Wiley's Ways

I saw a story on capital punishment on one of the news sites I visit so I decided to write a little about this subject, which is just as controversial as the gender issues I normally write about.  So, here is something the think about.

In Texas, death penalty cases, based against the 1992 dollar, cost more than two times the amount of non-capital cases.  Each death penalty case costs taxpayers about $2.3 million (in 1992 dollars, when this story ran). That is about three times the cost of imprisoning someone in a single cell at the highest security level for 40 years. (see: “Executions Cost Texas Millions,” Dallas Morning News, March 8, 1992).  If you are fiscal conservative, which is what I consider myself,  it is much cheaper to send a convicted felon to prison for life without parole in a maximum security prison than it is to execute that person after 8 to 10 years of legal wrangling.  Texas has had 13 executions in 2011.  The cost to the taxpayer in 1992 dollars is $29.9 million.  The cost to keep these same felons in prison for life without parole (an avg of 40 years ea.) is less than $750, 000 each in 1992 dollars.  For the benefit of easy calculation, we will assign a higher amount for life without parole (esentially 40 years) in max security and say it is $1 million in 1992 dollars.  Now, in order to convert that to 2011 dollars, the Federal Reserve supplies this formula:  2011 price = 1992 price x 2011 CPI/1992 CPI.  When the math is done, the $2.3 million for one execution is now $3.7 million per execution.  For life without parole, the $1 million is now $1.61 million.  In terms of dollars spent to take a felon out of society for the rest of that felon’s life, capital punishment is a HUGE waste of the taxpayer’s dollar as it is much more expensive and much more difficult to bring to a conclussion, not to mention that numerous capital punishment convictions have been overturned in the last several years because of DNA testing that positively cleared the innocent person sitting on death row.  Putting it more simply:  We just can’t afford the death penalty in these bad economic times!!!  If we want to make government less expensive, then doing away with capital punishment in favor of life without parole makes alot of sense and it does away with the possibility of an innocent person being executed.

The other day at church a couple of my male friends were discussing the ESV version of the Bible that seems to be becoming more popular.  During the discussion, a comment was made about the politically correct versions, and of course, the comment was not in approval of these versions . Of course, the phrase “politically correct” was a reference to gender inclussion in translation.  Well, knowing that the particular version I use was probably what was being referred to, I said: “I like and personally use the TNIV”.  Of course, this was quickly affirmed as being one of those bad politically correct versions, mainly because of the gender inclusive language.

Wikipedia defines politically correct in this way:  “Political correctness (adjectivally, politically correct; both forms commonly abbreviated to PC) is a term which denotes language, ideas, policies, and behavior seen as seeking to minimize social and institutional offense in occupational, gender, racial, cultural, sexual orientation, certain other religions, beliefs or ideologies, disability, and age-related contexts, and, as purported by the term, doing so to an excessive extent.”

Politically correct language is not a new concept.  Historical examples of the term can be found going back 200 years, although not used in the same capacity it has come to be used and understood.   James Wilson (1742 – 1798), a major force in drafting the US. Constitution, said: “The states, rather than the people, for whose sake the states exist, are frequently the objects which attract and arrest our principal attention… Sentiments and expressions of this inaccurate kind prevail in our common, even in our convivial, language… ‘The United States,’ instead of the ‘People of the United States,’ is the toast given. This is not politically correct.” So, the terms politically correct and not politically correct have some history in our society long before the present useage.

English is a language of a massive amount of words that is growing every year.  For any given word, there are alternative words that carry the same meaning that can be used.  It is a language that tends to take in new words that might be termed or have their origin in political correctness, on the streets, or invented for a specific situation, and turn them into common language and common thinking as the useage increases.  Other words that were considered common words in the older English dictionaries, because of their particular application, cease being common useage and become politically not correct words.  Words that were used on a common basis twenty-five, fifty, or more years ago such as derogatory names for people of different ethnicity, become not politically correct, then offensive, and then end up on lists of words that are gradually pushed out of useage by the more politically correct words, which then become the norm and quit being considered politically correct, having become accepted normal speech.  Other words that may have had a normal understanding and useage, such as the word gay, which had an original meaning of feelings of being “carefree”, “happy”, or “bright and showy”, and now has a fairly accepted and standardized useage of meaning one who is a homosexual, become standardized in the new useage, and even though the old useage is still appropriate, they cease being used in the more appropriate, older meaning and become almost exclusivily used in the newer meaning.  This process gradually alters our personal thinking processes and we start to think in terms of the newer word useage and consider the older to be undesirable.  When our personal thinking becomes adapted to the present useage, then the word is no longer a politically correct word but just a part of the normal everyday language.

Now, where am I heading with this?  Well, let’s go back to those so-called politically correct translations such as the TNIV and the newer NIV 2011 where some words have been updated in their translation to read more inclusively or carry a slightly different translated meaning.  When the context is inclusive of both genders, instead of reading it as it would be written two thousand years ago in a single gender statement that would have a common understanding by the reader in that time frame as meaning both genders, it is now written in English as our minds would read it.  Example:  When the 2000 year old Greek word for brothers is used in an inclusive sense of both genders, then the translation into the modern English becomes brothers and sisters. The original word in the Greek was a male gender word, brothers, used in a gender inclusive context.  In our modern times, we may understand this single word to be inclusive of everyone in the church.  However, in our society in 2011, there is added clarity in translation by using brothers and sisters, which is the translated meaning in our present thinking.  The inclussive language makes sense because it is now in our present language and our present thinking, which for many of us, is a part of our life style.  It’s not a politically correct issue but more an issue of being able to read an inclusive statement from the New Testatement without having to process the single gender word into an inclusive meaning.  It reads as it was meant to apply–to everyone.  That is what inclusive language is about.  The meaning has not changed in the context.  The translation is just more up to date with our modern English and thinking.

If you don’t own a gender inclusive Bible, maybe it’s time to get one.  No Bible translation will ever fill the needs of every reader but to exclude one just because of a more inclusive language and to label it as a bad translation that is just a politically correct version because it uses gender inclussive language is just as wrong as excluding all other versions of the Bible just because it doesn’t say something like “Authorized Version”.

