"1The Spirit clearly says that in later times some will abandon the faith and follow deceiving spirits and things taught by demons. 2Such teachings come through hypocritical liars, whose consciences have been seared as with a hot iron. 3They forbid people to marry and order them to abstain from certain foods, which God created to be received with thanksgiving by those who believe and who know the truth. 4For everything God created is good, and nothing is to be rejected if it is received with thanksgiving, 5because it is consecrated by the word of God and prayer."
I always think of the Shakers when I hear of this. They were an old 1800's cult that still have a re-enacted homestead near Lexington, KY. (People think of it as just an 1800's tourist reenactment, and never consider the fact that it was a cult). They considered Adam's sin to be sexual impurity and married couples who joined their community were forbidden to be together. They basically forbade marriage.
I started thinking about verse 5. Why is it that the word of God isn't enough to sanctify food? It's clean, God says so (Acts 10:15), why do we have to pray about it?
Then it struck me, that for many Jews who were considering eating pork (for example) were probably having a tough time with that. They needed to pray about it, because their consciences (Romans 14) weren't quite to the point where they could eat it.
I've seen that with Muslims, too. And Christians with even ridiculously small amounts of alcohol. It's not enough that the word of God says "it's good, you have freedom," there has to be a period of prayer for that truth to become real in their lives and hearts.
But, I think this thought doesn't just apply to food. Maybe there's some other legalism we need to be set free from. Like a converted Muslim who feels guilty if he doesn't pray 5 times a day. It's not just enough for the word of God to say "you're set free!" our consciences have to be aligned with this truth also (Romans 14).
Wednesday, May 30, 2007
Wednesday, May 23, 2007
1 Timothy 3:15-16
v. 15 but in case I am delayed, I write so that you will know how one ought to conduct himself in the household of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and support of the truth.
I often quote the bold part of the verse a lot. I just like it. It's an integral role the Church plays in the world.
It's also interesting to me that God in the Holy Spirit dwells in our bodies as his temple (1 Cor. 6:19) yet also in the Church as corporate believers meeting together. Eastern Orthodox folks would point to this verse as evidence that God inhabits a physical building. But, I think Paul is saying "how one ought to conduct himself in the household of God, which is made up of the church of the living God [ie: the individuals (temples) together]."
v. 16 By common confession, great is the mystery of godliness: He who was revealed in the flesh, Was vindicated in the Spirit, Seen by angels, Proclaimed among the nations, Believed on in the world, Taken up in glory.
One of the earliest church creeds that we have. What does "vindicated in the Spirit" mean or refer to? I think the creed is clearly chronological of his life, burial, resurrection, ascension. What's the significance of "seen by angels"? I think it's referring to his post-burial, when the angels proclaimed to the women at the tomb: "He is not here, for He is risen." May it also be a reference to 1 Peter 3:19?
I often quote the bold part of the verse a lot. I just like it. It's an integral role the Church plays in the world.
It's also interesting to me that God in the Holy Spirit dwells in our bodies as his temple (1 Cor. 6:19) yet also in the Church as corporate believers meeting together. Eastern Orthodox folks would point to this verse as evidence that God inhabits a physical building. But, I think Paul is saying "how one ought to conduct himself in the household of God, which is made up of the church of the living God [ie: the individuals (temples) together]."
v. 16 By common confession, great is the mystery of godliness: He who was revealed in the flesh, Was vindicated in the Spirit, Seen by angels, Proclaimed among the nations, Believed on in the world, Taken up in glory.
One of the earliest church creeds that we have. What does "vindicated in the Spirit" mean or refer to? I think the creed is clearly chronological of his life, burial, resurrection, ascension. What's the significance of "seen by angels"? I think it's referring to his post-burial, when the angels proclaimed to the women at the tomb: "He is not here, for He is risen." May it also be a reference to 1 Peter 3:19?
Sunday, May 20, 2007
1 Timothy 3:8-13
Can women be deacons?
This verse is tucked into the middle of 2 verses clearly meant for men:
v. 11 Women must likewise be dignified, not malicious gossips, but temperate, faithful in all things.
That first word is also translated "deaconess" Is a "deaconess" a female deacon? A wife of a deacon? What was Phoebe (also called a "deaconness" in Romans 16)?
16:1 "I commend to you our sister Phoebe, who is a servant of the church which is at Cenchrea; 2that you receive her in the Lord in a manner worthy of the saints, and that you help her in whatever matter she may have need of you; for she herself has also been a helper of many, and of myself as well."
I've already reached the conclusion here that women can't be elders, as that would put them in a position of authority over a man. That conforms with 1 Peter 3, Ephesians 5, etc.
But, what about a deacon? A deacon's role is not to have authority, but to serve.
In too many churches there are deacon committees that pretty much run the church and vote on very important decisions. That's not what they're called to do in Scripture. Seems to me that's the elders' job.
So, if the "deacons" of your church are actually exercising elder authority, then I can easily say "no, a woman's role is not to be a deacon." But, if your deacons are actually like the ones in Scripture and don't have authority and are instead servants to authority, then what keeps a woman servant (like Phoebe) from holding the title of deacon?
Many would point to verses 10 and 12 which clearly say "men." And I'm okay with exercising caution about giving a woman the title of deacon based on these verses. But, in two letters Paul clearly mentions deaconesses, one of which (Phoebe) is clearly serving just like a male deacon.
From this chapter, I'm left with 1 conclusion and 1 question:
Conclusion: Deacons should be servants to authority rather than holders of authority.
Question: Since women who are servants to authority (like Phoebe) are found in Scripture, are they also deacons?
