Tuesday, March 4, 2025

Woman conducting an 'Outpost' of Stand to Reason

This is my thinking on a question asked by a woman on a talk-back podcast questioning her congregation's limit on her ambitions to convene an apologetic 'Outpost' for Stand to Reason.

Dear G,

I was fascinated by your discussion with the sister who wanted to organize an Outpost.

It is sad that her congregation won't support her desire; doubtlessly a godly desire, given her humble demeanour and evident motivation.

Her 'pastor' seems to be the gum in the works.

His role, along with the other equipping ministries (Eph 4:11-12) is to equip the saints for the work of ministry. I'm sure our sister aforementioned had in mind taking some responsibility to convene a work of ministry, which would also be part of the 'equipping of the saints' activities within the congregation.

Now, we run into two things:

1-      1 Tim 2:5-8 where Paul is taken by some to issue a blanket prohibition on women teaching or 'usurping authority' over men and

2-      Modern–post-reformation–congregational organization that make a minister or ‘pastor’ the authority giver, rather than the overseeing shepherd: to coach, instruct, counsel, encourage.

 

Together, these play merry hell with our practice with respect to our sisters in our congregations.

Note I use Coverdale’s translation of ekklesia, rather than the Jamesian usage ‘church’. I do so to make a point, and the point is that our understanding of the gatherings of Christians has been skewed away from a NT vision of an orderly charismatic (not in the modern popular sense) community of the holy ones, to an inherently authoritarian vision that comes to us via the un-reforming Reformation from Rome.

This plays out under the impetus of that strange Greek word authentein. Seemingly to endorse that men qua men have authority over women! I don't think that ‘authority' is given to any elder/presbyter/teacher/evangelist in this blunt terminology. The language used (hupeiko) suggests dialogue not command.

Before we start, we must set the scene with Paul's relevant general statements: Gal 3:28, 1 Cor 11:11 and 11:13-15, where there is no sex-based distinguishing of gifts. Put this alongside Joel 2:28/Acts 2:17 and the numerous unqualified mentions of Paul's female teachers and helpers/apostles (Junia) and we are in difficult hermeneutical waters. Our general hermeneutic policy is to use the less specific passages to interpret and modify the more specific.

On this basis, as well as the study of the word authentein, we must conclude that Paul’s Timothean statement is circumstantial. I mean specific to circumstances. Both the word itself, albeit translated in the NT on the basis of second and third century usage, rather than its earlier usage, and the immediate context with reference to the order of creation. Here he seems to be correcting something that was contradictory to scripture in the content of the women’s assertions of an 'authority' over men. That is they were putting the female as generative to the male rather than in the creation order. Paul also touches this theme in 1 Cor. 11:12

With the nature of the Ephesian setting that Timothy was in, Kroeger (1979, "Ancient Heresies and a Strange Greek Verb" Reformed Journal) hypothesizes that the Creation reference is there to overturn pagan-inspired heresies that attach women to the superiority of the goddess Diana, to the detriment of men: thus the 'authority' of women over men being taught. An 'authority' like no other teaching reference in the NT and one not aligned with the words of prophesy (in its various forms) that women are gifted to deliver.

But the church we are discussing also seems to have elevated the 'pastor' to a rank that exceeds that of an overseer who is to guide, and as we would say today to mentor the other sheep. The pastor as modern role bears more resemblance to a Roman (Catholic) priest than a biblical elder/overseer. But then if we do apply the surface and I must say anachronistic reading that seems to be popular in the modern church, it would prohibit all women from teaching or any appearance of exercise of 'authority' over a man. Paul does not limit this to the gathering of the church as we might characterize it today.

A little excursus here. Our modern conception of the church gathered: as a liturgical spectator ceremony, has nothing to do with the early church gatherings, which were informal, multiply communicative, community-edification gatherings. Firstly, they were constituted when (at least) two or three were gathered in Christ's name; so, any faith-oriented gathering should come under the Timothean rubric. Out go women university lecturers, seminary teachers, study group conveners, skills trainers, or Christian workers of any andragogic manner: conductors of any discussion group in a Christian gathering, offerer of opinions on STRAsk...a whole lot of permitted practices of the saints are out the window. Although I'd guess that one might place this as an action under the President of the organization. Still, a bit of a long bow, perhaps in this modern restrictive usage.

My conclusion is that as long as women don't assert over men a disordered creation of a 'goddess-earth-mother' that prioritizes the female over the male, to the disparagement of the male contra Genesis 1-2 and Gal 3:28, that they are free to exercise their gifts, irrespective of any dubious 'authority' of a male. And the NT is full of women doing just this, arguably! Titus 2, for example.

