Men of Vision -- How This Looks at Church

Friends,

Philosopher Immanuel Kant had a saying, “Always treat a human being as a person, that is, as an end in himself, and not merely as a means to your end. The personality of ourselves we feel very intensely, and we are outraged when others seem to ignore that personality in us, but the personality of others we do not sense so keenly.” This thought, in a nutshell, really describes what is taking place in the passage that we are going to consider today.  Perhaps we can relate? I hope not…but, probably so.  If there is one thing that we humans are aware of, it is our own wants and desires.  And when we juxtapose this against the way of the cross, there is always going to be conflict – do I do what I want, or what Jesus wants. Well, it is interesting to see how Jesus’ disciples respond to Him (Matthew 20:21-28) after His third announcement concerning His death, burial and resurrection. (20:17)  They did not have the advantage of the New Testament, history and hindsight that we do. Jesus’ message does not penetrate their hearts at this time.  The big problem is that the disciples are focused on themselves, their desires, and it hinders their spiritual sight. They need to be refocused on what really matters, and Jesus helps their understanding in this way.

In contrast to Jesus’ announcement of suffering and death, we have the request of James and John…and their mother. Jesus has been speaking of the cross, but they, on the other hand, are more interested in a crown.  What is interesting is that this follows up a similar conversation that has already taken place over in Matthew 18. So, we can see the intensity of this thought on the part of the disciples. This, not so ironically, follows after Jesus twice displaying that the disciples need to be “as little children” in their innocence (Matthew 18, 19).  We do get the impression that the mother of James and John is the real inspiration behind this request, and that it is she who is interested in promoting her sons…she simply wants to be certain that her boys get the best reserved seats in heaven. So, every football dad and soccer mom can take a deep breath…they are not the only ones who do this. :-)

First, let’s notice some commendable features in this event. They do believe in prayer and they dare to believe the promise that Jesus has given them about “sitting on the throne.” (19:28)  But, several things are wrong with their request. First, it is born out of ignorance -- “You do not know what you ask,” is Jesus’ reply. They do not understand that “the path to the throne” is very difficult.  It is important to note that James would be the first of the apostles to be martyred, and John would endure some exceedingly hard days on the Isle of Patmos.  A second problem with their request is their lack of heavenly direction.  They are thinking like the world, just as Peter does in chapter 16.  It seems that James and John, perhaps unwittingly, want to “lord it over” the other disciples, the way that the pagan rulers lorded over their subjects.  I mean, after all…they have been “two of the three chosen to be in the inner circle.” And John understands that he is “the disciple whom Jesus loved.” No doubt, they feel relief that they approach Jesus with this request before Peter is able to do so. In reality, they are selfishly seeking glory for themselves, and not for the Lord. Jesus warns the mother and her sons that “thrones are available to those who are worthy of them.”  What He means is that humility must be the focus of the lives of those who follow Him, and not pride.

And what is the result of this request?  Indignation on the part of the other disciples. Surprise! Not really. Some of them may think – “How could you be so worldly?”…perhaps for others, “Why didn’t I think of it first!” Selfishness only results in dissension and division.  All of this presents Jesus the opportunity to teach a practical lesson in leadership. In His kingdom, we must not follow the example of the world, (in most cases) be like the corporate president or wealthy celebrity…our example is Jesus.  And what did Jesus reveal and display? “It shall not be so among you. But whoever would be great among you must be your servant, and whoever would be first among you must be your slave, even as the Son of Man came not to be served but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many." (vv. 26-28) This is as clear as anything Jesus ever shares.  Jesus came to give His life, therefore we should give our lives in service to Him and to others. In our churches today, there are a lot of people who “want attention”…but, not so many who want to serve.  If there is one thing we can take away from this message it is that the key to greatness is not found in position or power, but in character. We will “sit beside Jesus” by living lives worthy of such a placing.

