Jezebels, Fundies & My Wife's Review of a Truly Terrible Book

So.

My wife reviewed a truly terrible book this weekend, mostly because a friend piqued her interest. Not in the sense that 'this book will change your life' but 'how this book will destroy your marriage.' Yes. It is that bad. I had to hear about it all weekend as my wife's gasps and eye rolling couldn't dissuade her from sharing the contents of this slaughterhouse piece of hearty half-fiction. Check it out.

While there were many things I found disturbing—the way the author approached Scripture was more than disconcerting—and while the author claimed to believe the Bible was the highest authority, so much of what she did was read things into the text (as she did with the letters she received) instead of taking things out of the text.

Very frequently, the author would lift out single verses from their context and apply them to whatever point she was making. This gave the appearance that her view was biblical when—in actuality—there was very little in the text to support her claim. At other times she would tell the reader what the biblical narrative taught—only it wasn’t to be found—anywhere—in Scripture.

For example, look through the beginning portion of Genesis and see if you can find it say anywhere that Satan decided to target Eve because he knew Adam could not be deceived or that males have a natural resistance to Satan and that women are naturally naïve (107-108). 1 Timothy 2:13-14 does indeed tell us that Eve was the one who was deceived but it does not claim that all women are or that God made them this way or that Satan was looking for this. After all, if women were more easily deceived overall why would God command that women teach other women and children? Isn’t that just a wreck waiting to happen?

Did Eve leave Adam’s side to confront the Devil’s logic alone as this author claims? Not according to Genesis 3:6.

This was just one example, but you can see it everywhere in the book. The author tells you that the picture God creates of a woman is one without armor, “because he intended for her to stand behind her husband’s armor” (108). All of this is linked to her understanding of Genesis, and none of this is actually in the Bible.
The author often leaves out important bits of scriptural information that would better clarify the situation.

For example, on page 96 she tells us that God appointed Adam (man) to rule the planet. Does the Bible say this? Yes. Throughout chapter 8 (75) men are represented as made in God’s image. Are they? Well, yes. However, the Bible says women are also appointed to rule over the planet and women are made in God’s image as well.

For the entire post, try to enjoy it here.

NQ

The Vocation of Love, and Other Facets of Americanism

Allison:

What does it mean that God has a plan for your life and will work everything out? These axioms are often told in situations where a young person is aspiring to live out a dream (perhaps to be a pastor or scientist), to young school children being encouraged to figure out what their gifts and talents are or to comfort someone grieving–Don’t worry, God will provide. Don’t worry God has a plan for this. Don’t worry God will work everything out.

How many young people in today’s economy are hearing phrases akin to these?

Without meaning to, many of us have made the idea that God has a wonderful plan for our lives and that God will work everything out for good into a materialistic fantasy. Does God promise that we will succeed in life? That we won’t starve to death (like many Christians around the world)? That we won’t experience a life shattering trauma? Does God promise our most dear of dreams will come true (often this is couched in the rhetoric of “calling”)?

Personally, I am never comforted by the “axioms.” My background probably has a something to do with it. While many people around me are confident that I will attain my PhD, pastor a church (not that I have plans) and be a brilliant professor/writer or work at CBE all because God will work it out for me–I am not so confident. Could all happen, but not likely for my age demographic (are 50% of our demographic still unemployed? Not counting all those working at McDonalds type places). Of course, when I think about what Christians around the world face every day–I am even less confident.

Well, if God has a plan, He will have a way…

For the rest, enjoy it here.

--Nick

When God Can't Win (With Us)

Lately my girlfriend has become a sort of therapist, in that I tend to vent and complain and occasionally curse my way about explaining a theological concept. Usually, this goes over pretty well.

I had a brief discussion with a friend about violence within the Old Testament. Normally, I have no real problem with it and I still don't. But thinking about the idea of promise and marriage and the future involvement of humanity makes for strange bedfellows.

I do wonder about what man truly desires, in that we had so much. I cannot image a "good" or "perfect" relationship with Allison or my parents or my friends.

