The Revised NIV: A Reasoned Response to Gregory Tidwell's Anxiety

In the July 2011 edition of the Gospel Advocate, Gregory Tidwell warns readers:

The latest revision of the NIV… so embraces the errors of current Protestant theology that it poses a threat to sound doctrine. In many ways the updated NIV is a greater danger to faith than any other major English version of Scripture (30-31).

Now if that didn't raise the anxiety of every English-speaking, Bible-loving Christian, there is more. In the article readers learn that the latest revision of the NIV is actually the work of liberal feminist conspirators. Can anyone ask for a better plot line for a conspiracy theory—sort of a reversal of the Da Vinci Code!

Tidwell points out that the latest translation committee—though still composed of a cross-section of denominational scholars—is less conservative than the original committee. Yet the only support he offers for this is that Protestant Christianity has generally embraced "mainline liberalism" which he bases on two quotes, one from Carl F. H. Henry and the other from R. Albert Mohler, two denominational scholars Tidwell will likely disagree with on most any other day. With the same broad brush, Tidwell claims that some in the Churches of Christ as well as the translators of the newest NIV suffer from this same malady of liberalism.

However true this assessment of the current state of Protestantism might be, it has little to do with the translation process of the NIV 2011. Still, for Tidwell, this assessment provides the explanation for the introduction of "feminism" as a primary agenda behind the translation of several key texts in the New Testament.

Before I engage the texts the NIV 2011 has, according to Tidwell, revised wrongly, I should share with the readers that I don't care if the NIV 2011 turns out to be a good or bad translation (readers can make up their own minds on this) since most serious students of the Bible will use multiple translations and I have access to the original languages. What I do care about is that accurate information gets to the public about what really goes on in the process of translating the Bible into clear English.

As an example, Tidwell misinforms his readers when he writes, "The doctrinal shift among Protestants caused the NIV translators to revise the version in keeping with feminist theology after aborted attempts over the past several years." Really? If this is the case, then the translators of the new NIV did a very poor job at it. God remains the Father, Jesus is still the Son, and the Twelve are all men. Furthermore elders are still presumed to be men in the NIV 2011.

To accuse the translation committee of a feminist agenda is a bit like accusing Tidwell of misogyny because the way he reads texts seems intent on excluding women.

Tidwell examines in his article three primary texts he believes the new NIV translates improperly, namely, Romans 16.1, 1 Tim 3.11, and 1 Tim 2.12. Each of these will be examined below.

Concerning Romans 16.1

Tidwell states,

Perhaps the most blatant assault on male spiritual leadership found in the revised NIV is its attempt to insinuate women into church leadership roles such as deacons. The text of Romans 16:1 in this version reads, “I commend to you our sister Phoebe, a deacon of the church in Cenchreae.” Just in case we miss the point, the translators include a footnote: “The word deacon refers here to a Christian designated to serve with the overseers/elders of the church in a variety of ways; similarly in Phil. 1:1 and 1 Tim. 3:8, 12” (31).

Beyond Tidwell's pejorative framing ("blatant assault on male spiritual leadership"?), the new NIV's offers an accurate translation of this text, though perhaps not the only way to render it. The new NIV has certainly not mistranslated it. Phoebe is, in fact, designated a diakonos in the Greek text. Furthermore, in the original language the term is grammatically masculine as the feminine form (diakonissa) did not arise until after the first century. So in short, Phoebe is every bit the diakonos as Tychicus was (cf. Col 4.7)

Here the translators have a couple of choices to make. They can translate diakonos more generically "minister" or "servant" or they can transliterate the terms as "deacon." The word occurs in a number of texts where we don't generally read "deacon" (such as Matt 20.26; 22.13; 23.11; Mark 9.35; 10.43; John 2.5, 9; 12.26; Rom 13.4; 15.8; 1 Cor 3.5; 2 Cor 3.6; 6.4; 11.15, 23; Gal 2.17; Eph 3.7; 6.21; Col 1.7, 23, 25; 4.7; 1 Tim 4.6).

So the question remains: Is Phoebe a "minister" or is she a deacon? One's prior commitments will weigh heavily on how one wants to translate this text. Either translation will show that Phoebe had an "assigned" role in the early church.

So is it true that only someone with a feminist agenda to supplant the men in the church could possibly understand Phoebe to be a deacon? One might be surprised to know that some of the earliest commentators on Romans understood Phoebe's role to be that of a deacon.

Origen (d. ca. 250):

This passage teaches that there were women ordained in the church's ministry by the apostle's authority… Not only that—they ought to be ordained into the ministry, because they helped in many ways and by their good services deserved the praise even of the apostle.

Chrysostom (d. 407):

Note how many ways Paul dignifies Phoebe. He mentions her before all the rest and even calls her his sister. It is no small thing to be called the sister of Paul! Moreover, he has mentioned her rank of deaconess as well. 

[Pseudo-]Constantius (sometime before the seventh century):

Here the apostle demonstrates that no discrimination or preference between male and female is to be tolerated, because he sends his letter to Rome by the hand of a woman and sends greetings to other women in the same epistle.

So apparently "deacon" was considered by some notable Christians, whose first language was Greek, the proper way to understand this text. And if one translate diakonos as "deacon," then of course, she was a "Christian designated to serve with the overseers/elders of the church in a variety of ways" as the new NIV's footnote indicates. The editors of  BDAG think "a Christian official" is appropriate.

Perhaps the best way to translate this word is with the ambiguous "minister," even when it seems to point to an appointed function in the church. Diakonos would have been just as ambiguous in the first century. Notice that even Paul in 1 Timothy uses the word in both ways: of particular servants in the church (1 Tim 3.8, 12) and of Timothy's role (4.6). So, within in the range of meaning of this word, was Phoebe a deacon or a minister?

In addition to the citations from the church fathers above, we have evidence from governor Pliny's letter to Trajan (ca. AD 110) that the early Christians did have women "ministers" or "deacons" (Latin: ministrae). So the notion of women deacons is not a feminist invention but a practice that can be traced to just after the first century (if one excludes the evidence of Rom 16.1 and 1 Tim 3.11).

I'm always a bit amused in this discussion that in the attempt either to prove or disprove that Phoebe was a deacon or minister; people tend to miss the more important term relative to her role in the life of the church. She is not only recognized as a diakonos, but also a prostatis, "a relatively high status term," according to BDAG. With this second term the new NIV takes the more "traditionalist" translation: she is a benefactor; while the more conservatively favored ESV takes the more "feminist" translation: she is Paul's patron. One only needs a little schooling in ancient Greek and Roman culture to discover that calling Phoebe a "patron" is far more surprising than designating her a deacon.

More recent exploration into first century letter-writing practices has uncovered some other intriguing possibilities for understanding Phoebe's role in relationship to Paul's letter to the Romans.

First, a drafted letter was kept unsealed until an appropriate letter carrier was found. This allowed more current news to be added between the initial drafting and the sending of the letter. Also this allows the appropriate commendations to be made in support of the reliability of the letter carrier which appears to be the function of the commendation for Phoebe.

Secondly, Phoebe, based on the commendation in 16.1, carried the letter from Paul to the Romans. Sending a letter by private courier involved some costs and Phoebe, the minister of the church and patron of many, probably absorbed those costs personally. If her role was typical of reliable first century letter carriers, then she would have been able to nuance, fill in missing details, and correct misunderstandings on the spot. On her return, Phoebe would have been in a position to report back to Paul the effect the letter had on the Romans.

People in the ancient world who could read did not read silently—the common practice was to read out loud. Those who could not read, probably most, would have heard Paul's letter from someone who could read. Phoebe, given her place in Paul's commendation, is therefore the most likely candidate for the first reading of this letter to the various church groups in Rome.

For more information on this, see E. Randolph Richards, Paul and First-century Letter Writing: Secretaries, Compositions and Collection (Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 2004).

