Influencing Your Life (Luke 13:20-21): My First Sermon

 “To what shall I compare the kingdom of God? 21 It is like leaven, which a woman took and hid in three measures of flour until it was all leavened” (Luke 13:20-21 NASB)

I actually remember being a kid. Back then I promised myself that I would never say the following phrase to my child: “Because a say so,” So far so good. Of course, as a parent it’s easier to get kids to do what you want because you’re bigger than them. And that becomes a lot harder as they grow up. You have to influence them, not just make them. And that’s true of most other people in our lives: spouse, co-worker, neighbor … We cannot really use force to do what we think is the right thing. They may not agree what the right thing is. Or if they do agree, they may not agree on how to do the right thing.

Many of the problems in our country are people fighting over what is the right thing to do and how do we do it. The title of our message today is Influencing Your Life (Luke 13:20-21). This is a wonderful parable. Jesus gives a little germ of an idea here. To really grasp the explosive, world-changing nature of the parable’s meaning here, we must look at two other similar passages. Leaven, often called yeast, was actually old, sour dough which had been stored away and subjected to fermenting juices until it was to be used in new dough as a rising agent. Leaven affects the whole dough. But the word “yeast” still fits what Jesus is saying. He’s using it as a metaphor.

But the metaphor here is a bit surprising at first. The terms “Kingdom of God” or “Kingdom of heaven” refer to God’s rightful rule and reign on this earth in which people live, love, think, and behave in the ways God intends. Elsewhere leaven has negative connotations. Elsewhere Jesus warns his disciples to beware the leaven of the Pharisees and the Sadducees - two different religious political parties of the time.

Paul uses leaven as a metaphor a couple of times. In 1 Corinthians 5:6-8 he uses it to describe the negative influence of undisciplined, unrepentant immorality within the Church. Influence. The key idea is “influence”. In all the passages in the New Testament where leaven is used as a metaphor, the subject of how people are influenced to think and behave is there. In 1 Corinthians, Paul is extremely concerned about how Christians are influencing each other, both positively and negatively. But Paul’s also extremely concerned about how Christians are influencing non-Christians.

In chapter 5, there’s an incident of gross immorality in the church (something that would shock even non-Christians) but the culprit won’t repent and no one in the Corinthian church will do anything about it. Paul’s reaction is “What do you think you’re doing not addressing this?! Remove this person from your midst.” And then he gives our choice phrase: “Don’t you know that a little leaven leavens the whole lump of dough?” Then he adds, “Clean out the old leaven so you will be a new lump.” Paul’s idea here is clear: the immoral, unrepentant Christian is having a negative influence upon the church. Remove the negative influence and things will be better. Now watch this. This is extremely important. Paul here immediately adds: “Now remember, I didn’t say not to hang out with immoral non-Christians.”

Paul’s doesn’t want the church to misunderstand what he’s saying. So, he adds, “I didn’t say not to hang out with immoral non-Christians.” The very same vices he says Christians should not associate with in other Christians, are the very same vices he says should not prevent Christians associating with in non-Christians.

At this point, I’m sure there was a young man sitting in the first row [will call him Eutychus] who raised one had with a question. If he had raised two hands, Paul would have known the young man was a charismatic. The young man asks, “Paul, if the poor behavior of other Christian can negatively influence us if we’re around them, why then is it okay to be around the negative influences of the world?” A good question.

Paul knows that God had originally called ancient Israel to be his special people so that the whole world would be blessed. As God said through the prophet in Isaiah, “You’re supposed to be the light of the world so the world will be saved (Isaiah 49:6; 58:8). Btu he adds, “Because of your behavior, the world wants nothing to do with me. Because of how you live your lives, the world sees no need to be blessed with salvation and justice.”

God called Israel to be a positive influence in order to make world right again, yet ancient Israel had failed. Jesus picks up on this. In his sermon on the mount, he tells the people you are the light of the world, the salt of the earth. When your behavior is great, when you lead your lives the way God intends, you have a positive influence on people, and they’ll be drawn to God in worship and glory. And this answers Eutychus’ question: “If the behavior of Christian can negatively influence us if we’re around them, why is it okay to be around the negative influences of the world?” What Paul is saying is, “We don’t want sin corrupting the Church, negatively influencing us like leaven spreading through a lump of dough, because we want the Church to be able to positively influence the world.” Basically, the Church should be like leaven leavening the whole world as a positive influence.

Last year Philadelphia Church did a short-term LifeGroup around the book Christians in the Age of Outrage, by Ed Stetzer. Stetzer is a church-starter, missionary, professor, researcher, and author of many books. Stetzer and his team have done extensive research and surveys of Christian and non-Christians in America.  Stetzer’s main takeaway is this: “Fellow Christians, we’ve done the research. How we Christians are currently behaving is having a profoundly negative impact on the non-Christian world. You saw in the video the letter from the child who wonders whether God knows whose bad or good based on what they post on Facebook. Stetzer gives particular focus to how Christians behave on the internet. All of us now have the ability to instantly insult thousands of people anywhere in the world at any time. There are times when someone is saying the most horrible things in a social media gathering, and then you go to his profile … and he lists a bible verse and calls himself, ‘a Christian saved by grace.

In his book, Stetzer spends a lot of time talking about how Christians talk about politics on social media and in public. We’re killing ourselves. We are damaging our witness to God and giving Jesus a bad name. Stetzer has the research to prove. And it doesn’t matter who we vote for or what positions we support – it’s across the political spectrum. And the problem isn’t what Christians believe which might be at odds with the world. The majority of non-Christians understand that we believe certain things and might vote certain ways. Non-Christians may disagree with us, but they understand it. The problem is how we’re behaving with our beliefs and how we’re engaging in politics. Again, its across the political spectrum of the Church. We’re having a negative influence on the world, and so people are closing their ears to the gospel. Paul and the other apostles understood something that we’ve forgotten, though they were dealing with the same issues we are. Here it is: God wants us to behave well, be holy, and live the biblically moral life NOT JUST BECAUSE IT’S THE RIGHT WAY TO LIVE but because it has the power to make the world right again. Let me say that again: God wants us to lead the Christian life and follow the teachings of Jesus not just because it’s the right way to live, but because it has the power to make the world right. But we mostly want to transform the world another, particular way; not the way the way Jesus says it works.

So, what is this way that Jesus says works? Let’s turn to another leaven in the bible, starting in Matthew 15:32. Jesus has just miraculously fed 4000 people with a few loaves of bread. The Pharisees appear and say, “Show us a sign that God is backing you.” Jesus, “No!” He goes back over to his disciples, who are saying, “We’ve got some bread leftover.” Jesus replies, “You’re talking about bread? Well, beware the leaven of the Pharisees and Herod” (he throws in the name of the country’s top political leader). The disciples respond, “Why did they leave some around? No, Jesus, I don’t think the Pharisees and Herod left any bread around here.” And at this point, Jesus probably said something like, “Abba Father, give me strength!” But Mark understood what Jesus was getting at. You see in verse 8:11 that they were testing Jesus: “You say you’re a prophet. You’re acting like the Christ, the Messiah, the King. Do something that will make us believe that you are who you say you are.” But by that they were saying, “You need to act and behave like a prophet and king are supposed to act and behave. How was a prophet and king supposed to behave? Everyone knew that.  He’s supposed to act like Elijah the greatest of all the prophets. When he called down fire from heaven at Mt. Carmel and killed all the false prophets and unbelievers. He’s supposed to act like David who slew Goliath and killed the foreign enemies by the tens of thousands. Killing was the kind of thing they expected on a resume. That and a master’s degree. But Jesus wasn’t meeting those expectations.

