Trailblazin Ministries Blog: Accepted Christian Culture

Bible

Accepted Christian Culture

Written by LaRosa Johnson
Wednesday, 21 May 2008
Filed under: Bible, Faith

Can I be honest and say that I get worried when I look at the current state of the church? I'm not worried in the sense that I think it's going to crumble or anything like that, but some of the trends that I see really make me wonder how people can so easily fall for them. One of those things is the idea that "if I see it happening in multiple churches, then it must be okay." This could be rephrased as those things that have become accepted as the norm in Christian culture, even if they aren't right.

One of those situations happens to be that of women preachers. I was visiting a message board and read a topic about a woman pastor who had just recently had a dedication service for her new church building. I decided to make a rather snippy comment to the effect that she needed to read her Bible more. Needless to say, I took a bit of heat for my comment and got called a hater (for what reason, I don't know). Some of the comments that rolled in afterwards ended up saying things like "so women can't be pastors?," "don't you know about the culture at that time?," "women can be over a body of people," and "women can pastor! I see it all the time!" Those are pretty typical comments when the subject comes up, but all of them have their fallacies when brought to the light of Scripture. What are those fallacies? 1) They assume that just because it is commonplace in many churches that it is okay and biblical and 2) they interject the current culture into Scripture and disregard passages that they feel no longer agree with the current state of society.

Both of these arguments are basically the same if you really look at it; they are both saying that the commands of Scripture are dated and no longer valid in our current culture. The sad part is that their argument has no foundation in Scripture whatsoever, especially in terms of this argument in particular. Just because something is commonplace and seemingly accepted, that does not mean that it is biblical or right. And I really love when people try to bring culture into the picture when examining Scripture, definitely when they are arguing the New Testament. In so many cases they are simply using that argument to try and say that their culture was primitive and that we are so much more advanced as a society that the Bible no longer applies to us, which is totally ludicrous. For this discussion, let's take a look at the passage in question.

1 Timothy 2:11-14 (NASB) - 11 A woman must quietly receive instruction with entire submissiveness. 12 But I do not allow a woman to teach or exercise authority over a man, but to remain quiet. 13 For it was Adam who was first created, and then Eve. 14 And it was not Adam who was deceived, but the woman being deceived, fell into transgression.

The problem that most people have is with verse 12, which very clearly prohibits women from assuming the pastorate role, and is then continued in the next chapter when Paul gives Timothy clear guidelines for appointing overseers and elders. The detractors like to say that Paul was against women and that the culture as a whole was oppressive towards women, and that is why Paul wrote what he did; but that no longer applies today because men & women are equal. Even if the culture was more male oriented, that has no bearing on this passage and position and it is because of the two verses that follow. If this were to only apply to the current culture, then why did Paul take it all the way back to the created order of Adam and Eve? By taking it all the way back to the beginning, Paul is establishing God's created order for man and women, which directly translates itself to the church, as we see here. But let us not forget the latter chapters of 1 Corinthians where Paul permits women to prophesy (a no longer operational spiritual gift) in church services, as long as their heads were covered. If he was such a chauvinist, he would not have permitted women to speak at all in church or to be deaconesses.

What does it say to the argument of commonality? The answer is simply this: just because God permits it to happen, that does not mean that it is right. Just like God permits us to sin and go against His will, that does mean that it is right or the brightest thing to do. There are lots of things that God permits to happen but does not condone, women pastors included. A woman is not to have authority over a man, and the exposition of Scripture is an authoritative role that is not to be taken by women. The argument is then begged though, men aren't stepping up, so women are forced to fill in for them. My response: says who? God will hold the men accountable for not taking up their priestly role, but that does not coincide with giving women permission to step into the pastorate and to start preaching. For women to do so puts them out of their God-given role and only creates disorder within the body of Christ.

As I start to wrap up, I will say this: women are given the spiritual gift of teaching, just not the gift of pastor-teacher. So, what does that look like? It looks like this: women teaching other women, and women teaching children. As soon as it becomes women teaching men, it is out of order; but, within those contexts, it is perfectly acceptable for a woman to exercise her spiritual gift of teaching.