The very idea is terrifying in that it seems to presuppose some sort of intimacy and openness that, frankly, I don't like. Where wounds are stripped away and you are left bare and alone in the night where all that is you is there.

That scares me. If I knew I could have a perfect relationship with my human friends, the prospect of a very big God being completely open and relational makes me tremble.

George MacDonald said:

Man finds it hard to get what he wants, because he does not want the best; God finds it hard to give, because He would give the best, and man will not take it.

In some ways, I think this is sadly true. I do wonder about God's emotions and passion for humanity, and what truly pleases him. What is the best we can do but pale in comparison?

What is nerve-wracking about the "best" there is?

--Nick

Divorce and Remarriage in the Bible, What about Abuse?

Allison:

David Instone Brewer has written an excellent book on what the Bible has to say about divorce titled: Divorce and Remarriage in the Church: Biblical Solutions for Pastoral Realities. It is a great read because the author utilizes Biblical scholarship and presents it in an easy to understand way that it practically helpful for pastors and curious laymen. Much of the following comes from this book and if you want more information than I provide, I strongly suggest getting this book.

The following discussion will go through the valid reasons for divorce and out of this, valid reasons to remarry.

The Starting Point: God’s Heart

 One thing is clear: God does not want divorce. In Matthew 19:1-12 and Mark 10:2-12 Jesus tells us “What God has joined together, let no man separate” and He sets this in the context of God’s original desire in creation and the two being one flesh. On top of this He tells us that the only reason why Moses permitted divorce in the first place was because the people’s hearts were hard. Ultimately, God desires reconciliation. The marriage relationship itself is said to be like the relationship between God and us (Eph 5:32) and God does not abandon us when times are difficult or painful (Rom 8:35; Jeremiah 32:40). Consider the book of Hosea where the Prophet’s relationship with his wife was a sign of God’s relationship with His people. Even though his wife turned to prostitution and others, he did not give up on her. God does not give up on us and this is the spirit in which we should first approach all considerations of divorce.

For the rest, enjoy it here.

--Nick

A Lovely Picture over Chicago

On my way down to see Allison!

--Nick

30 Days of Thanks: Day 22

After thinking about it for a few years, I think I missed writing this.

I'm thankful for Allison. She found me a dark place. Its been a wonderful journey towards something better than I think or deserve.

You?

--Nick

30 Days of Thanks: Day 5

In hindsight, despite having an annoying day, I think I know what I'm thankful for:

Strong women in my life. Allison. My mom. My aunt. Women that challenge and humble me daily. Women that give me strength and endurance.

You?

--Nick

30 Days of Thanks: Day 3

I woke up this morning feeling generally not like P. Diddy. Oddly enough, it ended up being more like a Ke$ha/Party Rock kind of morning, filled with bad hair, an annoying cat who wanted attention and wishing there was some alcohol around.

So, I'm thankful for my cat. Why? Because I tend to find love in affirmation, and him purring while licking my beard, though strange, tends to hit the spot after a rough night. Oh, and the picture of him is just after I put bacon in the pan, and he started howling for some of that goodness.

You?

--Nick

30 Days of Thanks: Day 2

While sitting at work doing some programming, I had a nice little experience. What am I thankful for?

Intellectual honesty, because without it I wouldn't ever be open to considerations I had previously ignored. Issues like women in the church, eschatology, or even the option of drinking an IPA (I used to shudder at the idea). This has made me very thankful for the people in my life who have made it very difficult to stay static.

You?

--Nick

The Personification of Concepts

Among my fondest memories of the early courtship I shared with my girlfriend Allison was when I showed her "Evil Angel," a short film I wrote and directed at Biola during 2008. In short, the film was about a cop and a serial killer locked in a room in a battle of wits. It was nominated for some award I think, but the film was pretty bad aside from some excellent acting on the part of my friends Chris and Rhodes and some stellar photography by my DPs. Despite my 'attempts' to direct them.

Anyway.

Apparently, I impressed Allison with "Evil Angel." I had some vague notion of what I was doing. In talking to me back around that time in my life, numerous friends will attest to the fact that I hated talking about the Bible. I was more or less a borderline agnostic, or at least a lapsed theist in the loosest sense of both words.