               In Luke 9 Jesus is rejected by the Samaritans for being a Jew. Samaritans and Jews were very much alike but not quite the same. So because they were a lot alike but slightly different they hated each other far more than they hated those who were completely different. Disciples James and John see the Samaritan’s unbelief and rudeness and ask Jesus, “Lord, do you want us to command fire to come down from heaven and consume them with a lot of heat and burning and blood with all their slightly different ways of doing things.” Basically, Jesus tells them to “Stop it!” and they move on.

               In Matthew 5, in Jesus’ Sermon on the Mount, he teaches “Love your enemies”, “don’t be violent”, “don’t hate”, “help your enemies out even when they’re abusive” … Now if you used the word “enemies” to a crowd of Jews in 1^st century Palestine the first thing that pops in their minds would not have been the neighbors who put up their Christmas decorations on November 1^st. No, the first enemy that would pop into the mind of a 1^st century Palestinian Jew would be … the Romans. The hated foreign occupiers. These pagan, Gentile Romans had swept in, conquered the land, assumed political control of the nation (God’s country!), and Jesus has said to love them rather than kill them. So Jesus is teaching love and non-violence for both nonbelievers and foreign enemies. If he had been in a job interview for either prophet or messiah, it would have been, “Thank you. Don’t call us; we’ll call you.”

But that’s what Jesus is seeing in the tests of the religious and political leaders: both unbelief and opposition to him. Opposed Jesus because they didn’t believe Jesus’ way of being a prophet and king was right. So, when Jesus warns his disciples against the leaven on the Pharisees and Herod (Matthew notes Jesus also mentioned the Sadducees), he’s saying, “Watch out for the influence of unbelief, misconceived expectations, and opposition to me (to Christ).”

Jesus doesn’t leave it there. He travels down to the recently re-named district of Caesarea Philippi. The Gospel writers see what Jesus is doing here and note the place. Caesarea Philippi was named in honor of Augustus Caesar and Herod Philippi – royal names on both the local and global scale. It’s here Jesus questions his disciples: “Who do people say that I am?” They respond, “Some say John the Baptist, others say Elijah, another one of the prophets.” Jesus replies, “But who do you say that I am?” Peter replies, “You are the Christ, the Messiah, the King.” Jesus then informs them they’re headed to Jerusalem. Theologian N.T. Wright likens this episode with a politician gathering with his close friends and advisors. “So, what do the polls say? What do the people think?” “Well, some say you might become senator, others governor. Some even say you could become a cabinet member.” “But what do you think?” “I think you could be president.”  “Campaign starts tonight.”

Jesus has a much bigger office than the presidency in mind. As God he is reclaiming his throne as rightful ruler of the world, putting all the Herods, Caesars, and presidents in their rightful but subservient place. But like the Pharisees, Sadducees, and other parties jockeying for control of the nation, Peter has far different expectation of what it means to be Christ than fits the reality. Jesus teaches the disciples that he is to be rejected by the leaders in Jerusalem, suffer many things, be put to death, but be resurrected in three days. In other teachings on his death, Jesus says he is to be selfless servant, that he will love, forgive, turn the other cheek, but be obedient unto death. The result will be victory and the Kingdom of God. Peter will have none of it. “Jesus,” he says, “let me explain things to you. No, you see, you are the Christ, the Messiah, the King. When you go to Jerusalem to become king you will be immediately victorious. You will kill the Roman occupiers and drive them out. You will kill all the unbelievers and sinners.” Jesus immediately rejects that. He sees it as another temptation by Satan.

Peter isn’t the only disciple with a misconception about power and what it means to be king. As they approach Jerusalem, James and John make a request. That went Jesus becomes king they get to be in the privileged positions on his right and left. Jesus replies, “You do not know what you are asking. When I become king, when they put a robe on me, when they place a crown on my head, when people see the notice ‘King of the Jews’ – well, there will already be a person on my right and my left.” Jesus continues: “The rulers of this world (the Herods, the Caesars, the presidents) they bully and exercise great authority and power. They get things done by forcing other people to do so. But it’s not to be this way among you. To be great, you must be a servant. That’s what I’m going to do.” But this kind of power, this kind of influence is outside the disciples’ thinking, it’s outside their expectations and assumptions about how the world works.

So, in John 18 the mob comes to arrest Jesus. All the different factions – the Pharisees, the Sadducees, Herod, the Romans – put aside their differences and mutual hated and say, “We’re going to get this guy Jesus.” Peter takes out his sword, “This is it people! This is what we’ve been waiting for! Here comes the Kingdom of God!” and cuts the ear off the slave of the high priest. Jesus stops the whole thing: “If you live by violence and force, you will die by violence and force” and heals one of the people coming to arrest him. At this point, you can imagine that entire world of the disciples seems to have collapsed. Everything they thought about the Kingdom of God and how the world works was shattered. “He actually meant those things! Those weren’t metaphors.” Peter does finally figure this all out. In his first letter, he tells the Church, “You know how Jesus was peaceful, submissive, suffering, self-less, servant-like, and holy, and that’s how he achieved victory over the world. You and I need to do the same thing for the exact same reason.” Paul will say the same thing in Philippians 2. Yes, Peter eventually figured it out. Few others ever do.

We have Jesus becoming king and achieving victory thru service, selflessness, forgiveness, love, and turn-the-other cheek justice. And Jesus is looking at the misconceived expectations of the rulers and would-be rulers of this world with their bullying, use of force. But of course! That’s how do things right? Farmer Joe McDonald isn’t wrong. The world is run by the aggressive use of force. Why? Because it’s easier to force change than to change hearts and minds. Which is why people choose force.

So, we come back to our main passage, and Jesus is once again using leaven as a metaphor. Paul has used leaven to talk about the power of influence. Jesus has used leaven to talk about the power of influence. Jesus says that he will become king, that he will be exalted, that he will achieve victory over evil, sin, and death by love, forgiveness, mercy, servanthood, submission – all the ways that everyone thinks are wrong, stupid, foolish, insignificant, of course it doesn’t work … “What kind of king is this?” “What kind of kingdom is this?” Jesus says, “Let me tell you what kind of kingdom this is … It is like leaven which a woman hides in three pecks of flour (three pecks is about 50 lbs, enough to feed a hundred people) until all 50lbs are leavened.” The leaven is small, but it has profound effect. It has profound influence. It transforms the dough. It looks insignificant. You often don’t see it working. But it has an enormous effect. It has an enormous influence. It doesn’t come with force, but its just as revolutionary, changing things from within. The Kingdom of God changes hearts and minds. In the preceding parable, Jesus compares the kingdom of God to the small mustard seed that grows into a full tree. Both parables are about the power of the kingdom of God, seemingly starts insignificance, but having an immense impact on the world.

