The Role of Culture When the Bible Has No Clear Command: Missiological Consequences
by
By Borge Schantz, August 28, 2013
An important global committee dealing with the issues of women’s ordination, consisting of 106 leading theologians and administrators, has, halfway through their deliberations, reported that a clear “thus says the Lord” has not been found in the Bible. This could mean that the final and decisive vote on the important question would have to be based on extra-biblical sources as committee members (and later the General Conference delegates) to a great extend will have to cast their vote on their personal “interpretation” of Bible texts which will be strongly based on their worldview, culture and customs. The role of women in the more than 1,500 cultures in the world differs tremendously, with the majority of Adventists living in areas where the ordination of women will be on top of the agenda.
Pope Francis, with some interesting and revolutionary suggestions for an “updated” Roman Catholic Church, seems on this issue to take a firm conservative stand. Most Roman Catholics live in continents with cultures where the role of women does not include whatever ordination bestows.
Palestinian Culture and Jesus
Perhaps there is a lesson in the biblical narrative of Christ's meeting with the Samaritan woman in John 4? God loved the world, including the people in all cultures, and gave His Son for their salvation. Christ came and lived among men and women. The Jewish community of Palestine, with its religion as well as its customs and culture, was chosen for His life on earth. In this way the incarnation made Jesus Jewish in all aspects. This implied some submission to human culture, even the following of the excessive interpretations of laws some of the Pharisees had introduced. However, in all His dealings Jesus was always obedient to Divine law. [1]
The strict Jewish rules on relationships between men and women were a part of the Jewish worldview of the time. When women in Palestine went about activities outside their homes, they were expected to cover their faces and be unobserved in public. A man was not allowed to be alone with a woman nor even look at a married woman. Christ followed these customs while in Palestine.
Christ did not openly stand up against Jewish cultural practices, not even those which perhaps were not completely “kosher.” However, Jesus, in a non-provocative way, went as far as He could in displaying some “counter-cultural” attitudes relative to the role of women in Jewish society. He granted women a place among the disciples (Matthew 12:49), revealed compassion for a despised woman (John 8:1-11), challenged women to higher levels of spirituality (Luke 10:38-42), shared with them in their grief (John 11:30-32) and accepted their grasp of theological issues (John 26:6-13, John 4:7-12). Jesus in His parables and illustrations mentioned incidents where women played important parts. [2] These texts are evidence of His positive attitude towards women. It can be seen that in His careful loyalty to the Jewish cultural framework, Jesus still revealed a full acceptance of the dignity and value of women.
Lessons from Samaria
“Now he had to go through Samaria” (John 4:4, NIV). At the well in Sychar a Samaritan woman came for water. Jesus asked her for a drink, which in itself indicated a kind of “meal fellowship” not in agreement with Jewish law. [3] In obedience to His divine call He became engaged in an important dialogue with the Samaritan woman.
This incident is the first time Jesus in His ministry met and communicated with people in a culture different from the Jewish. Syncretistic elements in the Samaritan religion had influenced their customs in such a way that there existed a liberal and cosmopolitan atmosphere relative to the Jewish culture in which Christ was raised. [3]
In Samaria Jesus and the disciples were outside the control of rabbis and other keen enforcers of Jewish customs, He could talk freely to a woman. He could not have done that in Jerusalem. It was a matter of cultural differences. Jesus was able to clearly distinguish between human cultural patterns and divine absolutes.
"Just then his disciples returned and were surprised to find him talking with a woman. But no one asked, 'What do you want?' or 'Why are you talking with her?'" (John 4:27 NIV)
In Samaria His disciples experienced the same freedom as Jesus. They were also free to follow “neutral” Samaritan cultural traits. However, they were still in their minds directed by a Jewish worldview and consequently faithful to Jewish culture and customs. Their reaction shows that they silently questioned His conversation with a woman.
Did Peter also miss the lesson from Samaria?
Peter was no doubt one of the “surprised” disciples in Sychar. In the Acts of the Apostles we have five evangelistic sermons where Peter, taking various angles, preached to different groups of people about the cardinal point in the Christian faith, the Death and Resurrection of Jesus.