This verse is tucked into the middle of 2 verses clearly meant for men:
v. 11 Women must likewise be dignified, not malicious gossips, but temperate, faithful in all things.
That first word is also translated "deaconess" Is a "deaconess" a female deacon? A wife of a deacon? What was Phoebe (also called a "deaconness" in Romans 16)?
16:1 "I commend to you our sister Phoebe, who is a servant of the church which is at Cenchrea; 2that you receive her in the Lord in a manner worthy of the saints, and that you help her in whatever matter she may have need of you; for she herself has also been a helper of many, and of myself as well."
I've already reached the conclusion here that women can't be elders, as that would put them in a position of authority over a man. That conforms with 1 Peter 3, Ephesians 5, etc.
But, what about a deacon? A deacon's role is not to have authority, but to serve.
In too many churches there are deacon committees that pretty much run the church and vote on very important decisions. That's not what they're called to do in Scripture. Seems to me that's the elders' job.
So, if the "deacons" of your church are actually exercising elder authority, then I can easily say "no, a woman's role is not to be a deacon." But, if your deacons are actually like the ones in Scripture and don't have authority and are instead servants to authority, then what keeps a woman servant (like Phoebe) from holding the title of deacon?
Many would point to verses 10 and 12 which clearly say "men." And I'm okay with exercising caution about giving a woman the title of deacon based on these verses. But, in two letters Paul clearly mentions deaconesses, one of which (Phoebe) is clearly serving just like a male deacon.
From this chapter, I'm left with 1 conclusion and 1 question:
Conclusion: Deacons should be servants to authority rather than holders of authority.
Question: Since women who are servants to authority (like Phoebe) are found in Scripture, are they also deacons?
1 Timothy 3:7
On the list of requirements for an "overseer" (Gr. "episkopos"):
7And he must have a good reputation with those outside the church, so that he will not fall into reproach and the snare of the devil.
Similarly, on the deacon requirements: 8 Deacons likewise must be men of dignity.
What does "good reputation" and "dignity" mean? I think we automatically think of this proverb: "You can know a man by the company he keeps."
But, that's not really Scriptural. We could instantly come up with a dozen ways to check a deacon/elder candidates' "reputation."
But, Jesus didn't exactly have a "good reputation," nor was he "dignified." He broke the Law on numerous occasions. He dined with sinners. Among his followers were former demoniacs, tax collectors, lepers, etc. The "dignified" people of "good reputation" rejected and hated him.
So, what does "good reputation" mean, particularly for us?
I think the answer is found in 1 Peter 2:22-23: "'(Jesus) committed no sin, nor was any deceit found in his mouth.' and while being reviled, He did not revile in return; while suffering, He uttered no threats, but kept entrusting Himself to Him who judges righteously;"
Therefore, I think we should judge reputation by sin, or lack thereof. Rather than using worldly characteristics: the company one keeps, charisma, leadership qualities, intelligence, business successes/failures... we should simply say "is any sin or deceit found in him?"
7And he must have a good reputation with those outside the church, so that he will not fall into reproach and the snare of the devil.
Similarly, on the deacon requirements: 8 Deacons likewise must be men of dignity.
What does "good reputation" and "dignity" mean? I think we automatically think of this proverb: "You can know a man by the company he keeps."
But, that's not really Scriptural. We could instantly come up with a dozen ways to check a deacon/elder candidates' "reputation."
But, Jesus didn't exactly have a "good reputation," nor was he "dignified." He broke the Law on numerous occasions. He dined with sinners. Among his followers were former demoniacs, tax collectors, lepers, etc. The "dignified" people of "good reputation" rejected and hated him.
So, what does "good reputation" mean, particularly for us?
I think the answer is found in 1 Peter 2:22-23: "'(Jesus) committed no sin, nor was any deceit found in his mouth.' and while being reviled, He did not revile in return; while suffering, He uttered no threats, but kept entrusting Himself to Him who judges righteously;"
Therefore, I think we should judge reputation by sin, or lack thereof. Rather than using worldly characteristics: the company one keeps, charisma, leadership qualities, intelligence, business successes/failures... we should simply say "is any sin or deceit found in him?"
1 Timothy 3:1
1-2 "It is a trustworthy statement: if any man aspires to the office of overseer, it is a fine work he desires to do. An overseer, then, must be..."
I notice how Paul doesn't say "If any man feels called or is led to the office..." Why is this so often over-spiritualized in our churches? You have to "feel called" or you can't enter the club. A 15-year old comes forward and "feels called" to "the ministry."
I acknowledge that God has a plan for each of His children, and we ought to say "If God wills..." (James 4:13-17). But, when you talk to pastors about entering the ministry they so often ask "Tell me about when you were called."
Paul doesn't say anything about that. He just says "if any man aspires to" and then gives a list of requirements. If a man doesn't meet those requirements, he can't be an overseer. There's no supernatural "I felt called..." requirement.
It's no different than saying "If any man aspires to be an accountant...then, (he) must be..."
I notice how Paul doesn't say "If any man feels called or is led to the office..." Why is this so often over-spiritualized in our churches? You have to "feel called" or you can't enter the club. A 15-year old comes forward and "feels called" to "the ministry."
I acknowledge that God has a plan for each of His children, and we ought to say "If God wills..." (James 4:13-17). But, when you talk to pastors about entering the ministry they so often ask "Tell me about when you were called."
Paul doesn't say anything about that. He just says "if any man aspires to" and then gives a list of requirements. If a man doesn't meet those requirements, he can't be an overseer. There's no supernatural "I felt called..." requirement.
It's no different than saying "If any man aspires to be an accountant...then, (he) must be..."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)