What stood out to her, and what was more or less going on my own head, was that I gave eyes to a concept. Or, as another example, the "deep" or "abyss" in Genesis 1 is symbolized as an agent of chaos that YHWH tames or overcomes. This symbol of rebellion is given a literary hook that snags us and gives new meaning. This happens in the Book of Revelation with symbols representing the Roman Empire. Or like in No Country for Old Men, we see death in human form.

I think this is a powerful way of introducing metaphysical concepts in writing. Apparently I did this in "Evil Angel" as a subconscious assault on the need for some sort of foundational basis for morality. Although I had little interest in doing this explicitly, I realized that once the film was finished and Allison pointed this out, I had been struggling with theodicy for a long time.

And I had written about it without truly knowing it.

In talking to various screenwriters (theist or not) this has come up. This is hardly a new literary device so I won't belabor the point. But in writing my own material, I've noticed that I directly write about topics that bother or enlighten me. Eschatology is one such example. Sex, religion and redemption is another.

Both are projects that have been gestating for years. Both of them should be completed in the next few months (fingers crossed).

I don't really have a denouement for this post. Maybe realize as I did that giving concepts faces and lungs is often the best way to not only get inside the head of your character, but also inside the concept itself. For me, writing about the embodiment of evil certainly helps explain many unresolved issues, as well as identifying with the "evil ones" in the hopes of seeing where such a journey can go.

Who knows. You might solve something. Or you might realize that you are wrong. It's often the best way to reflect upon experiences and learning occasions. 

Or you might see another face in the crowd of ideas.

There. Denouement done.

--Nick

Women out of Place

Allison:

Growing up I did not face gender discrimination. In fact, at my church in Alhambra and in my home the ability for women to become leaders was not argued for, it was the norm. When I had questions my dad would encourage me to look into the Bible and sort through the passages with him. Even though he gave me his position he taught me how to read the Bible for myself and to arrive at my own conclusions while drawing from other people’s strengths. He would also learn from me as I learned from him. At church my questioning of ideas was only encouraged more and I was never made to feel out of place in many of the discussions the adult men were having. Women also regularly expressed their ideas and took initiative. Our assistant pastor was female. Nothing seemed odd or out of place on that account. I was not told it was ok. The issue did not come up in my environment. All of this to say, I never got the impression that anything was out of the ordinary. I never had a gender crisis or confusion over who I was as a girl or how as a girl I fit into God’s plan. I never thought of myself as acting or thinking like a boy or not being like a girl either. Boys were different from girls, but not over which was supposed to be more active, take more initiative or lead. Even now, my church in Santa Ana has readily funded my seminary education. However, many women in the church have not had my experience or upbringing.

I started to notice that something was a bit different when in an introduction class (special class to meet people and get situated) at Biola I realized I was the only girl. I hadn’t noticed at first since I was too busy engaging in theological discussions with my classmates much as I had always done at church. It was only when the teacher arrived that we all realized we were in this intro class because we were Bible majors. The first thought that occurred to me was: “That’s why we all started talking about theology!” Next I wondered why I was the only girl in the class. The reason did not occur to me. The reason also did not occur to me later for why some people at the school treated me as incompetent (read my stories about sexism). This was generally not the case, but looking back, there were enough “isolated” incidents to make them not so isolated. What also began to be strange to me was when I would hear backhanded compliments about how smart I was—smarter than any other women the person speaking knew. I also began to hear various people describe my own theological interests as masculine. One friend suspected I was just pretending to act feminine sometimes to cover up my masculine tendencies! At the time I had mentally dismissed him as a bit out to lunch since 1) I was a female and so probably was not pretending and 2) Nothing in my previous experience told me only men did theology and debated. I didn’t know it, but the experiences of other people were shaping how they saw me and how they read the Bible.

For the rest, click here.