Concerning 1 Tim 3.11

Tidwell comments,

In the qualifications for deacons that Paul wrote to Timothy, the revised NIV makes the text read as if some of the deacons were women: “In the same way, the women are to be worthy of respect, not malicious talkers but temperate and trustworthy in everything” (1 Timothy 3:11). In the footnote the translators add: “Possibly deacons’ wives or women who are deacons.”

Tidwell is here criticizing the new NIV for being too literal!

Translators face several problems in translating this text: 1) the word gune can be translated either wife or woman. Context is usually the only way to determine which is correct; 2) the new NIV correctly removes the possessive "their" from before the word—which would clearly indicate that the text is dealing with wives. No Greek manuscript supports the inclusion of the pronoun which goes back to at least the KJV which italicized their to indicate that it was not in the original text. The earlier Wycliffe's translation read, "Also it behooveth women to be chaste, not backbiting, sober, faithful in all things"—amazingly similar to the latest revision of the new NIV! Furthermore, the older NIV included the following note: "'way, their wives' — Or way, deaconesses" which is really not that far removed from the revised note.

While it may be possible to read this text as instruction for deacon's wives, that reading raises more questions than it solves. For example, why are there no similar instructions for elder's wives? Why are the instructions in the form of "qualifications" and why do they look so much like the qualifications for elders, deacons, and widows? Why would instructions for wives occur with a list of qualities for elders and deacons--that is, church functionaries?

The ancient Christians disagreed on how to read this text. For example, Chrysostom (in the Greek East) believed the text addressed women deacons, while Ambrosiaster (in the Latin West) claimed that the text was addressed to women in general, but neither thought it applied specifically to deacon's wives! However, Chrysostom is the more reliable guide here: he is not translating the text, he is reading it in his native Greek.

If one reads with Chrysostom that Phoebe was a "deacon," all the interpretive problems raised above disappear. Remember the word deaconess (diakonissa) does not exist in the first century, thus Paul, as we saw earlier, called Phoebe with the masculine term diakonos. Thus, the use of the word "women" is all that is needed to make clear that women deacons are being considered here. 1 Tim reads more consistently as well since all of the qualification lists now deal with those who serve the church in special ways.

However, where a problem really exists is in a Restoration Movement agenda that has no room for female deacons. Yet, as I suspect Tidwell knows—but does not tell his readers—several notable Restoration movement leaders, such as Alexander Campbell and C. R. Nichols, knew the NT allowed for female deacons. (Several of the early restorationist churches even appointed deaconesses). One would be hard pressed to accuse these brothers of a liberal feminist agenda!

For those interested in finding out all there is to know about deacons and deaconesses, I recommend J. Stephen Sandifer, Deacons: Male and Female? A Study for Churches of Christ (Columbus, GA: Brentwood Christian Press, 1989).

Concerning 1 Tim 2.12

Finally, Tidwell addresses the translation of a text that seems iron-clad in its prohibitions regarding the role of women in the church. He writes,

More subtle, but in some ways more dangerous, is the feminist twisting found in 1 Timothy 2:12 where the revised NIV reads: “I do not permit a woman to teach or to assume authority over a man; she must be quiet.” All other major versions render the prohibition in some form of “to have authority over a man.” By using the words “assume authority,” the revised NIV is parroting theories advocated by feminist theologians (31-32).

Really, Greg, we are going to quibble over the fine nuances of "have" and "assume"? I really fail to see how either translation will satisfy a true feminist. If what Tidwell says here is the real agenda of the new NIV, they could have done a lot better than "she must be quiet." I would have gone with "she must have a quiet disposition."

Both "have" and "assume," as with the KJV's "usurp" are interpretive additions to help with English sense. The Greek only uses one word here: authenteo. The standard lexicon of the Greek New Testament (BDAG) offers this range of meaning: to assume a stance of independent authority, give orders to, dictate to. The more recent work of Louw and Nida offers this: to control in a domineering manner —"to control, to domineer." The older Liddell and Scott lexicon of classical Greek understood the term to mean to have full power over. Even the now much out-of-date Thayer's lexicon understood the word to mean: one who acts on his own authority, autocratic, equivalent to autokrator an absolute master … to govern one, exercise dominion over one. The new NIV, consistent with the lexical data, offers a defensible translation of the Greek text.

The real issue in this text is not about men nor women leading but how they conduct themselves when they do assemble. Men are to pray without disputing; women are to dress with propriety. Part of propriety is that they don't seek to dominate the men.

Conclusion

What Tidwell fears is that the Bible might be read to allow the very things he is convinced that it prohibits. He states,

According to this line of thought, a woman may lead in worship, serve as a deacon, be a preacher or do anything else in the church as long as she is asked to accept this authority and does not “assume” to have this authority on her own (32).

Except for those who blindly accept the current practices as the norm, it is clear that women did, in fact, do all of the things Tidwell claims they should not do in the church today.

Based on many NT texts, woman played a more prominent in the church in the first century than often "allowed" today. For example, Lydia was a household leader in the early church; Pheobe was a minister and a patron; Priscilla actively taught along with her husband; Junia was counted as notable among the early apostles; Euodia and Syntyche influenced in the church in Philippi, Philip's daughters were prophetesses, and more. Therefore, a Restoration movement that is not willing to go as far as the NT regarding the role of women may not be as interested in restoring the NT church as they so claim.

While I do not dismiss that feminism has had some influence at all on the scholars who make up the newest NIV translation committee, I don't really think the theory that some feminist agenda was the engine driving their work is sustainable. Contrary to Tidwell's protest, it might be that the NIV translators, as fallible humans as all translators are, were genuinely seeking to translate the Greek text in clear, understandable English and that in so doing they sometimes challenge old interpretations.

While I feel certain there is no liberal feminist conspiracy behind the translation methodology of the revised NIV, I'm now a bit concerned there may be a misogynist agenda about the proper way to read the Bible. ;-)

Assault against Common Sense: Undue Veneration of the KJV

The 400th anniversary of the King James Version of the Bible is a noteworthy milestone in development of English Bible translation. The role that the KJV has play in Western culture should not be underestimated but neither should its place in the history of English Bible translation be deified.

Even the translators acknowledged their place in history in the 1611 KJV when they wrote, "But … to show in brief what we proposed to ourselves, and what course we held in this our perusal and survey of the Bible. Truly (good Christian Reader) we never thought from the beginning, that we should need to make a new Translation, nor yet to make of a bad one a good one, … but to make a good one better, or out of many good ones, one principal good one, not justly to be excepted against; that hath been our endeavor, that our mark." (Preface to the KJV, 1611; all KJV-only people would benefit from a careful reading of this preface).

Again, this great anniversary gives us pause to appreciate the great gift the KJV has been to many and to honor those whose sacrifices made possible the translation of the Bible into English. Nonetheless, proponents with extreme single-translation fixation will, no doubt, find this an occasion to picket for their cause. One such propoents is Ron Hammon who recently wrote "Assault against the King James Bible in 1881" (http://www.frontiersman.com/articles/2011/05/10/faith/doc4dc8cc9d3d539390386756.txt). Since Hammon offer argumentation somewhat typical of KJV-only proponents, I have copied his article below in blue. My comments will follow each of his paragraphs where I think some counterpoint is needed. 

As we said last week, the publication of the King James Bible in 1611 marked the culmination of Protestant Reformation efforts to place the Bible into the hands and language of the English-speaking people.

Culmination may be too strong, unless, of course, Hammon is saying that the Protestant Reformation ended in the seventeenth century. Protestants continue the process of English translation to the present with the NIV (2010) marking the continuing tradition of bringing the Bible to English readers. If what Hammon said about culmination is true then there would have been no need for any revisions of the KJV which took place as early as 1612; in fact, according to Jack P. Lewis (The English Bible: From KJV to NIV), the 1613 edition had 413 changes. Readers might be surprised to know that in 1629, an edition of the KJV was the first to exclude the Apocrypha. Revising the text of the KJV has been an ongoing work since 1611, as the New King James testifies.

