I have never figured out why it is that people seem to want to steal Christianity and shape it in their own image. It never seems to stop, either.
Take, for instance, the notion that women can be leaders of churches. There wasn't a question, not a single doubt, for thousands of years of Christianity that women were not allowed that position. Why? Well ... because the Bible said so. Settled! Or was it? Enter the Women's Liberation Movement of the second half of the 20th century, and now we figure out that, well, in all honesty, it seems clear that Paul was wrong. Oh, maybe not Paul. Maybe it was 2000 years of Christians who were wrong. It was a conspiracy! It was patriarchal society at its worst! And now we have good, godly, Bible-believing Christians perfectly happy with female leadership without batting an eye. Why? If women didn't like the rules of the Church, why change the rules? Why not just start their own religion? It could be similar. It could be somewhat like Christianity. It could even use the Bible ... you know, with the "bad parts" removed. They could have used black highlighters on those pesky texts. They could have made the Ronco Erasable Bible. You know ... you erase the parts you don't like and write in what you do and God has to do it because it's "in the Bible." But, no, a small group of people decided that they didn't like the way things were, so they violated Scripture and Church History and reshaped it to what they wanted.
There there are the homosexuals. I've never suggested that we should round up all the homosexuals and have them shipped to a remote island or any such nonsense. I've never suggested that we pass laws forbidding homosexuals from having jobs or homes or any such thing. I've never had a problem relating to them as people. I'm not against them. But for some reason, they decided to try to make their choice of lifestyle "acceptable." (Regardless of where you stand on "born that way" or not, anyone can choose how they live.) They don't simply say, "I'm gay and I'm proud!" They say, "And the Church must accept us!!!" Why? Seriously, why? The Bible isn't ambiguous on the topic. Try as they might, the text doesn't change. So they rewrite those pesky "Thou shalt not" type passages that offend them and then hand us back our Bibles and say, "The Church must accept us!!!" Why??!! I haven't asked any of them to change. Why is it that they demand the Church change? If you don't like how you're viewed in Location A, go to another location! Why subvert Location A?
It's not just women's rights or homosexuals. It happens a lot. People try to make the Church conform to their view rather than conforming their view to the Church. It seems patently obvious to me. I don't join sports clubs because I don't like sports. I don't try out for women's golf because their rules won't let me. I don't play on the T-ball teams because their rules say I'm too old. Okay. Fine. I don't try to rewrite the women's golf rules to let me play or take the T-ball teams to court for discrimination. I go somewhere else.
Most of this has been written with mild amusement, but behind the amusement I fear there is a deadly reality. Why is the Church the aim of the Women's Rights movement? Why are homosexuals working so hard to make the Church accept them? A counter question ... why don't women's movements assault Iran where the women are so badly treated? Why aren't the GLBT groups going to "war" with Islam ... you know, where they teach that homosexuals should be killed? (Odd ... Christians don't teach that.) Could it be that there really is something to be said for being in the Church?
10 comments:
Interesting blog entry juxtaposed with your questions regarding a Christian’s duty toward effectuating change within a political environment. If a Christian discovered something they considered incorrect within their religious environment—must they leave the religious environment or can they attempt to change the inaccuracy within?
You know the phrase thrown at the anti-establishment: “America. Love it or leave it.” Are you saying the same within a religious context? “Christianity as I define it. Love it or leave it.”
At what point must a person within your definition of Christianity go out and start their own religion? If they disagree with using hymns as compared to PowerPoint? If they disagree over alcohol? Smoking? Women leadership? How far up CAN a woman lead? 12-year-olds? Teenagers? High-school? College age? (Are Christians using the American law as to age of voting? Your God relies on Americans to implement these laws?)
What set of criterion do you use and what is the basis for determining when one must start their own religion?
I have a related question. Do you think, when you get to your heaven, you will discover you are wrong about some of your interpretation of what it means to be a Christian?
Dagoods: "If a Christian discovered something they considered incorrect within their religious environment—must they leave the religious environment or can they attempt to change the inaccuracy within?"
It has been done, sure, and more than once. The goal, however, has not been to change orthodoxy, but to return to it. As such, it's not "as I define it." Further, it is not accomplished by rewriting the Bible, but adhering to it. It's not, "Did God say ...?" but "Hey, it says ____. Why are we not there?"
Now, clearly, you won't find Powerpoint in the Bible, but you will find "hymns", so those Powerpoint people have to go. (Kidding, just kidding.) We can (and do) have disagreement over lots of stuff by saying, "This is what it says." That would include the method of worship or alcohol or smoking. All debatable based on what it says. When someone decides "We don't actually care what it says; we think you should all go with our view," then I think they should go with their view ... but go.
Dagoods: "Do you think, when you get to your heaven, you will discover you are wrong about some of your interpretation of what it means to be a Christian?"