--Nick

Quient, "A Theology of Speaking Out"

Quient:

Just a few years ago I became very bothered by what I was reading in Galatians about Paul’s dialogue with Peter in front of the church. He called what Peter did “hypocritical” to the Gospel. His famous Gal 3:28 “Neither male nor female” passage actually comes off of his Jew and Gentile discussion. Even though Peter affirmed that Gentiles had full standing before God as fellow heirs in Christ, He was giving a different message by his actions (not eating with the Gentiles). We are limiting the gifts (female leaders) God has given to us.

We are not allowing their full participation. We are being hypocritical to the Gospel we proclaim. I did not know what to do with this realization. Frankly, I liked taking a more apathetic stance. I liked making it all about me in my heart (“I don’t want to be a pastor”). It was safe. It was comfortable. Not caring all too much also made me safe from being dismissed as “emotional” (*because everyone knows you can’t be reasonable and have visible emotions). Now what I was reading in the Bible was challenging this. If it was true that what we were doing in our churches was hypocritical to the Gospel, much more was at stake. For a while I still avoided coming out with how important I thought this was. I dwelt on the slavery issue since “slave nor free” is also in Gal 3:28 and it was safe to talk about something almost everyone agrees is wrong in hindsight. I looked at how Quaker Christians dealt with that issue in their time. Slavery was the Christian norm in their society, how did they come out and challenge it? More like, how did they bring themselves to? Many wanted to be quiet for the sake of unity. Eventually, I realized that I had to go with what I thought Scripture was convicting me of. I had to be more verbal about this issue and I had to push back more.

Many people here at Trinity know me as the person who talks about theology of gender all of the time. It might surprise many people to hear that this is not where I wanted to go with my life or what I wanted to spend so much time on. I still wish I didn’t have to. At Biola I had delved so deeply into questions surrounding the Biblical Canon, Apologetics, general theology, and church history. I still love those subjects. Now so much time is dedicated to theology of gender topics and while I love doing theology and planning events there is an ugly side of it all that I have been learning about–stuff one would expect to find only in the political arena but are happening in our churches. In addition, I am having to let this be personal and to look around and see the damage that has been done to other women and men in the church. God wants us to make other people’s problems our problem. I didn’t see the damage before even though it was all around me (maybe I will blog more on specifics later).

What is this damage? 

What have been the unintended consequences? 

Better yet, what is the church missing out on?

 For the rest, enjoy it here.

--Nick

Hope in Resurrection

Allison:

Beauty from my Ashes 

PTSD is something that hits you over and over again. It is like your mind is stuck in a loop where the traumas repeat over and over again and often the full intensity of what was felt then was felt again. It is draining, humiliating and jarring and yet somehow one has to get through life. I don’t have all of the symptoms I used to have like the constant flashbacks or feeling acid when someone would touch me lightly, but I still have problems with headaches and fatigue and some anxiety that hinders my everyday life. This is why I say that the stuff I experienced did not make me stronger. I cannot handle as much stress or emotional strain as I could if this had not happened (though God gave me a high resiliency and ability to bounce back and so I can still handle more than many). I do very well in my school work, but could do much better if I did not have the fatigue and headaches. Also, what happened in itself did not build character in me. Other kids who have gone through these types of things have killed themselves, turned to drugs, stripped for money, dropped out of school, become bitter…etc. It was God’s work in my life that brought about beauty.

For the rest, enjoy it here.

--Nick

"Are You Theologically Liberal?"

Allison:

On his blog, Roger Olson addresses the misunderstanding of the label “liberal” and explains its proper meaning. The following is taken mostly from what he wrote in his blog and contains only a couple of my explanations.

What is Liberal Theology?

From what I understand, liberal theology has more to do with the method one uses to arrive at conclusions rather than the conclusions themselves. Two people could both hold to the same conclusions about theology, but arrive at those conclusions in very different ways.

While there is flexibility in the term itself, there does seem to be a definition or two we can work with. According to Claude Welch, a “well-known and highly regarded authority on nineteenth century theology, liberal theology is ‘maximal accommodation to the claims of modernity.’  Contemporary expert on liberal theology, Gary Dorrien (author of a three volume history of American liberal religion) defines it as refusal to recognize any authority outside the self.”

