Tuesdays are for Newspaper Articles… This Week

Brethren,

My computer hard drive called it quits Friday. Hopefully, I’ll get it back sometime this afternoon (Tuesday). That is why I did not do my regular posting Saturday.

Also, the decision was made yesterday (Monday) morning by his family to take Karl Farrar off the respirator. He died about 12:15 (noon). There was much weeping, but all present were united in wanting him to go and be with the Lord (2 Cor. 5:8). Please pray for the services in a few days, especially since there will be many unbelieving friends present.

Now, at long last, here is my last weekly article in the Canyon Lake (TX) Times-Guardian:

“… Weep with Those Who Weep”

The Apostle Paul gives a wonderful summary of the emotional support that Christians should be to each other in Romans 12:15: “Rejoice with those who rejoice and weep with those who weep.” I had the privilege of being involved in the latter this past week and it has really made me think deeply… and be very thankful.

Now, I may have needed this more than a lot of other Christians. You see, I was an emotional “Stoic” much of my life. In order to ease a great deal of pain in my childhood years, I learned to bury the pain. That was quite effective in keeping me from hurting so badly when painful things occurred. However, I also had a dulled sense of happiness and joy. In other words, from an emotional standpoint, I neither got very “high” or “low.”

This Stoic approach to life came in handy when I had to do crisis counseling or funerals. In fact, I could remain poised in the midst of almost any kind of difficult situation, no matter how painful because my emotions were completely in check.

However, such a narrow range of emotions is not the way that God designed human beings to function. And, for whatever advantages my Stoic emotional state may have provided in certain situations, it was at least as much a detriment. Allow me to explain why.

First, I was a “wet blanket” when good or joyful things happened. Because I could not feel the joy or happiness deeply, I tended to underappreciate what was happening, whether it was to me or others I cared about. It was sad. I really did not know how to experience having fun to much of a degree at all.

Even worse, when bad things—or tragic things—happened to me, or someone I was close to, I could not feel, or be there for them in regard to, the disappointment or loss. It was tragic. I just didn’t “get it.”

What happened to change things? In my early 40s, I nearly died of viral pneumonia and, as I began my recovery, a doctor stated his opinion that the severity of the disease—with a 104 degree temperature for four days—was caused by emotional blockage. Initially, I thought that was preposterous… but he was dead on. And, though it didn’t happen quickly, over the years since, I have opened myself up and learned to feel deeply.

That came in handy this past week. A young mother in our church had, in waiting for over a year for a trial in which she was trying to adopt her niece out of a situation in which she had been horribly mistreated, worked very hard to meet all the eligibility requirements of Child Protective Services. In the process, a number of members of our church had rallied around her to try to support her or help her in that process. Sadly, in spite of all the effort and prayer, the jury did not find in her favor.

However, that deep disappointment still provided us with the opportunity to “weep with those who weep,” which will continue for some time as she and her family mourn this loss. But, that is the balance that goes along with the other side of life, which had also happened in the past year or so. We were able to rejoice as we saw her and her family come to saving faith in Jesus Christ and be baptized. In other words, our church was privileged to be able to both “rejoice” and “weep” with this dear family, just as the Apostle Paul commanded us to do. For that, I am immensely grateful.

Coming Wednesday… depending on if I get my hard drive back): “An Apostle Concludes His Discussion about Prophecy and Tongues (1 Cor. 14:36-40)”

The Holy Spirit and the Southern Baptist Convention (XLIV): “In What Sense Should Women Be Silent in Church?”

(Updated Prayer Request: Karl Farrar is doing better, but is still in a light induced coma, due to the tubes down his throat. The results of the EEG were that his brainwave function was at about half that of a conscious, awake person. However, a CT revealed no swelling of the brain. Further, when the doctor opened his eyes and shined a light, they dilated nicely and he seems to have reflexes in all his extremities. The icing on the cake is that he is doing much more of the breathing percentage-wise than the machine. The only negative aspect of the last 24 hours is some problem with the liver, though it has not failed.

Bottom line: Please keep praying for Karl and his entire family… all of whom have now made it into town to be at the bedside.)

