Dear Aaron, Mary Jo, and all - Matt Miner here, an elder in the OPC, a sister denomination of the PCA.
A helpful distinction exists between, in Michael Horton's words, "Cult & Culture" referring to church practices and cultural practices, explored in Horton's writings on two kingdoms theology. The error of the "tax law attorney" practice is applying what may be applicable in a cultural context to the Christian home or to the church.
Concerning the church's ministry proper (preaching, sacrament, worship practices, discipline), we are constrained by God's affirmative command, whereas in cultural matters - who does the laundry, what 'powerful' roles women pursue in culture as scientists, business executives, or politicians - we are free in Christ to do what's wise that is not explicitly forbidden by God's command.
God governs his church ("Cult" in Horton's language) differently than he governs common things ("Culture"). God gave men unique commands in Christian homes and in the church because that's what he chose to do. Why is this so? Because God says so. And who are you, o man, to answer back to God?
On a separate note, I appreciate your encouragement, Aaron, to consider a Christian anthropology of the roles of men and women. I have benefitted from Michael Foster's work on this topic.
That's a completely novel view of two kingdoms theology and is so wrong that it would take a book to refute. Fortunately some are being published, e.g. Aldo Leon's new book and James Baird's. However, reading Calvin and the Reformers who preceded Horton by centuries will also suffice.
> and is so wrong that it would take a book to refute.
That sounds like a dodge to me. I can see something *very subtly* wrong needing a whole book, but if it's profoundly wrong surely a sentence or two would suffice to give some hint as to the core of the problem.
As an example of what I mean: sure you could write a whole book or books about the problems of utopianism, but it's a perfectly meaningful overview to say "The problem with trying to *implement* a working Utopia is in getting everyone else on board with your specific ideas of the perfect society. That's why Utopian movements so often devolve into The Terror or The Killing Fields."
Sometimes it seems as if this argument is over the number of angels who can fit on the head of a pin (if you haven't heard of this imaginary argument, it might be a mostly Catholic joke).
I see two approaches here:
The first: what is the biblical role of men in the church? Is it exactly as the bible prescribes and no more, or is it as the bible specifically describes plus any other similar roles?
The second: what is the biblical role of women in the church? Since there is no clearly defined role for women in church, do women, thus have no role at all in the church? Or may they have any role that is not proscribed to them (whether using the strict or expanded definitions above).
I am not a biblical scholar and I am a "mere" woman (does this mean that I cannot biblically weight in on this question?). Well, I'm going to, anyway.
Because when I read these arguments, it appears to me that many of these arguments have the entire process backward; rather than turning to scripture for the answer, they are turning to scripture to support their pre-determined preferences.
As I said, I am no biblical scholar (are women allowed to be biblical scholars?), but as as a 74-year-old woman no longer married, I have as much free choice as anyone else to choose a church.
And I would choose one that isn't arguing over the number of angels on the head of a pin. I simply can't imagine that if I accept Jesus as my Lord and Savior that I would be denied heaven because some of the men he put in charge of the church are more determined to build their own kingdoms than God's.
And you know how I would know the difference? I would look to everything else they do. If they follow the scripture faithfully in all other endeavors, then I would view their decision on this topic to be as guided by the Holy Spirit as on all other topics. If they are not following the scripture in their other endeavors, then how would know that any decision was biblically based?
P.S. One of the reasons I left the Catholic Church is because of its made-up sins (though being from Wisconsin, I enjoy the Friday fish fry!).
> I simply can't imagine that if I accept Jesus as my
> Lord and Savior that I would be denied heaven
> because some of the men he put in charge of the
> church are more determined to build their own kingdoms
> than God's.
Not sure what this means. Surely nobody worth paying attention to is asserting that one's salvation is determined by either what local church body one affiliates with , or by one's view of women's role in the church?
Although the point of my comment was serious, I also engaged in some facetiousness.
I am about to join a church which draws all its decisions from the Bible. To join to you need to attend, either personally or online, 8 classes where you get a detailed explanation of who they are and what they believe. To join, you are not required to believe everything they believe, but you are required to acknowledge that you know what they believe and agree to refrain from being divisive. It is evangelical and conservative in its nature.
Their position is that biblically-stated offices must be held by men, but that all other positions in the church not forbidden to women may be held by women. The elders prayed for the guidance of the Holy Spirit and this was the result.
