Bible Reading Schedules Now Posted

Every year for the past several years I have posted “Bible Reading Schedules” that will allow you to read the Bible through either once or twice in a given year. The schedules for 2020 are now posted on their separate pages.

If you are familiar with these schedules, they are identical to past years. If you have never seen one of my schedules, a few notes are in order. One, you will notice that there is no reading for Sundays. I assume you will be attending a church service, and for that day I am also making the assumption that you will be provided with a text (or two) in the sermon and/or in your Bible class for you to read and to meditate upon for that day. Alternatively, you can use the lectionary reading(s) for that Sunday – something that I do in my own daily reading. (These are available in a number of sources – either print or on-line. Search for “Common Lectionary Readings.” Note that the liturgical year begins in December with Advent. There are three years of lectionary readings, and you will want to be sure you are reading for the appropriate year, either “A”, “B”, or “C.”

You will also notice that for the “Read the Bible Through Once” schedule, there is only a reading for the Psalms on Saturday. This will allow you to “make up” on Saturday for any days that you missed during that week.

In the “Read the Bible Through Twice” you will see that on Mondays and Saturdays there is only one chapter of the New Testament, and on all other days there are 2. There are always 5 chapters of the Old Testament.

In both schedules the Psalms are read through twice. This allows a constant presence in the praise, lament, and worship literature of the Israelites and the early church.

I guess it should go without saying, but any schedule that keeps you in God’s Word is a good one. Some individuals like to read slowly – taking several years to work through the Bible. Some prefer a chronological approach – attempting to place the books in the order in which they were written (to the best of our knowledge). Some prefer reading schedules such as the Moravian Brethren produce – and I have used those schedules and like them very much. (Search for “Moravian Brethren” on the internet. They have a number of different editions for you to choose from). These schedules posted here are just my attempt to work out a schedule to keep myself (and any others who are interested) in the text. Use them if they are useful, lose them if they are not.

Whatever schedule you prefer, the important thing is that we keep our hearts and minds in the text of God’s Word, and that we seek to apply his guidance in our daily lives.

Blessings on your study in 2020! Let us all ascend by climbing lower.

Another Word Concerning Jesus and Jewish Messianism

A brief follow-up to my last post (here The Danger of Imprecise Assertions of Truth).

First, a qualification. I want to reassure everyone that, while I feel it critical to speak as precisely as possible, in no way should you think I would jump up and down and criticize anyone who made the statement, “Such and such is a prophecy concerning Jesus.” Sometimes we make statements that we would not make upon further reflection, and more often than that we are guilty of making statements that exceed our level of learning. So, I cringe when I hear these statements, and given the opportunity to correct in private I would (or I might just let it go, depending of the maturity of the speaker) or, more preferably, when given the opportunity to teach correctly I would do that. So, here in this space I can speak as loudly as I want, and I hope to stir my readers’ conscience a little so that when they go to make statements that sound true, but cannot be defended by Scripture, that they back up a little and reconsider their verbiage.

A second issue when we speak of Old Testament prophecies concerning the Messiah that are ultimately fulfilled in Jesus is the fact that, at least in Matthew, quite a few of them are not messianic at all, and at least one is not a prophecy! When Matthew quotes Hosea 11:1 he is not quoting a prophecy – Hosea is making a historical reference! But, here is a critical clue – Matthew does not call this text a prophecy. He simply said that the events he recorded of Joseph, Mary and Jesus escaping to Egypt “fulfilled” what the Lord had spoken. Now, we subconsciously interpret that to be a prophecy, but note that Matthew never calls it a prophecy.

Here is where we fall into a series of false assumptions. False assumption number 1 – that the word “prophecy” means a “prediction” that is only “fulfilled” when every aspect of the prophecy is met. False assumption number 2 – if a prophet speaks or writes, everything he says or writes is a prophecy (meaning prediction) that has to be fulfilled 100%. False assumption number 3 – if that prophet is quoted (or referenced) in the New Testament, what is being referenced is a prophecy (prediction) that has to be fulfilled 100%.

So, Matthew quotes (or references) Hosea, and since Hosea is a prophet, and since prophets say or write pure predictions, then what Hosea said or wrote is a prophecy that is fulfilled 100% in Jesus. Except, Hosea said and wrote a lot of things that were not prophecies, especially messianic prophecies, and what we read in Hosea 11:1 is just simply not a prophecy. Matthew (guided by the Holy Spirit) did see in that text a fulfillment of “what the Lord had spoken,” but is careful never to mention that it was a prophecy.

