Tonight is opening night, and this is my last post concerning the musical "Joseph and the Amazing Technicolor® Dreamcoat." I think I have saved the most stunning criticism for last.
There is one prominent character from the story of Joseph that is missing from this musical adaptation. Obviously, Joseph is there, his eleven brothers, and his father Jacob. There is Potiphar and his wife, the butler and baker Joseph met in prison, and the mighty Pharaoh. That's everybody, isn't it? No, there is one other character that is mentioned more than 30 times in the Bible between Genesis chapters 37 and 50. But who this one could be...
Amazingly, all mention of God is completely extracted from this telling of the story of Joseph. It wasn't God who gave Joseph the dreams, it was Joseph who dreamed big. It wasn't God who interpreted his cellmates' dreams (Genesis 40:8) or Pharaoh's dream (Genesis 41:16), it was a knack that Joseph had. It wasn't God who put Joseph in Second-in-Command in Egypt (Genesis 45:9), Joseph got a "lucky break." It wasn't God who was working all these things for good (Genesis 50:20), it was Joseph thinking it wanting it feeling it.
Who would have thought it was possible to tell the story of Joseph without any mention of God? But when you do, it changes the nature and moral of the story. Instead of a story of God's providence and protection through even the most difficult of times, it becomes a story of personal perseverance focused on a dream. You see, it is not the same story.
We see this happening at Christmas, with anything having to do with Christianity forcibly removed from schools, stores, television, etc. I know, it's the opposite end of the calendar to bring up Christmas, but it is important to tie many events together to see the pattern of what is going on around us. You remember the stores that tried to ban "Merry Christmas" from their greetings and the word "Christmas" from their advertisements. It's all right to say "Happy Holidays" and talk about Santa Claus and giving gifts. That's all good stuff, but it is not the same story as God sending His Son as a gift to us.
There are also lots of things going on to strip this country of any ties not just to Christianity, but to the Judeo-Christian God. Atheist Michael Newdow continues to pursue removing "under God" from the Pledge of Allegiance and removing "In God We Trust" from our money. Last year, for the celebration of the 400th anniversary of the first settlement in America at Jamestown, Virginia, the guides were instructed to leave out all references to Christianity as a part of their description of the site's history. Obviously, there are many more stories like this I could bring up, but that should be enough to make the point.
It is very sad that the mention of God is being systematically removed from all around us. And I think we should work to stop attempts like those of Michael Newdow. But we need to remember, the job of passing on the notion of God is not the government's, it is not Wal-Mart's, it is not Jamestown's. It is yours and mine. We need to be reminding each other and our children of God's role in the Bible stories, of His role in our country's history, and of His role in our lives.
May it never be a crime for anyone to say, "God bless America!"
Thursday, July 10, 2008
Sunday, July 6, 2008
Joseph, Part 3: Not Just Any Will Do
Preparing for a community theatre production takes a lot of time, so it's hard to do that, keep up with work and home, and still blog every once in a while. But there are several things about the musical "Joseph and the Amazing Technicolor® Dreamcoat" that have been bugging me that I just have to write about. This is the third issue I am taking up. I think there will just be one more after this.
One of the songs from the show is called "Any Dream Will Do." I've been trying to figure out what it means, particularly by its title line that is repeated many times throughout the song. The best I can figure is that the authors are trying to say that it doesn't really matter what your motivation is, what is important is that you are moving forward. Another song, called "Go Go Go Joseph," encourages Joseph as he goes through his many difficulties to hang in there and not give up.
I think these two songs really represent the message of the show. And that message is, it doesn't really matter what drives you, it just matters that you are driven and don't give up. So, assuming that Joseph was driven to keep going based on these dreams of stars and golden sheaves, it didn't matter, according to the musical, that the dreams were from God, or if they were pagan words of encouragement.
So what we see is that there are two related philosophies being promoted. First of all, "Any Dream Will Do" in particular pushes the idea of pluralism, that Christianity, Eastern philosophy, New Age religion, Islam, etc., are all equally valid. It doesn't really matter which one you pick, just take one. For instance, this article points out the the Hebrew Scriptures, the New Testament, and the Qur'an all share the same principles of loving one God and loving our neighbors. The differences, they go on to say, are theological, as if to imply that somehow theology is to some degree insignificant. And that thought establishes the close relationship between pluralism and this next idea.