In the Resurrection narratives heavenly angels, supported by the risen Savior, told women to bring the great message to the disciples (Matthew 28:5-10; Luke 24:1-12; John 20:10-18). This means that one of the most important messages to the world was first revealed to women who became the primary messengers of the greatest event in human history. And Peter was the only disciple who went to the grave to confirm personally the message the women shared. However, he does not in any of these five sermons give credit to the women who first saw Jesus alive after the resurrection. [4]
There could be two reasons for Peter not mentioning the important role of the women in the Resurrection message. Was he still guided by his Jewish view on the secondary role of women in society? Or was Peter practicing "instinctive missionary anthropology" in accordance with the excellent principle put forth by Paul, an important principle in cross-cultural soul-winning even today: "I became like a Jew… I became like one under the law… I became all things to all men that I might save some” (1 Corinthians 9: 20-22).
The Seventh-day Adventist Global Church
In our evaluations and attempts to establish a fair role for women in the Adventist Church, we should, based on the story of the Samaritan woman in John 4, diligently consider what elements in the Old and New Testaments are Jewish culture and therefore not binding for churches in a non-Jewish setting today. At the same time we must keep in mind that the Seventh-day Adventist Church in 2013 is operating in more than 200 countries with more than a thousand languages and cultures. The majority of church members are from areas that in varying degrees are struggling with equality issues.
How would a positive decision on women’s ordination influence our main task, to bring Christ to “every nation, tribe, language and people?” Are we prepared to take into consideration the historic customs of the people in each of these cultures, which in some cases are far from the cultural contexts and customs in the West? Many of them are, on the question on the role of women, more like the Jewish culture of Bible times.
People cannot and should not be hastily overruled in their cultural patterns. If improvements and changes are called for, they should be dealt with carefully. This is where much patience, education and understanding are needed. Dealing with age-old cultural issues regarding equal rights and other negative sentiments will require time.
In missionary, evangelistic and ecclesiastical situations, debate and decisions on the role and ordination of women, important as they are, could at initial stages be a hindrance to shepherding activities, soul winning endeavors and administrative patterns. It could completely overshadow the greatest message for any race or culture, namely that Jesus Christ is raised from the dead and is the Savior of men and woman.
————
1. Brown, Colin (1975). The New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology, Vol 2. Grand Rapids, Mich: Zondervan Publishing House. pp 810-814.
2. Jensen, Evelyn (1993). "Women’s Issues in Context," in The Good News of the Kingdom. Maryknoll, New York: Orbis Books. p 215.
3. Brown, Vol 3, pp 449-468.
4. Jeremias, Joachim (1969). Jerusalem at the Time of Jesus. London: SCM Press Ltd. p 360.
Your premise of the decision about ordaining women being influenced by extra-Biblical resources raises a trio of issue I think are much more significant than the issue of ordination itself.
First is the need for us to recognize that our modern concept of ordination is primarily based on Catholic tradition where the priests were elevated to a position or authority in a ruling class, something that is directly contrary to the Biblical concept of the priesthood of all believers. The foundation for this concept is misunderstanding of the "laying-on of hands" to convey an increased empowerment by the Holy Spirit on a person who was already ministerinig in the power of the Holy Spirit so they could minister on an expanded scale.
Second is what authority we will give to the writings of Ellen White, who with great emphasis on many occasions instructed us to use the Bible and the Bible alone as the basis for all of our teachings and practices and to never use her writings as a substitute for scripture.
Third is whether we will submit ourselves to the command, guidance and empowerment of the Holy Spirit and surrender our own will, whether individually or collectively, to God alone. This may be our most difficult and disruptive challenge because it requires us to connect with God and allow that direct connection to uproot and replace our historic dependance on church leaders, in whom we have invested authority. Yet this is our ultimate solution because God is considerate of culture and is ultimately skilled at reducing potential issues to memories and using His love to overcome obstacles.
Above all, we should be focused on doing God's work as He guides. He has never steered us wrong and has far greater power to overcome obstacles than we have ever imagined. If we were focused on seeking and following the guidance of the Holy Spirit as we should we would not be ordaining anyone and the whole issue about ordaining women would be clearly seen as a distraction keeping us from doing God's work.
If the Bible does not specifically and clearly endorse the role of women as pastoral (shepherd like) servant leaders, irrespective of the plethora of arguments about culture, ought we not to err on the side of caution, leave that issue alone, and get on with the mission of the church for these last days?
The Bible does not clearly endorse publishing houses, conferences, hospitals, trademarked denominational names, radio or television or internet outreach, or many other things we do. Perhaps we should have erred on the side of caution and never done any of these things.
Or perhaps in areas where the Bible is neither explicitly for nor explicitly against, we should follow the example of Jesus and do whatever we can to advance the kingdom of Heaven, availing ourselve of the many and varied opportunities the Spirit brings to us.