Jesus’ parables are not just ethical teachings to help us get by in life (though they were that as well). They are tools of victory to set the world right. These are tools that Jesus took to the cross. He forgave his enemies, he didn’t use violence, he thought of others (the weeping women, his mother Mary, the thief dying beside him on the cross – he thought of US). He took love to the cross, dying so that we might live – as every Christian knows. And because Jesus has influenced us, we are to take his influence to the whole world. We are to take up our cross daily and follow him and his way daily. Love, forgiveness, service. Think about the ways of Jesus has influenced you. Jesus says his way is the great victory. If you believe God raised Jesus from the dead, then you already have enough evidence to know that the way of Jesus works. That is the same evidence that convinced Peter.

We Christians influence the world, we change the world, we transform hearts and minds through our Christ-like behavior, not our force. This is they way the world actually does work. It doesn’t come thru votes, politics, majority or minority rule, but through us being the light of the world. That’s how we influence, that’s how we change. We’ve forgotten that, but we can learn it again.

 

How to Evangelize Skeptics and Atheists

“All who call upon the name of the Lord shall me saved” (Joel 2:28-32; Acts 2:17-20; Rom 10:13).

About 15 years ago, I decided to find a better method of evangelizing or (at least) engaging skeptics and atheists. This was about the time when the attendance decline that had marched through the mainline denominations started to visibly progress through the evangelical ones, most notably in the Southern Baptist Convention which saw (and continues to see) declines in attendance and baptisms. This decline was the impetus for my search.

I had grown frustrated with the seemingly universal evangelical approach of using apologetics and reasoned arguments to win hearts and minds for Christ. I certainly questioned the effectiveness of such an approach, as well as its legitimacy. Exactly what fruit were we seeing from reasoned discussions with atheists about the existence of God? What were the results? Had anyone gone from atheist to Christian based upon reasoned arguments? When I’d ask this last question to Christian supporters of apologetic evangelism, the reply was always the same: Lee Strobel. No other example was ever given. In my own mind, I questioned whether a single example of success was warrant for an entire wing of evangelical methodology. Such an approach was only slightly better than taking an atheist to the Middle East and have him travel between Jerusalem and Damascus, Syria because that’s how Paul was converted. Even then, I and other Christians before me have questioned the authenticity of Strobel’s account of his investigation into the Faith, pointing to timeline discrepancies, his methodological approach, and whether his was more leap than logic.

Other apologetic evangelists, however, were far more realistic and measured in their understanding of their method’s effectiveness. They state that their approach was not to reason skeptics into the Faith but to remove issues and problems that hindered the skeptic from hearing the gospel. I still think theirs is a valid reason, which quite rightly puts the onus upon the Spirit himself to regenerate the individual to repentance and belief. But since it is God himself who brings about the change, perhaps there was a swifter or easier way to bring this about.

I began considering approaches which largely avoided apologetic arguments for the existence of God, though they occasionally do appear. While certainly there is a limited place inside the Church itself for epistemology, ontology, the theory of value, William Lane Craig’s Kalām Cosmological Argument, and the reduction ad absurdum of the presuppositionalists, as evangelistic methods of outreach, they harden the mind far more than they soften the heart. Even if there is rational proof for the existence of God, it is a proof which largely escapes the notice of most people for whatever reason. Certainly, whatever rational arguments are currently out there have been found lacking by the most prominent of atheist minds. Whatever reason the apologists offer for the failure to provide convincing arguments for the skeptics, only concedes the point that reason has its limits. If anything, most people are largely irrational, particularly about religion (whether for it or against it), and everyone is somewhat irrational. Indeed, few seem to reason their way into Christian doctrinal beliefs but are rather born into it, inculcated within the religious community. Which is why Presbyterians usually give birth to Presbyterians rather than Roman Catholics. Put yourself in the position of a skeptic by imagining speaking with an adherent to Islam: “Your father was a Muslim, your Grandfather was a Muslim, you’re great Grandfather was a Muslim, and your great great Grandfather was a Muslim … but you yourself became a Muslim thru reasoned arguments. Really? You don’t say?” A somewhat flippant analogy, but that’s how atheists and skeptics look at most Christians. But even if there were a common, reasoned argument for the existence of God and the individual was at the peak of rational thought, the nature and problem of sin nevertheless interferes with both hearts and minds. Many good Calvinist theologians have claimed that while every human being has been granted the capacity to know God (sensus divinitatis), it does not work properly in some or all humans due to sin’s noetic effects. Our capacity then to know God thus requires divine intervention in the form of the Spirit’s influence upon hearts and minds. Again, as noted above, if it is God himself who brings about the change, perhaps there was a better way to bring this about.

By the time I had begun thinking along these lines, I had been reading Soren Kierkegaard and the neo-orthodox theologians for several years and had been highly influenced by them. I was intrigued by Christian existentialism, the theology of encounter, and the revelation of God. While not discounting the objective nature of the Christian Faith and biblical truths, I came to appreciate the idea that objective, biblical truth was of little use to the individual unless it had a subjective effect. Eventually, all these thoughts came to a head, and I conceived of an evangelistic method of proof so simple that it can be wielded by the smallest child. Therefore, fifteen years ago, I wrote the following:

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 Southern Baptist Convention and evangelicalism in general. As I see it, the problem with atheism is not that they demand proof of God’s existence, but, rather, they refuse to do what is necessary to get the proof which they say they require. Atheists principally state they require objective proof or, more precisely, scientific proof. They require proof that can be tested, repeated by many others so that all those who perform the exact test will always independently get the same results. From this repeatable test, 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.

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 experiments that can be tested, repeated, and generally agreed upon by learned consensus. Certainly, there are certain doctrinal agreements that are made by the individuals in a community of believers, but these agreements are made based on the assumption that individuals in that community have had that independent and subjective experience of God.

There are good reasons why God would choose to provide proof of his existence by subjective means.  For the purposes of this article, I note two: First, the individual’s experience of God is profoundly relational. When God first called Abraham to be a part of his plan to renew creation, he made a personal promise and agreement with the patriarch (Gen 12). A similar promise was made with Jacob (Gen 28). All through the book of Genesis, God engages with humans on a personal level, making promises, predictions, agreements, and warnings. Indeed, when he appears before Hebrews he often identifies himself and is identified as the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob (Gen 26:24; 28:13; 31:29, 42, 53; 32:9; 46:1; Exod 3:6, 15, 16; 4:5), noting his personal relationship. When God appears to Moses, he identifies himself as Yahweh, which means “I was who I was, I am who I am, I will be what I will be.” (Exod 3:14). The main point of this name is not to affirm existence, but to affirm his personal commitment as a god who can be personally trusted. All these references emphasize a personal relationship which by its very nature is subjective.[1]

Second, 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. 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, not universal humanity. God is just and fair and wishes all to relate to him. Therefore, God gives everyone the ability to relate to him, not just the learned.

               In this vein, atheists also have the ability to relate to God. Atheists have within them the method by which they can prove God’s existence, at least to themselves. However, most atheists and skeptics 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, most refuse to ask. Indeed, atheists and skeptics state that they will not relate to God until they have evidence of his existence. The problem is that proof for his existence comes from that relation. To give an analogy of the situation: If one wants to solve a mathematical equation one works the problem out. By 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 himself 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. Yet, 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 have no proof of his existence. Indeed, experience has shown me that the skeptic’s prerequisite that such proof be presented apart from their selves is evidence of their hesitancy to become personally involved in the pursuit of such proof.

