Irony - "Incongruity between what might be expected and what actually occurs."
Canadian Sponsorship Program - "a program created to encourage and convince the people of Quebec to remain part of Canada, but in the end is the catalyst that gives Quebecois the solidifying reason to officially separate from Canada."
Tuesday, November 29, 2005
Friday, November 18, 2005
Authority of Women
I came across a recent post on a discussion forum stating that women can obviously not serve as pastors because they are forbidden from holding authority over men.... I replied:
If a women being gifted and called to serve as a pastor becomes a side issue to some "authority hierarchy", we are saying that the legalistic view of authority vetoes or trumps the work of God and the Holy Spirit. Does God call some people into forbidden callings? If no, then there is nothing to worry about. If yes, then I would rather let God decide than someone trying to defend some questionable legalism.
If women are forbidden from instructing men from a position of authority what happens to a mother's authority over male children? Is it less than her female children? Does a mother have less authority over her 18 year old boy compared to his twin sister? Can women be teachers at all? How about professors? Should all men refuse to acknowledge the authority of their women managers? How does stifling the potential of half the population show that we love unconditionally?
Maybe we should look at being imitators of Christ rather than merely occasional followers. Jesus refused all earthly authority, choosing instead always the role of the suffering servant. I believe we would be well served to use this as our Christian model of authority as we could use more servant hearts and attitudes.
If a women being gifted and called to serve as a pastor becomes a side issue to some "authority hierarchy", we are saying that the legalistic view of authority vetoes or trumps the work of God and the Holy Spirit. Does God call some people into forbidden callings? If no, then there is nothing to worry about. If yes, then I would rather let God decide than someone trying to defend some questionable legalism.
If women are forbidden from instructing men from a position of authority what happens to a mother's authority over male children? Is it less than her female children? Does a mother have less authority over her 18 year old boy compared to his twin sister? Can women be teachers at all? How about professors? Should all men refuse to acknowledge the authority of their women managers? How does stifling the potential of half the population show that we love unconditionally?
Maybe we should look at being imitators of Christ rather than merely occasional followers. Jesus refused all earthly authority, choosing instead always the role of the suffering servant. I believe we would be well served to use this as our Christian model of authority as we could use more servant hearts and attitudes.
Monday, November 14, 2005
Soren Kierkegaard on the Equality of Women
150 Years ago and 3 days on November 11th 1855, Soren Kierkegaard died at the age of 42. For the latter half of his life he was under constant attack from the Danish State Church and was also a vocal critic of said Church. I suppose the order of those attacks is not quite as stated. His criticisms of the state church ( i.e. Christendom ) focused heavily on the apparent lack of faith and the seemingly easy road of the Christian in his society. In Kierkegaard's words, people living in Christendom were being shielded from the "possibility of offence" since "everyone was a Christian". In other words Christians were not faced with the option of controversial issues and as a result had no impetus to make any meaningful decision or sincere commitment to following Christ. Here is a picture of how I imagine Kierkegaard today.
Or maybe it is just how I scored at: http://quizilla.com/users/dphenreckson/quizzes/To%20which%20race%20of%20Middle%20Earth%20do%20you%20belong%3F/
In a similar way, 150 years later we (most of us) live in a society and attend a Church that still rests heavily on tradition and comfort for determining our beliefs and quite possibly have been shielded from facing a difficult truth. A truth that will offend some people and bring deeper faith and commitment for many others.
The ineligibility of leadership positions for women in the Canadian M.B. Conference is a belief that is deeply rooted in the tradition of the Church and it maintains a very comfortable system for many people. The current position existed for as long as we can remember and has been argued for and against by many Biblical scholars, and church leaders much more qualified than myself.
Since this position can be, and has been, argued with biblical reference passionately and earnestly by both sides, I am inclined to state that the Bible does not clearly answer ( clear to all ), in a quotable verse or two, the complete truth to either support or denounce this position. At least we can state that arguments this far have evidently not been sufficiently convincing enough to end all disagreement in this area.
The possibility of offence in Kierkegaard's words is not simply a statement that religious truth can be offensive. What he is saying is that you can not make a sincere decision if you have not been faced with a tough choice; a choice that on one hand seems so improbable and undesirable as to be down right offensive. The possibility of offence therefore lies not in a comfortable tradition or a self serving attitude but in facing the reality that God's truth is much, much bigger than we currently hold on to. Openness to the possibility of offence is required when hearing God's word and that means being truly open to the possibility that we may not like what we hear. In fact, we have to ask, "if we like what we hear, are we simply finding and serving our own interests?" If we are comfortable with our current position on this issue, ( for OR against ) we face the very strong possibility that it is a position of convenience as opposed to a completely open and honest understanding of God's truth.
Obviously, we can not simply use this argument to turn the tables on the other side. The offendee then becomes the offender ad infinitum. Both sides must look carefully at their intentions. Arguing the case of a women's eligibility for leadership from a selfish desire for authority and prestige is no more valid than a man's case that women are ineligible because of his pride and fear of losing control. In addition, arguing the case for eligibility or ineligibility from a desire to conform with secular or societal norms is also invalid as the intention is not to listen to our call from God, but rather to conform to the world and avoid the possibility of offence altogether.
