The CBE Scroll

Comment by Frank

October 3, 2009 @ 9:52 am

To begin with, it means that the refusal, in certain circles, to acknowledge and obediently respond to Gal. 2:26-4:7 and 2 Cor 5:11-21 as the true charter of the Church’s corporate life and mission, must be repented of and forsaken as the great and harmful sin that it is.

For this refusal trivializes the redemptive work of Christ, saying that it is primarily “spiritual,” denying the moral and socio-political aspects of Christ’s Gospel; denies women their full inheritance rights as children of God and co-heirs with Christ; and opposes the gifting and calling of the Holy Spirit, who gifts and calls both men and women to ministry and leadership, in full agreement with the Father and Son (cf. John 16:12-15 with 1 Cor. 12:1-26).

Comment by Deborah

October 3, 2009 @ 3:12 pm

It also breaks down the prejudices re: education and so forth that upbringing may have taught us was the test of one’s value. It helps us to see hope, to see redemption (everything in 1 Cor 13)–where in the natural we see broken people who sometimes seem to be doing their best to break one another. It calls us to have vision for potential. The valuation it calls us to, calls us away from self-centeredness; from looking so much to relationships for what that person can bring to me (or even, in a haughty sense, what “I” can bring to them, thereby fulfilling my own ego) but, rather, to receiving one another in what they do and don’t have, worked through them to offer the relationship, or do or do not hold as common interests and working out the tough spells in friendship if the other is willing in light of their value as a glorious creature in the now and not yet.

Comment by Dave

October 6, 2009 @ 4:52 pm

We no longer regard anyone on a performance based standard, but rather accept others as they are.

Comment by Lin

October 8, 2009 @ 6:56 am

“What do you think “we regard no one from a worldly point of view” means for believers?”

The intense focus on gender differences and constant need to define roles as biblical is sin that has entered the camp under the guise of righteousness. It is the most dastardly kind because it disguises itself as virtue.

It means that many believe and are teaching that we should live IN the sin God said would happen as a result of the fall. That is what makes it so insidious.

Are there gender differences? Yes! Do they matter? NO! there is no pink or blue way to salvation. But many teach that there is and claim they don’t.

Comment by .elise.anne.

October 8, 2009 @ 8:35 am

Could it also mean that, when I am oppressed and objectified, I respond with love and grace?

That I see the reality of others (even the perpetrators) who are trapped in this system of oppression as well?

Something that has been mulling around in my brain all week, after an experience that had me wanting to cuss a guy out. Felt the Spirit asking me what “love thy enemy” meant in that situation, when righteous anger cannot beget unrighteous action.

Comment by Sonnet

October 8, 2009 @ 5:41 pm

Yes, I think that we should respond in a loving manner. But if a Christian brother or sister sins against us, we need to CONFRONT that sin. Before I often thought that I was supposed to “turn the other cheek.” (especially in my marriage) What I’ve learned from experience is that was actually NOT the loving thing to do. The other person needed to be confronted. One, to help me not become resentful – which doesn’t help the relationship. Two, to help the other person become aware of their sin. Sometimes they might not even be aware that what they are doing is hurtful, disrespectful, and unloving until it is pointed out to them.

The oppressive systems need truth and light shown upon them to reveal the inherent unrighteousness within them. A light, God’s Word, is needed to show the way out for those who are trapped inside.

“If a brother or sister sins, go and point out the fault, just between the two of you. If they listen to you, you have won them over.” Matthew 18:15 TNIV

Comment by Mark Richardson

October 10, 2009 @ 5:41 pm

I have to respectfully disagree. The belief that gender distinctions should be made not to matter comes not from Christianity but from an anti-Christian political belief system called liberalism. Liberals believe not in the sovereignty of God but in personal sovereignty. They don’t believe in God as their creator but in their own self-creation and self-authorship. Therefore, liberals insist that anything we don’t author for ourselves, such as our sex, is an oppressive limitation on the self that should be made not to matter. It’s damaging for Christians to give support to this modernist liberal belief, as people who accept it are also likely to reject God, and God’s commandments, as further limitations on our own personal sovereignty, self authorship and emancipation.

