Is 1 Timothy 2:8-15 ignored?

Posted on by
Reply

Adrian Warnock has posted an overview of 1 Timothy in which he writes:

Gender issues are addressed in 1 Tim 2:8-15. I realise that good people differ on the interpretation of this passage – what exactly is “teach or exercise authority”? But, the key question is – do we in any sense feel these words apply to us today? It is those who want to totally ignore them that do irreparable damage to their view of the Bible.

I am not sure if Adrian intends to suggest that egalitarians, those who allow women to take any role in the church, want to totally ignore 1 Timothy 2:8-15 (this link should give the TNIV reading). I agree with him that this would not be right.

However, there is plenty in this passage which I as an egalitarian would not want to ignore. Let’s look first at verse 8 (TNIV):

Therefore I want the men everywhere to pray, lifting up holy hands without anger or disputing.

This is clearly addressed to men, males. But I am sure that no one would teach that it is OK for women to pray with “anger or disputing”. Paul addresses this verse to men, and not to women, presumably because this was a problem among men, in general or in the specific context of Timothy’s church. And indeed in churches today men tend to be more angry and disputatious than women, for all kinds of biological and cultural reasons.

So then with the instructions for women in verses 9-12. We don’t have to assume that these instructions applied only to women and not at all to men, but rather that they were perceived as especially relevant to women, at least in the particular setting for this letter, the church in Ephesus. It seems likely that in this cosmopolitan and liberal city some Christian women were dressing immodestly and expensively, whereas others (or perhaps the same ones) were showing themselves to be unteachable and trying to put themselves forward as teachers. Therefore Paul writes verses 9-11 to correct these specific wrong attitudes.

It is of course the duty of all Christians, men and women, to “learn in quietness and full submission” (v.11, TNIV) to those who are the appointed teachers in the church, and not to “assume authority” (v.12, TNIV) or “teach… in a domineering way” (v.12, TNIV margin). Paul addresses these points to women not because they don’t apply to men, but because there was a particular problem with certain women on these issues. There may be similar problems with unteachable and self-promoting women, or men, today, and this passage can be applied to them.

As for verses 13-15, I accept that it is rather difficult to find an application of these in the church today. Part of the problem is that no one really understands what is really meant by what TNIV renders as “be saved through childbearing” (v.15). But I think we need to understand these verses as a message to the particular women who were causing the problem addressed in verses 11-12. If so, this is one of many passages in the Bible which all evangelical Christians accept as applicable today without being able to see exactly how they are applicable.

Now I accept that there are real issues about the interpretation of verse 12, and whether the egalitarian understandings of this verse can be defended. See for example this recent discussion, in which I took part, and my previous posting on this. The main problem concerns the meaning of the very rare Greek verb αὐθεντεῖν authentein, translated “have authority” or “assume authority”, or perhaps “domineer”. Egalitarians tend to interpret αὐθεντεῖν authentein as a very negative word, as it certainly could sometimes be in Greek. But it is quite wrong to suggest that egalitarians are simply ignoring this passage.

Further Comments on Revival Evangelicalism

Posted on by
Reply

Thank you to Sam and Tim for your comments on my posting Am I a Revival Evangelical? I started to respond in a further comment, but decided that this would work best as a new posting.

Sam, the post for which you gave me a link certainly helps me to understand where you are coming from. My own experience has been somewhat different, coming through what you would call fundamentalism, e.g. the Christian Union at the other university ;-). I have not rejected this while seeing it transformed by an understanding of the work of the Holy Spirit which includes some of the kind of mysticism which you have experienced. And then following that I studied theology, worked for ten years on the mission field, and came home spiritually dry. Especially in the last year I have come back towards that close relationship with God which is at the heart of mysticism, although I know that I still have a long way to go. At some time I hope to post more about this here.

