Posts
A few weeks ago (10/2013) a NC Biblical Recorder article
raised at least three questions. This article will seek to answer those
questions biblically without recreating “the theological wheel.” These
questions are more thoroughly answered in Recovering
Biblical Manhood and Womanhood, eds. J. Piper and W. Grudem (Crossway,
1991); Women in the Church, eds. A. Kösetenbeger, T. Schreiner, and S. Baldwin (Baker, 1995); How to Read the Bible for all Its Worth,
G. Fee and D. Stuart (Zondervan, 2003); and Understanding
and Applying the Bible, J. R. McQuilkin (Moody, 1983).
Can a woman be President and not a pastor? According to the Bible, the answer to this question
is yes. When we go to the teaching portions of God’s Word we have a directive
or prescription from Paul, an Apostle of Christ for the church. He writes, “I
am not permitting a woman to be teaching or to be exercising authority over
adult males” (1 Tim 2:11). We also see in 1 Cor 14:34 a similar directive given
in the context of a New Testament church worship service. 1 Timothy was written
by Paul at the end of his ministry to guide Timothy on how to return a church
(that had strayed in doctrine and practice) back to God’s proper order (1 Tim 3:15).
The commands in this book have the utmost authority in the life of the church
today and cannot be set aside by a historical passage of Scripture. In 1 Tim
2:9–15 Paul limits a woman’s audience when she is teaching the Bible or
theology. She may teach Scripture and theology to women and children, but not
to adult males in the church. In fact, she is encouraged to teach women and
children according to Titus 2:3–4. She may also teach adult males Spanish and
Geometry in a non-church setting, but she may not exercise authority over the
adult males in the church (yet she can have authority over children and other
women). Likewise, there is no limitation on women regarding evangelism
concerning gender or age.
In Eph 5:22, married women
are responsible to be under their husband’s authority in the home. But, the
Bible does not limit a woman’s role in the state; therefore, she is free to be
a President, Senator, or even Prime Minister (Margaret Thatcher, Golda Meir).
Church elder roles, however, are restricted to men, that is, the one-woman-man
(1 Tim 3:2). This topic should not be decided by emotions and requires some
careful study and reading. Please see Piper, 179–193 and McQuilkin, 193–202 for
more detailed explanations of these biblical issues. It will be worth every
moment of your time to address this topic biblically with knowledge and
understanding.
Can what the Bible describes, rescind what the Bible
prescribes? Hermeneutics is the
science of studying the Bible, and according to every Evangelical work on
hermeneutics known to the author of this article, the answer to this question
is no. Unfortunately, even the historical examples (narratives) in the former
BR article had some rather serious problems. For example, Mary in Acts 12:12
allowed a group to occupy her son’s room. (Upper rooms were built on houses so
that the son and his wife could live above his parents.) Lydia invited a group
of missionaries to have a meal and spend the night in her house (Acts 16:15).
Likewise, Col 4:15 has a textual variant where some manuscripts have Nympha
(female) and others have Nymphas (male). All this text states is that this
person was a believer in which a group of Christians met in their house (male
or female). There is no indication of ruling, presiding, or preaching in any of
these examples. Better historic examples would have been Judg 4:4 and 1 Cor
11:5. However, even these texts, which describe what was going on at one
location in history, cannot be used to undo commands given to the church.
Southern Baptist church
members should be encouraged to read a book like Fee’s on proper Bible
interpretation every few years. If this was done, any attempts to use
historical citations to counter clear biblical commands would not be accepted
in our publications because the editors could not handle the thunderstorm of
complaints.
Consider an example of why
biblical historical sections are not a primary guide for faith and practice.
The Bible records in Judg 4:15–21 that a woman, Jael, hammered a tent peg
through the head of Sisera, a Canaanite General, attempting to eliminate the
God-ordained Jewish rebellion. Surely no one would say this description of an
event was a prescription for every family or Boy Scouts camping trip. It is
likewise improper to do this with any other biblical historical record or to
set historical texts beside a teaching passage as equal in authority for life
and practice. (Please see Fee, 89–125, which explains this in detail.)
Learning how to handle a
written document takes effort, but it is essential to properly understand the
Bible, our sole authority for faith and practice (not voices, holy hunches, or
feelings). To properly understand Gal 3:28 see Piper, 154–164; and Kösetenbeger, 195–208. To intelligently understand Rom 16:1–2, concerning
Phoebe, as a servant, or as a deaconess (diakonos[1]) of the church, see Piper, 68, 219–220, 353–354.
