Women 4: Appropriating 1 Corinthians 14:34-35

Appropriating 1 Corinthians 14:34-35
In this entry I will assume that these verses are, in fact, a part of the original text of 1 Corinthians. Assuming that they are, how do we appropriate them today?

First, I have shown in an earlier entry that whatever the verses might mean, they cannot prohibit women from a prophetic role or from public prayer. If they did, Paul would contradict himself on a fundamental level within the space of a few chapters. 1 Corinthians 14:34-35 deal with worship disruption, particularly from wives in conversation with the worship going on around them, perhaps with prophecies in particular. They must refer to a particular kind of disruption that Paul found particularly irritating in his churches.

Accordingly, our quest is at an end. No matter how you slice it, these verses relate to women causing disruption and specifically do not relate to women God anoints with prophetic messages. The passage does not even address the question of whether women could participate in church leadership. Indeed, it is difficult to say that the church at Corinth even had some fixed leadership structure at all, given its "charimatic" bent.

No doubt the overwhelming majority of leaders in ancient churches were male, given the patriarchal nature of ancient society. The fact that most churches met in homes no doubt led to similar leadership structures to those of the home, which surprisingly must have pushed in more than one way. While men were the heads of their wives in ancient society (e.g., Aristotle says so), the home was the domain of the woman and she directed its activities (e.g., even over male slaves and certainly children). In contrast, Men belonged to the public domain.

Surprising to some, 1 Corinthians on the whole adds credence to the idea of women in ministry. 1 Corinthians 11 sanctions women's involvement in public prayer and prophecy, while 14:34-35 are a tangent to this discussion. But since we are on this topic, let me make some comments on the issue in general. What if 1 Corinthians 14 had seemed to deny women roles of leadership in the church?

First let me note that the "scope" of the current discussion is different from the scope of the biblical discussion. Current evangelical culture has adopted a kind of "absolutist" scope to all its discussions that is, in the end, unbiblical. We tend to apply general principles in an absolute sense, meaning, without exception.

But this is not the way Jesus talked about ethics: "Humanity wasn't made for the Sabbath rule, the Sabbath rule was made for humanity." In other words, there are frequently exceptions to the rules. In general, we should be careful to assume that biblical injunctions are meant to be exceptionless in scope, even when they are worded as "all" statements. Even the Pharisees made room for exceptions, and Jesus gave more exceptions than they did.

The attitude of at least much of the Old Testament, as well as I would say Luke-Acts and most of Paul, is similar in scope when it comes to women. Certainly in the Old Testament, you expected most leaders and prophets to be men. Priests seem to be men exclusively.

However, this general pattern was not an absolute. Even the non-Christian and very "sexist" Aristotle, as he sets out his idea that the husband is the head of the wife and household, indicates that sometimes there are women who "depart from nature." These societies allowed for the exceptional woman like Deborah, who led armies. Similarly, Josiah takes the Book of the Law to Huldah the prophetess to verify its authenticity.

In short, while the general expectation in Bible times was that men would lead, there was a sanctioned place for exceptional women who "departed from nature." My read of Acts 2 is that at least some early Christians believed the frequency of such women would only intensify in the eschatological age. The Spirit is the great leveler. When the Spirit fills women, women become in Christ just as much as men are in Christ, for "in Christ there is not 'male and female'" (Gal. 3:28). Thus when God pours out his Spirit, both sons and daughters would prophecy (Acts 2).

Two things made this prophetic role difficult 1. the husband-wife relationship and 2. the cultural view of females. Let me first make it clear that the husband wife issue is distinct from the women in ministry issue. You can believe that the husband is the head of his wife and yet still approve of women in ministry. What if, for example, a husband wanted his wife to be a minister. How then would husband headship contradict women in ministry? There is also the issue of single women, virgin prophetesses as we see in Acts 21. Of course you can guess my position, I think this is more "earth-think," more concession to ancient culture.

The Corinthian women seem to have wanted to exploit their new found freedom in a way that shamed their husbands. Further, the longer we go into the New Testament, the more "defensive" the church becomes socially. Christianity increasingly conforms to the social values of the day on these issues. Colossians, 1 Timothy, and 1 Peter all represent a move toward the "respectable" in Mediterranean culture, particularly when it comes to the roles of women.

The eschatological, prophetic function of women that seems so striking in some of Paul's earlier letters and in the descriptions of Acts gives way to institutionalization in the later Paul. The "early" Paul who speaks of Christ's return as immanent mentions several women as his fellow workers and says there is no "male and female" in Christ. In contrast, the "later Paul" who fights heresy and strives to pass on sound doctrine has little positive to say about women in the church. Meanwhile, 1 Peter tells women and slaves to "hunker down" and suffer like Christ did, since the judgment was beginning.

In this mix if we are to distinguish heavenly principle from earthly practice, there can be little ambiguity. In Christ there is not "male and female." The wording evokes images of Genesis 1:27: "male and female created He them." In Christ this gender distinction is undone. In heaven they "neither marry nor are given in marriage." Everyone is like the angels without subordination to one another as wife to husband. The heavenly trajectory is set.

The idea "I do not allow a woman to teach or have authority over a man" is not an exception to the heavenly principle. It is in conflict with the heavenly principle. Is not teaching a matter of the Spirit rather than the flesh? And yet it is exactly in the realm of the Spirit that "there is not 'male and female.'" In the light of the heavenly trajectory, we can only view such a rule as a concession to the earthly. And if a woman can receive a prophetic word from God as much as a man, if a woman has the Spirit as much as a man, why would she be silent if God has given her something to teach?

If we wish to fit this statement with the principles of Scripture, indeed with Paul's teaching elsewhere, we must resort to what I have called "cheap harmonizations." We must suggest that Paul is dealing with particular problems at Ephesus or that he is dealing with a widespread problem that leads him to generalize. But what we cannot do is take his words in 1 Timothy 2:12 as absolute. To do so contradicts far more crucial principles about the nature of being in Christ. Indeed, to take the logic of that passage too rigidly leads us into heresy--how can a woman be "saved" from the transgression of Eve by childbearing? Christ died for all sins, including the sin of Eve!

And then there is the fact that there is of course nothing particularly Christian about women being subject to men. Any old non-Christian agreed--Aristotle, for example. It is when Christianity moves toward the equality between men and women that we are moving in the heavenly direction. Anything less--particularly in an age when we don't even have to deal with persecution or disorder--is to submit to earthly principles when the heavenly ones are available. It is to continue the institution of slavery when the possibility exists to abolish it.

Reason and Experience
Let me briefly close by applying two of the prongs in the Wesleyan Quadrilateral.

First, does it make sense to, say, pick a less qualified, less gifted, less wise male as a minister over a wiser, more gifted female? Answer: no. Yet this is exactly what the absolutist position of a Southern Baptist would lead us to do.

I'll go ahead and say it--that's stupid. Let's say I'm on plane about to crash. The pilot is unconscious. There is only me and a woman there. I don't know how to fly a plane. But let's say she does, in fact that she has a pilot's license. Should I insist on flying the plane because I have male reproductive organs? I have a hunch that God's just a little smarter than that.

Now remind me again why people argue against the very possibility of a woman in ministry? Oh, that's right, one single verse in 1 Timothy whose context, scope, and meaning is debated.

What then about experience? There are women who feel God calling them into ministry. Are we going to tell them to become nurses because they're mistaken? Isn't that pretty shaky--to tell someone who thinks God's calling them that they're mistaken? Of course both men and women can be mistaken about God's call. But you better pray really hard before you tell someone something like this.

I leave with this question: why would we continue with rules based on bodies and the earthly when we know what the heavenly will be like? When it actually is a positive witness for Christ in America--unlike the way it would have been perceived in Paul's day--why not even promote it? What would a prohibition of women in ministry indicate about God anyway? What's the point God would be trying to make? That He's testing us to see if we'll follow an arbitrary rule that makes no sense and is prone to turn people away from Christ, a rule that was "worldly thinking" even in the days of Paul?

Or just maybe God is expecting us to do what we did with slavery--to seize this opportunity to make the world just a little more glorifying to God than it is when it is under the power of Sin. We can take the Spirit's cue and make the earth look a little more like heaven will.

Women 4: Response to Ben

Ben asked some good questions, so here are some quick thoughts:

Ben: Dr. Schenck,If we are to assume that these verses are early interpolations, 1) who may have composed and added them to this epistle? 2) Do you suppose the reason for the addition is the same reason Paul included these verses if they are original? 3) If these verse are not original, was their addition inspired? If not, what sort of paradigm shift must we make from the common evangelical approach to inspiration? 4)Would this sort of early interpolation be found elsewhere in the New Testament?Thoughts floating in my head...interested to hear yours.~Ben

Great questions. I think we must suppose that they were added very early indeed, perhaps even as an addition to the original manuscripts.

And while I don't think they fit very well with the flavor of the 1 Corinthian Paul, they fit very well with the 1 Timothy Paul. In this sense I can pass the buck to David Smith, who's going to discuss the place of 1 Timothy in the women in ministry debate. We have to deal with 1 Timothy whether these words in 1 Corinthians were original or not.

Given the church hermeneutic I advocate, the question of their early inclusion and persistence is an important one. I would place it into the bag of objections to women in ministry raised by those who point out that women have not held pastoral offices in the church from as early as the late first century except in certain off the mainstream groups like the Montanists. If I adopt the kind of church hermeneutic I use with the Trinity, how can I then support women in ministry from this angle?

I think of the words of a friend of mine who ultimately converted from the Anglican Church to the Roman Catholic Church: "I will support women in ministry when it is affirmed by an ecumenical council." I think he was sincere.