How many of us need to get away every so often to kind of straighten out our thoughts or maybe get so stress off?  Maybe we just want to be able to kick back in a little different atmosphere where we can open our minds up a little and be challenged to step out of the box of everyday life and stretch our thoughts in a new direction.  Retirement has not been a place of idle thoughts or actions as some have tried to tell me it would be.  It has been filled with the stress of adjusting to a new life style, deprogramming from 27 years in nuclear security and trying to catch up on everything I didn’t do over those 27 years, finding time to be with my family more, caring for a mother who has Alzheimer’s related dementia, arthritis, and worn out knees, and in between all of this, trying to restart my agricultural business. Hobbies such as photography, amateur radio, and building computers have been put mostly to the back burner.  Hunting, one of my favorite sports, is something that I try to work in when there is a few extra minutes and fishing is something that is now impossible in my stock tanks due to the extreme drought we have been under.  Now add to all of that the time consuming work of running two web sites, helping organize a conference on gender equality in the church in Houston, just a short one way 245 mile drive from my house, and doing my part as an egalitarian husband around the house while my wonderful wife continues to work and supply us with necessities that Social Security can’t buy.  Basically that is my box that I need to escape every so often.  Sometimes, Linda and I can do that together in our camper.  This is one of those time she had to remain behind.

Earlier this week, I attended Summit at Abilene Christian University.  This event, which is held every year during the third week of September, has become my escape from my box.  I started attending ACU’s Lectureship in Feb. 1995.  About five years ago, ACU decided to move it to September and change the name of Lectureship to Summitt.  This year, the title of Summit was “ENOUGH”, based on Isaiah 1:11-17.  They always offer alot of choice in classes so there is never a lack of finding something to attend.  I chose to attend a sub-track of classes titled Women in Ministry.  I found it to be very interesting with the speakers covering a wide range in this area.  Under the theme of ENOUGH, gender equality in the church is one of those subjects that has been almost taboo to talk about in the past.  Gender discrimination in the church has been hanging on far too long.  Last year, Summit leaders had a small offering of classes which had afairly good attendance.  This year, Summit leaders expanded the discussion and the number of classes, along with the types of speakers.  Obviously, I can’t comment on every class but I will comment on a few.

The first class that I attended was titled “Dating Jesus:  The role of women in the Church”, presented by Susan Campbell.  Susan has published a book under the title “Dating Jesus: A Story of Fundamentalism, Feminism, and The American Girl”.  Susan is an award winning columnist at the Hartford Courant.  She has a history in the Church of Christ and her talk included alot of that history.  Interestingly, what I heard in her talk was much the same thing I have heard from other women around the world whom I have talked with by email and on forums who have been hurt by the lack of inclusion and the less than equal status in the church they felt while growing up and still feel as adults.  Susan was an interesting speaker so if you ever get the chance to hear her, take it.

Jeanene Reese presented two really interesting classes based on her book “Bound and Determined:  Christian men and women in partnership”.  I started reading her book last year right after it came out but during one of many physician’s visits my wife and I made last year, I left it behind.  I guess someone was needing to read it more than I was because I rarily let a book excape like that!  And yes, I purchased another copy of her book which she autographed for me!

For a more technical approach to gender study, I attended Ken Cukrowski’s classes on 1 Cor 14 and 1 Tim 2.  These classes were well attended and interesting.  Ken took on the texts that many believe require silence of women.  His explanations were good and in depth for the amount of time alloted, and presented sound biblical alternative translation and interpretation for the “restrictive” texts.

I took time out from the subject of gender on Tuesday to attend a class titled “Fresh Look At Familiar Texts:  Charismata”, presented by Edward Fudge.  This particular class was one of several highlighst of my trip to Summit.  I have known Edward on line for many years through email and gracEmail newsletter, which I have subscribed to so long that neither he nor I could count the years. However, in all those years I had never met Edward in person.  That class was a real blessing to attend!  Not only is he a great writer, he is also a great teacher!

One very interesting speaker was Rachael Held Evans who spoke on the research and work she put into a book she is going to be writing over the next year.  The book will be called “A Year of Biblical Womanhood” and will be an experimental memoir that creatively investigates the concept of “biblical womanhood”.  Rachael was a truely inergetic speaker who was obviously excited to get to talk about her upcoming book.  Interestingly, she and her husband have an egalitarian marriage so this experiment proved to be quite a challenge to them.  She captivated everyone listening to her with her bubbly enthusiam and warm personality.  The book is supposed to be published about the time of Summit 2012!

Now, if you think I spent all my time sitting in classes, guess again.  There is one activity that I love to participate in when at Summit.  If you know me and guessed “talking”, you are correct!!!  I spent alot of time talking to others in the exhibits area.  I also engaged in a new activity I had not tried before, thanks to the generosity of my brother.  Before I left for Summit, I loaded up a number of boxes of books for children that my brother told me I could give away.  I put the two wheel dolly in with the books and when I was wandering the exhibits building dragging my dolly with boxes of books, I would stop by each children’s home exhibit I came to and offer to give them all the books they needed for their children.  Not one home turned me down, and I got to meet and talk to some very interesting people in the process of giving away the books!  I was able to give away over 300 books to children in the 8 to 14 year old age range.    That was absolutely more fun that going to the classes!!!!!  I made some new friends in the process and enjoyed several hours of conversation on numerous subjects (yeppers–talking again!).   I saw a number of people I knew, several whom I had not seen in several years, and I had dinner at the Bean (ACU’s student cafeteria) with Dr. Lynn Anderson and his wife, whom I have admired for many years.  Some of the new friends I made were in ministries I would never have considered myself being interested in before.

I wish I had the time and space to list all the classes I attended, tell about all the speakers I heard, and tell about the wonderful people I met and the ministries they work for but unfortunately it would take a short book to tell the entire story.  I hope, if you have read this far, you will plan on taking some time off in September of 2012 to attend Summit at Abilene Christian University.  It will definitly be a spiritually uplifting time, a time of renewal, a time of relaxation, a time of pushing on those box walls, and may even be a time of change in  your life.