While additional Reformation texts can be found in other languages, that the English language would eventually rise to become the trade language of the world in modern time proves the King James Bible to be the greatest gift that the reformers gave to the whole world.

The word "prove" is too strong since the causal relationship between the KJV and the prominence of the English language would be difficult to substantiate and even harder to measure meaningfully. I'm still not sure what these other Reformation texts are. 

It bears repeating that though initially published during the height of the Geneva Bible’s popularity, once established in the hearts of the people, no other English translation was forthcoming for some 270 years. And even at the end of 270 years, what had been commissioned was not a new translation, but a revision of the beloved text. You simply cannot change Greek texts and honestly call it a revision.

Here Hammon simplifies the matter too much. I have already mentioned the various revisions of the KJV in this period but the Geneva Bible continued to be published and used in this period. However, more to the point, Hammon assumes that one should accept the exact textual base (namely, the so called "textus receptus" on which the KJV was based) for any future revision of the KJV.  However, it seems strange that one would want to ignore the vast amount of manuscripts that have become available since 1611.

Two men would rise to the challenge of overthrowing the dominance of the King James Bible, as daunting a task as it has proven to be. Brooke Foss Westcott and Fenton John Anthony Hort, both Anglican high churchmen, had been tasked with revising the King James. While there is evidence in their personal writings of Mariolatry, Darwinism and possibly even the paranormal, what is important for us to understand here is their bent against the King James Bible as evidenced by their supplanting of the Reformation Greek text with one which would eventually bear their name, the Wescott and Hort text (also known as The New Testament in the Original Greek).

Now the pastor has stepped into water he little understands. First, the ad hominem smear on Westcott's and Hort's character is immaterial to their ability to work with Greek manuscripts of the NT. And, furthermore, to make such a sweeping generalization should certainly require some bibliographic data.

But more important to the case that Hammon wishes to make: he is correct that W and H wanted to supplant the TR. Their motives were not sadistic or underhanded. Some history will help here. There was (and remains) no "received text" until the publisher Elzevir claimed this for Erasmus' Greek text compiled from a limited number of manuscripts. In 1633, Elzevar wrote, "Textum ergo habes, nunc ab ominus receptum; in quo nihil immutatus aut corruptum damus (What you have here, then, is the text which is now universally recognized; we offer it free of alteration and corruptions)." However, as the Alands (The Text of the New Testament an Introduction to the Critical Editions and to the Theory and Practice of Modern Textual Criticism) note, the editions since 1633 have been far from uniform. Furthermore, Elzevar overstated his case, as book sellers still do: Neither the Roman Catholic or the Orthodox church would have any interest in switching from their revered texts for the TR's Byzantine text.

What W and H actually did in the editing for their Greek NT was to take the evidence as known to them seriously. They were forthright about their methodology which was designed to help scholars sort through the vast array of manuscripts of the NT that had come down to them. While many have criticized W and H, no one to date has put forward a theory of textual transmission that makes more sense than theirs.  

While it is not our purpose here to discuss at length the Textus Receptus, the Greek text underlying the King James Bible, what is necessary to understand is that during the 18th and 19th centuries, German rationalism had crept into Protestantism. By the time Westcott and Hort appeared on the scene, this had manifested itself in the idea that the oldest Greek texts were the best and most reliable — a pretty convenient invention considering Roman Catholicism had been busy burning bibles during the Dark Ages.

Wow! Really? Actually, the role of the TR is central to the reliability of the KJV. It provided the text from which the KJV was translated. If the TR is found lacking, then the only conclusion that can be drawn is that any translation based on it will also be lacking. And that is the case. This is not to name a fault as it is to point the obvious reality of Bible translation: When better manuscripts are discovered, faithful Bible translators will want to incorporate anything valuable from them.

In this paragraph, though, Hammon leaves the exact role of German rationalism unclear. So W and H are German liberals?

By the way, W and H did not always think the oldest Greek manuscripts were the best—they actually preferred some early manuscripts over other early ones. So if the oldest manuscripts are not the best, for the sake of argument, how does one weigh which later ones are? No cogent theory of the transmission of any ancient text would argue out of hand that the later manuscripts are the best. Manuscripts must be studied.

Given the anti-Catholicism of Hammon's argument below, Hammon intimates that Catholics were destroying the better manuscripts. Notice that Hammon confuses the destruction of Greek manuscripts (something Catholics would not do) with burning Bibles (which they did do since they believed the new translations were unfaithful to the Catholic tradition).

Regarding manuscripts, the irony is that it is Catholic and Orthodox MONKS who preserve and transmit the Greek text of the NT! Additionally, most of our manuscripts come from Egypt where the Eastern church held sway. 

With the infatuation of ancient manuscripts firmly entrenched in their minds, Wescott and Hort based their Greek text on two such manuscripts, the first known to us today as the Codex Sinaiticus. Found by Constantin von Tischendorf in 1859, what makes this manuscript interesting is that the monks of Saint Catherine’s Monastery had deemed it so poor that they were about ready to burn it. Over the centuries of its existence, it had been erased and overwritten so many times that it was considered unreliable. But for the worship of antiquity, all this was swept away.

While it is true that Tischendorf found Codex Sinaiticus in the trash, the explanation has to be other than Hammon gives. First, monks consider manuscripts as relics; they preserve them as long as they could. Secondly, Hammon revises the tale of Tischendorf's discovery. Tichendorf first discovers part of the codex in 1844 when he notices some parchment about to be thrown in the furnace. Apparently the monks throwing the manuscripts in the trash did do not know what they were throwing away. Hammon should also mention that Codex Sinaiticus is the only complete Greek NT in the old Uncial script that we have. Aside from the relative quality of the manuscripts, this is an important discovery for understanding how the Greek NT was passed down to us.

But also of note is that Saint Catherine’s is a Catholic monastery. Located at the foot of Mount Sinai on the Sinai Peninsula, this monastery has also been known as the Monastery of the Holy Virgin. Add to this that this manuscript is dated back to the fourth century, we can safely conclude this a Roman Catholic manuscript.

Holy Crap! Sorry, I can't think of a better way to say this. Every manuscript of the Greek New Testament will have been at one time or another either a Catholic or an Orthodox manuscript. Remember, monks? And St. Catherine's is an Orthodox monastery.  

Their second manuscript is known to us today as the Codex Vaticanus. Of note with this manuscript is that, as its name implies, this is property of the Vatican Library, being catalogued as early as 1475. Also of note is what is missing from this manuscript: five entire New Testament books.

Many ancient manuscripts have damage. Besides normal wear and tear, manuscripts were sometimes dismantled to sell it in smaller lots to fetch more money. This particular manuscript deserves more description than Hammon gives it. First, it originally contained both the Old and the New Testament. Second, it also contained the Aprocrypha as did the 1611 KJV. And, finally, it is missing more than just the five NT books per Hammon. At the beginning of the codex about forty six chapters of Genesis are missing; some thirty Psalms are gone and the concluding pages past Hebrews 9.14 are missing. So both the front and back pages have been torn away. Among the back pages would have been the Pastorals, Titus, Philemon, and Revelation. Hammon also fails to mention that ancient manuscripts often rearrange the books of the NT in orders different than printed NTs today.

While I cannot suggest a reason as to the exclusion of the tiny epistle of Philemon, it is easy to see that the absence of Paul’s pastoral epistles is in large part due to the conflict between the sacrament of celibacy and Paul’s requirement that a bishop be “the husband of one wife.” With regard to the absence of the book of Revelation, there is no doubt that it fell out of favor in identifying Babylon the Great in chapter 17 as Rome, which not only sits on seven mountains (verse nine), but also was the great city that reigned “over the kings of the earth” in John’s day.