And this is partially my position. I will support women in ministry because I believe we are in a period leading up to a consensus on women in ministry. It may not completely look that way now, but I can't imagine even the Roman Catholic Church holding out on this one for very long. The idea of compartmentalizing roles in the church because women don't have certain physical organs is simply incomprehensible in my mind in the light of the truth of the gospel. And when people are only maintaining positions that don't make spiritual sense because it's the "rules," I can't see these ideas lasting for very long.

I see the same thing with the pro-slavery parts of the church 150 years ago. It's "obvious" to us today that they were on the wrong side of the issue and we have a hard time today even believing that the hearts of such individuals were right with God. They were just on the wrong side of history. In reality it's more complicated than this, but I do believe Christians a hundred years from now will view anti-women in ministry people similarly.

I put this in the same category as "Moses said give them a writ of divorce because of the hardness of your hearts." I truly believe God's word to the church today is, "God allowed the New Testament church to conform to the patriarchal values of its day because of the hardness of their hearts. But God did not intend it to be so, as it is written, 'In Christ there is neither male nor female.'"

I'll reiterate many of these thoughts in my final blog on the subject.

There are other places in the Bible where I would suggest that what you see is not what you get. I treat these as fully Scriptural, which may imply some inconsistency on my part in the way I am tempted to dismiss 1 Corinthians 14:34-35.

For example, I tend to see 2 Corinthians 6:14-7:1 as misplaced, although I accept Paul as its author. I have no external evidence for this conclusion, only the fact that it seems so inappropriate to its context.

I suspect that there probably are other very early interpolations or textual problems for which we have no textual evidence, but I consider it highly problematic to go around suggesting such unless you have really, really good internal reasons for the suggestions. I actually can't think of any.

Some thoughts...

Women 3: Was 1 Corinthians 14:34-35 Original?

Textual Issues Relating to 1 Corinthians 14:34-35
Most scholars, both "liberal" and "conservative," consider these verses original. The manuscript tradition tends to preserve even the most unlikely readings, so it is generally a bad idea to suggest "interpolations"--additions to the biblical text--without at least some textual evidence.

A. External Evidence
There is manuscript evidence of some variation in where these verses appear in 1 Corinthians 14. But all manuscripts have the verses somewhere in the text. The vast majority of manuscripts place them where they currently appear in all translations of 1 Corinthians today. However, several manuscripts in the Western tradition place the verses at the end of the chapter after verse 40.

It is sometimes claimed that these are all late. However, Codex D dates to the 500's, as does the Latin translation known as italic d (even possibily the 400's). Further, the church father Ambrosiaster places the verses here, and he dates to the 300's. As far as manuscripts go, these are early witnesses. The earliest substantial manuscript of Paul's writings dates to around 200, and we won't find many more before the 300's and 400's.

Nevertheless, this is fairly weak evidence for a different location for the verses in 1 Corinthians, and it is even weaker evidence still for the absence of these verses from the original manuscript of 1 Corinthians. However, in the presence of what I consider to be strong internal evidence, I suspect this minor variation points to something significant in the history of these verses.

The standard question is the following: how might we explain the different location of these verses in the Western tradition? If they are original, we might note that they seem rather out of place in their current location. We might suggest that someone placed them at the end to clarify the train of thought about prophecy in chapter 14. Perhaps.

Could some "pro-women" individual have removed them at some point, only for them to be tacked back on at the end of the chapter? This seems a stretch. Who were these "pro-women" individuals? Montanists of the late 100's? We don't really hear much about groups like this. On the one hand, if such individuals existed, surely they would have removed the verses rather than move them. And if someone had put them back in, why wouldn't they have put them back where they were in all the other manuscripts?

Another possibility is that these verses were originally placed in the margin of an early manuscript of 1 Corinthians, perhaps even as a marginal comment on one of the originals. I say one of the originals because letter writers sometimes kept a copy of a letter with them at the point of origin. Accordingly, from a very early date the marginal comment may have been copied into two different places in the text. Some of those that made their way to Rome--or perhaps some very early one translated into Latin (even at Corinth, for the official language of Corinth was Latin)--put the marginal comment at the end of the chapter rather than in the location in which most manuscripts now have it.

If this latter scenario is true, it must have happened very early on indeed. If we accept the Pauline authorship of 1 Timothy, then perhaps Paul himself added the comment later to 1 Corinthians. If someone denies the Pauline authorship of 1 Timothy, perhaps its writer added the comment in response to a perceived problem in the worship of that day. For those who aren't acquainted with this issue, it is primarily evangelical scholars who argue for Paul as the direct author of 1 Timothy. Most non-evangelical scholars think 1 Timothy was written several decades after Paul's death pseudonymously, although recent days have seen an increasing number of scholars willing to reconsider this twentieth century "consensus."

On the whole, the evidence is weak against these verses not being in the original text of 1 Corinthians. For this reason, most scholars both liberal and conservative alike accept their Pauline authorship. We would need strong internal evidence to argue against their originality.

B. Internal Evidence
In my opinion, the internal evidence does turn out to be strongly against the verses being original. On the whole I would conclude against their originality. Accordingly I stand among a small but significant number of scholars--conservative and liberal alike--who do not think Paul would have written these verses at this point of the text. Other scholars who take this stand include Gordon Fee, a conservative pillar of evangelical scholarship (with charismatic sympathies), as well as Richard Hays, who in the vast scheme of things is a conservative Methodist.

1. The Immediate Context of the Verses
My first observation is that these verses stand out as a foreign body in the argument of 1 Corinthians 14. They pop out of nowhere and disappear just as quickly. Here is how Codex D reads at this point:

"Let two or three prophets speak and let the others pass judgment. And if something should be revealed to another who is sitting, let the first person be silent. For you are all able to prophesy individually so that all may learn and all may be encouraged. And the spirits of prophets are subject to prophets, for God is not about confusion but about peace, as in all the churches of the saints. Or did the word of God go out from you or did it come to you alone? If someone seems to be a prophet or someone spiritual, let them understand that what I am writing to you is the command of the Lord. And if someone is ignorant, he is ignorant."

No one would think something was missing here if we didn't know how the text reads. Indeed, the comment about peace in all the churches of the saints flows directly into the question of whether the Corinthians themselves are the origin of the gospel or the sole recipients of it. Similarly, prophecy remains the subject of discussion in this rendition, while the two verses 34-35 do not explicitly mention it. When we consider that Paul has nothing to say forbidding women from prophecying when he directly addresses the issue in chapter 11, 14:34-35 are puzzling at this point of the text. They interrupt what otherwise is a clear train of thought.

2. The Content of the Verses (14:34-35)
I tried in my previous entry to figure out what these words might mean given what Paul says earlier in 1 Corinthians 11. I concluded that Paul must have meant them in a very limited sense, for he has nothing to say against women prophesying in the assembly when that is clearly what he is talking about. Ultimately, I can't come up with anything other than what I called "cheap harmonizations" in my last entry if these verses were original. I have difficulty ascribing these verses to Paul unless they represent an "emotional moment" for him.

Let me clarify what I am saying here. There are "emotional moments" in the Bible. If our theology of Scripture cannot handle them, then our theology of Scripture is inadequate. When the writer of Psalm 137 writes of the blessedness of someone who would bash the babies of the Babylonians against a rock, is this not an expression of deep anger and vengeance toward the Babylonians? When Paul writes that he wishes the individuals agitating the Galatians would castrate themselves, is this not an expression of emotional anger on Paul's part (Gal. 5)? I see no other way to process these comments.

And so I note that the tone of these verses is not Paul's normal tone toward women in his early writings (excepting 1 Timothy also as atypical). I mentioned in the previous entry that even in 1 Corinthians 11 when he is probably dealing with certain women causing problems in Corinthian worship, he feels compelled to step back and point out that men are still not independent of women. In 1 Corinthians 7 Paul points out that a husbands body belongs to his wife.

He considers individuals like Euodia and Syntyche his fellow workers in Philippians 4. He considers Priscilla and Junias coworkers in the Christian enterprise and commends Phoebe as a "deacon" of the church of Cenchrea (Rom. 16:1). This is the same word used in Philippians of leaders in the Philippian church (Paul uses a masculine form of the word too).

But given its current context, the verses seem particularly harsh. In their current context, they are preceded with the words "as in all the churches of the saints," a statement that significantly broadens the scope of the prohibition. And the comments that follow make these verses also sound particularly harsh--"did the word of God go out from you or did it come to you alone?" This makes it sound like Paul is not only forbidding, but chastising the Corinthians for letting women speak in church.

But perhaps the most telling aspect of these verses is the fact that they give a command to the churches, plural: "Let women be silent in the churches." 1 Corinthians is not addressed to churches, plural, but to the singular church at Corinth (cf. 1 Cor. 1:2). The Corinthian church has no control over other churches, and Paul was not writing to any church but the Corinthian church in 1 Corinthians. This minor point places these words at a point in time when Paul's letters were read as Scripture directed at all churches--a point of time probably after Paul's death. It is our tendency to read these words as universal in scope that leads us to miss this major breach of context.

Finally, we have already pointed out that the reference to the Jewish Law also seems somewhat out of character for Paul. It's the kind of argument I make when I'm emotional and pushed in a corner. Paul generally resists using the Jewish Law as a basis for ethical command. If these verses are original, we might suggest that the problem Paul addresses comes primarily from Jewish women in the church.

Notice also the heavy use of honor-shame language in the verses. This heavy "emotional" element is absent from the earlier places where women are addressed in 1 Corinthians. If Paul wrote them, they bespeak a problem in the Corinthian community (or in the Ephesian community) that is under Paul's skin when he writes this part of 1 Corinthians 14.