Unfortunately this has become a power struggle between various factions with the church, each trying to assert its human will over the other. Could the voice of God be largely silent because He does not wish for any faction to prevail?
Absent a clear "thus saith the Lord" pro or con, I think the only workable solution is for the General Conference to neither endorse nor prohibit the ordination of women. Better to leave it to the individual Divisions and Union Conferences to decide whom to ordain.
Jim,
I fear the voice of God is not heard among the people claiming to be His followers because, as you have described, their factional shouting leaves them hearing no voices but their own. That leaves us only with watching God work in spite of our opinions. Unfortunately, that also leaves us with some shouting condemnations on the works of God because they are not compliant with a particular concept.
Will there not arise a prophet for these last days to guide us in such difficult decisions?
I didn't think Elaine you believed in prophets? Do you think they are all suffering from mental hallucinations, whether it be Mary Magdalene, Paul or Ellen White?
Stephen,
It's difficult in written communications to relay irony or TIC.
Anyone can be, and has been claimed a prophet by his/her followers. That is the only qualification for a prophet: if there are sufficient followers who annoint this person with prophetic status. There is no divine voice from the sky identifying any individual as an annointed prophet; ergo, Joseph Smith is a prophet; the Mormon head elder is a prophet.
Yes I knew you were being ironic – I was being it back 🙂
Elaine,
Your question touches on an important issue. Why should we expect a single prophet? Why not multiple prophets? The scriptural history of prophets often includes multiple prophets in the same area at the same time. Why should we assume God will do differently in our time? Have we perhaps twisted prophecy into something that it is not?
I would like to suggest that you read Jack Deere's book "Surprised by the Power of the Spirit." Adventists could learn a few things from him about the scriptural basis for prophecy and the function of prophecy in the church.
I still believe that biblical ordination as laying of hands is what is needed for equality. Equality means that no one would receive the traditional ordination symbolized in the Catholic and other church heirarchies. That seems simple to me, but I can only imagine the selfish protests of those who only want the recognition of their superiority.
I wonder why when the "Adventist gospel" was taken to other lands, that the civil treatment of women was not also a doctrine. Perhaps we were too accepting of these cultures. After all we expected them to change from Sunday to Sabbathkeeping which was quite a change in culture. It would seem the treatment of each other to be just as important.
It's so easy to say this today, but….
Elaine: 'Anyone can be, and has been claimed a prophet by his/her followers. That is the only qualification for a prophet: if there are sufficient followers who annoint this person with prophetic status. There is no divine voice from the sky identifying any individual as an annointed prophet; ergo, Joseph Smith is a prophet; the Mormon head elder is a prophet.'
Which is why, if I understand your 'soft-atheist' approach correctly, that all religion is really just 'made up'. It is at best a pious fraud brought about through a mental illness or a deliberate con.
You might see a difference, but I do very much struggle to see a difference between your 'soft-atheist' view and that of 'full-blown atheists' such as Richard Dawkins. At least they are upfront about their disbelief.
I would be genuinely interested to see how your view in practice, behind all the riddles, actually differs from atheists such as Richard Dawkins?
Stephen,
Since you object to my classification of a prophet is the assignement given by followers, how do you recognize a prophet? IOW, on what basis do you believe that any of many "prophets" are true? Do you believe in prophets? How do you make that judgment?
You wish to know my reasoning, please share yours.
Happy to answer Elaine – it makes for good dialogue.
I think we need to take a step back first in our discussion. I think we can agree prophetic visions, utterances and revelations etc involve a human being, a human brain, and things seen in the mind of that human. That no doubt involves symbolic and limited medium. For example, when John saw heaven paved with streets paved with God, was God intending to say heaven literally is made of God, or was that an attempt to explain an unexplainable concept in a way a human being could understand it – where to fallen human beings a city made of gold is indeed wonderful.
The point we need to address first, though, is whether or not that prophetic vision is from divine origins or mere human agency. Thus, was Paul really visited by the historical-corporeal Jesus raised from the dead in His road to Damascus, notwithstanding Paul only saw Jesus in His mind, or was Paul merely suffering a form of mental illness?
There seems to be 3 broad choices here (and I mean of people who do honestly think they have had a vision from God, as opposed to deliberate frauds or con-artists):
1. All religious visions have their source as mere human agency. Thus, anyone claiming to have a prophetic revelation is really just suffering a God Delusion – a form of mental illness.