“As in all the churches of the saints, the women should be silent in the churches, for they are not permitted to speak, but should be submissive, as the law also says. And if they want to learn something, they ask their own husbands at home, for it is disgraceful for a woman to speak in the church meeting” (! Cor. 14:33b-35, HCSB).

After working through the four areas of controversy that I introduced in my last post, I will attempt to answer the title question as the conclusion to this post. In my considered opinion, I will not be in the position of having fully tiptoed through the minefield of questions and difficulties until all of those areas are faced.

The first area of debate was the textual status of verses 34-35. To provide perspective, even as widely recognized an evangelical textual scholar as Gordon Fee, in his massive commentary on 1 Corinthians, very much leaned in the direction of discounting the validity of this text. However, in my opinion, though I have agreed with Fee on a lot of issues about which he has written over the years, in this case I believe that he is subjectively following his heart for women in ministry. A ‘B’ textual reading by the United Bible Societies board of editors is not something to be just be thrown on the textual scrap heap, so to speak.

My point here is that, even if you do not like what 14:34-34 says at all, that is not an appropriate reason to try to get rid of it through shortsightedly tossing it out textually. In my view, that is blatant disrespect for the inspired nature of the Scriptures (2 Tim. 3:16).

Well, if we decide that 14:34-35 is textually valid, what do we do about the supposed cultural argument in regard to these verses? To begin, I think the main reason this perspective gets any attention at all among evangelicals is because there is clearly some cultural content in the immediate context of the somewhat parallel passage in 1 Timothy 2:9-15 (i.e., the description of what was considered appropriate dress and style for women in 2:9). However, there is nothing exactly like that in 1 Corinthians 14.

Now, it is true that a case could potentially be made that 11:2-16 should be rethought as a cultural issue: whether or not a woman should wear a head-covering (which some today think is ridiculously “cultural”). However, the problem with doing that is that right smack dab in the middle of that passage is Paul’s other key statement in 1 Corinthians about women speaking ministry-wise (i.e, praying and prophesying). Thus, most people who have trouble with 14:34-35 do so because 11:5 is already there on the books, and they don’t want to risk undermining the validity of 11:5 by pushing the “cultural” interpretation too far.

Before proceeding further, it may be helpful here to pursue a brief rabbit trail on “controlling passages.” As many of you know, one of the ongoing interpretive tendencies in the Cessationist-Continuationist controversy is to choose and work with the passages that seem to support your chosen position and explain away the other passages. The classic example is that Cessationists decide from Acts 2 that tongues are human languages, then read that conclusion onto 1 Corinthians 12-14, without proving it from the exegesis of those chapters. Conversely, some Continuationists argue vitually the opposite route. Of course, the proper way to go about determining the true meaning is to carefully consider all the relevant texts equally, which, from my study, results in a cautious Continuationist position.

OK. So there is not valid reason to toss out 14:34-35 textually or culturally. What about trying to determine its meaning from the flow of the context?

This is where we encounter some decisive light on the subject, if we will pay close attention. What do I mean by that? At first glance, for Paul to say that women “are not permitted to speak” and “it is disgraceful for a woman to speak in the church meeting” (14:34, 35, HCSB) sounds universal and airtight… and it does seem to contradict 11:5.

Fortunately, there is nothing that forces us to stop our study of this context with a “first glance” only. You see, there is more in the bigger picture of this context that we need to notice and more in the way the key wording here is expressed in the Greek that must be grasped.

In the first case, the continued mention of prophecy and tongues in 14:36-40 makes it clear that the topic in the spotlight in 14:26-33a is continued through the end of the chapter. In other words, Paul has not suddenly shifted to talking about women in the worship service. Instead, he is bringing women into his discussion of how tongues-speakers and prophets should handle themselves in an orderly manner in the worship service (which began in 14:27). That 14:34-35 is a continuation of the issue already on the table is clearly seen in the previous mentions of the need for tongues-speakers and prophets to keep silent in certain situations in verses 28 and 30.

