Those of you new to reading blogs may not really be aware that this is an interactive medium - you have an opportunity to interact with the author and other readers over each post. Reading the comments can be a great way to dig deeper into the topic and engage in a discussion. On this particular blog most of my posts receive a few comments, but my recent "Women in Ministry" post broke a new record for the number of responses. It obviously touched a nerve on this vital subject, and reveals its controversial nature and even the surprising diversity of opinion within the Church of God. If you haven't already done so, I encourage you to read the entire dialogue.
I limited my own responses, partly because some others took up the cause, but also because this is a subject that is really the result of some deeply held presuppositions regarding the nature of and interpretations of Scripture. Our understanding of whether or not women are called to pastoral ministry is based on what we believe is taught in the Bible. But the interpretation of these passages is obviously not that simple, based on the divergent views represented.
Biblical hermeneutics is an area that has caused considerable tension within our movement over our relatively short history. While we all agree on the authority of Scripture, how it fits into God's larger revelation and should be interpreted is not uniform, especially in recent decades. The influence of American Fundamentalism and Evangelicalism has impacted our perspectives and approaches to the point that our original holiness orientation to Scripture is largely over-shadowed.
The Church of God emerged out of pietism and Wesleyanism, as well as the holiness movement of the late 19th century. The result was a theological orientation that did not fit well with the dominance of Calvinistic thinking around it, or with the later modernistic debates that have shaped American conservative thinking. Our pioneers had a high view of Scripture but it is clear from their writings and ministry that the Bible was never an authority detached from God's larger revelation. The truth of Scripture was always dependent on the illumination of the Holy Spirit. And, Biblical truth, to be of value, expressed itself in praxis, or as we framed it: holiness. Truth was not some objective enterprise that stood apart from God, including the living Word (Jesus Christ) and the work of the Holy Spirit. Modern rationalism, however, changed the intellectual landscape of Western Christianity, with both liberalism and fundamentalism products of its worldview. Human reason became the standard by which truth is discovered and measured. Sadly, the Church of God has been distracted by these influences and many have bought into the rationalistic arguments that lead to a wooden (and often inconsistent) literalism and the red-herring logic behind inerrancy.
Not only concerning the women in ministry issue, but with all that draws us together doctrintally, it is essential that we come to terms with our understanding of and approach to Scripture. We would be wise to learn from the dynamic hermeneutic of the early Church of God. This is not to unrealistically romanticize our heritage. Certainly, even our hermeneutic has evolved and will need to continue to do so. For example, we have been weak at understanding the Bible within its original historical context, which is evident by the misguided apocalyptic ecclesiology that dominated our theology in our first half-century and still lives on in some sectors today.
Going back to the recent debate, I remain convinced that the calling of women to ministry leadership is consistent with the Gospel of Jesus and the practice of the New Testament church. For those of you that differ with this view, let's acknowledge and explore our hermenutic approaches. It's the real discussion we need in the Church of God.
I limited my own responses, partly because some others took up the cause, but also because this is a subject that is really the result of some deeply held presuppositions regarding the nature of and interpretations of Scripture. Our understanding of whether or not women are called to pastoral ministry is based on what we believe is taught in the Bible. But the interpretation of these passages is obviously not that simple, based on the divergent views represented.
Biblical hermeneutics is an area that has caused considerable tension within our movement over our relatively short history. While we all agree on the authority of Scripture, how it fits into God's larger revelation and should be interpreted is not uniform, especially in recent decades. The influence of American Fundamentalism and Evangelicalism has impacted our perspectives and approaches to the point that our original holiness orientation to Scripture is largely over-shadowed.