The reason I don't have a problem with this, one way or the other, it that it is biblically-based as are all their other practices.
If they were picking and choosing, even if it were more in favor of women participating in the running of the church, this would not be the church for me, because then what the church believes and practices would be arbitrarily decided by men.
I made facetious jokes about women in my post, but the reality is that this is unlike any church I have ever attended. Yet having watched the classes, I believe this is a church I can belong to.
Now, I return to being facetious, and probably quite mischievous: It is not generally in men's nature to settle down and be domesticated. So it may be that God, in His wisdom, gave them a job to do both in the church and in the home so that he might channel his energies to something more useful than "hold my beer."
The New Testament defines three church offices, "Overseer", "Elder" and "Servant". The original Greek terms have come down to us as "bishop", "priest" (from "presbyter") and "deacon". Historically the first two were always men, however deaconesses are mentioned in Scripture and in historical records. The female diaconate survived in the East longer than in the West but the duties of a deaconess were quite distinct from those of a deacon; they were not interchangeable. Beyond these Scriptural determinations and early Church traditions I see no reason to innovate rules and regulations on who can do what.
Also, women were certainly not "silent" in early Christianity. In the Gospel it was women who first proclaimed the Resurrection, and to the Apostles who at first were skeptical. Legend claims Mary Magdalene preached the Resurrection to Tiberius Caesar himself-- we can discount that as a myth of course, but its existence shows that Christians saw nothing shameful in a woman taking on such a role. More historically grounded, it was a woman, St Nino (Nina) who preached Christ to the conversion of the nation of Georgia.
My own church (Orthodox) is very traditionalist on these matters. Women do not serve in the altar, with an exception for vowed nuns in chapels at nunneries. Recently an Orthodox bishop in Africa ordained a deaconess, something that has been talked about in Orthodoxy since the late 19th century. That business is nevertheless a bit controversial. Women do serve in practical roles in our churches: on parish councils and in other "business" offices; as singers, chanters, greeters and sometimes ushers; definitely as Sunday School teachers.
Dear Aaron, Mary Jo, and all - Matt Miner here, an elder in the OPC, a sister denomination of the PCA.
A helpful distinction exists between, in Michael Horton's words, "Cult & Culture" referring to church practices and cultural practices, explored in Horton's writings on two kingdoms theology. The error of the "tax law attorney" practice is applying what may be applicable in a cultural context to the Christian home or to the church.
Concerning the church's ministry proper (preaching, sacrament, worship practices, discipline), we are constrained by God's affirmative command, whereas in cultural matters - who does the laundry, what 'powerful' roles women pursue in culture as scientists, business executives, or politicians - we are free in Christ to do what's wise that is not explicitly forbidden by God's command.
God governs his church ("Cult" in Horton's language) differently than he governs common things ("Culture"). God gave men unique commands in Christian homes and in the church because that's what he chose to do. Why is this so? Because God says so. And who are you, o man, to answer back to God?
On a separate note, I appreciate your encouragement, Aaron, to consider a Christian anthropology of the roles of men and women. I have benefitted from Michael Foster's work on this topic.
That's a completely novel view of two kingdoms theology and is so wrong that it would take a book to refute. Fortunately some are being published, e.g. Aldo Leon's new book and James Baird's. However, reading Calvin and the Reformers who preceded Horton by centuries will also suffice.
> and is so wrong that it would take a book to refute.
That sounds like a dodge to me. I can see something *very subtly* wrong needing a whole book, but if it's profoundly wrong surely a sentence or two would suffice to give some hint as to the core of the problem.
As an example of what I mean: sure you could write a whole book or books about the problems of utopianism, but it's a perfectly meaningful overview to say "The problem with trying to *implement* a working Utopia is in getting everyone else on board with your specific ideas of the perfect society. That's why Utopian movements so often devolve into The Terror or The Killing Fields."
Curt Day is back.
Sometimes it seems as if this argument is over the number of angels who can fit on the head of a pin (if you haven't heard of this imaginary argument, it might be a mostly Catholic joke).
I see two approaches here:
The first: what is the biblical role of men in the church? Is it exactly as the bible prescribes and no more, or is it as the bible specifically describes plus any other similar roles?