Wow, again! Hello! The Catholics were sure successful in keeping these books secret! Have you ever looked at the Vulgate! These texts are all there and so are the "husband of one wife" (unius uxoris virum) and the seven hills (septem montes) of Revelation are there, too. Maybe the fact the Vulgate was not in English kept Europeans from reading it.

Again, what needs to be understood here is that while the King James Bible represents the culmination of Protestant Reformation efforts, the Greek text of Westcott and Hort and its progeny, the English Revised Version of 1881 represents a bid to undo and reverse Reformation victories.

Really? Evangelical Bible translators are today undermining the gains of the Reformation? No further comment needed here. 

While the English Revised Version, and its American counterpart, were initially vigorously opposed, they really only suffered partial defeat. For though they are not in common usage today, the seeds of their usurpation were sown. Through the multiplicity of versions and the disassociation of Westcott and Hort from the critical texts in use today, most are completely unaware that the Reformation hangs in the balance today. But as the saying goes, “all roads lead to Rome.”

So, in the end, according to Hammon, the modern critical study of the Greek NT is a tool the Catholic church is using to undermine the Protestant Reformation.

I would like to offer an alternative scenario—since I'm among those who collate and index these ancient manuscripts. Is it possible, in light of the new manuscript discoveries since the KJV, that textual critics are more interested in weighing all of the evidence as opposed to accepting a few, not so good, manuscripts that some printer called the "received text"?

Rules of Family Dynamics: (3) Chronic Conditions

If a family problem is chronic (perpetual or recurrent), there must be reactive or adaptive feedback from somewhere in the system to sustain it. (Friedman, Generation to Generation: Family Process in Church and Synagogue [New York: Guildford Press, 1985], 45).

Another way to state Friedman's rule is that when a persistent problem cannot be solved, though repeated efforts has been applied, people on the other side of the system are getting rewarded by the status quo.

As has been discussed previously, homeostasis (the tendency of all groups to find a level of balance) is a powerful force within social groups. However, in a church family where a problem is chronic and repeated effort has been applied to change it, but nothing seems to work—homeostasis has gone a muck and that is why things are stuck.

The key reason for sustained chronic problems is simple: someone is getting rewarded by the status quo. This always involves "over-functioners" and "under-functioners" who have quietly conspired with each other to fulfill the role assigned to each. The over-functioners build little empires by being "needed" because "they do so much for the family"; while the under-functioners are content to allow the over functioners to do all the work.

A case study might illustrate this. In one of my previous congregations, the church matriarch had taken over the church kitchen. Now I'm sure at first the nice sister simply sought to be useful but over time the kitchen became known as hers. Nothing happened in that kitchen apart from her. (Even the ministers were regularly chastised if they did not put their coffee cups up the way the matriarch desired). As usual, long-term members made excuses for her to newer members who were amazed that anyone would tolerate such behavior from someone who by this point should have been a mature disciple of Jesus. This state of things persisted for years and would have gone on much longer. It took a new member who had a enough confidence in herself to challenge the status quo.

However, it came at a price. At first the matriarch would catch the new lady in the kitchen alone and say demeaning things to her. I coached the new member to take a stand against despotic behavior and to catch the matriarch alone in the kitchen and to explain to her (in a non-anxious fashion) that a new day had come to the kitchen. The matriarch pulled a knife on her to threaten her. That was the turning point. Because of her rash threat, the matriarch was discredited and the congregation could see their complicity in allowing this older lady to become the kitchen nazi. The status quo was shown to be lacking and a new day did emerge.

These chronic situations are easy to spot. Whenever you hear an "over-functioning" leader say, "It's just easier to do myself" or "If I don't do it; no one else will," you are probably dealing with a chronic situation that will only be solved if the over-functioner is challenged. This is not easy to do because all of the players have learned how to live with things as they are. Over-functioning leaders have a hard time seeing how they are part of the problem, and to some degree, are the problem. These leaders, so to speak, suck all the oxygen out of the air and it is as if there is not enough for others around them. They are often perceived as being indispensable but that very myth keeps them from seeing the possibility that others would step forward if only there was room for them.

Another sure sign of an overfunctioning leader is that they are unable to produce disciples who might one day take their place. So instead of planting seeds that might grow into trees; they prefer to exist as the only tree in the orchard. For overfunctioning leaders, growing other leaders creates a threat to their need for job security. Like King Herod, they fear that the baby might one day be a king that displaces them.

Overfunctioning leaders always handicap the full functionality of a church or family. So why do we allow leader to overfunction? Because both over-functioning leaders and under-functioning followers are rewarded by the behavior of the other. Over-funtioning people satisfy their need for importance (even if driven by a false sense of hyper-responsibility). Under-functioning people absolved their guilt (and lack of responsibility) by rationalizing that this is the way things should be.

When churches are stuck; they are suffering from a chronic condition that is rewarding the "wrong" people.

Following the Real Pattern

Generally when the New Testament speaks of following a pattern, it has in mind models of living. For example, the much-liked word of patternists ‘typos’ is never used of some blueprint that outlines church polity or practice. Instead, it consistently refers to following a certain kind of lifestyle. Notice how the word is used in the following texts:

Join with others in following my example (symmimetai), brothers, and take note of those who live according to the pattern we gave you. (Phil 3.17) 

And so you became a model to all the believers in Macedonia and Achaia.” (1 Thess 1.7) 

We did this, not because we do not have the right to such help, but in order to make ourselves a model for you to follow. (2 Thess 3.9) 

Don’t let anyone look down on you because you are young, but set an example for the believers in speech, in life, in love, in faith and in purity. (1 Tim 4.12) 

In everything set them an example by doing what is good. In your teaching show integrity, seriousness (Titus 2.7) 

… not lording it over those entrusted to you, but being examples to the flock. (1 Pet 5.3)

In each case, the word refers to some model that a flesh-and-blood human models for others to emulate. And this is precisely how Jesus modeled it. In John 13.15, Jesus tells his disciples,

I have set you an example that you should do as I have done for you."

Here Jesus' example of washing the disciples' feet becomes a behavior he expects of his disciples. Whether, in terms of serving one another, or, in actually washing each other feet, Jesus sets himself as the example we are to follow.

More pointedly, Paul clearly calls on the Corinthians to follow his example, "as I follow the example of Christ." (1 Cor 11.1). Similar to the list of texts at the first of this piece, this text underscores that those who follow Jesus are worthy of imitation. The purpose of this pattern is the imatitio Christi. Phil 3.17 is concerned precisely about this as well:

Join with others in following my example, brothers, and take note of those who live according to the pattern we gave you.

As is 2 Thess 3.7-9:

For you yourselves know how you ought to follow our example. We were not idle when we were with you, nor did we eat anyone’s food without paying for it. On the contrary, we worked night and day, laboring and toiling so that we would not be a burden to any of you. We did this, not because we do not have the right to such help, but in order to make ourselves a model for you to follow.

Here the context clearly describes what it means to follow the example of another. Paul implores the Thessalonians to live as he and his band had lived when among them. Paul continues this emphasis in some of his last letters when he mentors Timothy (1 Tim 4.12) and Titus (2.7) to set a good example for the believers among whom they serve. Therefore the biblical testimony about any pattern is consistent: it has to do with living right.

You will find the same emphasis again in Heb 13.7:

Remember your leaders, who spoke the word of God to you. Consider the outcome of their way of life and imitate their faith.

Again, the point is to follow people who follow Jesus.

Yet a text from 1 Peter (2.21-25) gives the best way to follow the pattern:

To this you were called, because Christ suffered for you, leaving you an example, that you should follow in his steps. “He committed no sin, and no deceit was found in his mouth.” When they hurled their insults at him, he did not retaliate; when he suffered, he made no threats. Instead, he entrusted himself to him who judges justly. He himself bore our sins in his body on the tree, so that we might die to sins and live for righteousness; by his wounds you have been healed. For you were like sheep going astray, but now you have returned to the Shepherd and Overseer of your souls.