And even if one wanted to apply a rigid misreading to the Timothy passage, one could argue that the 'pastor' (or better, the board of elders) provided the umbrella for our women's work.

 Either way, Let's call the enquirer and tell her to 'get cracking' and start her Outpost and set aside the casuistry she has been subjected to.

Wednesday, February 26, 2025

God could have used evolution!

I've heard it, you've probably heard it: modal logic to the rescue as a way out of the direct sense of Genesis 1.

Disregarding the propositionally self-revealing God, with no commitment made, no evidence or argument required, he just could've. So there!

But what are the implications?

    1. an indeterminate god without a nature or declaration of 'scope'

    2.  recourse to an old pagan tale (the eternal or 'self-making' global biota)

    3. not the God of the Bible, the self-declaring God.

The first seems to prefer a non-communicating god, a god to whom can be attached any mode of operation and interaction with the creation, indeed, merged into the creation without distinction. The unknown God, perhaps the one lauded in Paul's Athens. Not the God who created definitively!

The second: ancient Epicureanism to the rescue. It's a self-making material world after all, with an inexplicable tendency to 'self-improve' on the graves of millions of 'failed' creatures. Oddly, we seem to still have millions of 'lesser evolved' creatures, so what gives with that? This is the god disappeared into the land of illusion. On this implication god ceases to be removed from the creation and his words about it leave the real world: reality collapses to illusion.

The third is the worst. It changes who God is from who he reveals and declares himself to be in the terms of the creation he has made (e.g. using the days that pace our life, and the contents of each day), the God who shows us relationship and rationality, who is present and active in our world, the God who acts in concrete history to frame our relationship with him and his creation, and the reality of that creation.

It changes this God into a cypher-god. Anonymous, or the deist god, or the incommunicado god. This makes God the god of an exilic religion where reality is illusory, or a mimetic religion where human actions 'act out' religion. Flipping between similarity to Eastern religions or Ancient Roman paganism.

Either choice is not good. No longer the creator God of the Bible, the covenanting God who speaks in reality, in whose image we are made for fellowship with him. It makes the incarnation a side-show where Christ is reduced to some sort of 'guru': not God at all.

De-historicizing the creation by moving it out of our world, symbolicising it or mythologizing it or abstracting it, severs the synchoronal and commutative nature of the relationship shown in God's creating in the days of our life-world, of him thereby positioning us and him in communion (from Genesis 1:26ff, 3:8). He thus underscoring the reality of our fellowship with him in time and space, in history, in the real time-bound material world where propositions are meaningful and relationships objectively real. All gone in any maneuver which serves to obliterate God's participation in our world through creating in our history and in the terms of our real, concrete life-world, from his loving hand.

(see Westphal, God, Guilt and Death, for explanation of religion types.)


Sunday, February 23, 2025

The Trinity in Summary

A nice summary from Google's AI

The Trinity is the belief that God exists as three persons in one Godhead: the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. The Bible establishes the basis for the Trinity through references to these three persons.
Biblical evidence for the Trinity

    Matthew 28:19: "In the name of the Father, of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit"
    John 10:30: "I and my Father are one"
    2 Corinthians 13:13: "The grace of the Lord Jesus Christ, the love of God, and the communion of the Holy Spirit be with you all"

History of the Trinity

    The Trinity emerged around 33-34 AD/CE, during or shortly after Jesus's death and resurrection

The Nicene Creed established the official Trinity belief for Christians at the Council of Nicea in 325 AD/CE 


The word "Trinity" comes from the Latin word Trinitas, coined by the early Christian writer Tertullian

The Trinity is used to defend the church against charges of worshiping two or three gods. It's also connected to the sacraments, which believers receive to enter into the divine life.

Wednesday, February 19, 2025

Evolution, evil and the way out.

Comment I posted to a Frank Turek question time.

The kid has spotted the problem in theistic evolution, and even 'long age' views of earth history: Evolution is 'kill or be killed'. He's right, death is the engine of comparative advantage in evolution. Happily Darwinian Evolution is a bunch of nonsense and has explained nothing.


But, on to the main topic.


Every one of these arguments begins with the fantasy 'god-of-the-philosophers', not the creator God who reveals himself in history and through history seeking restoration of us in his fellowship.


Nor is it good to discuss 'free-will'. The point of departure is that God has created this cosmos for us to enjoy him in, and to 'steward'. We, in Adam, have disavowed God's way and chosen our own: as we are in God's image our choices are real and are significant and carry all of creation with them.


Turned from our Creator we are living out of synch with the way things should be. The only 'good' in this is that the corrupted and decaying cosmos is an alarm bell of our plight. We know things are bad. More bad for some than others, but still bad for all: we all die!


