I spend five or six hours every day exploring Christianity with non-Christians. Doing that—being someone whom non-Christians trust enough to do that with—necessarily means being consistently honest about those aspects or practice of my faith that I have every reason to understand will be difficult for non-Christians to accept.
One thing I never do when talking to non-Christians about Christianity is employ as final proof that something is true the fact that it’s in the Bible. Christian theology desrves better than that; Christianity is, if nothing else, absolutely rationally supportable. Believing in the reality of Christ does not mean checking one’s brain at the sanctuary door. Newton, Erasmus, Descartes, Bacon, Kierkegaard, Pascal, Faraday … it’s just not reasonable to claim that the endless number of such people were Christian in spite of their intellectual prowess.
As Galileo said, “I do not feel obliged to believe that the same God who has endowed us with sense, reason, and intellect has intended us to forgo their use.”
Bottom line being: We’re not idiots.
And not being idiots means we can’t shy away from manifest, obvious incongruities about our faith or the way it’s practiced. Doing that would be dishonorable to God; it would mean acquiescing to the idea that Jesus has bequeathed us something of which we need to hide or be ashamed. And of course that’s unacceptable to us Christians; surely each of us holds as our own Paul’s proclamation (at Romans 1:16), “I am not ashamed of the gospel.”
It is in this spirit of honest, forthright engagement with God and his word that I’d like to ask a question that couldn’t help but come to me as I was reading the Bible this morning. I was in 1 Timothy 2, when I read this: “I also want women to dress modestly, with decency and propriety, not with braided hair or gold or pearls or expensive clothes …. 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.”
Now how in this world could I read that and not think of Sarah Palin? I didn’t want to think of Sarah Palin. I didn’t want to think of anything besides the glory of God’s word. I hardly waded into my Bible this morning looking for trouble. But (alas) there it was.
So I’m honestly and truly asking, simply because I don’t understand and want to: How do Christians who embraced and supported Sarah Palin in particular for her adherence to “traditional” Biblical values reconcile how utterly she violated Paul’s injunctions to women to not wear expensive clothes, to stay quiet, to remain submissive, and to have no authority over men? If vigorously campaigning for Vice President of the United States (while, as we all know, wearing expensive clothes) isn’t in direct, overt, purposeful, and sustained opposition to all four of those things, then … then King Kong was a leprechaun. I would think evangelicals and Biblical fundamentalists would reject Ms. Palin for … well, for one, so ambitiously seeking authority over men.
What do I say to non-Christians when they assert that Christians are being blatantly hypocritical and even opportunistically bigoted when they use Paul’s words as justification for the condemnation of homosexuality, and at the same time ignore Paul’s very explicit words when doing so suits their own personal desires and ambitions? How do we use Paul to argue for California’s Proposition 8, but not use Paul to argue against Sarah Palin?
As a believer in the gospel who is constantly engaging with non-Christians about Christ, I’m sincerely asking my fellow believers: What should my answer to that fair question be? I’m pretty good at logic, and at a single thought can be filled with the liberating, redemptive power of the Holy Spirit. But for the answer to this one question I’m afraid I have to rely upon the wisdom of others. Please help out a brother if you can.
(Oh, and please don’t say that 1 Timothy 2 was meant by Paul only as instructions on worship. I know that many of our Bibles say “Instructions on Worship” right before 1 Timothy 2. But that’s an utterly people-inserted title. There is virtually nothing in the text itself to indicate that Paul isn’t prescribing proper behavior for all Christen women at all times.)
Extremely pertinent post o’ mine: Ecclesia Reformatat Semper Reformanda.
**********************************************************************************************************
Follow: http://twitter.com/johnshore
Befriend: http://www.facebook.com/john.shore1
Be Fan: http://www.facebook.com/pages/John-Shore/89494795412?ref=s
![John Shore on The Huffington Post](http://johnshore.files.wordpress.com/2010/03/huffpost.jpg?w=120 "John Shore on The Huffington Post\")
{ 102 comments… read them below or add one }
← Older Comments
Newer Comments →
Wow, Dwayne! Way to … type!
OK, just to be clear, I have no–none, zero, nada—problem with women having authority, or teaching men, or anything like that. What kind of tronglodyte DOES? Not the point of my post. Not. The. Point. Of. My. Post. One. Little. Tiny. Bit. Perhaps. I. Inadvertently. Hit. Some. Kind. Of. Computer. Tranlsation. Button. And. The. Language. Of. This. Post. Was. Translated. Into. Pigeon. Mongolian.
All I know for sure is that if I see a nicely-dressed woman preaching at church who also happens to be a lesbian, she’s definitely gonna burn. Doesn’t even matter whether or not she eats shellfish.