The pattern here, as you have already surmised, is Jesus. Jesus is the pattern for what it means to follow God. In this particular passage, Jesus’ non-retaliatory response to those who would mistreat him becomes the example for those now facing persecution. Consistently, in the NT, following the pattern is about following the way of Jesus, the way he lives and the way he taught.

In the New Testament, the word pattern is never used of issues dealing with church polity, governance, or practice. Therefore, if one is looking for a pattern in the New Testament, you need look no further than Jesus.

Jesus is the pattern, our example, our model.

Beyond the Pattern

Google "according to the pattern," and you will get a series of Church of Christ sponsored links. Some in the Churches of Christ (and other restorationist/primitivist/biblicist traditions) seek to establish that God gives very thorough instruction on how to "do church." Typical of this type of understanding is Bill Jackson's "Make All Things According to the Pattern," in Studies in Hebrews, edited by Dub McClish (Delight, AR: Gospel Light Publishing, 1983), 150-162. However, "patternism" can only be supported by an idiosyncratic reading of these texts, akin to doing a kind of connect-the-dot through a concordance, linking unrelated texts that happen to have the same word in them. I argue here that legitimate exegesis cannot establish such a patternism. This post, then, seeks to hear the pertinent texts on their own terms.

"According to the pattern" occur in just a few texts from the Bible, namely Ex 25.40, Acts 7.44, and Heb 8.5 (however, only here in the KJV). The latter two texts are citations or allusions to the Ex 25 text.

(Phil 3.17, which is sometimes pulled into the conversation, looks like an echo of the Ex 25 passage in the NIV but this is merely sloppy translating. The KJV's "Brethren, be followers together of me, and mark them which walk so as ye have us for an ensample" is much closer to the original. More literally, still would be "as you have us (as) example." The only connection with the Exodus text is the word typos; therefore, in the end, there is no literary connection between Phil 3.7 and Ex 25.40).

The originating text, Exodus 25.40, reads, “And see that you make them according to the pattern for them, which is being shown you on the mountain” (NRSV). It serves as a transition between chapters 25 and 26 each which contains a long list of instructions regarding the making of furnishings of the tabernacle.

In these chapters, God gives Moses very detailed instructions regarding the making of the tabernacle and its furnishings, as in Exodus 25.34–36:

On the lampstand itself there shall be four cups shaped like almond blossoms, each with its calyxes and petals. There shall be a calyx of one piece with it under the first pair of branches, a calyx of one piece with it under the next pair of branches, and a calyx of one piece with it under the last pair of branches—so for the six branches that go out of the lampstand. Their calyxes and their branches shall be of one piece with it, the whole of it one hammered piece of pure gold (NRSV).

Read contextually, this is not the pattern but a narrative about how to follow the pattern Moses has seen on the mount. These instructions are not the pattern that Moses was to follow exactly but an account of Moses being given the pattern. This is a fine, but important distinction. Moses did not pass on the "pattern" but instead monitored the process whereby the pattern which only he saw on the mount became the tabernacle and its furnishings.

In other words, "the pattern" generated these types of instructions. Observe that it has nothing to do with liturgical practices, the priest's clothing, their qualifications, or other important facets of the levitical priesthood; it dealt explicitly (and contextually) with making the furnishings for the tabernacle, as in Ex 25.9: “Make this tabernacle and all its furnishings exactly like the pattern I will show you.” Again, in this text, it is the tabernacle and furnishings that are under discussion. Nothing else comes under the stricture "to make according to the pattern." I do not deny that God has expectations, some very exacting in other matters, but not everything God commands are based on some "pattern."

The word translated "pattern" (tavnit) in Hebrews occurs in other OT texts for things made from a model or pattern, as with an altar in 2 Kg 16.10:

Then King Ahaz went to Damascus to meet Tiglath-pileser king of Assyria. He saw an altar in Damascus and sent to Uriah the priest a sketch of the altar, with detailed plans for its construction.

and the temple in 1 Chron 28.11, 12:

Then David gave his son Solomon the plans for the portico of the temple, its buildings, its storerooms, its upper parts, its inner rooms and the place of atonement. He gave him the plans of all that the Spirit had put in his mind for the courts of the temple of the LORD and all the surrounding rooms, for the treasuries of the temple of God and for the treasuries for the dedicated things. He gave him instructions for the divisions of the priests and Levites, and for all the work of serving in the temple of the LORD, as well as for all the articles to be used in its service.

or concerning the cherubim in the Holy of Holies as recorded in 1 Chron 28.18b-19:

[David] also gave [Solomon] the plan for the chariot, that is, the cherubim of gold that spread their wings and shelter the ark of the covenant of the LORD. “All this,” David said, “I have in writing from the hand of the LORD upon me, and he gave me understanding in all the details of the plan."

Several observations from these texts are in order. First, God did have a pattern for some things in which he expects people to follow to the detail. However, in all of the texts so far, it was not the task of everyman, but leaders who were privy to divine revelation. Second, while the biblical narrative speaks of the "plan" that was to be followed very carefully, it does not reveal the content of the plan in details that could be repeated by anyone reading only the biblical text to make any of the items. Simply put, we don't have the plans, we have a narrative telling us there was a plan. Third, as deficient as the fairly elaborate details are in the OT, the NT rarely offers the same level of detail in describing Christian worship. The passages dealing with worship gatherings in 1 Cor are the exceptions.

For the sake completeness, all of the OT texts containing the Hebrew word are these: Ex 25.9, 40; Deut 4.16–18; Josh 22.28; 2 Kings 16.10; Is 44.13; Ezek 8.3, 10; 10.8; Psa 106.20; 144.12; and 1 Chr 28.11–12, 18–19. In some of these texts, the word is equivalent with image or idol.

Now I turn to the NT citations of the Ex 25 passage. Acts 7.44 reads,

Our forefathers had the tabernacle of the Testimony with them in the desert. It had been made as God directed Moses, according to the pattern he had seen.

Stephen's citation of the Exodus passage underscores the divine origin of the tabernacle which will only heighten Stephen's point that God does not live in man-made temples, including the tabernacle and the temple in Jerusalem. However, Stephen is not calling on anyone to do anything "according to the pattern." It is merely part of his historical retelling of the exodus story as found in Ex 25 and 26.

The citation of the Exodus text in Hebrews is a bit more intriguing. It reads within its immediate context:

Every high priest is appointed to offer both gifts and sacrifices, and so it was necessary for this one also to have something to offer. If he were on earth, he would not be a priest, for there are already men who offer the gifts prescribed by the law. They serve at a sanctuary that is a copy and shadow of what is in heaven. This is why Moses was warned when he was about to build the tabernacle: “See to it that you make everything according to the pattern shown you on the mountain.” But the ministry Jesus has received is as superior to theirs as the covenant of which he is mediator is superior to the old one, and it is founded on better promises. (Hebrews 8.3–6 NIV)

The interpretation that views this text as saying that God has a divine pattern for the church today he expects humans to follow completely is simply not reading the text. The text makes no such point and actually works against any such idiosyncratic understanding.

In the larger context, the Hebrews writer is establishing that Jesus is a different kind of high priest from the ones who descend from Levi. The logic of this text is as follows:

Every priest needs something to offer. However, if Jesus was serving on earth, he would not be a priest since there are already those connected with temple doing that. This "sanctuary" is merely a "copy and shadow" of what is in heaven. (Now the Hebrew writers cites Ex 25.40 to support this relationship between shadow and reality). The tabernacle (or even the temple) is not the real sanctuary; according to the Hebrews writer heaven is! Not the church as patternists would have it.