In summary, if the verses are original, I see them as an "emotional moment," almost an outburst on Paul's part because of something that is eating at him. On the other hand, I am more inclined to see them as an early interpolation. The context flows more smoothly in their absence, and they seem to contradict Paul's message and tone both in the rest of the letter and in the bulk of his other writings, as well as in Acts.

Women 2: Does Paul Contradict Himself?

Does Paul Contradict Himself?
My first claim is that 1 Corinthians 14:34-35 cannot be absolute in scope or else Paul would significantly contradict himself in the very same letter.

In my next entry, I will discuss the question of whether these verses were actually in the original manuscript of 1 Corinthians. But the majority of interpreters, both liberal and conservative alike, have concluded that these verses were a part of 1 Corinthians. I will thus discuss in this entry what these verses might have meant if they were indeed a part of the original of 1 Corinthians.

We notice first of all that the overall context of these verses is the disorderly worship of the Corinthian community. In particular, the verses just before (14:29-33) and after (14:37) relate to the orderly use of prophecy in the church. This fact might make you think that Paul was forbidding women from prophesying in the church or perhaps any spirit type speaking such as speaking in tongues.

However, this is exactly what these verses cannot mean if Paul is not to contradict himself, for Paul has already assumed that women could pray and prophecy in the public assembly. Here we turn to 1 Corinthians 11. In 1 Corinthians 11:5 Paul says "every wife who prays or prophesies with uncovered head shames her 'head.'"

Prophecy is not something that someone does in private, and prayer was never silent in this period of history even when one prayed alone (cf. the OT story of Hannah, story in Augustine). Paul presumes in 1 Corinthians 14 that prophecy is something that builds up the church (14:4). It is a word from God to the assembled body of Christ. In other words, the praying and prophesying of 1 Corinthians 11 is praying and prophesying in public worship.

A further item of note is that the woman in question is a wife. Paul does not indicate whether or not the same considerations would apply to an unmarried woman, but the "head" that an uncovered woman shames is not only her physical head. Paul has already defined the "head of a woman" as her husband in 11:3. The wife is thus dishonoring her husband when she prays or prophesies in the public assembly with uncovered head.

The dynamics here are almost certainly related to inappropriate interaction with males who aren't her husband. She engages in public speech with uncovered head in the presence of men who aren't her husband. She engages in a spiritual activity in the presence of angels (11:10) and God Himself, also a putative male (11:13). Unveiled (a hair rather than a face covering), she shames her husband by immodest behavior in the presence of these other males.

So there is indeed subordination here, but it in no way impinges on this wife's ability to pray or prophesy publically. Such a factor is completely absent from Paul's thinking at this time. In fact, he is careful to note that "however neither is a wife separable from her husband or her husband from his wife in the Lord, for as the woman came out of the man, so also the man comes by way of a woman, and all things are from God" (11:11-12).

Any reading of 14:34-35 must take these things into consideration. When Paul says, "let women be silent in the churches," he cannot mean women who are led by God to pray or prophesy. If he did, he would contradict himself on a fundamental level in the matter of only a few pages. We would have to say he changed his mind or that he was two faced on the issue.

14:34 goes on to speak of the need for subjection as well: "for it is not fitting for them to speak, but let them be subject, as even the Law says." We get the impression that an issue of submission to husbands is involved here and thus that some women at Corinth may be shaming their husbands by way of their speech in public worship.

The mention of the Jewish Law is curious, since Paul does not usually use the Jewish Law in this way. He has indeed mentioned in 1 Corinthians 9 that he was not under the Law (9:21).

14:35 makes it clear that a husband-wife issue is at least partially involved in these verses. "And if they want to learn something, let them inquire of their own husbands at home." This verse is perhaps the most revealing of all, particularly in the light of the worship context of these words. If these words are original, then the context leads us to see women asking questions in a way that interrupts the prophetic word. Not only are they interrupting the worship by asking questions, but they are asking questions of other women's husbands.

Paul responds 1. that they should ask their own husbands and 2. at home rather than in the middle of worship.

"For it is shameful for a woman to speak in the assembly" (14:35). If Paul is not to contradict himself, he must mean a particular kind of speaking, namely, the disruptive interaction with other husbands pictured here.

These words thus have everything to do with 1. the disruption of worship, 2. inappropriate behavior toward other males and thus indirectly toward their wives, 3. inappropriate behavior in relation to their own husbands. Insofar as these conditions do not connect well to our context, very little of these verses apply directly to our worship context. Paul addresses a particular stereotypical woman of the first century as women's roles were then understood.

What these two verses cannot preclude, however, is the prophetic role of women in the church. We have ample evidence from Acts that women were involved in prophecy (e.g., Acts 2:17; 21:9) and that in fact their involvement in prophecy was part of the arrival of the kingdom of God. We cannot imagine that Paul addressed these words to the Phoebe's, the Priscilla's, the Junias', the Lydia's, the Euodia's, the Syntyche's, the Lois', or the Eunice's.

If that's what these verses meant, then the Bible would contradict itself on a grand scale. And no cheap harmonizations will do. If the Bible sanctions even one woman speaking at some point in public worship, then the scope of 1 Corinthians 14:34-35 cannot be universal or absolute. That's quite a challenge for the opposing view. Just think, only one woman and your argument's toast.

And what spirit in someone would make them want to make that argument? Not the Spirit of Christ, since in Christ "there is not male and female." In heaven there is no subordination, for they "neither marry nor are given in marriage."

In reality, almost no group really keeps these verses. How many female Sunday School teachers do we have? How many woman sing special songs in worship or read Scripture? I know there are some fringe groups, but I'm quite willing to say they have little of God's Spirit in them if such a bias is truly heart felt on their part.

It's one thing to do something because you truly believe it is the will of God, perhaps something you don't understand but feel like you need to do to be obedient. It's quite another thing when you want to find a way to argue something like this. That's a spiritual problem.

1 Corinthians 14 and Women in Ministry 1: Introduction

If I have my weeks straight, I will be presenting a talk on "1 Corinthians 14:34-35 and Women in Ministry" this Thursday. The setting is a class on Women in Ministry taught by Dr. Constance Cherry at Indiana Wesleyan University. I thought I would do some preparation on the blog. I'll resume Sin later. :>)

Question: What does 1 Corinthians 14:34-35 imply about women in ministry today?
Answer: Absolutely Nothing!

There, the talk is over, we can all go home now.

Okay, okay, since others think it does have something to do with the issue I'll at least go through the motions on this "slam dunk" passage. Dr. David Smith has a much harder one to deal with the following week: 1 Timothy 2:12-15.

There are at least three reasons why this verse is irrelevant to the current discussion on women in ministry:

1. Given other comments in 1 Corinthians, it cannot be an absolute statement or else Paul would majorly contradict himself.

2. There are strong textual issues that suggest it was not even a part of the original manuscript of 1 Corinthians.

3. It would go counter to the fundamental principles of Christianity to use any Bible passage today to forbid called women from ministering in any capacity to which God calls them.

That's where I'm headed in the next few days. Here we go...

Sin: Who is Wronged?

Who is Wronged?
Next, who are the different parties that one can wrong?

The easy answer is 1. God, 2. others, or 3. yourself. David Drury mentioned in an earlier comment that some also make a distinction in number two between 2a) other Christians and 2b) non-Christians.

I make these distinctions so we don't miss out on any kind of wrongdoing. Regardless of the answer, we want to ask questions like "Will God hold us accountable for damage we've done to our own bodies in one way or another?" Similarly, some are so focused on sins toward others that they might miss out the possibility that there are wrongs we might do toward God that don't directly hurt ourselves or others. My purpose in this entry is not so much to assess the level of guilt or of punishment for different types of wrongdoing. My purpose is merely to think about all the different kinds of wrongdoing.

So what are wrongs we might commit toward God? I would say that all wrongdoing either directly or indirectly wrongs God. If I hurt some innocent person, I am offending God both because of His revealed commands and because Christians believe humanity was made in God's image. God says, "You mess with one of mine; you mess with Me."

Do I wrong God when I do not do my part to defend the defenseless of all kinds? When I do not "feed the poor" of all kinds? The orphan, the widow, the unborn? Matthew 25 and the Parable of the Sheep and the Goats would say yes. Some here might make a distinction between those in the church and those outside. Both still fit thus far in our rubric of overall wrongdoing.

By extention, I wrong God on some level by disregarding myself. I can do this physically of course. I can wrong myself by overworking or chain smoking or going on alcoholic binges, and these wrongings of myself indirectly wrong God by treating His creation with less than what it deserves. I can wrong God by undervaluing myself, treating an individual God loves with less than the respect one of His creations deserves.

A real place of growth I think would be to realize how we might wrong God in ways that do not wrong others or myself. An easy extension of my above comments is in the way we treat God's creation. Flagrant disregard for God's creation is an improper attitude toward something God has made and blessed. I continue to puzzle at so many American Christians who seem to have a kind of militant anti-environmentalism. A common sense care for God's creation seems obviously Christian to me. The fanatic environmentalists are not my point. My point is simply, doesn't it glorify God to be good stewards of His creation?

How else might I wrong God? Does homosexual practice wrong God? The Bible asserts that it does. Male homosexual practice also often harms the bodies of those involved. Other than the physical consequences, I'm not sure how else it might harm others or ourselves. Perhaps someone knows a psychological argument they could share. But regardless, the Bible asserts that it wrongs God if not indirectly, then directly as disobedience to His command.

We can wrong God by not giving Him His due as well as by disobeying His commands. An area that drives us to ponder long and hard is how we might wrong God by not giving Him His due. His due is everything. His due is absolute. How could anyone possibly ever give God His due?