Comment by Liz

October 10, 2009 @ 9:24 pm

Mark… why is it that because people say that gender specific things/toys/occupations etc are not prescribed in scripture they are also thought to say/believe that gender is not important or that there are no gender differences among people.

It’s one thing to say that all females or males should act in a certain way because of their gender and an entirely other statement which suggests that there is no such thing as gender difference.

It is also a huge statement to call those who believe in biblical equality ‘liberals’ given your description of that word. We certainly wouldn’t give support to such ideas.

Comment by Sonnet

October 11, 2009 @ 4:30 pm

Mark,
I don’t think that you understand what I am promoting. It’s not some form of social or gender engineering to create a singular, androgynous gender. In American history, the U.S. government tried assimilating the native people into the white culture, ripping children away from parents, sending them to American boarding schools, forbidding them to speak their own language or practice their cultural customs. On the other extreme, the U.S. government banished native nations from their former territory and relegated them to life on reservations. Two very different policies: isolation or assimilation. White Australian history is similar in regards to the native Aborigines – even an attempt to “breed out” Aboriginal physical distinctives.

If I’m understanding you correctly, I think that you believe I’m trying to encourage a feminine gender genocide where women try to wipe out everything that our culture views as feminine in order to assimilate into masculine behavior. I think that many of the attributes that are considered feminine are qualities that ALL Christians are told to emulate: compassion, mercy, kindness, gentleness, and patience. But these are not qualities that I hear being promoted to Christian men. Instead, the segregated books, clubs, and conferences for men seem to be preaching hegemony – the need for men to take charge, lead and predominate in their relationships with women (with reminders that this needs to be done lovingly and that they will be held accountable for final decisions). So instead of teaching men and women to serve God together, side-by-side, male control is endorsed within the church and women are expected to subordinate themselves to men and serve them instead of God.

Ultimately, I believe that this thwarts our mission from Christ to teach reconciliation with God and with one another. Rather than becoming united together, we are kept segregated and estranged from each other.

Comment by Lin

October 12, 2009 @ 7:41 am

Mark, This is not about biological differences which I am quite happy about. :o)

But could you list for us the prefall non physical differences between men and women that are listed in the scripture as such?

What are the prefall gender differences in intelligence and emotion?

Comment by Don

October 12, 2009 @ 3:37 pm

Political liberals may not believe in gender distinctions, but that does not mean the idea comes from them and it also does not mean that those that do not believe in gender distinctions other than those based on physical things are politically liberal.

Comment by Robyn

October 14, 2009 @ 1:11 pm

Sure, gender distinctions exist. I would think that is obvious to anyone with eyes to see that men and women have different “plumbing.” But I do not believe that those distinctions translate to “roles” nor hierarchy, as God originally intended the world. Therefore, we should strive to live not in a way that emphasizes the paradigm of power/authority that is of “this world,” but to live in the Holy Spirit–in unity and self-sacrificing servant-hood to one another, always considering others better and before ourselves, as modeled by Jesus and taught in the bible. Power/authority-seeking has no place in Christian relationships.

Comment by Robyn

October 14, 2009 @ 1:14 pm

Also, in Christ, gender distinctions don’t matter. That’s pretty clear from Galatians 3:28. Neither do racial nor economic distinctions matter if we are living in Christ because no one is better than another.

Comment by Deborah

October 14, 2009 @ 3:39 pm

Mark,

Christian egalitarians believe in gender differences, including some non-physical ones which can be generally discussed (although science points to wide variety within each gender, which we tend to be quite careful to note). However, we find that much pop-psychology and that utilized by hierarchical scholars deal with imagined or stereotyped differences and, worse yet, prescribe them as what a male or female MUST or SHOULD be. These are not an accurate reflection of the real differences or their roots (e.g., in cultural mediation) which carry varying authority in speaking for men’s and women’s souls.

(There is one camp of secular egalitarianism which seeks to deny all differences but the physical; the discrepancies between different camps of secular egalitarianism and Christian egalitarianism can be seen in the text Origins of Difference by Elaine Storkey.)

