"Thinking Eternally, Acting Locally." - Neal August
I came across this very recent resignation letter. I must admit that I highly admired this pastor's convictions and character. Let us continue to pray for our brothers and sisters in the Episcopal Church.
Letter From the Rector
To The Members of XXXXXXX
From: Fr. XXXXX
As you may know by now, I resigned as Rector of XXXXXXX this past Sunday morning. Over the past two years it has become increasingly difficult for my family and me to remain a part of the Episcopal Church. After two years of prayerful struggling as well as thousands of conversations with fellow priests and bishops, I have come to realize that the roots of heresy are so deep in the Episcopal Church (in seminaries, among priests and bishops) that there really is no possibility of changing the fabric of this Church. I have arrived at a place where I do not feel comfortable using Episcopal literature, sending youth and college students to Episcopal conferences (even in the Diocese of XXXXXX), or affirming my vows as a priest (to the “Doctrine, Discipline, and Worship of the Episcopal Church”). When, last Spring, I had a lengthy conversation in my office with a young man who is just beginning to believe in Christ, I felt sick that I was leading him to new faith in a church that has turned its back on the very foundations of faith. I cannot do that ever again!
No truly orthodox rector or bishop I know has any hope for the future of the Episcopal Church. One priest suggested to me that even though he saw no chance of change in my lifetime, or my children’s, that if I would stand steadfast, and teach my children to do the same, that MAYBE my grandchildren would benefit from a healthy Episcopal Church. This would mean that for the remaining twenty years of my ministry I would have to fight this negative battle and hope that my children would be willing to give their lives to do the same, in the feeble hope that some fragment of orthodoxy might survive. I would much rather pour my life and ministry into building a strong Anglicanism in America based on the solid Gospel of Jesus Christ. From my perspective, the Episcopal Church is a Church that has lost its moorings and has left the fleet (the larger Anglican Communion), cut free from its anchor (Christ), and is being tossed about by all the whims of modern-day secularism. I am not called to stay in that boat. I will instead remain solidly anchored to Christ with the larger fleet of Anglicanism.
I do want you to know how very thankful I am for the ten years of ministry I have enjoyed as rector of XXXXXX. Together, by God’s grace, we have done many wonderful things to shape hearts and minds for Jesus Christ, and I will treasure the memories of my time in this parish. However, for me faithfulness requires a willingness to let go of buildings, and money, and even relationships for the sake of the truth of Scripture and the person of Jesus. Several people have been to see me to suggest that I wage a legal battle for the property of XXXXX. I have made clear many times over that I would never do this, not because such a battle could not be won legally, but because to enter such a battle is not only unscriptural, but would leave us all losers spiritually.It is my heart’s desire to leave XXXXXXX respectfully, lovingly, peacefully.
I want to thank the many vestry members who, over the last ten years, have worked to make XXXXX strong, creating many assets that did not exist ten years ago: 1) a completely renovated church building 2) a new pipe organ 3) a renovated parish hall 4) a bookstore 5) a café 6) a college ministry 7) the XXXXX House property 8) XXXXXX Foundation. I especially want to extend my appreciation to the current wardens, XXXXX and XXXXX; to the Chair of the Finance Committee, XXXXXX; the Treasurer, XXXXXX; and, our Chancellor, XXXXXX, who have all worked very hard to make certain XXXXXX has a sound future. Normally this time of year we are thousands of dollars in the red (as a result of low summer contributions), but this year we find ourselves solidly in the black, and with a new organ which has been paid in full without the need to borrow additional funds. While we do still have a $450,000 line of credit to pay down, I inherited ten years ago more than $200,000 in debt from the previous building program (a much smaller program) which we paid down in a very short period. XXXXXX has many assets and can certainly build a strong future should it so choose.
I cannot neglect telling you how greatly disillusioned I have been by the actions of the present Bishop of XXXXXX and by some of the members of our parish who call themselves “Parishioners For Hopeful Reconciliation.” While the actions of some of these people have been deeply distressing to me, my family, and the staff of XXXXXX, ultimately I do not make the choice I make because of those actions. The real rift in our Church, while brought to the fore by sexuality, exists because we have allowed this church for forty years to move away from Scripture as the foundation for our life together.
I realize that I said at our Annual Parish Meeting I would wait until after General Convention in June to take this step. However, I choose to take it now for the following reasons: 1) Neither I nor my family can walk through another year of the emotional upheaval and turmoil we have withstood for the last two. I find myself becoming a cynical and resentful priest, something I would never want to be. 2) I think we all realize clearly that General Convention cannot and will not change the ultimate direction of this Church (especially after the Nottingham report offered by ECUSA to the Anglican Communion this past summer. XXXXXXX reviewed the report for us in the last Proclamation, pointing out that the Episcopal Church has made a very strident commitment to move ahead with what ECUSA sees as a prophetic call, leading the Church to a “new truth”).3) Knowing in my heart that I would be leaving at least by June, I could not in good conscience go through a stewardship process this fall calling on you to give sacrificially for 2006 when I myself am not committed to 2006. 4) Orthodox people at XXXXXX have begun to leave, and others to tell me they are on the verge of leaving.I could not sit around and watch solidly orthodox people continue to leave with no strong Anglican place to go. Numerous members of the parish have come to me asking me to consider this move, and I do so as much for their sake as for my own convictions.
I have, therefore, resigned as Rector of XXXXXX and have placed myself under the authority of an Archbishop in the Anglican Communion, thereby remaining true to the larger witness and tradition of Anglicanism. Beginning this Sunday, October 9 at 10:00 a.m., I will establish XXXXXX Anglican Church. A group of people have purchased the old Church of Christ building immediately adjacent to XXXXXX restaurant on XXXXXXX and have made it available to me freely, for 3-5 years, as a transition space while we grow a congregation, buy property, and build other buildings. Fr. XXXXX and Fr. XXXXX have chosen to come with me, sacrificing their own security for what they too believe to be the call of Christ.
I leave you deeply saddened for the Episcopal Church, but filled with excitement and hope for the future of a strongly orthodox Anglicanism in America. I leave, not with words of condemnation on my lips for XXXXXX, but with genuine thanksgiving for what we have shared, and with prayers as you walk the direction you believe you must go, and I walk the direction I believe I must go. XXXXXX has been a vital parish in the downtown community for 175 years, and will weather this storm as it has many before. My family and I will miss doing ministry in the life of this parish and will always wish for you only the best.
May the peace of God be with you.
Tuesday, December 20, 2005
The Satan and Ezekiel 28: Reasons Why These Two Are Not Connected
For various reasons there has been a tendency among conservative Christians to suppose that the prophetic passage of Ezekiel 28 is a referring to the Satan. This supposed reference takes two forms: 1) this passage is about the Satan and nothing else, or 2) this passage is about the King of Tyre who is being compared to the Satan.
While the second form is somewhat common among more conservative scholarship, the first form is scarce among conservative scholarship but is frequently and persistently dominate among non-scholarly conservatives. (Perhaps this is one example of the unacknowledged but increasingly widening chasm that exists between conservative scholars and conservative “laity”.)
Therefore, I would like to give some accessible reasons why Ezekiel 28 does not refer to the Satan in either form. (Interestingly enough, during the initial stages of the Conservative Resurgence, an Old Testament seminary professor resigned his teaching post following an out-cry from a Sunday School lesson he wrote on the book of Job in which he referred to Satan with the definite article “the” as is written in the Hebrew: “the Satan”.)
I. The passage doesn’t refer to the Satan but to the King of Tyre.
A. The introduction of the passage states that Yahweh wants Ezekiel to write about the ruler of Tyre.
Ezekiel 28:1-2a: “The word of the LORD came again unto me, saying, Son of man, say unto the prince of Tyrus, Thus saith the Lord GOD;”
B. The passage states that the one addressed is a man and not a god.
Ezekiel 28:2b: “Because thine heart [is] lifted up, and thou hast said, I [am] a God, I sit [in] the seat of God, in the midst of the seas; yet thou [art] a man, and not God,” (see also 28:9)
In the ancient Israelite religion, Yawheh (the Lord) is referred to as an el or an elohiym, both of which generically mean a ‘god’. Both true and false gods are referred to as el and elohiym. Angels, at times, are also referred to as el and elohiym or at least as sons of el and elohiym. In Genesis 32:24-32, Jacob wrestles with an elohiym, possibly some form of localized demon or water spirit, and overcomes him. In Job 1:6 and 2:1, the Satan is numbered among the “sons of God” (ben elohiym).
However, in Ezekiel 28:2b, the passage is directed toward one who is explicitly a man (adam) and explicitly not a god. (elohiym). (Not even the noun iysh, which can refer to a male individual or any individual person or self, is used to refer to this person, a word that can be used to describe an elohiym, see Genesis 32:34).
The point that is being made is that the King of Tyre is a man and not a god or god-like being.
C. The passage states that the one addressed has accumulated riches.
Ezekiel 28:4-5: “With thy wisdom and with thine understanding thou hast gotten thee riches, and hast gotten gold and silver into thy treasures: By thy great wisdom [and] by thy traffick hast thou increased thy riches, and thine heart is lifted up because of thy riches:”
What has the Satan to do with riches?
D. The passage states that the one addressed deals in trade and the exchange of goods and services.
Ezekiel 28:5, 16, 18: “By thy great wisdom [and] by thy traffick hast thou increased thy riches, and thine heart is lifted up because of thy riches: … By the multitude of thy merchandise they have filled the midst of thee with violence, and thou hast sinned: … Thou hast defiled thy sanctuaries by the multitude of thine iniquities, by the iniquity of thy traffick;”
The kingdom of Tyre was located north of Israel in modern Lebanon on the Mediterranean Sea. It was particularly known for its extended commerce and was one of the most prominent trade cities in all of the ancient world (like a modern day New Orleans, San Francisco, New York City, etc.).
The passage is referring to this commercial wealth and the pride that has resulted from it.
The Satan is a spiritual being and has no need of economic riches and the benefits which come from such wealth.
II. The context of the passage confirms the “earthly” interpretation.
By this phrase, “the ‘earthly’ interpretation”, I mean that non-spiritual beings and situations are referred to (save for Yahweh Himself).
Ezekiel 25 is a passage directed toward Israel’s perennial enemies: the Ammonites, the Moabites, and the Edomites.
Ezekiel 26 is a passage directed toward Tyre and Nebuchadnezzar’s besiegement of the city from 586-573 BC.
Ezekiel 27 is a passage directed toward Tyre and the city-states which did business with it (see point I.D above)
Ezekiel 28:20-23 is a passage directed toward Sidon.
Ezekiel 29:1-16 is a passage directed toward Egypt.
The purpose of these passages is to let the people of Israel know that Yahweh is going to punish those nations neighboring Israel that have treated His chosen people with contempt. This is stated in Ezekiel 28:24:
“And there shall be no more a pricking brier unto the house of Israel, nor [any] grieving thorn of all [that are] round about them, that despised them; and they shall know that I [am] the Lord GOD.”
A reference to the Satan would be out of context in this passage.
III. The passage is exilic while knowledge of the Satan in post-exilic.
One prominent reason why this passage cannot refer to the Satan (other than the exegetical reasons) is that knowledge of the Satan by the Israelites was not revealed to them by Yahweh until the post-Exilic era.
Mention of the Satan appears in books such Chronicles, Job and Zechariah, all well within the post-Exilic era. The Pre-Exilic and Exilic eras are devoid of such references. If Ezekiel was referring to the Satan (let alone in a cryptically symbolic fashion) his audience would have been ignorant of the reference.
IV. The New Testament does not refer to this passage as being a reference to the Satan.
This is another important point: the New Testament authors do not reference Ezekiel 28 as referring to the Satan either by direct reference or even by analogy.
In fact, the first real association of the Satan with Ezekiel 28 came in 1667 with the publication of John Milton’s Paradise Lost. Unfortunately, most of our conservative evangelical understanding about the Satan comes directly from this epic poem and not from Scripture.
V. The evidence provided by people who believe this passage refers to the Satan does not stand up to close scrutiny.
Despite such literal textual evidence as “take up a lamentation upon the king of Tyrus,” (28:12) and “By the multitude of thy merchandise they have filled the midst of thee with violence,” (28:16), many conservative Christians take this passage as referring to the Satan.
Here are the 6 aspects of the passage that many take to be as referring to the Satan:
A. “thou hast been in Eden the garden of God” (28:13)
B. “Thou [art] the anointed cherub that covereth;” (28:14)
1. Before we begin discussing these two points we need to make two prior points:
a. I think that points A and B need to be discusses together because they were intended by Ezekiel as such.
b. It needs to be stated that one of the primary methods of prophetic teaching was to make analogies. There are numerous examples of this. Israel is a vineyard. Israel is an adulterous woman. Etc. Etc. Etc. Ezekiel himself was one of the masters of this genre and explored every avenue of this form of prophetic symbolism. Ezekiel would “act out” many of the prophecies that the Lord gave him. Ezekiel was a performance-prophet. Jeremiah was similar in this regard. In Ezekiel 19:1-9, the prophet is states that Israel’s mother was a lioness. In 19:10-14, Ezekiel states that Israel’s mother is a vine.
Is this a contradiction? Was Israel’s mother a lioness or a vine? Which is it? Now Israel’s name used to be Jacob and his mother was Rebekah, but I cannot find any passage that states that Isaac married a lion or a vine. But shouldn’t we take this passage literally?
No, to take this idea literally only does damage to the prophetic meaning. Ezekiel is saying this about Israel to make a point by analogy.
So when we look at points A and B we need to take the potential analogous and symbolic nature of the prophecy under due consideration.
2. Ezekiel says of the ruler of Tyre that “thou hast been in Eden the garden of God” and “thou [art] the anointed cherub that covereth”, making some people believe that this refers to the serpent in Eden which they believe to be the Satan, therefore the
a. I will not go into the issue of the fact that the Genesis story does not refer to the Satan.
b. The Ezekiel 28 passage does not refer to the serpent or anything suggesting that anything serpentine is in thought. The King of Tyre is not referred to as “the serpent in Eden” but as “the cherub in Eden”. A cherub is an angelic being.
c. The cherub mentioned in the garden of Eden story are two cherubim at the east of Eden that keep Adam and Eve from the tree of life (or, in my understanding of the story, keeping man from access to life with God). If Ezekiel is referring to the Eden story and to cherubs then he is probably referring to the cherubim that God placed at the east of Eden and not the clever serpent.
d. Cherubim are mentioned as decoration on the Ark of the Covenant (Exodus 25). In Exodus 25:20, it is written, “And the cherubim shall stretch forth [their] wings on high, covering the mercy seat with their wings.” In Ezekiel 28:14, the ruler of Tyre is the “the anointed cherub that covereth.”