Check me on this – Matthew is very guarded in his language regarding the texts he uses to buttress his argument that Jesus is indeed the messiah. In 1:22 he quotes Isaiah 7:14, but once again does not use the word prophecy. Indeed, how could he, since Jesus was named Jesus, not Immanuel? In Matthew 2:5-6 he quotes Micah 5:2, and once again refrains from making specific reference to a prophecy. [Note: in all of these texts this is the one that fits our definition of a prophecy the best, but still, it is not specifically called a prophecy.] Then in 2:18 he quotes Jeremiah 31:15, and yet again refrains from making a specific claim to a prophecy. Indeed, once again, this is a reference to a current, or past, event, not a future “prediction.” Yet, he uses each of these texts to support his ultimate claim that Jesus is the messiah.

How can he say that Jesus fulfills these texts if they are not “prophecies?” Simply because he is working with one concept of Scripture, and we are working from another. We are working under the assumption that a text can only be “fulfilled” if it is a “prophecy,” because to us a “prophecy” is a “prediction” that demands a 100% one-to-one equivalency.

To me it is clear beyond any question that Matthew is using Old Testament texts to demonstrate (“prove”) Jesus is the messiah. Yet, Matthew was unquestionably aware of the multitude of varying views of the messiah that were current in his day. He was careful to use language that communicated his point, without unduly clouding his gospel with extraneous misunderstandings. In my most humble opinion, his gospel is a beautiful example of the use of precise language. We cloud and disrespect that language when we make the text say what WE want it to say, and not allow Matthew to speak clearly.

Once again with emphasis – the Old Testament authors spoke (and wrote) about a coming Messiah. Jesus fulfilled all of those passages, and the New Testament writers, guided by the Holy Spirit, took those passages and demonstrated how Jesus is the answer to the question, Who is the Messiah, and what will his reign look like?

Let us proclaim Jesus is the Messiah, let us do it fearlessly, and, above all, let us do it precisely, as Scripture calls us to do.

The Danger of Imprecise Assertions of Truth

Good morning gentle readers, today’s rant is brought to you by anyone and everyone (the humble Freightdawg himself) who has ever uttered something with absolute certainty that was, at to some degree or another, dead wrong.

I think I have mentioned elsewhere in this blog or its predecessor how my father gave me some deep and wonderful gifts. One of them is an awareness of the peculiarities and precision of the English language, used correctly. He was an architect, and there were a number of things that just really set him off – like when an architectural student confused a roof with a ceiling. True, they are both over your head, but apparently for some students the difference was much further over their heads than mere space. My father taught me, for instance, the difference between shade and shadow. When we sit in the cool side of a tree on a hot summer day, we are actually sitting in the shadow of the tree, not its shade. The shade is that which is connected to the bark as the tree stands. Nit-picking, you say? Harumph and pffft to you. Many words and expressions in our vocabulary carry life and death meanings, and to confuse them can have disastrous results. For an aviation example, pilots are always cleared for takeoff, and cleared to land. Arcane? Perhaps, but knowing the difference keeps a lot of people alive every day.

So, I am going to make a statement that, I’m sure, is going to upset some people, but here goes –

There is not one single prophecy concerning Jesus in the Old Testament.

None. Nada. Zip. Zilch. As in, zero.

You probably think I am enjoying some of the flora that has been recently decriminalized in my fair state, but no – and you can check me on this. I’ll wait.

Now, let me make another statement that is also 100% true –

The Old Testament contains many statements (I refuse to label them all as “prophecies”) about the coming Messiah, and Jesus fulfills every one of them as precisely as the New Testament writer intends.

You see, one thing I have learned in my study of Old Testament apocrypha and pseudepigrapha (the books that most protestant groups do not consider to be Scripture) is that there was not one, single, monolithic, universal concept regarding who and what the Messiah was to be. When we make statements like, “The Jews expected the Messiah to be . . . ” (and believe me, I have done so many times) we generally limit that expectation to be of a warrior, military king. And, to be sure, that was one picture of what the Messiah was supposed to be. But, I really do not think that was the picture of the Messiah that the Essenes espoused. The truth is the Jewish people at the time Jesus was born were an eclectic people, with many thoughts and ideas and concepts and religious and political and cultural beliefs – and all of those religious and political and economic and cultural (Hebrew as well as Greek) components combined to make for a number of Messianic expectations.