Also important in the flow of the context is the fact that these statements to women occur immediately after the guidelines for order have been given to the prophets. Especially intriguing here is verse 29: “Two or three prophets should speak (note that this is the same Greek word–laleo–as used for the women not speaking in verses 34-35), and the others should evaluate” (HCSB). With this sequential flow of content in mind, it appears that the women speaking is a problem of a similar nature in the worship service as prophets insisting on continuing to speak, even though another prophet has received an additional revelation from the Lord (see 14:30), which would undermine the learning and encouragement that should be taking place (14:31).

What is the upshot of my observations here? It would seem, with a careful grasp of the flow of this context in mind, that it is much less likely that Paul is putting a universal “gag order” on women in worship services. Instead, he is seeking to rein in some women whop had been dominating the time given over to the evaluation of prophecy by asking questions and, in the process, had been making their husbands look like their own homes were in disorder.

This perspective becomes even more plausible when we compare the key wording in 14:34-35 to 1 Timothy 2:12. And, that also beings us to our fourth and final controversy related to this passage: how it fits into Paul’s wider thought on the issue of women speaking in church.

Back in the later 1980s, David Dockery wrote on an eminently wise article in the Criswell Theological Review on hermenutical issues having to do with women in ministry. As part of that truly outstanding treatment (that included both 1 Cor. 14:34-35 and 1 Tim. 2:12), Dockery noted that the keys action words in both passages were present infinitives (i.e, “to speak” in 1 Cor. 14:34, 35 and “to teach” and “to exercise authority over” in 1 Tim. 2:12).

If you are not familiar with Koine Greek, the significance of the present infinitive is that of an ongoing role. Thus, in 1 Timothy 2:12, women are barred from the ongoing role of the teacher in the worship service, as well as not being allowed to serve as an elder/senior pastoral figure (which subject, logically, is dealt with next, in 1 Timothy 3:1-7). The present infinitive, however, would not rule out a woman speaking/teaching occasionally in a worship service, just not as the ongoing teacher for the congregation.

What does the present infinitive mean in 1 Corinthians 14:34-35? Obviously, it is harder to interpret here than in 1 Timothy 2:12. However, at the very least, it appears to be Paul’s way of clearing what had been a logjam of women speaking up at the point when there was a need for evaluation of the legitimacy of the prophecies that were being given to the congregation. Quite likely, it made for a chaotic situation in which it was difficult to tell who was prophesying (as women clearly could do, according to 1 Cor. 11:5), who was evaluating the prophecy and who was merely asking distracting questions. It is also possible that what Paul is saying that women are not permitted to “keep speaking,” that is, to dominate the time, though they were allowed to pray and prophecy (11:5), just as long as it was done “decently and in order” (14:40).

When the dust settles, there is no simple understanding of all the issues that swirl around 1 Corinthians 14:34-35. All I have tried to do here is to lay out what seem to me to be the most plausible perspectives of which I am aware.

PS- As far as I know, nbody knows for sure what the meaning of “as the law also says” (14:34, HCSB) is. For whatever it’s worth, my long-considered opinion is that it is some sort of “order of creation” argument, much like Paul uses in 11:3.

Coming Saturday: “Saturdays are for Newspaper Articles”

A Request for Prayer

I am not going to be able to post today because of a pastoral situation that is open-ended timewise.  Please pray for Karl Farrar and his family.  He is only 45 and had been diagnosed with terminal lung cancer a year ago.  After very aggressive chemo and radiation together, it looked like he was doing better.  But, day before yesterday, he started coughing up blood and went to the emergency room.  While waiting, he started having massive amounts of blood come up and he lost consciousness.  It was almost 20 minutes before they could get him breathing again… and that is the immediate concern.  He is in an induced coma, but they are about to give him an EEG to check for brainwave activity.  If it is not what it needs to be, the decision has been made to take him off life support.  What happens then is, of course, according to whether the Lord sees fit to work a miracle (which I have seen happen several times, but I have also seen it go the other way a number of times).  If you have never been in such a situation, it is extremely emotionally traumatic on the family.  So, please pray for him and them! 

Thank you for your understanding, Boyd

PS- Andy, I will get back to you as soon as possible.