What is the Method used?

Schleiermacher (the “father of liberal theology”) introduced a method where it was necessary to adjust traditional Christianity to modernity. He was trying to save Christianity from being in conflict with “the ‘best’ of modern thought. He redefined Christianity as PRIMARILY about human experience.” He ended up separating the realm of religion from the realm of facts that was observable by science and philosophy. If the two were in separate realms, Christianity could not be threatened.
Delwin Brown asks an important question and includes an answer: “’When the consensus of the best contemporary minds differs markedly from the most precious teachings of the past, which do we follow?  To which do we give primary allegiance, the past or the present?’

…Liberalism at its best is likely to say, ‘We certainly ought to honor the richness of the Christian past and appreciate the vast contribution it makes to our lives, but finally we must live by our best modern conclusions.  The modern consensus should not be absolutized; it, too, is always subject to criticism and further revision.  But our commitment, however tentative and self-critically maintained, must be to the careful judgments of the present age, even if they differ radically from the dictates of the past.” Olson comments, Scholarship determines the inadequacies of traditional doctrine and so “the only work is that of re-forming theological thought to the superior insights of the present time.”

Short Critique:

Pinnock makes the critique that the liberal allows the Bible “a functional but not a cognitive authority; that is, you will not bow to the content of Scripture but accept it only as a power that authors your life in some (to me) vague way… Lacking guidance from the Scriptures… you are forced to resolve the issue rationally and then cannot do so. “

Some History:

*Friedrich Schleiermacher (early 19th century) is considered by most to be the
“father of liberal theology” and yet the “ethos” of liberalism started before him and compared to others who came after him, he might be considered more conservative. What Olson called “’classical Protestant liberalism’ appeared first with German Lutheran theologian Albrecht Ritschl and his followers in the later 19th century.”

*“Classical Protestant liberal theology is tied to the METHOD of the Rischlians (not necessarily to all of their conclusions). The leading Ritschlians were Harnack and Willhelm Herrmann.  There were, of course, many others.  They disagreed among themselves about many things, but they agreed on theology’s basic method which followed that of Schleiermacher but in a somewhat altered way.”

*After WWI Classical liberalism went through some changes with the previous optimism being abandoned. The mid-20^th century airs to the movement are often called “neo-liberals”. “The main difference was the recognition of a tragic dimension to human existence and history that was lacking in the pre-WW1 liberals.”

Suggested Reading:

1)   Alan P. F. Sell, Theology in Turmoil
2)   William R. Hutchison, The Modernist Impulse in American Protestantism
3)   Kenneth Cauthen, The Impact of American Religious Liberalism
4)   Gary Dorrien, The Making of American Liberal Theology (3 volumes)
5)   Peter Hodgson, Liberal Theology: A Radical Vision
6)   John Cobb, Progressive Christians Speak
7)   Donald E. Miller, The Case for Liberal Christianity

The following are Olson’s posts on the subject. The first two deal more with how the term “liberal” has been misused and the last post will give you the most information on liberal theology and what it is.

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/rogereolson/2010/10/liberal-theology/
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/rogereolson/2011/01/inclusivism-arminianism-and-liberalism/
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/rogereolson/2011/07/what-is-theological-liberalism/

For her original post, click HERE.

--Nick

Warrior or Princess; Childhood Dreams and Reality

Allison:

This last Friday I had a discussion with my new internship mentor Mimi (who is the President of Christians for Biblical Equality) that has led me to reflect on how the warrior vs. princess motif impacted me as I grew up, and especially how I handled the abuse I suffered.  The discussion itself was about how patriarchy heavily influences the abuse of women (something I still need to look into, but what she shared was startling) and how viewing oneself as the passive princess growing up effects how one deals with hardship. While my experience of abuse did not come from men, I’ve come to realize how much more damaging it could have been had I understood myself primarily in passive and submissive ways.