I was cautious when I learned that Sarah Palin was named as a vice-presidential candidate, because I would never vote FOR her just because she is a woman — if anything, I'm tougher on female candidates because they don't deserve to get a free pass. I wanted to take a measured approach and research her views on the role of government and her political policies, because I do that with all candidates.
Another part of my caution was based on the fact that Palin has a very full job as a wife and mom, so it would difficult to juggle everything well. Fairly or unfairly, that's a conservative observation on my part.
However, I began to think of the women in the Bible who had to step up to the plate simply because the men of God weren't doing their jobs or God needed someone to fill a particular role. God used Deborah, Esther, Rahab, Mary Magdalene, Priscilla, and many more — because these unique women were available to him in a particular time, place and context.
And you know what? God can do what he wants. God's permissive will throughout time and history can trump any cultural context of Paul for that time and place, or a letter to a particular church, or in this case, Timothy — on issues that are of lesser import.
However, Paul's words on homosexuality cannot be passed off as contextual or cultural — and cannot be trumped — because Jesus himself is very clear on the subject.
The only one-flesh (sexual) relationship supported by Jesus can be found here in his words in Mark 10.
6 "But from the beginning of creation, God made them male and female. 7 For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother, 8 and the two shall become one flesh; so they are no longer two, but one flesh. 9 What therefore God has joined together, let no man separate." (NASB)
Most importantly, all of Scripture confirms how important one-flesh relationships are — how they affect the heart because they are so deep. Over and over again, in the Bible, there is only one place where sex is an option — between one man and one woman, within the safety of marriage. That covenant was made by God in Eden when he created man and woman, and it was confirmed by Jesus in the New Testament. It all holds together.
Hi John…you are right…I didn't read EVERYONE's posts…so my apologies for that. I read some and didn't read the rest. I still only read a little after seeing your post and don't have time to read it all. I am not one to read blogs…just recently came across yours by becoming "friends" with you on FB….saw your post and responded without thinking. So, no…i'm not one of your thousands who reads your blogs. sorry.
I'm not by any means claiming to be a long time "christian" and still struggle with many issues in the catagory. So….I'm not going to even attempt to respond thoughtfully about your post.
I'm also not by any means a HUGE Palin fan….just wanted to wonder why you used her name as opposed to the many others out there. HOWEVER, nevermind….I'm not interested anymore. =)
Might be AADHD.
Hey, no translation problem here! A simple point to the question of how can we take what Paul says literally in one place and not another? How can we hold tight to what he says in book and not another? Well in this passage in I Tim. how can we separate "hold authority" from "teach?" According to the context and sentence structure the two cannot be separated.
The later comment about Southern Baptist Churches is true and I should know seeing as how I am a Assoc. Pastor/Youth Minister as well as an adjunct Seminary Prof. In most of our churches the men have totally dropped the ball and, in my opinion, have little room to complain concerning the role women within the church.
At my church no women teach men but they are on many committee's and help make vital decisions. All of the committee heads are men but it is the women that can be counted on the most. I think we have some incredibly awesome ladies in our church and I am very proud of the role they play in making us what we are.
@LaToya: I'm sure there are many people that follow Paul's teaching, I'm just saying that in this Southern Baptist state, the men wouldn't know what to do: women teach, chair committees, organize EVERYthing, and even make sure the bills get paid. They just can't be called pastor or minister.
Well, John, we can certainly see what topic flips people's switches!!
On the matter of biblical interpretation….
There is a significant amount of scholarship on the [non] veracity of biblical writings. The reality is that, unless you start with the assumption that the bible is word of God, there is no evidence that it is or could be. Most of the purported authors (Moses, the apostles) are very likely not the actual authors. 'The Word of God'?? No detached person could say any such thing…and it would behoove any believer to dig into what is actually known about about the Abrahamic narrative and the Bible.
Nova (the PBS science show) has an excellent two hour episode called "The Bible's Buried Secrets" which you can watch on-line at http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/bible/program.html. It is not faith-destroying, but very interesting in its framing the characters and timeline.
As I said in a previous post…If you are having a hard time reconciling scripture with reality or common sense, it is probably because it doesn't make sense. A far simpler explanation is that the books of the Bible are written by some [well meaning] mortal, Bronze Age dudes (most assuredly dudes) and no Gods had anything to do with it.
LOLOLOLOL!!!!! You guys are killin me!!!!
Why even debate or enter into deep discussions on this or other topics with spiritually dead people? The unsaved cannot understand the things of God because they are spiritually appraised! Surely we should all remember this instruction from God's Word. Wouldn't it be better to tell them how to become born again and hopefully see them become a child of God?