How does the Bible’s record of events help us
determine ethical issue like slavery or develop a “just war” theory? The answer to this question is: very little. We need
to focus on what the Bible prescribes or on historical examples that the Bible
actually tells us are good models (See Heb 11: 1–38; A Just Defense, K. Payne (Multnomah, 1987); Ethics for a Brave New World, J. Feinberg (Crossway, 1993); and An Introduction to Biblical Ethics, J.R.
McQuilkin (Tyndale, 1995). The teaching passages are paramount for forming
biblical ethics. Moreover, just because the Bible describes something does not
mean that it endorses it for every age and time. For instance, even in the Ten
Commandments the practice of slavery is mentioned (“You shall not covet your
neighbors . . . man servant or his female servant . . .” Exod 20:17). But it is
not sanctioned nor is it recommended in this command against coveting.
Likewise, when the Bible reader comes to the teaching in the Epistle to
Philemon by an Apostle of Christ (also see 1 Cor 7:21 and Gal 5:1) as well as
the many Old Testament restrictions on this institution (e.g. Exod 21:2), he
quickly learns that the Bible intended to change this culturally accepted
practice in the teaching sections, while it simply recorded and even limited
slavery in the legal and historical sections (Lev 25:39–43; Deut 23:15–16).
We also need to let the
biblical paradoxes stand as they are without reinterpreting them based on
descriptive texts. For instance, an individual Christian is not to retaliate
against evil (Matt 5:39; Rom 12:14–21) while the state is directed by God to
bring evil doers to justice, which includes death (Rom 13:1–7; 1 Pet 2:13–17),
according to God’s economy and revelation. God requires these prescriptions for
individuals and states simultaneously. Likewise, the individual must also
balance the righteous person’s responsibility to defend the defenseless (Prov
31:89; Isa 1:17), and thus, he must take defensive actions when he is with
children or when he witnesses evil men harming widows or orphans (the positive
side of the command in Exod 20:13 is: “You must preserve life”).
I would not have a problem
working side-by-side in a disaster relief project with the dear brother who
wrote the BR former article. But because of the way he approaches the
Scriptures and the conclusions he draws from them, I would be unable to serve
on the same church staff with him. Disagreement on secondary level issues (e.g.
women pastors)[2] can allow us
to have some levels of cooperation. But the very method that he recommended for
interpreting the Bible (which is a first level issue) breaks unity even more
than the conclusions he draws from that methodology. Departing from evangelical
hermeneutics and ethics does not make it easier for conservatives to partner
with those who are similar to us in third level theological issues (e.g. church
government). The position offered in the former article has not achieved common
ground but has furthered the divide between those who seek to accurately
exegete the Bible to determine issues of faith and practice and those who
proceed using other methods with additional authorities. The conclusions
reached by these two dissimilar approaches to the solving “hot topics” issue
are vastly different, and that’s why interpretation methodology is crucial and
has very practical implications.
Ted D. Manby is the Associate
Pastor at Adamsville Baptist Church in Goldsboro, NC and has earned a B.A. in
Bible from Columbia Bible College, and a M.Div. in Advanced Biblical Studies
with languages, and a Th.M. in Old Testament studies from Southeastern Baptist
Theological Seminary in Wake Forest. This is his fifteenth year serving on a
church staff.
[1] This noun (table waiter) is not solely masculine or
feminine by itself in Koine Greek. The masculine ending is used for both
masculine and feminine uses with this and other common gender noun. See David
Allen Black, It’s Still Greek to Me: An Easy-to-Understand Guide to
Intermediate Greek (Grand Rapids, Baker Books, 1998), 22. Thus the Greek
word form would be the same for a female “table waiter” as a male “table
waiter” and the same for the technical usages of this noun translated as a male
“deacon” or as a female “deaconess.” The context alone signifies which usage
the author intends. This is difficult because we only have two texts on this
topic (Rom 16:1–2, 1 Tim 3:11, women).
Thus, we must admit the possible translations in these texts include: servant,
deacon, deaconess, or even the wife of a male deacon. This author prefers the
position of “deaconess” in both texts.
[2] First level theological issues concern the
fundamentals of the faith and the gospel. Getting these wrong are the
difference between heaven and hell (deity of Christ, virgin conception and
birth, repentance and faith, inspiration of the Bible, resurrection of Christ,
return of Christ, salvation by grace alone through Christ alone, etc.).
Secondary issues are very important doctrines, but not part of the gospel, the
fundamentals, or teachings absolutely vital for living the Christian life.
Third level issues are ones that good Bible students have agreed to disagree on
for centuries, but they can still make a biblical argument for their view being
valid.
No comments:
Post a Comment