As a child I naturally tended towards TV shows with a lot of action and fighting in it. Some of my favorites as a little girl were Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles (alongside of Care Bears) and in elementary school it was Power Rangers and Sailor Moon until the repetitive nature drove me away. I loved to play with my Barbies—only, I would play war strategy games with them. My best friends Sarah and Melissa and I would call ourselves the “Wild Cats” and play spy games or pretend we were super heroes taking on the forces of evil (which was usually Sarah’s older brother who wanted to be left alone). Based off of my interests and no one ever telling me this was not what girls did (besides one dismayed elderly babysitter), I naturally identified more with the warrior motif than the princess one. I did not view myself as masculine though. Many of the characters or visions of myself I would invent had the qualities of the Ninja Turtles and the Red and Blue Ranger (even the color Blue), but the soft features and look of April or the Pink Ranger. Often the picture I would imagine of myself as I went to sleep was best characterized as a beautiful warrior who could rely on and was loyal to her friends.

For the rest, click HERE.

--Nick

Numbers and the "Threat" to Inerrancy

Quient:

Currently, I am in the middle of someone’s sick experiment to see how soon MDiv students will go insane under pressure. I just finished one 4 unit Hebrew Exegesis class in only 10 days and am now taking a Pentateuch and Historical Books 4 unit class—in 10 days. Even though I have had to pull three all nighters in a row working on exegetical papers, much of what I am learning in class almost makes up for the pain and suffering.
One of the topics discussed today by Dr. Younger are the inflated numbers in the Old Testament book of Numbers. Basically, the way the numbers are represented in many of our Bibles makes it seem as though there is an absorbent amount of people—way too many for how many there could reasonably be for even a large city in the ancient world. Just one tribe: Ruben is said to have 45, 500 people! There are some who are dedicated to taking a literalist interpretation, who claim this presents a problem for believing the Bible is without errors.

There is actually a very simple resolution to this problem though. The word used is “elef” which can certainly mean 1,000, but it can also mean “clan” (Judge 6 and Micah 5:2). What is the difference in result?

One example of the difference is 46,500 Rubenites vs 46 clans or families with some additional people perhaps not part of the clans.

The strength in this line of thinking is evident when we consider what other parts of Scripture have to say and do a little problem solving. Deuteronomy 7:7 tells us God did not choose Israel because they were the most numerous. This means, the Israelites did not stand as some radical exception to the norm in numbers for the ancient world. Also, when it came to the Israelites conquest of Jericho they are said to have went out with about 3,000 men, but lost and badly defeated on account of 36 men dying? This of course contextually makes no sense if 36/3000 died.

This is a case where understanding the original language the Bible was written in makes all the difference!

For the entire post, click HERE.

--Nick

Women, "Desire" and Genesis 3

Quient:

It has been interesting to see how the meaning of the word often translated as “desire” in Genesis 3:16b has been treated in popular vs. scholarly circles. The former often tends to treat the term as obvious in meaning even though this has been far from the case from the perspective of Egalitarian and Complementarian scholars alike. The reason for this is that in the past there has been very little available for reaching any sort of confident conclusion on the matter (only three uses in the entire Old Testament). In my opinion, if there is little to go by then one should not be dogmatic about any conclusion reached in regards to this word.

The way most scholars end up deciding the term’s meaning is an appeal to a “context” or one’s already established theology in combination with scant evidence.[1]  Currently, the most popular understandings of  “t’shoo-kah” are: 1) the woman’s sexual desire, or 2) a desire to be subjugated, or to be overly dependant or, 3) Eve’s desire to dominate her husband. However, an additional option has reemerged on the scene that is in agreement with how the Greek Old Testament understands the word. Admittedly, I had previously opted for the third and dismissed this fourth option—as did most commentators I have read. What has changed my mind very recently however has been the availability of seven new examples to work with from the Dead Sea Scrolls. Before going into what I think is the better option, I will explain the advantages and disadvantages of the other options.