So, what does this have to do with reading the Bible and making theological conclusions? Just this – when we say that an Old Testament passage was a “prophecy concerning Jesus” we are just as wrong as the architectural student pointing to the ceiling and saying that the roof needed another coat of paint. The Old Testament passage may or may not be a prophecy (depending entirely upon how you interpret the word “prophecy”), but you will never find the name “Jesus” in the Old Testament. The Old Testament passage may or may not have originally been viewed as messianic (and many were not, which subsequent Jewish writers did view as messianic), but, once again, Jesus was never mentioned. For us, the critical thing to accept is that through the Holy Spirit, the New Testament writers did see in a number of Old Testament passages a fore-telling of the coming Messiah, and that Jesus of Nazareth fulfilled those word pictures fully.

I know that many of my readers view my posts as picky, sometimes to an extreme. Sorry – it’s inborn and instilled deeply. I am, as my father said (proudly, I think), a nut. I can’t help it. I believe that when we speak of spiritual things, and especially when we speak of textual passages, we need to be careful lest we inadvertently say or write something that is generally accepted, but factually incorrect. I am guilty of over-generalizations and careless speech far more often than I would like to admit, and it is this carelessness that I want to avoid.

We can argue that Jesus is the fulfillment of every passage in the Old Testament that refers to the coming of a messiah without making the incorrect statement that the Old Testament makes many prophecies about Jesus. To argue the first is to be on solid biblical and theological ground. To argue the second is to put on the Old Testament passages a precision that they simply did not have – and, at least in my humble opinion – did not even intend to have.

As the old sergeant said when he concluded roll call on the early episodes of Hill Street Blues, “let’s be careful out there.” Let us speak where the Bible indeed does speak, and be very careful when we make derivative conclusions based on those clear statements in Scripture.

It is all a matter of ascending by climbing lower.

No Fudges Allowed

Schoolyard justice can be harsh. Take for example the game of marbles. When shooting your marble, the rule was you keep your hand on the ground, and you only use your thumb to launch your marble. If you lift your hand, or if even if you keep your hand on the ground but use your arm to push your hand as you flick your thumb, you are “fudging” and that simply was not allowed. Justice might not be corporal, but it was certainly swift. Your opponent would call you out, and as there were always at least some spectators standing nearby, your crime would not go unnoticed. Punishment might simply be losing your turn, but in cases of repeat offenders, the possibility of excommunication from future contests was  very real.

In my last couple of posts I have challenged what is generally referred to as the “egalitarian” position regarding expanding the role of females in leadership positions in the assembled worship of the church. Some may think that I whole heartedly and unreservedly defend the “complementarian” view. They would be wrong. I wholeheartedly defend what I believe is the scriptural concept of male spiritual leadership, but what I see in many examples of “complementarianism” are nothing more than pure theological fudging. So, at the great risk of offending whatever few friends I have left, let me explain.

Let me begin by saying that much of what we have created in the form of our 21st century worship is wholly non-scriptural – not unscriptural in the sense that it rejects scriptural teaching – but it is simply not considered by Scripture. For example, there is no scriptural mandate for a single “song leader.” Not that a single song leader countermands Scripture, but you can search “book, chapter, and verse” for a long, long, time before you find one that mandates a single song leader. The manner in which we serve the emblems of the Lord’s Supper fits this category exactly, and is among the chief examples of “fudging” that I see in congregations of the Churches of Christ.

Over the course of our history we have come to view serving the Lord’s Supper as a form of male spiritual leadership. I really don’t know where that started, unless it is a faint memory of the necessity of having a priest preside over the Catholic Mass. In fact, early in the Restoration Movement it was common to have only an elder preside over the table – a clear echo of the liturgical necessity of having an ordained clergyman to administer the emblems. Never-the-less, we have traditionally considered “serving at the table” to be a male-only privilege. And this is where we have evolved ourselves into a huge problem.

