The following has been my soapbox lately.
Where is The Church?
(When I say "the Church" with a capital 'C', I refer to the institution of the body of Christ, the group of believers that form the institution Church. I don't mean to talk about one specific congregation, building, or even denomination. I mean, everyone, together, on the whole, the institution.)
I am disappointed with the image that the Church (especially in America) has been portraying to the rest of the world, the non-Christ-following world. All I see is flashy worship bands, fancy coffee, and self-help Christianity. I see people going to church because the feel like they should, because they find some sort of self-fulfillment, or because they think it will solve all of their problems. I hear sermons about how Jesus can save YOU, YOU can go to heaven, and God can make YOU feel better. I see churches trying to cater to certain audiences, asking questions like "how do we get THIS group of people to come to church". I see churches care more about getting people in the door than making sure they feel like they belong once they're there. I see church leaders care more about the number of people in their sanctuaries on Sundays than who those people are. I see colorful graphics, flashy videos, and novel-length bulletins advertising this weeks offerings of "church" things to do. I see preachers take political sides and teach political views in their services. I see the Church conform to pop culture.
I don't see the Church care for people like it should. I don't see the Church rising up and dealing with social justice issues like it should. I don't see unity in the Church. I see disfunctionality and division. I see unending battles of politics. I see misused authority. I see individualism, not community. I see greed and selfishness. I see the Church getting so wrapped up in itself that it has lost the vision and purpose of its existence.
In the book of Acts, we are introduced to a group of 1st century believers. These were the people who were around before, during, and after the crucifixion/resurrection/ascension of Jesus Christ. The first couple chapters of Acts describes what life was like in that early Church. It says the believers "were together and had everything in common" (Acts 2:44). They shared everything, had fellowship together, took care of those in need, and served the Lord together. They were living in true community. They loved God and each other, and that's all that really mattered. Everything they did flowed out of that. People catered themselves (their beliefs, and ways of life) to the Church, not the other way around. I desire to experience that in the Church today. True community centered around the belief in Jesus Christ and following His teaching. But I'm just not seeing it.
According to the Barna Group, only 4% of Americans tithed in 2004. Four percent. Money is always a touchy subject in the Church. Churches don't want to have to beg for money, and people don't want to feel pressured to give money. But only 4%? The tithe is something that is found throughout the Old and New Testaments. It has been around forever (well, almost). The basic idea of the tithe is that you acknowledge that everything that you own belongs to God and thus you give Him the first cut. Back in the days of animal sacrifice and stuff, people were supposed to give up the best of their flocks or herds. Actually, if you read through Leviticus and Deuteronomy, there is a really elaborate system of tithing and sacrifice. Now by "giving" it to God, doesn't mean you burn it or something so that you don't have it anymore, it means that you give it to be used in some manner to further the Kingdom of God. Tithes in the Bible were used to take care of Church/Synagogue leaders, the poor, the widowed, and the orphans. The early Church made sure that everyone had enough of what they needed and that no one was left to suffer. Can you imagine the impact the Church could make today if it really used it's resources for the Glory of God? What if all believers tithed, and the Church used that money to further the Kingdom of God? Think of how many people wouldn't have to go hungry anymore, or how many people could be saved from slavery and human trafficking. What if that money used to buy that fancy schmancy projector had been used to buy groceries for that homeless family down the street?
I recently went to a church service, that quickly turned into a pro-life rally. Words were being used as weapons against President Obama and all who supported the right to choose. The pastor got very riled up and was shouting by the end in a very spirited argument for the rights of unborn children. "Amen"s were popping out in different places in the congregation. And I was sinking lower and lower into the pew. All I could think about was what would happen if they found out I was Liberal and had voted for Obama? I was envisioning being run out of the building and being condemned to a life of paganism. It wasn't a very good feeling. Nor was it a feeling I should have been getting from church. I will never step inside that building ever again, if I can help it. I was also thinking of my non-Christian friends who might at some point in their lives be faced with the decision of getting an abortion, and how they were being accused by this pastor of being potential murderers. That hurt too. Jesus did not preach politics. And neither should the Church. Sure, having opinions is fine, but how is the Church using them to further the Kingdom? Is it more Christ-like to lobby the government and protest abortion clinics or to love women into making the right decision? Jesus didn't condemn, so why should we? Why is the Church spending so much time fighting political battles, when they could be changing the world through love? What would happen if the Church stopped alienating and judging gays, lesbians, and women seeking abortions and started loving and trying to support them? When will the Church stop acting so much like Pharisees and more like Jesus? We say we follow Jesus, so why doesn't it look like we do? When will we stop being so self-involved and start being selfless?