Sexual Desire

The first view, which understands Eve’s desire to be sexual in nature, has the advantage of being able to draw from the context in Song of Songs where the desire is of a sexual nature. In addition it can utilize an Arabic root “^saqa” which is a passionate longing compatible with Song of Songs 7:11.[2] It also draws from the immediate context of the pain in childbearing mentioned previously. Still, this view often relies too heavily on preconceived theology and speculation. For example, Gordon Wenham finds he must resolve the tension between Adam’s rule placed in the curse section and an understanding of the rest of Genesis before the fall to be in favor of exclusive female subordination. He decides: “Women often allow themselves to be exploited n this way because of their urge toward their husband: their sexual appetite may sometimes make them submit to quite unreasonable male demands.”[3] Whether or not most would actually concur that female sexuality is the culprit behind falling for unreasonable male demands, this view does utilize some of the immediate context and at least the context of one of the Old Testament uses of the noun form of the word.

Desire to be Subject

The second view, believes the woman’s desire is to be subjugated or dependant. This can be understood under a positive or negative backdrop concerning male authority. Exclusive submission to leadership itself may be seen as motivated primarily by the result of the fall or it is often understood to be something good that existed before, but now functions as a curse in the new context of fallen male domination.

Michael Stitzinger takes the latter option, but awkwardly fits it in the context of what he perceives as Eve’s failure to obey Adam earlier. The text of course does not say this anywhere, but this is the presupposed theological paradigm being used to interpret an addition passage even if it does not quite explain why the desire here is for submission when elsewhere it was not evident and admittedly female “sin nature precludes that they will do this.” So, Eve didn’t do it before and women don’t tend to do this later—but this context indicates that Eve’s desire is for submission? 

Despite these weaknesses, one of the strengths of this view is also the use of the Arabic root “^saqa” which Stitzinger understands to be a deep female longing to be submissive to one’s husband.[4] However, even the best feature of this view and the previous one is criticized by Foh who points out that the similar word “saqa” is actually phonetically the equivalent Arabic word which instead means “to urge, drive on, impel.”[5]

For the rest, click HERE.

--Nick

The Myth of the "Apparent" Meaning of Scripture

Quient:

When I attended Biola University as a Bible major (and seminary at Trinity later), the Bible came even more alive for me. What made the difference was not simply being told what passages mean, but understanding how one arrives at the meaning. Many of the passages I had previously misunderstood became clear after I learned about the culture, background and language being employed. Sometimes, it was merely a matter of understanding the context better (some of these have been discussed on this blog).

What has deeply troubled me in many of my interactions with other Evangelicals is also something I have been warned about by almost every professor I have had whether from Biola, Westminster or Trinity.  The problem is a subjective reading of the text. While this is obvious in questions like “what does the text mean to me?” it is also prevalent in a fundamental misunderstanding of the doctrine of the “clarity of Scripture.” This mentality can be summarized as follows: I can open up my Bible and understand its plain meaning on whatever topic. This is a simplistic understanding of the text that ends up distorting rather than understanding the text.

To begin with, the doctrine of the clarity of Scripture does not mean the Bible always says things “plainly” in a literalist fashion or that everything can be easily understood. The true doctrine says that the Bible is clear on what is necessary for faith and practice. In other words, you can open it and understand how to be saved and to be in a right relationship with God. The finer points however, are not always understood. Why?

1. There are major cultural differences that prevent us from understanding an otherwise apparent reading.

Ex 1: One example of this is in how we interpret the parable in Luke 11 where a friend knocks on the door of a neighbor because a guest came late at night and food is needed. The friend inside gives the excuse that the door is shut and it will wake up the children if he was to get up and help. Many westerners do not get the joke here—the person inside is giving ridiculous and laughable excuses. It is the whole villages responsibility and not helping will reflect poorly on all of them there is a strong communal sense of responsibility. Jesus is making a “how much more” argument here. Would this ever happen? No! How much less likely that God would do such a thing! Consider the next parable where He asks what father would give his child a serpent when he asks for a fish!? Not catching this nuance often paints the incorrect picture that perhaps one has to pray and pray and pray in order for God to be roused to help.

For the rest, click HERE.

--Nick

No Forgiveness for Sins?

Quient:

There are some passages in Scripture that seem a bit disturbing when set in the context of the rest of Scripture. We are taught that God can and will forgive any and all sin and yet there are some passages that if read simplistically (or according to what some would call “the plain meaning of Scripture”) appear to teach that some sins cannot be forgiven.