Throughout my lifetime at least it has become a prima facie truth that no one is allowed to serve at the table unless that one is anatomically a male. But, not just any male, but a baptized male. That is where the requirements stopped. Be a male, be baptized, and you are good to go. The way this has played itself out in many situations is comical. I have seen 8 or 10 year olds “assume the mantle of leadership” as they struggle to carry a tray of little cups of grape juice without tripping over their oversized pants. It would be utterly facetious if we gave that same 8-10 year old any form of decision making power in the congregation, but as long as they are officially baptized, we can stick him up front to serve at the table, or say a prayer (memorized no doubt from all the stock prayers he has heard all his short life) or to “lead” singing (waiting to have someone from row 5 start the song while he stands there sweating profusely).

Same thing happens in regard to Bible classes. A woman is allowed to teach a mixed class of fourth graders, but let one little boy get baptized and “poof,” her ability to teach a “baptized male” evaporates and we have to call some hapless deacon in to finish teaching the class.

I call “fudging” in the most egregious sense!

Stated simply and without apology, those of us who proclaim to follow the text in regard to male spiritual leadership had better up our game, or else take our marbles and go home. This hypocritical practice of allowing some pre-teen child to exercise “male spiritual leadership” is just that – hypocrisy in the extreme. In this case I am in complete sympathy with young girls (and some women) who cry “fudgies” and wonder what in the world is so special about carrying a tray of grape juice.

Either participating in a visible form and function in a worship service is an aspect of male spiritual leadership, or it is not – there is no gray area or “sometimes it is, and sometimes it is not.” I happen to think it is, and I have my reasons, but my main issue here is where we would NEVER give any form of actual leadership roles to a pre-teen male, and yet loudly squeal that serving at the Lord’s Table or leading a prayer or reading a Scripture is a form of “male spiritual leadership.”

If such public forms of service also qualify as “leadership,” then let us reserve those roles for genuine, adult, male leaders!

I can hear the counter argument already – “but we are training these young men to be leaders when they grow up.” No, we are not. When we say that serving at the table, or leading a song, are actual forms of leadership, there is no “training” involved. They are in fact serving as leaders. The hypocrisy comes in when we acknowledge that they are not, in reality, in any way, shape, or form, a spiritual leader. They are (even teenagers) just little boys or young men who need spiritual leadership themselves, and sometimes in copious measure.

If, as you say, serving at the table or leading a song, or saying a prayer, is only “training,” then why not allow young girls to participate as soon as they are baptized? Do girls not need to learn to pray, to lead singing, to read Scripture, to serve? If the purpose is only to “train,” then the entire argument of “male spiritual leadership” goes out the window.

There is a passage of Scripture (remember Scripture?) that is profound to me in this regard. In Luke 2:41-52 we read the story of adolescent Jesus at the temple. We all know the story, Joseph and Mary head off back home thinking that Jesus is tucked in with the cousins somewhere, but at evening roll call he is nowhere to be found. So, they return to Jerusalem, and after what must have been an increasingly anxious and exhaustive search, they find Jesus holding court at the Temple. A brief (but, I am assuming an intense) conversation ensues, and once again the entourage heads back to Nazareth. This is all so familiar to those of us who read this story frequently. But it is v. 51 that stands out as singularly important to me in respect to my thoughts above. I quote from the ESV –

And he went down with them and came to Nazareth and was submissive to them.

Jesus, the Son of God, God incarnate, Emmanuel, “God with Us” as a 12 year old boy, capable of teaching the temple leaders, was submissive to both Joseph and Mary.

Is there a place for training young men to become leaders? Absolutely. And this holds true for older men who become disciples of Christ later in life. But we do not consider males (or females, for that matter) be be mature in any sense until they demonstrate some form of ability to handle responsibilities without significant assistance – such as serving in the military, getting married, or maybe stepping out of the house and starting their own business or providing for their own upkeep and schooling. I am in no way suggesting that we do not train, or properly equip, young men and women to serve Christ as responsible adults.

Lest I be completely misunderstood, I am not saying we throw out the idea of male spiritual leadership in such aspects as serving at the table, leading singing, wording public prayers and reading Scripture. As I said above, I do believe these to be leadership roles, and I believe there is ample scriptural and theological arguments to defend such a position. In regard to serving the emblems of the Lord’s supper, I also believe there is a completely better and more scriptural manner to do so that would remove this issue entirely, but that is the topic of another long and tedious post.