The second: what is the biblical role of women in the church? Since there is no clearly defined role for women in church, do women, thus have no role at all in the church? Or may they have any role that is not proscribed to them (whether using the strict or expanded definitions above).
I am not a biblical scholar and I am a "mere" woman (does this mean that I cannot biblically weight in on this question?). Well, I'm going to, anyway.
Because when I read these arguments, it appears to me that many of these arguments have the entire process backward; rather than turning to scripture for the answer, they are turning to scripture to support their pre-determined preferences.
As I said, I am no biblical scholar (are women allowed to be biblical scholars?), but as as a 74-year-old woman no longer married, I have as much free choice as anyone else to choose a church.
And I would choose one that isn't arguing over the number of angels on the head of a pin. I simply can't imagine that if I accept Jesus as my Lord and Savior that I would be denied heaven because some of the men he put in charge of the church are more determined to build their own kingdoms than God's.
And you know how I would know the difference? I would look to everything else they do. If they follow the scripture faithfully in all other endeavors, then I would view their decision on this topic to be as guided by the Holy Spirit as on all other topics. If they are not following the scripture in their other endeavors, then how would know that any decision was biblically based?
P.S. One of the reasons I left the Catholic Church is because of its made-up sins (though being from Wisconsin, I enjoy the Friday fish fry!).
> I simply can't imagine that if I accept Jesus as my
> Lord and Savior that I would be denied heaven
> because some of the men he put in charge of the
> church are more determined to build their own kingdoms
> than God's.
Not sure what this means. Surely nobody worth paying attention to is asserting that one's salvation is determined by either what local church body one affiliates with , or by one's view of women's role in the church?
Although the point of my comment was serious, I also engaged in some facetiousness.
I am about to join a church which draws all its decisions from the Bible. To join to you need to attend, either personally or online, 8 classes where you get a detailed explanation of who they are and what they believe. To join, you are not required to believe everything they believe, but you are required to acknowledge that you know what they believe and agree to refrain from being divisive. It is evangelical and conservative in its nature.
Their position is that biblically-stated offices must be held by men, but that all other positions in the church not forbidden to women may be held by women. The elders prayed for the guidance of the Holy Spirit and this was the result.
The reason I don't have a problem with this, one way or the other, it that it is biblically-based as are all their other practices.
If they were picking and choosing, even if it were more in favor of women participating in the running of the church, this would not be the church for me, because then what the church believes and practices would be arbitrarily decided by men.
I made facetious jokes about women in my post, but the reality is that this is unlike any church I have ever attended. Yet having watched the classes, I believe this is a church I can belong to.
Now, I return to being facetious, and probably quite mischievous: It is not generally in men's nature to settle down and be domesticated. So it may be that God, in His wisdom, gave them a job to do both in the church and in the home so that he might channel his energies to something more useful than "hold my beer."
Have a nice day.
The New Testament defines three church offices, "Overseer", "Elder" and "Servant". The original Greek terms have come down to us as "bishop", "priest" (from "presbyter") and "deacon". Historically the first two were always men, however deaconesses are mentioned in Scripture and in historical records. The female diaconate survived in the East longer than in the West but the duties of a deaconess were quite distinct from those of a deacon; they were not interchangeable. Beyond these Scriptural determinations and early Church traditions I see no reason to innovate rules and regulations on who can do what.
Also, women were certainly not "silent" in early Christianity. In the Gospel it was women who first proclaimed the Resurrection, and to the Apostles who at first were skeptical. Legend claims Mary Magdalene preached the Resurrection to Tiberius Caesar himself-- we can discount that as a myth of course, but its existence shows that Christians saw nothing shameful in a woman taking on such a role. More historically grounded, it was a woman, St Nino (Nina) who preached Christ to the conversion of the nation of Georgia.
My own church (Orthodox) is very traditionalist on these matters. Women do not serve in the altar, with an exception for vowed nuns in chapels at nunneries. Recently an Orthodox bishop in Africa ordained a deaconess, something that has been talked about in Orthodoxy since the late 19th century. That business is nevertheless a bit controversial. Women do serve in practical roles in our churches: on parish councils and in other "business" offices; as singers, chanters, greeters and sometimes ushers; definitely as Sunday School teachers.
I enjoy the fish fries too!