The Hebrews writer is arguing that the tabernacle and its furnishings, the very things made according to the pattern, has been superseded in Jesus. For example, Hebrews 8:1-2 says it this way:

The point of what we are saying is this: We do have such a high priest, who sat down at the right hand of the throne of the Majesty in heaven, and who serves in the sanctuary, the true tabernacle set up by the Lord, not by man.”

The sanctuary or tabernacle here is not the church, but heaven where Jesus offered himself to God. In none of these "according to the pattern" texts is there anything for God's people to do today. In order to create that relationship, patternist will seek to tie in others texts using the Greek word typos (which was used to translate the Hebrews word in the LXX and is used with several different connotations in the NT). However, those texts have no connection whatsoever with the way it is used in Acts 7.44 or Hebrews 8.5. Since there are only 14 verses that use this word, I have listed them with the word typos highlighted in red in the corresponding translation.

In the Gospel of John, the word signifies the "marks" left by the nails in Jesus' hands.

So the other disciples told him, “We have seen the Lord!” But he said to them, “Unless I see the nail marks in his hands and put my finger where the nails were, and put my hand into his side, I will not believe it.” (John 20.25 NIV)

In Acts, the word applies both the idols the Israelites once made as well as the pattern after which Moses was to build the tabernacle and furnishings. It can also refer to the model on which a letter is copied.

You have lifted up the shrine of Molech and the star of your god Rephan, the idols you made to worship. Therefore I will send you into exile beyond Babylon.

Our forefathers had the tabernacle of the Testimony with them in the desert. It had been made as God directed Moses, according to the pattern he had seen. (Acts 7.43–44 NIV)

He wrote a letter as follows: (Acts 23.25 NIV)

In Romans, typos can refer to how Adam was a model of the man to come, that is Jesus. In this way, the word is used much the same way as the earthly tabernacle prefigures the heavenly one. However, in the case of Romans 6.17, the "form" of teaching refers to the content of that teaching.

Nevertheless, death reigned from the time of Adam to the time of Moses, even over those who did not sin by breaking a command, as did Adam, who was a pattern of the one to come.

But thanks be to God that, though you used to be slaves to sin, you wholeheartedly obeyed the form of teaching to which you were entrusted. (Romans 5.14; 6.17 NIV)

In 1 Corinthians, the ancient Israelites serve as an example not be be followed:

Now these things occurred as examples to keep us from setting our hearts on evil things as they did. (1 Cor 10.6 NIV)

In the remaining texts in the New Testament where the word occurs, typos has a consistent usage refering to the kind of examples people set for others to follow.

Join with others in following my example (symmimetai), brothers, and take note of those who live according to the pattern we gave you. (Phil 3.17)

 And so you became a model to all the believers in Macedonia and Achaia.” (1 Thess 1.7)

We did this, not because we do not have the right to such help, but in order to make ourselves a model for you to follow. (2 Thess 3.9)

Don’t let anyone look down on you because you are young, but set an example for the believers in speech, in life, in love, in faith and in purity. (1 Tim 4.12)

In everything set them an example by doing what is good. In your teaching show integrity, seriousness (Titus 2.7)

… not lording it over those entrusted to you, but being examples to the flock. (1 Pet 5.3)

In final analysis, I don't disagree that there is a pattern to be followed. My contention is that patternists choose the wrong pattern and then pour their prooftexting scriptures into their pattern and, what's worse, they seek to impose their understandings on the consciences of others.

In my next piece, I plan to explore more positively, what the pattern of the New Testament really is.

Shepherds without Blemish: Reflections on Leadership

In his instruction to the missionary (or apostolic delegate) to the island of Crete, Paul informed Titus to appoint elders in every city. The foremost quality for these leaders is that they be “blameless” (Paul uses two different words for “blameless in 1 Tim. and Titus; cf. the same word applied to deacons in 1 Tim. 3.10 and synonym “above reproach” in 1 Tim. 3.2, 5.7, and 6.14; and yet another synonym, “of good reputation” in Onosander’s The General, ca. AD 45. This last work describes of what makes a good Roman general; several of the terms used by Paul occur there).

What then does “blamelessness” mean in the context of church leadership? A sketch of context of the letter to Titus provides the background for why Paul sought this particular quality in an elder.

A. The Literary Context of the Letter to Titus.*

Paul states his purpose for writing the letter in 1.5, where the he (re)assigns Titus two tasks: (1) to set unfinished things in order and (2) to appoint leaders in every city. The rest of the first chapter elaborates on the second of these tasks. In 1.6-9, Paul enumerates the qualities needed for leadership in Crete. The last quality in v. 9, “to refute those who contradict,” prepares the reader for Paul’s assessment of Cretan society.

The populace of Crete lacked moral character, which the apostle supports by quoting Epimenides, a Cretan poet, who lived in the sixth century BC. Additionally Titus must deal with “those of the circumcision” (see Acts 10:45 and 11:2; cf. also Col. 10, 11),” a Jewish element, exploiting the church by “ruining whole households by teaching things they ought not to teach,” and making a profit in the process (v. 12). The severity of the situation in Crete should not be minimized; it is the seriousness of the situation in Crete that called this letter into being, and forms the backdrop for understanding the qualities required of elders.

In chapter two, the apostle expands on the first of the two tasks (“to straighten out what was left unfinished”) mentioned in 1.5. In 2.1 Paul encourages Titus to teach “what is in accord with healthy teaching.” What “healthy teaching” (a better translation of the traditional “sound doctrine”) entails follows. In 2.2, Titus is to teach the older men, in v. 3, the older women, who themselves are to teach the younger women (vv. 4, 5). Why is Titus not to teach the younger women? The text gives no direct reason, but if homes are being disrupted and the reputation of the Christian community is at stake, the suggestion is appropriate. In this way, Titus will model “blamelessness.”

Titus is to teach the young men (vv. 6ff.) and slaves (vv. 9, 10). The ethical behavior sought for each group finds its biblical foundation in the appearance of God in Christ (vv. 11-14). The single goal of these ethical demands are strategically placed in the “so that” clauses of vv. 5, 8, and 10:

v. 5 … so that no one will malign the word of God.

v. 8 … so that those who oppose may be ashamed because they have nothing bad to say about us.

v. 10 … so that in every way they will make the teaching about God our Savior attractive (NIV).

The common denominator here is that these ethical instructions are to have a profound effect on those outside the church—it has to do with, what we call today, public relations and image. Again this backdrop shapes Paul’s understanding of “blameless.”

Before explaining the relationship between the church and Cretan society, Paul reminds Titus (v. 15) of what he has already stated in 2.1, though ending with a surprising exhortation, “Do not let anyone despise you.” Again, this is a clue into the Titus’ situation: Paul anticipates opposition for Titus as he does for elders (see Tit. 1.9).

In 3.1 and 2 Paul continues his ethical exhortation, but the focus now shifts from relationships within the household and church to relationship of the church to society. In 3.3-8, almost as a reminder that Titus must continue to have compassion on Cretan society, Paul recalls that they too were once outside of fellowship with God, but now God had changed this when he save them, implying that he could do the same for depraved Cretans. The apostle finally returns to the problems described in 1.10-16, telling Titus to avoid such things (3.9-11). Final greetings fill 3.12-15, but in v. 14 we see that the apostle could not dislodge from his mind the gravity of the moral problems in Crete.

B. The Meaning and Use of “Blameless”

This brief overview invites a couple of observations regarding the word “blameless” and its function in Titus. The ethical state of the inhabitants of Crete is the opposite for what Paul is looking for in leaders for the church. This may suggest to Titus that finding good leaders may be difficult in that mission field—but also critical.