The Church of God emerged out of pietism and Wesleyanism, as well as the holiness movement of the late 19th century. The result was a theological orientation that did not fit well with the dominance of Calvinistic thinking around it, or with the later modernistic debates that have shaped American conservative thinking. Our pioneers had a high view of Scripture but it is clear from their writings and ministry that the Bible was never an authority detached from God's larger revelation. The truth of Scripture was always dependent on the illumination of the Holy Spirit. And, Biblical truth, to be of value, expressed itself in praxis, or as we framed it: holiness. Truth was not some objective enterprise that stood apart from God, including the living Word (Jesus Christ) and the work of the Holy Spirit. Modern rationalism, however, changed the intellectual landscape of Western Christianity, with both liberalism and fundamentalism products of its worldview. Human reason became the standard by which truth is discovered and measured. Sadly, the Church of God has been distracted by these influences and many have bought into the rationalistic arguments that lead to a wooden (and often inconsistent) literalism and the red-herring logic behind inerrancy.
Not only concerning the women in ministry issue, but with all that draws us together doctrintally, it is essential that we come to terms with our understanding of and approach to Scripture. We would be wise to learn from the dynamic hermeneutic of the early Church of God. This is not to unrealistically romanticize our heritage. Certainly, even our hermeneutic has evolved and will need to continue to do so. For example, we have been weak at understanding the Bible within its original historical context, which is evident by the misguided apocalyptic ecclesiology that dominated our theology in our first half-century and still lives on in some sectors today.
Going back to the recent debate, I remain convinced that the calling of women to ministry leadership is consistent with the Gospel of Jesus and the practice of the New Testament church. For those of you that differ with this view, let's acknowledge and explore our hermenutic approaches. It's the real discussion we need in the Church of God.
4 comments:
Lloyd, you make a great teacher, my friend; You lay out the comprehensive overview very well, include all and offend no one. A couple of observations:
Yes, we over-romanticize (me included) our our history. Here in Michigan we have so much history, we have a struggle with accepting the 21st century; thus, many congregations are in trouble. Having said that, 1. We need an in depth understanding of our Pietistic heritage (which is less obvious but strongly there). Our "Evangelical" bent leaves us tilted hard toward the side of creed (belief) and very weak on the underbelly of behavior. Consistency eludes us socially, politically, theologically, thus our strong polarizations.Wayne
Lloyd,
I believe the real strength of the CHOG is our insistence upon Christian Unity. In the recently updated Basics for Belief 2nd edition edited by Allison, the chapter on Christian Unity comes before the chapter on Salvation. In fact, it is the first chapter, coming before all other concerns, including holiness. Unity is that important to the CHOG. Unity is what binds us together. Unity is the road ahead for the CHOG (in whatever form).
If we are to be the "connective tissue" in the global Body of Christ, then we cannot be the people that demand everyone think exactly like us. There have been divergent views in our history. We stuck with our “Unity First” plan. We learned, loved, and lived through those problems.
The problems in this world can be boiled down, in part, to the demand that we must be homogeneous. Dictators committing genocide, public schools treating every child the same, and religious people demanding they are right and everyone else is wrong are all examples (even if not directly equivalent with each other) of this drive to make everyone in our image. We must allow people to hold their views and still cling to unity.
When we can deal graciously with those divergent views; when we can lovingly disagree with a brother; when we can chose brotherhood over personal ideologies, then we will have a picture of what is to come if not on this side then certainly in heaven. God must be looking down at our ideas and shaking His head. We must have unity and brotherhood as our first priority. We must reclaim our sense of unity. It will not be found in our ideologies but in our identity as Christians, as children of the King.
Hi Lloyd,
You make some really good points in this blog entry. I'll not rehash what has already been said - I'm with David on the necessity of our unity despite our divergent views.
And I am completely in support of ordained women clergy.
As I read all these entries, I wondered where the women were in this discussion. But that's not my point in this comment!
I remember hearing one of the Rice brothers(probably Herschel) say, "If you can do ANYTHING else but pastor and preach, DO IT!"
God is the author of the call to service. He is the Giver of the gifts. He is the One who places people in the Body.
Ann Graham Lotz tells of preparing to speak to a room full of Baptist preachers. As they bowed to pray she heard a disturbance and when she lifted her head, they had all turned their chairs around with their backs to her. Let us continue to discuss and prayerfully engage in all of the issues on which we don't agree and not turn our backs on each other.
Post a Comment