The importance of the mercy seat was that God said, “there I will meet with thee, and I will commune with thee from above the mercy seat, from between the two cherubim which [are] upon the ark of the testimony, of all [things] which I will give thee in commandment unto the children of Israel.” In short, this was where God’s people came to meet with God.
In 1 Kings 6, the Temple built by Solomon is adorned with two cherubim like that of the ark. It is between these two cherubim in the temple (as on the ark) that God’s people come to meet with God.
Yahweh became known as “He that sitteth between the cherubim” (Psalms 80:1; 99:1; Isaiah 37:16)
In Ezekiel 10 we see more uses of cherubim as Yahweh’s “entourage”. In Ezekiel 41 we see cherubim in the description of the God’s new “cosmic” temple.
Throughout the Gospels we see Jesus refer to Himself as The Temple (John 2:19, Matthew 26:61; Mark 14:58). In Acts 7, we see Stephen teaching that the Temple is not in itself necessary for a relationship with God. In the letters of Paul (particularly in 1 Corinthians 3:16, 17) that believers are the temple of God because we are apart of Christ’s body which is The Temple (Ephesians 2:21).
In Revelation 21, John states that in the new heavens and new earth that the tabernacle dwells among men (v. 3, but also see John 1:14 in the original Greek). Furthermore, John writes that there is no temple because Christ is the temple (v. 22). In Revelation 22, John has constructed his description of the new heavens and new earth as to resemble Eden with a tree of life (v. 2), symbolizing man’s access to eternal life, i.e., access to God without the guardian cherubim.
All of this is to say that Ezekiel is referring to the privileged cherubim and not the sly serpent. Ezekiel is making an analogy, comparing mighty and wealthy Tyre (represented by its ruler) as being at one time in a prominent and beautiful position.
C. thou wast upon the holy mountain of God; thou hast walked up and down in the midst of the stones of fire. (28:14)
In relation to the previous point, this verse continues the analogy that the ruler of Tyre was like a cherub who had access to the “holy mountain of God”.
D. “Thou [wast] perfect in thy ways from the day that thou wast created,” (28:15)
Some point to this verse as suggesting that the Satan must be the one referred to because only an “angelic” being could be called “perfect” by God.
The word that is here translated as “perfect” is tamiym. It can mean “complete”, “whole”, “entire”, “sound”, “without blemish”, or “perfect”. It can refer to a “whole month” or “full year” or to an “unblemished lamb”.
A synonym of tamiym is kaliyl which means “entire”, “all”, or “perfect”. Ezekiel uses this word in Ezekiel 28:12 when he says that the ruler of Tyre considers himself to be “perfect in beauty.”
He uses this same word when referring to Tyre in Ezekiel 27:3:
“And say unto Tyrus, O thou that art situate at the entry of the sea, [which art] a merchant of the people for many isles, Thus saith the Lord GOD; O Tyrus, thou hast said, I [am] of perfect beauty.”
In Ezekiel 16, the prophet has stated that Jerusalem is a harlot committing adultery with pagan gods, saying in verse 14:
“And thy renown went forth among the heathen for thy beauty: for it [was] perfect through my comeliness, which I had put upon thee, saith the Lord GOD.”
These uses suggest three options:
1. Ezekiel does not mean “perfect” as in “without fault” but “perfect” as in “whole” or “complete”.
2. Ezekiel means “perfect” in a general way for literary convenience and not as an absolute description of reality. An example of this would be the description of the figure of Job in Job 1:1; 1:8; 2:3; 8:20; 9:20, 21. He is referred to as tawm, which is variously translated as “blameless”, “perfect”, “whole” and as yashar, which is variously translated as “upright”, “correct” and “righteous”.
Now despite all the good that Job has done and does, he is not completely “blameless” or “perfect” for then he would be God. And the author of Job was not intending to suggest that Job never committed a sin but that he was, in general, “very good” by the standards of man. And the audience is not fooled into thinking that the author is suggesting “perfection” on the part of Job. We the audience understand the point the author is making and take it as we should.
3. This use of “perfect” is an exaggerated point being made by Ezekiel to emphasize the tragedy of the fall that occurred. (See also Lamentations 2:15)
Regardless of these options, it is apparent that the Satan is not referred to in this verse.
E. “cast thee as profane out of the mountain of God” (28:16)
This verse suggests the Satan to many people because it suggests that the one being addressed has been poetically “cast out of heaven” like Satan was cast out of heaven. The thinking is that the Satan was a perfect, angelic cherub who was cast out of heaven by God before the creation of man and this verse in Ezekiel is referencing that incident.
They cite Luke 10:19 when Jesus says: “And he said unto them, I beheld Satan as lightning fall from heaven.” The problem with citing this verse in connection with Ezekiel 28:16 is that Jesus had just seen Satan falling from heaven at that moment when “the seventy returned again with joy, saying, ‘Lord, even the devils are subject unto us through thy name’” (10:18). This “fall of Satan” was not Jesus reminiscing but Jesus telling the seventy what He had just seen as a result of the seventy’s work through Him.
Another evidential citation is Revelation 12:7-9: “And there was war in heaven: Michael and his angels fought against the dragon; and the dragon fought and his angels, And prevailed not; neither was their place found any more in heaven. And the great dragon was cast out, that old serpent, called the Devil, and Satan, which deceiveth the whole world: he was cast out into the earth, and his angels were cast out with him.”
The difficulty with citing this verse as evidence is that it refers to an incident that occurs during the events of John’s Revelation:
“And I heard a loud voice saying in heaven, Now is come salvation, and strength, and the kingdom of our God, and the power of his Christ: for the accuser of our brethren is cast down, which accused them before our God day and night.” (Revelation 12:10)
Satan is cast down after having been the accuser of Christian believers, a practice that the Satan does in both Job and Zechariah. This verse in Revelation does not refer to the Satan’s “original fall.”
In truth we do not know of an explicit Satanic fall from Scripture except from the logic of Genesis 1 that all that God created was good. If God created the Satan (which is the necessary Judeo-Christian assumption) then God created the Satan as originally “good” but that the Satan rebelled against God in a way similar to that which man rebels (Genesis 3). This is a logical conclusion for those who hold to the belief that the Satan is a person and not simply a personified force. But other than this logical conclusion, we are not given any Scriptural account of this incident and none of the passages cited here proves otherwise.
One significant piece of this exegetical puzzle is what Ezekiel means when he writes “the mountain of God.” Most people who hold to an interpretation that sees this passage as a reference to the Satan interpret “mountain of God” as a symbolic reference to “heaven”.
In Exodus 3:1, the “mountain of God” refers to the place where Moses met Yahweh at the burning bush and where Moses was later to regularly receive the commandments from Him. It is a general poetic expression suggesting the place where Yahweh comes to meet with His people. It is where the people go to be in the presence of God. This is the idea expressed in Isaiah 2:3; 30:29; Micah 4:2; Zechariah 8:3 for the “mountain of the Lord”.
And this idea fits into the context of the idea that cherubim are at a privileged place in the presence of God. Cherubim stand at the entrance to the garden of Eden which is where man had access to God’s presence. The cherubim stand at either side of the mercy seat where God presides. The cherubim stand aside the throne of God in heaven (Ezekiel 10).
The idea present here then is that the ruler of Tyre had a privileged position analogous with that of a cherubim in relation with God. But the ruler of Tyre is like a cherub who took that privileged place as reflecting himself and not reflecting God’s blessings and, therefore, because he was so proud, he has been cast down from his privileged position and away from the place where God comes to meet with His people.
There is no evidence that the Satan is being referenced in this verse.
F. “Thine heart was lifted up because of thy beauty, thou hast corrupted thy wisdom by reason of thy brightness:” (28:17)
This final point of evidence provided by people who believe Ezekiel 28 is referring to the Satan is this last word yiph`ah which is translated as “brightness”. It is believed that this refers to the Satan’s former name “Lucifer,” therefore, this passage is referring to him.
Here are the problems with this point:
A. This word yiph`ah only appears here and in Ezekiel 28:7. We’ve already referred to this aspect of this passage.
“Behold, therefore I will bring strangers upon thee, the terrible of the nations: and they shall draw their swords against the beauty of thy wisdom, and they shall defile thy brightness.”
Again, this verse refers to the King of Tyre with references to swords and nations attacking.
Where do we get this idea that associates the Satan with light? Most of the Scriptures associate the Satan with darkness.
In 2 Corinthians 11:14 we read this: “And no marvel; for Satan himself is transformed into an angel of light.”
But this verse does not say that the Satan was transformed from brightness to darkness. Rather, it states that the Satan transforms himself into an angel of light in order to deceive.
“Lucifer” is a Latin word made up of two words, lux (light; genitive lucis) and ferre (to bear, to bring), meaning "light-bearer". Lucifer appeared in Greek mythology as heosphoros, the "Dawn-bringer" and was used by poets to represent the Morning Star at moments when "Venus" would intrude distracting imagery of the goddess.
"Lucifer" is Jerome's direct translation in his Vulgate (4th century) of the Septuagint's Greek translation, as heosphoros, "morning star" or "Day Star," literally "bringer of the Dawn", of a phrase in from Isaiah 14:12, where the Hebrew text refers to heilel ben-shachar.
“How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning! [how] art thou cut down to the ground, which didst weaken the nations!”
But Isaiah is explicitly stating that he is writing about the king of Babylon (14:4). Heilel signifies the planet Venus, and ben-shachar means "the brilliant one, son of the morning", to whose mythical fate that of the king of Babylon is compared in the prophetic vision.
Again, a passage depicting an evil king and people as mighty and prideful brought down from their exhausted post (see Daniel 4) is interpreted by some to be a figurative reference to that of the Satan.
In all these cases, the dubious interpretation is sustained more on the basis of tradition than on the Scriptural merits.
VI. In conclusion, I believe that there is no real evidence to suggest that Ezekiel 28 is referencing the Satan. To take this passage as such would be to symbolize and allegorize it all out of its authorial intent with no Scriptural evidence supporting such an interpretation.
A common complaint among “conservatives” is that “liberals” do not take the Bible “literally”. The irony is that “liberals” take the Ezekiel 28 passage literally while “conservatives” complain that this passage must be taken “non-literally”.
One of the problems that I see with some modern conservative hermeneutics when it comes to such a passage as this, circular hermeneutics is being applied. One begins with the presumption that Satan was a cherub, Satan was wise, Satan was in Eden, Satan was “bright”, and Satan was cast down from God’s sight. Then one reads Ezekiel 28 and believes that this passage is referring to the Satan. The question then is asked of them: “How do you know that Satan was X, Y, Z?” The person cannot find where the Scriptures teach these views other than this passage which does not mention the Satan. “Satan is X, Y, Z and Ezekiel 28 mentions X, Y, Z, therefore Ezekiel 28 is referring to Satan.” “How do you know that Satan is X, Y, Z?” “Because Ezekiel 28 says so.” In short, there is no foundation for this interpretation.
While the second form is somewhat common among more conservative scholarship, the first form is scarce among conservative scholarship but is frequently and persistently dominate among non-scholarly conservatives. (Perhaps this is one example of the unacknowledged but increasingly widening chasm that exists between conservative scholars and conservative “laity”.)
Therefore, I would like to give some accessible reasons why Ezekiel 28 does not refer to the Satan in either form. (Interestingly enough, during the initial stages of the Conservative Resurgence, an Old Testament seminary professor resigned his teaching post following an out-cry from a Sunday School lesson he wrote on the book of Job in which he referred to Satan with the definite article “the” as is written in the Hebrew: “the Satan”.)
I. The passage doesn’t refer to the Satan but to the King of Tyre.
A. The introduction of the passage states that Yahweh wants Ezekiel to write about the ruler of Tyre.
Ezekiel 28:1-2a: “The word of the LORD came again unto me, saying, Son of man, say unto the prince of Tyrus, Thus saith the Lord GOD;”
B. The passage states that the one addressed is a man and not a god.
Ezekiel 28:2b: “Because thine heart [is] lifted up, and thou hast said, I [am] a God, I sit [in] the seat of God, in the midst of the seas; yet thou [art] a man, and not God,” (see also 28:9)
In the ancient Israelite religion, Yawheh (the Lord) is referred to as an el or an elohiym, both of which generically mean a ‘god’. Both true and false gods are referred to as el and elohiym. Angels, at times, are also referred to as el and elohiym or at least as sons of el and elohiym. In Genesis 32:24-32, Jacob wrestles with an elohiym, possibly some form of localized demon or water spirit, and overcomes him. In Job 1:6 and 2:1, the Satan is numbered among the “sons of God” (ben elohiym).
However, in Ezekiel 28:2b, the passage is directed toward one who is explicitly a man (adam) and explicitly not a god. (elohiym). (Not even the noun iysh, which can refer to a male individual or any individual person or self, is used to refer to this person, a word that can be used to describe an elohiym, see Genesis 32:34).
The point that is being made is that the King of Tyre is a man and not a god or god-like being.
C. The passage states that the one addressed has accumulated riches.
Ezekiel 28:4-5: “With thy wisdom and with thine understanding thou hast gotten thee riches, and hast gotten gold and silver into thy treasures: By thy great wisdom [and] by thy traffick hast thou increased thy riches, and thine heart is lifted up because of thy riches:”
What has the Satan to do with riches?
D. The passage states that the one addressed deals in trade and the exchange of goods and services.
Ezekiel 28:5, 16, 18: “By thy great wisdom [and] by thy traffick hast thou increased thy riches, and thine heart is lifted up because of thy riches: … By the multitude of thy merchandise they have filled the midst of thee with violence, and thou hast sinned: … Thou hast defiled thy sanctuaries by the multitude of thine iniquities, by the iniquity of thy traffick;”
The kingdom of Tyre was located north of Israel in modern Lebanon on the Mediterranean Sea. It was particularly known for its extended commerce and was one of the most prominent trade cities in all of the ancient world (like a modern day New Orleans, San Francisco, New York City, etc.).
The passage is referring to this commercial wealth and the pride that has resulted from it.
The Satan is a spiritual being and has no need of economic riches and the benefits which come from such wealth.