I too am deeply suspicious of too much emphasis on decisions. While on the mission field I did some work with a church whose idea of evangelism was to speak to people on the streets about Christ – so far so good – and then to encourage them to make an immediate decision to become a Christian. In that situation, quite a lot of people were prepared to do that, for example to say the prayer they were presented with. They were also invited to the church and attempts were made to follow them up, but these were often fruitless. But it was the teaching of this church that these people were saved eternally because they had once prayed that prayer. I don’t entirely reject that teaching. But I do have serious doubts about this as a proper evangelistic strategy. And for similar reasons I would not support “revival meeting” style evangelism, detached from a local church, without proper follow-up arrangements. But then at least here in Britain that is not common. When I was a counsellor for a Billy Graham mission some years ago we were all taught how important it was to get proper follow up details for anyone who came forward. I am sure that most responsible evangelists continue to do this.

So, Sam, I would agree with the following from your posting on evangelism, even though I would not completely accept the parts of this paragraph which I omit.

I believe that it means allowing God space to work his grace in our lives and in the lives of those whom we care for. There is a particular neurosis attached to Revival evangelicalism whereby the gospel becomes a burden not a liberation – which is odd, for Christ set us free for freedom. … Our calling is to be faithful, to dwell in grace, and to give thanks.

I would also agree with Tim and I think Sam that Sunday worship ought to be for Christians and not turned into an evangelistic event. So I would not endorse the strategies of certain American mega-churches which do just that. However, surely if for one reason or another a significant number of non-Christians turn up to a Sunday worship service, it is surely proper to present them with the basics of the Gospel. And, where much of the congregation is made up of people who consider themselves Christians but do not seem to be making progress in the Christian faith, surely it is a good thing to challenge such people in the context of the service and encourage them to do what they should do as Christians.

But then, if Sunday worship is not to be evangelistic, and the church is to do the work of evangelism, and this is to be a corporate rather than an individual activity, then surely evangelism must take place in some kind of meeting rather like those which Finney pioneered, as described in the article which Sam quoted:

the “evangelistic meeting” that takes place apart from the normal preaching and sacramental ministry of the local church.

So, Sam, if you don’t like evangelism being done in Sunday worship, and you apparently don’t like special evangelistic meetings, how do you think the church ought to reach those who need to hear the Christian message?

I don’t mean here to suggest a normative evangelistic strategy, only to get away from any ideas that certain strategies are invalid. For surely it is for each church to decide its own strategy, within the rather broad limits of what is considered orthodox Christianity as presented in the Bible.

Meanwhile I am glad that Sam is distancing himself from the doctrine of double predestination, which I consider immoral as well as unbiblical. I clearly didn’t understand Sam’s meaning at this point. I agree that human will and decision should not be exalted as a work of righteousness. There is a fine line to be drawn here, but we are not at all far apart.

I would also like to define “revival” in a very different way, not as human evangelistic enterprise but as a move of the Holy Spirit. But that is a subject for another posting, and another time. So I will leave this one for now.

Am I a "Revival Evangelical"?

Posted on by
Reply

I am glad to have found in Rev Sam another Anglican blogger from Essex, and from my own diocese of Chelmsford. I found him because his Free Essex campaign was commented on in Canada.

Geographically, Sam is from Mersea Island, which is about 20 miles away from my home in Chelmsford. In terms of churchmanship, he as an Anglo-Catholic priest and I might seem to be at opposite ends of the Church of England – although in many ways I feel closer to Anglo-Catholics than I do to middle-of-the-road liberals.

Sam has written some interesting thoughts about evangelism, which set me thinking. Am I in fact an exponent of what he calls revival evangelicalism, for which he shows little sympathy?

Let me first say that I accept the principle of sola gratia, “only by grace”. After all, that is what the Bible clearly teaches:

8 For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith—and this is not from yourselves, it is the gift of God— 9 not by works, so that no one can boast.

Ephesians 2:8-9 (TNIV©)

But I do not accept the Augustinian formulation of that principle (also accepted by Calvinists) in terms of God’s grace being irresistible; rather, God gives us free will to accept or reject his calling, for he wants us to make a free decision to follow his ways:

9 Do not be like the horse or the mule,
which have no understanding
but must be controlled by bit and bridle
or they will not come to you.