2. All religious visions have their source from the divine (whatever or whoever that was). Thus, all prophetic visions (provided they are not a deliberate con), is of divine origin – even those who actually seem to be suffering a mental illness such as schitzerfrenia.
3. Some religious visions have their source in the divine, and some have their source in human agency (as a mental illness).
What do you think? I personally think number #3, and can next go into distinguishing the divine vs human agency sourced visions. However, if you think the answer is #1 or #2, further dialogue on the topic might be difficult.
If you have the ability to determine whether someone's vision or of divine origin or not, that is the method you have chosen. I am not omniscient so I have no need to make a decision at all. If a prophet had any affect on my life, I am unaware, and even so, a very general prophetic vision has meaning only to those who accept it as coming from the divine.
'I am not omniscient so I have no need to make a decision at all.'
So you make no distinction between Paul's claim to a vision, that of Mohammud, or the Schitzerphrenic-murderer who claims God told him to murder? For you, they are all equally valid or invalid?
'If a prophet had any affect on my life, I am unaware, and even so, a very general prophetic vision has meaning only to those who accept it as coming from the divine.'
So it seems to be in practice (if not in theory) who adopt position #1 – you simply reject all prophetic claims. Thus, religious revelation, of any religion from Paul to Mohammud, are irrelevant to you and have no relevance to your life?
On that basis, you seem to be adopting a totally agnostic position, if not soft atheism – is that right? You might accept the possibility of prophetic communication between the human and the divine, but you cannot judge that, and prophetic revelation has had no impact on your life.
You don't seem to accept any Holy Scriptures, not the Vedas, not the Koran and certainly not the Bible, as of divine origin. As such, how can we have a dialogue?
Elaine, others: Isn't the inspirational test of a prophet, messenger, teacher, the spiritual truth they speak? It doesn't seem that hard to discern a fake from the real on biblical principles. I don't think inspiration is all that narrow. To say that no spiritual leader has ever influenced one's life would mean that they have no spiritual nature.
The Bible has it right in 1 Cor. 2;14: "the natural person receives not the things of the Spirit of God; for they are foolishness to them; neither can they know them, because they are spiritually discerned."
Ella your jumping ahead. To quote the test from the Bible can't be used to convince Elaine, who doesn't believe the Bible itself is of a divine origin, if even through a human filter.
Has anyone ever watched the TV series Perception? (it's an exception in that it treats religious faith as legitimate). Though fiction, I learn from it. They had an episode in which a teenager heard the voice of God, but the cynical brain scientist in the series thought he had a kind of epilepsy. What the boy said was true and rational. After surgery, he no longer had the audible voices but they came as thoughts. Isn't there such a thing as "thought inspiration?" I think so. BTW there is medical evidence that some normal people also occasionally hear voices.
Voices in the mentally ill can be evil or disoriented. I had occasion on my job to correspond with a serial killer for a short time. When on medication and becoming a Christian, the voices became less discernable and he was able to ignore them. Maybe they disappeared–I didn't keep up the correspondence.
Ella,
No, I haven't seen the TV series. Yes, thought inspiration is very real. I experience it often. It is one of the ways God directs my ministry. His direction is absolutely clear: go here, or do this. It is not an audible voice, but it is as clear as if spoken. He has NEVER led me to do anything that did not bring glory to Him. One day He led me into the middle of the worst outbreak of tornadoes to hit our area in more than 30 years. Looking back I sometimes shudder seeing that I had been within a mile or less of eight different tornadoes. Still, He kept us safe and we were able to rescue a family in our church, including two adopted children with significant mental challenges who had just survived having their home destroyed. This past Sabbath afternoon the direction was to help a family that used to be part of our church recover items from their home that had been destroyed by fire. It was a boiling-hot day. The work was stinky and dangerous. What our group did was greatly appreciated provided moments where hearts were touched by God's love in intimately personal ways. When I walked in the door of my home my body was exhausted but my heart was singing the praises of God for what I had witnessed.
the bible is very clear and unambigious woman cannot be ordained to be pastors or elders.
When we look further at Paul's teachings we see that the bishop/overseer is to be the husband of one wife (1 Tim. 3:2) who manages his household well and has a good reputation (1 Tim. 3:4-5, 7). Deacons must be "men of dignity" (1 Tim. 3:8).