These are things for us to reflect on as we go forward...

Sin: What is Wrongdoing?

What is Wrongdoing?
I want to start off with a definition of wrongdoing that is as broad as possible. That means we will be careful about any "wrongs" we then say don't count as sin. I'm going to define wrongdoing as anything a person does that is harmful, negative, or in some way undesirable to someone.

Second, I want to make a distinction right off the bat between wrongdoing and guilt. A person can wrong another person unintentionally. In some cultures, the act itself implies guilt, even if you accidentally knocked the other person out the window. I've heard stories of missionaries whose life came into danger because they accidentally killed a person in a traffic action. We have trouble understanding this idea, but notice that the cities of refuge in the Old Testament were for those who unintentionally killed someone else.

By contrast, our culture has a very loose sense of guilt in relation to wrongdoing in the sense I am taking it. We will consider a person free of guilt if we can show they were insane or had extenuating circumstances like an abusive childhood. I personally feel our culture needs some clarification on the purposes of criminal penalty as we've shifted from the idea of justice to the idea of rehabilitation as the purpose of incarceration.

Now the fun begins. Sometimes you have to "hurt" someone on one level to "help" them on another. Allowing a child to experience the consequences of a bad choice is undesirable to him or her, but it is not wrongdoing. Justice is not wrongdoing by definition, even if it is perceived negatively by the person experiencing it (see earlier blog on justice). Indeed, the Greek word translated as "wrongdoing" in 1 John 5:17 has the fundamental sense of an unjust action (adikia).

Further, there are actions that bring growth that are not wrongdoing. A child may think homework is a teacher doing them wrong. A child may think making you take medicine is wrong. But these are "just" actions that have the benefit of the child in mind. Surely we wouldn't want to say that the "end justifies the means" either. You can't kill innocent Joe because it will benefit Kate, Carl, and Cindy. This leads us to a vague idea of justice versus injustice. We all have a certain common sense that knows actions that benefit but are unpleasant are not unjust.

Next, it is clear that there is both intentional and unintentional wrongdoing. For our purposes, I would like to divide these into four categories: 1. accidental wrongdoing where no guilt is involved (i.e., no deficiency on my part resulted in the accident), 2. accidental wrongdoing where guilt is involved (i.e., something wrong about me resulted in the accident), 3. subtly intentional wrongdoing that I didn't think about fully consciously, and 4. intentional wrongdoing--I knew it was wrong and I did it any way or I knew what I should do and I didn't do it anyway.

My tradition, the Wesleyan tradition, has almost exclusively identified sin with the fourth type of wrongdoing. Some would identify sin with all four as any kind of imperfection at all. I personally think that we can roughly speak of 2-4 as kinds of sins with varying levels of seriousness.

What I Believe about Sin: Defining Sin

Defining Sin
The first step in answering any question is asking the question clearly. When we're having a debate that just seems to go around in circles, there's a good chance that we aren't clear about what we're debating. Asking the right question gets us more than half way to good answers.

I'd have to rank the question of sin as one of those many issues where there's a lot of confusion because we're not quite sure what we're talking about. What is sin? I can't answer whether it's something I can avoid unless I know what it is.

The Bible talks about sin in different ways, which adds to our confusion. What are the "unintentional sins" of Numbers 15? What does Hebrews 4:15 mean when it says Jesus was without sin, if he was fully human like me? What is a "sin unto death" in 1 John 5:16 in contrast to a "sin that does not lead to death" in the same verse?

The Bible is not presented to us as a textbook of theology. Even Romans fits at a certain point of Paul's ministry, and it is only later theologians who have distilled it into a theology textbook. What I'm saying is that the Bible never sets about giving us absolute, philosophical definitions of things. This is a task we do in theology class after we have looked at all the different ways God spoke to different people about an issue in the Bible. Our theologians then synthesize all the individual teachings in Scripture in the light of 2000 years of Christian history, hopefully with a good dose of the Holy Spirit behind them.

But I would say we got lucky on this issue. 1 John has a statement about sin that seems like an excellent starting point for discussion: "All wrongdoing is sin" (1 John 5:17). We could get more profound, but this just seems like a great starting point. It leads us to what I think is the best way of formulating the right questions. When I ask "What is sin?", I am asking "What is wrongdoing?"

Formulating sin in this way--"sin is wrongdoing"--leads to what I think are the right questions on this issue:

1. How do I know what "right" and "wrong" are? What is the standard that tells whether or not a wrong has been done?

2. Who is wronged? God? My neighbor? Can I sin against myself?

Once I have answered these questions, other questions will follow. Can I wrong someone unintentionally? What are the consequences of wrongdoing--are they all the same or are there different consequences for different sins? Can I live without sinning on one level or another?

These are the questions I hope to address in the next few blog entries.

Bush and Social Security

Bush is on a 60 stop tour to promote his social security plan. I think I probably am about average on this one--in the middle.

Is there a problem with Social Security? I thought everyone thought there was a couple years ago. I feel like this is an issue that the vast majority of us are unqualified to decide--fallacy of improper authority. I don't care what Joe Average's opinion is on whether Social Security is on the fritz or not, because the truth is not democratic (fallacy of the appeal to the majority). Why does any old fool think he or she can comment authoritatively on the subject?

I have a saying I've developed but just haven't had the chance to use anywhere yet, so how about here: "The truth doesn't care." Truth doesn't care about me or you or our feelings. If something is true, then it's true. End of story. So whether or not Social Security is in trouble would seem to be something that would be easily answered by those who know the figures. That's what I hate about politics. It makes half of us think stupidly and the other half become deceitful about the truth. Somewhere in there are honest people, but it seems so hard to know who they are. I personally most trust individuals like John McCane and Colin Powell. I trust Bush Jr's intentions, but not his brain.

No doubt some of you reading this blog know a lot more about the figures than I do. I'm perfectly willing to believe that something needs to be done with Social Security. And it's a little like global warming. I'm not competent to tell whether or not global warming is taking place or not. But if it is, then I don't care who likes the concept and who dislikes it. If there's a problem, we need to solve it. How stupid to play political games with issues like these! Why does Joe average fight vehemently for one position or the other just because of the group they're in? There are stronger adjectives to describe this way of thinking, but since there might be children reading I'll refrain.

So I'm quite willing to see a need for reform sometime soon. Greenspahn is another person I trust both in intention and in brain, and he's thrown his hat in with the "problem" side.

But as I've written before, I don't trust Bush's brain and the brains of his advisors any further than I can throw them (I realize the metaphor doesn't work, but I couldn't think of anything else on the spot). The polls seem to show that the American populace feels the same way as I do deep down. Bush has long spent his "trust me, I'm President" capital, and he's now facing a second term when he doesn't have the blank check he had for so long after 9-11. Notice that the rest of the world now stands up to us as equals, where they used to feel more like they needed to go along with us.

Not that I'm saying his plan is bad. Maybe it's a great plan! I just don't know and I think the rest of America feels like I do--we just don't know. Do I want to trade the Devil I know for a Devil I don't know?

Personally, I've never thought of Social Security as something I would count on. The amounts are barely subsistence level as they are. I'm thankful to have a pretty good TIAA-Cref set up with the university--this is an incredibly good place to work when it comes to retirement, kudos to Barnes and the Trustees!! So I'm not counting on SS to do anything for me--I've almost written off that money.

But as a Christian, I'm thankful that the government is forcing me to support people like my wife's Aunt Ruth, who lives almost solely off of Social Security. I'm a failure at living out Jesus' example on social justice and I'm glad someone's making me be like Christ--ironically the non-Christian government. Did she earn that money I'm giving her? No, probably not. But I think a good social contract has back up systems for everyone within the contract. Would it be Christian for me to suggest she die because she's not able to do anything productive for society any more? Would I want society to do that to me after I'm infirm? It's not capitalistic, but it's Christian.

As a friend of mine commented the other day, It's spelled C-H-R-I-S-T-I-A-N. Learn to love it.

Are the 10 Commandments Christian?

On the one hand, the answer to this question is a no-brainer--of course they are. They're in the Christian Bible, so they're Christian.

But then again, Christians generally read the Bible through filtered glasses. The filters include things like: 1. the things Christians believe in general, which has been influenced heavily by 2000 years of church history, 2. the specific Christian traditions a person comes from (e.g., Baptist, Wesleyan), and 3. contemporary American culture and the many ways it influences us. I don't have a problem with this in general--it seems to be part of how God makes the meaning of the Bible transcend particular times and places.

But I'd like to take a minute to talk about what the 10 commandments really meant--the ancient Israelite meaning, not the pop meaning you might hear on Christian radio or the "figurehead" role it's playing in the news today.

First of all, who is the "you" of "You will have no other gods before me"? Both Exodus and Deuteronomy are very clear--it refers to ancient Israel. "Hear, O Israel" (Deut. 5:1). "I am the LORD your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt..." (Exod. 20:2; Deut. 5:6). So why do we think this is about us? Well, it is about us now in some way because these words have become Scripture, and they're in our Bible. But it didn't originally address me. I'm a Gentile by birth, and these commandments specifically addressed ancient Israel.

Different traditions number the "10 words" (Decalog) differently. For Jews, the "I am the LORD your God" is the first "word." For Christians, the first one at least includes "you shall have no other gods before me" (Exod. 20:3; Deut. 5:7). Here we remember that the ancient Israelites were henotheists more than monotheists. They believed in the existence of other gods, but they weren't allowed to worship them. There were plenty of gods on the market--Ba'al, Dagan, Marduk...--but they were to put none of them before Yahweh.