“I believe it is beneficial to consider what “servant” really means.  "Servant" in our English New Testament usually represents the Greek doulos (bondslave). Sometimes it means diakonos (deacon or minister); this is strictly accurate, for doulos and diakonos are synonyms. Both words indicate a man who is not at his own disposal, but is his master's purchased property. Bought to serve his master's needs, to be at his beck and call every moment, the slave's sole business is to do as he is told. Christian service therefore means, first and foremost, living out a slave relationship to one's Savior.” (1 Corinthians. 6:19-20)  Paul certainly recognized this, as most of his letters begin with him calling himself “the bondservant…or slave…of the Lord.  “What work does Christ set his servants to do? The way that they serve him, he tells them, is by becoming the slaves of their fellow-servants and being willing to do literally anything, however costly, irksome, or undignified, in order to help them. This is what love means, as he himself showed at the Last Supper when he played the slave's part and washed the disciples' feet. When the New Testament speaks of ministering to the saints, it means not primarily preaching to them but devoting time, trouble, and substance to giving them all the practical help possible. The essence of Christian service is loyalty to the king expressing itself in care for his servants (Matthew 25: 31-46). Only the Holy Spirit can create in us the kind of love toward our Savior that will overflow in imaginative sympathy and practical helpfulness towards his people.” From James Packer, Your Father Loves You, Harold Shaw Publishers,

I have to say I have seen a lot of good things done for the cause of Christ in His churches, especially when The Golden Rule is at work.  Or, as I like to put it – a lot of good can be accomplished for the Lord in the church as long as nobody cares who gets the credit.  Problems only arise when selfishness, power-mongering take place, or in other words, “when someone needs the credit.”  When I hear other preachers and elders say, 80% of the people do 20% of the work (and I have been in such places), it is a truism that plays out in many churches and organizations.  This should not be the case with churches where people are taking the lead in being the servants that the Lord has called them to be.  We are all busy.  But, most of us have the opportunity to prioritize our lives and schedules in such a way that we can serve the Lord and the community. Considering how to be a man (or woman) of vision at church means closing my eyes to myself, submitting myself first to Christ, and then to others.  Let’s consider this principle and make the necessary preparations and arrangements to do just this.  True leadership (servant-hood) does not seek its own, but what is best for the other person…what is best for the body of Christ. This is Jesus’ style.

I want to close with one final story that captures what it is I am trying to share – that famous writer “anonymous” shares this:  Driving down a country road, I came to a very narrow bridge.  In front of the bridge, a sign was posted – “Yield.” Seeing no oncoming cars, I continued across the bridge and on to my destination.  On my way back, I came to the same one-lane bridge, now from the other direction.  To my surprise, I saw another “Yield” sign posted.  Curious, I thought, “I’m sure there was one posted on the other side.”  When I reached the other side of the bridge, I looked back.  Sure enough, yield signs had been placed at both ends of the bridge.  Drivers from both directions were requested to give the right of way.  It is a reasonable and gracious way of preventing a head-on collision.  The same applies in life and relationships…when the Bible commands us to “be in subjection” this is what it means – whether to the Lord, or to one another.

Blessings, Don

To Be (Heard) or Not to Be (Heard)...An Investigation of Men and Women's Roles in the Church, Pt. 3

Friends,

It is in relationship to the cultural issues that we come back to the question concerning what role a woman should have in the assembly and church life. Peter, in his first letter, (3:1-7) shares many of the same principles in relationship to submission that Paul shares in 1 Corinthians. Peter indicates that women (wives) should be submissive to their husbands, as Paul has said. Once again, this is not a “forced bondage,” but a willing spirit of the ladies’ behalf to be God’s woman and live lovingly with her husband. And, just as Paul has shared in Ephesians 5, men (husbands) should live in a loving, protective (even “submissive”) relationship with their wives (v.7). Peter wants the woman of God to be “chaste” and have “respectful behavior” and “to be adorned properly.” As I have already indicated earlier, she is also to exercise a “gentle and quiet spirit.” Peter seems to indicate that this attitude is a universal principal, going all the way back to Abraham and Sarah (v.6). So, this is a mindset or attitude that was to be consistent with women everywhere at the time, and there is nothing to indicate that this is a principal that has changed over time.