Christians will differ on many issues in scripture just as I personally differ from some of the points made on this discussion. I take Paul's points here as referring to spiritual leadership within the church. I may be wrong but I do not recall Lydia having to give up her business as a maker and seller of purple. Now I must admit that I am only assuming she owned this business and therefore most certainly held business dealings with men. I wonder what kind of authority a woman might hold and the kind of instructions (teaching) she might give a man in the business world of that day? Did she, gasp, give instructions (teach)on how to properly care for and clean the garments she sold? Instructions are instructions and teaching is teaching!
I wonder how many married women became sick and gave their husbands instructions on how or what to make for the family to eat. Again instructions! Taken literally, "not to hold authority or instruct (teach).." would cover a whole world of issues. Is this really saying that in NO areas of life WHATSOEVER can a woman hold authority or instruct (teach) a man? Are we to take this as saying that a man's mother cannot show (teach) him what to do or what medicine to obtain when his first child becomes sick?
I would enjoy John Shore giving a full list of what teaching or authority a woman is not to have. If a man does not know how to make a Red Velvet cake and would like to learn how to, would it be a violation of Paul's writings for him to ask his wife to teach him how to do so? What if he uses a recipe book but discovers a woman wrote it, did he just violate Paul's writings?
I am simply asking to what degree and situation or setting does this verse apply? Once again, I personally believe it applies to the spiritual leadership of the church.
In verses 9 and 10 of I Tim. 2 a careful study of the cultural setting would indicate three positives for women (1) modest apparel, (2) decency, and (3) sobriety. It would seem that Paul is saying women should give silent witness by their modest dress and good works. Next we see three negatives (1) braided hair, (2) gold and pearls, and (3) expensive clothes. All of these seem to relate to the first century church. Many women of this day spent much time preparing their long hair and fastening their plaits with ribbons and brightly colored bows. Rich women would interweave gold, silver and pearls in their hairstyles. Their clothes were quite possibly very expensive and outlandish in style and color, drawing undue attention to themselves. This attention may distract others from seeing her "good works" which are to be her true adornment if she professes godliness.
In vs 11 and 12 Paul's instructions are nearly identical to those found in his first letter to the church at Corinth (14:34,35)and in this passage the context was the public worship service. Note that in this passage in I Tim. the subject "Women" (nominative) has changed to the singular "Woman," which may indicate Paul was speaking of "woman" in the generic sense. It would seem that this writing was consistent with Paul's former writing which stated that women are not to usurp the authority of men, namely those called to leadership, within the church. There is also discussion that in 5:13 Paul was having to deal with women being led astray by false teachers and going door to door with rumors that may have been hurting the church. There seems to have been some women going around spreading rumors and maybe they were "teaching" men false doctrines that Paul had to confront.
At any rate, it is an interesting topic. On a side note, since women are responding to this topic with their point of view, doesn't this somehow violate the principle of women not teaching men? Shouldn't their husbands or an older widowed woman be teaching these ladies? I am just saying that for women to be giving their point of view and not asking questions is akin to the teaching or at least attempting to teach. LOL
That WAS funny.
Thanks, Free, for the compliment.
Red: Yeah, but if she DOES eat shellfish, she'll go up like a bottle rocket.
Christian, having enjoyed your comments and wanting more, I went to check out your blog and was astonished to find that it is not written in English! Is English a second language for you?? If so, you are so impossibly fluent that I despair over my own comparatively mediocre skills in my first — and only — language. Yowza.
Funny guy right before me!
I agree with LaToya, I don't have an answer and I doubt anyone can give you one that will satisfy. However, I'm sure not all Christian's think "homosexual = wrong, women teaching/preaching = OK". Your writing causes a lot of people to consider the dichotomy of this situation; I know it does me. Actually, when I was researching this, I found Paul's writings to churches, not just to Timothy, contain these same constraints on women: covered heads, long hair, silent in church (although prophesying is allowed by all believers), questions asked only of their husbands and not at church, etc. (I just had a mental picture of all females in the church with no jewelry, no make-up, covered heads, being "silent"…..men wouldn't know what to do, LOL!)