II. The context of the passage confirms the “earthly” interpretation.
By this phrase, “the ‘earthly’ interpretation”, I mean that non-spiritual beings and situations are referred to (save for Yahweh Himself).
Ezekiel 25 is a passage directed toward Israel’s perennial enemies: the Ammonites, the Moabites, and the Edomites.
Ezekiel 26 is a passage directed toward Tyre and Nebuchadnezzar’s besiegement of the city from 586-573 BC.
Ezekiel 27 is a passage directed toward Tyre and the city-states which did business with it (see point I.D above)
Ezekiel 28:20-23 is a passage directed toward Sidon.
Ezekiel 29:1-16 is a passage directed toward Egypt.
The purpose of these passages is to let the people of Israel know that Yahweh is going to punish those nations neighboring Israel that have treated His chosen people with contempt. This is stated in Ezekiel 28:24:
“And there shall be no more a pricking brier unto the house of Israel, nor [any] grieving thorn of all [that are] round about them, that despised them; and they shall know that I [am] the Lord GOD.”
A reference to the Satan would be out of context in this passage.
III. The passage is exilic while knowledge of the Satan in post-exilic.
One prominent reason why this passage cannot refer to the Satan (other than the exegetical reasons) is that knowledge of the Satan by the Israelites was not revealed to them by Yahweh until the post-Exilic era.
Mention of the Satan appears in books such Chronicles, Job and Zechariah, all well within the post-Exilic era. The Pre-Exilic and Exilic eras are devoid of such references. If Ezekiel was referring to the Satan (let alone in a cryptically symbolic fashion) his audience would have been ignorant of the reference.
IV. The New Testament does not refer to this passage as being a reference to the Satan.
This is another important point: the New Testament authors do not reference Ezekiel 28 as referring to the Satan either by direct reference or even by analogy.
In fact, the first real association of the Satan with Ezekiel 28 came in 1667 with the publication of John Milton’s Paradise Lost. Unfortunately, most of our conservative evangelical understanding about the Satan comes directly from this epic poem and not from Scripture.
V. The evidence provided by people who believe this passage refers to the Satan does not stand up to close scrutiny.
Despite such literal textual evidence as “take up a lamentation upon the king of Tyrus,” (28:12) and “By the multitude of thy merchandise they have filled the midst of thee with violence,” (28:16), many conservative Christians take this passage as referring to the Satan.
Here are the 6 aspects of the passage that many take to be as referring to the Satan:
A. “thou hast been in Eden the garden of God” (28:13)
B. “Thou [art] the anointed cherub that covereth;” (28:14)
1. Before we begin discussing these two points we need to make two prior points:
a. I think that points A and B need to be discusses together because they were intended by Ezekiel as such.
b. It needs to be stated that one of the primary methods of prophetic teaching was to make analogies. There are numerous examples of this. Israel is a vineyard. Israel is an adulterous woman. Etc. Etc. Etc. Ezekiel himself was one of the masters of this genre and explored every avenue of this form of prophetic symbolism. Ezekiel would “act out” many of the prophecies that the Lord gave him. Ezekiel was a performance-prophet. Jeremiah was similar in this regard. In Ezekiel 19:1-9, the prophet is states that Israel’s mother was a lioness. In 19:10-14, Ezekiel states that Israel’s mother is a vine.
Is this a contradiction? Was Israel’s mother a lioness or a vine? Which is it? Now Israel’s name used to be Jacob and his mother was Rebekah, but I cannot find any passage that states that Isaac married a lion or a vine. But shouldn’t we take this passage literally?
No, to take this idea literally only does damage to the prophetic meaning. Ezekiel is saying this about Israel to make a point by analogy.
So when we look at points A and B we need to take the potential analogous and symbolic nature of the prophecy under due consideration.
2. Ezekiel says of the ruler of Tyre that “thou hast been in Eden the garden of God” and “thou [art] the anointed cherub that covereth”, making some people believe that this refers to the serpent in Eden which they believe to be the Satan, therefore the
a. I will not go into the issue of the fact that the Genesis story does not refer to the Satan.
b. The Ezekiel 28 passage does not refer to the serpent or anything suggesting that anything serpentine is in thought. The King of Tyre is not referred to as “the serpent in Eden” but as “the cherub in Eden”. A cherub is an angelic being.
c. The cherub mentioned in the garden of Eden story are two cherubim at the east of Eden that keep Adam and Eve from the tree of life (or, in my understanding of the story, keeping man from access to life with God). If Ezekiel is referring to the Eden story and to cherubs then he is probably referring to the cherubim that God placed at the east of Eden and not the clever serpent.
d. Cherubim are mentioned as decoration on the Ark of the Covenant (Exodus 25). In Exodus 25:20, it is written, “And the cherubim shall stretch forth [their] wings on high, covering the mercy seat with their wings.” In Ezekiel 28:14, the ruler of Tyre is the “the anointed cherub that covereth.”
The importance of the mercy seat was that God said, “there I will meet with thee, and I will commune with thee from above the mercy seat, from between the two cherubim which [are] upon the ark of the testimony, of all [things] which I will give thee in commandment unto the children of Israel.” In short, this was where God’s people came to meet with God.
In 1 Kings 6, the Temple built by Solomon is adorned with two cherubim like that of the ark. It is between these two cherubim in the temple (as on the ark) that God’s people come to meet with God.
Yahweh became known as “He that sitteth between the cherubim” (Psalms 80:1; 99:1; Isaiah 37:16)
In Ezekiel 10 we see more uses of cherubim as Yahweh’s “entourage”. In Ezekiel 41 we see cherubim in the description of the God’s new “cosmic” temple.
Throughout the Gospels we see Jesus refer to Himself as The Temple (John 2:19, Matthew 26:61; Mark 14:58). In Acts 7, we see Stephen teaching that the Temple is not in itself necessary for a relationship with God. In the letters of Paul (particularly in 1 Corinthians 3:16, 17) that believers are the temple of God because we are apart of Christ’s body which is The Temple (Ephesians 2:21).
In Revelation 21, John states that in the new heavens and new earth that the tabernacle dwells among men (v. 3, but also see John 1:14 in the original Greek). Furthermore, John writes that there is no temple because Christ is the temple (v. 22). In Revelation 22, John has constructed his description of the new heavens and new earth as to resemble Eden with a tree of life (v. 2), symbolizing man’s access to eternal life, i.e., access to God without the guardian cherubim.
All of this is to say that Ezekiel is referring to the privileged cherubim and not the sly serpent. Ezekiel is making an analogy, comparing mighty and wealthy Tyre (represented by its ruler) as being at one time in a prominent and beautiful position.
C. thou wast upon the holy mountain of God; thou hast walked up and down in the midst of the stones of fire. (28:14)
In relation to the previous point, this verse continues the analogy that the ruler of Tyre was like a cherub who had access to the “holy mountain of God”.
D. “Thou [wast] perfect in thy ways from the day that thou wast created,” (28:15)
Some point to this verse as suggesting that the Satan must be the one referred to because only an “angelic” being could be called “perfect” by God.
The word that is here translated as “perfect” is tamiym. It can mean “complete”, “whole”, “entire”, “sound”, “without blemish”, or “perfect”. It can refer to a “whole month” or “full year” or to an “unblemished lamb”.
A synonym of tamiym is kaliyl which means “entire”, “all”, or “perfect”. Ezekiel uses this word in Ezekiel 28:12 when he says that the ruler of Tyre considers himself to be “perfect in beauty.”
He uses this same word when referring to Tyre in Ezekiel 27:3:
“And say unto Tyrus, O thou that art situate at the entry of the sea, [which art] a merchant of the people for many isles, Thus saith the Lord GOD; O Tyrus, thou hast said, I [am] of perfect beauty.”
In Ezekiel 16, the prophet has stated that Jerusalem is a harlot committing adultery with pagan gods, saying in verse 14:
“And thy renown went forth among the heathen for thy beauty: for it [was] perfect through my comeliness, which I had put upon thee, saith the Lord GOD.”
These uses suggest three options:
1. Ezekiel does not mean “perfect” as in “without fault” but “perfect” as in “whole” or “complete”.
2. Ezekiel means “perfect” in a general way for literary convenience and not as an absolute description of reality. An example of this would be the description of the figure of Job in Job 1:1; 1:8; 2:3; 8:20; 9:20, 21. He is referred to as tawm, which is variously translated as “blameless”, “perfect”, “whole” and as yashar, which is variously translated as “upright”, “correct” and “righteous”.
Now despite all the good that Job has done and does, he is not completely “blameless” or “perfect” for then he would be God. And the author of Job was not intending to suggest that Job never committed a sin but that he was, in general, “very good” by the standards of man. And the audience is not fooled into thinking that the author is suggesting “perfection” on the part of Job. We the audience understand the point the author is making and take it as we should.
3. This use of “perfect” is an exaggerated point being made by Ezekiel to emphasize the tragedy of the fall that occurred. (See also Lamentations 2:15)
Regardless of these options, it is apparent that the Satan is not referred to in this verse.
E. “cast thee as profane out of the mountain of God” (28:16)
This verse suggests the Satan to many people because it suggests that the one being addressed has been poetically “cast out of heaven” like Satan was cast out of heaven. The thinking is that the Satan was a perfect, angelic cherub who was cast out of heaven by God before the creation of man and this verse in Ezekiel is referencing that incident.
They cite Luke 10:19 when Jesus says: “And he said unto them, I beheld Satan as lightning fall from heaven.” The problem with citing this verse in connection with Ezekiel 28:16 is that Jesus had just seen Satan falling from heaven at that moment when “the seventy returned again with joy, saying, ‘Lord, even the devils are subject unto us through thy name’” (10:18). This “fall of Satan” was not Jesus reminiscing but Jesus telling the seventy what He had just seen as a result of the seventy’s work through Him.
Another evidential citation is Revelation 12:7-9: “And there was war in heaven: Michael and his angels fought against the dragon; and the dragon fought and his angels, And prevailed not; neither was their place found any more in heaven. And the great dragon was cast out, that old serpent, called the Devil, and Satan, which deceiveth the whole world: he was cast out into the earth, and his angels were cast out with him.”
The difficulty with citing this verse as evidence is that it refers to an incident that occurs during the events of John’s Revelation:
“And I heard a loud voice saying in heaven, Now is come salvation, and strength, and the kingdom of our God, and the power of his Christ: for the accuser of our brethren is cast down, which accused them before our God day and night.” (Revelation 12:10)
Satan is cast down after having been the accuser of Christian believers, a practice that the Satan does in both Job and Zechariah. This verse in Revelation does not refer to the Satan’s “original fall.”
In truth we do not know of an explicit Satanic fall from Scripture except from the logic of Genesis 1 that all that God created was good. If God created the Satan (which is the necessary Judeo-Christian assumption) then God created the Satan as originally “good” but that the Satan rebelled against God in a way similar to that which man rebels (Genesis 3). This is a logical conclusion for those who hold to the belief that the Satan is a person and not simply a personified force. But other than this logical conclusion, we are not given any Scriptural account of this incident and none of the passages cited here proves otherwise.
One significant piece of this exegetical puzzle is what Ezekiel means when he writes “the mountain of God.” Most people who hold to an interpretation that sees this passage as a reference to the Satan interpret “mountain of God” as a symbolic reference to “heaven”.
In Exodus 3:1, the “mountain of God” refers to the place where Moses met Yahweh at the burning bush and where Moses was later to regularly receive the commandments from Him. It is a general poetic expression suggesting the place where Yahweh comes to meet with His people. It is where the people go to be in the presence of God. This is the idea expressed in Isaiah 2:3; 30:29; Micah 4:2; Zechariah 8:3 for the “mountain of the Lord”.
And this idea fits into the context of the idea that cherubim are at a privileged place in the presence of God. Cherubim stand at the entrance to the garden of Eden which is where man had access to God’s presence. The cherubim stand at either side of the mercy seat where God presides. The cherubim stand aside the throne of God in heaven (Ezekiel 10).
The idea present here then is that the ruler of Tyre had a privileged position analogous with that of a cherubim in relation with God. But the ruler of Tyre is like a cherub who took that privileged place as reflecting himself and not reflecting God’s blessings and, therefore, because he was so proud, he has been cast down from his privileged position and away from the place where God comes to meet with His people.
There is no evidence that the Satan is being referenced in this verse.
F. “Thine heart was lifted up because of thy beauty, thou hast corrupted thy wisdom by reason of thy brightness:” (28:17)
This final point of evidence provided by people who believe Ezekiel 28 is referring to the Satan is this last word yiph`ah which is translated as “brightness”. It is believed that this refers to the Satan’s former name “Lucifer,” therefore, this passage is referring to him.
Here are the problems with this point:
A. This word yiph`ah only appears here and in Ezekiel 28:7. We’ve already referred to this aspect of this passage.
“Behold, therefore I will bring strangers upon thee, the terrible of the nations: and they shall draw their swords against the beauty of thy wisdom, and they shall defile thy brightness.”
Again, this verse refers to the King of Tyre with references to swords and nations attacking.
Where do we get this idea that associates the Satan with light? Most of the Scriptures associate the Satan with darkness.
In 2 Corinthians 11:14 we read this: “And no marvel; for Satan himself is transformed into an angel of light.”
But this verse does not say that the Satan was transformed from brightness to darkness. Rather, it states that the Satan transforms himself into an angel of light in order to deceive.
“Lucifer” is a Latin word made up of two words, lux (light; genitive lucis) and ferre (to bear, to bring), meaning "light-bearer". Lucifer appeared in Greek mythology as heosphoros, the "Dawn-bringer" and was used by poets to represent the Morning Star at moments when "Venus" would intrude distracting imagery of the goddess.
"Lucifer" is Jerome's direct translation in his Vulgate (4th century) of the Septuagint's Greek translation, as heosphoros, "morning star" or "Day Star," literally "bringer of the Dawn", of a phrase in from Isaiah 14:12, where the Hebrew text refers to heilel ben-shachar.
“How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning! [how] art thou cut down to the ground, which didst weaken the nations!”
But Isaiah is explicitly stating that he is writing about the king of Babylon (14:4). Heilel signifies the planet Venus, and ben-shachar means "the brilliant one, son of the morning", to whose mythical fate that of the king of Babylon is compared in the prophetic vision.
Again, a passage depicting an evil king and people as mighty and prideful brought down from their exhausted post (see Daniel 4) is interpreted by some to be a figurative reference to that of the Satan.