For this reason, when I meet a skeptic who states that he or she doesn’t believe in the existence of God 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 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 skeptic and urge him or her to seek a relationship with God.

Apart from a few fixes, deletions and clarifications, everything I noted above was written by me 15 years ago. In the years since, I’ve used this simple, questioning method in many different occasions. My experience has been that it works, and much more so than the various apologetic methods. Many atheists and skeptics have wanted to argue with me on the existence of God and the problem of evil. But I prefer to set the rules of engagement myself. “Ask God to prove his existence to you. You’ve nothing to lose."

Atheists and skeptics know all the clichéd arguments that atheists have made over the years, and all the Christian responses to those clichés. However, when I personalize the issue, I’ve undercut them, making all their traditional arguments irrelevant. They aren’t expecting that. It catches them off guard, makes them vulnerable. That’s to our advantage. Again, in my experience, this method has worked. Skeptics will later tell me that they now do believe in God’s existence. Their rationale is frequently illogical, gapped, and far more of a leap than a step-by-step rationale, but there they are.

            Up until now, I’ve never had the opportunity to record such discussions using my method. A few months back, in two posts open to the public, I wrote the first paragraph under “ME” below. Two skeptics about the existence of God (who I’ll identify as A1 and A2) chose to respond to my post. As you will see, both were very respectful about my religious beliefs and really wanted to discuss the matter in a reasoned and thoughtful manner. Pay close attention to dialogue below.

ME: “If God exists, the fact that humans know means some form of proof has been offered & accepted. If God exists, then enough proof's been given to convince 95% of the population. Those who don't believe in God claim they need proof; those who believe already have the proof they need. 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.”

A1: “What is necessary?”

A2: “I think this is an odd way to consider the issue. I mean, you don't run around ‘doing what is necessary to get proof of Mbombo.’ You just remain unconvinced if his existence. You're a non-believer regarding Mbombo.[2] I'm a non-believer regarding your god. No need to fret.”

ME: “Would you or would you not want there to be a god? We'll define ‘god’ simply as a supreme being who creates everything but himself and can create a personal relationship with a human being?”

A1: “It’s not about desire. I don’t believe there’s a monster under my child’s bed just because he said there was. Until evidence presents itself of such an extraordinary claim then I’ll not believe it. Regardless of how much I or anyone else want it to be true.”

A2: “You're attempting to alter the trajectory of this conversation. You originally suggested the problem with atheists is that they don't do enough to search for the evidence for god … I pointed out that you don't search for evidence for Mbombo; You simply remain unconvinced.”

ME: “Actually no, I am not altering the course of the conversation. In fact, this is precisely the same course I've followed on this subject for nearly 15 yrs. I'm offering atheists a way to be convinced that there is a God. And it's not that atheists aren't doing enough, but not doing what's necessary. And believe me, I myself am not going to try and convince; I’m suggesting a far easier way. Would you like to know what it is?”

A2: “I'm certainly open to being convinced god exists. However, it's not my responsibility to seek her out. Either she wishes to convince me, or she doesn't.”[3]

ME: “Here me out on this, friend. If there was a God, would you want to be convinced of it to your own satisfaction?”

A1: “Absolutely. If something is real, I’d want for science to show it and would defend its existence.”

Me: “Would you be willing to be convinced outside of scientific verification?”

A1: “Such as?”

Me: “Here's what I want you to do. I want you to sincerely ask God to prove his existence to you. Just say something to the effect of God, if you exist, let me know. Then just be patient over the next few weeks and months and see what happens. It can't hurt to try. Nothing to lose.”

A2: “If your god wishes to make his existence known to us, I'm sure she's capable of doing so instantaneously. Really, it's quite simple: Either your god exists, or she doesn't. If she does, she either wishes to convince us of her existence, or she does not. It's her choice.”

Me: “Why don't you ask her if she exists? Just sincerely ask her and then be patient. Give a few weeks or months. What do you have to lose?”

A2: “Why? If she wants to convince me of her existence, she's free to do so at any time.”

ME: “Please don't take offense to this ... It's not my intent to offend ... But you are sort of proving my point in a way.”

[“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.”]

A2: “You can see how this wouldn’t satisfy someone as proof right? I think the fundamental difference is believers are happy with faith and speak to personal experiences. I personally don’t trust things not based in science with verifiable evidence. A key part of being a sceptic.”

ME: “The complexity of the universe is such that it's difficult for our finite minds to grasp it's wonders. On top of that is our nurtured prejudices, biases, worldviews, & unconscious desires. Mostly, we don't know what we don't know. I'm simply suggesting a way to find out.”

A1: “So god of the gaps? We used to think god lit a fire every morning to raise the sun. Then we learnt. We used to think we were the center of the universe, then we learnt. We keep plugging these knowledge gaps with science. The absence of knowledge is not proof of god.”

ME: “No, no. Never "God of the gaps". I'm saying we're all finite & prejudiced to some degree or other. I'm also offering a way to find out a little bit of the truth about the existence of God, which should be easy to do, presumably without downside. Just give it try and be patient.”

A1: “Would you also be open to challenging your own faith? Perhaps by searching for one single piece of physical evidence that proved conclusively god’s existence?”

ME: “Sure. What would it look like? At the same time, will you follow my suggestion to sincerely ask God to prove his/her existence to you, and then wait patiently for a response?”

[These two questions went unanswered.]

A2: “You’re under the impression the burden of proof for your assertion falls upon my shoulders. It doesn’t. Again, either your god exists, or she doesn’t. If she does exist, she either desires to convince me of her existence, or she doesn’t. Really, it’s no skin off my back.”

ME: “Not really. If I said the answer to a question was written in the first line of a book's paragraph, perhaps you have the burden of reading the line, but, apart from that, the argument is being made by someone else completely. The burden isn't in the questioner, only the answerer. But let me ask you: Why do you think you're having such difficulty simply asking the question? I mean, our discussion began with my assertion that people refuse to make the request.”

[A1 responds to the following statement by me from above: “Here's what I want you to do. I want you to sincerely ask God to prove his existence to you. Just say something to the effect of God, if you exist, let me know. Then just be patient over the next few weeks and months and see what happens. It can't hurt to try. Nothing to lose.”]

A1: “You’re right there’s nothing to lose. But what sign would I be looking for? Aside from real verifiable evidence of gods existence what would this be? How would I know I wasn’t the victim of personal bias?”

ME: “My experience indicates various "signs". I'd prefer not to suggest anything; it often happens to people in ways I couldn't guess. Just try it and see what happens. With regards to personal bias, I suspect you'll have to reflect on the experience yourself and make that decision.”

A1: “But that’s the point right. Any conclusion I make would be based on personal experience and be biased in some way.”

ME: “Try it and see. You said you agreed that there's nothing to lose by asking. Give it a try and see if you're dissatisfied with the results.”

A1: “I’m not sure I would know how to do it. Which god would you like me to contact? How do I do that? How do I confirm I have the right god? What’s my control? What should I ask for? How long do u wait? How do I distinguish between things that were going to happen via sign?”

ME: “Let God figure all that out. Just sincerely say, ‘God, let me know you exist.’ Then be patient. Again, no harm in trying.”

A1: “To be clear my issue is not belief. I’ll march and protect the day they try and stop you from believing whatever you want to believe. I have just never seen proof of any gods. If we ran any other part of our world this way, we’d consider it crazy.”