Indeed, the term “complementarity” used to be most strongly affiliated with the camp of mutuality (i.e., with us, with egalitarianism) before hierarchalists adopted it as the new label for their own. Today, egalitarian scholars are still quick to remind us that this is about “complementarity without hierarchy,” not sameness of the sexes. I would venture to say, for instance, that we might find it kind of silly that toy companies cannot emphasize one gender playing with a toy in their advertising (as your blog discusses) without getting in trouble.

However, we do not believe that either biblically or innately the differences which do exist lead to a prescribed authority structure or to prescribed roles which encompass the whole of life. Rather, we see that our complementarity provides a powerful mixture for mutual leadership. Indeed, we see scriptural evidence for the commendation of women in a wide variety of tasks–both “religious” and secular, both inside and outside the home–and note the scriptural reminder for men that all of the fruit of the Spirit (attributes often attributed to women) and the ability to nurture one’s family are equally his to develop as well.

Comment by Trevor

October 14, 2009 @ 7:22 pm

Hi Mark,

Nice to be able to identify (from your blog) another Aussie on this site. However it is disappointing that you heap Biblical egalitarians in with liberal/political thinking and philosophies. As has been well said, by other commenters, your definition may be accurate for your own purposes Mark but your understanding and appreciation of the origins of Christian based egalitarian belief is woefully inadequate.

The depth of sound, biblical scholarship that is now available to defend biblical equality as being God’s original intention for humanity is huge, as the abundance of resources available on the CBE website indicate. Again, as other commenters have pointed out, egalitarians are not advocating same sexness or androgyny. That is an oversimplification that traditionalists pose, or resort to, in an effort to end the debate. The issue is far more complex.

Sonnet has in her post urged christians to find common ground and unite over this issue. Our own Pastor (a male) preached on the marriage passage (Eph. 5) just this last weekend and laid out the mutually submissive theme of the text beautifully. He challenged the congregation to think outside the confines of traditionalism and consider that the text says nothing about male leadership or authority in this context. Rather Paul was offering a radical new paradigm within that male dominated culture. He stated emphatically that hierarchy, or male supremacy based on the supposition of God’s ordering is biblically unsound because it was clearly the result of disobedience and sin and should be rejected now that husbands and wives share full redemption in Christ.

That is the egalitarian position and it has nothing to do with liberal theology or the political/social science argument that is so often used to sideline egalitarians. But, getting back to the unity theme. Our Pastor said something else that he may have borrowed from somewhere, but it really struck a chord with my wife and I. He said that in terms of Christian belief he is rock solid at the core. That is in respect to the life, death and resurrection of Jesus he is totally orthodox, but that he is soft around the edges. This means, that in the peripheral, or less important matters, of which this issue is one, we can be more open minded and listen to what others are saying.

Comment by Sonnet

October 15, 2009 @ 3:03 pm

Mary Stewart Van Leeuwen, a Christian and social scientist, explores the nature versus nurture controversy and the shaping of our gender identities in her book “Gender & Grace.” http://www.equalitydepot.com/index.asp?PageAction=VIEWPROD&ProdID=5616

Here are some interesting excerpts from her book regarding cultural views of feminine and masculine behavior and how this relates to Christianity.

“..the chief New Testament metaphors for being a Christian are not drawn from male-dominated activities such as warfare, politics, international trade, or even high art. They are mainly metaphors concerned with giving birth (witnessing so that others can be “born again”), nurturing (patiently discipling others), caring for the body (of interdependent believers) and taking the lower status of a servant—all activities taken as the more “natural” domain of women! …

That the wisdom of this world should be so turned upside down was a shock to many of Jesus’ disciples. …And to this day, I suspect, it is hard for many men to accept that becoming a Christian means being more like a woman or child in the eyes of the world. …

One of the ways that men can soften the conflict between their cultural masculinity and their “feminization” as Christians is to turn churches and other Christian agencies into thoroughly hierarchical institutions, with women kept as low in the hierarchy as possible. By so distancing themselves from women who are their fellow believers men may feel correspondingly less feminized themselves.” (pg. 117-118)

So this ideology–a fear of male “feminization”–contributes to keeping the church divided along gender lines instead of becoming united. Love should be our motivation for action, but it looks like fear is holding us back.