The word itself comes from the Hellenistic legal arena. It does not occur in the Septuagint, the Greek translation of the OT current in the first century, (outside of 3 Macc. 5.20) and does not therefore reflect the sacrificial language of the OT regarding animals that were to be without blemish, though the thought is similar. It literally means “un-accused” and “indicates one whose character and conduct has not been called into question, or one who is free from accusation.” (Alexander Strauch, Biblical Eldership: An Urgent Call to Restore Biblical Church Leadership, 2nd ed. [Littleton, CO: Lewis and Roth, 1988], 171. Währisch offers, “The other adjectives used in this context indicate that the meaning is beyond reproach, in the ordinary sense of common respectability. Thus in addition to qualifications of a spiritual nature, ordinary standards of decency are made into a preconditions of office in the church, for the sake of the church’s good name in the world.” (Colin Brown, The New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology, Vol. 3 [Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1978], s.v. article by H. Währisch).

In Titus, “blameless” occurs at the top of the list of qualifications or qualities Paul required in church leaders and seems to be the premier quality explained by those that follow in the list. V. 7 offers a theological rationale: the elder serves as God’s steward, God’s household manager. As such, he, and the other elders, represents God. They serve as God’s ambassadors to the church and the world (see v. 9).

C. Implications for Leadership Today

“Blameless”-ness is closely related to integrity. J. Robert Clinton defines integrity as “that uncompromising adherence to a code of moral, artistic, and other values that reveals itself in sincerity, honesty, and candor and avoids deception and artificiality.” (J. Robert Clinton, The Making of a Leader: Recognizing the Lessons and Stages of Leadership Development [Colorado Springs: NavPress, 1988], 58.) However, integrity is an internal quality while “blameless” has an external quality about it. It is what others think of an elder. There can be no charge brought against him, not just in his “public” life, but in his private as well. It is concern with not just what the church sees, but what the world sees. “Blameless” gets its force vis-à-vis the world—they cannot bring a charge against God’s household manager!

* The material in this section is adapted from my article, “Titus 2.5—Must Women Stay at Home?” in Carroll D. Osburn, Essays on Women in Earliest Christianity, Vol. 1 (Joplin, MO: College Press, 1993), 367-77.

Shiny Things: A Parable

“All the Athenians and the foreigners 

who lived there spent their time doing 

nothing but talking about and listening 

to the latest ideas.” (Acts 17.21 NIV)

There was once a mother raven who in the midst of picking at a juicy worm that would have provided a day’s sustenance for her young became distracted by a shiny object several feet from the worm hole. The raven flitted over to a shiny object firmly embedded in the dirt-mixed undergrowth. After several long minutes of pecking, the raven finally released the object. It was paper-like on one side and metallic on the other. Had the raven been able to read, it would have recognized the “Wrigley’s” logo on the shiny side of gum wrapper. Nonetheless, by this point, the raven had become weary of its promised prize so she looked around to look for the worm she had previously released. It was gone.

For a moment, she thought of the needs of her young, but that was soon forgotten. A shiny object caught her eye on the other side of the park near a park bench where sat several people. The prize was in the grass below the park bench. This should prove exciting. Getting around the people would prove a challenge. So she flew to several feet behind the bench. Then she slowly, stealthily approached the bench. She crept her sleek body toward the gleaming object. It was round and hard but it did not taste good and proved to be not very good as food for young ravens. Young ravens can’t eat quarters. Again, for a moment, the mother thought of her children back at the nest.

But again they were soon pushed out of her mind when she saw—you know it—another shiny object.

This object was unlike any of the previous shiny things. This object was near a fountain and the pigeons seemed oblivious to the object. They simply walked past it in their search for seeds and bread people had thrown down. Our raven would have none of the everyday seeds and bread—that was for pigeons but not suitable for ravens. After all, didn’t she leave a juicy worm earlier this morning in pursuit of shiny things. No simple seeds and bread would be good enough for her young. What are seeds and bread when one can have this . . . hey, this is special. The shining thing was long but narrow. It was an oblong, folded shiny piece of wire. The raven had no point of reference for understanding the true nature of a paper clip, but that was of no concern. The raven did know what a worm was like and this was worm-like in a way. So she swallowed it and prepared to fly away, but she found she could not fly, she could not move and soon she could not see anything. The next shiny thing, the last shiny thing, the raven saw was a bright light in the distance and then nothing. She would never know whether her young survived or not.

Embrace Each Other

In Romans 14.1-15.14, Paul challenged the “strong” to “embrace the person whose faith is fragile” (14.1; translation mine). At the end of this passage, Paul invites both weak and strong to embrace each other “in the same way that Christ has embraced you so that God will be praised” (15.7). Because God has embraced the strong, the strong are encouraged to embrace the weak (14.3).

I have chosen to translate the word normally rendered “welcome” or “receive” as “embrace” since Paul is inviting the strong to extend hospitality to the weak in the hope that the weak will reciprocate. In this often hastily read text, Paul calls believers to do more than just tolerate one another or just to accept (intellectually) that others have different understandings and practices. Paul stresses hospitality: the strong should invite and welcome the weak into their lives and homes, as one would receive a guest (see similar use of proslambáno in Acts 18.26, 28.2 and Philemon 17). He encourages the Gentiles to do what they can to embrace their Jewish brothers and sisters because he wants the weak and strong to stay together rather than going their separate ways.

In 15.5 and 6, Paul seeks a specific outcome for the weak and the strong: “May the God who gives endurance and encouragement give you a spirit of unity among yourselves as you follow Christ Jesus, so that with one heart and mouth you may glorify the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ” (NIV).

Paul’s strategy is Christ-centered. Every point and turn in his argument revolves around either what Christ would do or has done. Paul’s proposal is “For the kingdom of God is not food or drink, but righteousness, joy and peace in the Holy Spirit because in this way the one serving Christ is pleasing to God and acceptable by people” (14.17-18). Thus, values of the kingdom of God outweigh those of personal preference.

Paul, though a Jew, identifies with the Gentiles when he declares, “all food is clean” (14.20) and with Jesus who made the same pronouncement during his ministry (Mark 7.19). The strong are those who know that food and drink requirements are not a part of the gospel and who have the liberty to partake in many things the weak would find objectionable. Thus, food, drink and even holy days are not sinful in themselves since the kingdom calls us to the higher values of righteousness, joy and peace.

Paul illustrates with a couple of case studies. The first involves a vegetarian and a meat-eater. Both are acceptable practices before God. So Paul asks, “Who are you to judge someone else’s servant?” Both strong and weak are accountable to their Master. Paul offers a second illustration involving the veneration of special days. Again, either posture is acceptable to God since, according to Paul, both those who do and those who don’t “belong to the Lord.”

The intended rhetorical force of “we will all stand before God’s judgment seat” is that we have no business judging another—that is God’s job! “Therefore,” instructs Paul, “we should stop passing judgment on one another” (14.13). In 14.13-21, Paul cautions the strong not to use their freedom in such a way as to “destroy your brother for whom Christ died” (14.15). Thus, to destroy your brother is working against the work of Christ.

Yet, not passing judgment balances not allowing other to speak evil of what one might consider good. Paul affirms that it is acceptable for believers to be in different places regarding these external practices (14. 22, 23). Neither the weak nor the strong are to argue about their convictions with one another and to do what they understand is right in each case without imposing their practices on the other.

Paul instructs the Gentiles and others who share the perspective of the Gentiles, to “bear with the failings of the weak” and not seek “to please themselves” in imitation of Christ (15.1-4). Paul presses his point: “Embrace one another in the way Christ embraced you.” Christ became a servant to the Jews. The Gentiles should do the same. Yet, on the other hand, Jewish Christians need to remember that God’s intent is for the Gentiles to “glorify God for his mercy” (15.9). The Gentiles belong in God’s plan, too. Paul supports this point from the Old Testament (2 Sam. 22.50 || Psalm 18.49; Deut. 32.43; Psalm 117.1; and Isa. 11.10).