When we consider Paul’s instructions to Timothy concerning the church in Ephesus (particularly women/wives in 1 Timothy 2), we see a number of things that are consistent with what we already have seen in 1 Corinthians and 1 Peter. At the same time, there are also some significant differences. Once again, the question of women coming to the assembly without appearing immoral is at issue (1 Timothy 2:9). The women at that time needed to be modest with their attire as befitting a person who was godly. There were some women in Ephesus that appear to have a similar mindset as those in Corinth, in that they were not being in subjection to their husbands and this was not acceptable. The women/wives in Ephesus, as at Corinth, had no place to be contradicting the public teaching in an abusive manner, nor should they be arbitrarily teaching (taking over the role of public teaching) in a way that would not be Christ-like. What is interesting to note concerning v.12, is that Paul says a woman should receive teaching literally, “in a respectful manner, with a quiet spirit.” This word aysuchia, is the same word that Peter uses (1 Peter 3:4) and it is a word that describes the practical, spiritual mindset that godly women are to embrace and exercise. It is the spiritual working out of the principle of “keeping silent” that Paul describes earlier in relationship to the Corinthian church. What is fascinating is that Jesus came to set women free from their bondage under the Jewish cultural system. Notice that I said “cultural,” because this is not what God had intended for women, spiritually or even religiously, but the Jews had become so constricting with their laws in so many ways that it became a struggle for women to function at all...much like what we see under Islam in many Middle-eastern countries today. So, for a woman even to be able to receive instruction was a relatively new concept to many of those whom Jesus was speaking, and it carries over to Paul, here. These women, culturally and spiritually, are in a place where they actually are able to receive instruction, but they must not forget that they must continue to behave in a spiritual manner.

The real context of the situation is set in v.13, as Paul indicates that there are some there in Ephesus, as in Corinth, who desire to have their opinions heard and will do whatever it takes in order to accomplish this. Some of these women have been “exercising authority over” some of the men there. The word that Paul uses here is authenteo, “to have authority over” in a way which literally means “to domineer,” and it is used only here in the New Testament. If Paul had wanted to, he very well could have used the word exousia, which is the predominant, typical word for “authority” in the New Testament. The fact that he does not do so, but in fact uses a much stronger word, indicates that he does indeed have a point to make here. And his point fits precisely the context, as I have shared. In my opinion, Paul is not making a negative blanket statement about women teaching in a public or private manner, just that they need to do so in a way that is respectful and with a right (submissive) spirit. We see that when Priscilla and Aquila teach Apollos in order to show him a better way (Acts 18:24-28), that it is apparently Priscilla who is the taking the lead in doing the “teaching.” In fact, Priscilla seems to have been the stronger personality in that relationship, but she obviously seems to have understood the principles of submission concerning which Paul shares here in 1 Timothy as well as 1 Corinthians.