Psalm 32:9 (TNIV©)

Perhaps in Sam’s eyes saying this is enough to put me into the revival evangelical camp. If so, so be it. But my view is characteristic by no means only of American evangelicalism, but also of the great majority of British Christianity probably right back to the time of Pelagius, Augustine’s British (or Irish) opponent in the 4th-5th centuries (who was probably “semi-Pelagian”, Sam’s Option 2, rather than “Pelagian”, Option 1). My view also seems to have been that of the early church, as argued for example by Roger Forster and Paul Marston in the appendix to God’s Strategy in Human History.

Meanwhile I am puzzled by Sam’s criticism of what he calls decisional regeneration, the teaching that

the decision of the believer is the key step in salvation,

for he also writes

it is the confession that Jesus is Lord which makes someone a Christian.

The only real difference between Sam’s position and the one he rejects seems to be whether it is necessary to express one’s decision with a verbal confession. In fact the Bible clearly teaches that both a decision in the heart and a confession with the mouth are required:

If you declare with your mouth, “Jesus is Lord,” and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved.

Romans 10:9 (TNIV©)

In fact Sam’s problem with decisional regeneration seems to be with whether it is right to take any steps which might encourage other people to believe and make a confession of faith. Now I can understand why Sam does not like some of the methods used by modern evangelists to persuade people to make decisions; some of them certainly go beyond Christian propriety. On the other hand, some churches, including Anglo-Catholic ones, must be erring in the opposite direction, in that their activities seem to have the effect of discouraging outsiders from coming to the point where they confess Jesus as Lord. So perhaps the real issue here is what kind of steps are acceptable to encourage people to believe.

At this point Sam makes four criticisms of revival evangelicalism, concerning worship, evangelism, church and world.

On worship, I agree with the “Reformed” position, as expounded by Sam, that preaching and the sacraments should be central to Christian worship, and that pressure for decisions should be not be – which does not imply that it is wrong to invite people to make a decision to believe and a confession of faith.

I also agree with the “Reformed” position that Scripture and the gospel should be central to evangelism, but in addition I would point out Paul the apostle’s example to us of being careful to use means which are effective with our target audiences:

19 Though I am free and belong to no one, I have made myself a slave to everyone, to win as many as possible. 20 To the Jews I became like a Jew, to win the Jews. To those under the law I became like one under the law (though I myself am not under the law), so as to win those under the law. 21 To those not having the law I became like one not having the law (though I am not free from God’s law but am under Christ’s law), so as to win those not having the law. 22 To the weak I became weak, to win the weak. I have become all things to all people so that by all possible means I might save some. 23 I do all this for the sake of the gospel, that I may share in its blessings.

1 Corinthians 9:19-23 (TNIV©, my emphasis)

I also agree with the “Reformed” position that salvation is not just an individual matter, but the church is a necessary part of the Christian life.

And I am puzzled by Sam’s comments about the world, but agree with the “Reformed” position that

growth in faith is tied in with growth in good works, which are seen as the fruit.

Does this make me a Reformed evangelical, or at least an evangelical who is acceptable to Sam? I hope at least that he can accept that my position does not “fall off the edge of traditional Anglican teaching“; indeed it is probably right at the centre of the traditional teaching at least of what is now the largest group within the Church of England, the evangelicals.

But I do have serious problems with Sam’s teaching that “God is in charge of whether a particular person is saved or not“. This appears to be a summary of the doctrine of double predestination, that some are predestined to be saved and everyone else is predestined to be damned. He can hardly make acceptance of this teaching into a touchstone for Anglican orthodoxy, for it is a position which surely has never been taken by more than a small minority of Anglicans. Indeed, it seems to me that predestination to damnation is explicitly rejected in Article XVII “Of Predestination and Election” of the Thirty Nine Articles:

for curious and carnal persons, lacking the Spirit of Christ, to have continually before their eyes the sentence of God’s Predestination, is a most dangerous downfall, whereby the Devil doth thrust them either into desperation, or into wretchlessness of most unclean living, no less perilous than desperation.