The Holy Spirit and the Southern Baptist Convention (XLIII): “A First Look at the Issues Surrounding 1 Corinthians 14:33b-35″

Before beginning this post proper, I think this is a good time for me to lay out what I plan to do in finishing my lengthy treatment of 1 Corinthians 12-14.  I freely admit that, when I started, I had little sense as to how long it might take to work through this very important section of Scripture.  Now, however, having gotten through most of the material, I can finally see my way through to the finish line. 

Here’s what I’m thinking will get me to the end: 1) this intro. post on 14:33b-35; 2) a second post on 14:33b-35, which will go beyond the intro. issues, seeking to not only understand that controversial passage in the flow of 1 Corinthians, but also against the wider backdrop of Pauline and NT theology; 3) a post on 14:36-40; 4) a post putting the entire section (chs. 12-14) together from what could be called a “big picture” exegetical standpoint; and 5) a final post that speaks to the important applicational issues that arise from this passage for the contemporary evangelical church, particularly the SBC.

As we prepare to think our way through 1 Corinthians 13:33b-35, it is important to know where (and what) the landmines are.  In this case, there are four kinds.  Simply put, they are: 1) textual; 2) cultural; 3) contextual; and 4) wider Pauline thought.  I will introduce the problems in that order.

The textual question has to do with whether 14:34-35 is, in our modern translations, found at the proper place in the order of this passage–or whether those verses should be included at all.  The Fourth Revised Edition of the United Bible Societies (UBS) Greek New Testament does place these verses where we have them with a ‘B’ (i.e., almost certain) level of certainty.  However, a number of so-called “Western” witnesses place these verses after 14:40.  As a result, some NT scholars think these verses are nothing more than a later addition, which attempted to make this overall passage agree with 1 Timothy 2:12.

The second issue allows the text to stand as is, but doubts the relevance of this passage for today on the basis of “culture.”  This argument states that the first century AD cultural setting would have required women to be silent in worship services, but that was because of women’s lack of education in that culture, a situation that would not be true with most 21st century Christian women.

The third issue is an attempt to make sense of Paul’s command for women to be silent in both the flow of the immediate passage (i.e., 1 Cor. 14:26-40) and in the light of his earlier statement about women praying and prophesying (11:5).  And, at first glance, the latter is a real problem, since 11:5 and 14:34-35 do appear to be mutually exclusive.

The final issue gets down to understanding both Corinthians 14:34-35 and 1 Timothy 2:12 within the framework of Paul’s wider theology.  Without falling prey to a short-sighted appeal to “culture” and throwing out the exegetical baby with the cultural bathwater here, what is Paul seeking to accomplish in these passages?

This should be enough to get your juices flowing.  We will work our way through to as much clarity as possible in each of these four areas in the next post.

Coming Thursday: “In What Sense Should Women Be Silent in the Churches?”

Saturdays are for Newspaper Articles

The following, as per usual, is my weekly article in the Canyon Lake (TX) Times-Guardian.  Enjoy!

                                   “The Creator of Love” 

            This past Sunday, I preached on one of the best-known passages in the Bible: the so-called “love chapter” in 1 Corinthians 13.  If you are not familiar with it, the following is the lofty description of love found in verses 4-7: “Love is patient, love is kind.  It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud.  It is not rude, it is not self-seeking.  It is not easily angered, it keeps no record of wrongs.  Love does not delight in evil, but rejoices with the truth.  It always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres” (NIV).

            Of course, this has very little resemblance to the world’s view of love.  To the average person today, “love” is actually what has historically been thought of as lust or physical attraction.  And, if they do not have something of a sexual nature in mind when they say “love,” they frequently mean something that naturally draws them to the other person.  That is, the worldly view is what we could legitimately refer to as “because of love.”  In other words, it is a completely conditional way of viewing another person.

            However, if you will re-read the passage from 1 Corinthians 13:4-7 cited above, you will quickly notice that it beautifully reflects what could also legitimately be called “in spite of love.”  For example, if true love is patient, it is happening in the face of things about the other person that would naturally make you impatient.  Also, if this wonderful love is not easily angered, that is the reaction that must take place in a situation that would make most people angry.  Bottom line: this love keeps on loving unconditionally, against the grain of the circumstances.