Paul finishes his argument here with an allusion to Adam and Eve. He still wants men and women (husbands and wives) to understand that they each have particular functions...and it must always be so. Paul wants the church, in general, to understand that men are to be the spiritual leaders not only of the church family, but of their own families at home. This has been something of a problem in the current culture in which we live, as we have seen the advent of such Para-church organizations such as Promise Keepers that seeks to help men to re-identify themselves as the spiritual leaders of their families. It is not that Paul is saying that men are to have the only spiritual leadership role at home and in the church, but that they are to have the primary role. Most families could not conceive of mothers not having a significant spiritual role in the training and overall spiritual health of the family. Why should it be any different as it pertains to the body of Christ? Paul is not saying that women “should be seen and not heard” as some have practically interpreted it, but that women should have a prominent role in the life and leadership of the church. He is not overriding the principle of women being involved in the body life of the church, which he has clearly stated, but is dealing with some abnormalities that have arisen – this is clearly indicated in the New Testament context. Men should be the primary spiritual leaders of the church, but this does not mean that ladies are supposed to have some insignificant role or function. It is apparent that Paul desires for women to teach as he describes in Titus 2:3 (and it is “good,” which could be done by example, living a life of service, or didactically, in a classroom setting). It is apparent that some women were intended to be leaders, as we see with Priscilla, some of those who were praying and prophesying in Corinth (1 Corinthians 11:4), Lydia, who was a prominent convert, Philip who had four daughters who prophesied (Acts 21:8), but perhaps the most prominent “leader” was Phoebe, a servant of the church at Cenchrea (Romans 16:1). This lady played a significant role in helping her home congregation. There have been some who have specifically interpreted the word diakonia to mean “deaconess” in the context. This word needs to be understood in that it can have a general and specific meaning. The word “apostle,” meaning, “one sent out with a message,” works in much the same way, as we know that there were twelve “specific” apostles, like Paul, but also that Barnabas was called “an apostle” in a more general sense (Acts 14:14), as was Junias, a woman, in Romans (16:7). So, Phoebe may or may not have been a deaconess in the specific sense, but that she was certainly a “prominent servant” having helped Paul and others on a number of missions.

We can understand that Paul did have in mind a role for women not only in the culture in which he was living, but also in the church. It was not necessarily a minor role; it could very well be a major role, depending upon the situation and the place. There were obviously some women who were abusing their positions and, as the result, were being admonished by Paul in his direct addresses to at least two churches that they needed to keep a proper spiritual perspective in relationship to modesty, respect and submission.

Note: We need to be able to take a look at the passages that I have mentioned and consider them honestly...free from presuppositions...which is not necessarily an easy thing to do. One of the difficult problems with interpretation is that we were all taught specific things in certain ways, and it is difficult to separate ourselves from this. It is humbling and challenging to come to conclusions that are different than the ones that we have been taught...and I have had this happen for me concerning a number of passages...but this does not mean that we have to disparage either our former educators or our new understanding. In fact, I like to call it growth. :-) We simply need to be thankful that God can help us to see things differently...to gain insights in ways that we may not have understood before and that it is okay. God bless you in your studies.

Blessings, Don

To Be (Heard) or Not to Be (Heard)...An Investigation of Men and Women's Roles in the Church, Pt. 2

Friends,

In 1 Corinthians 11, there is different instruction given in relationship to this issue that we will now explore. Paul picks up the theme of liberty from 1 Corinthians chapters 8-10 and brings the argument into 1 Corinthians 11 and continues with it. Without a doubt, this is a fascinating section to interpret. Sorting out all of these issues and principles in context is a big challenge. He seems to be making a circular argument dealing with issues of culture in Corinth, and at the same time, proclaiming universal principles for all Christians. There are certain situations pertaining to creation revealed in vv.2-3, 8-12, and situations of culture in vv.4-7, 13-16. The primary issue, here, is concerning respect and submission. There were a number of problems with the Corinthian church in relationship to submission. Women in the Greek culture were feeling restricted culturally and religiously, and some of them were rebelling against the customs of the day. They were not submitting to the principles of “freedom in Christ,” concerning which Paul just shared in chapters 8-10, and they, therefore, were not respecting the authority of God. The men and women (or husbands and wives) were not living with respect to one another. Paul begins dealing with the issue and continues his argument in the following chapters, which we have already discussed.

When Paul talks about Christ being the head of every man, there are a couple of different ways that this can be understood. The word “head” can mean either “origin” or “master”. In other words, man has His spiritual origin in Christ, or Christ is the master of man. Either interpretation makes sense, but it only becomes clear when we consider the second part of the statement -- “the head of the woman is man.” I don’t believe that Paul would be talking about the relationship in terms of “order”, that is “man being the master of woman” especially considering his argument from vv.11-12. There are two truths here that are in tension with each other in this passage (v.3 and v.11), but both are true -- woman comes from man, also man and woman cannot be independent from each other. It makes more sense if he is talking about “origin”. Woman has her origin from man, in that the woman, Eve, was formed from the rib of the man, Adam (Genesis 2:18-25). And of course, Christ has His origin in God -- He was with God and He was God at the same time (John 1:1).