In all these cases, the dubious interpretation is sustained more on the basis of tradition than on the Scriptural merits.
VI. In conclusion, I believe that there is no real evidence to suggest that Ezekiel 28 is referencing the Satan. To take this passage as such would be to symbolize and allegorize it all out of its authorial intent with no Scriptural evidence supporting such an interpretation.
A common complaint among “conservatives” is that “liberals” do not take the Bible “literally”. The irony is that “liberals” take the Ezekiel 28 passage literally while “conservatives” complain that this passage must be taken “non-literally”.
One of the problems that I see with some modern conservative hermeneutics when it comes to such a passage as this, circular hermeneutics is being applied. One begins with the presumption that Satan was a cherub, Satan was wise, Satan was in Eden, Satan was “bright”, and Satan was cast down from God’s sight. Then one reads Ezekiel 28 and believes that this passage is referring to the Satan. The question then is asked of them: “How do you know that Satan was X, Y, Z?” The person cannot find where the Scriptures teach these views other than this passage which does not mention the Satan. “Satan is X, Y, Z and Ezekiel 28 mentions X, Y, Z, therefore Ezekiel 28 is referring to Satan.” “How do you know that Satan is X, Y, Z?” “Because Ezekiel 28 says so.” In short, there is no foundation for this interpretation.
Friday, December 16, 2005
Hell, What Is It Not Like?: A Reply To A Friend
A friend recently commented upon my essay about Annihilationism, entitled, The Abandonment of Hell. He asked that I review a particular sermon by David Wilkerson entitled Hell, What Is It Like? available on audio here.
My friend stated that he would like to hear my response after listening to it.
While I was somewhat familiar with the name David Wilkerson, I was not at first sure from where.
The basic thrust of this sermon is not to prove that “hell” exists but to describe what “hell” is like.
I. The first difficulty with Wilkerson’s sermon is that he states the well-known fallacy that Jesus preached on “hell” more than He preached on “heaven”. I first heard this statement when I was 9 being made by my childhood pastor. My first response to that statement was one of suspicion. Therefore, I went through the Gospels to see for myself. I am not really sure where preachers get this particular statement from, but it is without merit.
Jesus only refers to what our Bibles translate as “hell” about 21 times. But within this translation, “hell”, there are two distinct ideas. What we consider “hell” is what Christ referred to as Gehenna. (Mark 9:43-48, 2 Chronicles 28:3, 2 Chronicles 33:6)
Gehenna is the garbage dump outside Jerusalem that continued to burn. Gehenna is referred to in the Old Testament as the valley of Hinnom where detestable acts of sin were committed. This is why the Jews eventually turned it into a dump to burn garbage.
No one doubts that this is the case. Even modern conservative evangelical scholars who do not believe in annihilationism believe that Jesus is using Gehenna as a metaphor for hell, albeit as “eternal conscious torment.” Jesus refers to Gehenna about 11 times.
But our modern Bibles also translate hades as “hell”. Hell (hades) refers to the grave where the dead reside until the resurrection and hell (geena) which is the place of final punishment for the unredeemed. Hades is the Greek translation of the Jewish afterlife of Sheol. Throughout the Old Testament, Sheol is the place where the dead lie asleep until the resurrection. It is not synonymous with Gehenna/the Lake of fire. Both the redeemed and unredeemed go to Sheol of which the Old Testament bears witness. It is the ground, the grave, the earth from which dust returns to dust. In Old Testament Hebrew poetry, Sheol/grave/hades/hell is a physical place sometimes at the bottom of the ocean (Jonah 2) but mostly under the ground. Sheol is death and not consciousness. Paul frequently refers to those believers who have died as being asleep (i.e., soul sleep) and that they will be resurrected again on the last day. When Saul went to the witch of Endor, Samuel was summoned out of his “quiet” in the earth (1 Samuel 28). Sheol is where all the unredeemed and redeemed currently reside from Adam to whoever until the second coming of Christ. It is death as dust and complete unconsciousness.
Therefore, the only actual number of Jesus using the word “hell” to refer to the place of eternal punishment is just about a dozen times. Of course, these are instances of events repeated as stories in the three Synoptic Gospels.
But even if we were to speak about all the instances of the word “hell” in our modern Bible, it only comes to about 21 in all the Gospels. Jesus refers to “heaven” about 21 times in just the first 10 chapters of Matthew. The idea that Jesus preaches about “hell” more than “heaven” is completely without basis in fact.
II. Wilkerson takes many of the metaphors of the Bible concerning the final punishment of the wicked literally.
One of the problems that causes such confusion and disagreement among Christians concerning the nature of hell is the tendency of conservatives to take the apocalyptic and prophetic-poetic passages as literal while taking the “straight-forward” teachings as figurative. One will have to read my essay on Annihilationism for a fuller treatment of the subject.
However, let me state that Wilkerson’s view of hell as "literal fire" and "literal worms" has much more affinity with medieval conceptions than modern conservative evangelical scholarship.
III. Wilkerson is getting many of his descriptions of hell not from the Bible but from non-Scriptural sources.
A. Wilkerson states that hell will be “a planet that will be flung far away into another cosmos and flung further and further away from God”.
I’m not sure where Wilkerson gets this description of hell, but its not from the Scriptures.
B. In fact, a lot of what Wilkerson preaches is admittedly not from the Bible but from other unscriptural sources.
1. He says in his sermon that when he wanted to know why “people will be angry in hell” he, therefore, asked the Holy Spirit for the answer that he now preaches: the cross.
Now I often ask God for answers to theological questions but if my answers cannot be proven by either Scripture or by human reason then I do not state such an answer as general evidence but keep such answers as purely a subjective matter between God and myself. If it’s not to be generally found among believers then it is not to be generally stated as a revealed and authoritative truth that all believers must adhere to. This is subjective, particular, and specific revelation, not objective, and general revelation.
2. I mentioned that I was somewhat familiar with the name David Wilkerson, but I was not at first sure from where. I looked him up and found this:
Today he claims to receive prophetic visions of judgment on America. Apostolic Third Wave messages and end-times restoration teaching dominate his sermons.
I do remember him now. A few years ago he stated that Christ was coming on a specific date which came and went without the parousia.
Dr. E. Earle Ellis refers to this aspect of Wilkerson’s current ministry while discussing the issue of prophecy in the New Testament Church (particularly that of 1 Corinthians). Dr. Ellis states that while Wilkerson may have some excellent aspects to his ministry, the fact that his prophecy did not come true speaks to the fact that he is not a prophet and should not be taken as one.
In my own view, Wilkerson is fortunate to have made such a mistake today and not during the Old Testament days. The punishment for false prophecy was quite severe.
IV. The most important flaw in Wilkerson’s view is, sadly, the most common flaw. Wilkerson states that people in hell will have “imperishable bodies”. This really is an inevitable conclusion to the belief that hell is a place of “eternal conscious torment”. If the unredeemed are to be consciously tormented for eternity then there must be something to be eternally tormented. Therefore, if the unredeemed are to have their bodies and minds be eternally tormented (as Wilkerson and so many others believe) then the bodies of the unredeemed must be imperishable.
But there are SO many problems with this view. Here are a few:
A) An imperishable body is the reward for the redeemed, not the unredeemed. One of the rewards for those in Christ is an imperishable body like that of Christ’s. The punishment for not being in Christ is a perishable body. The unredeemed are condemned to perish.
B) Eternal life is the reward for the redeemed, not the unredeemed. If the unredeemed exists forever then they HAVE eternal life.
C) The Scriptures state that "the wages of sin is death", not life. The unredeemed are to be dead not living. If the unredeemed are living in hell then they are not dead.
As I have stated, the main problem with conservative evangelicalism with regards to this issue is that we take metaphorical passages as literal and literal passages as figurative. The Scriptures everywhere literally state that the unredeemed will remain dead. We must believe that this is to be true; the entire basis for the Christian faith as understood by Paul is that only the redeemed will be resurrected into glorified bodies. This is the central tenet of our faith. The belief that the unredeemed will live forever imperils this central aspect of our faith.
I suggest that all those interested should listen to the sermon and read my essay – this should flesh out any confusion.
My friend stated that he would like to hear my response after listening to it.
While I was somewhat familiar with the name David Wilkerson, I was not at first sure from where.
The basic thrust of this sermon is not to prove that “hell” exists but to describe what “hell” is like.
I. The first difficulty with Wilkerson’s sermon is that he states the well-known fallacy that Jesus preached on “hell” more than He preached on “heaven”. I first heard this statement when I was 9 being made by my childhood pastor. My first response to that statement was one of suspicion. Therefore, I went through the Gospels to see for myself. I am not really sure where preachers get this particular statement from, but it is without merit.
Jesus only refers to what our Bibles translate as “hell” about 21 times. But within this translation, “hell”, there are two distinct ideas. What we consider “hell” is what Christ referred to as Gehenna. (Mark 9:43-48, 2 Chronicles 28:3, 2 Chronicles 33:6)
Gehenna is the garbage dump outside Jerusalem that continued to burn. Gehenna is referred to in the Old Testament as the valley of Hinnom where detestable acts of sin were committed. This is why the Jews eventually turned it into a dump to burn garbage.
No one doubts that this is the case. Even modern conservative evangelical scholars who do not believe in annihilationism believe that Jesus is using Gehenna as a metaphor for hell, albeit as “eternal conscious torment.” Jesus refers to Gehenna about 11 times.
But our modern Bibles also translate hades as “hell”. Hell (hades) refers to the grave where the dead reside until the resurrection and hell (geena) which is the place of final punishment for the unredeemed. Hades is the Greek translation of the Jewish afterlife of Sheol. Throughout the Old Testament, Sheol is the place where the dead lie asleep until the resurrection. It is not synonymous with Gehenna/the Lake of fire. Both the redeemed and unredeemed go to Sheol of which the Old Testament bears witness. It is the ground, the grave, the earth from which dust returns to dust. In Old Testament Hebrew poetry, Sheol/grave/hades/hell is a physical place sometimes at the bottom of the ocean (Jonah 2) but mostly under the ground. Sheol is death and not consciousness. Paul frequently refers to those believers who have died as being asleep (i.e., soul sleep) and that they will be resurrected again on the last day. When Saul went to the witch of Endor, Samuel was summoned out of his “quiet” in the earth (1 Samuel 28). Sheol is where all the unredeemed and redeemed currently reside from Adam to whoever until the second coming of Christ. It is death as dust and complete unconsciousness.
Therefore, the only actual number of Jesus using the word “hell” to refer to the place of eternal punishment is just about a dozen times. Of course, these are instances of events repeated as stories in the three Synoptic Gospels.
But even if we were to speak about all the instances of the word “hell” in our modern Bible, it only comes to about 21 in all the Gospels. Jesus refers to “heaven” about 21 times in just the first 10 chapters of Matthew. The idea that Jesus preaches about “hell” more than “heaven” is completely without basis in fact.
II. Wilkerson takes many of the metaphors of the Bible concerning the final punishment of the wicked literally.
One of the problems that causes such confusion and disagreement among Christians concerning the nature of hell is the tendency of conservatives to take the apocalyptic and prophetic-poetic passages as literal while taking the “straight-forward” teachings as figurative. One will have to read my essay on Annihilationism for a fuller treatment of the subject.
However, let me state that Wilkerson’s view of hell as "literal fire" and "literal worms" has much more affinity with medieval conceptions than modern conservative evangelical scholarship.
III. Wilkerson is getting many of his descriptions of hell not from the Bible but from non-Scriptural sources.
A. Wilkerson states that hell will be “a planet that will be flung far away into another cosmos and flung further and further away from God”.
I’m not sure where Wilkerson gets this description of hell, but its not from the Scriptures.
B. In fact, a lot of what Wilkerson preaches is admittedly not from the Bible but from other unscriptural sources.
1. He says in his sermon that when he wanted to know why “people will be angry in hell” he, therefore, asked the Holy Spirit for the answer that he now preaches: the cross.
Now I often ask God for answers to theological questions but if my answers cannot be proven by either Scripture or by human reason then I do not state such an answer as general evidence but keep such answers as purely a subjective matter between God and myself. If it’s not to be generally found among believers then it is not to be generally stated as a revealed and authoritative truth that all believers must adhere to. This is subjective, particular, and specific revelation, not objective, and general revelation.
2. I mentioned that I was somewhat familiar with the name David Wilkerson, but I was not at first sure from where. I looked him up and found this:
Today he claims to receive prophetic visions of judgment on America. Apostolic Third Wave messages and end-times restoration teaching dominate his sermons.
I do remember him now. A few years ago he stated that Christ was coming on a specific date which came and went without the parousia.
Dr. E. Earle Ellis refers to this aspect of Wilkerson’s current ministry while discussing the issue of prophecy in the New Testament Church (particularly that of 1 Corinthians). Dr. Ellis states that while Wilkerson may have some excellent aspects to his ministry, the fact that his prophecy did not come true speaks to the fact that he is not a prophet and should not be taken as one.
In my own view, Wilkerson is fortunate to have made such a mistake today and not during the Old Testament days. The punishment for false prophecy was quite severe.
IV. The most important flaw in Wilkerson’s view is, sadly, the most common flaw. Wilkerson states that people in hell will have “imperishable bodies”. This really is an inevitable conclusion to the belief that hell is a place of “eternal conscious torment”. If the unredeemed are to be consciously tormented for eternity then there must be something to be eternally tormented. Therefore, if the unredeemed are to have their bodies and minds be eternally tormented (as Wilkerson and so many others believe) then the bodies of the unredeemed must be imperishable.
But there are SO many problems with this view. Here are a few:
A) An imperishable body is the reward for the redeemed, not the unredeemed. One of the rewards for those in Christ is an imperishable body like that of Christ’s. The punishment for not being in Christ is a perishable body. The unredeemed are condemned to perish.
B) Eternal life is the reward for the redeemed, not the unredeemed. If the unredeemed exists forever then they HAVE eternal life.
C) The Scriptures state that "the wages of sin is death", not life. The unredeemed are to be dead not living. If the unredeemed are living in hell then they are not dead.
As I have stated, the main problem with conservative evangelicalism with regards to this issue is that we take metaphorical passages as literal and literal passages as figurative. The Scriptures everywhere literally state that the unredeemed will remain dead. We must believe that this is to be true; the entire basis for the Christian faith as understood by Paul is that only the redeemed will be resurrected into glorified bodies. This is the central tenet of our faith. The belief that the unredeemed will live forever imperils this central aspect of our faith.