ME: “I appreciate that. If I didn't believe, I hope I'd have the same respect for those who did. My experience is that proof comes via subjective experiences. This might seem odd, but it's proof that can be grasped at any intelligence level, not just the best at objective sciences.”

A1: “We wouldn’t manufacture drugs based on personal bias, we wouldn’t want criminals convicted without physical evidence. We wouldn’t trust a pilot who believed he had enough fuel instead of doing the calculations and checking the instruments. Why do we allow religion special rules?”

ME: “I wouldn't say religion has any unique rules. Christianity, at least, makes particular claims to history. With history, the discovery is more towards witness, documentation, probability, value judgments, and the interpretive consensus of a recognized expert community. Certainly, the scientific method can play a part in the discovery of history, but only a part. For example: we can know Caesar probably crossed the Rubicon, we can explain (scientifically) how he did it, but then there's the more subjective question of why it was significant. All such thinking, in terms of Christianity, is important down the road, but not usually the best way to start. If I were you, I'd start with direct questions to this God (who may or may not exist for you) and see how he responds. Be honest to him; he really doesn't mind.”

Our conversation then ended with respectful appreciations on all sides.

Now, what did you notice about this discussion? What stuck out? There’s much to analyze about their responses to my statements.

As I noted in the beginning of our conversation, and apparently the comment that drew their attention: “The problem with atheism is that they refuse to do what is necessary to get the proof which they say they require.”

Throughout this good-natured discussion, the two skeptics would not do, or say they would do, the very thing I said would bring them proof. Even when I mentioned that they were proving my first comment to be true, they continued their refusal. Instead, they were trying to think up reasons to not get the proof.[4] They were applying rational thought with great irrationality. Why did they refuse to do it? As I said, and what A1 confirmed, they had nothing to lose. Don’t you find that odd? What do you make of it? Why do you think they (as with many other skeptics in my experience) refuse to ask God to given them proof of his or her existence? Again, this is not an isolated event. I’ve had many similar discussions with skeptics over the years, including incidences that occurred before I wrote my original article over 15 years ago. What holds them back?

Which is why reasoned arguments for the existence of God are of little use. Most atheists and skeptics will be irrational. They’d rather lose the argument than gain the proof. This is a serious hardening of the heart and mind, blinded by the god of this world (2 Corinthians 4:4; Psa 115:8; 135:15-18; Isa 6:9-10; Rom 1:23, 25; 12:2). In truth, there is very little that we can do. However, the TRUE God of this world can do something. What we can do then is invite the skeptics and atheists closer to God. We just setting up the meeting, where the person can come “face to face” with his or her creator. Then we let God do the work.

Of course, this approach will not work every time. As seen above, many will be too blind to even attempt to talk to God. Similarly, they will be too blind to recognize that something is holding them back. Anything beyond slip of a thought will be rationalized away. Nevertheless, this is a better evangelistic approach than any reasoned argument. It works in often surprising ways, overcoming the limits of reason and rationalizations.

 

 

 

---

[1] I’d add that the God of the Hebrews is one who shows emotion and concern. He laughs, is joyful, is angry, is pleased, loves, forgives, shows mercy, is patient, and shows regret and sorrow. He also shows deep concern for the poor, the widows and orphans, the neglected, the abused, the forgotten, the slaves and the kings, and intervenes to right wrongs. All of this reflects his personal character as more a subject to be experienced than an object to be studied.

[2] “Mbombo, also called Bumba, is the creator god in the religion and mythology of the Kuba people of Central Africa in the area that is now known as Democratic Republic of the Congo. In the Mbombo creation myth, Mbombo was a giant in form and white in color. The myth describes the creation of the universe from nothing. The story of Mbombo's creation tells that in the beginning, Mbombo was alone, darkness and primordial water covered all the earth. It would happen that Mbombo came to feel an intense pain in his stomach, and then Mbombo vomited the sun, the moon, and stars.” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mbombo

[3] It’s possible but uncertain that this person was attempting to distract me or alter the conversation at this point by referring to God as feminine. I’ve seen atheists and skeptics use similar techniques in similar conversations. Don’t get distracted by such attempts; stay on target. Certainly, don’t try to win the argument; try to win the person. This is exactly what Jesus did when he spoke with the woman at the well (John 4). When he mentions something that makes her uncomfortable (v. 17-19), she brings up a divisive theological-political issue (v. 20), possibly as a distraction to change the subject (see Acts 23:6-10). Jesus doesn't take the bait. His response is to go much deeper into the problem than in the surface, contentious matters, but still making the matter personal for the woman (v. 21).

[4] One thought I was attempting to change the subject. Again, many skeptics and atheists know the points and arguments that theists tend to make in such discussions - particularly those who seek out debates with theists. But the line of questioning which I propose is (so far) relatively uncommon. If anything, it was the skeptics who were attempting to change the subject.

Six Points and Eight Suggestions for an Egalitarian Advancement Methodology

            I’m a Christian Biblical egalitarian. That means, in part, that I believe and support the position that, according to the bible, women are equal to men in virtually all aspects of life including the home and the Church. I believe that women can teach men biblical doctrine and hold the church positions of pastor and senior pastor.

            I wasn’t always an egalitarian. Up until 2002 I was a biblical complementarian. A complementarian is a Christian who generally believes that a man is the authority in the home (the woman is subordinate) and only a man can be a pastor. In 2002 I enrolled in a complementarian Southern Baptist seminary. I took biblical interpretation (hermeneutics) classes from complementarian professors. However, when I applied their immensely invaluable methods for interpreting the bible I was immediately and thoroughly convinced that the bible both allowed and encouraged women in an equal role with men.

            There are many issues of social injustice for which the Christian can engage racism, poverty, war, healthcare, etc.). Through prayer (an interest) everyone pursues a topic or two on which to focus. There are three reasons for why I am a vocal and continuous advocate for egalitarianism:

•  It’s the biblical truth.
• We Church hinders its mission when it only uses 50% of its pastoral leadership pool.
• Patriarchy is one of the most ancient forms of social injustices. [I’m currently writing an article about how the ancient Israelites conceptualized the rise of social injustice, particularly in Genesis 1-11, 19 and Judges 19.]

            Those last two reasons are significant. The Christian Faith has an endgame, a goal. It’s referenced many times in the bible, but most clearly in 1 Corinthians 15, Romans 8, Revelation 21-22, Psalm 110, and Daniel 7. It is when the world will be completely redeemed, and all oppression eliminated. One significant aspect of the Christian Faith is participating in Christ’s reform or elimination of these oppressive institutions. Patriarchy is one of these oppressive institutions.

So, I would like to offer some points, suggestions, and general guidance on what I believe is the best method to achieve the egalitarian goal. The suggestions are based on the points, and both suggestions and points derive from demographic research, Scriptural teachings on the gospel and the accompanying gospel methodology. This method is about playing the long game by the direction of the Spirit and within the movement of the culture, by both speaking and living the truth in love. It isn’t about bullying, excluding, mocking, or using “politics” to achieve quick but temporary goals. Rather, it is about a patient, incremental, and Spirit-led process of more permanent transformation and redemption.

 

Point One: The Holy Spirit has been moving the Church towards greater egalitarianism and will continue to do so. God will accomplish this because God wants to accomplish this.