Israel's God was Yahweh (translated as LORD in all caps in most translations), while the other nations paired up with other gods on the list. Deuteronomy 32:8 expresses it well:

"When the Most High [El Elyon] apportioned the nations, when he divided humankind, he fixed the boundaries of the peoples according to the numbers of the gods; the LORD's own portion was his people, Jacob his allotted share" (NRSV).

El Elyon was the king of the Canaanite pantheon, like Zeus in the Greek system. In this passage El Elyon, also here called Yahweh, allots the other gods to the other nations and then takes Israel for himself. We can take this statement somewhat poetically. But needless to say, it makes me a little uncomfortable to hear Moses expressing the "god situation" in terms that fit so easily into Canaanite religious categories. The picture here is not unlike if some Greek were to say that Zeus gave Troy to Poseidon, Delphi to Apollo, and then took some city for himself. Compare Psalm 82, which uncomfortably uses similar imagery

It's not really until the middle chapters of Isaiah that we begin to see the "absolute monotheism" that we all think of as monotheism. Of course we would have no problem believing that there was an evil being behind Ba'al, but we would call it a demon (cf. 1 Cor. 10:20). Our categories are clearly not the same as Moses'.

For Lutherans and Catholics, the first commandment continues into what other Protestants call the second commandment: don't make idols of living things and don't worship them. This is not a commandment that any of us are in danger of violating literally, which is of course how it was originally meant.

I'll follow the standard Protestant numbering for a while. The third is "Do not take the name of the LORD your God in vain." This was about swearing by Yahweh. Jephthah gets the award for "most stupid oath" in the Old Testament. He swears by Yahweh that he will sacrifice the first living thing that comes out of his house if Yahweh gives him the victory. It turns out to be his daughter.

But Jephthah does not violate the commandment. He does not invoke God's name in vain. He gives his daughter two months to mourn dying a virgin, then he sacrifices her.

Jesus has undercut the need for this commandment--it need never apply again. Jesus says that you won't ever need to swear by Yahweh if you are a person of your word. "You have heard that it was said to those of ancient times, 'You shall not swear falsely, but carry out the vows you have made to the Lord.' But I say to you, Do not swear at all" (Matt. 5:34).

Is the third commandment Christian? Jesus implies that a Christian should never need use it.

The fourth commandment is not Christian if we read it literally. "Remember the Sabbath day to keep it holy." Originally, this commandment was 1. about Saturday and 2. about not working. I have no problem with thinking of Sunday as a day of rest or with the way Christians today "translate" this commandment. But that isn't what it meant, and Christians are not obligated to keep this commandment according to the New Testament.

First of all, only Seventh Day Adventists worship on Saturday. The Jewish Sabbath was a Saturday not a Sunday. No New Testament passage equates Sunday with the Jewish Sabbath. Christians in practice simply do not keep the Sabbath of the 10 commandments.

The only New Testament passages that mention the Sabbath in the literal sense refer to the Jewish Sabbath on Saturday. The ones most important to us are in Paul's writings and unanimously prohibit Sabbath enforcement among non-Jews.

Colossians 2:16: "Do not let anyone condemn you [Colossian Gentiles] in matters of food and drink or of observing festivals, new moons, or sabbaths. These are only a shadow of what is to come, but the substance belongs to Christ."

Romans 14:5: "Some judge one day to be better than another, while others judge all days to be alike. Let all be fully convinced in their own minds. Those who observe the day, observe it in honor of the Lord. Also those who eat, eat in honor of the Lord..."

There is simply no biblical basis for considering the fourth commandment in its literal meaning as binding on a Christian today.

Well I've gone on quite a bit. My purpose is to expose how much "culture" is involved in the current Christian politics with regard to the Ten Commandments. I have no problem with them in a courthouse, and I have no problem with the way Christians today are applying them.

What really bugs me is that the conservative political machine is shooting us in the foot with its machinations. I think we could have the 10 commandments in our courthouses if these people weren't making such a direct connection between them and the Christian religion. And of course it bugs me that some of these people think they speak for God when they don't have a clue what the Bible really meant. Some of them wouldn't recognize Jesus or Moses if they were standing right in front of them. Now that I think of it; they'd probably crucify him because he was too "liberal."

Death Penalty and Justice

Today the Supreme Court ruled that the death penalty for underage youths (younger than 18) is unconstitutional in the sense that it is cruel and unusual punishment. I thought I would develop some thoughts on justice I've been pondering.

First justice is blind. It is neither loving nor unloving; it just is. The best standard of justice I can think of is the lex talonis: "an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth." The idea is that justice in its blindness exacts one eye for an eye taken. Less than an eye taken is mercy; more than one eye is vengence. But blind justice with her scales exacts the exact equivalent of the crime.

Of course in practice it will often be impossible to determine what the equivalent penalty is. Then there is the matter of intent. Here I note that the Old Testament considers it just for a person to take the life of someone who has accidentally caused the death of another. The cities of refuge were established as locations of mercy for those who killed accidentally. They did not protect those who murdered intentionally.

The OT also has all kinds of penalties even if your animals do damage to someone else's property. An eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth. Intention comes into play in the dispensation of mercy, but is irrelevant for justice.

Jesus indicates that we are to live individually as instruments of mercy. In other words, justice is not the concern of the individual Christian. Mercy is.

On the other hand, Paul indicates that authorities are servants of God to execute wrath on wrongdoers (Rom. 13:5). I would argue that there is therefore nothing intrinsically unchristian about the death penalty as a punishment for those who have intentionally murdered others. Further, the Bible does not treat human life as if it has absolute value. On the contrary, physical life is a rather low value in comparison to eternal concerns.

Interestingly, I would further argue that the idea of prison as a place of reformation is not a clear secular idea, except insofar as it benefits society as a whole (the utilitarian argument). Society does not "owe" a criminal the opportunity to reform. That is, the reformation of criminals is not motivated by justice.

But how are we to view these things as Christians in a country where it is possible for us to affect the system in Christian ways that go beyond justice?

I think as Christians we care about the criminal in ways secular philosophy has no reason to. We want criminals to be redeemed if at all possible. As Christians, therefore, I think we will discourage the use of the death penalty so that criminals are given as long as possible to come to Christ. We will push for prisons as places of reformation because God loves the whole world.

These are some quick thoughts, largely undeveloped. I think I observe all kinds of cultural factors at work in this debate, and they interestingly seem to be affecting both Christians and pagans. I do not object to the current trajectory. I just find it fascinating that the world seems to be arguing for positions that seem more specifically Christian.

But I think other systems are not intrinsically less Christian, such as the old French sense that a life must be taken for a life. I think of Les Miserables or The Three Musketeers, where the death penalty is dispensed without prejudice or vengeance--only as justice.

Biblical Interpretive Paradigms: Part 4

Well I'm tired of this thread so I'll get it over with.

The final component I wish to discuss on this topic is the belief that speaking in tongues is not just a gift of the Spirit that some Christians have, not even the view of some that speaking in tongues is a gift all Christians could have, but evidence of the Holy Spirit's presence in your life to where if you have never spoken in tongues, you are not a Christian.

It is easy enough to see where the group gets this idea. It's a simple line of thought:

1. A person is not a Christian if s/he has not received the Holy Spirit.
2. A person who receives the Holy Spirit will speak in tongues.
3. Therefore, a person who has never spoken in tongues has not received the Holy Spirit and is not a Christian.

I agree with the first premise. However, I disagree with the second. Accordingly, I disagree with the conclusion.

I've argued before that the "dictionary" you bring to a word determines the meaning you see in it. That is true in this case. A person from this group brings a "definition" of the Spirit that entails speaking in tongues. Therefore a person is not a Christian if they have not spoken in tongues.

Where does this "definition" come from? I would say two places. First, it comes from the experience of the founders of this group. It's easy to say that all Christians will speak in tongues when you come to Christ if you spoke in tongues when you came to Christ. The problem is of course for the rest of us who believe we experienced conversion and yet did not speak in tongues.

If the founders of this group spoke in tongues when they had their conversion experiences, it is easy enough to interpret the fillings with the Spirit accordingly. After all, on three occasions in Acts groups who receive the Holy Spirit speak in tongues (Pentecost, Gentiles, followers of John the Baptist).

Here we encounter an important dynamic of biblical interpretation. The book of Acts has a "gap" with regard to the relationship between receiving the Spirit and speaking in tongues. The text of Acts does not say that those who receive the Holy Spirit always speak in tongues. The reader must then infer whether 1) we are meant to assume speaking in tongues every time someone receives the Spirit in Acts, even though Acts does not say so or 2) there were only certain key occasions when speaking in tongues occurred.

We might note that Philo the Jew mentions a tradition that a fire issued from Mt. Sinai at the giving of the Law and that this fire could be heard in articulate speech. The Jews of this period associated the Feast of Pentecost with the giving of the Law, so Luke and/or God was giving more than just some sign of conversion in the speaking of tongues on the Day of Pentecost. Perhaps this is an indication that God was inaugurating the new covenant in which He wrote His laws on our hearts instead of on tablets of stone (cf. Jer. 31; 2 Cor. 3; Heb. 8). Some would say this symbolizes the reversal of the confusion at the Tower of Babel.

In any case, speaking in tongues has a strong symbolic significance here, a significance that our dictionary doesn't come equipped with because we are not ancient Jews. The tongues that took place in Acts 10 make it clear that the Gentile experience of the Spirit was in no way inferior to the inaugurative experience of the Jews at Pentecost. The purpose of narrating speaking in tongues at Ephesus to the followers of John the Baptist is less clear and, in my opinion, provides the strongest argument for the group we are discussing.