The second philosophy that lurks around in these songs is that of pragmatism, that the important thing is not how you get to the end, the important thing is getting to a good end. Within the larger context, we see pragmatism stressed when people compare religions. As in the previous article, they will say there is no difference between the peace-loving devout Muslim and the peace-loving devout Christian. But even within the smaller context of Protestant Christianity, we see how doctrine, how truth, is being cast aside go with what "works." Here is a web site with several resources that point out some of the things churches are doing and what the problem might be with those things. John MacArthur in particular has some important things to say about pragmatism.
The Biblical story of Joseph is really not a story about Joseph following his dreams through rough times to eventual glory, but about Joseph following God. It mattered where the dreams came from; not just any dream would do. Joseph's story is an inspiration not because of all the wealth, fame, power, etc., he gained at the end, but because of how he followed God throughout and didn't abandon God when it didn't seem like God was "working." Joseph is a story of well-placed and consistent faith. I certainly don't wish for the trials of Joseph, but whatever comes, may I live a life of faith like Joseph's.
One of the songs from the show is called "Any Dream Will Do." I've been trying to figure out what it means, particularly by its title line that is repeated many times throughout the song. The best I can figure is that the authors are trying to say that it doesn't really matter what your motivation is, what is important is that you are moving forward. Another song, called "Go Go Go Joseph," encourages Joseph as he goes through his many difficulties to hang in there and not give up.
I think these two songs really represent the message of the show. And that message is, it doesn't really matter what drives you, it just matters that you are driven and don't give up. So, assuming that Joseph was driven to keep going based on these dreams of stars and golden sheaves, it didn't matter, according to the musical, that the dreams were from God, or if they were pagan words of encouragement.
So what we see is that there are two related philosophies being promoted. First of all, "Any Dream Will Do" in particular pushes the idea of pluralism, that Christianity, Eastern philosophy, New Age religion, Islam, etc., are all equally valid. It doesn't really matter which one you pick, just take one. For instance, this article points out the the Hebrew Scriptures, the New Testament, and the Qur'an all share the same principles of loving one God and loving our neighbors. The differences, they go on to say, are theological, as if to imply that somehow theology is to some degree insignificant. And that thought establishes the close relationship between pluralism and this next idea.
The second philosophy that lurks around in these songs is that of pragmatism, that the important thing is not how you get to the end, the important thing is getting to a good end. Within the larger context, we see pragmatism stressed when people compare religions. As in the previous article, they will say there is no difference between the peace-loving devout Muslim and the peace-loving devout Christian. But even within the smaller context of Protestant Christianity, we see how doctrine, how truth, is being cast aside go with what "works." Here is a web site with several resources that point out some of the things churches are doing and what the problem might be with those things. John MacArthur in particular has some important things to say about pragmatism.
The Biblical story of Joseph is really not a story about Joseph following his dreams through rough times to eventual glory, but about Joseph following God. It mattered where the dreams came from; not just any dream would do. Joseph's story is an inspiration not because of all the wealth, fame, power, etc., he gained at the end, but because of how he followed God throughout and didn't abandon God when it didn't seem like God was "working." Joseph is a story of well-placed and consistent faith. I certainly don't wish for the trials of Joseph, but whatever comes, may I live a life of faith like Joseph's.
Friday, July 4, 2008
Joseph, Part 2: Wrong Wing
Happy Independence Day!
We've got several months before we get to the presidential election, but less than a week before opening night of "Joseph and the Amazing Technicolor® Dreamcoat."
I don't know if it is just me, but election cycles seem to get longer and longer. Now that we are finally down to the two party candidates (no offense to those running for president but not in the two major political parties), I would kind of hope for a lull. But we still hear about them every day, things like how left-wing Barack H. Obama is (or may not be according to this article or this one, or this interview discussing whether Obama and Hillary represent two left wings of the liberal party), and how (disappointingly) not right-wing John McCain is (as evidenced by this reluctant show of support or this article from early this year and even a surprising quote from his own mother found in this article).
Left-wing and right-wing get used a lot as synonyms for liberal and conservative. But do they mean the same thing? What do left-wing and right-wing mean?