Today, I sat in our morning worship service and listened as our pulpit minister preached a really good sermon on using our spiritual gifts in the church.  He was directing it, in his mind, at everyone.  I was in agreement with him on everything he said.  However, as I sat there listening, I wondered how many women in our congregation were thinking “how can I do that when I am not allowed to because I don’t have the same plumbing as my husband or brother or friend?” In my mind I could see this list of all the ways we serve in the worship service or class.  This list was just kind of scrolling in front of my eyes as our minister was delivering his sermon.  It was a list of cans for men and cannots for women.  There are no “cannots” for men.  That kind of brings to mind the 613 Mitzvot!  Basically, the unintended effect of the sermon was that it was really delivered to just half of our congregation and the rest of the congregation, the part that is female, was left to gather what they could from what little could apply to them.  Now, if you think I jumping on my preacher, I’m not!  He is a man for whom I have an immense amount of respect.  He was preaching a message to everyone, and it was a good message, one that everyone needs to hear.  However, because of the way things “are”  in our Christian fellowship, even though he meant it to apply to everyone, it really could only apply to males.  I believe for most (not all!) male preachers in our fellowship, because of years of conditioning on a male only level regarding what can and can’t be done in worship, the thought of what some males and females may hear in a sermon regarding the use of spiritual gifts in church just does not immediately connect.

I know that not everyone will ever agree on what spiritual gifts are and how they are to be used but here are some examples of gifts and applications that affect males and females that all most all of us will agree on:

Prayer: The ability to lead public prayer in front of a large group of believers is indeed a gift from God, and that gift is bestowed on males and females alike.  However, men are expected to lead all prayer in the assembly where men are present, and if it is only one man present, then he must do it all, even though there are women in every congregation who are, in many cases, much better at leading prayer than the men who are chosen to lead those prayers.  Don’t get me wrong on this as there are many men who do lead beautiful, heart felt prayers.  However, men and women approach prayer from different levels and when we only hear one level, we suffer overall.  We need to hear prayer from both genders in our worship.

The Lord’s Supper: Men are expected to do this because they are “supposed” to be the public speakers and this is a “leadership position”.  Why is it that we think a woman cannot do this?  Being able to tell a short story to enhance our participation in that event is a spiritual gift that should not ever be limited to men.  The event itself is open to every Christian present and to limit participation in the leading of this event of worship because of gender is wrong.  We carry this to the nth degree by saying that women cannot even help pass the bread and cup from front to back while standing in the aisle because they would be standing in front of the congregation and that would be a leadership position, even though they are saying nothing at all and are performing an action of service to other Christians.

Preaching: This is indeed a spiritual gift that some have a unique ability to use.  Yet, we limit this to  men only!  Who ever said that God gives that gift to men only?  Preaching is the closest thing we have to the 1st Century gift of prophecy and we know for a Biblically supported fact that both men and women prophesied in the 1st Century church.

Leading worship: Why is it that we insist that a man, who may have a terrible voice and not know anything about reading music or leading singing, must lead the worship when a woman is sitting in the pews who has had years of training in music and planning events.  Everyone around her knows about her gifts in this area and her unique abilities but, because of gender, she cannot be asked or “allowed” to lead the worship and help make the worship experience more meaningful.   Ask any preacher about what will make or break a a time of worship and they will tell you that one of the most important parts of the setting the overall tone in that worship service and helping make his sermon more meaningful is what the worship leader brings to the service before the sermon.

Teaching in Bible classes: Teaching is a specific gift.  In almost all of our churches, women are only allowed to teach other women and children, as long as there are no baptized male children.  Women cannot teach in a Bible class that has mixed adults, even if they posses degrees in theology, ministry, and education.  In some churches, women cannot even read from the Bible out loud in a mixed adult Bible class and they sure cannot lead a prayer.  About all they can do is make a comment occasionaly.

There are many spiritual gifts that can be used for the betterment of the church.  However, when we restrict those gifts in anyone, especially because of gender, we hurt ourselves.

Read what Paul says regarding spiritual gifts and how we are to seek them and use them :

1 Corinthians 12:7 – 11 (NIV) ⁷Now to each one the
manifestation of the Spirit is given for the common good. ⁸To one there is
given through the Spirit the message of wisdom, to another the message of
knowledge by means of the same Spirit, ⁹to another faith by
the same Spirit, to another gifts of healing by that one Spirit, ¹⁰to another
miraculous powers, to another prophecy, to another distinguishing between
spirits, to another speaking in different kinds of tongues,^£ and to still
another the interpretation of tongues.^{£ 11}All these are the
work of one and the same Spirit, and he gives them to each one, just as he
determines.

1 Corinthians 12:27 – 31 (NIV) ²⁷Now you are the body
of Christ, and each one of you is a part of it. ²⁸And in the church
God has appointed first of all apostles, second prophets, third teachers, then
workers of miracles, also those having gifts of healing, those able to help
others, those with gifts of administration, and those speaking in different
kinds of tongues. ²⁹Are all apostles? Are all prophets? Are all teachers? Do all work miracles? ³⁰Do all have gifts of healing? Do all speak in tongues? Do all
interpret? ³¹But eagerly desire^£ the greater gifts.

I wonder how long it will take us to realize just how much we have repressed the spirit in our women by refusing them the right to use their spiritual gifts and how much longer it will take to make the corrections needed to bring everyone into equality in the Churches of Christ.  We have effectively handled the “Jews or Greeks” part of Paul’s statement.  We have effectively handled the “slave or free” part of that statement.  However, what we have failed miserably to handle is the “male or female” part of that statement.  Oh, you say where is the “male or female” in that statement?  It’s included in the inclussiveness of the statement just as the races, the rich and the poor, and the genders are included in the description of what an American citizen is.  However, Paul didn’t leave it to just the Corinthians to figure out and implement.  He also wrote to the Galations and he did include gender in that letter.

Galatians 3:25 - 3:29 (NRSVA) ²⁵But now that faith
has come, we are no longer subject to a disciplinarian, ²⁶for in Christ Jesus
you are all children of God through faith. ²⁷As many of you as
were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ. ²⁸There is no longer
Jew or Greek, there is no longer slave or free, there is no longer male and
female; for all of you are one in Christ Jesus. ²⁹And if you belong to
Christ, then you are Abraham’s offspring,^£ heirs according to
the promise.

If we are going to use our God given spiritual gifts to their fullest limits for the uplifting and betterment of all of our brothers and sisters who join in worship on Sunday mornings, we are going to have to deal with gender discrimination in our churches.  Satan loves the fact that we have not done so yet and that we limit the use of spiritual gifts in our congregations to less than half the membership .  That makes his job a whole lot easier!