Comment by Robyn

October 16, 2009 @ 3:01 pm

I think it is important to note that, far from being biblical, the “traditional” arguments for the inferiority of women are rooted in classical Greek philosophy. In short, the idea of patriarchy is of THIS world, not of God. The radical, biblical notion of the interdependence and mutual-submission of men and women is counter-cultural even today, unfortunately. Recognizing this is one way that we regard no one from a worldly point of view.

Comment by Sonnet

October 16, 2009 @ 4:34 pm

Good point, Robyn.

I also looked up 2 Corinthians 5:16 in the New American Standard Bible. “Therefore from now on we recognize no one according to the flesh; even though we have known Christ according to the flesh, yet now we know Him in this way no longer.”

The NASB also cross-referenced this verse with 1 Samuel 16:7. “But the LORD said to Samuel, ‘Do not look at his appearance or at the height of his stature, because I have rejected him; for God sees not as man sees, for man looks at the outward appearance, but the LORD looks at the heart.’”

Comment by Frank

October 16, 2009 @ 8:50 pm

Greetings, Mark. I am not sure, but I think I have encountered you before on Cheryl Schatz’s website, “Women In Ministry,” where you and others have carried on some lively discussion regarding egalitarianism. And I think you’ll find most of the commentators here just as civil and bright in their responses as well. Now for my response to your comments (89979).

I am always amazed that there are still some hierarchical complementarians who, not having taken the time to review either the history of Christian egalitarianism, or to seriously study the literature in which we affirm both a view of Scripture and proper biblical interpretation, falsely classify us as modernist liberals. Yet if they would take the time to to investigate, they would discover that, contrary to what they may have been led to believe, egalitarianism, or better, non-hierarchical complementarianism, is not founded on modern radical feminism in any shape or form.

Rather, we regard ourselves as a Spirit-motivated movement whose roots are in the Christian revivals of the 19th century and the various reform movements that flowed out of those revivals, such as the abolitionist movement and the women’s suffrage movement. And even the black civil rights movement in the US, under the leadership of Martin Luther King, Jr.,had its roots in a form of Spirit-motivated, prophetic Christianity within the various black churches.

Now as regards our view of the inspiration, inerrancy and authority of Scripture, let me remind everyone that all true evangelical Christians have, at least in principle, affrimed the same view.

During the 1980′s, when the “Battle for the Bible” was fierce among Christians, the International Council of Biblical Inerrancy was formed by concerned Evangelicals to uphold this high view of Scripture. Many Evangelicals, both complementarian and egalitarian, because of their common high view of Scripture, actively supported ICBI and there were major components of this commonly held and promoted view:

First, there is the matter of “inspiration.” Most orthodox, evangelical Christians understand inspiration as that supernatural influence of the Holy Spirit, whereby the sacred writers were divinely supervised in their production of Scripture, being restrained from error and guided in the choice of words that they used, consistent with their own disparate personalities and stylistic peculiarities. The Spirit’s influence and supervision involved not only concepts and ideas, but the choice of appropriate words; in their choice of essential grammatical and syntactical relationships; and according to their historical/cultural milieu, in the choice of the literary genres best suited to communicate the ideas and concepts the biblical authors desired and intended their original readers to grasp and understand. And again, while every word, sentence structure, and genre form was utilized under the Holy Spirit’s influence and supervision, yet the Spirit did so without violating any writer’s unique personality and writing style. This view of inspiration is designated as the verbal, plenary inspiration of Scripture, and commonly supported by these NT texts: 2 Tim. 3:14-17; 2 Pet. 1:16-21; John 12:44-50; 14:9-11, 23-26; 1 Cor. 2:6-16; 14:36-39; 1 Tim. 5:17-18; and 2 Pet. 3:14-16.

Second, by “inerrancy,” most orthodox, evangelical Christians mean that the entire corpus of Scripture, as originally written and published by the prophets and apostles, contain neither errors of fact (material errors), nor internal contradictions (formal errors). Inerrancy, properly speaking, is attributed only to the autographa, or original writings of Scripture, when they were edited and published in the final form approved by the original authors and their associates. Indeed, this had been the predominant view of biblical inerrancy held by all branches of orthodox Christianity up until the nineteenth century, when liberal critics began challenging this view.