Anyway, thanks for the food for contemplation
If I read Leviticus correctly, and I believe I do, because SP gave birth to a son, she should have waited 41 days before going to church. Are there any records of her going to church before the 41 days were up? When the 41 days were up, she should have then sacrificed a lamb and a dove (Leviticus 12). I haven't seen any mention of her having done this and, given the intense scrutiny she's faced by the press, I'm confident this would have made headlines. Other "abominations" (Leviticus' word, not mine) that SP has committed include failing to testify at the first troopergate hearing (Leviticus 5), not returning all of the clothes the RNC bought her (Leviticus 6), getting on the planes from Dallas to Alaska and dripping amniotic fluid onto a seat in which others would sit (Leviticus 15), sacrificing poor pregnant Bristol to the god RNC (Leviticus 18), telling lies, such as insisting the first troopergate report that found her guilty of abusing her authority had actually found her completely innocent or insisting Harry Potter hadn't been written while she was mayor (Leviticus 19), gossiping about Obama (Leviticus 19). According to Leviticus, it would appear that God's will is that for these transgressions SP should be cast out, stoned or otherwise smote. At least the majestic moose upon which she feasts has cloven hooves and chews its cud, so she's safe on her dietary choices, as far as that goes (Leviticus 11). Unless she didn't properly drain its blood, in which case it's her bad (Leviticus 17)
Afterthought: faith in politics isn’t so much used on a personal level, to find solace and guidance, as for group identification. I dare say that most people rooting for McCain/Palin don’t do so because they truly believe them to be better equipped to handle the job of President and VP, but simply “because he/she is one of us!”
From that point on, logic is solely used to find justifications, not to question the decisions of the home team.
“I need a REASON (besides innate homophobia) why we get all mysterious and contextual about one set of Paul’s extremely clear prohibitions, and completely clear and unquestioning about another set of his edicts. It’s just not logically supportable. How do I make that NOT sound like simple, ugly bigotry thinly disguised as piousness?”
Simple answer: you can’t. The bible is a huge set of sometimes contradictory rules, and different sets of Christians manage to live with these contradictions with different degrees of success, by adhering to some rules and explaining others away. I’ve yet to meet somebody that lives by every biblical law.
Same with every other religion, by the way:
People, whereever they live and whatever they believe, use their faith to strengthen the social bonds within their group and to justify traditional mores, from clitorectomy to witch burning, from food taboos to sexual prohibitions. And every group is surprised that some other group of the same faith has a totally different world view and wildly different habits, and still dares to call themselves believers.
Few people truly question the religious background of all these official and unspoken rules of their local faith group, those mores handed down the generations. Most accept them blindly, and accept their justification: “It’s God’s law!”. Travelling, in this regard as in most, broadens your horizon and opens your mind to the possibility that what seems like a question of faith is more of a question of tradition. Since you, John, are more or less fresh from the outside, you have a different world view.
Logic and bible study doesn’t really help you to solve that conflict, sorry. It’s the eternal question of what millenia-old religious texts mean to humans today — and a bit of common sense and common decency might answer these questions better than exegesis and hermeneutics.
Sorry for the rant. Oh, and btw: Yes!
This convo is a vicious cycle John. I expect that at some point soon you will repeat the question again. LOL (I definitely do not have the answer)
Isn’t it great that as Chritians when we hit a topic we don’t like to keep (women in church etc) it is contextual and has to do with only specific things but homosexuality is rather WRONG!!! No arguments, period. I would like to say that maybe this is issue is about love and what people perceived for themselves as wrong and yuck for themselves so it is so for everyone else. If you want to take the bible literally, take all of it literally, no if no buts. If you want to believe that the context of where when and what was being said is important then do that to all of the bible. You cannot pick and choose what you will believe and how you believe it just because you may not/may like a passage.
Oh John, opening the can of worms, your fav pastime. Reckon you will hit 150 comments easy
Ann: This'll sound obnoxiously self-serving, but I, too, was thinking deeply about how to properly love people—how, in other words, to do justice to the Great Commandment—and then I wrote a book about the whole dynamic of communications between Christians and non-Christians, called, "I'm OK–You're Not: The Message We're Sending Nonbelievers and Why We Should Stop." I'd send you a copy, but I don't have any left. But you can buy it on Amazon if you're interested at all.
Good comments here all the way around! Very instructive.
Yes
When talking with nonbelievers:
1) As said before, context is important with any philosophy. Imagine taking single phrases from any of the great thinkers you mentioned above –Descartes, Kierkegaard — without following their arguments completely. Believers who adhere too strongly to one Bible verse without considering the whole message are fools at risk for legalism.
2) The message of the New Testament as it fulfills the law is overwhelmingly a message of love. Love for God, and love for others. This should be a believer's overall tone when talking with anyone, including nonbelievers.
3) Love never backs down from truth. Jesus didn't stone the adultress, but He didn't send her back without reproach, either. The modern church doesn't know how to love people without accepting their sin. But if we want to be more like Jesus we need to learn how to do this. If anybody has any tips in this area, it would be very helpful! I'm working on this in my own life.