It is also of course explicitly rejected in Scripture:

3 This is good, and pleases God our Saviour, 4 who wants all people to be saved and to come to a knowledge of the truth.

1 Timothy 2:3-4 (TNIV©)

The Lord is not slow in keeping his promise, as some understand slowness. Instead he is patient with you, not wanting anyone to perish, but everyone to come to repentance.

2 Peter 3:9 (TNIV©)

Indeed, Sam,

there is a duty placed upon all Christians to seek common ground and affirm those things which bind us together rather than focussing on things which drive us apart.

And I am sure that there is a lot of common ground between you and me, which fits well within the “very broad boundaries” of the Church of England. So let us not get sidetracked into disagreements about predestination, nor about methods of evangelism as long as these do not compromise basic Christian principles. Let us instead focus on fighting our real enemies, which are not within the church but are matters of the world, the flesh and the devil.

"We should not let our disappointment be the father of our theology"

Posted on by
Reply

The words of this entry’s title are from a talk by Rob Rufus at a New Frontiers conference, as reported by Adrian Warnock. Indeed,

We should ask God to lift our lack of experience to the level of the Bible rather than bend the Bible to our experience.

Do read the rest of this short report, and let your faith be encouraged!

This reminds me that the disagreements I have with some New Frontiers teachings are very small compared with the great things which we share, such as our salvation and fellowship with Christ, the gospel message, the power of the Holy Spirit, and the assurance of living with God for ever. So in this blog when I discuss other Christian traditions I will try to focus on the positive things I find in them.

I will finish for now with some more of Adrian’s words about Rob’s talk:

We must have a heart for the lost. God loves the lost. We have to ask ourselves as Rob said God asked him – “Why do you want My power to be manifested?” Bring the hopeless cases to church and expect God to act!


The Anabaptist Spiritual Path

Posted on by
Reply

Tim Chesterton has just posted on the Anabaptist spiritual path. This path is not so well known here in England, where we have few Anabaptists. Our Baptists can in fact partly trace their heritage to the Anabaptists, but whereas they have retained believers’ baptism and separation from the state, they do not teach other Anabaptist distinctives, especially non-violence. But I have really appreciated the few Anabaptists I have met, and have been struck especially by their Christlike gentleness. So it is good to be reminded of their distinctive tradition, with its emphasis on worship and practical discipleship. I am sure that there is a lot here for other Christians to learn from.

I am not a steel mogul!

Posted on by
Reply

In case anyone else is searching for my name using Google Blog Search, which I have just added to my sidebar, I would like to point out that I am not the “steel mogul” Peter Kirk, founder of Kirkland, Washington, who is referred to in a Seattle Times article linked to on several blogs. So please don’t send me begging letters. My modest tithe is already allocated.

In fact Peter Kirk the steel mogul (that’s probably a bit of an overstatement!) lived in the 19th century. He was my great grandfather’s brother, one of three brothers who worked together in the steel industry in northern England. Peter tried his luck in Washington State, where he “hoped to make his town a rival to Pittsburgh”, and himself a real mogul in the process no doubt, but he never made it big.

I have in fact met several people from Kirkland in the last few years, mostly through a church in a neighbouring suburb which has been involved in the same Bible translation work as I have. One of them also works for a real mogul based in another nearby suburb – Bill Gates! And his company actually welcomes the right kind of begging letters, that is, applications for funding for community programmes. But they did turn down a request from a friend of mine recently. So for Christian work it is better to rely on giving from within the church.

Adrian's principles for God bloggers

Posted on by
Reply

I am glad to see that Adrian Warnock is sufficiently recovered to post again, including giving a helpful reminder of an older posting on principles for God bloggers. I certainly aim to follow these principles in my own blogging, here and in comments elsewhere. If anyone thinks I am not following them or saying wrong things in other ways, please correct me gently, preferably by e-mail, peter AT qaya DOT org, or if you feel the need to in a comment here. Jesus said:

15 “If a brother or sister sins, go and point out the fault, just between the two of you. If they listen to you, you have won them over. 16 But if they will not listen, take one or two others along, so that ‘every matter may be established by the testimony of two or three witnesses.’ 17 If they still refuse to listen, tell it to the church; and if they refuse to listen even to the church, treat them as you would a pagan or a tax collector. …”