For example, in their correspondence, by which they had been discussing the problems connected with Bible translation and interpretation, Augustine had written to Jerome these words about what some regarded as apparent contradictions: “I decide that either the copied text is corrupt, or the translator did not follow what was really said in the [original] text, or that I failed to understand it.” Later, in Puritan England, on this same issue Richard Baxter, Anglican pastor and theologian, also stated, “There is no error or contradiction in Scripture, but what is [found] in some copies, by failures of preservers, transcribers, printers, and translators.” And then Samuel Wakefield, the great 19th century Methodist pastor and theologian, wrote regarding this matter: “But if it is once granted that they, the Scriptures, are in the least degree alloyed with error, an opening is made for every imaginable corruption. And to admit that the sacred writers were only occasionally inspired, would involve us in the greatest perplexity, because, not knowing when they were or were not inspired, we could not determine what parts of their writings should be regarded as the infallible Word of God” (All three quotes from John D. Woodbridge’s Biblical Authority: A Critique of the Rogers/McKim Proposal, Zondervan Publishers,1982).

Now, the underlying presupposition of this evangelical view of biblical inerrancy is this: If the Bible is indeed the inspired Word of the unchanging God of grace and truth who never lies (cf. Num. 23:19 and Jas. 1:16-18), then, as of logical necessity, Scripture must also be inerrant and infallible in all that it truly teaches about the Triune God; about his works of creation, providence, and redemption; about the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus Christ, etc. Otherwise, how could we confidently accept it as God’s Written Word, the final rule of all Christian belief and practice?

Thirdly, by “infallibility,” most orthodox, evangelical Christians mean that Scripture, because it is the inspired and inerrant Word of God, is a reliable and trustworthy source of truth. Therefore, it cannot itself mislead or deceive anyone who truly understands and lives by its teaching though, as Peter warns us, false teachers can and do distort the teaching of the Scriptures (cf. 2 Pet. 3:15-16) . As most evangelical Christians would argue, its true teaching can be known and understood by anyone who makes the effort to learn and consistently use the proper methods of biblical interpretation, which have been derived from the Scriptures themselves. As a whole, the Scriptures are clear enough and coherent enough that anyone, who will make an earnest effort to read and study it, using the historical-cultural-grammatical method of interpretation, can understand and appropriate the Bible’s central message of redemption through Jesus Christ.

But, admittedly, some texts are harder to understand than others, and so if these difficult texts are divorced from their proper historical, cultural and literary context, their meaning and significance will most certainly be misunderstood and misapplied. As one Bible teacher plainly put it, “Any text without its proper context is nothing but a pretext.” If we quote verses and passages without any reference to their contexts, we will miss or misread these texts’ true, infallible message. So this is the predominant view regarding Biblical inspiration, inerrancy, and infallibility among a majority of orthodox, evangelical Christians, both egalitarians and hierarchical-complementarians.

This, again, takes us back to our discussion about the history of ICBI and egalitarian support of and involvement in its activities. During the years that ICBI promoted its “high view” of Scripture, there were three major “sessions,” or conferences, where papers and responses to these papers on the debates regarding inerrancy and infallibility of Scripture; the historical and cultural interpretation of Scripture; and the proper application of ancient Scripture in the modern world, were given. And no one, whether complementarian or egalitarian, who did not agree with the ICBI statement regarding the full inspiration, inerrancy and infallibility of Scripture, was allowed to give a presentation.

Well, there were several egalitarians that participated in these sessions and presented papers, which were included in the three books printed by Zondervan. Among the egalitarians present and named in the ICBI publications I possess were Millard J. Erickson, Gretchen Gaebelein Hull, Alan F. Johnson, and Walter C. Kaiser, Jr. If you don’t believe me, then check the historical records. But I hope this little essay of mine will, if it does nothing else, once and for all dispell the myth that egalitarians are modernist liberals who have a low view of Scripture.

Comment by Trevor

October 17, 2009 @ 7:41 am

Thanks Frank, (comment 90012) you can always be relied upon to cover all of the bases. Your comment is incredibly thorough and well written. I hope that Mark is still visiting and can take all of that on board. For those of us Egalitarians who may at times flounder under the criticisms that are leveled at us, by hierarchical complementarians, in regard to this issue, your comments equip us with valuable and necessary historical evidence.

