Conclusions.

This post is going to be painfully long so I will begin with this disclaimer: it is for my own benefit. I have summarised the main arguments of Claire Smith’s talk on 1 Timothy 2 from the Different by Design Series. It is an excellent talk and very easy to listen to. I love good theology and Claire delivers it. The complementarian exegesis makes beautiful sense of this passage and the ideas and arguments identified by Claire are consistent throughout the Bible. I have not had this sense of satisfaction when considering the egalitarian arguments. Thinking about this has been a real brain stretcher for me over the last few months. Actually, I started mulling this over about a year ago now. I think I may have finally come to a decision and this summary of Claire’s talk will explain why.

Firstly, Claire begins with an interesting caveat that we should be aware of when approaching this passage:

Our culture influences our reading of the text and many of the difficulties that we find, might exist because of our culture and our personalities but not because of the text itself.

I think that many of us who struggle with this text really do need to first be willing to realign our thinking with Scripture rather than letting previously entrenched thoughts and ideas which are not necessarily biblical, influence us. It seems as though a person could just pick a side they prefer and then find the arguments to substantiate their choice. Honestly, a big part of me would love to believe that women should have care over their own congregations and preach to them, but these thoughts are not in line with Scripture. They’re just not. It doesn’t surprise me either because so much of the Christian life involves defying social and cultural norms. There is a part of me that wants to fight for this perception of total equality but by the grace of God I want the other part of me to win out – and that’s the side of me that accepts the teaching of the Bible and strives to bring my life and thinking in line with it.

I do not think that the following verses add anything to the debate, I just wanted to share what Claire had to say about them in regards to the original translation because I thought it was really interesting.

V 3-6: This is good, and pleases God our Saviour, who wants all men to be saved and to come to a knowledge of the truth. For there is one God and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus, who gave himself as a ransom for all men – the testimony given in its proper time.

I’ve never been particularly miffed at ‘men’ being a blanket term for humankind, but I know it can be a sensitive issue. Claire explains the Greek terms that Paul uses in these verses and the passage as a whole and what seems at face value to be ‘sexist’ or exclusive language is actually inclusive if we consider the original text. Now in referring to men in verses 3-6, Paul uses the generic term anthropos which is not at all gender specific but which in Greek denotes all of humanity. The use of this term serves to emphasise the commonalities between men and women: the predicament of sin and the need of a saviour. Interestingly, the man Christ Jesus is also referred to using the same generic term anthropos instead of the gender specific title which consolidates the idea that he is a representative of all people, male and female. The use of anthropos in this context therefore indicates rich, inclusive language. It is only when Paul begins to address the issue of how each gender should conduct themselves in worship that he reverts back to gender specific terms.

V 11-12: A woman should learn in quietness and full submission. I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she must be silent.

Again there are interesting instances of language here but this blog is going to be long enough as it is. What I will note here is Claire’s explanation of submission. Submission is a common Christian concept and is vital to the life of faith. But in this context what are women called to be submissive to? Basically, they were to be submissive to what was taught and who taught it. In the same way as a woman’s behaviour and dress are to display a quiet decorum (V9-10), their learning style is to be the same. It does not mean that women are to be subject to all men, but only to those who are given the authority to teach Scripture, while they are teaching. The attitude of submission was to be expressed in certain relationships, such as within the public worship context. Claire notes that various bible passages do encourage women to teach, namely Colossians 3:16 which calls men and women to teach and admonish one another. However, these examples are indicative of informal, private teaching and never refer to the public teaching of Scripture by women. Paul allows women to do one and not the other, obviously they were different in his mind. It is clear then that what happened on a one-to-one basis was very different to the public transmission of God’s word.

V 13-14: For Adam was formed first, then Eve. And Adam was not the one deceived; it was the woman who was deceived and became a sinner.

So the question is – why? Why are men only allowed to authoritatively preach the word of God at a public gathering? Paul answers this by appealing to Genesis. He gives us two reasons:

1) Man was formed first
It is in Genesis that God’s intentions for mankind are first made clear. He creates the world, He creates man and everything is good. However, God declares that man being alone is not good and so he makes woman. Both are given a divine mandate but have different responsibilities. Man is the firstborn; he has temporal priority and inherits the responsibilities that come with it. Woman is made later and comes to help him fulfil his role.