Point Two: The movement of the culture is in the egalitarianism’s favor. (See the demographic pics on this post.) Most people WANT egalitarianism to be true. These factors (especially from the previous point) give egalitarians and overwhelming advantage.

Point Three: We won’t convince hard complementarians. Even if the egalitarian reading of Scripture is recognized by everyone, hard complementarians will always find an excuse. Example: many hard complementarians were willing to change 2,000 years of Trinitarian doctrine [i.e., Eternal Subordination of the Son] in order to establish the validity complementarianism, and even those hard complementarians who disagreed with them considered altering the Trinity an “agree-to-disagree” issue. The latter group is far more a concern than the former. It means that hard complementarians think that permitting a woman to proclaim the gospel is a far bigger problem than altering the doctrine of the Trinity.

Point Four: Most soft complementarians will be content with egalitarianism even if they disagree (again see polling pics). They’ll shrug their shoulders, agree-to-disagree and live with the inevitable result regardless of the outcome.

Point Five: Complementarians stake their position on this subject based on their interpretation of the bible. In the Southern Baptist Convention, biblical inerrancy is a badge of Christian fidelity. But complementarianism is the most important badge of biblical inerrancy. For someone to state that a biblical inerrantist can be an egalitarian (particularly if that someone is a noted leader like Beth Moore) is like telling a stereotypical 1^st century Pharisee, “One doesn’t need to be circumcised to be a faithful. In fact, one doesn’t need to be a Jew in order to be recognized as part of the children of God.”

Point Six: Have you noticed that many hard complementarians come-off as mean-spirited and unappealing? They often display language, humor, and attitudes which are demeaning, misogynistic, and turn-off both soft complementarians and the undecided.

Suggestion One: Focus on the goal. Don’t make egalitarianism an end in of itself. Stress that egalitarianism is a means to proclaim the gospel, make disciples, and make the Kingdom come on earth as it is in heaven. This is completely true, it looks great to the unconvinced, and it helps to emphasize this to both complementarians and egalitarians.

Suggestion Two: In general, don’t argue with hard complementarians unless 1) there are others watching the debate who would be easier to convince, or 2) you want to test the strength of an egalitarian argument against real “opposition”.

Suggestion Three: Focus mainly on those just beginning to form opinions and positions on egalitarianism & complementarianism. If the hard complementarians won’t be convinced, and the soft complementarians won’t care, then the struggle should be with the undecided future. People become complementarians because they are born into a system and worldview which tells them that complementarianism is the correct way the world should work. As biblical egalitarians, we supposed to be a part of God’s plan in Christ to right the world. We want to create a worldview in which people are born into this world in which every child grows up assuming women and men are equal in home, church, and world (Prov 22:6).

Suggestion Four: Don’t try to win the argument; try to win the person. This is exactly what Jesus did when he spoke with the woman at the well (John 4). When he mentions something that makes her uncomfortable (v. 17-19), she brings up a divisive theological-political issue (v. 20), possibly as a distraction to change the subject (see Acts 23:6-10). Jesus doesn't take the bait. His response is to go much deeper into the problem than in the surface, contentious matters, but still making the matter personal for the woman (v. 21).

Suggestion Five: Make your arguments appealing and palatable to others. Figure out who your audience is and then decide how best to frame and communicate the truth in a way that would be more accepting to the person or people. Choose appropriate and appealing terminology. All faith traditions, races, nations, cultures, and wings of the Church favor ideas, terms, emphases, and doctrines that others may not. Figure out what those are for a given fellow believer or group, figure out how egalitarianism relates and supports it, and then make your appeal that way.

Suggestion Six: Be biblical in your arguments. Most people do not arrive at religious conclusions based on careful, logical examinations of the various arguments, biblical or otherwise. However, logical arguments (particularly from the bible) help secure people in their convictions. Therefore, stress the importance of Scripture and the biblical basis for egalitarianism. As noted above, a position of biblical fidelity and egalitarianism undercuts the arguments and preconceived attitudes of the hard complementarians who are also trying to convince the undecided. I’d add that most complementarians (even the hard kind) don’t have a great biblical basis for their position because their faith traditions have excluded all those who could offer a proper egalitarian defense. With some familiarity of the subject, it’s fairly easy to mop the floor with a complementarian with biblical arguments. But, again, hard complementarians won’t change, so humiliating them won’t advance the gospel. We want to love them but be strategic in how we approach them on this subject.

Suggestion Seven: Be loving, merciful, and patient with complementarians. Let complementarians know that you want to work with them for ministry and mission. If we want complementarians to be inclusive of us, then we need to be inclusive of us. Both soft complementarians and the undecided will note our good attitudes and appreciate it. We want soft complementarians and the undecided to look at egalitarians and think, “Wow! Those egalitarians love the Lord, preach the gospel, and love even with whom they disagree. I like having them around.” Soft complementarian tolerance of egalitarians and their position is 75% of the victory. Time will insure the remaining 25%.

Suggestion Eight: Pray. We need to find out what God wants us to do as individuals and as a group to achieve victory. And then we do it! Pray before you jump into an argument. Pray for mercy and patience when amongst or talking to hard complementarians. Pray for the best way to communicate to an undecided.

Suggestions for Christians Combating Racism

For several months now I’ve been reading books and articles on systemic/structural racism and critical race theory, primarily from a Christian perspective. “Combating” racism is not one of the missions on which I tend to focus, but the subject does correlate, complement, and adds insight into my areas of mission. Nevertheless, as someone who appreciates the work and ministry that Christians are doing to break the power of racism, I’d like to offer some observations that I hope will encourage and help their Kingdom work.

 First and foremost, I must note that in my study of the subject, I haven’t read any real suggestions on how to solve the problem of systemic racism from the Christian perspective. At most, the focus is on self- and societal- awareness. At first appearance, if racism is more a structural issue than a sin issue (as many Christians insist), then it’s difficult to see how awareness would be any more helpful than repentance. If anything, sin and unawareness are two sides of the same coin. One is intentional and the other unintentional. One is flagrant, the other ignorant. Indeed, how the “woke” describe systemic racism is far more like that of sins of ignorance. However, for whatever reason, it’s typically treated as a sin of defiance. Which is one of the primary strategic mistakes the woke are making. They frequently make no distinction between honest, goodnatured errors and the vilest of racist bigots. They demand empathy for the oppressed but practice none for the unconvinced, even if such empathy would further their cause.

 Many of the most prominent Christians I see focusing on systemic racism seem almost completely uninterested in convincing others of their position. They demand blind acceptance of their position otherwise the unconvinced will be labeled racist. Theirs is an unmerciful and arrogant attitude. Indeed, there’s a tinge of fundamentalist Calvinism in too many woke Christians. Original sin is slavery. Whites have inherited guilt. Person on the street calls you racist, tells you to repent: “Confess your privilege, agree w/ the Word narrative, & become born-again woke.” Now, the substance of either message may be quite valid. The point is how the method makes the message come across to others, even to those who might agree. Such an approach turns off otherwise sympathetic ears and, combined with the apparent inability to point to direct causes of structural racism, presents the woke as unserious, ignorant, and foolish.