I suggest that all those interested should listen to the sermon and read my essay – this should flesh out any confusion.
Monday, December 12, 2005
The Problem of Atheism and Its Solution: A Call to Abandon Apologetics as an Evangelical Method
"The scientific approach to the examination of phenomena is a defense against the pure emotion of fear." Tom Stoppard, Rosencrantz & Guildenstern Are Dead (1967, page 17 in Grove edition)
Recently, as I read through selective chapters of Veli-Matti Karkkainen’s book The Doctrine of God: A Global Introduction, I came across the chapter which discusses the work of Roman Catholic scholar Hans Kung and his work, Does God Exist? An Answer for Today.
I began to consider the issue of atheism (which Kung understands so well) and the problem with this position.
Despite the efforts of modern atheists to urge for cautious skepticism and for a secular society divorced from the religious practices of that society (whether Christian or Buddhist, etc.) and despite the doomsday scenarios preached from fundamentalist pulpits about the incipient atheism that was resulting from evolutionary theory, the percentage of the population that believes in God is still within the ninetieth percentile rage and usually that above 95%. Atheism is a vastly unpopular opinion and has always been the minutest minority of any human culture.
I’ve always had several problems with the battles of reason that have existed between atheists and apologetic Christians. I’ve always argued that apologetics is a tool by the Church and for the Church and not to be used as an evangelical method. Why?
1) Reason cannot prove the existence of God. At most, it can only prove the existence of the idea of God.
2) Even if we could logically prove the existence of God that would not automatically point the person towards Christ or a personal deity. I think one of the main problems with fundamentalist apologetics that seek to disprove evolution is that they argue that evolution leads to atheism. Fortunately, that is not the case as all surveys suggest. The response by fundamentalists is usually that the majority of those 95% do not hold to the God of the Bible. And that’s true! It’s so true that it proves my point: the absence of evolution would not necessitate the acceptance of Christ.
3) If we cannot prove the existence of God by reason then reasoning with atheists is pointless. If reason can prove the existence of God, then the atheist is unreasonable and reason won’t work. Why do we always believe that if we have the right argument that people will understand the truth and will convert? Jesus was the God-Man and had great arguments but the people didn’t listen to him. What chance then have we?
Over the past six months I have sought to update the evangelistic method in the wake of the current Evangelical Crisis that has befallen the SBC in particular and Evangelicalism in general. Much of my thinking along these lines is desire to abandon the methods of modernity as it was understood in the Enlightenment and (more particularly for conservative evangelicals) Post-Enlightenment. I must admit that much of my thinking along these lines can be attributed to my love of reading Kierkegaard and both Barth and Brunner, particularly the latter. I must further admit that my particular interest in this matter results from my agreement with the neo-orthodox scholars that the Jesus of History is not as important as the Christ of Faith. I have less interest in proving the historical accuracy of literature (divinely inspired or not) than actually explaining what this literature means to the lives of individuals as they relate to God, their neighbor and themselves.
In this regard, I postulated about what is the real problem with the position of atheism.
The problem with atheism is not that they demand proof of God’s existence. Rather, the problem with atheism is that they refuse to do what is necessary to get the proof which they say they require.
Atheists require objective proof or, more precisely, scientific proof. By this I mean that atheists require proof that can be tested, repeated by many individuals so that the many individuals always independently get the same results from the test and a general consensus from the learned community is reached as to the certainty of that repeated test. This sort of proof is objective and impersonal.
Now science and its objective form of proof and inquiry are splendid tools and marvelous gifts from God. This method of learning and studying experience has had unquestioned success and achievement in human experience. However, while scientific and objective proofs are certainly excellent methods of gaining knowledge, they are not the only methods.
The method by which God proves His existence to a fallen world is not by objective proofs but by subjective ones. God’s proof is very personal and not separate from the individual seeking that proof. Furthermore, God’s proof does not come by tests that can be tested, repeated, and generally agreed upon by learned consensus. Now there are certain doctrinal agreements that are made by the individuals of a community of believers but these are made following the assumption that each of these individuals has had that independent and subjective experience of God.
There are many good reasons why God chooses to provide proof of His existence by subjective means. With regards to this discussion, here are two of the more important reasons:
The individual’s experience of God is relational. We experience God by means of a personal relationship with Him. A personal relationship by its very nature is subjective. We cannot prove our personal relationship with God by the scientific method anymore than we can prove our personal relationships with our husbands and wives, our family and friends, and any other person. Relationships are not as simplistic as objective methods of examination allow.
The possibility of experiencing God is universal. One might assume that the necessity of subjective proofs to prove God’s existence complicates the matter but this assumption would be incorrect. A subjective proof is much simpler and much more accessible to the individual human. This is, in itself, a gift from God. We do not need doctorates and excessive education in order to relate to our Creator. We only need the ability to relate personally. If we did need an advanced education to relate to God then the ability to experience God would be limited to particular individuals and not be a universal. God is just and fair and wishes all to relate to Him. Therefore, God gives everyone and not just the learned the ability to relate to Him.
Atheists have the ability to relate to God. Atheists have within them the method by which they can prove God’s existence. However, atheists refuse to apply this method in order to prove God’s existence. In order to irrefutably prove God’s existence, atheists only have to ask God to prove His existence to them. If they ask, He will answer. However, atheists refuse to ask.
Atheists state that they will not relate to God because they will not do so until they have evidence of His existence. The problem is that proof for His existence comes from that relation.
Here is an example: If one wants to solve a mathematical equation one works the problem out. My working out the mathematical equation one gets the answer. An atheist wants to know the answer of that mathematical equation before he or she solves the problem. For atheists, only by knowing the answer before they solve the problem do they feel secure with the answer they get.
And I think security is the right word. Again, atheists want objective and impersonal proof. They want God to prove His existence apart from themselves. God is required to prove His existence over there but not here. God is required to prove His existence in an impersonal way, to the general consensus of the community and not to the particular recognition of the individual.
But God does not relate that way. God is a personal being who relates to individuals in a personal and subjective way. If atheists refuse to apply the relational method of proving God’s existence then they should not complain that they do not have proof of His existence. If atheists refuse to apply the relational method of proving God’s existence then they are no better than the scientist who refuses to apply the scientific method in order to prove the atomic mass of a chemical element yet complains that he does not have proof of the answer. If atheists refuse to apply the relational method of proving God’s existence then they are no better than the person who wishes to know what a new food tastes like but refuses to taste the food.
In short, the refusal of the atheist to apply the proper method of gaining knowledge of God is evidence of the futility and tragedy of their position.
Their prerequisite that such proof be presented apart from their selves is evidence of the atheist’s hesitancy to become personally involved in the pursuit of such proof.
So what are the reasons for this hesitancy?
1) Pride: All sin is based upon pride and the individual’s focus on his or herself.
2) Selfishness: This is closely tied to pride (of course) but focuses more upon the individual’s desire to not give up what he perceives to be the benefits of a life independent of a proper relationship with God.
2) Fear: While I think the previous two reasons are correct, I think the more specific and particular reason is the atheist’s fear of being confronted by God and being in that personal relationship with Him.
The atheist fears such a relationship and avoids it at all cost. At most the atheist wants to test the waters of an experience with God, desiring that He prove Himself at a distance before the atheist will wade in the infinite ocean that is God.
To a certain extent God does this. God is gracious and merciful and therefore provides evidence for His existence by proving His existence to other individuals apart from ourselves. God proves His existence to others and changes their lives, letting them become witnesses to His existence.
But God’s use of others as His witnesses does not constitute proof but only evidence. Real proof comes from that subjective, personal encounter with He Himself.
Until the atheist personally asks God for His personal proof then the atheist will never get that proof.
For this reason, when I meet an atheist who states that he or she doesn’t believe because of the lack of proof, I always ask a few questions:
1) You do not believe in God. Okay, do you want there to be a God? Why or why not?
2) What do you think would be the benefits of there being a God?
3) How does the non-existence of God affect your life?
4) How would the existence of God affect your life?
5) Why not you ask God if He exists? Why not ask God to prove His existence to you and wait to see what the answer is?
The purpose of these questions is to personalize the issue for the atheist and to urge the person to seek a relationship with God.
I am not trying to make a better argument or even to win the argument. I am not trying to argue at all. Why?
1) Arguing only polarizes the opponent into his position. This opinion comes from one who loves a good debate. However, when I do debate, my reasons do engaging in such a practice is not to win over the other, or even to win the argument, rather, my reason is to test my knowledge of an issue. Nothing else. If anything, winning the argument may lose you the person.
2) Arguing does not prove that the person who wins the argument is right but only that he knows how to argue. Again, this comes from a good debater. I can really argue what I believe. But I can also really argue what I don’t believe.
3) What is the point in my arguing with an atheist? To win the argument or to win the person? As I look at the life of Jesus (see John 4 in particular) I notice that Jesus was more interested in winning people than winning arguments. Furthermore, Jesus won all His arguments with the Pharisees but did not win that many Pharisees.
No, our goal is to win people and become “fishers of men” and not “fishers of wins-on-the-high-school-debate-team”.
But even this is not adequately the case. We do not save people; God does. We do not draw people to God; God does. At the most, we as witnesses to Christ help facilitate the process by which the lost person comes to a proper relationship with God.
For these reasons, I submit that we should abandon apologetics as a tool of effective evangelism and focus our efforts and resources toward a relational methodology. In this way, we can overcome the problem that atheists impose upon themselves and answer the real need of man: a proper personal relationship with God.
Recently, as I read through selective chapters of Veli-Matti Karkkainen’s book The Doctrine of God: A Global Introduction, I came across the chapter which discusses the work of Roman Catholic scholar Hans Kung and his work, Does God Exist? An Answer for Today.
I began to consider the issue of atheism (which Kung understands so well) and the problem with this position.
Despite the efforts of modern atheists to urge for cautious skepticism and for a secular society divorced from the religious practices of that society (whether Christian or Buddhist, etc.) and despite the doomsday scenarios preached from fundamentalist pulpits about the incipient atheism that was resulting from evolutionary theory, the percentage of the population that believes in God is still within the ninetieth percentile rage and usually that above 95%. Atheism is a vastly unpopular opinion and has always been the minutest minority of any human culture.
I’ve always had several problems with the battles of reason that have existed between atheists and apologetic Christians. I’ve always argued that apologetics is a tool by the Church and for the Church and not to be used as an evangelical method. Why?
1) Reason cannot prove the existence of God. At most, it can only prove the existence of the idea of God.
2) Even if we could logically prove the existence of God that would not automatically point the person towards Christ or a personal deity. I think one of the main problems with fundamentalist apologetics that seek to disprove evolution is that they argue that evolution leads to atheism. Fortunately, that is not the case as all surveys suggest. The response by fundamentalists is usually that the majority of those 95% do not hold to the God of the Bible. And that’s true! It’s so true that it proves my point: the absence of evolution would not necessitate the acceptance of Christ.
3) If we cannot prove the existence of God by reason then reasoning with atheists is pointless. If reason can prove the existence of God, then the atheist is unreasonable and reason won’t work. Why do we always believe that if we have the right argument that people will understand the truth and will convert? Jesus was the God-Man and had great arguments but the people didn’t listen to him. What chance then have we?
Over the past six months I have sought to update the evangelistic method in the wake of the current Evangelical Crisis that has befallen the SBC in particular and Evangelicalism in general. Much of my thinking along these lines is desire to abandon the methods of modernity as it was understood in the Enlightenment and (more particularly for conservative evangelicals) Post-Enlightenment. I must admit that much of my thinking along these lines can be attributed to my love of reading Kierkegaard and both Barth and Brunner, particularly the latter. I must further admit that my particular interest in this matter results from my agreement with the neo-orthodox scholars that the Jesus of History is not as important as the Christ of Faith. I have less interest in proving the historical accuracy of literature (divinely inspired or not) than actually explaining what this literature means to the lives of individuals as they relate to God, their neighbor and themselves.
In this regard, I postulated about what is the real problem with the position of atheism.
The problem with atheism is not that they demand proof of God’s existence. Rather, the problem with atheism is that they refuse to do what is necessary to get the proof which they say they require.
Atheists require objective proof or, more precisely, scientific proof. By this I mean that atheists require proof that can be tested, repeated by many individuals so that the many individuals always independently get the same results from the test and a general consensus from the learned community is reached as to the certainty of that repeated test. This sort of proof is objective and impersonal.
Now science and its objective form of proof and inquiry are splendid tools and marvelous gifts from God. This method of learning and studying experience has had unquestioned success and achievement in human experience. However, while scientific and objective proofs are certainly excellent methods of gaining knowledge, they are not the only methods.
The method by which God proves His existence to a fallen world is not by objective proofs but by subjective ones. God’s proof is very personal and not separate from the individual seeking that proof. Furthermore, God’s proof does not come by tests that can be tested, repeated, and generally agreed upon by learned consensus. Now there are certain doctrinal agreements that are made by the individuals of a community of believers but these are made following the assumption that each of these individuals has had that independent and subjective experience of God.
There are many good reasons why God chooses to provide proof of His existence by subjective means. With regards to this discussion, here are two of the more important reasons:
The individual’s experience of God is relational. We experience God by means of a personal relationship with Him. A personal relationship by its very nature is subjective. We cannot prove our personal relationship with God by the scientific method anymore than we can prove our personal relationships with our husbands and wives, our family and friends, and any other person. Relationships are not as simplistic as objective methods of examination allow.
The possibility of experiencing God is universal. One might assume that the necessity of subjective proofs to prove God’s existence complicates the matter but this assumption would be incorrect. A subjective proof is much simpler and much more accessible to the individual human. This is, in itself, a gift from God. We do not need doctorates and excessive education in order to relate to our Creator. We only need the ability to relate personally. If we did need an advanced education to relate to God then the ability to experience God would be limited to particular individuals and not be a universal. God is just and fair and wishes all to relate to Him. Therefore, God gives everyone and not just the learned the ability to relate to Him.
Atheists have the ability to relate to God. Atheists have within them the method by which they can prove God’s existence. However, atheists refuse to apply this method in order to prove God’s existence. In order to irrefutably prove God’s existence, atheists only have to ask God to prove His existence to them. If they ask, He will answer. However, atheists refuse to ask.