Another consideration here is that Paul is also talking about the husband and wife relationship (as we see in chapter 14). The word for man, here, is aner, which can mean either man or husband. The word for woman is gunay, which can mean either woman or wife. As Paul proceeds to make his argument throughout the course of this section, culminating with chapter 14, he seems to be talking in terms of husbands and wives in some contexts (vv.4-7, 13-16), but men and women in others (particularly the “universal” passages, vv.2-3, 8-12).

There were problems with men and women coming into the assembly with the wrong mindset in relationship to how they should be properly covered. It is really easy to miss the main thrust of what Paul is saying here. We must keep in mind that the big issue is respect and authority (v.10) -- not hair. Now while Jewish men would wear a prayer shawl or covering called a tallith, this was not the case with the men in Corinth. It would also appear to be a cultural taboo for men to have long hair (v.14). The men in the Greek culture were to have their heads uncovered when they prayed or prophesied. (Prophesy here could be either “fore-telling” the future or “forth-telling” the message of God -- it doesn’t really matter for the purpose of the argument that Paul is making).

The instruction for the women was just the opposite of that given to the men. They were not to pray and prophesy with their heads uncovered. Even though it is not a part of the argument that Paul is making, it would appear that at this time and in this place that women were indeed praying and prophesying. When we consider that Philip had four daughters who prophesied in the early church (Acts 21:8-9), it is hard to say definitively how and when this took place. As we can see, it was not to be at a time or in a manner that would be disruptive to the assembly, but it is apparent that it was taking place. If this passage is in relationship to an assembly context (11:1-16), which it certainly appears to be, it would help us to further understand the nature of the assembly at Corinth. Now, we must also understand that it is possible that some of this instruction has been modified by the time that Paul writes to Timothy and the church in Ephesus. We will consider this later when we come to Paul’s instruction to Timothy.

The women needed to have their heads covered in order to show respect and submission to the men (i.e. their husbands) and to higher beings as well. It is important to talk about the covering itself since it, historically, has been the subject of some discussion. The KJV has the translation “veil” whereas other of the more prominent translations (NAS, RSV, NIV) have translated it “covering.” The KJV translation was the result of its own cultural bias at the time; the rendering “veil” comes from a 13th century Byzantine manuscript, whereby women in the culture of that time (particularly “Muslim” but not excluding other cultures) wore actual veils. This practice continued through the 17th century during the time that the KJV was translated, and is still true even today in some cultures (once again, predominantly the Muslim religious culture).

During the time of Christ (when the letters to Corinth were written), the covering for women at that time was long hair (v.15). This was particularly so for Greek and Roman women, but not necessarily for Jewish women at that time. Jewish women would wear a long body shawl that would be wrapped around them ornamentally which they would pull up over the heads at the appropriate time and place. The women in the Greek culture were to come to the assembly with their hair up, as in a bun. In this way, they would be living with respect to the men, culturally and religiously. Some rebellious women were coming to the assembly time with their hair down which was a cultural taboo -- this was how the prostitutes of the day wore their hair. It was also ritual practice for many women in non-Christian religious associations, such as those who would be worshippers of Isis, the primary goddess of those living in Corinth. Therefore, proper ladies would not be seen in public with their hair down -- it would be an offense. So, it would appear from all of the information that the “covering” was more of a cultural issue that needed to be respected at the time of the writing of the Corinthian letters.

Any interpretations concerning “veils” or “coverings” applied to other cultures and contexts would be of a personal/communal nature, that is, it would be up to them. But, it is apparent that the cultural issues that the Corinthians, and others at that time, were dealing with were not binding on others. However, the spiritual principles of submission and respect lined out in this passage would still appear to be applicable to all cultures. Men and women must not have a cultural style or demeanor that is “shocking” to those around them. Once again, men and women, husbands and wives must live with respect to one another (see Ephesians 5:21-33).

Blessings, Don