My answer right now is, I don't completely know (I've noticed that others have tried to think about this as well). The dictionary I checked said that left-wing means something along the lines of "being of the liberal party, or of the liberal portion of a party," and likewise for right-wing. So that makes them sound like synonyms. But others, like this article that is only partially available for free on the Internet, make the case that there is a distinct difference between "liberal" and "left wing".
So what does this have to do with the musical "Joseph?" In the beginning of the second act, while Joseph is in a prison cell in Egypt, a new character comes to the stage. It is Pharaoh, the King, and presented as the Egyptian Elvis. The Narrator describes Pharaoh as "a powerful man with the ancient world in the palm of his hand." Further, "No one had rights or a vote but the King. In fact you might say he was fairly right wing."
Wait a minute. Think about some of the totalitarian governments in recent history. Lenin, Stalin, Mao, Castro. All of these are socialistic, the liberal economic policy. So would it not be at least as accurate to say Pharaoh was "fairly left wing?"
I'm not at all happy that my children are merrily getting it hammered into their heads that "right wing" equals dictatorial. I suggested to the director that we sing "right wing" half the nights and "left wing" the other half. That way we could be equal opportunity offenders. I was overruled.
We've got several months before we get to the presidential election, but less than a week before opening night of "Joseph and the Amazing Technicolor® Dreamcoat."
I don't know if it is just me, but election cycles seem to get longer and longer. Now that we are finally down to the two party candidates (no offense to those running for president but not in the two major political parties), I would kind of hope for a lull. But we still hear about them every day, things like how left-wing Barack H. Obama is (or may not be according to this article or this one, or this interview discussing whether Obama and Hillary represent two left wings of the liberal party), and how (disappointingly) not right-wing John McCain is (as evidenced by this reluctant show of support or this article from early this year and even a surprising quote from his own mother found in this article).
Left-wing and right-wing get used a lot as synonyms for liberal and conservative. But do they mean the same thing? What do left-wing and right-wing mean?
My answer right now is, I don't completely know (I've noticed that others have tried to think about this as well). The dictionary I checked said that left-wing means something along the lines of "being of the liberal party, or of the liberal portion of a party," and likewise for right-wing. So that makes them sound like synonyms. But others, like this article that is only partially available for free on the Internet, make the case that there is a distinct difference between "liberal" and "left wing".
So what does this have to do with the musical "Joseph?" In the beginning of the second act, while Joseph is in a prison cell in Egypt, a new character comes to the stage. It is Pharaoh, the King, and presented as the Egyptian Elvis. The Narrator describes Pharaoh as "a powerful man with the ancient world in the palm of his hand." Further, "No one had rights or a vote but the King. In fact you might say he was fairly right wing."
Wait a minute. Think about some of the totalitarian governments in recent history. Lenin, Stalin, Mao, Castro. All of these are socialistic, the liberal economic policy. So would it not be at least as accurate to say Pharaoh was "fairly left wing?"
I'm not at all happy that my children are merrily getting it hammered into their heads that "right wing" equals dictatorial. I suggested to the director that we sing "right wing" half the nights and "left wing" the other half. That way we could be equal opportunity offenders. I was overruled.
Tuesday, July 1, 2008
Joseph, Part 1: You Can Believe What You Read
I don't think I've gotten very personal in any of my posts yet, meaning I haven't said much about myself beyond what I think about a particular issue. So this post will be a little different in that regard.
I have two great children, a ten-year-old daughter and a seven-year-old son, and the three of us are all preparing for a community theatre production of "Joseph and the Amazing Technicolor® Dreamcoat." As a preacher (and the dad of an actor or two) as well as an actor, I try to consider not just how "fun" a show is, but what messages it sends. "Joseph" is definitely a fun show that tells the events of Joseph's life reasonably close to what is recorded in the Bible. But I do have some areas of contention, which I am going to write about as a series of posts.
This first concern is a line that is not in our musical score, so our production won't be including it. But it was in the 1992 Canadian Cast Recording soundtrack featuring Donny Osmond as Joseph. The line is spoken by Potiphar as an aside as the Narrator and he describe himself and his wife. The Narrator sings, "Potiphar was cool and so fine," and Potiphar continues, "But my wife would never toe the line." The Narrator points out that, "It's all there in chapter thirty-nine of Genesis," to which Potiphar speaks, "Don't believe everything you read, dear."