I was chatting on email with Lee Wilson a short time ago and he asked me what I thought about a particular chapter in their book “The True Heaven”, that he and Joe Beam had published.  That chapter is titled “Will We Still Be Male and Female?” and in this chapter they make this observation:

“It’s certainly not unreasonable to think that in heaven we would have a special connection with the person we were married to during this life.  We’ll have so much history with that person that having a strong relationship on the New Earth is not a far-fetched concept.  So if you’re having difficulty thinking we could have romantic relationships on the New Earth, start by considering what it will be like to see your spouse for the first time in the next life.  The two of you will be without physical problems, without the stress that currently weights us down at nearly every turn, and without the misunderstanding and grudges that might have been brought on by circumstances of life on the fallen earth.  The potential for a better relationship would be extrodinary in God’s restored paradise!”

I find that to be a very interesting view point, especially as one who believes in the biblical egalitarian model of both marriage and church.  Let’s step out of our boxes for a few minutes and think about it.  God made a perfect creation, created a perfect place in the Garden for the beings to live that he would create, and then he created the male, followed by the female, to live in this perfect creation equally, together, neither one being over the other but living together, being each other’s perfect helper and companion.  Sin then enters in and they are removed from the Garden.  Sin then effects their relationship outside the Garden by influencing how men treat women.  The patriarchal system becomes the rule of the earth.  At the cross, this unlevel ground is leveled by Jesus’ sacrifice (see Gal 3:26-29), however, men are slow to change and the patriarchal system, in spite of the example by Jesus of how women should be treated and the teaching by the Apostles, is still the rule of the earth.  This continues for a couple thousand years after the cross when we see Christians slowly opening up to the idea of gender equality in the church based on Gal. 3:28 but we now have those who teach a politically correct version of patriarchal pratices called “complimentarianism” that originates in the latter part of the 20th Century.  Biblical egalitarian beliefs in church and marriage continue to slowly grow in practice as we move into the future but the sinfulness of making one gender lesser than the otherin  both the church and in the home is still there.  Then Jesus returns to claim his followers.  The heavens and earth are purified by fire and God creates a new earth for those who are saved.  The new earth is perfect again.  It is the new Garden where those who are saved may live.  We now meet our spouses from the existence we had on earth before Jesus’ return.  We are in the presence of God who see’s everyone the same: (Gal. 3:28 again)”there is no longer Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female”.  In heaven, we are all equals as there is no marriage.  There is no longer the sinfulness of men towards women that added inequality or lesser importance than man to women.  We stand there in this new earth with our life mates in the previous life looking at them in a whole new light of equality.  What are we going to be thinking, those of us who have treated our life mates as less than equals in our previous lives?  And for those of us who have treated our life mates with equality and respect in our previous lives, we just might find ourselves to be even happier over seeing our life mates again and the possibilities of relationship with that life mate seems to be endless on a perfect earth.

Of course, what I have just related is mostly pure speculation.  Joe and Lee say it this way:

“To what extent we could see relationships between men and women restored I’ll leave to your own thought and study.”

Yes, there is definitly something to think about in the speculation of what Joe and Lee have proposed.   Again, the book is “The True Heaven” by Joe Beam and Lee Wilson.  I highly recommend it!

Conservative Christianity defined by Wikipedia:

Conservative Christianity (also called traditional Christianity) is a term applied to a number of groups or movements seen as giving priority to traditional Christian beliefs and practices.^[1] It is sometimes called conservative theology, an umbrella term covering various movements within Christianity and describing both corporate denominational and personal views of Scripture.

The term conservative Christian is frequently used by Protestant evangelicals and Protestant fundamentalists as a way to distinguish themselves from the more liberal Protestant denominations, which stress the teachings of Jesus rather than the more severe methods of social control advocated in the Old Testament. This often leads to different understanding of what is and is not “conservative”. It is also applied to the Catholic Church and Eastern Orthodox churches as well, not only in the case of moral theology, but also more traditional in the sense of the practice of Christianity itself.

Liberal Christianity as defined by Wikipedia

Liberal Christianity, sometimes called liberal theology, is an umbrella term covering diverse, philosophically and biblically informed religious movements and ideas within Christianity from the late 18th century and onward. The word “liberal” in liberal Christianity does not refer to a progressive political agenda or set of beliefs, but rather to the manner of thought and belief associated with the philosophical and religious paradigms developed during the Age of Enlightenment.

Liberal Christianity, broadly speaking, is a method of biblical hermeneutics, an undogmatic method of understanding God through the use of scripture by applying the same modern hermeneutics used to understand any ancient writings. Liberal Christianity does not claim to be a belief structure, and as such is not dependent upon any Church dogma or creedal statements. Unlike conservative varieties of Christianity, it has no unified set of propositional beliefs. The word liberal in liberal Christianity denotes a characteristic willingness to interpret scripture without any preconceived notion of inerrancy of scripture or the correctness of Church dogma.^[1] A liberal Christian, however, may hold certain beliefs in common with traditional, orthodox, or even conservative Christianity.

MY THOUGHTS ON THIS

Over the last few years, in many Christian groups, there has been alot of talk about conservative verses liberal Christian ideas.  Wikipedia uses some more common language to describe these terms but, IMO, it is difficult to classify anyone under these two terms.  My experience with Christians whom I have discussed many subjects has been that it is rare to find a Christian who can be accurately described by the common definitions.  We all seem to have our own ideas on particular subjects.  Most of us, if we really sit down and analyze our thoughts on Scripture, cannot truely say we are a conservative or a liberal on every or possibly any subject.  For that reason, there has been alot of mis-use of these terms and alot of misunderstanding of what a true conservative or true liberal believes.  If you were to call yourself a liberal in some churches, you might even be asked to leave.

When one studies Christian history, the leaders of all the great Christian movements that brought positive change for many believers would be considered liberals.  In some circles, they would be called radicals and/or change agents.  Yet these Christians were dedicated Bible believing men and women who just want to understand and apply God’s words to us in a truer sense.  A look at the American Restoration Movcment leader Alexander Campbell is one of those examples that can be viewed both ways.  He was a classic change agent by modern standards.  He pushed for simpler Christianity while re-evaluating all his previously held ideas.  He came up with some radical ideas for the time that are not at all radical to us now.  At the time of his ministry, if classified by our standards today, he would be a liberal Christian.  However, his views, having been accepted over the last 190 years as correct by many, are seen today by many as being conservative.  This holds true for many of the great leaders through the centuries.  It seems to me that conservative and liberal are really just terms of relativity defined by the time frame in which they exist.  Alexander Campbell was a liberal 190 years ago and is a conservative in the present.