            Since this kind of love is so unnatural to humankind, where do we look for the example of how to love this way?  We look to the supernatural creator of this incredible kind of love: the Lord God Almighty Himself.  You see, this is the way God Himself is in His nature.  As 1 John 4:16 says in so many words: “God is love.”

Further, because God is loving by nature, that is the way He relates to other beings.  Thus, it is critically important for you to understand God loves every single person who walks the face of this earth.  But, that does not mean that God just sits up in heaven and silently chants “I love all those goofy people down on earth, even the ones who don’t believe I exist or, even if they do, who choose not to love me back.”  No, God has acted in the most generous, self-sacrificing manner possible to demonstrate His love for you and me.

Are those empty words, or can I back them up?  Yes, I can.  Just listen to John 3:16 and you will understand that I am not overstating my case in the least: “God so loved the world that He gave His only Son, that whoever believes in Him shall not perish, but have everlasting life.”  Romans 5:8 speaks to the same issue: “God demonstrated His love for us in that, while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us.”

So, if you have ever wondered what God meant when He created the concept of love in the first place, you can look at 1 Corinthians 13:4-7 and see very clearly what true love is (and is not).  But, if you want to know what the greatest act of love that has ever occurred is, you need look no further than Jesus’ death on the Cross for all your sins.  Now, isn’t it about time that you opened your eyes to God’s love for you and returned the favor by faith in Jesus?

Coming Tuesday: “A First Look at the Issues Surrounding 1 Corinthians 14:33b-35″

The Holy Spirit and the Southern Baptist Convention Today (XLII): “Putting the Puzzle Pieces Together in 1 Corinthians 14:26-33a”

(Note: As it turned out, I was the final character witness yesterday afternoon between 3:30 and 4:00 [which was highly frustrating, because I do not like to just sit around and do nothing.  But, I did pray a great deal and probably learned some valuable things to apply to my least favorite part of the Christian life: waiting on the Lord].  If you would, please pray for Jennifer, who has only been a Christian for a little over a year, but has grown wonderfully in the Lord during that time.  My deep concern is that, if the other side prevails with their character assassination tactics, as young as she is in her faith, she may become highly disillusioned or embittered with the Lord.)

Since completing the last post, it has occurred to me that 1 Corinthians 14:26-33a may be less intended to speak fully to the issue of how a worship service should be conducted than fitting tongues and prophecy into the framework of the worship service.  In other words, maybe, just maybe, it was not written to be the “inspired” pattern that we all are seeking in the New Testament for what to do in our Sunday worship services.

What is my basis for saying that?  Primarily, it is because, after reflecting on this for some time, it has clarified to me that 14:26-33a has much more the “feel” of at least a mildly corrective passage than a prescriptive one. 

Why would I draw that conclusion?  Because, since Paul was in Corinth for a year and a half (Acts 18:11), he certainly would have taught/shown them how a congregational worship service was supposed to be conducted.  In fact, I do not think it to be particularly speculative to suggest that, while Paul was in Corinth, there undoubtedly were a number of times when he had talked that very specific subject through carefully and precisely with at least the church leadership, if not the entire congregation.

But, you say, if that was the case, why then did he bring it up again in 14:26-33a?  And, that is the pivotal question here.  But, I think there is a fairly obvious answer.  You see, since Paul knew that his readers in Corinth were well aware of how a worship service was to run, all he needed to do was to fit his discussion of the proper value and use of prophecy and tongues into the framework of what they already had heard from him on multiple occasions.  And, to me, after considerable reflection, that understanding seems to make the best sense of this section.

However, there is another implied question here that is worth asking at this point, even if it cannot be answered very “cleanly” because of a lack of determinative direct evidence.  That question–which many of us are curious about to one degree or another–is: How in the world did the church ever get to where it is in regard to a prominent ”pastoral” role in worship services from what we see in 1 Corinthians 14:26-33a (i.e., at least in trying to justify the approach from the New Testament)?

As I just more or less stated, I don’t think there is no way to know for sure.  However, the following fragments of data from at least partly parallel church situations in the New Testament seem to me to provide a plausible general scenario for answering this question:

1. Both the numerical growth and spiritual health of the church in Jerusalem was greatly facilitated by the apostles’ teaching–both its content and actual preaching to the church (e.g., Acts 2:42; 6:2, 4).  Paul undoubtedly knew that from his interaction with “the mother church.”

