace will be with you.” While debating the use of CENI, we need to be sure that we do understand and accept that commands and examples ARE important, and it is understandable why most of us on here cling to some form of CENI.
Warning: Rant ahead!
To be as blunt as politeness will allow – I actually get really tired of the insinuation that anyone who questions the value of CENI doubts the importance of commands, examples, or obedience. I try to be polite and to give the speaker the benefit of the doubt, but it really gets old.
I’m sick and tired of having to wear a “I’m NOT an Antinomian!” sign while surfing the internet.
I don’t *care* what someone has heard from other people who aren’t participating in this conversation. No one in this conversation has suggested that commands and examples are unimportant. What is being questioned is the value of CENI in ascertaining which of the hundreds of commands and examples in the New Testament are binding on God’s people today.
#deepbreath #rantover
And there, CENIS collapses – period. CENIS can tell you whether or not something is a command, but it doesn’t help you figure out if you’re subject to that command (see how our tradition mangles the meaning of 1 Cor 16:1-4). CENIS can find examples, but it can’t help you decipher whether it is an “approved example” (thus we have so many CENIS proponents who reject fasting). CENIS can point out areas where Scripture is silent, but it cannot decode the meaning of that silence.
All of those questions are answered, not by CENIS, but by the assumptions we bring to the table before we ever put CENIS into action.
Nick – not sure if the rant was directed at my post or not. If so, I apologize. Wasn’t the intent to get you all riled up. Plus, now I have to go look up Antinomian. My point was just that it appears to me that some go to great lengths to distance themselves from CENI. I detect, in some of the arguments against CENI, a disdain for the C and E, whether intended or not. I wasn’t directing that at anyone in particular. To use your prior theory on we are to use Christ’s life as our pattern, instead of CENI, I know you would agree that Christ sought to do all things that God directed Him to do, and did nothing of His own will (various passages thru John). I think we agree that that is a pattern/example we need to follow.
Nick, “I read this as Jesus saying that He, as the Messiah, is the focal point of the whole of Scripture – so if our interpretation of a passage leads to un-Christlike behavior, it isn’t the passage that is wrong – it is how we’re reading and applying it.” Amen, brother… that’s my issue with the traditional interpretation of how women have been marginalised in the church. Not allowing women to use their God-given gifts to benefit the body IS un_Christlike behaviour to me. And excusing it with a patronising “women are free to use their gifts outside the assembly” is no placebo. Jesus didn’t make the assembly a boy’s club. Jesus didnt appoint women as apostles, not because they don’t have the ability to lead and teach and evangelise but because it was not appropriate for single women to follow him and his disciples around the countryside for 3 years, and married women would have had their families to consider.
It’s really pretty inconsistent to say that women can evangelise outside the assembly but not teach in it. Or teach in Bible classes but not provide the message in the assembly.
Do we know for certain that no single women were in Jesus’ entourage? Mary Magdalene? Martha?
And also, didn’t Jesus do a lot of other things that were seen as obviously inappropriate to his own culture? Why then let that inappropriateness stop Him in other areas?
–guy
Guy, I don’t read of Mary Magdalene or Mary and Martha following Jesus around the countryside. Do you? Jesus’ interactions with them seemed to be that they were located and he travelled.
I guess Jesus knew that the good name of any women who did follow him around the countryside would be tarnished. Furthermore there were symbolic reasons for choosing twelve men.
Wendy, good comments, just adding my 2 cents worth (48 more and you can buy a Coke!). I don’t know that we can say that no women followed Jesus around. We have passages like the feeding of the 4,000 and 5,000 that indicate that women were in the crowds. The woman with an issue of blood came to get healed. The Syrian woman came to get her daughter healed. Women were baptized on the day of Pentecost, which shows they had some knowledge of His teachings that led to their obedience to the call to repent and be baptized. As for reasons why Christ didn’t put women in roles of leadership, I don’t know that we can do anything other than make assumptions (always dangerous, as the saying goes), and then just trust the information that we do have. As for the roles of women, I appreciate your logic as per using their talents, but don’t know that I agree that it is un-Christlike to assign them different responsibilities. Paul’s instructions about wives being in subjection to their husbands, just as the church is subject to Christ, I think illustrates that same relationship structure – and Christ is used as the model for that one. Thanks.