The bottom line is this: the Bible is supremely authoritative and we must not allow our personal preferences or cultural norms to supercede the commands of Scripture. Yes, we must take the Word of God in its proper context, but we must not ignore those commands that transcend cultural barriers and deal with God's original created order of doing things. And, on a more personal note, I'm all for women exercising their gifts in ministry; but I desire for them to be done in their proper order and in line with how God expects things to be done. The same goes for me too; I want everything I do to line up with the Word of God as best as I possibly can.

Comments (6)

nathany.myopenid.com wrote:
on May 23, 2008 12:26 PM

I find it easy to understand the presumption that parts of scripture are no longer culturally relevant. Leviticus has all sorts of wonderful commands regarding uncleanliness, and the death sentence for working on the sabbath.

Or how about this, how do you like your steak?

"As for the Gentile believers, we have written to them our decision that they should abstain from food sacrificed to idols, from blood, from the meat of strangled animals and from sexual immorality." - Acts 21:25

What do you say with regards to prominent women of the Bible, such as Deborah (Judges 4:4) or Esther? Were they not appointed by God? Or what of Phoebe (Romans 16)?

Isn't the importance that the gospel is preached? What comes to mind is the moral failures (sexual immorality) of male pastors... and how God still uses the imperfect (humans) to share His gift of salvation with others. We are all called to share the gospel, and God will use female pastors, even if 1 Timothy 2 is relevant today.

I don't doubt that God made man and woman unique, or even that men may be better suited for leadership by design. Nor does this mean men and women are not equal. Equal is about balance, not sameness.

Personally, I think a bigger problem with the church is that we're often all about the spec in someone else's eye. We lash out against homosexuality, we say women can't do this, we talk Law without talking about the Holy Spirit who enables us to live accordingly. All the while, ignoring our own failings. But that is another topic.

"Do not be called leaders; for One is your Leader, that is, Christ." - Matthew 23:10

Antoine of MMM wrote:
on May 23, 2008 1:48 PM

Well; there is a conflict in the argument that the current church should be modeled after the churches recorded in the book of Acts. That conflict is simply that there were several cultural anamorphisms that took place depending on where the Body was located, and the timing of the establishment of those Bodies. Dealing with an issue such as gender roles in leadership means looking at the topic from its historical leanings, not just the Biblical ones.

LJ, find a Jewish scholar to talk to about the role of woman as it pertained to the culture of Israel between 30BCE and 70AD. You will find some interesting notes; especially when you start getting into the Dispersion ;)

To the previous commenter: can you clarify your stance on the posted topic. I had a hard time seeing what your comment is coming from in light of the posting versus your personal leanings of things not discussed in the topic. I just want to be sure that I am seeing this the way you do so that we all can continue to discourse. Thanks.

nathany.myopenid.com wrote:
on May 23, 2008 4:50 PM

@Antoine, I suppose I'm on the fence, not feeling I really have enough information to have an informed interpretation.

Personally, I have nothing against female pastors, and am glad to have learned from male and female teachers, both. I don't think men would have taught the same way or the same things.

I've heard a few of the cultural things, not nearly enough, and try to take into account the rest of scripture. But Paul's words there in 1 Tim 2 are plainly written, making it hard to understand why he chose to preserve those words, why that book was canonized, and what the relevance is today.

"They [men] want to be teachers of the law, but they do not know what they are talking about or what they so confidently affirm." - 1 Tim 1:7

When trying to work through this topic quite some time ago, my best conclusion was that this letter is speaking against confusion and false teaching. And presumed having female teachers may have been similar to the practices of pagan prophetesses of the time. I don't have any evidence of that, but distinction from the pagans could be reason enough. (Deuteronomy 12:31)

LaRosa Johnson wrote:
on May 25, 2008 8:54 AM

For starters, I like my steaks & burgers well done LOL...

Anyway, to answer some questions. Let's first deal with the women you brought up Nathan (Deborah, Esther, and Phoebe). Deborah was a prophetess; there's no problem there, as that is a role that God has allowed women to operate in. We even see this happening in the New Testament Scriptures (Acts & 1 Corinthians) where women were allowed to prophesy and there was no problem with them doing so, as long as it was done in order. Esther was a queen, so there's nothing particularly special about her in terms of having a ministry role. And Phoebe was a deaconess, but there is no indication whatsoever that she was teaching or leading a group of mixed company believers (men & women). To answer the accompanying question, they were all definitely appointed by God to do the work that they did; but, everything that they did is clearly reiterated in New Testament scripture (i.e. women prophets) and was appropriate for the Church Age (although I do believe the prophet gift, among others, has ceased).