So, obviously, as one who believes that the Bible is what it claims to be - the Word of God and truthful throughout - I have a little problem with this statement. Some would argue that the Bible contains the Word of God, and thus Potiphar's statement would be valid. Others would contend that the Bible is just a book written by people trying to understand God or their world and no different, no more accurate, than any other book ever written, and from their perspective Potiphar's statement would also be correct. But that is not what the Bible says about itself. Even as the Bible grows from the first five books of Moses to including the prophets, the books of wisdom, etc., it is consistently referred to as the Word of God, with all the unquestionable authority that implies. This web page does a pretty good job of defending whether the Bible lives up to that description of being the Word of God, saying many of the things I would bring out plus others I didn't know.
I understand that this little aside by Potiphar may be a reflection of Potiphar's character more than an attempt to make a statement. But I think it very much does make a statement, very lightly so it will not immediately offend. And that is just the kind of statement we have to watch out for - lightly, even humorously made, stuck innocently in the middle of a fun little song our children enjoy singing.
I have two great children, a ten-year-old daughter and a seven-year-old son, and the three of us are all preparing for a community theatre production of "Joseph and the Amazing Technicolor® Dreamcoat." As a preacher (and the dad of an actor or two) as well as an actor, I try to consider not just how "fun" a show is, but what messages it sends. "Joseph" is definitely a fun show that tells the events of Joseph's life reasonably close to what is recorded in the Bible. But I do have some areas of contention, which I am going to write about as a series of posts.
This first concern is a line that is not in our musical score, so our production won't be including it. But it was in the 1992 Canadian Cast Recording soundtrack featuring Donny Osmond as Joseph. The line is spoken by Potiphar as an aside as the Narrator and he describe himself and his wife. The Narrator sings, "Potiphar was cool and so fine," and Potiphar continues, "But my wife would never toe the line." The Narrator points out that, "It's all there in chapter thirty-nine of Genesis," to which Potiphar speaks, "Don't believe everything you read, dear."
So, obviously, as one who believes that the Bible is what it claims to be - the Word of God and truthful throughout - I have a little problem with this statement. Some would argue that the Bible contains the Word of God, and thus Potiphar's statement would be valid. Others would contend that the Bible is just a book written by people trying to understand God or their world and no different, no more accurate, than any other book ever written, and from their perspective Potiphar's statement would also be correct. But that is not what the Bible says about itself. Even as the Bible grows from the first five books of Moses to including the prophets, the books of wisdom, etc., it is consistently referred to as the Word of God, with all the unquestionable authority that implies. This web page does a pretty good job of defending whether the Bible lives up to that description of being the Word of God, saying many of the things I would bring out plus others I didn't know.
I understand that this little aside by Potiphar may be a reflection of Potiphar's character more than an attempt to make a statement. But I think it very much does make a statement, very lightly so it will not immediately offend. And that is just the kind of statement we have to watch out for - lightly, even humorously made, stuck innocently in the middle of a fun little song our children enjoy singing.
Friday, June 27, 2008
How Wrong Can You Be?
There will always be things that we just can't know about God until we reach eternity. There will also be things that we are going to understand incorrectly. There are wonderful, intelligent Christians that if I were ever in doubt about some theological matter, I would completely trust their analysis of it, but with whom I disagree on certain issues. What I'm saying is, every person who claims to be a Christian is going to be wrong about Christianity to some degree.
So my question is, how wrong can you be and still be all right? A speaker at the Cooperative Baptist Fellowship (CBF) (man, these guys can provide lots of material) General Assembly in Memphis says we can talk about Christ without necessarily seeing him as the incarnate God, according to this Baptist Press article. If one doesn't believe in the divinity of Christ, that is not the Jesus of the New Testament, the Jesus that the Apostles preached, the Jesus that orthodox Christianity has proclaimed from its beginnings. The speaker insists that this Christ is still Savior, but a non-divine Jesus is not the Jesus who can save people's souls and give people life.