What I am saying, and believe emphatically, is that male spiritual leadership should be exercised by males who are old enough, and mature enough, and who are recognized as exhibiting sound, mature, spiritual leadership. In my opinion this includes, but would not be limited to, serving at the table (which, if we limit to males we obviously view as a leadership role), leading in the song service, reading Scripture in a public assembly, or going to God in public prayer.

In the quest to ascend by climbing lower,  there is no fudging allowed.

Follow-Up to My Last Post

I received some comments on my last post, and a very good question, so I feel it important to extend my thoughts just a little more here. For the background, see my thoughts here – 1 Corinthians 11, 14, 1 Timothy 2, and Paul Contradicting Himself (Again)

First, a little history. Whatever a preacher (or author, or teacher) says or writes is largely autobiographical, and it is almost impossible to untangle what is original and what is borrowed. So, my thoughts on this topic are hugely influenced by my classes with Dr. Everett Ferguson, an article on the practice of male priests covering their heads written by Dr. Richard Oster, and more generically by my understanding on how to do exegesis and thus hermeneutics.

Regarding the last point, I think it is absolutely critical that when we approach the text of Scripture that we remove ourselves as much as possible from the text. I emphasize “as much as possible” because it is impossible to completely do so (as much as Alexander Campbell would disagree.) So, in regard to the topic at hand, one profound issue I have with those who argue for no, or very little, limitations on women exercising leadership roles in the worship assembly is that invariably they insert 21st century worship wars into Paul’s letters. That is a HUGE exegetical, and ultimately, hermeneutical mistake. For us, Paul’s letters are all about me, myself, us, our, and we. We read Paul’s letters as if we are looking in a mirror, and, lo and behold, all we can see is ourselves!

Paul was addressing first century religious (and in the case of the Corinthian letters, Roman and Greek religious) practices as they impacted the first century church. That is where we have to start, and where Paul’s instructions (inspired by the Holy Spirit, no less) intersect with today’s culture, we can draw appropriate conclusions. Where that culture diverges from our culture we have to be very careful that we do not impose our culture on Paul (or Peter or James or even Jesus!) – questions and answers that they never intended.

So, with that said, let us return to 1 Corinthians 11, 14, and 1 Timothy 2 (and, just for giggles and grins, let’s add 1 Peter 3:1-6). If you read 1 Corinthians 11:1-16 and remove from your interpretation any apostolic reference to 21st century worship wars, what do you see? Paul wants the Corinthians to maintain a certain set of “traditions” he handed down to them – seemingly related to authority and submission. His first (and I would argue, primary) subject is the proper decorum for men who go before God in prayer. A reader pointed out that Paul does, in fact, spend more time addressing women in these verses, and I agree. But mere volume does not equal significance. Let me illustrate with another text.

In Luke 15:11-32 Jesus tells the parable of the “prodigal son.” The overwhelming majority of the parable revolves around a younger son and the relationship with his father. The older son only gets a few verses at the end of the parable, but I would argue that the real “point” of the parable was aimed at the Pharisees, who clearly stood in the position of the unforgiving and self-righteous older son. The repentance of the younger son, and the forgiveness of the father dominate, but the unanswered question of the parable is, “are you ‘older sons’ going to welcome the repentant younger son back into fellowship?” No-one could argue with genuine repentance or parental grace – but forgiveness from one who has been faithful? Ouch.

So, if I am correct (and that is a big “if”), Paul has his sights set squarely on the men who, accustomed to praying with their heads covered with a shawl or cowl, continued to do so following their conversion to Christ. Paul nowhere addresses the where or the when of the prayer, he simply reminds them that, in the new kingdom, men do not pray with their heads covered! To Paul, that was a sign of disrespect to their authority – Christ and God. Women, on the other hand, did pray with their heads covered – not the least of which was their long hair. Once again, the when or the where was not in Paul’s mind. Paul knew women prayed – by themselves, with their children, with other women – that was proper and good. Paul may use more words in relation to the females, but he never takes his eyes off of the men. [As I mentioned above, I borrow this point from Drs. Ferguson and Oster. I wish I could direct you to the article by Dr. Oster, but my books and files are buried in a storage unit, and I simply do not have access to them.]