 And the apparent inability to note direct causes of systemic/structural racism that can be eliminated and reformed is a significant difficulty. Certainly, the Christian woke can point to the results of problems but seem overwhelmingly incapable of identifying the specific problem itself, which is probably the reason why they rarely offer solutions to dismantle structural racism. Indeed, I’ve frequently observed good Christians accuse other believers of being racist for offering possible specific examples of structural racism that (accurate or not) were deemed offensive to the accuser. So, while the Christian woke offer no specific solutions, they label as racist those who are unconvinced or those who suggest solutions with which they disagree. This is not how you build support for a cause. At most, instead of addressing the structures of racism, the Christian woke overwhelmingly focus on addressing soft, symbolic targets that even in absolute victory would have no tangible effect on eliminating systemic racism. Crusades against such symbolism are easy and gives a false impression of achievement and advancement when nothing has been achieved.

 In a recent Christian book on systemic racism, the author cited research in which guilt can be a positive, productive tool for transformation. However, the use of guilt as a methodology for widespread change, necessitates convincing everyone that they are guilty of systemic/structural racism which was initially formed in the past. Presumably, such guilt is more understood as sustaining (even if unintentionally) the prevalence of that systemic racism by one’s behavior. However, if so, it's more an assumption that a given white person does act in ways which supports such a system. And if unintentional acts still mean guilt, it's certain that black people themselves have acted unawares in perpetuating systemic racism. That gets messy quickly. Small wonder then that the focus is more on those who primarily benefit from the system (i.e., privilege).

 Therefore, I’d like to offer some suggestions for those Christians to better combat systemic racism:

• Be tolerant, patient, and merciful towards those believers who remain unconvinced about the existence of systemic racism or who offer differing solutions. Empathize with them. As much as possible, avoid language and behavior that will turn people off or comes across as virtue signaling or feigned offense.
• In order to convince skeptics and the undecided, think of examples of systemic injustice that's palatable to them (abortion, gambling, etc.). Get them to accept the premise & you've helped them take a step.
• Win the person, not the argument.
• Offer specific examples of systemic racism, not just evidence based on outcomes.
• Focus your efforts on real, tangible goals, not symbolic ones.
• Most importantly, pray to God for direction on how best to achieve long-lasting victory.

Violence and "Cleansing" the Temple

More often than not, when the New Testament authors quote from the Old Testament, the quote almost works like a footnote pointing to the entire passage which it comes from. At the very least, the full meaning of the quote is best understood in light of the original passage. For example, when Jesus "clears" the Temple and temporarily halts the transactions, he quotes from Isaiah 56:7 and Jeremiah 7:11. Check out Isaiah 56. It's about God's intention that the Temple is for all peoples. It's a message of racial inclusivism. Check out Jeremiah 7. It's about impending judgment for numerous injustices, including violence and thievery. The particular judgment envisioned in Jeremiah is absolute destruction by the Babylonians (597 BCE). The particular judgment Jesus envisions is absolute destruction by the Romans (70 CE). The Greek word for "thieves" here is lestes. Thief is too tame a word (for which the Greek uses kleptes). The idea is more of a violent highwayman with an idea towards insurrectionist or revolutionary. Note where else the bible uses lestes (Matthew 21:13; 26:55; 27:38; 27:44; Mark 11:17; 14:48; 15:27; Luke 19:46; 22:52). Note all the places where Jesus is teaching his contemporaries to love enemies, go the extra mile, forgive, turn the other cheek, and not be violent. Then note all the places Jesus warns his contemporaries about coming judgment. Jesus' action in "clearing" the Temple was not specifically about regular Temple business. Rather, it was an enacted parable, a visual lesson, warning that Rome was going to destroy Israel (just like Babylon had 600 years before) because his contemporaries were being violent and exclusionary. While not dismissing the evil of Rome, Jesus was telling an oppressed and persecuted minority people that if they continued their practice of responding to evil by racial violence and thieving/robbery/looting then they'd be destroyed. Indeed, Jesus crucifixion was on one level, an enacted parable of what Rome was going to do to Israel. When Jesus is being led towards crucifixion, the women weep. Jesus responds that they should weep for themselves because if they [the Romans] do this to him an innocent man, what will they do to those who are violent (Luke 23:27-32). Jesus himself wept as he approached Jerusalem for the last time prior to his death. He laments that Jerusalem didn't understand peace and now their enemies will destroy them (Luke 19:41-44). The irony, of course, is that the name Jerusalem refers to "peace" in Hebrew. So, Jesus’ actions in the Temple are not an endorsement of violence, rioting, and looting; nor is it a simple lesson in not selling goods and service in the local church narthex. Rather, Jesus is saying don’t respond to oppression with racial animosity, exclusion, and violence, "for all who draw the sword will die by the sword” (Matthew 26:52). 

The Meaning of 1 Timothy 2:11-15

It is often the case that Christian traditionalists will ignore the abundance of Scriptural teachings that plainly show that women can be elders/pastors/overseers (1 Timothy 5:2), deacons (Romans 16:1; 1 Timothy 3:11), prophets (Exodus 15:20; Judges 4:4; 2 Kings 22:14; Isaiah 8:3; Luke 2:36), and apostles (Romans 16:7). Instead, they protest that the one verse of 1 Timothy 2:12 (“I permit not wife/woman to teach or have authority/domineer/bully husband/man”) renders all the other verses invalid.

The letters of 1-2 Timothy (62/63 CE) are addressed to Paul’s fellow worker who was serving the Church in the city of Ephesus (1 Tim 1:3). Paul had first visited this city in 53 CE as recounted by Luke in Acts 19. Ephesus was proud host to the Roman imperial cult and a huge center of Artemis worship. When Paul arrived in the city with the gospel, the Spirit begins to work mightily and unprecedently through him (Acts 19:11). Paul's preached and taught the gospel of the Kingdom of God (Acts 19:8). There were many conversions, miracles, healings, and demonic exorcisms (Acts 19:11-13). It was also during this time that Paul realized that he must eventually head to Rome (Acts 19:21). Significantly, many of the pagan practitioners were converted by Paul who claimed that there were no pagan gods (Acts 19:18-19, 26). Thus Paul’s work there began to adversely affect the local economy for those who depended upon Artemis worship for their livelihood (Acts 19:24-27). It was at this time that the dark forces began to strike back.

Paul received word that the Corinthian church was falling into disorder. This was followed by a sorrowful letter (1 Cor 2:4) and a painful visit (2 Cor 2:1). In Ephesus, he was arrested and imprisoned following a riot stirred up by angry Artemis idol makers (Acts 19:23-41). This imprisonment seemed to have left him scarred (1 Cor 15:32; 2 Cor 1:8-10). His co-workers also suffered. Gaius and Aristarchus were seized by the mob and eventually arrested (Acts 19:29). Epaphras was also imprisoned (Phm 1:23). Priscilla and Aquila risked their lives (Rom 16:3-4). Epaphroditus got seriously ill (Phil 2:25-26). Onesimus ran afoul of his master, Philemon (Phm 1:10). Yet, Mark has rejoined (Col 4:10; Phm 1:24). With all these apparent attacks by the dark forces, it is not surprising that Paul penned the spiritual warfare classic, Ephesians (probably originally the letter to Laodicea [Col 4:16]) from Ephesus. He also wrote Colossians, Philippians, and Philemon during this imprisonment period.