Comment by Deborah

October 18, 2009 @ 8:24 pm

Frank, thanks for the time you put into that.

Comment by Frank

October 19, 2009 @ 9:39 am

Trevor and Deborah, thanks for your kind words of appreciation. And I am always glad to make a positive, informative and helpful contribution to our discussions. For it flows out of my commitment to fulfill my Christian vocation and calling, from the NT perspective, as a priest, prophet and ambassador of Christ’s and God’s present and coming Kingdom. Indeed, this is the vocation and calling of all Christians, as indicated by such texts as 1 Pet. 2:9-10;Acts 2:14-36; and Matt. 28:18-20. Which brings me to today’s comment on holding and practising a worldly point of view in the Church.

I believe that this will involve a return to an authentic embracing of and practise of the doctrine of the universal priesthood and prophethood of all believers, or, as I refer to it in another context, the pneumatic/communal intepretation and application of Scripture. This form of explaining and applying the Scriptures involves the cooperation that must exist between the Holy Spirit and the entire Church—and not just a elite clergy– in settling the various controversies and disputes that affect the life and ministry of the whole Body of Christ.

And there are several distinct but related elements that constitute this form of Biblical interpretation and application: First, it involves the recognition by both leaders and the congregations that the teaching and guiding ministry of the Holy Spirit did not cease with the completion of the NT canon and the death of the original apostles of Christ. For the Holy Spirit is and remains, until Christ returns, the Ultimate Author and Interpreter of Scripture. He is still present and active in the Church, leading all true believers to a unified understanding of and compliance with the mind and will of the Lord Jesus Christ, the One and Only Head of the Church, as revealed in the Scriptures which he, the Holy Spirit, himself inspired (Cf. 1 Cor. 2:6-16; 13:1-14:1; 2 Tim. 3:14-16; 1 Jn. 2:27, TEV).

Secondly, church leaders must recover and reaffirm the basic biblical doctrine regarding the true nature and function of the ministry the Lord Jesus has given them among his Body: In every generation , the Lord Jesus Christ, through the Holy Spirit, gifts and calls both men and women to be church-planters, preachers, evangelists, and pastor-teachers (1 Cor. 12:1-14, 27-30; Eph. 4:7-11). Their responsibility is not only to bring Christians under their care to spiritual maturity in Christ, but also to help them discover their gifts and calling, then train them to be both biblically and theologically literate as well as practically competent so that are they are fully equipped for the “works of service” Christ wants all his people to do within the Body and in reaching the needy world around them (1 Cor. 14:1-12; Eph. 4:8-10). But they are not to lord it over the people, nor deny the gifting and calling they have received from the Spirit, who gifts and calls both men and women to ministry in full agreement with the desires and choices of both the Father and Son (Cf. 1 Pet. 5:1-4; John 16:12-15; 1 Cor. 12:4-7).

Thirdly, it involves both leaders and people, working together and holding each other accountable to maintain the unity of truth, love and righteousness which is to mark the Church, the Body of Christ (Cf. Eph. 4:1-6). Not only are leaders to help the congregation stand firm in the faith, live righteous lives, and engage in effective ministry consistent with the Spirit’s gifting and calling, but the people, as fellow servants of the Lord and his Word, must also rebuke the leaders when they forget they are guides and equippers, and seek to be lords of the congregation when there is only one Lord, Jesus Christ; or when they depart from essential Christian doctrine and start teaching their own opinions as Gospel truth; or when they live such ungodly lives that Christ and the Gospel are profaned because of them (Cf. 1 Thess. 5:19-20; 1 Tim. 5:17-21; Jude3-4).