 For in the case of those who have once been enlightened and have tasted of the heavenly gift and have been made partakers of the Holy Spirit…and then have fallen away, it is impossible to renew them again to repentance, since they again crucify to themselves the Son of God and put Him to open shame (Hebrews 6:4,6).

For if we go on sinning willfully after receiving the knowledge of the truth, there no longer remains a sacrifice for sins (Hebrews 10:26).

The good news is that Biblical background and context make all the difference when it comes to understanding the meaning of Scripture. Victor Hamilton in the Handbook on the Pentateuch informs us of how another oddity in Scripture helps us resolve this one. “The Old Testament sacrificial system makes provisions only for accidental sins, not for those perpetrated deliberately” (245). However, when you look at what constitutes an “accidental sin” you soon realize it includes sins that could not possibly be done without knowledge. For instance, the following are included: stealing, lying about something someone lost, and lying about being innocent of another crime or to cover up another crime!

 For the rest, click HERE.

--Nick

The Egalitarian/Complementarian Divide (Part III)

Part III:

Differences within the Foundation Contribute to Differences in Approach

As a result of the differences within the foundation of the Complementarian and Egalitarian views, the approaches used to argue their cases often differ. One can quickly notice a general pattern of approach that appears to follow the very shape of how their views were constructed in the first place. The pattern hinges on the acceptance or rejection of the additional Complementarian premise.
From early on, it has been acknowledged that Egalitarians “have tended to emphasize the broader affirmations of the gospel which stress oneness in Christ. Traditionalists have usually centered on specific passages of advice in Scripture” (emphasis mine).[1] The Egalitarian tendency to take a more broad principled approach is highly evident. In the organization Christians for Biblical Equality, the following statement can be found for their rational for Biblical equality:

The Bible teaches that, in the New Testament economy, women as well as men exercise the prophetic, priestly and royal functions (Acts 2:17-18, 21:9; 1 Cor 11:5; 1 Peter 2:9-10; Rev 1:6, 5:10). Therefore, the few isolated texts that appear to restrict the full redemptive freedom of women must not be interpreted simplistically and in contradiction to the rest of Scripture, but their interpretation must take into account their relation to the broader teaching of Scripture and their total context (1 Cor 11:2-16, 14:33-36; 1 Tim 2:9-15).[2]

There are many other examples of a general principled approach being utilized by Egalitarians. A “redemptive-movement hermeneutic” is advocated by authors such as William J. Webb in Slaves, Women and Homosexuals and I. Howard Marshall in Beyond the Bible. This approach puts great attention on the broad sweep and direction Scripture is moving in and even allows for a more full application of a Scriptural principle than the text presents. While the many authors of Discovering Biblical Equality do pay attention to passages with a more specific focus, much of their case in support of Egalitarianism depends on the overall pattern of how women have been used by God in leadership roles, the movement throughout Scripture towards more inclusion of women in a patriarchal society, and passages that exemplify the principle of equality—sometimes to the exclusion of the Complementarians’ added premise (e.g. Galatians 3 in context). Egalitarians could build a positive case from these alone, especially Genesis 1 and 2 “because [these passages] do not speak about subordination or prescribe difference in roles; whatever is said of the male is said equally of the female.”[3] However, the Egalitarian must also counter the Complementarian’s premise and this they also attempt with limited degrees of success at persuasion when using the broader, more principled approach.

Of course, there are not a few Egalitarians who prefer to focus on texts that are more specifically and directly geared towards the Complementarian premise, this focus may be an adaptation for their opponents rather than a denial of the broader approach. Craig Keener, who does not base his case on principles, explains his own sentiments:

The broader theological method has its place; for example, the abolitionists typically argued their case more by identifying principles, and the slaveholders more by pointing to concrete texts…Broad models like Creation (Gen 1-2) and Christ’s redemptive work (for example, Gal. 3:28) are excellent places for biblical theology to start…I do not mean my own approach to be a condemnation of a different approach.[4]

For the rest, click HERE.

--Nick