I have been very critical up to this point, but like I said, this has been my soapbox. Now even though the Church has been disappointing, and I have lost faith in its ability to live up to its potential, that's not to say there aren't good things happening. I am extremely honored to have been born into a family of missionaries, people who have served and are serving the Lord all around the world. I have also been honored to have met (and been involved in) a great deal of other church and non-profit ministries around the country. Good things are happening. A lot of very admirable people are doing everything they can to further the Kingdom and share the love and grace of Jesus Christ. Most of these things happen under the radar, out of view of the public eye. But that's kind of how Jesus rolled. Countless times in the Gospels, Jesus tells people not to tell others about the miracles He performed or whatever. So I would like to acknowledge and applaud everything that believers are doing to serve God. But I can't help but question how much is actually being done when I hear about all the suffering that's going on in the world. Is it enough? Is what the Church doing enough? I don't think so. And I can only hope and pray that it will grow out of this self-help-individual-based Christianity phase and into a true-loving-community based Christianity.
When will we stop drawing lines and join together to rock this world for Jesus? The Church has so much potential to impact this sucky-hurting-suffering world in a supernatural way. Are we going to live up to that potential?
--Amy Brown
Sunday, February 22, 2009
Saturday, February 21, 2009
Women in the Church
One of the biggest struggles I've had with scripture is Paul's beliefs on the role of women in the church.
Upon doing some recent research on this, I've found that my own personal beliefs would be called "egalitarian." This means that I think women are equal when it comes to participation and leadership in the church. I believe that women are capable and entitled to serve in any role in the church that men do, be it in administration or leadership or any other aspect.
The other main view is complementarianism, which asserts that women are suited to serve in specific roles in the church and men in others. Many complementarians believe that the specific roles open to women do not include leadership, at least on a major scale. Many complementarians allow women to serve in some administrative roles, and even pastoral leadership of women and children, but most roles which have women leading or teaching men are out of the question.
The question of egalitarianism versus complementarianism is a tricky one, as it is largely based on perceptions of cultural relevance.
From 1 Timothy 5: "11A woman should learn in quietness and full submission. 12I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she must be silent. 13For Adam was formed first, then Eve. 14And Adam was not the one deceived; it was the woman who was deceived and became a sinner. 15But women will be saved through childbearing—if they continue in faith, love and holiness with propriety."
Paul is upfront about his opinion on the role of women in the church. While he sometimes notes that he is giving his own personal opinion rather than God's word in his discussions about women and marriage, he does not do so here, which limits the argument for subjectivity in Paul's teachings. There is the point that he phrases the statement, "I do not permit..." and that he sites Eve's temptation as female weakness, even though Adam too was deceived in turn. Nitpicking such ambiguities isn't my personal goal - I prefer to look more objectively at the relevance in a drastically different time and place.
The question is, are Paul's beliefs relevant to the modern church? Women in his day were not usually well-educated, especially in matters of theology. The culture allowed them the roles he describes, centered around family life. And, considering the history of shrine prostitution in the idolatrous worship that enticed the Israelites before and during these times, it may seem that the safe way to keep sex out of worship was to set gender boundaries in leadership.
Modern women, however, at least in Western society, are just as educated as their male colleagues. This is true not only of academia, but of theology. Because of this access to education, women are also involved in careers outside the home. And while the Israelite community seemed more concerned with the moral capacity of adulterous women, our culture today is at least equal in this respect; the glorification of the "womanizer" in characters such as James Bond may even lend to the idea that men have the more compromised moral fabric nowadays.