Actually it isn't clear at all. The Early Church seems to have three different streams of leadership: spiritual leaders (i.e. apostles, prophets, evangelists, teachers, pastors), appointed leaders (i.e. elders and deacons) and family leadership (Jesus' brother James, who we often forget about). The proof texts you cite only refer to appointed leadership of elders and deacons – not apostles.
It was the proto-Papacy, after they crushed the Montanist Revival in 365 CE, where the bishops of the major cities (i.e. appointed leaders) excommunicated the last claims to apostleship and prophetic leadership (1 man and 2 women). These bishops then claimed the title of 'apostle' for themselves. And so the Papacy was born!
So you see, it is a little more complicated than you claim. By your test, young Timothy and celebate Paul would not qualify by these proof texts, as they were not married with children, where well-behaved children is a requirement. It isn't a problem in my mind because they were apostles, not bishops/elders/deacons.
Jesus chose twelve 'men' sir. Surely he could have set a precedent if the NT Church was supposed to go the route which many are pushing for today. He could have easily appointment a woman or two at least. The problem with women ordination is that it is of a secular societal import driven by the feminist movement which seek not just equality in the political and social arena but also wanting to usurp the roles and functions of men in the Christian Church thereby rendering it dysfunctional and neutering its objectives.
Don't you mean he chose 12 circumcised Jewish men. If Jesus expected apostles to be uncircumcised Gentiles, then why didn't he choose them?
I agree with ordination being a secular import. In fact, the notion of 'ordination' comes from the Latin 'ordio' which was the process by which a Roman citizen moved into a higher order or caste – from slave to citizen, from citizen to Equestrian, from Equestrian to Senator. It is a secular term from Ancient Rome which the Papacy, in typical style, co-opted. The SDA Church shouldn't really be in the business of perpetuating Papal and Pagan Roman imports.
I agree, of all people our church should recognize equality and humility by practicing the laying on of hands only for all church workers. Christ's example was that no one should be above another as he pointed out to his disciples. Then we wouldn't have this ordination problem.
Two thousand years ago and in the OT women were "owned" and Christ crossed the cultural line by speaking to the woman at the well and having women as friends. Now as a church, we would be hypocritical to not have women as pastors and teachers since EGW was a co-founder who led the church at its beginnings. She was smart and inspired (not infallible).
Is your concept of "church workers" limited to those who are employed by the church? The Biblical model for laying-on hands was to pass greater Holy Spirit empowerment to those who were already actively ministering using the power they had been given. So our concept of ministry needs to be based on criteria other than whether a person is employed by the church.
No, I would include anyone in Christ's ministry through the local church. This would be similar to the elders, deacons, deanconesses, parish nurses, teachers, etc. Also independent Adventist workers should be included through their local church. Wouldn't this be reasonable?
Ella,
Sounds like we're coming from the same direction.
Come and reason together. Why should a woman forfeit spiritual leadership to a drunken sot? A dope user or seller? A verbal and physical abuser of family? A insane maniac? A serial killer? There are far more committed women Christians, than men. Women have borne the false crime of initial sin, "the (devil) woman made me do it". It's so easy for the macho male to lord it over the woman, keep her from receiving praise or credit for their contributions. In the 21st century, some countries have retained the traditional abasement of women, by refusing them the right to education, to the vote, beating them on the smallest provocation, because the stupid macho man must not let the woman have equality, or God forbid, surpass him in equal non-physical competition.The male in accommodating societies wantonly running amok raping and murdering defenceless women. Any who seek the office of ordained Pastorship should earn the position by the whole life experience, by demonstration of faith, love, and fruits of the spirit. Many pastors chose religious studies because it was considered a safe and secure career. And the hierarchy is the "old boys club". A male should never be chosen over a better qualified female candidate.
Suck it up men. "BE A MENSCH". Women historically have done hard labor, thebearing of children, ninety percent of the household chores, seventy percent of the grunt work of business presentations, (while the boss is playing golf), but its the boss who takes over to give the presentations, and receive the praise. Women are better preparers, and more thorough in all endeavor. i speak from experience in both the business world, and in local church management.
So give the little lady credit where credit is overdue. Start doing your share of the heavy lifting, in the home, wash the dishes, make the bed, cut the grass, help with the shopping; and get busy with your equal share of being the proper role model with the children. Remember your wife, you married her for love. Praise her. Lift her burdens. Love her as Jesus loves you. i vote for Women's Ordination.
Come on Ladies, we need your support for recognition of women pastors. And you men, how long will you procrastinate? Say goodbye to your bias, to your inferiority complexes. "BE A MENSCH".