Finally, Paul prays, “May the God of hope fill you with all joy and peace as you trust in him, so that you may overflow with hope by the Holy Spirit.” To this prayer we can only hope that the weak and the strong responded: “Amen.”

I once heard Marva Dawn speak about this topic. She asked, “When we can’t sing each other’s songs [speaking of “traditional” vs. “contemporary”] … what does that say about us?” Paul’s text about the weak and strong points to the road too often not traveled. Those who understand the spiritual nature of the kingdom of God are the strong. However, we don’t always see this. Often the weak will claim the position of being the strong to bind on the whole congregation their version of food, drink, and holy days and so keep the congregation at their level of immaturity.

I have sometimes witnessed the oldest, and presumably, the most mature members seek to hold the church hostage in this way. While I do want to honour those who have lived long lives in the church, I also believe it is reasonable for us to expect the oldest members to be the most mature, to be the strong. Living a long Christian life should transform a person into the image of Jesus: thus, the longer one is in Christ, the less concerned they are about “food and drink” and the more fully they embrace “righteousness, peace and joy in the Holy Spirit.” If the oldest members of the church are the strong, then it follows that they should be the most tolerant of the “failings of the weak.”

While the weak are to be respected, they are not to set agenda. Nowhere does Paul suggest we should compromise the mission of the church for the sake of the weak. People will always have personal matters of conscience; however, no one should be compelled to do what they believe is wrong. However, neither can the scruples of the weak become the standard for the whole church. When someone demands that things be done their way, they are acting the part of the “weak.”

This point has great poignancy as we are currently beset with a baffling array of choices. For example, do we continue to use songbooks or do we make the move to computers and projectors? Other issues are going to be more challenging. Can we use praise teams or show a video clip as a sermon illustration? Is drama an appropriate form to communicate the gospel in the Christian assembly? Can we play a scripture CD with instrumental accompaniment? 

We will disagree which of these are of the “food and drink” variety and so this will require some patience on the part of those who seek to be truly strong. Nor do I always know what the best solution is in every case but I do know that Paul’s text regarding the weak and the strong will have something to say about how we embrace one another through this maze of differences.

Weak and strong, as believers in Jesus, are commanded to “embrace one another.” While it is much easier to go our separate directions when we disagree, that is neither the way of this text nor the way of the cross. The text demands that as Christ has received us so we are to receive others. Christ is the model for how the weak and strong should relate to one another. I may not be able to figure out how this text applies in every single case, but I know where it begins and ends: the hospitality of Christ! Because it is Christ who embraces us!

First published in the Gospel Herald in 2008.

Room for Mystery

A temptation of our time is to present Christianity as logical and reasonable by the standards of this world. Many years ago Friedrich Schleiermacher, the father of theological liberalism, attempted this move in On Religion: Speeches to Its Cultural Despisers (1799). He conceded that science and the Bible were incompatible and argued that "religion" deals with human "affections" and as such was a matter of faith, not fact. Schleiermacher's work marks a beginning point for the current divide between public facts and private faith. Thus, in our time, politics belongs to the world of facts while religious beliefs live in the realm of private preferences. Neither have defenders of the Christian faith always helped. John Toland, for example, wrote a work called Christianity Not Mysterious (1693). Since the beginning of the Enlightenment, both liberal and conservative writers have attempted to remove mystery from the Bible and from Christian thinking. Oddly, both approaches accept that human logic and science should and can support all truth claims.


Not much has changed in this regard. Liberals still tend to reject anything in the Bible at odds with (the current state of) science and conservatives, using the exact same empirical tools, seeking to show that (what they call "true") science supports the Christian faith, not realizing that they treat biblical truths as accountable to human logic. Some claims in the Bible cannot be reduced to being reasonable or answerable to the dictates of science or logic! Despite this, Christians should boldly announce these claims even when, by the world's standard, they are considered foolish to science and contradictory to logic. (I am not arguing that logic and science have no role in how we know, but that reason and logic have limits when it comes to comprehending divine mystery).


The very centre of Christian theology, the incarnation (literally, the enfleshing) of God in the person of Jesus Christ, is one such mystery. Soren Kierkegaard, the Danish philosopher, once labelled the incarnation the "absolute paradox." This paradox, God becoming human, the creator becoming (in some sense) created, was not, for him, a problem for the intellect to unravel but a mystery for the human spirit to experience and to hold in awe.


Beyond debate, the Bible declares that God became human. This, however, is a logical impossibility as what it means to be God does not line up with what it means to be human. For instance, God is all-powerful; humans are not. Humans can die, and presumably, God cannot. If God could die, then, it would seem that he would cease to be God. The logical contradiction—that God could become human—is what Christians believe. There is no way to prove, in any way science accepts, that Jesus was both human and divine; yet the Christian faith hangs on accepting this very "contradiction."


To explore this further, the Bible, as most Christians believe, is the word of God. This is a bold claim but also impossible to prove through science or reason. To complicate matters, the Bible is also the product of human authors. At least forty writers over a period of fifteen hundred years composed the contents of the Bible. Additionally, many thousands participated in the formation of the canon and the preservation of the texts in that canon throughout the centuries. Christians believe that the Bible is both a human product and the medium through which God reveals his Son to the world and continues to speak to the church today. Because of this, we revere the Bible as sacred Scripture carrying the very authority of God, and yet study it as a textbook with insights into human history.


This confidence in the human-divine origin of the Bible is not reasonable from a logical or scientific perspective. Christian belief in the incarnation (and the Bible) transcends human logic and the empirical observation of science. Thus, our faith and our thinking must have room for mystery.


This mystery only intensifies when we explore the meaning of the incarnation. Why did God become human? The incarnation is a necessary precondition for the atonement and our subsequent reconciliation with God. We believe, and the Bible teaches, that Jesus, the God-man, gave His life to save humans and bring them back to God. As Christians, we generally accept this so matter-of-factly that we do not reflect on how unreasonable this claim is. We believe the death of one person is sufficient to cover the sins of everyone who has ever lived. If Jesus were just a human, then there is no way He could pay for another's sins and possibly not his own. Even if Jesus were just a sinless human, then His death might cover one other person—a life for a life. However, because Jesus is God he can cover the sins of the world. Thus, the mystery of our religion is that God took our sins upon himself; He paid the price for human sin. If true, then Christianity is far more mysterious than we usually comprehend.


Yet this is precisely what the Bible teaches: "God made him who had no sin to be sin for us, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God" (2 Cor. 5.20). The Greek, however, is even stronger: "God made the one not knowing sin [into] sin for us." This Sinless One not only bore our sins, but He took our sins into Himself, a thought teetering on the edge of nonsense... a mystery.


If that is not enough, Paul, in a seeming slip of tongue, suggests that God himself experienced death in the crucifixion of Jesus when he urged the Ephesian elders to "be shepherds of the church of God, which he bought with his own blood" (Acts 20.28). God's own blood? This bothered later scribes who altered manuscripts from "church of the God" to "church of the Lord" to avoid the obvious meaning of the text. We might say that these scribes struggled with the mystery of God dying.


Finally, since faith will always have room for mystery, how then should we respond to things we cannot explain? Paul may give us an example here. At the end of his discussion about God's mysterious ways of dealing with Israel that resulted in an influx of Gentile believers into the church, Paul can only express awe: Oh, the depth of the riches of the wisdom and knowledge of God! How unsearchable his judgments, and his paths beyond tracing out! "Who has known the mind of the Lord? Or who has been his counsellor?" "Who has ever given to God, that God should repay him?""For from him and through him and to him are all things. To him be the glory forever! Amen" (Romans 11.33-36).


Thus, when Paul encountered this mystery, he worshipped. So should we. There remains for us, then, room for mystery. May our strivings be not toward a knowledge that seeks to unravel the mystery, but toward faith that embraces more than science or logic can ever explain.

Originally published in the Gospel Herald (April, 2008).