I do believe, as Paul writes one book later in 2 Timothy 3:16, that "all Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness." However, there are clearly scriptural guidelines which are specific to certain situations. Acts 10:11-15 gives us a clear example: 11He saw heaven opened and something like a large sheet being let down to earth by its four corners. 12It contained all kinds of four-footed animals, as well as reptiles of the earth and birds of the air. 13Then a voice told him, "Get up, Peter. Kill and eat." 14"Surely not, Lord!" Peter replied. "I have never eaten anything impure or unclean." 15The voice spoke to him a second time, "Do not call anything impure that God has made clean." Here, Peter is being shown a difference between the culture that received the restriction from eating such things, and between his current culture. On the issue of circumcision, Paul himself argued in favor of cultural relevance. Of course, a major difference here is that of the old and new covenants - the earlier one using the law to illustrate the fallen state of man, and the new to illustrate the Kingdom of God invading the culture through Jesus' sacrifice.
While we are still currently under the new covenant under which Paul gives guidelines for womens' roles in the church, I believe the difference in relevance applies. Paul's teachings at that time were meant to help the believers in that situation live in a way that would not jeapordize their faith or teachings; which would not lead them into temptation. And while having women who weren't taught to teach scripture in leadership positions doesn't suit that purpose, women today are so equipped.
Furthermore, it seems some women of Paul's day were so equipped, and served in various leadership roles as a result. Women such as Lydia, Phoebe, Priscilla (along with her husband, Aquilla), Mary, Tryphena and Tryphosa, and Persis are listed as being "women who work hard in the Lord." (Romans 16) I doubt very much that they received such mention for their hard work in bearing children, especially since it is mentioned that some hosted churches in their homes and risked their lives for believers such as Paul himself.
Based on these scriptures, I believe women should be anything but silent in the church. 1 Corinthians 12 states: 12The body is a unit, though it is made up of many parts; and though all its parts are many, they form one body. So it is with Christ. 13For we were all baptized by one Spirit into one body—whether Jews or Greeks, slave or free—and we were all given the one Spirit to drink... 27Now you are the body of Christ, and each one of you is a part of it. 28And in the church God has appointed first of all apostles, second prophets, third teachers, then workers of miracles, also those having gifts of healing, those able to help others, those with gifts of administration, and those speaking in different kinds of tongues. 29Are all apostles? Are all prophets? Are all teachers? Do all work miracles? 30Do all have gifts of healing? Do all speak in tongues? Do all interpret? 31But eagerly desire the greater gifts." This verse describes the different giftings and roles given to followers of Christ, with an emphasis on equality (verse 13). I believe any woman who is a follower of Christ is included in these giftings and callings, and as a good steward of the Gospel which has been revealed to her, has a responsibility to put them to use in the church. I believe a woman who is a follower of Christ may be an apostle, a prophetess, a teacher, a worker of miracles, a healer, a speaker of tongues, an interpreter - and should eagerly desire the greater gifts.
What do you believe?
Upon doing some recent research on this, I've found that my own personal beliefs would be called "egalitarian." This means that I think women are equal when it comes to participation and leadership in the church. I believe that women are capable and entitled to serve in any role in the church that men do, be it in administration or leadership or any other aspect.
The other main view is complementarianism, which asserts that women are suited to serve in specific roles in the church and men in others. Many complementarians believe that the specific roles open to women do not include leadership, at least on a major scale. Many complementarians allow women to serve in some administrative roles, and even pastoral leadership of women and children, but most roles which have women leading or teaching men are out of the question.
The question of egalitarianism versus complementarianism is a tricky one, as it is largely based on perceptions of cultural relevance.
From 1 Timothy 5: "11A woman should learn in quietness and full submission. 12I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she must be silent. 13For Adam was formed first, then Eve. 14And Adam was not the one deceived; it was the woman who was deceived and became a sinner. 15But women will be saved through childbearing—if they continue in faith, love and holiness with propriety."