This communal aspect of maintaining the unity and purity of the Church in life, doctrine and worship is, according to Alister McGrath, what the Reformers ideally understood to be the true nature and practice of the priesthood of all believers:

On the basis of the doctrine of the universal priesthood of believers, Luther insisted that every Christian has the right to interpret the Bible and to raise concerns about any aspect of the church’s teaching or practice that appears to be inconsistent with the Bible. There is no “spiritual” authority, distinct from or superior to ordinary Christians, who can impose certain readings of the Bible upon the church…Luther clearly believed that the Bible was sufficiently clear for ordinary Christians to be able to read and understand it…Luther insisted that all believers have the right to read the Bible in a language they can understand and to interpret its meaning for themselves. The church is thus held accountable to its members for its interpretation of the sacred text and is open to challenge at every point. The significance of Luther’s point can hardly be overlooked. By insisting it had a divinely ordained monopoly on biblical interpretation, the medieval church had declared itself to be above criticism on biblical grounds. No external critic had the authority to interpret Scripture and thus apply it to criticize the church’s doctrines or practices. Luthers’s response was to empower the laity as interpreters of the Bible and to hold the church accountable to its people for what it taught. And if they were not satisfied with the outcome, they, as laity, had the right to demand a reforming council be convened to address their concerns (Cf. Alister E. McGrath. Christianity’s Dangerous Idea: The Protestant Revolution, HarperCollins, 2007, p. 53).

Now, it is on the basis of this pneumatic-communal rule, which is, in fact, the authentic practice of the universal priesthood of all believers–that I would argue that in times of great doctrinal conflict and debate, not only the leaders but also representative members of the congregations, women as well as men, need to come together in a “reform council” for earnest, soul-searching prayer; careful and thorough study of what Scripture actually teaches on the issue being discussed, depending on the Spirit of truth to bring all to a unified understanding of God’s mind and will therein revealed (Cf. Acts 15:1-6).

After all the concerns and issues of all the parties involved in the controversy have been given a full and fair consideration–apart from any humiliation, censorship, or coercion of one party by the other–whether it be by a special “prophetic word” or not, it must be by the Holy Spirit that all come to a unified understanding and consensus as what the “true doctrine” is and how it is to be applied (Cf. Acts 15:30-36).

For only through this process of pneumatic-communal reading, explanation and application of Scripture can the unity and peace of the Church be restored; only then can all Christians joyfully and harmoniously work together; only then can the Gospel of Christ, spread by a Spirit-renewed, united, and empowered Church, have the transforming impact in society and in the larger world (Cf. Acts 15:30-36). May the Lord abundantly pour out his Spirit upon us, renewing and reuniting us all in truth and love, so we may go forth and preach the Gospel, before he comes to judge and reign. Amen!

Comment by Deborah

October 19, 2009 @ 3:20 pm

Frank, I agree with all your main points. I would add two caveats. I personally believe that there can be a unique sense of spiritual authority in leadership (spheres that they may speak into with the unique grace of their commissioned leadership and developed gifts) though not to the exclusion of one’s own responsibility in approaching the Word or one’s own responsibility in being obedient foremost to Christ, not man (but an authority that is actually empowering to recognize and grow under). I also see many, many believers severely mishandling the word… often lack of sufficient education plays a role (though I would say seminaries major in this as well!) so that it is important to have those who are both Spirit-led and more well-versed and, therefore, heard for their wisdom (teachers) and also to teach all congregants appropriate methods of approaching the scriptures for themselves and things to look out for as safeguards. Again, it is good to know names of some egals who have been particularly vocal in the call for biblical inerrancy.

Comment by Ana

October 25, 2009 @ 11:37 am

Back to the initial question that was asked in the article UNITE,

“What do you think “we regard no one from a worldly point of view” means for believers?”

Just keeping it VERY simple, it says to me that we as Christians are to no longer to view people (which encompasses all aspects or our lives), through our own eyes of understanding, logic, tradition, culture, etc., but rather through the eyes and heart of God, which is vastly different than ours! To do this rightly it will take time, patience, and prayerful inspection into God’s word and who HE is. And in doing this we must make a conscious effort to bridle our previously conceived notions and understandings of gender roles, authority, etc. if we are going to be able to absorb and embrace what the Lord wants us to see.

It’s kind’a like having been driving an old truck filled with concrete slabs for your whole life; it doesn’t handle very well, it makes little progress in getting you where you need to be (where GOD wants you to be), it’s not attractive (in more ways than just asthetics), etc. But if we are willing to get into the originally designed supernatural God given vehicle HE intended us to travel through life in, we’re gonna FLY! We’re gonna go places we’ve never been before at speeds never thought possible, accomplishing things never imagined in every aspect of our lives; relationship, jobs, thought processes, perception, etc. and in our very souls.