I suppose I'm a little surprised you would ask me that, being a regular reader. I'm the guy with a lot of questions, remember? When I get to heaven, I'm quite certain I will find that I was in error on some of my views. I don't believe I will be in error in "what it means to be a Christian," but that is a very narrow, limited definition. I will undoubtedly find I was wrong on doctrinal questions. But it won't be because I refused to contemplate the possibility.
I'm not sure the Bible is as clear as you suggest regarding women as church leaders. Certainly your reference to Paul is valid - but he did write it to a specific church problem and used the words (if I remember right) "I don't permit...". Just because Paul didn't permit it doesn't necessarily mean that God doesn't. I do agree though Stan, that the Bible and tradition appear to argue against women leading churches. But likewise many people argue that the Bible also teaches against instrumental music, baptism by sprinkling, etc, etc, etc. Again, I'm just uncertain that it's as clear as you suggest. But as always, I love your reference to the Roncoe Erasable Bible - I've used it several times... and I've also referenced "Scripture" in Hezekiah and 3 Peter when I can get away with it.
The Bible in my view is clear on homosexuality, and as such Bible believing homosexuals should recognize their choices and behaviors as sin and repent. However, our churches are FULL of sinners of every stripe - and I think we should be careful about going too far and excluding homosexuals from our ministries. I do believe that if Jesus was active in public ministry today that homosexuals and homosexuality would be a major focus of His teaching. But as you point out, the real danger is the Church conforming to the worldview of homosexuals rather than them conforming to the churches.
One thing is certain. You are right about Christianity being attractive to these folks... almost like a love/hate relationship. I had their mindset at one point in my life, and it took (and is still taking) a lot of prayer, thought and study to learn to conform to the Bible rather than attempting to make it conform to me. Truth is, I'm still a work in progress.
Stan: Further, it is not accomplished by rewriting the Bible, but adhering to it.
Actually that’s kind of fascinating, considering the discoveries and advances in Textual Criticism in the past Century has done exactly that—rewritten the Bible. Good-bye ending of Mark. So long Pericope Adultera.
We have watched Young Earth belief become a minority view. Even Old Earth is losing ground to theistic evolution. Belief archeology would support the Ten Plagues, Exodus, Joshua Conquest as written—gone. Literalism, inerrancy. Even Jesus’ very existence has morphed. (Sadly, Rapture believers and dogmatism seems to have grown.)
As far as I am aware (having talked to quite a few), liberal Christians are NOT saying “throw out the Bible” (albeit it may feel that way to you) but rather to interpret it in a different manner. Of course, they would claim to be going back to “orthodoxy” by stating this is what the Jesus of the New Testament would do. Those in support of women teaching are not saying, “throw OUT 1 Corinthians and 1 Timothy,” rather they say, “interpret it in the light of the times it was written.”
Again, to you that may feel like it is being “thrown out” but if you want to understand what they are saying—it is not.
I know you ask questions. The reason I asked about someday being wrong was this statement in the blog entry:
Stan: Why not just start their own religion? It could be similar. It could be somewhat like Christianity.
I found it puzzling you would use the term “LIKE Christianity.” That it wouldn’t BE Christianity. Are you saying within your narrow, limited definition, one cannot be a Christian and believe woman can be pastors?
Scott: "The Bible and tradition appear to argue against women leading churches."
That's my point. It is only in the last half of the last century that anyone ever questioned the meaning of 1 Tim. 2. Why? Well, Women's Lib became a force to reckon with. I disagree that it was simply "a specific problem at a specific time" because Paul states his basic principle: "Adam was formed first, then Eve; and Adam was not deceived, but the woman was deceived and became a transgressor" (1 Tim. 2:13-14). When that principle (The order of creation, and who was deceived) changes, I'll be willing to reinterpret the passage.
Dagoods: "Liberal Christians are NOT saying 'throw out the Bible'."
No, they are coercing it to mean something else. Uzzah wasn't struck dead (even though it unavoidably says he was). It was a misinterpretation at the time. Most of that stuff is metaphor, not real. Jesus didn't actually live ... or die ... and definitely didn't rise from the dead. (How foolish is that??!!) (Seriously, Dagoods, we have "Christian" pastors actually teaching this stuff.)
And while they "embrace" the Bible they strip it of all its obvious meaning, marginalize its reliability, and make it another nice book of myths with some decent moralisms that are nice if you don't take them so far that they make people feel bad about themselves. In other words, they "keep" the Bible, asking all the time, "Did God say ...?" and meaning, "No! He didn't!"
But here's really what I'm getting at. Why is it that they feel like they need to change that which is established? The Church has been around for 2000 years. Except for language changes, there is (despite objections to the contrary) a continuous line of standard theological and practical beliefs. Today, these standard theological and practical beliefs aren't being questioned; they're being jettisoned. These people are coming to my church and telling me, "You can't believe that way anymore. We've figured out that 2000 years of your theological and practical beliefs are simply wrong and it's time to update. Gays are in. Women as leaders is in. You're out. Sorry ... you're too stupid to continue here anyway."