Paul is upfront about his opinion on the role of women in the church. While he sometimes notes that he is giving his own personal opinion rather than God's word in his discussions about women and marriage, he does not do so here, which limits the argument for subjectivity in Paul's teachings. There is the point that he phrases the statement, "I do not permit..." and that he sites Eve's temptation as female weakness, even though Adam too was deceived in turn. Nitpicking such ambiguities isn't my personal goal - I prefer to look more objectively at the relevance in a drastically different time and place.
The question is, are Paul's beliefs relevant to the modern church? Women in his day were not usually well-educated, especially in matters of theology. The culture allowed them the roles he describes, centered around family life. And, considering the history of shrine prostitution in the idolatrous worship that enticed the Israelites before and during these times, it may seem that the safe way to keep sex out of worship was to set gender boundaries in leadership.
Modern women, however, at least in Western society, are just as educated as their male colleagues. This is true not only of academia, but of theology. Because of this access to education, women are also involved in careers outside the home. And while the Israelite community seemed more concerned with the moral capacity of adulterous women, our culture today is at least equal in this respect; the glorification of the "womanizer" in characters such as James Bond may even lend to the idea that men have the more compromised moral fabric nowadays.
I do believe, as Paul writes one book later in 2 Timothy 3:16, that "all Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness." However, there are clearly scriptural guidelines which are specific to certain situations. Acts 10:11-15 gives us a clear example: 11He saw heaven opened and something like a large sheet being let down to earth by its four corners. 12It contained all kinds of four-footed animals, as well as reptiles of the earth and birds of the air. 13Then a voice told him, "Get up, Peter. Kill and eat." 14"Surely not, Lord!" Peter replied. "I have never eaten anything impure or unclean." 15The voice spoke to him a second time, "Do not call anything impure that God has made clean." Here, Peter is being shown a difference between the culture that received the restriction from eating such things, and between his current culture. On the issue of circumcision, Paul himself argued in favor of cultural relevance. Of course, a major difference here is that of the old and new covenants - the earlier one using the law to illustrate the fallen state of man, and the new to illustrate the Kingdom of God invading the culture through Jesus' sacrifice.
While we are still currently under the new covenant under which Paul gives guidelines for womens' roles in the church, I believe the difference in relevance applies. Paul's teachings at that time were meant to help the believers in that situation live in a way that would not jeapordize their faith or teachings; which would not lead them into temptation. And while having women who weren't taught to teach scripture in leadership positions doesn't suit that purpose, women today are so equipped.
Furthermore, it seems some women of Paul's day were so equipped, and served in various leadership roles as a result. Women such as Lydia, Phoebe, Priscilla (along with her husband, Aquilla), Mary, Tryphena and Tryphosa, and Persis are listed as being "women who work hard in the Lord." (Romans 16) I doubt very much that they received such mention for their hard work in bearing children, especially since it is mentioned that some hosted churches in their homes and risked their lives for believers such as Paul himself.
Based on these scriptures, I believe women should be anything but silent in the church. 1 Corinthians 12 states: 12The body is a unit, though it is made up of many parts; and though all its parts are many, they form one body. So it is with Christ. 13For we were all baptized by one Spirit into one body—whether Jews or Greeks, slave or free—and we were all given the one Spirit to drink... 27Now you are the body of Christ, and each one of you is a part of it. 28And in the church God has appointed first of all apostles, second prophets, third teachers, then workers of miracles, also those having gifts of healing, those able to help others, those with gifts of administration, and those speaking in different kinds of tongues. 29Are all apostles? Are all prophets? Are all teachers? Do all work miracles? 30Do all have gifts of healing? Do all speak in tongues? Do all interpret? 31But eagerly desire the greater gifts." This verse describes the different giftings and roles given to followers of Christ, with an emphasis on equality (verse 13). I believe any woman who is a follower of Christ is included in these giftings and callings, and as a good steward of the Gospel which has been revealed to her, has a responsibility to put them to use in the church. I believe a woman who is a follower of Christ may be an apostle, a prophetess, a teacher, a worker of miracles, a healer, a speaker of tongues, an interpreter - and should eagerly desire the greater gifts.