2) It was not the man who was deceived but the woman, who then became a sinner
Here Paul has only repeated the story of Genesis 3, but he finds implications that we may not have expected. At the fall, Adam and Eve both sinned but they sinned in different ways. Instead of accepting the leadership of the man, Eve listened to the serpent, ate of the fruit and led him to do the same. The man sinned by abdicating his responsibility to lead, thereby following the woman and disobeying God. God has a clearly set out pattern for relationships between men and women to which the principles of leadership and submission are inherent and still relevant today. That Paul draws on creation to provide the rationale for men having the authority to teach means that this pattern transcends time and culture and thus the instructions given at Ephesus couldn’t have been just ad hoc and particular to those circumstances only.

Therefore, basing his argument in creation, Paul’s instructions are that male leadership and female submission are to play out in church. Women are not to usurp the male authority provided but willingly accept the differences in responsibilities between men and women through their attitude to learning and not teaching or having authority over men. They are to be submissive. I wish this didn’t come across as such a dirty word because submission is the voluntary and willing acceptance of the leadership and responsibility of another. It doesn’t mean that one is oppressed, restricted, limited. Women are no lesser because of their call to submission, it simply means that their contribution to the church will be different. Unfortunately in the 21st century context that is rife with feminist ideals, it is the woman’s battle to be content with what the bible says, and follow the commands of a good and loving God who knows what is in our best interests.

V15: But women will be saved through childbearing – if they continue in faith, love and holiness with propriety.

Verse 15 brings to a close Paul’s argument in V11-14. Childbirth is referred to because it is a representative function for the differences between men and women. It is a shorthand way of speaking about the role of women. Therefore, Paul is encouraging women to be content with their role in relation to men. Again, bearing children is a function that is transcultural and further supports the view that Paul’s instructions here are relevant for the universal church. Now this is not suggesting that all women have to have children to be saved, they may be married, they may have children, they may not. Whatever the case may be, we are to be content with being women and accept the patterns for relationship between men and women that have been instituted by God.

I think I’ll leave it here for now. Claire briefly addresses some of the egalitarian arguments – such as the appeal to Galatians 3:28 and the potentially ad hoc nature of the instructions and in my mind, she successfully dispels them. I’m happy to keep reading and thinking but at this point – I’m going to officially adopt complementarian theology as my own position. I do not believe that women should be allowed to preach to a mixed congregation. This is not because I believe women to be incapable or lesser. I am full of admiration and respect for the godly, gifted and fiercely intelligent women I know and have heard preach – Claire Smith being a stellar example. Further, let me say loud and clear that my adherence to complementarian theology does not mean that I am a doormat, nor do I feel as though I am being oppressed by the men of the church. My ultimate authority is the bible and I am submitting to God who revealed himself to me through it. He has given me the responsibility of teaching and training other women, the children I may have and of supporting a husband if He should provide one. I defy anyone to tell me that my role is lesser or incomplete because I cannot step into a pulpit. Submission is my lot and by the grace of God, I accept it.

My mind is swimming with all sorts.

But I am content with this.

As unto the bow the cord is,
So unto the man is woman;
Though she bends him, she obeys him,
Though she draws him yet she follows;
Useless each without the other.

- Henry Longfellow

Let this blog forever show...

That at this point in time:

The Sovereign of my country is a woman.
The Governor-General of my country is a woman.
The Prime Minister of my country is a woman.
The head of my state is a woman.

A friend of mine pointed this out on Facebook recently. But somehow all of this is reduced by his final condescending comment: 'loves the girl power!'.

Now, I don't think he at all meant to offend, in fact I think he is genuinely stoked at the aforementioned. But that last sentence continues to irk me and demonstrates that the idea of a woman commanding power is still something of a novelty.

This is not the post I was hoping for.

I have been banging my head against 1 Timothy 2 ALL DAY.

I listened to Claire Smith's talk this morning and was delighted to find myself absolutely convinced by a clear and logical yet profound talk delivered with flawless expression.

Then I went back to Richard France's 1995 lectures to compare the egalitarian arguments.