I know it sounds like I'm arguing the point, but I'm not. I believe Scripture and tradition argue against women leading churchs - but am open to the possibility that I'm wrong. That's all.
No problem, Scott. Arguing the point or not, I agree. I'm open to the possibility that I'm wrong. I just haven't seen it yet on this question.
(Sorry took so long to respond. Been busy.)
Stan: Except for language changes, there is (despite objections to the contrary) a continuous line of standard theological and practical beliefs.
Yes and no. Let me try this illustration I have used before.
Imagine you are standing on a stage. You hold a rope; that rope is your religious/spiritual tradition. As you look up, it is held above you by the person who passed the tradition on to you. It may be a church, a parent, a friend, your society, etc. From that person the rope stretches upward to the person they received the religious/spiritual tradition. And upward to where they learned it and so on. If you are Calvinist, the rope would pass through John Calvin. Protestant—through Luther. Upwards and upwards, through the church fathers, through the authors of the New Testament, through Peter, Paul, James and finally that rope would end at Jesus.
You can point out the rope and say, “See? See? My tradition has a continuous line all the way back to Jesus.”
To your immediate right is a man who has an extremely similar tradition. Perhaps the only thing differentiating the two of you is the use of PowerPoints in songs. (*wink*). But as the rest you are in agreement. His rope stretches upward, but quickly merges with yours (due to your similarity) And on it goes back to Jesus. Next to him is a woman who is exactly like him, only she dates the Gospels a little later than you two do. Her rope, also, quickly merges with your rope and stretches back to Jesus.
To your left is someone who is a little different in religious/spiritual tradition, but equally joins your rope. To their left is someone a little more different and so on. As you look down your right-hand side you see 100’s of millions of people. All holding ropes. All looking upward as those ropes stretch back to their traditions. On your left, an equal set of 100’s of millions of people holding ropes.
As you look up, you can see the traditions, and where they split and join. A HUGE division would have occurred at Luther (the Great Schism) and a Billion ropes separate for a whole group of people. Toward the top, you would see divisions among the Gnostics, or Marconians, or other groups forming in the Second Century.
You can see the large section of ropes splitting off for the Jehovah’s Witness. For the Christian Science. For the Mormons. For Baptism by Immersion, for every nuance of varying degrees of Christian doctrine.
Yet what do all these ropes have in common? Each person, standing on that stage holds a rope. Each person looks up and says, “See? See? My tradition has a continuous line all the way back to Jesus.”
I hope my point is clear. EVERYONE who grounds their theistic belief in Jesus has a continuous line of standard theological and practical beliefs. One of the most common is that the Church is ever being reformed—including the reformation of allowing female pastors.
I am still wondering what is the specific criteria you use, at which point a person must start their own Christianity? What is the very basis which must be agreed upon?
If each person with differing opinions has a rope, then you missed my point. I don't get my tradition from John Calvin. My "rope", the one I'm talking about, is not the body of beliefs from Calvin ... or Luther or whomever you wish to think of. I'm not talking about any particular sect. Powerpoint is pointless. I'm not talking about any differences. I'm talking about a central core of commonality.
The tradition of which I speak existed when it was almost obscured in the Dark Ages. It never wavered when there were splinter groups. Various appendices have hung on this rope -- all Christians, in fact, hold it. This tradition that goes back to Christ (and before) is the core of beliefs that don't change, that don't vary, that don't reform.
You need to start your own religion when you leave that core. When Jesus is no longer the second person of the Godhead, please go somewhere else. When He didn't die and rise again, you'll need to start your own church. When the Bible no longer is reliable, you'll need to move elsewhere. I'm not talking about Powerpoint or instruments in church. I'm talking about saved by faith rather than works.
And when you say, "The Bible no longer says that women should not be in positions of authority," you bring into question the reliability of the Bible. The Church has always understood 1 Tim. 2 to say that women were limited to the authority of men in the church. There are edges, allowable variations, possible understandings of that which don't remove the core of it, but tossing it out as no longer relevant is not "a possible understanding;" it's a denial of its reliability, as evidenced by the fact that this "interpretation" only occurred when special interests decided it should, not because some new light was added.
Dagoods,
One other very important thing. The position of Reformed theology is indeed semper reformada -- always reforming. But that is so easily misunderstood.
"Reform" can be used in the sense of "reform school", where you try to make a bad kid good. You turn them from their wicked ways, so to speak. It may be used in the sense of "re-form", as in "to shape anew". These are common and valid uses. The Reformers had neither of these in mind. Their concept was to return the Church to its original condition. It wasn't to make it better after being bad or to shape it anew. It was to return it to its biblical condition. Now, they didn't actually accomplish that and they recognized that it would be a constant effort, thus "semper reformada." As such, since there was never a biblical female pastor, "semper reformada" would necessarily exclude that concept. Semper reformada is not "always reshaping to our culture" or any such thing. It's "always returning to the original condition."
Post a Comment