I've been reading a book about Biblical textual criticism by Biblical scholar Bart Ehrman, in which he discusses this passage regarding women in I Timothy 2. The author claims, and a quick Google seems to back up, this quote from the book: "…most scholars are convinced that Paul did not write the I Timothy passage, because it occurs in a letter that appears to have been written instead by a second-generation follower of Paul in his name."
It is, however, still in the Bible, which presents a difficulty for those who believe that the Bible, as it is presented in our modern versions, is the infallible word of God.
Many people, Christian and other, believe instead that the Bible is a work was formed and theologically shaped as much or more by human hands as by God — many different sets of human hands over many centuries and in multiple early languages, actually, which explains some of the contradictions. It also invites a question: If the Bible can't even agree with itself, why do Christians continue to insist on its infallibility?
Now I'm stuck imagining a guy surrounded by wives who's scarfing shellfish. I blame you, Emily!
I just realized the above logic could legitimize polygamy, since there are revered heroes of the Bible that practiced that. Well, why not? (There's a whole 'nother can of worms.)
And, I'm struggling to find Biblical heroes who broke the shellfish rule. Uh oh. Looks like I have to take that one literally. It will be a sad crawfish season, friends…
Here's a stab at it:
Let's look at the Bible as a whole.
Silent women – there are plenty of women in the Bible who defy this rule, yes? And we are meant to revere for their lack of silence, yes? (Lydia, female prophets, woman at the well that told everyone about Jesus.) That could show perhaps Paul's scripture did only speak to certain circumstances we may or may not know about in Timothy's church/community. Therefore, perhaps it is acceptable for women to NOT be silent. Even Palin. *sigh*
Homosexuality – is there anyone in the Bible that defies this rule and is still meant to be revered? Hm.
Okay, just a thought. Feel free to point out what holes you find in that reasoning…
It's unfortunate, John, that you don't appear willing to listen to the good advice of various commenters to understand the context of a passage–in this case 1 Tim. 2. You continue to assert that in no way is Paul limiting his words to the context of the church, but the church is most certainly in view. This, of course, does not mean there are not applications for outside the church. For a detailed exegesis of this passage and related issues, please see "Recovering Biblical Manhood and Womanhood" (ed. Piper and Grudem; please see http://www.cbmw.org/Recovering-Biblical-Manhood-a…. It's an excellent study of the complimentarian position and will help you see how many conservative Christians reconcile Paul's words about homosexuality and biblical manhood/womanhood by helping you understand sound biblical interpretation (from an admittedly conservative evangelical perspective).
Brian: Bethany House Publishers thinks I know enough about Biblical theology to co-author “Being Christian,” an entire book on that very topic, which is their lead title for this publishing season (and doing very well). Instead of doing nothing more taxing than accusing me of being “weak” on Biblical theology, you could instead show off how strong you are at it by answering the question I’ve posed. Step up or step out, Snark Boy.
I suspect that at this point in time, you will not be able to explain away to non believers why the church is inconsistent in what it holds on to.
I also think people appreciate honesty, so if you can’t explain it to non Christians, just tell them that.
We ruthlessly pursue homosexuals yet overlook other sexual indiscretions. So it’s going to be tough to explain it away to non believers.
I personally believe that much of the church just doesn’t have a balanced perspective on what Christ call us to do. Perhaps the logs in our eyes are stopping us from seeing the trees. No wait that doesn’t make sense…….
Stuart
John:
I’ve read several of your posts and you seem to be somewhat weak in your biblical theology. It worries me that you are writing for christianity.com and yet claimed Obama is a Christian (previous post) and are now mis-interpreting 1 Timothy. I encourage you to study God’s word and get very comfortable with biblical theology before writing on these things.
What about Queen Elizabeth and Margaret Thatcher?? The Queen is supposed to be the head of the Church of England, and Margaret Thatcher was described as “The best man in England” while Prime Minister.
"But we’re not talking about Jesus here; we’re talking about Paul."
Just had to add that this is a brilliant point Johnny boy, and isn't Jesus the example we should take first and foremost??
I learnt in seminary that where this was coming from from Paul was that he was saying that to the women of the church as at this time women were not educated, not taught to the extent that men were and so therefore not able to teach in the depth and understanding that men could. I today's example I would say that it is the same as saying "People ho have not read the bible, indeed can't read, should not be teaching those who have studied it for years. Yes, have the faith the passion and the love for Christ, but leave the teaching those who know a little more in depth what it actaully says". Hmmmm, actually can think of a few preachers I should say that too LOL
← Older Comments
Newer Comments →
{ 1 trackback }