Nevertheless, their position is largely an argument from silence. Tongues does not play a major role in the New Testament. It appears almost exclusively in these three Acts passages and in 1 Corinthians. Of course there are significant differences even between 1 Corinthians and Acts on this score. The tongues of Acts seem to be human languages that help unbelievers come to Christ. The tongues of 1 Corinthians push unbelievers away and seem to be something like the tongues of angels (13:1).

In 1 Corinthians Paul addresses a problem in Corinthian worship relating to the use of tongues, and the overall tendency of 1 Corinthians 14 is to promote the use of prophecy over tongues in worship. Paul allows the use of interpreted tongues only and then only two or three in a service.

He says not to forbid tongues, which is clear enough about the direction of the conversation: he is not promoting, he is not prohibiting. I do not say this to demean the use of tongues--I don't actually have a problem with Pentecostal groups that might have uninterpreted tongues throughout the whole worship service. Paul was writing to the Corinthian church within the parameters of their context. I suspect that many Pentecostal churches actually are edified by uninterpreted tongues in their worship! (and by the way, I use this same line of argument to justify the Wesleyan Church's prohibition of tongues in public worship--it would not edify in our churches but create immense conflict).

My point is that I have good reason to think that an approach that considers speaking in tongues so essential to Christianity is out of focus. As Paul says, "All don't speak in tongues, do they?" (1 Cor. 12). In Greek this is a question expecting a negative answer. No, all don't speak in tongues. Paul makes no distinctiong between the gift of tongues and tongues as an evidence of the Holy Spirit. This is splicing done from the outside of the text looking in. Paul's primary point indeed seems to be to tell a Corinthian group that thinks its hot stuff that its not as hot as it thinks.

Well, my blather goes on too long. A final word about the comment in the latter part of Mark 16 in later manuscripts predicting that Christians will speak in tongues. Some groups in Kentucky take the comment "they will pick up snakes" as a command and so pick up poisonous snakes in their worship. But this comment is an indicative, a description. It is not an imperative or command. It says what will happen, not what must happen.

And of course in the end these verses were not in the original of Mark. Eusebius at the beginning of the fourth century mentions that the ending was absent from almost all the Greek manuscripts he has seen of Mark. The earliest manuscripts of Mark do not have it. There is a shorter ending in some manuscripts that reflect texts of Mark floating around that supplemented the text with something else. All in all, these verses start the chapter all over as if 16:1-8 didn't even exist. It is largely a summary of various post-resurrection statements in the other gospels.

Well that's it for this one... Blessings on all and hopefully no offense taken for my opinions...

The Science/Religion Debate

The debate at Lakeview was interesting, and I hope it was helpful to many there. It was very "tame," and Ryan's step-Dad was very congenial. Professor Van de Merwe and Mark Smith didn't have a chance to get into much detail. It was just an hour long and probably it was appropriate to stay somewhat general.

One important omission from the Christian side was perhaps the most important of all for us: the resurrection. The idea that a "Big Bang" needed a big push makes sense, but it says very little about what the "Mover" was like. It is the resurrection that begins to get at the Christian God in earnest. I'm sure this question was in the mix, but they just didn't get to it because of time.

It is the resurrection that identifies God with Christ. Jesus died on the cross. It is ludicrous to suggest he wasn't really dead, as some loons have.

Then many individuals claimed to see him alive thereafter. These individuals died for their faith. These individuals saw the risen Jesus at different times and places. It is not reasonable to think they lied, given their lives. At best the skeptic can say these Christians were deceived. If so, a lot of them were deceived at different times and places.

And no one has ever produced Jesus' body. The earliest arguments against the resurrection mentioned in Matthew 28 are that the disciples stole the body. But that means even the skeptics of that day knew there was no body.

Crossan suggests maybe dogs ate the body below the cross. But where then did the traditions about Joseph of Arimathea come from? Just some random name made up and matched to some arbitrary place of origin? Nah, sounds like a real person that lived and walked among the early Christians, someone people knew about, someone who was proud of the role he played in it all.

So we have no body, and we have a lot of people who thought they saw him. Hmm. Of course if you don't believe that resurrections can happen anything's possible. Truth is often stranger than fiction. Then again, if you are open to the possibility, this certainly is the best candidate for a resurrection in all history.

The skeptic had some questions that are hard too. If I were born in Saudi Arabia, there's an excellent chance I would be a Muslim. But then again, if I were born in 1200 Italy there's an excellent chance I would believe the sun went around the earth. I consider myself very privileged to be born where I was. So the fact that I was born a Christian does not necessarily mean Christianity is wrong.

The question of God's fairness is a more difficult issue. While I don't know God's mind, I'd like to think He judges people on the basis of how their heart responds to the "light" they have rather than the specifics of what their mind thinks. But these are inter-Christian issues beyond a belief in the Christian God.

Another question the skeptic raised was why God did not reveal Himself to us in the manner of a Moses or an Abraham. But if we look carefully, God didn't do such overt appearances very often even in Bible times. This line of thought leads me to things I've blogged on before. Maybe a great deal of how we understand God does have to do with our processes of understanding as much as they do God himself. I sometimes wonder if we create false expectations of our "chummy" conception of God that in the end are not the primary way He operates. If so, then maybe we are just setting ourselves up for a skeptic's question of this sort.

After saying that, I don't have all the answers. I sometimes worry about the hyper-apologist Christians who feel like they need to "prove" Christianity. I think a restful faith that believes and doesn't worry so much is safer and maybe ultimately more inviting to non-Christians.

Biblical Interpretive Paradigms: Part 3

To continue...

I'd now like to look at another aspect of the group's interpretive paradigm, namely, the idea that unless you are baptized in water (in the name of Jesus, as the last entry discussed), you are not going to make it to heaven.

First of all, I believe the group has rightly ascertained that Acts 2:38 treats receiving the Spirit as a part of coming to Christ in Acts 2. I feel my Wesleyan background, using its own interpretive paradigm, has often associated the Day of Pentecost with a work of grace subsequent to becoming a Christian (entire sanctification, following the lead of John Fletcher rather than John Wesley). It took me years to listen to the biblical text on this one. I agree with the group that Acts treats reception of the Holy Spirit as an essential component in coming to Christ, not as a work subsequent to conversion.

Indeed, I would say that Paul, Acts, and Hebrews treat the reception of the Spirit as the defining element of becoming a Christian (cf. Rom. 8:9; 2 Cor. 5:5).

But is baptism in water as essential as "baptism in the Spirit" or the reception of the Spirit, terms that Luke-Acts seems to use interchangeably. Some groups, including some in my own tradition, make fine distinctions between phrases like "baptism in the Spirit," "filling with the Spirit," "receiving the Spirit," and the "fulness of the Spirit." But these are moves made from the outside of the text looking in. The text does not make any explicit distinctions of this sort--they are read into the text rather than out of it.

Jesus in Luke foretells baptism in the Holy Spirit. Acts implies that Pentecost is the fulfillment of this prediction. The Day of Pentecost is thus baptism in the Holy Spirit. Acts 2:38 equates receiving the Spirit with the Pentecost experience. They are said to have been filled with the Spirit on this day (2:4). Finally, the phrase fulness of the Spirit does not even occur in the New Testament. Once again we see that the definitions and dictionary a person brings to the text determines the meaning you see in the text.

So how essential is water baptism? It is clearly important. Acts 2:38 treats it as normative. The first words out of the Ethiopian eunuch's mouth after Philip convinces him of the gospel relate to water for baptism (Acts 8). Suffice it to say, the idea of a Christian group forbidding water baptism or even not encouraging it would have been foreign to the book of Acts.

But is it as important and essential as "baptism in the Holy Spirit"? Will an unbaptized Quaker or Salvationist miss heaven over this? What about someone who dies before they get to a baptismal? The group in question is keen to point out that Acts 2:38 says that the baptism is "for the forgiveness of sins." The reception of the Holy Spirit is not mentioned here as the mechanism of cleansing--the water baptism is.

On the other hand, this is a lot of weight to put on the preposition "into" in the Greek. Words like these can have many different nuances, and the group is taking these words in a very, very narrow sense, probably much narrower than they were originally meant.

Thus Acts 15:8-9 speak of the purification coming by way of the Holy Spirit: "God who knows the heart witnessed to them by giving them the Holy Spirit just as He also gave to us, and he showed no difference between us and them when he cleansed their hearts on the basis of their faith." The coming of the Holy Spirit in the incidence to which Peter refers took place before these Gentiles had been baptized (Acts 10). This fact demonstrates that the two "baptisms"--baptism in the Holy Spirit and water baptism--are separable experiences.

Indeed, at Samaria they were baptized and did not receive the Spirit (Acts 8). This incongruous situation led Peter and John to make a special trip to Samaria, presumably to "fix" this "problem" (although here more interpretation is involved on my part).

Paul can associate joining together with Christ with baptism (Rom. 6:4). But more often than not it is the Holy Spirit he focuses on as the boundary marker between sonship and non-sonship (e.g., Rom. 8:9; 2 Cor. 1:22; 5:5; cf. Eph. 1:14; Heb. 6:4-6). In 1 Corinthians he actually downplays the significance of baptism because of local problems there: "Christ did not send me to baptize, but to preach the gospel..." (1:17).

In short, baptism in water is clearly associated with the cleansing of the heart in Paul and Acts. But 1) since water baptism and Spirit baptism are separable experiences in Acts, 2) since when the distinction is not made the spiritual seems to take precedence, and 3) since the spiritual is more often mentioned and water baptism is not, on the whole water baptism seems secondary to Spirit baptism.