2. Both the numerical growth and spiritual health of the church in Syrian Antioch was greatly facilitated by the teaching of Paul and other gifted teachers (and prophets; Acts 11:26; 13:1).

3. In an letter written before 1 Corinthians (Galatians), Paul had already set forth the importance of the teacher in the local church (see 6:6).

4. In his ministry in Ephesus (again, before he wrote 1 Corinthians), Paul had taught daily in the school of Tyrannus for over two years, which apparently was the content basis on which many of the churches in the Roman province of Asia were founded (see Acts 19:8-10).

5. When Paul later met with the elders from the church at Ephesus in Miletus, he emphasized how he “went about preaching the kingdom” and “declaring to you the whole plan of God” (Acts 20:25, 27, HCSB).  The first phrase could be understood as strictly evangelistic preaching (perhaps as part of what he did in the School of Tyrannus), but, because of the inclusion of “to you” in the second phrase, it seems highly unlikely to me that he is referring to other than systematic preaching/teaching in a congregational context.

6. In Ephesians 4:11, among the list of gifted persons given to the church for the building up of the Body of Christ (4:12) is “teachers” (which is either just closely associated with “pastors” or fully linked [i.e., "pastor-teachers"], if you see this as an instance of what Greek grammarians refer to as “Granville Sharp’s Rule”).  It appears that these persons are intended by the Lord to be itinerant to one degree or another.  In other words, the Lord moves them around among the churches to meet needs through the ministry of their gifts. 

7. If that is the case with Ephesians 4:11, then it is quite possible that, after Paul left Corinth (Acts 18:18), there was no main “teacher”/pastor figure.  That is, there was none until Apollos came through (Acts 18:27-19:1).  However, even though Apollos had a very eloquent and effective ministry there (18:27-28), his difference in style from Paul seemingly confused the matter on some issues and at least partly fueled the tendency to “theological fan clubs” in the Corinthian church (see 1 Cor. 1:12, etc.).  Then, of course, Apollos left.  And, although Peter may have come through Corinth briefly at some point and served as a temporary teacher/pastoral figure (see 1:12; 9:5), there was apparently nothing that yet closely resembled “pastoral ministry” of an ongoing nature as most of us understand that.

8. With the actual arrival the breakdown in elder leadership in Ephesus Paul had already predicted in Acts 20:28-31 (which explains his focal emphasis on “overseers/elders” in 1 Tim. 3:1-7 and 5:17-25), we see the gifted preacher/teacher, Timothy (4:13-16), left by Paul (e.g., 1 Tim. 1:3-5) in the church there in a role that, if we used modern terms, could be called “interim senior pastor.”  And, since Timothy was still in that role in Ephesus when 2 Timothy was written some three years later, we get the sense that, inn the face of the church problems in Ephesus, Paul was most comfortable with having a stable ongoing teacher there to take on the apparent defections from the faith (e.g., 2 Tim. 4:2-5).

Now, I know well the extra-biblical additions that got the church from the NT to what greatly resembled full-blown Roman Catholicism over the next several hundred years.  And, yes, I do think it is quite risky to try to “connect the dots” of these seven chronologically sequential (i.e., possible “progressive revelation” within the NT) too much.  Yet, these eight points do at least provide me with enough of a broad framework of what was going on in the wider NT church during the early apostolic age to make the think that 1 Corinthians 14:26-33a just might be a still “snapshot” of one congregation–the most (spiritually) gifted one seen in the NT, for that matter (see 1:7)–that is best understood against the “moving picture” documentary of the church filled in by Acts and the other Epistles.  In other words, my tentative connclusion on this subject is that 1 Corinthians 14:26-33a is best viewed as a “work in progress,” albeit an extremely valuable one, given that, as sketchy as it is, it still provides us with more a glimpse of a worship service than anywhere else in the NT.

OK.  Now, you can feel free to blow my doors off!

Coming Saturday: “Saturdays are for Newspaper Articles”