Matthew 18:15-17 (TNIV©)

Anglican, but with a difference

Posted on by
Reply

Confused about what it means for someone to be an Anglican? Sometimes I am, and I have been one for more than 50 years! Tim Chesterton introduced himself in a comment on my Sorry to disappoint… posting as an Essex man who has long lived in Canada (but is still an England football supporter, apparently, even now in “the worst of times” I hope). Tim has written a wonderful tongue in cheek Welcome to the Anglican World, which tries to explain for example that despite appearances the Primates who are in charge are not monkeys!

Tim has also featured in his latest chapter of fiction an Anglican church here in Chelmsford, at which

the service was lively, with contemporary music, spirited preaching from [the vicar], and a warm sense of fellowship in the congregation.

Could this have been my Anglican church in Chelmsford, Meadgate? We certainly fit this description. We advertise ourselves (or will do on our new website which is due to go live soon – in fact I should probably be working on content for it this evening instead of blogging!) as “The Church of England with a Difference”. So we try to be different from much of the Anglican world as described by Tim. But hopefully we are not too different from his idea of a Chelmsford Anglican church.

Casper's Reprieve: a Model of the Atonement

Posted on by
Reply

The idea that God as a just judge sentences sinners to eternal death is a difficult one for us who live in countries which have abolished the death penalty for even the most serious crimes. But a recent case in my home town, Chelmsford, has reminded me that here in Britain we still have the death penalty – for animals! And we probably need it – for, despite this posting, I am not an animal lover.

The story, reported in the local newspaper Chelmsford Weekly News (29th June), is about Casper, a beautiful Weimaraner German hunting dog. Casper had bitten boys on three occasions, and his owner had failed to muzzle him after the first incident. The owner was fined and banned from keeping a dog. But, because there was no other home for Casper, his sentence was to be death – until at the last minute a court officer personally offered him a home, and the judge accepted this.

This is perhaps a model of the Atonement, or at least a picture of how it works. We, all humans, had a bad master or owner, Satan, as Casper had, and are guilty of wrongdoing, as Casper was. The penalty which the Law prescribes for us, as for Casper, is death, and our Judge would be just to apply this penalty. Casper was saved by a last minute personal intervention by a court officer; we are saved by the personal intervention of the Judge himself, not at the last minute but as part of his eternal plan. Casper was taken from his old owner and given to a new master, the court officer; we have been set free from slavery to Satan by our Judge, who has himself become our new master or Lord. Casper received a new home with his new owner; we have been promised a new home where God himself will care for us for ever.

Of course this model is not complete; there is no sign that Casper repented (although the problem may have been more with his old owner), and the court officer did not have to die (let’s hope Casper doesn’t draw his blood!), whereas Jesus had to die for us to be saved, and we are expected to repent. Nevertheless, this is an interesting case as a real example of how a life was saved by a personal intervention in a court, in a parallel with how we have been saved through Jesus Christ.

Tithing: a law for Christians?

Posted on by
Reply

Last Sunday my vicar (pastor), Rev Mones Farah, preached on generosity, including giving and tithing; his sermon notes are online. This is a subject which he touches on rather rarely, because he doesn’t want anyone to think that he is money-grabbing. Unusually, this sermon was somewhat controversial among church members – or perhaps just among the people I talked to this week. The controversial points were that he implied that Christians are required to tithe, and to give that tithe to the local church.

Any suggestion that Christians are obliged to tithe is rightly controversial. Every mention in the Bible of tithing, as a specific amount, is in the context of the old covenant. The detailed laws on tithing (in fact multiple tithes, but only on agricultural produce) relate to providing for the Levites and for the temple in Jerusalem. Thus tithing, like sacrifices, must be understood as part of the ceremonial law which is no longer binding on Christians. I won’t go now into the complex issue about whether any part of Old Testament law is binding on Christians. The implication of this is that tithing is not a law for Christians. But I don’t think my vicar actually said that it was.