So would a Spirit baptized person who was not water baptized go to heaven? The NT doesn't directly address this question. True, the thief on the cross was never baptized, but the Holy Spirit had not yet been given at that time. He was like an Old Testament saint in that regard.

I'm not sure I have a knock down drag out argument except to say that it is not the baptism that the NT authors emphasize as the operative element in conversion. 1 John speaks of the heart, for example.

True, Paul does have followers of John the Baptist become rebaptized at Ephesus (Acts 19). But the reason was because John's baptism did not involve receiving the Holy Spirit. There may also be other features involved here, historical factors leading Acts (cf. John) to emphasize that following the message of John the Baptist and following Jesus is not the same thing.

So I probably cannot prove what any NT author would say about the unbaptized Quaker or the person who gets in a car accident on their way to their baptism. But would God have accepted any of the Gentiles in Acts 10 after they received the Holy Spirit before they were baptized? I think He would have, although this is an inference. And while I cannot absolutely prove it, it seems to me that the baptism of the group in this passage (Acts 10:47) is almost a kind of after-the-fact ratification of that which the Holy Spirit had already done in them.

So inferences are involved on both sides of the issue. I have to infer what the NT authors would say about an unbaptized Quaker. I'm trying to do so on the basis of what the text says. The group in question is also inferring an answer to this question. In particular, they are inferring that all the relevant passages that don't mention water baptism while talking about the Spirit in conversion assume it as equally essential. All in all, their interpretation centers primarily on a rigid reading of one verse (Acts 2:38), whose interpretation is then inferred in all other places in the NT.

But we cannot assume that Paul has the same precise theology as Luke--or even that Luke is giving us Peter's exact words on the Day of Pentecost (there's significant evidence to conclude that the sermons of Acts give us as much of Luke as they do of the historical sermons in question). That means that the group's case is built on 1) the "normal" process of conversion in Acts (without any comment on the unusual) and 2) inference from the "normal" examples of Acts. The NT makes no direct comment on the "unusual" circumstances we are addressing.

In my next post I'll address the question of whether Acts/the NT present tongues as the evidence of having received the Holy Spirit.

Biblical Interpretive Paradigms: Part 2

To continue...

As best I can tell, the book of Acts, especially Acts 2, provides one of the most important "centers" or controlling elements in the way this group reads Scripture. Thus Acts 2:38 says, "Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of sins, and you will receive the Holy Spirit."

The group correctly reads the verse to say:

1. Peter associates the forgiveness of his audience's sins with baptism.

2. This baptism is "in the name of Jesus Christ"--nothing is said of God the Father or the Holy Spirit.

3. A person receives the Holy Spirit in association with such repentance and baptism.

Let's see how the group relates these three aspects of the verse to their key beliefs.

First let's look at their insistence that such baptism be in the name of Jesus [only] and their rejection of the idea of the Trinity.

They have correctly noticed that the book of Acts consistently involves a baptism in the name of Jesus. Nothing is said in Acts about baptism in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Indeed, I suspect they are right to think that the earliest Christians baptized in the name of Jesus (cf. Rom. 6:3).

But as pre-modern readers, they cannot allow other segments of the early church to baptize in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit (e.g., Matt. 28:19). They view the Bible as a single text written by God, so the historical tensions that almost certainly existed in the early church are mowed down by the lawn mower called "harmonization."

At first glance, harmonization looks like it is the most godly approach to Scripture--finding ways to reinterpret passages of the Bible so that their meaning is no longer in tension with the meaning of other passages. When the Holy Spirit is truly behind such harmonization (that is, leading the reader to truth through it, even though the truth is different from the original meaning) or when a person is either consciously or subconsciously doing it with orthodox faith setting the boundaries, I don't have a problem with it.

But I have two problems with it when it is used to support unorthodox views or when individuals (I am not referring to this group now) use harmonization to dismiss sincere Bible scholars as unspiritual because they don't harmonize. The first problem I have is that harmonizing ultimately rejects the voices of Scripture and substitutes itself for Scripture.

For example, Matthew and Mark record Jesus' healing of a leper and his healing of Peter's mother-in-law in opposite order. A harmonizer might suggest Jesus healed two lepers: one before Peter's mother-in-law and one afterwards. This example is harmless enough, but you have created a senario that neither of the gospels present. You have invented your own scheme and, in a sense, rejected both what Matthew and Mark actually say.

Again, in this case the result is really not that big of a deal. But the Jesus only group actually rejects Matthew's baptism in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit in favor of Acts. A clever rationalization ensues--and such splicing is often ingenious. They might argue that "name" is singular and invoke some interpretation that says these three are really all Jesus, just in three phases of his existence. What might seem to be a baptism in the names of three different persons is really just baptism in the one name of Jesus.

This leads me to the second problem I ultimately have with harmonization when it becomes unorthodox or is used to support a condescending attitude toward Bible scholars (again, I am not referring to the group with this last comment). The resultant interpretations are simply wrong in terms of what the text originally meant. It's playing a game with the text. A Bible scholar who genuinely sees tensions in the biblical text may have a much greater respect for the text of the Bible than a harmonizer. That's because such a person is willing to let each part mean whatever it seems to mean. In other words, such a person doesn't shove harmonizations down the Bible's throat. Some people's "idea" of the Bible is far more important to them than the text of the Bible itself.

So in the case of the leper and Peter's mother in law, the wording of the leper story is extremely similar in both gospels. Indeed, it is overwhelmingly likely that Matthew and Mark stand in some literary relationship to one another--that one is either copying its basic text from the other or that they are both drawing on a common source of some type. As such it is overwhelmingly likely that the leper story is the same story placed in different locations by the two authors. Harmonization in this instance is not only not important for faith but it is simply an incorrect interpretation.

Similarly, while Matthew uses the singular for "name," one can only support the idea that this is simply naming Jesus three times if one brings this pre-conception to the text. There is certainly nothing in the text that would lead us in this direction. The resultant interpretation may preserve the "idea" of harmony, but it does so by raping the biblical text of its actual meaning. It ignores what the text wants to say in order to preserve what the interpreter wants the text to say.

Indeed, if anything the New Testament itself pushes us to distinguish Jesus from God, not to identify them. Thus Jesus says he does not know things that the Father does (Mark 13:32). The Father speaks while Jesus prays (e.g., Matt. 3:17). Jesus is the firstborn of creation (Col. 1:15), which seems to place him on the creation side of the equation in Paul's mind (a situation those of us who believe in the Trinity also need to explain). The group no doubt has ingenious ways of reinterpreting these passages, as Christians in general have great "coping strategies" to explain away "naughty verses" that don't fit with our Wesleyan or Baptist or Presbyterian paradigms.

But when we really value the text (and are looking for the original meaning rather than a "spiritual" one), we don't find possible ways to interpret it so it fits with our theology, we try to go with the most probable reading of the text. Inevitably, we begin to see the Bible in context as a chorus of voices that basically are in harmony with each other, but we also see tensions between real people. From my perspective, you simply cannot let the Bible set the agenda without reaching some conclusion of this sort. To do otherwise is to foist on the Bible a view it does not "want" you to have. It would be like trying to honor me for being such an incredible war hero despite my continued protests that I have never been in a war or even in the armed forces. What I really want you to do is to listen to what I'm actually trying to say to you.

Now in saying such things I do not mean to negate my view that it is ultimately great to hear the Spirit speaking in the words apart from what they meant originally. What is important to me is that we don't confuse such spiritual meanings with the original meaning. And even more important to me is that we don't mistake the splicings of our own making with the authoritative voice of God.

Thoughts on Interpretive Paradigms: Part I

I had originally posted this on my blog for philosophy class (http://philosophicaljourney.blogspot.com). But I decided I was getting off track for a class so thought I would republish/continue the series here.

A local group of Christians with which I am a little familiar provides us with an excellent test case for my claim that the paradigms and dictionaries we bring to the text are even more determinative for the meaning we see in the Bible than the text of the Bible itself.

With what little knowledge I have, I would characterize the group in terms of three key beliefs which differ from most mainstream churches (if I am wrong on details, this entry is more about how we read the Bible than about the group per se):

1. A belief that speaking in tongues is the evidence of having the Holy Spirit (in distinction from the gift of tongues, which I suppose would be those who continue to speak in tongues regularly after conversion). Those who do not speak in tongues are not truly saved.

2. A belief that a person should only be baptized in Jesus' name. Baptism in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit is inappropriate because of the manner of baptism in Acts. Those who have been baptized in the name of the Trinity must be rebaptized. Further, a person cannot be saved unless s/he is baptized (although children who have not reached the age of accountability will go to heaven).

3. A disbelief in the Trinity. God the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are in fact three phases or modes of the same person. God is one person, not three.

Now, how does this theology work in terms of how the Bible is appropriated. I will give a description in terms of my claims about how we read the Bible.

This is a wonderful example of a pre-modern interpretation of the Bible. The overriding presumption is that the words of the Bible form a single message. Therefore, words from one book of the Bible are interpreted on the basis of controlling interpretations from other words from other books. This approach, typical of so many Christian groups, usually reflects a lack of awareness of how to read the books of the Bible in context. This approach is particularly typical of the "Left Behind" approach to prophecy, which mixes words from various contexts all over the Bible into a coherent paradigm.

The original meaning of an individual book is of course what the words of that book meant when the book was produced. A contextual reading of 1 Thessalonians thus asks what situation Paul was in when he wrote it, what the words likely meant in Paul's mind, and what the words likely meant in the minds of the Thessalonians.