Given Paul’s horrific experience with the local Ephesian authorities which brought him near to the point of death, it is not a surprise that the first (πρῶτος) instruction he gives Timothy is to tell the Church in Ephesus to not antagonize the authorities. Instead, Paul wants the Church to pray for the authorities so that they may lead quiet lives (1 Tim 2:1-3). It is probable that Paul’s intent here is to maintain the required prayer that permitted the Jewish exemption from Emperor-worship and avoided the persecution that resulted from chargers of disloyalty to the Empire. Indeed, he wants the Christian men to pray in every place (τόπος) without anger or dissension (1 Tim. 2:8). Significantly then, Paul’s focus in chapter 2 is specifically propriety in greater society, not simply in a local house church worship setting. Paul is then not specifically referring to worship in the latter half of chapter 2, but how Christian women behave in the greater society. However, while the safety of the Ephesian Church and its mission is of first priority to Paul, it is evident that the apostle sees the threat of persecution resulting from the teaching of “heterodoxy” (ἑτεροδιδασκαλέω) or “strange doctrines” (1 Tim 1:3). Specifically, Paul was concerned that the angry, inward reasoning of these heterodox teachings would lead to behavior in men which threatened to bring both persecution by authorities and a poor witness (1 Tim 2:1-8; 3:7; 6:4-5). Similarly, with regards to women, Paul, saw the “strange doctrines” leading to immodesty (1 Tim 2:9), possibly still because of the threat of persecution and poor witness.

Therefore, in 1-2 Timothy, Paul addressed the undergirding problem of strange or false doctrines or “heterodoxy” (1 Tim 1:3; 6:3, 20; 2 Tim 4:3) and “myths and endless genealogies” (1 Tim 1:4, 7; 2 Tim 4:4), possibly coming from the wealthy or greedy (1 Tim 5:13; 6:9-11, 17-19; 2 Tim 3:2; Acts 19:19, 23-25). The results of these “false doctrines” were purposeless “speculation and discussion” (1 Tim 1:4, 6; 4:7; 6:4, 20; 2 Tim 2:16, 23), various immoralities (1 Tim 1:9f.; 3:2-3, 8-12; 5:6, 20; 2 Tim 3:3-5), and rejection of the faith (1 Tim 1:19-20; 4:1; 5:12, 15). These false doctrines included Artemis-worship syncretized with the Christian Faith and with particular aspects of Jewish legalism (1 Tim 1:7; 4:3-4). In the Ephesian church, men and women were going from household to household teaching this Artemis-syncretism (1 Tim 5:13; 2 Tim 3:6) and deceiving many (1 Tim 2:14; Tim 3:13). Paul compares them to the pagan priests opposing Moses in the apocryphal literature (2 Tim 3:8-9).

How do we know this false teaching included Artemis worship? In Acts 19:9, Luke uses the word περίεργος to describe a particular practice of Artemis worship in Ephesus. This word means “curious or strange work” or “magic”. The only other New Testament use is when Paul describes what the young Ephesian women are doing (1 Tim 5:13). Artemis was THE main goddess of Ephesus (Acts 19), a source of significant wealth creation, with an important temple. She was primarily the goddess of young women, fertility, and childbirth - perhaps also female empowerment through virginity and singleness. Young women in Ephesus worshiped her in hopes they would be preserved through the dangers of childbirth. Therefore, if young Christian women in Ephesus were getting mixed up in Artemis-worship, it makes perfect sense why Paul would say women/couples are preserved through childbirth (τεκνογονία) by the Christian faith (1 Tim 2:15), i.e., not Artemis-worship. Similarly, in chapter 5, when addressing the young women who are practicing strange Artemis-worshipping practices (περίεργος), Paul says he wants them to get married and have children (τεκνογονέω).

This means that the problem Paul addressed in 1 Tim 2:11-15 was not women elders (see 1 Tim 5:2) or women teachers (see Act 18:26), but a deceived wife domineeringly (αὐθεντέω) teaching Artemis-worship to her husband. It seems evident that one particular Christian woman in Ephesus (who had been deceived by false teaching) was bullying her husband with the teachings of Artemis (1 Tim 2:12), probably due to her fear of childbirth. She may have been influenced by her culture or previous pagan lifestyle to seek the help of Artemis and was pressuring her husband to do the same.

While the problem of Artemis worship was affecting many women in the Ephesian Church, we know Paul is addressing an isolated case in verses 11-15 because he switches from the plural women (γυναῖκας) in verses 9-10 to the singular woman (γυνὴ) in verse 11. So when dealing with a problem of husband and wife (Gen 3:12), deception of a woman (Gen 3:13), the dangers of childbirth (Gen 3:16), and preservation by God (Gen 4:1), it should be no surprise that Paul thought of the Edenic story as the Scriptural solution for this particular couple’s problem.

Therefore, 1 Timothy 2:11-15 does not contradict or override the Scriptural teachings permitting women to teach men and preach to them. It certainly does not limit the ability of gifted women from holding positions of prophet, apostle, deacon, or elder/pastor. Rather, Paul is warning a wife about bullying her husband with the strange teachings of Artemis. He notes she has been deceived like Eve before her but encourages her that she and her husband will be preserved through childbirth by their faith in the one God.

The Context of 1 and 2 Timothy in Ephesus

To understand what Paul is saying in 1 Timothy 2:12 it’s important to understand the context. The problem in Ephesus that Paul is addressing in 1-2 Timothy is “strange doctrines” (1 Tim 1:3; 6:3, 20; 2 Tim 4:3) and “myths and endless genealogies” (1 Tim 1:4, 7; 2 Tim 4:4).

 

The result is purposeless “speculation and discussion” (1 Tim 1:4, 6; 4:7; 6:4, 20; 2 Tim 2:16, 23), various immoralities (1 Tim 1:9f.; 3:2f., 8-12; 5:6, 20; 2 Tim 3:3-5), and rejection of the faith (1 Tim 1:19f; 4:1; 5:15). Side note: the problem stems from the rich (1 Tim 5:13; 6:9-11, 17-19; 2 Tim 3:2).

 

These “strange doctrines” are not proto-gnosticism per se, but a mixture of Artemis-worship (1 Tim 2:15; 5:13 [see periergos here and in Acts 19:19]) syncretized with the Faith and with particular aspects of Jewish legalism (1 Tim 1:7; 4:3f.).

 

Artemis-worship was central in Ephesus (Acts 19), a source of significant wealth creation, with an important temple. She was a protector of young women, fertility, and child birth. Perhaps also female empowerment through virginity and singleness.

 

In the Ephesian church, men and women were going from household to household teaching this Artemis-syncretism (1 Tim 5:13; 2 Tim 3:6), deceiving many (1 Tim 2:14; Tim 3:13). Paul compares them to the pagan priests opposing Moses in the apocrypha (2 Tim 3:8f.).

 

One particular woman (who has been deceived) is bullying her husband with the teachings of Artemis (1 Tim 2:12) probably due to her fear of childbirth. Paul counters this with the Edenic story, assuring the couple that they will be saved by God.

 

Paul is concerned the angry, inward reasoning of these doctrines will lead to behavior in men which threatens to bring persecution by gentile authorities and poor witness (1 Tim 2:1-8; 3:7; 6:4-5). Paul understood the threat from Ephesian authorities (Acts 19).

 

Similarly, with regards to women, Paul, sees the “strange doctrines” leading to immodesty (1 Tim 2:9), possibly still because of threats of persecution and poor witness.