Have you given any thought to where you were when you became a Christian, where you are now, and where you will be in the future compared to where you are now and in the past?  Can you really say you are a conservative or liberal or something in between when the terms can be so nebulous in nature and variable in time?  Our views and understanding of Scripture change as we study.  The more we study the more we change.  Looking at my own personal views and how general views on many subjects have changed over the last few years, I am part of the nebulous factor as I have views that fall in some of the more so called conservative areas and views that fall into the more so called liberal areas.  Personally,  I think of myself as just a Christian trying to move closer to Jesus than closer to the church.  In the past, I used to call that a being a conservative Christian, however, I have been called liberal so many times by those who call themselves conservatives that it is hard to tell anymore!  I guess I am a liberal who is conservative and a change agent who believes that change must be supported by scriptural understanding before change occurs which is a conservative principle.  Oh well.

Where’s the Ibuprofin bottle?  I have a headache from trying to figure this one out!

Yesterday, a Facebook friend who lives half way around the world from where I live posted that she was now on the Executive Committee of the Christians for Biblical Equality in Sydney, Australia, an organization founded to promote gender equality in the Christian world.  Gender equality is a concept that has eluded the understanding of the majority of Christian churches in the world, but especially the Churches of Christ.  Marge, a minister in Australia, then said “I still have no idea how I have ended up being passionate about equality.”  As fate or luck or maybe even divine intervention would have it, another Facebook friend, Al Maxey, whom I have known for a number of years on the internet and who is a minister in Alamogordo, New Mexico, posted his latest newsletter titled Life-Transforming Epiphanies. He wrote this regarding what an epiphany is:

…for those who may not be familiar with this
term, is defined as “a flash of insight,” and comes from a Greek word meaning
“to show forth.” Have you ever been studying or meditating, and then suddenly “a
light comes on” in your mind? Have you ever been reading a passage of Scripture
for the hundredth time, and then suddenly that which you’d previously struggled
to grasp all “falls into place” and “makes sense”? Such “flashes of
insight” are known as epiphanies. We’ve each had them, and at times
they have the power to be truly life-transforming, especially when the
insights deal with great spiritual realities. As we grow in the grace and
knowledge of our Lord Jesus Christ, and as we mature in the Spirit, these
liberating and transforming insights will shine forth in our hearts and
minds time and again. They can’t be forced, but will dawn within us as the
Spirit of God dictates. The wise disciple will learn to heed them, and to
welcome their guidance.

Now that had to be timing that was divinely guided!  It struck me, possibly like an epiphany in regards to scripture, that many of us who have changed our views so radically from what we have been taught had to have had some form of epiphany at some point in time in order to become so radically opposit the general consensus of our Christian fellowship.  We just may not have an idea of the exact verses or time as to how we got so passionate about this subject.

I have studied the gender issue in the Churches of Christ since the early 1990′s and I have not actually considered some of my big steps toward what I believe as being caused by epiphanies.  I would simply do my own study and research and see where it took me.  I started out with one thought in mind and it was the same thought that I had been drilling into my three daughters since they were able to understand the English language.  That thought was don’t let any male ever tell you that you cannot do something just because you are a female.  However, in those early formative years of their lives, I had never really thought of this in the context of church and scripture and the contradictory message that was taught in the church–not in scripture!  It wasn’t until after my oldest daughter tangled with a rather narrow minded minister at a teen retreat that I started thinking about this in terms of church and scripture.  I still thought mostly (not completly) on the level of the old teaching that women had to be silent in church and could not lead.  My oldest daughter, at the time, was a high school leader in organizing Christian activities for kids from the Church of Christ and the local Southern Baptist Church.  When we attended a teen retreat one year that was put on by several churches something was said that caused this particular minister  to tell my daughter that she should not be doing leadership because it was a boy’s job.  My daughter immediately popped off a fairly sharp verbal jab that basically said he was wrong!  The minister then chased me down and proceeded to tell me about what she had said and that I needed to have a firm talk with her about how females were not supposed to be leaders and that it was the boy’s responsibility in town to do the organizing.  I no longer remember exactly what I said back to him but I do remember he was not at all pleased with my answer.  That event was basically an epiphany event without a scripture for me because it started me down a life changing pathway of study into areas where there was very little written by anyone in the Churches of Christ on gender equality. I had to go to the research of scholars in other Christian fellowships.  I started rethinking everything I had been taught about limitations on females.  As I studied new scholarship on verses I had read and studied many times, verses that I had always been given just one understanding of, I saw a whole new understanding of how God looks at us as individuals.  Verses I had always been told meant one thing now suddenly took on new meaning (epiphany?) and the old traditional applications fell by the side of the road.  I became active on the internet and quickly became active on several email forums for members of the Churches of Christ, the Christian Church/DOC, and the independent Christian Churches.  The forums were open to anyone and produced a lot of lively discussion, especially when gender was brought up.  I eventually became a moderator for a theological forum which increased my horizons drastically.  I also had become interested in web sites and put a web site on about my family.  I also designed websites for a couple of congregations.  I still had reservations about women being totally included in church but this was still early in the game.

When my oldest daughter graduated from high school in 1994, she headed off to ACU for a degree in Agriculture Agronomy. I continued my own study and my thinking continued to move toward equality in all ways, but it still took a while before that was absolute.  I guess alot of this was fueled by mine and my wife’s egalitarian marriage, which had always been different to the complimentarian marriage that church ministers and elders always pushed as the proper christian marriage.  I started attending ACU Lecturship and it was during my daughter’s undergraduate studies that ACU publically acknowledged its actions in helping to promote racism in the church and university settings and publically asked for forgiveness from our brothers and sisters in Christ who were members of other races who had felt the sting of that discrimination and racism.  What ACU failed to do for a number of years after that was realize that gender is included in that!   It’s a Gal 3:26-29 principle and we had failed miserably to understand that.  The racism and discrimination that was made public at Lectureship that year shaped my views into what would become a key point in my thinking.  There is no difference between discrimination in the church or society because of race and discrimination in the church or society because of gender.  Following that Lectureship, I came into possession of a small book written by an African American Church of Christ minister stating that exact principle!  It’s on my website in its entirety if anyone wishes to download a copy to read.  ACU Lectureship, which is now called ACU Summit, just last year opened up the discussion of gender equality and inclusivity.  It’s taken a number of years since the last big step.  However, in the mean time, ACU Lectureship and Summit has had some of the finest African American preachers one could ever hope to hear!