Now, here is where my training and experience influences my interpretation. Beginning in v. 17 (and repeated a number of times), Paul shifts his attention to the public gathering of the assembled church. There is a shift, a change of emphasis, a new focus in Paul’s eyes. Paul addresses a number of Corinthian problems – the abuse of the Lord’s supper, the confusion of multiple prophets speaking, and the use (or abuse, the question is still open in my mind) of the miraculous gift of “speaking in tongues.” At the very end of that topic, Paul gives his instruction that “the women should keep silent in the churches.” Unfortunately for us, he leaves that instruction rather bare, but it clearly is in relation to the confusion and improper decorum of the Corinthian assembly.

If 1 Corinthians 11 and 14 provided us with the only comments on the question under discussion, we might be safe to say that the question remains open, and perhaps Paul’s accommodating position in Romans 14 might be important here. But, Paul does give additional instruction regarding male and female “authority” roles in 1 Timothy 2:11-15. Once again, Paul is not addressing 21st century “worship wars,” so let’s be careful lest we look into that theological mirror again. Paul’s emphasis (once again beginning with the male) is that prayers be genuine, without anger or malice. The women are to dress with proper decorum. Then, Paul specifically mentions that women are not to exercise authority over men, either in teaching or, as I said in my last post, through prayer (Paul’s immediate context). This is where I see that prayer is an authoritative speech according to the apostle. I could be wrong here – have been in the past and will be in the future, but lest I sound like a broken record, I can only do exegesis as I have been taught, not as I have not been taught.

If you have followed me so far, thank you. Now for my main issue with the so called “egalitarians,” those who argue for full (or perhaps expanded) roles of leadership for females in the worship service. If you hold the egalitarian position, Paul has utterly contradicted himself in 1 Corinthians 14 and 1 Timothy 2 compared to 1 Corinthians 11. At this point you have to decide which is controlling – Paul’s so called “universal” teaching in 1 Cor. 11, or the “limited” or “correcting the one-off, aberrant behavior” of 1 Cor. 14 and 1 Timothy 2. Those who hold that 1 Cor. 11 is the true, proper, and Spirit-inspired teaching have to diminish 1 Cor. 14 and 1 Tim. 2 by either removing 1 Cor. 14 completely (i.e., Gordon Fee), or by so minimizing those texts that they ultimately become meaningless to any situation beyond Corinth (or Ephesus) in the first century. I simply cannot go there. Once we  start eliminating Paul’s instructions because they do not “fit” our paradigm, where do we stop? Are Paul’s instructions regarding sexual perversity in chapter 5 also simply a rejection of a cultural taboo that is no longer valid? Are Paul’s instructions regarding division in the church (chapters 1-4) simply to be ignored because they are directed to Apollos, Peter (Cephas) and Paul? What of Paul’s instructions regarding the Lord’s Supper, or even his teaching regarding the resurrection?

And, just one final piece of evidence. Many argue that Paul reveals his chauvinism here – that he took Jesus’s egalitarianism and stood it on its ear. Okay, well, then what of Peter’s words in 1 Peter 3:1-6? Peter nowhere mentions the assembly, so his words touch this issue only tangentially – but it is this tangential connection that I find so compelling. Peter’s focus is on the submission of the wife to the husband (also mentioned by Paul), and ties this Christian behavior to the behavior of Godly women throughout history. For Peter, apparently, a woman usurping the authority of her husband would be a violation of Christian behavior. My point is that Peter confirms my understanding of Paul’s overall consistency, and therefore that 1 Cor. 11:1-16 must be seen in a generic sense, and not in the specific situation of the assembled congregation.

Once again, I could be wrong here in any – or all – of my conclusions. I can only work with my understanding of how to do exegesis. I have been wrong before, and will undoubtedly be wrong in the future. But, as Martin Luther so famously said, here I stand until I am proven wrong. I sincerely believe that many hold to an erroneous position because of a number of false assumptions. There is the assumption that 1 Corinthians 11:1-16 pertains to the assembled worship assembly. According to how I was taught to read Scripture, that assumption cannot be defended. Once again, I can only read, and therefore teach, as I have been taught. Then, there is the subsequent, but necessary, assumption that 1 Cor. 14 and 1 Tim. 2 are therefore only speaking to one-off, aberrant situations that no longer have any validity for the church of Christ. There is further an assumption that the apostolic teaching regarding authority and submission was bound only to the first century, and that any subsequent culture is free to define (or re-define) roles regarding gender any way that is predominant in that culture.