On this issue we are on our way out of the wilderness. Not to say that we are separated from God because of this issue ( God is with us always ), but God does not want us to stay where we are. We are being called by God from our wandering in the desert to discover our home where God can fulfil his plan for each and every one of us. The promised land where we love our neighbour unconditionally as ourselves and God's truth is sought with all our heart, soul, and mind is still a land being sought by God's people. Until then, a part of us continues to journey in the wilderness missing out on the ultimate fulfilment of God's plan.
The intention of God is the only valid source of direction to successfully lead us out of the wilderness. When we get there, with each person moving into a more complete fulfilment of God's plan, who will we be to restrict and control the distribution of God's gifts and His methods?
If we are not in a position to tell God when and whom He may choose to lead, are we then able to say women are allowed to receive gifts of the Holy Spirit to the same degree as men, but are restricted from expressing them or implementing them to the same degree as men?
I personally don't believe we can make those types of decisions for God. For these reasons, I suggest that not only does the Church need to seriously confront the potentially offensive position that women can serve in leadership.
1) Men and women are created in equal amounts of the image of God.
2) We can not let our own self interests and intentions have any weight in deciding the right answer on this issue.
3) We can not presume to know God's intentions by declaring how and when He will be allowed to work through us.
Can a person still hold that God sent our Saviour as a gift of redemption for all but other God given gifts including the gift of the Holy Spirit are in some way restricted from certain people on earth or certain people in our society, or certain people in our Church?
Is there a person still offended by the possibility that some women may be gifted and capable of serving in leadership? I would suggest that this person is in a perfect position to make a leap of faith into a very real and exciting renewal and deepened relationship with God.
Or maybe it is just how I scored at: http://quizilla.com/users/dphenreckson/quizzes/To%20which%20race%20of%20Middle%20Earth%20do%20you%20belong%3F/
In a similar way, 150 years later we (most of us) live in a society and attend a Church that still rests heavily on tradition and comfort for determining our beliefs and quite possibly have been shielded from facing a difficult truth. A truth that will offend some people and bring deeper faith and commitment for many others.
The ineligibility of leadership positions for women in the Canadian M.B. Conference is a belief that is deeply rooted in the tradition of the Church and it maintains a very comfortable system for many people. The current position existed for as long as we can remember and has been argued for and against by many Biblical scholars, and church leaders much more qualified than myself.
Since this position can be, and has been, argued with biblical reference passionately and earnestly by both sides, I am inclined to state that the Bible does not clearly answer ( clear to all ), in a quotable verse or two, the complete truth to either support or denounce this position. At least we can state that arguments this far have evidently not been sufficiently convincing enough to end all disagreement in this area.
The possibility of offence in Kierkegaard's words is not simply a statement that religious truth can be offensive. What he is saying is that you can not make a sincere decision if you have not been faced with a tough choice; a choice that on one hand seems so improbable and undesirable as to be down right offensive. The possibility of offence therefore lies not in a comfortable tradition or a self serving attitude but in facing the reality that God's truth is much, much bigger than we currently hold on to. Openness to the possibility of offence is required when hearing God's word and that means being truly open to the possibility that we may not like what we hear. In fact, we have to ask, "if we like what we hear, are we simply finding and serving our own interests?" If we are comfortable with our current position on this issue, ( for OR against ) we face the very strong possibility that it is a position of convenience as opposed to a completely open and honest understanding of God's truth.
Obviously, we can not simply use this argument to turn the tables on the other side. The offendee then becomes the offender ad infinitum. Both sides must look carefully at their intentions. Arguing the case of a women's eligibility for leadership from a selfish desire for authority and prestige is no more valid than a man's case that women are ineligible because of his pride and fear of losing control. In addition, arguing the case for eligibility or ineligibility from a desire to conform with secular or societal norms is also invalid as the intention is not to listen to our call from God, but rather to conform to the world and avoid the possibility of offence altogether.
On this issue we are on our way out of the wilderness. Not to say that we are separated from God because of this issue ( God is with us always ), but God does not want us to stay where we are. We are being called by God from our wandering in the desert to discover our home where God can fulfil his plan for each and every one of us. The promised land where we love our neighbour unconditionally as ourselves and God's truth is sought with all our heart, soul, and mind is still a land being sought by God's people. Until then, a part of us continues to journey in the wilderness missing out on the ultimate fulfilment of God's plan.
The intention of God is the only valid source of direction to successfully lead us out of the wilderness. When we get there, with each person moving into a more complete fulfilment of God's plan, who will we be to restrict and control the distribution of God's gifts and His methods?
If we are not in a position to tell God when and whom He may choose to lead, are we then able to say women are allowed to receive gifts of the Holy Spirit to the same degree as men, but are restricted from expressing them or implementing them to the same degree as men?
I personally don't believe we can make those types of decisions for God. For these reasons, I suggest that not only does the Church need to seriously confront the potentially offensive position that women can serve in leadership.
1) Men and women are created in equal amounts of the image of God.
2) We can not let our own self interests and intentions have any weight in deciding the right answer on this issue.
3) We can not presume to know God's intentions by declaring how and when He will be allowed to work through us.
Can a person still hold that God sent our Saviour as a gift of redemption for all but other God given gifts including the gift of the Holy Spirit are in some way restricted from certain people on earth or certain people in our society, or certain people in our Church?
Is there a person still offended by the possibility that some women may be gifted and capable of serving in leadership? I would suggest that this person is in a perfect position to make a leap of faith into a very real and exciting renewal and deepened relationship with God.