This is of course how the words "want" to be read. Perhaps it is valid to read them in terms of God's message for us, perhaps in fact that is what it means to consider them Scripture (I am now alluding to a post-modern way of using Scripture). But this is not how the words themselves "want" to be read--it is not what Jesus, Paul, or the other authors understood their words to mean. When 2 Thessalonians 2 says, "Didn't I tell you these things when I was with you," it clearly wants us to take the I as the apostle Paul and the you as the Thessalonians. Paul did not tell anyone alive the things to which these words refer.

In my second post, I will explore ways in which the group in question infuses the words of the Bible with the definitions of their "tradition" and how they "glue" words from one context to words from other contexts. All of these operations take place outside the text and the resultant meanings are distinct from the original meanings of the text. From a post-modern perspective, however, these observations in themselves do not necessarily mean the group is wrong. They can modify their paradigm by claiming to have the correct spiritual interpretation of the text. At the moment, however, these processes take place on a pre-modern plane. That is, the group does not realize they are not reading the words with the meanings Jesus, Paul, or the other New Testament authors understood the words to have.

Rice's Trip to Disneyworld

I'm in a bit of an ornery mood, so maybe I should make my usual disclaimers first. I think Bush has a good heart and good intentions. I think Condoleeza Rice is competent and sincere.

Now let the sarcasm begin...

Condoleeza Rice has a great smile, but every time I see her in a new photo op in a new country, the comic in me has been saying... "That reminds me of something--something funny. What is it?"

I put it together this morning. It's a Disneyworld photo. Every picture looks like she should be standing next to Goofy or Mickey or Minnie. Once I made the connection, it was all over.

Rice is going on a little tour, a little Spring Break trip to see famous characters she's heard of. Of course they're just doing their job, taking pictures with foreign tourists with cameras. It's no secret that Western Europe was hoping they would be dealing with John Kerry about now, but they'll play ball with Condi if they have to. Of course Eastern Europe has always been more supportive of us, partially because we're their patron, partially because they understand dictatorships, partially because they're used to getting things done the violent way.

Rice has also invited Abbas and Sharon to come to the U.S. Bush's trying to get some credit for the budding peace he's had nothing to do with. Or maybe he has secretly been working behind the scenes in some covert operation no one knows about. That would be smart, since any association with the U.S. would only derail Abbas' street cred. with the Palestinians. Naw, don't think so.

Bush is now trying to get in on the action after they've already signed a cease fire. Too late. The most important part of Middle East peace is now underway, no thanks to Bush.

Meanwhile Bush's secular Iraqi administration has apparently lost the election, apparently come in third. No doubt a sign of their approval of the way we run things. We'll now be dealing with a religious Shiite administration. That will be interesting. Of course that's why we actually invaded Iraq... to bring justice to the 9-11 terrorists, no, I mean to stop Hussein from using WMD on us, no, I mean to set up a sympathetic democracy in the Middle East to influence the area, no, to set up a semi-democractic Shiite regime to run Iraq the way it should be--the Muslim way. What a happy day for the women of Iraq.

My Answer to a Question on Bush

I wrote enough in response to Jake that I thought I would post it by itself:

Here's what Jake wrote:
Just a quick question. Do you still view the war as disasterous as you previously expressed? Or does the high voter turn-out in Iraq seem to indicate that maybe this war had some very good objectives that it is meeting? Has your opinion changed at all?The reason I ask is that while I was fairly ambivalent about the war, when I heard initial estimates of 60% voter-turn out, it definitely swayed me. (I haven't followed news closely enough to hear the actually voter turn-out percentage.) Perhaps the vote count is no indication of how people feel about the war; maybe the Iraqis are just making the most of the situation. But at first glance, it sure seems like many Iraqis are not as opposed to the war as some of Bush's critics. Thoughts?

My response:
My main problems with the war were two-fold:

1. I don't feel we started it under the right circumstances. As a matter of principle, the end doesn't justify the means when other important principles are at stake--at least not without much ado. I have always thought that Bush's goals were good and that most Iraqis would rather have someone else in charge other than Saddam.

For me it's not so much the idea of ousting Saddam that was the problem. It was the cavalier and alienating way in which Bush went about it. Those who are in power do well to remember that they will not always be in power. And when that happens then the new power will exert its idea of justice or vengence on you. The doctrine of preemption is very dangerous--especially when someone else is using it on you.

By the way, the groups that voted both have ulterior motives that may cause us tremendous problems yet, although I hope not. The Kurds are patiently going along with us in hopes that they can become Kurdistan and separate from Iraq altogether. That's why the Turks have opposed this action altogether--they don't want their Kurds revolting in the region and don't want the Kurds to retake Kirkuk. These are future conflicts that will almost certainly come and I don't look forward to them. I sympathize with the Kurds, but I dread the death that will probably take place as they move forward with their goals.

The Shiites are following Al Sustani with similar thoughts. They want to have a Shiite theocracy something like Iran. Again, they're playing along with the system because they know their numbers will ultimately give them the upper hand in the formation of any future state.

Meanwhile the Sunnis are under the thumb of the insurgents, ticked on the one hand that they are no longer in power as the minority. Their voter turnout was atrocious out of fear.

2. My second problem with the war was the wholesale cultural and religious ignorance with which Bush's administration seemed to execute it. Bush clearly had no idea we would face what we've faced. They were dismissive of the reaction we would have in the Islamic world.

On the whole I would say that Bush has gotten lucky. There are so many other scenarios that could have been the reality (and frankly still could be). He played Russian roulette on wishful thinking. The gun went off but only maimed him. Now am I expected to praise him because he's managed to get the patient out of intensive care--a patient he put there?

I will praise him. I'll praise him for good intentions. I'll praise him for being willing to stick it out. I'll praise him for the improved health of the patient.

But I'm not going to let him operate on Iran, North Korea, or Social Security unless he is really clear with me about the operating procedures. (as if I have anything to do with anything he does)

State of the Union

I guess I should comment on the State of the Union. I haven't heard all of it; I've mostly heard a bit of the talking heads on both sides. My wife Angie said Bush did a really good job in what she heard (and for those of you who know her, that's a real compliment). You can tell that he really does care and really does want to do good.

Most of the Democrats who've responded seem to be making fools of themselves. They should just admit that things are going pretty well for Bush. How can you do anything else when it seems to be a good thing for most of the Iraqi people? I'm not sure it does much good to keep rehashing the flub-ups of going to war. Bush won the election so that page is now past. If we think about another war, the debate can start again.

I think we need the Democratic party around to emphasize the good things Republicans have to deemphasize because of their constituencies. But the Democratic leaders now seem like a bunch of buffoons... Howard Dean, Ted Kennedy, ... Can't they find anyone with charisma? I'm not sure Hilary qualifies.

I won't say much about Bush's goals. I've already written a little on Social Security and foreign policy. Here's hoping democracy takes hold in Iraq and that someone saves Social Security without leaving anyone insecure.

All in all, I'd say perhaps the best thing going on right now is the potential mending of relations between Israel and the Palestinians--and Bush hasn't really had much of anything to do with it.

The TNIV and World Magazine

There was another article on the TNIV in World magazine this week, predictably negative. It was more of the same and a feeble (though perhaps effective) attempt to derail the potential success of the TNIV, Today's NIV. The New Testament came out a few years back, but the full Bible comes out (supposedly) this month.

The title of the article, "Stealth Version," refers in part to the fact that Zondervan won't let these people take a peak at the full Bible it until it is fully published. Ha! Why in the world would Zondervan give it to them knowing exactly what they're going to say and do? Good grief, do they think they're imbeciles? All they want to do is to derail the version before it even comes out--that's why the World published the article at this time, just before the TNIV comes out. After all, its easier to stop the car before it starts than after its moving.

Another complaint is what the author calls Zondervan's "double speak." The idea is that what Zondervan calls a "gender accurate" translation is really an inclusive language translation.

But what really has gotten under the craw of Dobson and others is the fact that "everyone agreed" in 1997 not to produce inclusive language Bibles. At least that's what the Colorado group most objects. They say that Zondervan entered the agreement but hasn't kept true to its word.

It is possible that Zondervan has engaged in some "double speak." They claim that only two of their representatives entered into the agreement but that these representatives did not have the authority to speak for Zondervan itself. And the idea of a "gender accurate" translation is a bit of a political dodge, although I certainly would not call the TNIV an inclusive language Bible. It only inclusivizes things it thinks were originally inclusive (what it means by "gender accurate")

Ultimately I don't care. If Zondervan agreed to something that prohibited a version like the TNIV, they shouldn't have. Dobson's group is wrong-headed to think it godly not to produce a version like this one.

In truth, the TNIV really does try to be "accurate" in its rendering of gender in the following sense: it only translates something like "sons" as "children" if it thinks thats what Paul ultimately meant. It only does "parents" for "fathers" when it thinks that's what the original meant. It only translates "brothers" as "brothers and sisters" when it thinks that's what the original really meant. It does not mess with God gender. It does not change or fiddle with passages on husbands as heads of homes or women being silent in the churches. In short, the TNIV simply does what the NLT and NRSV had already done.

But Dobson's group had no influence on these versions. Nor did it protest this way when they came out. The difference is that this time it's personal.

Frankly I prefer formal equivalence translations that stick to the original wording and sentence structure. They allow me to be lazy when I don't feel like using my Greek New Testament or Hebrew Bible. If I'm preaching, the NLT or Message do a far better dynamic equivalence translation to translate the "meaning" in modern categories and language. The TNIV is neither fully formal nor fully dynamic. It's much better than the NIV, but then again, I never really liked the NIV in the first place.

But I stand fully behind Zondervan and I'll use the TNIV because it is a righteous translation. Dobson's group is misguided on this one and manifesting "zeal without knowledge."