Another major advancement in my thinking occured the day my oldest daughter told me she was heading to the Graduate School of Biblical Studies at ACU to become a minister!  I was not all that surprised but her mother was, and I DID hear about it!  My wife had not yet reached the view that women could do anything in the church that a man can do and that naturally brought on some other concerns.  Her views changed  but it took a little more time!  I continued my study and if a scriptural epiphany did occur, it was as my understanding of Gal 3:26-29 continued to expand and how it was in direct contradiction to the so called limitations of 1st Tim 2 and 3.  I also saw what appeared to be contradictions in scripture and church teaching between 1 Cor 12 and 14.   These little lights would come on and I would see the questions and contradictions.   I now saw problems in teaching, translation, grammer, and modern patriarchal/complimentarian views that pretty much blew past teaching out of the water.   I started seeing ties between Gal 3:26-29, 1 Cor 12, Acts 2, and Joel 2 regarding females and what they did, could do, and would do (things that male control says they can’t do) and the fact that there are no limitations when everyone is seen the same by Christ!  How Jesus treated women has been an overlooked important part of his ministry.  However, it must be understood in a historical context to see that.  Other scriptures also factored in and my views and understanding would change again and again.  I also started retinking my teaching on Genesis 3 that places Eve in a slightly lower position than Adam and realized Eve was made as an equal helper in every way to Adam in the Garden.  My views of what God told Adam and Eve when he kicked Adam out of the Garden also changed radically.  I realized that God did not prescribe punishment for Adam and Eve.  What he did was tell Adam and Eve what to expect in the future as a consequence of their sin.  It was predictive because the only curses found are against the serpent and the ground!  It was at this point in time that my thinking starting changing on how we should understand scripture and associated hermeneutical principles.  For my years in the Churches of Christ, I had always been taught the hermeneutical principles of silence of scripture and CENI (command, example, necessary inference).  This was always based on modern thought and reading of English translations.  Nothing was ever said about understanding scripture in the HISTORICAL setting it was written in or looking at the original Greek or Hebrew.  It wasn’t until I spent some time studying the Passover and the Lord’s Supper, and the Jewish mikvah and Christian baptism, that I realized we can’t truely understand many subjects in scripture unless we jettison the hermeneutics of silence of scripture and CENI, which are read in the present day English and are thus very open to legalistic interpretation, and start reading, interpreting, and understanding scripture as it was written 2000 or more years ago.  When we understand the who, the what, and the why of 2000 years ago, we will have a much easier time with the who, the what, and the why of now.  We also can start to understand the so called contradictions and make sense of what was previously not well understood.  During this time frame, I also became more aware of the problems of Greek to English translation and interpretation and how much human factor is really involved, such at the baggage of traditions that the translator/interpretor brings into the process.  I wish I had the opportunity to study Greek translation but where we live is very restrictive distance and time wise to further education and at 62.5 yrs old, I don’t think I’m going to take on Koine Greek as an online study!!!

To say my study of gender hasn’t been a challenge or hasn’t been really interesting would be such an understatement.  In some ways, I feel like I know how Alexander Campbell back in the early 19th Century must have felt after studying the scriptures with an open mind looking for answers.   Over the last ten years I have just refined and increased my knowledge about what I already understand.  I have initiated a web site dedicated to gender equality and inclusivity in the Churches of Christ ( http://www.wherethespiritleads.org ).  I have also had the opportunity to witness some things that I wish I had not had to witness in my fellowship.  I had the sad experience of hearing from my daughter what she went through in her first job as a childrens minister and some of what happened in the job search that lasted a year and a half after she was terminated from her first job.  It’s sad to think that some men who are elders and ministers can be so narrow minded, rude, and mean spirited.   I have experienced being labeled and called names that were attempts to insult me at times by other Christians who are afraid of the idea of gender equality in the church.  However, I have a different view of these practices.  I must be doing something right to experience what is not right!

Everything I have studied has had an effect on where I am now.   It was probably about 2002 that I became dedicated to the idea that when a person is immersed into Christ, there is no such thing as gender, race, and class status and there are absolutely no limitations on what a person regardless of gender, race, or class can do, from being an elder right on down to just being an ordinary member.  Male or female, black or white or brown or yellow, rich or middle class or poor or poverty level, if a person has been gifted by the Holy Spirit for a particular ministry or leadership position, then who are we to stand against the Holy Spirit!  Being baptised into Christ means absolute equality in Christ regardless of gender, race, or class in life.  It means that no christian has the right to limit what another chirstian may be capable of doing, regardless of gender, race, of class.  So, I guess if any one set of verses in the Bible were my epiphany and the reason I have been dedicated to a cause of gender equality in the Churches of Christ or any other christian church for that matter, it would be these verses:

Gal. 3:23-29:  ²³Now before faith
came, we were imprisoned and guarded under the law until faith would be
revealed. ²⁴Therefore the law was our disciplinarian until Christ came, so that we might be justified by faith. ²⁵But now that faith
has come, we are no longer subject to a disciplinarian, ²⁶for in Christ Jesus
you are all children of God through faith. ²⁷As many of you as
were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ. ²⁸There is no longer Jew or Greek, there is no longer slave or free, there is no longer male and female; for all of you are one in Christ Jesus. ²⁹And if you belong to
Christ, then you are Abraham’s offspring,^£ heirs according to
the promise.

This is copied from a blog posting to the web site of The Council for Biblical Manhood and Womanhood (and I recommend reading this article):

Since New Testament times, Christians believed that the Bible taught that God created male and female with complementary differences and roles. There was no word to describe this position, since no one had ever questioned it. But about 50 years ago, feminism changed all that. And by the mid-eighties, when Egalitarians and Evangelical Feminists eagerly jumped on the feminist ideological bandwagon, it was necessary to come up with a label to identify this traditional, orthodox, historicbelief. That’s when we came up with the term “complementarian.” It simply means someone who believes that the Bible teaches that God created men and women with equal, yet distinct roles. We are equal, but different.