What do you believe?
Wednesday, February 18, 2009
Introductions - What is Areopagus Now?
Areopagus Now is an open discussion forum concerning issues of world view, ethics, theology, and philosophy. It is named after the Greek council where the apostle Paul and the Greek intellectuals discussed such things.
I know a blog is probably not the best platform for discussion, but for the time being, I don't have the time to set up a discussion board or similar, and I have an aversion to attempting intellectual things via Facebook. I can add users who plan to contribute regularly as authors of the blog. Otherwise, let's discuss via blog comments. If you want author access, or for me to toss up a new subject for comment threading, toss a comment on this post, or email me at QuoteRadar@gmail.com. If anyone has ideas on how to make this more universally accessible, let me know.
Anyhow...
This is meant to be a good-natured, open-minded, and intellectual platform for people of any religion or world view to voice their opinions. I think if we try to be objective and avoid any personal attacks or "flaming," this can be a useful forum for perspective on issues that have interested thinkers throughout history. Of course, everyone has their own opinions, and often very strong ones on the subject of ethics, etc. The point is not to validate our own beliefs, or to offend anyone who doesn't share them, but to engage discussion about them.
To further the focus on objectivity and scholarship, I heartily encourage posters to link to sources that support or discuss their ideas. It certainly won't hurt your argument to include a supporting reference. Wondering where to find out more about a certain issue? Feel free to ask other readers to point you towards references they've found useful.
To further the focus on discussion and investigation, I'm going to say that citing sources is by no means necessary; feel free to ponder and speculate and question.
To provide some background on this blog, it is a branch of an idea I've had floating in my head for a while now; to host a discussion group for all the tough questions and interesting thoughts that arise when you start to think about world views and religion and ethics and politics and all of those potentially polarizing subjects. I'm constantly trying to figure out and solidify my views on issues like these, and I would certainly like to hear what anyone else has to say on the subjects. However, I haven't had the free time (or a group of people with the same free time) to get this going on a face-to-face basis. I would love to do that in the Twin Cities area; any coffee shop near the U of M campus is fair game to see this come to life if you're interested in discussing this kind of stuff in person.
I know a blog is probably not the best platform for discussion, but for the time being, I don't have the time to set up a discussion board or similar, and I have an aversion to attempting intellectual things via Facebook. I can add users who plan to contribute regularly as authors of the blog. Otherwise, let's discuss via blog comments. If you want author access, or for me to toss up a new subject for comment threading, toss a comment on this post, or email me at QuoteRadar@gmail.com. If anyone has ideas on how to make this more universally accessible, let me know.
Anyhow...
This is meant to be a good-natured, open-minded, and intellectual platform for people of any religion or world view to voice their opinions. I think if we try to be objective and avoid any personal attacks or "flaming," this can be a useful forum for perspective on issues that have interested thinkers throughout history. Of course, everyone has their own opinions, and often very strong ones on the subject of ethics, etc. The point is not to validate our own beliefs, or to offend anyone who doesn't share them, but to engage discussion about them.
To further the focus on objectivity and scholarship, I heartily encourage posters to link to sources that support or discuss their ideas. It certainly won't hurt your argument to include a supporting reference. Wondering where to find out more about a certain issue? Feel free to ask other readers to point you towards references they've found useful.
To further the focus on discussion and investigation, I'm going to say that citing sources is by no means necessary; feel free to ponder and speculate and question.
To provide some background on this blog, it is a branch of an idea I've had floating in my head for a while now; to host a discussion group for all the tough questions and interesting thoughts that arise when you start to think about world views and religion and ethics and politics and all of those potentially polarizing subjects. I'm constantly trying to figure out and solidify my views on issues like these, and I would certainly like to hear what anyone else has to say on the subjects. However, I haven't had the free time (or a group of people with the same free time) to get this going on a face-to-face basis. I would love to do that in the Twin Cities area; any coffee shop near the U of M campus is fair game to see this come to life if you're interested in discussing this kind of stuff in person.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)