The only way out is the way in: restored connection of love with the creator. We have this in turning to Christ, being filled with his Spirit in new life. Not for a life in heaven, this gives the wrong idea, but for life in a renewed creation. Like this one only immeasurable better. Paul tells us, better beyond our imagination or comprehension. So far far better, this life will fade to insignificance. Especially after the first 30 billion years when we've gotten to know everyone (HUMOUR!!)


Nor does God 'create people for suffering'. It is we who bring people into the world under the terms of the creation mandate. God is not the puppet-master god, he is not the fairy-god-mother god, he is not the distant God., he is not the over-defined god-of-the-philosophers. He is the living eternal creator. You want to respond to the alarm bell? Turn to Christ and the world is in a different light. He then is with us in our struggles because we are in him.


He works through the corrupted history that we make and pilot our way in, because this is our place--remember, we are its stewards--and his incarnation in Christ is part of the rescue program: he entered history to overcome death, did so in his resurrection and invites us to join him.


As Jesus pointed out when asked about deaths in a construction accident: repent unless this also happens to you (death before repentance). That's his theodicy: we are all in the tank, its only the depth that varies, so catch the line from the rescue helicopter before you sink to the bottom. Any speculation about suffering bringing good in a utilitarian fashion is misplaced and offensive: it is the alarm bell. Sure God works all things together for good for those...called according to his purpose, but Jesus indicated the only good from suffering is a call to repentance, not: "thankfully, this helped the construction industry in Galilee improve is OHS standards."

Tuesday, February 18, 2025

Just who's a skydaddy?

The village cynic will from time to time deploy his or her full force with the witty originality of  a moronic quip that Christians believe in a 'sky-daddy', or worship the 'flying spaghetti monster'.

Now, both make two errors.

1-They place their cardboard cutout conception of the creator-God within the cosmos, enclosed by the system of doom we are all currently caught within; that's not who the creator-God is. He is prior to and beyond this doomed system of decay and frustration which he offers rescue from.

2-The other error is that their mocking unbelief is an unbelief that has produced nothing for anyone. It rebounds on them, because their ultimate point of reference, the point that would show why our lives are truly meaningful, is dust; they start as worm dung, get reorganized into a bunch of cells made of dust, which then, shortly after, become a banal pile of dust once more. And nothing is really of value or significance.

Yet, they live as though their lives, even their puerile quip, has some real meaning.

It doesn't; on their grounds.

So: my 'sky-daddy' beats your 'dust-mammy' any day. If you don't like 'dust-mammy' substitute: dust-bug.

Sunday, February 16, 2025

Atonement?

Penal Substitution theory seems to have topped the conservative evangelical world in recent decades. Due, at least in part, to the parlous influence of Calvinism. (ref. 1 Cor. 1:11-13)

Here's a list of reference to the atonement compiled by Hal Chaffee:

Jesus--

    Died for our sins -- 1 Cor 15:17

        Gave himself for sins -- Gal 1:4

            Purged our sins -- Heb 1:3

                Suffered for sins -- 1 Pt 3:18

                    Put away sins -- Heb 9:26

                        Bore our sins -- 1 Pt 2:24

                            Made propitiation for sins -- Heb2:17

                                Was sacrificed for sins -- Heb 10:12

                                    Took away our sins -- 1 Jn 3:5

                                        Washed us from our sins -- Rev 1:5

                                            Forgives us our sins -- Eph 1:7

BUT NOT

Paid for our sins -- ???

Thursday, February 13, 2025

DO or DONE?

I recently tuned into a Christian radio station, only because my regular was being objectionable.

The new station had some less than skilled announcing going on (oh why cannot a Christian art-like activity pursue excellence relentlessly?). Then came the dreaded made-up story about a pastor visiting a wealthy parishioner on his yacht, where there was a cluster of other wealthy people. The pastor didn't make much headway, and soon and with great relief left the yacht.

Whew, I thought, almost over; now just to get through the corny denouement.

But...BUT, the end was 'fired for effect' and right on target.

Incoming was "Hey, pastor, tell me what Christians believe." from the wealthy end of the yacht.

Return fire was on target, sustained, and mission accomplished.

He said. It's a matter of spelling. Man-made religions are spelt DO: you do this ritual, you say these set prayers, you say these special things, the priest says these things...it's all Do, Do, Do.

Christianity is spelt DONE. All done by Christ; the choice is ours to say yes to his offer of life.

I turned back to 80s pop music very pleased. Just a split second decision landed me in the Forward Observer's dugout.

Remember this line next time you speak to a Muslim, a JW, a Mormon, a Scientologist, a...well, any other religious devotee.

Religions are what we do, and that just stays in the system of doom; Christianity is what God has done to place us on the way of life.