Dictionary.com defines Oxymoron as:  a figure of speech by which a locution produces an incongruous, seemingly self-contradictory effect, as in “cruel kindness” or “to make haste slowly.”

Dictionary.com defines Equal as:  1. as great as the same as (often followed by to  or with ): The velocity of sound is not equal to that of light.

Dictionary.com defines Different as:  not alike in character or quality; differing;  dissimilar: The two are different.

Equal BUT Different?  How can anyone be equal but different or equal with distinctive (restrictive) roles?  This is an oxymoronic phrase!  It is a contradiction to the Bible itself.  Since the idea of complimentariansim caught hold in the 20th Century as a Biblical principle that is God ordained, we have heard in most of our churches that the Bible teaches that women are to be silent in church, cannot teach men, have New Testament assigned roles in the home, should stay at home and raise the children. Husbands should be the bread winners are the sole authority to make decisions in a marriage because they have the God assigned role of leadership, males are to be the only gender to be heard in a worshipand to be leaders of the congregation, etc.  These are the views that Mary Cassin holds as a part of the CBMW.  The Bible has never taught a principle called complimentarianism as defined by the modern fundementalists and evangelicals who wish to keep women “in their God assigned place” by trying to make a Biblical principle out of scripture that is directed to specific situations in a society that is patriarchal based.   Let’s face it and recognize it for what it is.  Until the idea of complimentarianism came along, the church maintained and practiced a patriarchal  view.  Some of the earliest church fathers debated whether a woman had a soul.  The same occured in the pagan philosophies and religions, and the Jewish religion. In all of the examples we have in the Old and New Testatements, there is only one principle taught regarding men and women and that is equalty before God in all things.  We all stand equal before God and have the same expectations placed on us as his children.  The Old Testament starts in Genesis with God making humankind in the Garden.  Eve was created out of Adam’s side or taken out of Adam’s side to be an equal with him in the Garden.  We end the New Testatement in the book of Revelation with everyone standing before God in the judgement.  We will all stand on our own before God.  There are, however, many examples of how male control operated in the patriarchal environment that existed for thousands of years which was perpetrated on women after leaving the Garden and has nothing to do with being “scriptural”.   Now, since the mid 20th Century, what was known as patriarchalism has been replaced with the politically correct terminology of complimentarianism.

Recently, 1 Tim 2:11-15 has been on my mind.  It is one of the most difficult of all verses to properly translate, and probably even more difficult to understand, because Paul seems to be declaring that there are differences between males and females that require him to limit the teaching and leadership in the church by females.  Why does Paul feel he has to put this in his first letter to Timothy?  It is for a reason that he assumes Timothy knows so he does not bother to eloborate on all the details in his letter.  That, unfortunately, has left the modern reader with a lack of information that is very vital to understanding 1 Timothy 2.  Translation problems have further magnified that problem.  The one very obvious thing to this reader of 1st Timothy is that this statement, using traditional translation, flies in the face of a statement Paul made in another letter he wrote.  It presents a huge contradiction in Scripture regarding gender and how God sees a believer.  Galations 3:28 states very plainly that there is “neither Jew nor Gentile, slave nor free, MALE AND FEMALE”.   Fortunately, there are no translation problems with Galations 3. Paul has declared in Galations that, in Christ, there is neither male and female.  In 1st Corinthians 11, he also says there are neither Jews nor Gentil, nor salves nor free.  He doesn’t say male and female in 1 Cor 11 but he doesn’t have to because both groups include females.  However, in 1 Timothy, he contradicts both these statements and seems to say that there is a BIG difference between males and females in the church because females cannot teach (preach, prophesy) or lead (be an elder, deacon, minister or worship leader), while allowing men who would be included in the neither Jew nor Gentile, slave nor free groups the freedom to teach and lead.  Even though Paul clearly states that we are all one in Christ, we have traditionally applied 1 Timothy 2:11-15 as a contradiction for the oneness we should have and made gender the wall that divides the church.  We no longer divide the church by race (Jew nor Gentile) and we no longer divide the church by a person’s class in society (slave nor free).  However, we continue to divide the church by gender (male and female), even though Paul states clearly in the same verse we used in recent years to eliminate the racism and classism that existed for 1900 years in the historical church that we are not to recognize gender in the church of Christ because gender in Christ does not exist.

Our traditional application of 1 Tim 2:11-15 has been to limit Galations and 1 Corinthians and to expand 1 Timothy.  That expansion and application has taken the following understanding: 

1.  Women CANNOT:  Preach, teach baptized males of any age, lead prayer, lead a song, sing a song solo, stand before the assembly and give a personal testimony, read publically from the Bible in the assembly with men present, read the bulletin notes and welcome visitors, help serve at the Communion Table, give a communion talk, be ministers to adult males, be deacons and elders, teach in a mixed Bible class,  chair mixed adult committees, and so on…….

2.  Women CAN: Sing when everyone sings in the assembly, participate in a congregational response type scripture reading in the assembly, teach children who have not been baptized in Bible classes , teach women, lead prayer for children, lead prayer for women (no man can be present!), be a children’s minister (a recent change in church ministry), be a secretary for the church office, prepare the elements of the Lord’s Supper but not help serve it, and a realitivly few other things on inconsequential importance.

An internet friend of mine in Australia,  Marg Mowczko, recently made the following observation in her blog on her website, http://newlife.id.au/equality-and-gender-issues/women-teaching-and-deception/ :

Churches which do not allow women to preach[3] or teach in a church service[4] – where many people can hear and assess what is being taught, often allow women to teach young, impressionable children – where typically very few adults can hear and assess what is being taught.  These same churches also often allow women to teach other women (Titus 2:3-5).[5]

If these churches truly believe that the reason why women should not teach men is because women are more easily deceived, logic would suggest that women should not be trusted to teach vulnerable children and other, supposedly gullible, women.  Yet many women are trusted and even encouraged to teach children and other women, but remain barred from teaching grown men in church services.  This simply doesn’t make sense.  Surely Paul was suggesting something other than the idea of “female deception” when he brought Adam and Eve into his first letter to Timothy in verses 13-14.