There were women who traveled with Jesus and the apostles:
“Soon afterward he went on through cities and villages, proclaiming and bringing the good news of the kingdom of God. And the twelve were with him, and also some women who had been healed of evil spirits and infirmities: Mary, called Magdalene, from whom seven demons had gone out, and Joanna, the wife of Chuza, Herod’s household manager, and Susanna, and many others, who provided for them* out of their means.” (Luke 8:1–3)
(So actually, Wendy, you should read of Mary Magdalene following Jesus around the countryside :-)
I’m sorry, Wendy, but the inconsistency only exists if we choose to see it as such. We’re talking about different activities, different settings, etc. I’ve done a lot of teaching outside the church assembly and inside, and I can tell you that there are great differences between the two. And great differences between the way people are viewed in the two settings.
(OK, now I see your second comment. That’s more on target. Not sure where we came up with the idea that “Bible class” isn’t an assembly of the church)
Wendy,
First, what Tim said. But further, not reading of women following Jesus is not the same as reading of women not following Jesus. If we are willing to say that “since i don’t read about it, it never happened,” then we might as well be willing to say that instruments are unauthorized.
Second, Jesus taught on more than one occasion that the “good name” of any of His disciples would be tarnished by their association with Him. For Jesus to exclude women *on that basis* would actually prove that Jesus *did* discriminate against women.
–guy
Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence… BUT…
isn’t that one of the key points against female leadership in the church – that we don’t read about it?
Just because something isn’t in the Bible, doesn’t mean it is not a desirable goal. What drove Wilberforce (and so many others) to devote his life to the emancipation of slaves? Slavery is seen as the norm in the Bible. The Bible is not a blueprint.
Better, I think, to admit that there is inconsistency and provide biblical support for it. If men can fill 100% of the roles in the church, and women cannot, then there is an inconsistency. There’s – perhaps – a biblical warrant for the inconsistency between how men and women are gifted by the Spirit for Christian work, but regardless, there is an inconsistency.
Nick,
No, i guess i don’t see that as a key point against female leadership. At least not silence/absence simpliciter. There would have to be some additional features along side the silence. Perhaps some reason to think it’s the kind of thing we can rightfully expect to read about if it were true.
–guy
guy – one of my troubles with the traditional interpretation of women’s roles from the Bible is how all the non-silence about female leadership is shouted down. So… even though we *do* see female leaders in the Bible, we find reasons why those aren’t *really* leaders. They’re something else.
OK, I answer something, and the question gets changed after I answer.
Nick, the inconsistency being addressed is between women being able to share with others what God has done for them outside of the assembly, and Paul saying that women shouldn’t be teaching and having authority over men inside the assembly. I won’t admit to an inconsistency that I don’t see.
Now, as far as men and women being gifted differently, that’s a different question. Do I think that there is a difference there? Yes. I feel this tremendous weight of social pressure to say no, especially when people throw around terms like “gender justice.” But I feel a greater burden that leads me to speak as I see Scripture speaking. (As a people pleaser by nature, that’s not easy for me.)
I think that God has gifted men and women differently. I also think that our warped view of what the assembly is and how it should be overemphasizes the areas that men have received particular gifts. (The ironic outcome of that has been to increase the percentage of women in our churches!) Some of the most important work of the church is done by women, even in complementarian churches. But since we’ve tended to ignore Jesus’ words about who is the greatest, who is a leader, and how we should be like children, we see the guy who stands up in front each week as the most important in church… and leave women feeling cheated for not being that guy.
Paul Smith has written some excellent things on gender roles over at his Instrument Rated Theology blog. As he said, those of us who argue for a somewhat tradition view tend to be seen as knuckle dragging troglodytes. So be it. I’d rather be honest with my beliefs than culturally relevant. (No shot at anyone else… I’m talking about me)
Grace and peace,
Tim
Tim, do you interpret that as Mary Magdalene being with Jesus for his entire ministry? I confess I didn’t interpret it like that.
By the way, anybody interested in discussing the original topic? :-)
Nick,
Not sure what to say–i didn’t mean to speak to that point. i’m also not sure what to say because where i’m attending now allows women significantly more leadership presence than the last place i went. But they still don’t allow women clergy.
–guy
When’s the last time you got to hear a woman share what God has done for her in the assembly? No authority… no “teaching” by your necessarily-limited definition of what teaching is… just “sharing.” Think that goes on a lot in complementarian churches?
The question isn’t about who *does* the work, but about who’s eligible to even try to do the work. From the complementarian perspective, men *can* fill every single “church” role that women tend to fill, but the magic Y Chromosome makes certain roles male-only. It isn’t about who gets the glory… it isn’t about better roles or worse roles… it is about freedom in Christ that men get to experience in its fullness (as they can choose to do ANYTHING the church offers as service to God) while women cannot. That’s inconsistent.