This view of tithing is supported by Justin Taylor, who refers to excellent articles by Köstenberger and Croteau. These articles, unlike some others I have seen on the Internet on this subject, are based on top quality scholarship. I have serious disagreements with Taylor and Köstenberger on some other issues, but not on this one.

My vicar rightly said that God instituted the tithe. He did so as a law for the people of Israel. But the law, while not binding on Christians, is part of the Christian Bible and shows us the general principles by which Christians are expected to live. The details of tithing to Levites and to the Jerusalem temple are not binding on us, and cannot be because the temple no longer exists. But the general principle remains, that God’s people should give a portion of their income, depending on how much they earn, to support their fellow believers who are in need, either from poverty or because they are engaged full time in God’s work. This principle is reaffirmed in the New Testament:

 

13 Don’t you know that those who serve in the temple get their food from the temple, and that those who serve at the altar share in what is offered on the altar? 14 In the same way, the Lord has commanded that those who preach the gospel should receive their living from the gospel.

1 Corinthians 9:13-14 (TNIV©, my emphasis)

1 Now about the collection for the Lord’s people: Do what I told the Galatian churches to do. 2 On the first day of every week, each one of you should set aside a sum of money in keeping with your income, saving it up, so that when I come no collections will have to be made.

1 Corinthians 16:1-2 (TNIV©, my emphasis)

 

The New Testament does not specify a proportion, as the Old Testament does, but (as my vicar quoted) specifies that:

Each of you should give what you have decided in your heart to give, not reluctantly or under compulsion, for God loves a cheerful giver.

2 Corinthians 9:7 (TNIV©, my emphasis)

 

But the Old Testament law, and the examples of Abraham (Genesis 14:18-20) and Jacob (Genesis 28:20-22), suggest 10% as a suitable starting point for our giving, as a basic minimum to be expected of any Christian – although not as a law to be imposed on everyone. But many of us will be able to give more than this, as God provides for us and calls us to give. For example, God has provided so abundantly for Rick Warren, through sales of his Purpose Driven books, that he is able to give away 90% of his income and live on 10%.

As for who we should give to, surely our first responsibility is to ensure that the local church fellowship of which we are a part, and those who serve there, are not in need. For the principle is clear: “those who preach the gospel should receive their living from the gospel”. Some preachers, like Paul and Rick Warren, are able to dispense with this support, but most of them depend on it.

While I appreciate the dangers of appealing to Malachi, the Old Testament prophet, in this matter, surely the general principle he put forward still applies to Christians. I am not sure in what translation my vicar found “So that my house might be full.” (The word טֶרֶף teref which he seems to render “full” in fact normally means “prey”, but here and in a few other places is usually understood as “food”.) A better translation seems to be:

“…Bring the whole tithe into the storehouse, that there may be food in my house. Test me in this,” says the LORD Almighty, “and see if I will not throw open the floodgates of heaven and pour out so much blessing that there will not be room enough to store it. …”

Malachi 3:10 (TNIV©, my emphasis)

The principle here is that we should give the whole of what God tells us to give so that his house is abundantly provided for. In Malachi’s time God’s house was the temple. For us, his house is the church, not so much a building although that also needs to be provided for, more the community whose every need should be met abundantly from its members’ giving. As for God’s promise of abundant blessing for those who give generously, this is reaffirmed in the New Testament:

10 Now he who supplies seed to the sower and bread for food will also supply and increase your store of seed and will enlarge the harvest of your righteousness. 11 You will be made rich in every way so that you can be generous on every occasion, and through us your generosity will result in thanksgiving to God.

2 Corinthians 9:10-11 (TNIV©, my emphasis)

I will close with some words from my vicar’s sermon:

There is no greater insult to God than to keep his house in poverty. I wholeheartedly believe that if we keep God’s house well supplied and well stocked up great things will be achieved not only in the individual church but all over the world.

Update (2nd July): My vicar’s sermon from last Sunday is now available for download. While he and I don’t entirely agree on this matter, we agree that we must not throw away the principle of tithing because the details of the Old Testament laws cannot be applied in our society today.