And it is important for the gospel to be preached, but it should also be done in order. I'm of the belief that God does care because if you ignore the plain language of Scripture here, then it leads to compromising elsewhere in Scripture. I do think it's worth pointing out that giving the gospel (evangelism) and pastoring are two different things, and women can clearly operate in the first but not the second.

As far as culture and relating the Old Testament to it, there are some things that we need to remember. The Law was given to a specific group of people (Jews aka the nation of Israel) at a specific period in time. Most of us are gentiles, therefore those specific laws were not given to us, since we were not under God's theocratic governing at that time. That is not to say that God's moral law is not written in our hearts (for it surely is). But we do see a good number of those laws being retaught in New Testament scripture, which basically is summed up as loving God above all else, and loving your neighbor as yourself. A perfect example of how this is so is the sacrificial system; we don't bring goats to church to burn on the altar, because we clearly know that it was for that time & that set of people.

When looking at Scripture, culture is important, especially when looking at the Old Testament; but we must not forget that we are dealing with the infallible and inerrant Word of God, and it is in there for a reason. And when dealing with the New Testament, we should remind ourselves that it was written for us and we should take it to heart, even the difficult parts or those that are difficult to understand. There's a reason why it was put in there, and I think in this instance it was to protect God's created order for both the family and the church.

lj.

nathany.myopenid.com wrote:
on May 25, 2008 8:02 PM

@LJ Thanks for your response. Some things are certainly hard to understand, and not seeing the reason, I think I fall into the camp of explaining it away as culturally irrelevant. Though that is like tearing pieces of the Bible out until left with a shredded mess of only that which I understand and/or agree with.

I attended an interesting sermon today, not on this topic, but on Masters and Slaves from Colossians 3. The comment that caught my attention is how while slavery isn't condoned, the letter doesn't speak about abolishing slavery, but rather of how to live within a society where that is the norm.

Back to the topic at hand, 2 Timothy references the fall, which came with the curse.

"Yet your desire will be for your husband,
And he will rule over you."

Though this isn't speaking of pastoral roles, it is of leadership. The implication of the curse is that this is not God's ideal. I'd say God's ideal is the quote from Matthew 23:10 above, just as in heaven all intimacies are with God. But the world is fallen, society is predominately patriarchal, so this is how it's to be. Is that how I might understand it?

Or, a related idea, God hates divorce, yet there is guidance for it, papers, rules about not returning to a previous spouse. That these rules are somehow there for our benefit, not to give us Eden or heaven on Earth, but to give some semblance of order in a fallen world.

Still, I'm not sure what to do if faced with a decision regarding a female preacher. I'm just glad I don't have a position that requires me to know how to deal with what 2 Timothy says.

Lionel Woods wrote:
on June 11, 2008 8:53 AM

@LJ,

I appreciate your conviction on this. Many will attempt to push this into a secondary issue and I would say not so. We too easily cave in to social pressures and the fruit of that has been disobedience to God's commands. Since I hold to a New Covenant Theology, I will not even attempt to defend this from the Old Covenant (which are all the statutes and laws given to Israel)I need only the New Testatment. 1 Corinthians 14, 1 Timothy 2-3 and Titus all give clear direction on this issue. My challenge is that if a church will compromise on this issue they will compromise on others. We need Godly MEN leading our churches and because many would rather be men pleasers they boot this and try to chalk it up as cultural!

I can go on for days how this violates scripture and many attempt to use Deborah as an example but if you read the context and what was going on God was judging the men of Israel by appointing a woman to be ruler over them. This wasn't God being EEO He was telling the men that they were sorry and had given themselves over to serve other Gods and a woman will come and rule over them. This was a slap in a face to the men not a pat on the back to women! Anyway we will see more compromise as time goes on. I pray that the faitful don't throw towel in because of the pressure from those who profess Christ coupled with the pressure from the cultural around them.

BTW, I love the Site. I got to add you to the roll. I will visit you frequently. God bless and take care friend! My wife is from Austin, next time I am there hopefully we can hook up and grab some coffee or lunch.