Atheists state that they will not relate to God because they will not do so until they have evidence of His existence. The problem is that proof for His existence comes from that relation.
Here is an example: If one wants to solve a mathematical equation one works the problem out. My working out the mathematical equation one gets the answer. An atheist wants to know the answer of that mathematical equation before he or she solves the problem. For atheists, only by knowing the answer before they solve the problem do they feel secure with the answer they get.
And I think security is the right word. Again, atheists want objective and impersonal proof. They want God to prove His existence apart from themselves. God is required to prove His existence over there but not here. God is required to prove His existence in an impersonal way, to the general consensus of the community and not to the particular recognition of the individual.
But God does not relate that way. God is a personal being who relates to individuals in a personal and subjective way. If atheists refuse to apply the relational method of proving God’s existence then they should not complain that they do not have proof of His existence. If atheists refuse to apply the relational method of proving God’s existence then they are no better than the scientist who refuses to apply the scientific method in order to prove the atomic mass of a chemical element yet complains that he does not have proof of the answer. If atheists refuse to apply the relational method of proving God’s existence then they are no better than the person who wishes to know what a new food tastes like but refuses to taste the food.
In short, the refusal of the atheist to apply the proper method of gaining knowledge of God is evidence of the futility and tragedy of their position.
Their prerequisite that such proof be presented apart from their selves is evidence of the atheist’s hesitancy to become personally involved in the pursuit of such proof.
So what are the reasons for this hesitancy?
1) Pride: All sin is based upon pride and the individual’s focus on his or herself.
2) Selfishness: This is closely tied to pride (of course) but focuses more upon the individual’s desire to not give up what he perceives to be the benefits of a life independent of a proper relationship with God.
2) Fear: While I think the previous two reasons are correct, I think the more specific and particular reason is the atheist’s fear of being confronted by God and being in that personal relationship with Him.
The atheist fears such a relationship and avoids it at all cost. At most the atheist wants to test the waters of an experience with God, desiring that He prove Himself at a distance before the atheist will wade in the infinite ocean that is God.
To a certain extent God does this. God is gracious and merciful and therefore provides evidence for His existence by proving His existence to other individuals apart from ourselves. God proves His existence to others and changes their lives, letting them become witnesses to His existence.
But God’s use of others as His witnesses does not constitute proof but only evidence. Real proof comes from that subjective, personal encounter with He Himself.
Until the atheist personally asks God for His personal proof then the atheist will never get that proof.
For this reason, when I meet an atheist who states that he or she doesn’t believe because of the lack of proof, I always ask a few questions:
1) You do not believe in God. Okay, do you want there to be a God? Why or why not?
2) What do you think would be the benefits of there being a God?
3) How does the non-existence of God affect your life?
4) How would the existence of God affect your life?
5) Why not you ask God if He exists? Why not ask God to prove His existence to you and wait to see what the answer is?
The purpose of these questions is to personalize the issue for the atheist and to urge the person to seek a relationship with God.
I am not trying to make a better argument or even to win the argument. I am not trying to argue at all. Why?
1) Arguing only polarizes the opponent into his position. This opinion comes from one who loves a good debate. However, when I do debate, my reasons do engaging in such a practice is not to win over the other, or even to win the argument, rather, my reason is to test my knowledge of an issue. Nothing else. If anything, winning the argument may lose you the person.
2) Arguing does not prove that the person who wins the argument is right but only that he knows how to argue. Again, this comes from a good debater. I can really argue what I believe. But I can also really argue what I don’t believe.
3) What is the point in my arguing with an atheist? To win the argument or to win the person? As I look at the life of Jesus (see John 4 in particular) I notice that Jesus was more interested in winning people than winning arguments. Furthermore, Jesus won all His arguments with the Pharisees but did not win that many Pharisees.
No, our goal is to win people and become “fishers of men” and not “fishers of wins-on-the-high-school-debate-team”.
But even this is not adequately the case. We do not save people; God does. We do not draw people to God; God does. At the most, we as witnesses to Christ help facilitate the process by which the lost person comes to a proper relationship with God.
For these reasons, I submit that we should abandon apologetics as a tool of effective evangelism and focus our efforts and resources toward a relational methodology. In this way, we can overcome the problem that atheists impose upon themselves and answer the real need of man: a proper personal relationship with God.
Thursday, December 08, 2005
Many evangelicals unwittingly live as feminists
[I am not really sure what this headline means. What does it mean to “live as feminists” or to do so “unwittingly”? I would prefer if he gave his definition of what he means by “feminism”. Feminism is a broad term that encompasses numerous smaller movements. I suspect that he means feminism that “largely focuses on limiting or eradicating gender inequality and promoting women's rights, interests, and issues in society.” Such is the simplest and most commonly held notion of the term.]
Egalitarians are winning the gender debate because evangelical complementarian men have largely abdicated their biblically ordained roles as head of the home and have, in practice, embraced contemporary pagan feminism, XXXXXX said in a presentation at the 57th annual meeting of the Evangelical Theological Society (ETS) Nov. 17 in Valley Forge, Pa.
[Notice two things: 1) He is suggesting that conservative evangelical men, while advocating the complementarian view, are in fact practicing the egalitarian view. 2) He says that “egalitarians are winning” because men are embracing “contemporary pagan feminism”. From this last point, I do not know if he is suggesting egalitarianism is “pagan feminism” or not. This phrase “pagan feminism” is probably rhetorical exaggeration and not to be taken literally. I doubt that he is saying that evangelical men are worshipping pagan goddesses.]
Complementarianism is the view that men and women have been created equally in God's image but have different yet complementary roles. Egalitarianism is the view that that men and women have been gifted equally so that no role is limited to one sex.
[This is a good and fair definition of egalitarianism on the part of this news site.
Allow me to give some definitions of my own:
Many Christians are egalitarians. They believe that the Bible plainly teaches equality among the sexes and women should therefore have equal access to roles in the church and family. They generally believe that husbands and wives share leadership of their family and that both men and women may serve as senior pastors. That the Scriptures never mention the role of “senior pastor” at all, let alone assigning such a role exclusively to men, is enough reason to disregard the unscriptural notion that such a modern role is forbidden to women.
The recently formulated complementarian view holds that men and women are of equal value but should have different roles in the church and family. Complementarians generally believe that a husband is the proper head of his family and that only men should serve as senior pastors. The roles that women are given is rarely mentioned or advocated. While there are roles that men have that women are prohibited from holding, there are no roles that women have that men are prohibited from holding, albeit biologically unsurpassable roles.
Unsurprisingly, conservatives who hold to the complementarian view believe their view to be the traditional one. Even if it were true that the Scriptures advocate the complementarian view, it is certainly not the case that such a view has been the traditional interpretation and understanding of Scripture by the Church. The Church has traditionally held to the hierarchical view that men should hold positions superior to women in every aspect of society (church, home, business and state).
It has always amazed me that conservatives come to certain opinions about what the Scripture teaches about certain concepts and then try to argue that, despite all evidence to the contrary, such a belief is not just Scriptural but also the traditional view that the Church has held. Examples include: penal substitutionary atonement, pre-tribulation rapture dispensationalism, inerrancy, nouthetic counseling, eternal security, believer’s Baptism, predestination, expository preaching, parachurch organizations and mission boards. I’m not saying any of these beliefs are right or wrong in my estimation. In fact, in my estimation, I believe some of these concepts to be scripturally sound but I would never suggest that any of these are “traditional”.
The Complementarian view is a fairly recent doctrine that developed as the evangelical response for the generally accepted views of the feminist movement but also as a response against the views of feminism that the conservative evangelical church could not generally accept. Thankfully, mainstream evangelical conservatism has generally rejected the hierarchal view of gender roles. However, the evangelical community is still debating the egalitarian view. Conservative evangelicals are now promoting their recently constructed view of gender roles against the egalitarian alternative but suggesting that their view has always been held by the Church. I imagine that in 20 years the sons and daughters of today’s evangelicals will state that their evangelical view of egalitarianism was always held by the Church.]
XXXXX called for a complementarian response built upon a thoroughly biblical vision of male headship in which men lead their families and churches by mirroring God the Father, whom Scripture portrays as the loving, sacrificial, protective Patriarch of His people. XXXXX is dean of the school of theology and senior vice president for academic administration at XXXX Seminary.
[Now, as one who has given some time to the issue of “women and the faith” (which is in of itself a broad phrase of identification) allow me to suggest a 9 concepts (or doctrines, if you prefer) commonly misunderstood by conservative evangelicals that lead to the present discussion about the roles of women in the body of Christ.
1) Headship
2) Submission
3) Pre-Fall vs post-Fall reality (including pre-Advent ethics vs post-Advent ethics)
4) ANE culture vs Christian ethics (including OT ethics vs NT ethics)
5) Practical exemptions of the general Headship rule
6) Pastorship
7) Authority
8) Leadership
9) Church vs Society
Time prevents me from delving too deeply into all of these issues, but I shall mention a few as it relates to the points made in this news report.
First, the doctrine of “headship” (doctrine 1) as taught by Paul in Corinthians, Ephesians and Colossians is NOT ABOUT LEADERSHIP. I cannot stress this enough. No where does Paul teach that “headship” is about “leadership.” Nowhere does Paul teach that “leadership” has to do with “headship”. This has been a perennial and general assumption without Scriptural basis.
“Headship” has to with sanctification. “Headship” is metaphor by which Paul describes the means by which God sanctifies Christ, the Church and the family.
Read the appropriate Pauline passages concerning headship: 1 Corinthians 11:2-16, Ephesians 5:21-32 and gender issues. Also, read these passages in light of 1 Corinthians 7:1-16 and Ephesians 5:26.
Christ is sanctified by God, the Church is sanctified by God through Christ, God sanctifies the family (wife and children) through the husband. HOWEVER, as 1 Corinthians 7:1-16 points out, if the husband is an unbeliever but the wife a believer, the believing wife is the means by which God sanctifies the husband and children. Therefore, although the general rule in terms of headship is the husband, by Gods’ grace, the wife can be “head” if the husband is unbelieving (doctrine 5).
As the complementarians so state, “headship” is not about value or worth but about role. However, unlike what complementarians state, “headship” is not about leadership and, although such a role is generally held by men, in some cases such a role is held by women. Furthermore, the issue of “headship” is unrelated to pastoralship.]
Many complementarians are living according to egalitarian presumptions, and research has shown many conservative and evangelical households to be among the “softest” when it comes to familial harmony, relational happiness and emotional health, XXXX said.
[I do not know what he means by “soft”.]
“Evangelicals maintain headship in the sphere of ideas, but practical decisions are made in most evangelical homes through a process of negotiation, mutual submission, and consensus,” XXXX said. “That’s what our forefathers would have called feminism -- and our foremothers, too.”
[I am not going to comment; I don’t think I need to. You know how I feel.]
Egalitarian views are carrying the day within evangelical churches and homes, XXXX said, because complementarians have not dealt sufficiently with the forces that drive the feminist impulse: Western notions of consumerism and therapy.
[Is he saying that men are leaning to shop like women and that is fueling egalitarianism? The previous line is a joke because I am unable to take this seriously.
Basically he is admitting that egalitarians are winning the current debate over “women in ministry” if not in theory than definitely in practice.]
This therapeutic and consumerist atmosphere has led evangelicals away from a view that sees Scripture as the external, objective standard of truth and has pushed them to look inside themselves to find ultimate truth, XXXX said. Because self and not Scripture is the final authority, evangelical homes and churches hold complementarian views but practice egalitarianism, he said.
[Notice that he is not saying that egalitarians are not “misinterpreting Scripture” but are “denying Scripture.” I think this is one of the main problems with modern evangelical conservatives: they cannot even allow for someone to have a differing opinion on what Scripture is teaching. No, anyone who doesn’t agree with them on what Scripture is teaching is intentionally denying Scripture. To them, people cannot be wrong in their interpretation; no, these people (the egalitarians) are rejecting what they (the egalitarians) believe Scripture is teaching. This current crowd of evangelical conservatives believes that their interpretation of Scripture is THE interpretation of Scripture. Therefore, anyone who disbelieves their interpretation of Scripture is disbelieving Scripture. Our group of the Church has for so long been told and convinced themselves that THEY and THEY ALONE have the proper attitude toward Scripture and ONLY correct hermeneutic for interpreting Scripture that they automatically assume that anyone who holds their attitude is doctrinally sound and whoever does not is heterodox. This is a VERY dangerous mind set. It breeds pride and (I’m sorry to say) heresy. Unfortunately, it explains the last thirty years of American conservative Christianity.
Remember: the leaders of the Roman Catholic Church believe that they had the correct interpretation of Scripture. They believed that theirs was the only interpretation because it was the right interpretation. Luther challenged this.]
“Complementarian churches are just as captive to the consumerist drive of American culture as egalitarians, if not more so,” Moore said.
If evangelical homes and churches are to recover from the confusion of egalitarianism, XXXX said, they must embrace a full-orbed vision of biblical patriarchy that restores the male to his divinely ordained station as head of the home and church.
[Again, I am not going to comment; I don’t think I need to. You know how I feel.]
XXXX pointed out that the word “patriarchy” has developed negative connotations, even among evangelicals, in direct proportion to the rise of so-called “evangelical feminism,” a movement that began in the 1970s. But the historic Christian faith itself is built upon a thoroughly biblical vision of patriarchy, he said.
[Again …]
“Evangelicals should ask why patriarchy seems negative to those of us who serve the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob -- the God and Father of Jesus Christ,” XXXX said.
[We need to be extremely careful to distinguish between ANE cultural practices and universal mandates. And, just because God recognizes a particular ANE custom in the Bible, does not mean that it is God’s will for us.
Example: Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob had slaves. God did not seek to abolish slavery among the Israelites or the early Church. Many of Jesus’ parables used slavery to describe the kingdom of God. However, no one in evangelical life today states that slavery is okay.
‘Evangelicals should ask why slavery seems negative to those of us who serve the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob -- the God and Father of Jesus Christ’.]
“We must remember that ‘evangelical’ is also a negative term in many contexts. We must allow the patriarchs and apostles themselves, not the editors of ‘Playboy’ or ‘Ms. Magazine,’ to define the grammar of our faith.”
[So is “liberal”.
Yes, I’m sure all egalitarian evangelicals and non-practicing complementarians are getting their gender theology from ‘Playboy’ or ‘Ms. Magazine’.]