When we attempt to limit because of race, class, or gender what a Christian can do with the spiritual gifts that have been given to that person by the Holy Spirit, we are putting limits on what our all powerfull God can accomplish through his children.  To limit what God is capable of doing through his chosen people, regardless of race, class, or gender is heresy in it ugliest form!  We nullify what Paul, under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, wrote in Galation 3:26-29, which states in it’s entirety:

Galatians 3:26-29 (New International Version, ©2010)

 ²⁶ So in Christ Jesus you are all children of God through faith, ²⁷ for all of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ. ²⁸ There is neither Jew nor Gentile, neither slave nor free, nor is there male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus. ²⁹ If you belong to Christ, then you are Abraham’s seed, and heirs according to the promise.

At the foot of the cross, we all stand equal and there are no limitations because of gender, race, and class.  When are we going to finally put 1 Tim 2:11-15 into its proper setting, recognizing that this was a special directive to a special need in a special situation instead of being an all time directive, and that the principles of Gal. 3:26-29 are an all time directive of the highest order?

For further indepth study of 1 Tim. 2:11-15, I highly recommend reading:

 I Suffer Not a Woman: rethinking 1 Timothy 2:11-15 in Light of the Ancient Evidence by Richard Clark Kroeger and Catherine Clark Kroeger

Since the mass murder and the attempted assassination of Congresswoman Giffords occured two days ago, the news agencies have been running with the story.  As can be expected when an extremly liberal media gets ahold of a story, it quickly gravitates from just telling the facts into leftist politics and trying to shift blame from where blame needs to be to what they really want to push in  their agenda based reporting.  I have been following as many of the stories as possible and some are already moving into blaming the gun the assassin used for this heinous crime rather than concentrating on the person who committed this heinous crime.  It seems that some stories by those who want to push for gun control are blaming the gun, a Glock 19, for the murders more than they are blaming the murdererd.  Here’s just one example.  From the ultra liberal CBS News.com:  Dem. Rep. Carolyn McCarthy Plans New Gun Control Bill .  We need to keep a clear focus on what has occured, who caused it, and make sure that this person can never do this again. Trying to make it appear that this person could not have done what he did if he had only not had a gun is just going to muddy the water and blur the focus of prosecuting the person responsible.  This person would have found a way to do what he did!  Gun control has never worked and has only resulted in increases in the crime level of areas where extreme gun control has been applied to law abiding citizens.

The Saturday shooting spree brings to mind some past incidents, and every on of the following incidents have several things in common.  The first incident occured in Texas near Fort Hood.  It was The Luby’s massacre, a mass murder that took place on October 16, 1991.  The next incident that comes to mind is the Wedgewood Baptist Church in Fort Worth Texas, Sept 15, 1999.  The third incident was Virginia Tech  on April 16, 2007.  The forth is Fort Hood, November 5th, 2009.  Three of the four incidents took place in Texas, yet Texas has always had fairly strict gun control.  These incidents all have some multiple facts in common besides the fact that a hand gun was used  to commit a heinous crime.  The first commonality is the mental instability of each shooter.  In every case, there were people interviewed who said they possessed previous knowledge of mental instability in the shooter but it never occured to them that the shooter would do something like mass murder.  The shooter fell through the cracks in the burecratic system.  Of course, one of our many firearm laws is that it is against the law for a mentally unstable person to own or use a firearm.  Unfortunately, this didn’t have an effect in any of the cases stated. The second commonality, of course, is the failure of the other gun control laws to stop what occured.  This is the failure of the system to apply the laws already on the books for purchasing guns and for prosecuting those who would use a firearm of any type illegally. People like Sarah Brady of Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence would have everyone believe that doing away with all guns and adding a multitude of laws against firearms violence will stop the violence and cure the problem.  We already have more laws on the books that we can count regarding the use of weapons for illegal purposes and they have not stopped what has occured.  People who use a gun, or any other commonly available weapon, to illegally kill and injure do not care what the law says.  Only law abiding citizens are concerned about following the laws we already have in place.  The third commonality of all the shootings I have mentioned is that no one had a personal weapon in their possession that they could use to stop an attack like those already mentioned.  This ties back to gun control laws.  In the case of the Luby’s Cafeteria shooting, the only weapon present that could have been used to stop the killings was locked in a vehicle because it was illegal to carry concealed at that time in Texas.  If the owner of that pistol had broken the law and carried it into Luby’s, then she might have stopped the massacre that occured, but she was a law abiding citizen. Leaving the pistol in her car cost her the lives of her parents and possibly many others. With this person’s help, Texas finally passed a good concealed carry law.  Until that time, concealed carry was totally illegal.  Carrying concealed in Texas in a vehicle continued to be a vague interpretation of law until just a couple of years ago, unless one had a CCL.  If a concealed weapon had been present in the Wedgewood Baptist Church, that massacre could have possibly been stopped, as one was stopped in a Colorado Springs church a couple of years ago.  The Virginia Polytech massacre could have been stopped if a student or teacher who was on campus that day had been allowed to carry concealed and had been able to intervene.  Almost all college campuses across the US have firearm prohibitions, even for students who possess CCL’s.  The Fort Hood massacre could have been prevented if Army personnell were allowed to carry on the base, either openly or concealed.  However, strict gun control is maintained on Army bases, even though every member of the armed forces is required to go through firearms training and qualification.  One last commonality should be mentioned.  In all of the above cases, there was no law enforcement present at any of the shootings when the shooting started!  The idea that law enforcement will protect us so we do not need to be prepared for the worst situations is a false idea.  Law enforcement does a wonderfull job with the manpower they have, but they cannot be everywhere at the same time all the time!  And that brings us back to the shooting on Saturday.  If just one law enforcement officer or one law abidding citizen with a CCL and their permitted weapon had been present, the high number of casualties could have been prevented.  The question of why there wasn’t some security available with Congressman Giffords still needs to be addressed and I’m sure it will be.  However, that does not lessen the responsibility we all have to protect ourselves and our families and to help uphold the laws and constitution of the United States.  When a law abidding citizen carries a firearm, that person accepts the fact that he/she now has a responsibility to protect, not only his/her own life, but the lives of others when crimes of violence occurs in their presence.  I have carried a firearm for 27 years when on duty as a nuclear security officer.  I have carried off duty for more years than that to protect my family and I was one of the earliest CCL holders in the state of Texas. Lord willing, I will never have to use any of my firearms against someone else in order to protect someone’s life.  The anti gun rhetoric will increase in the coming weeks.  If we don’t fight for the 2nd Amendment rights that protect firearm ownership, we will end up as helpless as Congresswoman Giffords was and evil will triumph!