Then I started to think.

*BANGS HEAD*

I really wanted to be able to post something more helpful than this. Soon, I hope.

But one more thing.

Let us leave pretty women to men devoid of imagination.

- Marcel Proust

A vaguely familiar sensation.

This morning I am bored. I don't think it is a coincidence that my boredom comes the day after my last exam. I slept early last night, so I rose early this morning. There was nothing interesting on television, I flicked through the Telegraph. Bored.

It seems as though the Christian is not ever allowed to say that they are bored. I hear the voice of an entirely hypothetical, stereotypical Christian: "Bored? What do you mean you're bored? If you're bored you're obviously not redeeming your time. Bored? Time is short, go evangelise someone you lazy sod."

Must I always be doing something? Is it overkill for me to feel bad for sitting idle for a few hours? The irony here of course is that I have wasted countless hours on the banality of Facebook. A habit which I am now kicking because I am tired of being controlled by my account rather than the other way around.

I do have a couple of things to think about. The first is the topic of contentment because I have been asked to help write a bible study on it for a women's event. Any books, sermons, blogs, bible passages (apart from the obvious ones) you can recommend on the subject would be appreciated. It is surprising that my concordance only shows four references to the topic in the bible. Paul Grimmond once mentioned in growth groups a concordance that listed where the desired idea or theme you were looking up may be discussed in the bible even if it didn't mention the word specifically. I think that would be quite useful. I was reading through Barbara Hughes' chapter on the Discipline of Contentment last night and was interested by her explanation of how Eve's discontent was stirred by the serpent and finally manifested itself in her rebellion. I'd never have thought to go to the creation story to examine contentment, but there you go.

I'm also planning to finally listen to Claire Smith's Different by Design talks over the break. I'm really looking forward to hearing what she has to say on 1 Timothy, having not actually heard or read a comprehensive and trustworthy complementarian exegesis.

Right. Still bored. I guess I could... No I absolutely could. I could go for a run! I haven't had time for that in ages!

The Road

I watched the film adaptation of Cormac McCarthy's novel The Road last night and I was disturbed. I don't know why it is that movies can affect me this way, I know perfectly well that they are fictional but I can't help but think that there is an element of truth in what I see conveyed.

The Road follows the journey of a father and son heading towards the southern coast of America in the aftermath of an unknown disaster that has left the world almost uninhabitable. There is no food and one of the main obstacles for the father and son is to escape gangs that hunt other human beings because they have turned to cannibalism in their desperation.

The images presented are not overtly gory, but I found close-up shots of hooks not unlike those found in a butchery abhorrent because I knew what it meant. The most disturbing scene of all is one in which the pair break into a basement hoping to find food but instead find humans who have turned into total savages, eating each other and waiting to be eaten by those who have imprisoned them there.

It struck me as evil. Yet I do not think that cannibalism is beyond starving humans, history has already proven that. It seems like the ultimate proof for evolution and the survival of the fittest.

Where does the Christian worldview fit into all of this? There are comments made in the film that if God had made humans he must have turned his back on them long ago, for there was no humanity left.

Perhaps I think way too much. But I was struck by the darkness of the human heart, the potential for evil. We think we know ourselves. But in desperation, what would you do? What might you become? God knows. He knows us truly. And he has forgiven us for it. And for a moment I could not understand why. But that's grace, I guess.

The only people for me are the mad ones.

... and I shambled after as I've been doing all my life after people who interest me, because the only people for me are the mad ones, the ones who are mad to live, mad to talk, mad to be saved, desirous of everything at the same time, the ones who never yawn or say a commonplace thing, but burn, burn, burn like fabulous yellow roman candles exploding like spiders across the stars...

- Jack Kerouac

The fear of God is the beginning of wisdom.

The promise of eternity gives life an objective purpose. It provides meaning for even the most mundane of activities. Christians make this philosophical argument for God often, and I think the counter is that we hold onto this so dearly because we can't handle our own humanity. But it's not about needing a crutch, it's what seems logical if you actually consider the human condition.