I don’t want to open another can of worms (okay, maybe I do), but just a question – if we are free to define roles of authority regarding sex and gender if we can discover, and eliminate, Paul’s first century cultural biases, then how can we argue against any of the issues of homosexuality, bi-sexuality, poly-amorous relationships, and gender fluidity so prevalent in our culture today? If there are no inherent significant differences between male and female, and if there are no spiritually significant connections to those differences, then who is to argue that there is any limitations as to sexual behavior, or even sexual identity?

What is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander, and if our culture’s headlong rush into sexual dysphoria has taught me anything, it’s that our understanding of God’s original plan for mankind is found in Genesis 1:27, and if we rupture that relationship we have nothing of any value to stand on.

Thanks for reading, thanks for the comments, and let us all ascend by climbing lower.

1 Corinthians 11, 14, 1 Timothy 2, and Paul Contradicting Himself (Again)

Regular readers of this post have noticed that I have been very quiet recently – unusually so. Well, I’m still alive, although I have taken to being more introspective lately. Alas, all good things must come to an end, so once again I pick up pen and paper (okay, keyboard and pixels).

I was reminded once again via various social media that unfounded assumptions can make mincemeat of our theology. The subject du jour was the role(s) that the apostle Paul either limits or allows for females in the worship service. The argument that followed included two assumptions – both of which are almost universally accepted – that have no textual support and even make the apostle contradict himself within just a few chapters of his letter. I will try to keep this as short and sweet as I can, and if you are a regular reader here my conclusions will come as no surprise, but I will share this once again for those who are struggling with this question. [By the way, my argument is not with any person per se, it is with the assumptions that are repeated, without evidence, and taken as prima facie truths. I believe those who accept these assumptions to be sincere and devout lovers of truth, but in this instance, also to be incorrect.]

False Assumption #1 – Paul allows, even advocates, for women praying in the public worship assembly in 1 Corinthians 11:1-16.

No, he does not. That is just false. I say that nicely, but that is just a false assumption that has no textual basis. Let’s look at that passage.

First, Paul addresses how men are to pray, not where, but how – with their heads uncovered. Paul only addresses females obliquely. Men are to pray with their heads uncovered, contra the standard practice (shown in many drawings of that era) of priests of various religions praying with a shawl, or cowl, over their heads. Women are only mentioned as a foil – women do pray with their heads covered (not the least of which with their hair), but men are not supposed to. No mention of where women are said to pray. But why should Paul specify something when the location is not his point? He simply mentions that women pray with their heads covered – when they pray by themselves, with their children, in female prayer groups. Where men pray, or where women pray, is simply not in Paul’s frame of reference.

But, let’s keep reading: v. 17 “…when you come together…” V. 18, “…when you come together as a church…” V. 20 “When you come together…” V. 33, “…when you come together…” 14:23 “…the whole church comes together…” 14:26, “…when you come together…” There is a emphatic (and, in my opinion, unmistakeable) disjunction between Paul’s previous discussion (once again, directed mainly at the men and the how) and his next point of emphasis, the common, joint assembly of the church (the when and the where). It is in of that discussion that Paul issues his now infamous teaching that “the women should keep silent in the churches.” So, whatever Paul had in mind in 11:1-16, it is beyond argument that what he says in 14:33-34 is in regard to a public, common assembly of the church. Which leads me to false assumption #2.

False assumption #2 – having given women permission (and maybe even encouragement) to pray in public in 11:1-16, Paul had to correct an aberrant, one-off situation to which he directed his attention in 14:33-34, namely, a woman (or number of women) who were disrupting a worship assembly by challenging their husbands (gasp!) by asking inappropriate questions.

Well, if you make one false assumption, why not get even more creative with the second? There is simply no contextual evidence to support this assumption! Why would Paul only constrain wives? Are unmarried women not capable of disrupting a service? And, where is there any indiction that the issue is domineering wives?