The model of biblical patriarchy/male headship that evangelicals must rediscover is tied to Scripture’s teaching of the fatherhood of God, XXXX said. The Bible portrays God the Father as existing in covenant relationship with the Son in a way that defines the covenantal standing and inheritance of believers, he said.
[The problem with this reasoning is that “headship” either male or female is not synonymous with “rule”.
I’ve thought he has been a bit short on definitions in this article. This could be just the fault of the news reporters and not his paper. Nevertheless, I think we need a definition of “patriarchy”.
“Patriarchy (from Greek: patria meaning father and arché meaning rule) is the anthropological term used to define the sociological condition where male members of a society tend to predominate in positions of power; with the more powerful the position, the more likely it is that a male will hold that position.”
Here is another definition:
The term "patriarchy' is distinct from patrilineality.
"Patrilineal defines societies where the derivation of inheritance (financial or otherwise) originates from the father's line; a society with matrilineal traits such as Judaism, for example, provides that in order to be considered a Jew, a person must be born of a Jewish mother.”
Again, “headship” is not about “leadership”; it is about “sanctification”.
Furthermore, the existence of a patriarchy in the OT does not exclude the existence of a matriarchy.
First, the Patriarchs, known as the Avot in Hebrew, are Abraham, his son Isaac and his grandson Jacob. Collectively, they are referred to as the three patriarchs (sh'loshet ha-avot) of Judaism.
Second, the Matriarchs, known as the Ima-[h]ot (literally "mothers") in Hebrew, are four important women mentioned in the Book of Genesis of the Hebrew Bible. They are Sarah, wife of Abraham, Rebecca, wife of Isaac, and Leah and Rachel, the wives of Jacob. They are considered to be the ancestral "mothers" of the ancient Children of Israel as well as of the Jewish people.
What are some of the other matriarchs of the Bible? Naomi, Deborah, Miriam, Zipporah, Esther, Bathsheba, Mary, Elizabeth, Priscilla, Phoebe, Hanna, Abigail, Huldah, Noahdiah, Anna, and many other prophetesses. Yes, there are many prophetesses in the Bible, both Old and New Testaments.
Let me ask you some questions:
Are prophetesses only allowed to be prophets for women? No, God speaks to men through prophetesses throughout the Scriptures.
Do prophets in the Bible have authority? Yes.
Do prophetesses in the Bible have authority? Yes.
Do prophets in the Bible have authority over men and women? Yes.
Do prophetesses in the Bible have authority over men and women? Yes.
Therefore, do not women in some instances have authority over men? Yes.
The problem that modern Christians (both conservative and liberal) have with authority as it is taught in the Bible is that they assume that when a person (either male or female) has authority that it is that person’s authority … and its not! A person who has authority in the Bible has it not because they are powerful or wealthy or wise or old or male or female. A person has authority because of God. God gives them that authority and such authority is not that person’s and is only authoritative when the person uses it as God wills. A pastor does not have the authority to make me sin. If a pastor sins, a child has the authority to tell a pastor that he is sinning and should repent because it is not the child that is the source of this authority but God. Therefore, a woman can tell a sinning man to repent not because she has authority over him but because God has authority and is speaking through the woman. Prophetesses do this throughout the Bible; are they sinning because of 1 Timothy 2:12?
But I see from this paragraph another fallacy inherent in his thinking and, to be much more broad and general, a flaw in conservative hermeneutics:
Just because the Bible uses a cultural practice metaphor to describe something good or truthful in the Bible does not mean that the cultural practice is good. Again, Jesus uses slavery as a metaphor to describe the kingdom and the relationship between God and Man. This does not mean that God approves of slavery. Why is slavery wrong then? Well, because all people are created in God’s image and have equal worth, therefore slavery is against God’s Will. But we do make an exception with gender differences don’t we.]
The fatherhood of God is central to the Gospel and male headship, and, when practiced biblically, offers a living picture of the redemption believers have in Christ, XXXX said.
[Again, so does slavery.]
“Even the so-called ‘egalitarian proof-texts’ not only fail to demonstrate an evangelical feminist argument, [but] they actually prove the opposite,” he said. “Galatians 3:28, for example, is all about patriarchy -- a Father who provides his firstborn son with a cosmic inheritance, an inheritance that is shared by all who find their identity in Christ, Jew or Greek, male or female, slave or free.
[Does a Jew have headship over a Greek? Does a freeman have headship over a slave?
First, the inheritance analogy is an analogy.
Second, the analogy is in fact teaching that because Christ has this inheritance we as Christians (regardless of sexual, ethnic, or economic differences) are equal in Christ, thereby reversing the curse of the fall.
Third, there are MANY other prooftexts for the egalitarian view.
Fourth, it somewhat irks me to see conservative scholars arguing their POV by saying that the opposing view will lead to a denial of God. Yet, I see it all the time.
“This understanding of archetypal patriarchy is grounded, then, in the overarching theme of all of Scripture -- the summing up of all things in Christ [in Ephesians 1:10]. It does not divide God’s purposes, His role as Father from His role as Creator from His role as Savior from His role as King.
“To the contrary, the patriarchal structures that exist in the creation order point to His headship -- a headship that is oriented toward redemption in Christ [in Hebrews 12:5-11].”
[Okay, the institution of slavery points to man as slaves to Christ and to God. Christ considered himself as a slave to God. Therefore, slavery is okay.]
An embrace of biblical patriarchy also protects the doctrine of God from aberrations such as the impersonal deity of Protestant liberalism and the unstable “most moved mover” of open theism, he said.
[I do understand this argument, but one could just as easily suggest that a patriarchal view of the faith leads to the abuse as women which, by the way, it doesn’t.]
A rejection of male headship leads to a redefinition of divine Fatherhood and divine sovereignty, XXXX said. He pointed to open theism (a view that argues God’s knowledge of the future is limited) as an example of the dangers of rejecting biblical patriarchy. Open theism is built upon a denial of the Scripture’s portrayal of God as the sovereign Head of His creation, he said.
[Again, I do not think the problem is that there is a rejection of male headship among egalitarians. Rather, I think the problem is that evangelical conservatives are 1) misunderstanding the meaning, point, and particulars of “headship” and are 2) attempting to redefine the traditional conservative interpretation of gender roles in light of recent interpretive revelations. This redefinition allows them a) to remain somewhat relevant in modern society and b) to fight further encroachment by progressives on this issue by dismissing egalitarian views as unscriptural and by proclaiming that the complementarian view has always been the correct interpretation.]
“Open theism is not more dangerous than evangelical feminism, or even all that different,” XXXX said. “It is only the end result of a doctrine of God shorn of patriarchy.”
[I have been aware of this Trinitarian argument for female subordination a few years now. It seems to be based on Genesis 1:27:
“So God created man in his [own] image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.”
And 1 Corinthians 11:3:
“But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman [is] the man; and the head of Christ [is] God.”
Now I am not well versed in this study so please do not take this portion of my comments as “gospel”. I am a novice on this particular issue.
But the benefit of this argument is that it explains how it is possible for two “entities” can be both equal and subordinate.
The drawback of this argument is that it is not made in Scripture and is never even hinted at by the prophets and apostles.]
XXXX pointed out that a growing trend exists within evangelicalism in which “soft” complementarians seek to indict other complementarians for not writing frequently against spousal abuse. This charge is a red herring, XXXX said, because complementarians address the issue consistently.
[Yes, he is right; this is a red herring.]
This charge itself, however, reveals a tacit acceptance by evangelicals of a false egalitarian charge that says male headship leads to abuse, he said. Instead, XXXX said, a biblical view of male headship and gender roles actually protect against spousal and child abuse because it does not posit male privilege, but instead demands male responsibility.
[I do agree that complementarianism doesn’t lead to abuse. He is correct in this assertion. However, concept number 4): ANE culture vs Christian ethics (including OT ethics vs NT ethics). I do believe that one of the most difficult concepts for many conservatives to grasp is the notion that not all of the cultural concepts practiced in the Bible are God’s will for Christians. Furthermore, there are some Ancient Near Eastern cultural practices in the OT that God required believers to adhere to (sometimes even at the threat of death) that are completely immoral for today’s Christians and which God forbids us to practice. Yes, some morality is relative. The rub is trying to ascertain what God wills for us today.
Women must have long hair and not short hair. Women should not have braided hair. Why do we not practice the Biblical view of slavery? Why do we not practice the Biblical view of war? Why do we not practice the Biblical view of levirate marriage? Why do we not practice the Biblical view of polygamy? Why do we not practice the Biblical view of punishment for adultery, sodomy, and blasphemy? Why do we not practice the Biblical view of Jubilee?]
“Ironically, a more patriarchal complementarianism will resonate among a generation seeking stability in a family-fractured Western culture in ways that soft-bellied big-tent complementarianism never can,” XXXX said.
[I’m sorry. But “soft-bellied big-tent complementarianism”? He is not speaking about egalitarians here. He is speaking about people who agree with him but are not as forceful in their beliefs as he.]
“And it will also address the needs of hurting women and children far better, because it is rooted in the primary biblical means for protecting women and children: calling men to responsibility. Patriarchy is good for women, good for children, and good for families.”
[But it is just not Scriptural.]
Egalitarians are winning the gender debate because evangelical complementarian men have largely abdicated their biblically ordained roles as head of the home and have, in practice, embraced contemporary pagan feminism, XXXXXX said in a presentation at the 57th annual meeting of the Evangelical Theological Society (ETS) Nov. 17 in Valley Forge, Pa.
[Notice two things: 1) He is suggesting that conservative evangelical men, while advocating the complementarian view, are in fact practicing the egalitarian view. 2) He says that “egalitarians are winning” because men are embracing “contemporary pagan feminism”. From this last point, I do not know if he is suggesting egalitarianism is “pagan feminism” or not. This phrase “pagan feminism” is probably rhetorical exaggeration and not to be taken literally. I doubt that he is saying that evangelical men are worshipping pagan goddesses.]
Complementarianism is the view that men and women have been created equally in God's image but have different yet complementary roles. Egalitarianism is the view that that men and women have been gifted equally so that no role is limited to one sex.
[This is a good and fair definition of egalitarianism on the part of this news site.
Allow me to give some definitions of my own:
Many Christians are egalitarians. They believe that the Bible plainly teaches equality among the sexes and women should therefore have equal access to roles in the church and family. They generally believe that husbands and wives share leadership of their family and that both men and women may serve as senior pastors. That the Scriptures never mention the role of “senior pastor” at all, let alone assigning such a role exclusively to men, is enough reason to disregard the unscriptural notion that such a modern role is forbidden to women.
The recently formulated complementarian view holds that men and women are of equal value but should have different roles in the church and family. Complementarians generally believe that a husband is the proper head of his family and that only men should serve as senior pastors. The roles that women are given is rarely mentioned or advocated. While there are roles that men have that women are prohibited from holding, there are no roles that women have that men are prohibited from holding, albeit biologically unsurpassable roles.
Unsurprisingly, conservatives who hold to the complementarian view believe their view to be the traditional one. Even if it were true that the Scriptures advocate the complementarian view, it is certainly not the case that such a view has been the traditional interpretation and understanding of Scripture by the Church. The Church has traditionally held to the hierarchical view that men should hold positions superior to women in every aspect of society (church, home, business and state).
It has always amazed me that conservatives come to certain opinions about what the Scripture teaches about certain concepts and then try to argue that, despite all evidence to the contrary, such a belief is not just Scriptural but also the traditional view that the Church has held. Examples include: penal substitutionary atonement, pre-tribulation rapture dispensationalism, inerrancy, nouthetic counseling, eternal security, believer’s Baptism, predestination, expository preaching, parachurch organizations and mission boards. I’m not saying any of these beliefs are right or wrong in my estimation. In fact, in my estimation, I believe some of these concepts to be scripturally sound but I would never suggest that any of these are “traditional”.
The Complementarian view is a fairly recent doctrine that developed as the evangelical response for the generally accepted views of the feminist movement but also as a response against the views of feminism that the conservative evangelical church could not generally accept. Thankfully, mainstream evangelical conservatism has generally rejected the hierarchal view of gender roles. However, the evangelical community is still debating the egalitarian view. Conservative evangelicals are now promoting their recently constructed view of gender roles against the egalitarian alternative but suggesting that their view has always been held by the Church. I imagine that in 20 years the sons and daughters of today’s evangelicals will state that their evangelical view of egalitarianism was always held by the Church.]
XXXXX called for a complementarian response built upon a thoroughly biblical vision of male headship in which men lead their families and churches by mirroring God the Father, whom Scripture portrays as the loving, sacrificial, protective Patriarch of His people. XXXXX is dean of the school of theology and senior vice president for academic administration at XXXX Seminary.
[Now, as one who has given some time to the issue of “women and the faith” (which is in of itself a broad phrase of identification) allow me to suggest a 9 concepts (or doctrines, if you prefer) commonly misunderstood by conservative evangelicals that lead to the present discussion about the roles of women in the body of Christ.
1) Headship
2) Submission
3) Pre-Fall vs post-Fall reality (including pre-Advent ethics vs post-Advent ethics)
4) ANE culture vs Christian ethics (including OT ethics vs NT ethics)
5) Practical exemptions of the general Headship rule
6) Pastorship
7) Authority
8) Leadership
9) Church vs Society
Time prevents me from delving too deeply into all of these issues, but I shall mention a few as it relates to the points made in this news report.
First, the doctrine of “headship” (doctrine 1) as taught by Paul in Corinthians, Ephesians and Colossians is NOT ABOUT LEADERSHIP. I cannot stress this enough. No where does Paul teach that “headship” is about “leadership.” Nowhere does Paul teach that “leadership” has to do with “headship”. This has been a perennial and general assumption without Scriptural basis.
“Headship” has to with sanctification. “Headship” is metaphor by which Paul describes the means by which God sanctifies Christ, the Church and the family.
Read the appropriate Pauline passages concerning headship: 1 Corinthians 11:2-16, Ephesians 5:21-32 and gender issues. Also, read these passages in light of 1 Corinthians 7:1-16 and Ephesians 5:26.
Christ is sanctified by God, the Church is sanctified by God through Christ, God sanctifies the family (wife and children) through the husband. HOWEVER, as 1 Corinthians 7:1-16 points out, if the husband is an unbeliever but the wife a believer, the believing wife is the means by which God sanctifies the husband and children. Therefore, although the general rule in terms of headship is the husband, by Gods’ grace, the wife can be “head” if the husband is unbelieving (doctrine 5).