The Christian... bus driver, to take Phillip Jensen's example, doesn't waste his life driving from Circular Quay to Central day in day out because every action is performed with the intent to glorify God and serve others. If God is your prime motivation, your work will last into eternity. It has meaning.

But I hear the objections: why can't any old person just enjoy driving a bus? Why can't anybody just be good to others because it makes them happy? Why do you need God to provide meaning? Why are you so hung up on meaning in the first place?

Initially I was stumped by this. I'm surrounded by people who, on the surface at least, are happy with their circumstance, with going out into the world and taking all that they can. And who could blame them? Life is short. Live it. Meaning is what you make it. If you waste your life, that's your business.

But think about this for a minute. The opportunity to go out and 'live out the dream' is only afforded to the upper middle classes of Western society. Sure, they can live happily and ignore that God provides the ultimate meaning for their life, they can ignore the promise of eternity because right now - everything is riches and happiness. Why must God enter the equation?

But for millions, possibly billions of people, their life is nothing but drudgery, misery and a cruel joke if eternity does not exist. The Gospel, the knowledge that Jesus' death and resurrection provides forgiveness of sins and the hope of life eternal can give meaning to the lives of men, women and children who would not have thought it possible. Their lives are immediately transformed and given purpose once they know of eternity.

This is an incredible thought, really. You could spend your life in the most miserable of circumstances, but if you have that hope, if you know God, nothing can break you. And I've read of so many examples of people who have known this truth and lived joyfully in it, regardless of where God has placed them.

Keep your shiny things. Eternity will show them for what they really are. I wish I wasn't so surrounded by the lie!

Odd memory triggers.

I joined WordPress, people. But then was too lazy to make anything of it.

Here are some strange ways in which I am remembering greek words (bear with the transliteration):

peripateo: made me think of peri peri sauce. i walk... to Nando's.
ikanos: i can... sufficient, enough.
palaios: palace... old
krateo: not i grab... i take hold of
klaio: white people cry. asian people cly. i weep. this one made me laugh forever.
enduo: i endure... to put on
peitho: i pethuade... saying persuade with a lisp
tuphlos: it is hard to floss... when you're blind
perisseuo: i abound in sigmas
loipos: loiter... remaining
plousios: surplus... rich

And so on. Sounds ridiculous but it's working.

Also, this post is dedicated to Vincent Chan who apparently reads every one.

If I ever have children...

I'm going to run my fingers through their hair to lull them to sleep every night.

An unexpected hit.

At youth group camp this year we each had pet rocks. You're probably already cringing at the thought, but get this - it actually worked. On Friday night we got each of the kids and leaders to select a pebble, spray paint it, stick eyes on it and give it a name. This name had to be written on the bottom of the rock and on a piece of paper that went into a little tub.

Rocks needed to be kept on the kids at all times. We would have random checks and if you didn't have your rock, then... punishment! We nominated penalties and stuck them in a box and if a kid couldn't produce their rock when asked... penalty! One person had a moustache drawn on them mwaahahah.

At each meal time we did something called pet rock raffle. We would draw a name out of the tub and whoever owned that rock had to introduce their rock to others and then themself by answering either/or questions, telling us who they would take on a 12 hour flight and one thing they learnt at EPIC. The kids loved the raffle and would always call out "one more! one more!". It was great for them to get to know each other as well.

We came up with pet rocks because it seemed to fit our 'prehistoric' theme but the way in which it introduced the kids to each other and how they were absolutely on board with it was kind of unexpected. It probably worked quite well because we only have small numbers, around 24 kids were on camp. But it was a great idea!

The camp before time.

I am so exhausted. It is almost 2am but I wanted to make this video and upload it somewhere. So I did and now I'm posting it here. It was such a good weekend. I'm glad I was keen to try and make a movie out of it. I took less photos, but being able to make a clip is pretty cool. Anyway, here's what EPIC looks like!

The value of a skit?

I'm not sure I like this. I don't think it adequately explains God, Jesus sin and us. It would be difficult to do so in a 3 minute skit, granted... I like the way in which it reminded me that I'm constantly struggling with sin... But it portrayed the sinner fighting their way back to God and making it. Ok I know it's just a skit but... Well I have seen skits performed and liked them. But I don't like this one. I think there are too many things wrong with it.