As I see it, the error is that if you hold to false assumption #1, you have to come up with a scenario that absolves Paul from blatantly contradicting himself in 14:33-34, and even more specifically in 1 Timothy 2:11-15. So, there are a number of options. One is that you simply remove 1 Corinthians 14:33-34 from the text (following Gordon Fee in his commentary on 1 Corinthians). That is a little radical for some, so they simply concoct a situation that Paul was addressing to his Corinthian brethren, but one that is limited by both time and culture, and has no bearing on the modern church. The fatal problem with that solution is that it is, once again, based upon the false assumption that Paul grants females permission to speak authoritatively (and, yes, I am suggesting that public prayer is an authoritative act) in the public worship assembly. If you haven’t figured it out by now, I flatly reject that assumption.

If we remove the false assumption that Paul grants, even promotes, women speaking authoritatively in the worship service in 11:1-16, then we have removed the supposed contradiction in 14:33-35 and 1 Timothy 2. Paul remains remarkably consistent, and there is no need to invent an imaginary scenario that he supposedly (and invoking self-contradiction) corrects later in the book.

Tangentially, this discussion also raises the question of just how authoritative is Paul’s letter to the Corinthians for today’s church. I sat in a lecture by one of the finest Greek scholars ever to teach in a university associated with the Churches of Christ, and I heard him argue that, (to the best of my memory, these words are not verbatim) “because Paul was addressing an aberrant situation in the congregation in Corinth in the first century, we cannot take his words as being binding on the church today.”

Huh? What exactly in the letters to the Corinthians are not aberrant situations for which we are to learn eternal truths? I don’t get it, and yes, I am disagreeing with a world-renowned Greek scholar here. But that is the belief (either conscious or unconscious) of many preachers and church members alike. In other words, if it doesn’t gore our ox, then it is Scripture. If it does gore our ox, well, it was just meant for the first century church and thank goodness we have moved on from there.

Thanks for obliging me for my perfectionist little rant, but this is really a burr under my saddle.

Let us ascend by climbing lower.

The Cycle of Accepting and Promoting a False Teaching

Some while back I posted an article about the triviality of Sunday School answers The Triviality of “Sunday School Answers” I want to expand a little on that thesis today.

How do these Sunday School answers get started, and, particularly troubling, how do incorrect Sunday School answers get started and promoted? I think the cycle goes something like this: a person hears or reads something that was said or written by someone they have no reason to doubt, and may even trust sincerely. Thus, whatever is said or written is accepted wholesale, with no questions asked. Then, they share what they see or have heard. Maybe they see or hear it again from another source, and maybe the particular group they are in accepts the teaching with open arms (ears). The cycle then becomes self-repeating.

Last night I was party to a discussion about a conclusion that I personally disagree with, but do not consider it to be of such importance as a salvation issue or a fellowship issue. I just cannot accept it, based on my education and on my exegesis of the relevant texts. What I found interesting as I sat (kind of like that fly on the wall) was that there was virtually universal acceptance of the teaching in question. As the class progressed, and after about 40 minutes or so of discussion, a later portion of the text was read which at the very least called the earlier assumptions into question (and, in my very humble opinion, flatly rejected those assumptions). At this point the class had basically two options: they could revisit their earlier conclusions, or they could attempt to somehow massage the later verses so that those verses could fit the earlier (again, imho) incorrect conclusion. They strove mightily to accomplish the second, while blissfully ignoring that their earlier conclusion might have been wrong, and so they might need to revisit the meaning of the first section of the passage.

It was a fascinating example of group-think, and how we will move mountains to justify a position we initially hold, rather than stop to consider we might be wrong to begin with, and therefore need to “start over from scratch” to correct an invalid conclusion.

Regarding the passage in question, I am absolutely convinced of the correctness of my conclusion. The class members are equally convinced of the correctness of their position. The thing is, the two positions are diametrically opposed, and cannot in any way, shape, or form, be harmonized. One of us (or perhaps both?) are clearly wrong. Who is to judge?

I’m not going to pontificate here – as I said, based on the context, and on other relevant passages, and on related theological issues, I will hold firmly to my conclusion until someone can convince me based on solid exegetical methods that I am wrong. As I said earlier, I do not hold the two interpretations to be a salvation issue – although I would hasten to add that the “other” interpretation does come with some very serious theological baggage attached.

I do not write this to condemn, but only to identify a systemic and profoundly human problem – How do we correctly identify this cycle of accepting and promoting a shallow “Sunday School Answer” so that we can challenge it, and reject it when necessary?

Well, at the risk of redundancy and beating a dead horse – we do so by standing under Scripture, not above it, and by ascending by climbing lower.