As the complementarians so state, “headship” is not about value or worth but about role. However, unlike what complementarians state, “headship” is not about leadership and, although such a role is generally held by men, in some cases such a role is held by women. Furthermore, the issue of “headship” is unrelated to pastoralship.]
Many complementarians are living according to egalitarian presumptions, and research has shown many conservative and evangelical households to be among the “softest” when it comes to familial harmony, relational happiness and emotional health, XXXX said.
[I do not know what he means by “soft”.]
“Evangelicals maintain headship in the sphere of ideas, but practical decisions are made in most evangelical homes through a process of negotiation, mutual submission, and consensus,” XXXX said. “That’s what our forefathers would have called feminism -- and our foremothers, too.”
[I am not going to comment; I don’t think I need to. You know how I feel.]
Egalitarian views are carrying the day within evangelical churches and homes, XXXX said, because complementarians have not dealt sufficiently with the forces that drive the feminist impulse: Western notions of consumerism and therapy.
[Is he saying that men are leaning to shop like women and that is fueling egalitarianism? The previous line is a joke because I am unable to take this seriously.
Basically he is admitting that egalitarians are winning the current debate over “women in ministry” if not in theory than definitely in practice.]
This therapeutic and consumerist atmosphere has led evangelicals away from a view that sees Scripture as the external, objective standard of truth and has pushed them to look inside themselves to find ultimate truth, XXXX said. Because self and not Scripture is the final authority, evangelical homes and churches hold complementarian views but practice egalitarianism, he said.
[Notice that he is not saying that egalitarians are not “misinterpreting Scripture” but are “denying Scripture.” I think this is one of the main problems with modern evangelical conservatives: they cannot even allow for someone to have a differing opinion on what Scripture is teaching. No, anyone who doesn’t agree with them on what Scripture is teaching is intentionally denying Scripture. To them, people cannot be wrong in their interpretation; no, these people (the egalitarians) are rejecting what they (the egalitarians) believe Scripture is teaching. This current crowd of evangelical conservatives believes that their interpretation of Scripture is THE interpretation of Scripture. Therefore, anyone who disbelieves their interpretation of Scripture is disbelieving Scripture. Our group of the Church has for so long been told and convinced themselves that THEY and THEY ALONE have the proper attitude toward Scripture and ONLY correct hermeneutic for interpreting Scripture that they automatically assume that anyone who holds their attitude is doctrinally sound and whoever does not is heterodox. This is a VERY dangerous mind set. It breeds pride and (I’m sorry to say) heresy. Unfortunately, it explains the last thirty years of American conservative Christianity.
Remember: the leaders of the Roman Catholic Church believe that they had the correct interpretation of Scripture. They believed that theirs was the only interpretation because it was the right interpretation. Luther challenged this.]
“Complementarian churches are just as captive to the consumerist drive of American culture as egalitarians, if not more so,” Moore said.
If evangelical homes and churches are to recover from the confusion of egalitarianism, XXXX said, they must embrace a full-orbed vision of biblical patriarchy that restores the male to his divinely ordained station as head of the home and church.
[Again, I am not going to comment; I don’t think I need to. You know how I feel.]
XXXX pointed out that the word “patriarchy” has developed negative connotations, even among evangelicals, in direct proportion to the rise of so-called “evangelical feminism,” a movement that began in the 1970s. But the historic Christian faith itself is built upon a thoroughly biblical vision of patriarchy, he said.
[Again …]
“Evangelicals should ask why patriarchy seems negative to those of us who serve the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob -- the God and Father of Jesus Christ,” XXXX said.
[We need to be extremely careful to distinguish between ANE cultural practices and universal mandates. And, just because God recognizes a particular ANE custom in the Bible, does not mean that it is God’s will for us.
Example: Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob had slaves. God did not seek to abolish slavery among the Israelites or the early Church. Many of Jesus’ parables used slavery to describe the kingdom of God. However, no one in evangelical life today states that slavery is okay.
‘Evangelicals should ask why slavery seems negative to those of us who serve the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob -- the God and Father of Jesus Christ’.]
“We must remember that ‘evangelical’ is also a negative term in many contexts. We must allow the patriarchs and apostles themselves, not the editors of ‘Playboy’ or ‘Ms. Magazine,’ to define the grammar of our faith.”
[So is “liberal”.
Yes, I’m sure all egalitarian evangelicals and non-practicing complementarians are getting their gender theology from ‘Playboy’ or ‘Ms. Magazine’.]
The model of biblical patriarchy/male headship that evangelicals must rediscover is tied to Scripture’s teaching of the fatherhood of God, XXXX said. The Bible portrays God the Father as existing in covenant relationship with the Son in a way that defines the covenantal standing and inheritance of believers, he said.
[The problem with this reasoning is that “headship” either male or female is not synonymous with “rule”.
I’ve thought he has been a bit short on definitions in this article. This could be just the fault of the news reporters and not his paper. Nevertheless, I think we need a definition of “patriarchy”.
“Patriarchy (from Greek: patria meaning father and arché meaning rule) is the anthropological term used to define the sociological condition where male members of a society tend to predominate in positions of power; with the more powerful the position, the more likely it is that a male will hold that position.”
Here is another definition:
The term "patriarchy' is distinct from patrilineality.
"Patrilineal defines societies where the derivation of inheritance (financial or otherwise) originates from the father's line; a society with matrilineal traits such as Judaism, for example, provides that in order to be considered a Jew, a person must be born of a Jewish mother.”
Again, “headship” is not about “leadership”; it is about “sanctification”.
Furthermore, the existence of a patriarchy in the OT does not exclude the existence of a matriarchy.
First, the Patriarchs, known as the Avot in Hebrew, are Abraham, his son Isaac and his grandson Jacob. Collectively, they are referred to as the three patriarchs (sh'loshet ha-avot) of Judaism.
Second, the Matriarchs, known as the Ima-[h]ot (literally "mothers") in Hebrew, are four important women mentioned in the Book of Genesis of the Hebrew Bible. They are Sarah, wife of Abraham, Rebecca, wife of Isaac, and Leah and Rachel, the wives of Jacob. They are considered to be the ancestral "mothers" of the ancient Children of Israel as well as of the Jewish people.
What are some of the other matriarchs of the Bible? Naomi, Deborah, Miriam, Zipporah, Esther, Bathsheba, Mary, Elizabeth, Priscilla, Phoebe, Hanna, Abigail, Huldah, Noahdiah, Anna, and many other prophetesses. Yes, there are many prophetesses in the Bible, both Old and New Testaments.
Let me ask you some questions:
Are prophetesses only allowed to be prophets for women? No, God speaks to men through prophetesses throughout the Scriptures.
Do prophets in the Bible have authority? Yes.
Do prophetesses in the Bible have authority? Yes.
Do prophets in the Bible have authority over men and women? Yes.
Do prophetesses in the Bible have authority over men and women? Yes.
Therefore, do not women in some instances have authority over men? Yes.
The problem that modern Christians (both conservative and liberal) have with authority as it is taught in the Bible is that they assume that when a person (either male or female) has authority that it is that person’s authority … and its not! A person who has authority in the Bible has it not because they are powerful or wealthy or wise or old or male or female. A person has authority because of God. God gives them that authority and such authority is not that person’s and is only authoritative when the person uses it as God wills. A pastor does not have the authority to make me sin. If a pastor sins, a child has the authority to tell a pastor that he is sinning and should repent because it is not the child that is the source of this authority but God. Therefore, a woman can tell a sinning man to repent not because she has authority over him but because God has authority and is speaking through the woman. Prophetesses do this throughout the Bible; are they sinning because of 1 Timothy 2:12?
But I see from this paragraph another fallacy inherent in his thinking and, to be much more broad and general, a flaw in conservative hermeneutics:
Just because the Bible uses a cultural practice metaphor to describe something good or truthful in the Bible does not mean that the cultural practice is good. Again, Jesus uses slavery as a metaphor to describe the kingdom and the relationship between God and Man. This does not mean that God approves of slavery. Why is slavery wrong then? Well, because all people are created in God’s image and have equal worth, therefore slavery is against God’s Will. But we do make an exception with gender differences don’t we.]
The fatherhood of God is central to the Gospel and male headship, and, when practiced biblically, offers a living picture of the redemption believers have in Christ, XXXX said.
[Again, so does slavery.]
“Even the so-called ‘egalitarian proof-texts’ not only fail to demonstrate an evangelical feminist argument, [but] they actually prove the opposite,” he said. “Galatians 3:28, for example, is all about patriarchy -- a Father who provides his firstborn son with a cosmic inheritance, an inheritance that is shared by all who find their identity in Christ, Jew or Greek, male or female, slave or free.
[Does a Jew have headship over a Greek? Does a freeman have headship over a slave?
First, the inheritance analogy is an analogy.
Second, the analogy is in fact teaching that because Christ has this inheritance we as Christians (regardless of sexual, ethnic, or economic differences) are equal in Christ, thereby reversing the curse of the fall.
Third, there are MANY other prooftexts for the egalitarian view.
Fourth, it somewhat irks me to see conservative scholars arguing their POV by saying that the opposing view will lead to a denial of God. Yet, I see it all the time.
“This understanding of archetypal patriarchy is grounded, then, in the overarching theme of all of Scripture -- the summing up of all things in Christ [in Ephesians 1:10]. It does not divide God’s purposes, His role as Father from His role as Creator from His role as Savior from His role as King.
“To the contrary, the patriarchal structures that exist in the creation order point to His headship -- a headship that is oriented toward redemption in Christ [in Hebrews 12:5-11].”
[Okay, the institution of slavery points to man as slaves to Christ and to God. Christ considered himself as a slave to God. Therefore, slavery is okay.]
An embrace of biblical patriarchy also protects the doctrine of God from aberrations such as the impersonal deity of Protestant liberalism and the unstable “most moved mover” of open theism, he said.
[I do understand this argument, but one could just as easily suggest that a patriarchal view of the faith leads to the abuse as women which, by the way, it doesn’t.]
A rejection of male headship leads to a redefinition of divine Fatherhood and divine sovereignty, XXXX said. He pointed to open theism (a view that argues God’s knowledge of the future is limited) as an example of the dangers of rejecting biblical patriarchy. Open theism is built upon a denial of the Scripture’s portrayal of God as the sovereign Head of His creation, he said.
[Again, I do not think the problem is that there is a rejection of male headship among egalitarians. Rather, I think the problem is that evangelical conservatives are 1) misunderstanding the meaning, point, and particulars of “headship” and are 2) attempting to redefine the traditional conservative interpretation of gender roles in light of recent interpretive revelations. This redefinition allows them a) to remain somewhat relevant in modern society and b) to fight further encroachment by progressives on this issue by dismissing egalitarian views as unscriptural and by proclaiming that the complementarian view has always been the correct interpretation.]
“Open theism is not more dangerous than evangelical feminism, or even all that different,” XXXX said. “It is only the end result of a doctrine of God shorn of patriarchy.”
[I have been aware of this Trinitarian argument for female subordination a few years now. It seems to be based on Genesis 1:27:
“So God created man in his [own] image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.”
And 1 Corinthians 11:3:
“But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman [is] the man; and the head of Christ [is] God.”
Now I am not well versed in this study so please do not take this portion of my comments as “gospel”. I am a novice on this particular issue.
But the benefit of this argument is that it explains how it is possible for two “entities” can be both equal and subordinate.
The drawback of this argument is that it is not made in Scripture and is never even hinted at by the prophets and apostles.]
XXXX pointed out that a growing trend exists within evangelicalism in which “soft” complementarians seek to indict other complementarians for not writing frequently against spousal abuse. This charge is a red herring, XXXX said, because complementarians address the issue consistently.
[Yes, he is right; this is a red herring.]
This charge itself, however, reveals a tacit acceptance by evangelicals of a false egalitarian charge that says male headship leads to abuse, he said. Instead, XXXX said, a biblical view of male headship and gender roles actually protect against spousal and child abuse because it does not posit male privilege, but instead demands male responsibility.
[I do agree that complementarianism doesn’t lead to abuse. He is correct in this assertion. However, concept number 4): ANE culture vs Christian ethics (including OT ethics vs NT ethics). I do believe that one of the most difficult concepts for many conservatives to grasp is the notion that not all of the cultural concepts practiced in the Bible are God’s will for Christians. Furthermore, there are some Ancient Near Eastern cultural practices in the OT that God required believers to adhere to (sometimes even at the threat of death) that are completely immoral for today’s Christians and which God forbids us to practice. Yes, some morality is relative. The rub is trying to ascertain what God wills for us today.
Women must have long hair and not short hair. Women should not have braided hair. Why do we not practice the Biblical view of slavery? Why do we not practice the Biblical view of war? Why do we not practice the Biblical view of levirate marriage? Why do we not practice the Biblical view of polygamy? Why do we not practice the Biblical view of punishment for adultery, sodomy, and blasphemy? Why do we not practice the Biblical view of Jubilee?]
“Ironically, a more patriarchal complementarianism will resonate among a generation seeking stability in a family-fractured Western culture in ways that soft-bellied big-tent complementarianism never can,” XXXX said.
[I’m sorry. But “soft-bellied big-tent complementarianism”? He is not speaking about egalitarians here. He is speaking about people who agree with him but are not as forceful in their beliefs as he.]
“And it will also address the needs of hurting women and children far better, because it is rooted in the primary biblical means for protecting women and children: calling men to responsibility. Patriarchy is good for women, good for children, and good for families.”
[But it is just not Scriptural.]
Thursday, December 01, 2005
Top 10 Animation Films
Off the top of my head, I attempted to come up with the Top 10 best full-length animation films of all time.
Here are my 10 selections in no particular order:
The Three Caballeros
Les Triplettes de Belleville
The Polar Express
Spirited Away
Fantasia
Dumbo
Wallace and Grombit:
The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe
Yellow Submarine
Shrek
Any suggestions of films I may have missed?
[Please note: I refuse to accept films made by Ralph Bakshi or Don Bluth.]
Here are my 10 selections in no particular order:
The Three Caballeros
Les Triplettes de Belleville
The Polar Express
Spirited Away
Fantasia
Dumbo
Wallace and Grombit:
The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe
Yellow Submarine
Shrek
Any suggestions of films I may have missed?
[Please note: I refuse to accept films made by Ralph Bakshi or Don Bluth.]
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)