Jesus Himself lets us know that not everyone who claims to be a Christian, not everyone who call Jesus "Lord," are actual Christians. In fact, in Matthew 7:21-23 He describes the Christian ministry work these people perform, and yet will be completely rejected from the Kingdom of Heaven. They call Jesus "Lord," they prophesy in Jesus' name, they cast out demons in Jesus' name, they do miracles in Jesus' name, and yet Jesus' accusation of them is apparently that they do not do the will of the Father. How can this be? These people who are turned away seem completely surprised. I would suggest that perhaps one reason is because they had made up their own "God" and "Jesus" with characteristics and commands they were comfortable with, so that when they were confronted with the real Jesus, He says He never knew them.
I am working on a sermon series called "The Danger of Almost God" based on Exodus 32. While Moses is up on the mountain receiving instruction from the Lord, the children of Israel build a gold calf. Notice in verse 5 that in the presence of this calf they are having a festival to the Lord, and also in verse 8 that they are attributing to this calf their rescue from Egypt. Some in our day might defend the Israelites, saying they were worshipping God as best as they understood Him. But this is a case where "almost" isn't good enough at all, for God's response in verse 10 is a desire to destroy Israel, and in verse 35 He instead sent a plague on them.
How wrong can you be about God or Jesus and still be recognized by Jesus in the Kingdom of Heaven? Let us cling to the revelation He has given us about Himself in His Word. Anything else is playing with fire.
So my question is, how wrong can you be and still be all right? A speaker at the Cooperative Baptist Fellowship (CBF) (man, these guys can provide lots of material) General Assembly in Memphis says we can talk about Christ without necessarily seeing him as the incarnate God, according to this Baptist Press article. If one doesn't believe in the divinity of Christ, that is not the Jesus of the New Testament, the Jesus that the Apostles preached, the Jesus that orthodox Christianity has proclaimed from its beginnings. The speaker insists that this Christ is still Savior, but a non-divine Jesus is not the Jesus who can save people's souls and give people life.
Jesus Himself lets us know that not everyone who claims to be a Christian, not everyone who call Jesus "Lord," are actual Christians. In fact, in Matthew 7:21-23 He describes the Christian ministry work these people perform, and yet will be completely rejected from the Kingdom of Heaven. They call Jesus "Lord," they prophesy in Jesus' name, they cast out demons in Jesus' name, they do miracles in Jesus' name, and yet Jesus' accusation of them is apparently that they do not do the will of the Father. How can this be? These people who are turned away seem completely surprised. I would suggest that perhaps one reason is because they had made up their own "God" and "Jesus" with characteristics and commands they were comfortable with, so that when they were confronted with the real Jesus, He says He never knew them.
I am working on a sermon series called "The Danger of Almost God" based on Exodus 32. While Moses is up on the mountain receiving instruction from the Lord, the children of Israel build a gold calf. Notice in verse 5 that in the presence of this calf they are having a festival to the Lord, and also in verse 8 that they are attributing to this calf their rescue from Egypt. Some in our day might defend the Israelites, saying they were worshipping God as best as they understood Him. But this is a case where "almost" isn't good enough at all, for God's response in verse 10 is a desire to destroy Israel, and in verse 35 He instead sent a plague on them.
How wrong can you be about God or Jesus and still be recognized by Jesus in the Kingdom of Heaven? Let us cling to the revelation He has given us about Himself in His Word. Anything else is playing with fire.
Sunday, June 22, 2008
The Illogical Is Becoming Conventional
I realize that I let the Southern Baptist Convention in Indianapolis slip by without a single comment. In fact, I've let a lot of stuff slip by without a peep. I am planning some posts that will explain why I haven't been able to jump up on my little Internet soapbox and say anything. So be watching for those.
This past week, there was another gathering of people who call themselves Baptists. The Cooperative Baptist Fellowship (CBF) met in Memphis, where they made some pretty outlandish statements. Take a look at this one, for example, in a Baptist Press article. One speaker claims that some passages of Scripture "embody the Spirit of Jesus" more than others. Maybe I'll come back to that one, because that is big enough to go on about for quite some time. But as this same speaker considers the "spirit" of Galatians 3:28, he came to the illogical conclusion that, "if we were not going to ordain women, we were going to have to stop baptizing girls."
Egalitarians, those who believe that there are absolutely no differences aside from genitalia between the genders, almost always start their argument off with Galatians 3:28. They rip it from its context to make it say much more than it does. Its context is a discussion of salvation, and the verse makes the point that everyone, not just Jewish males, but every person, has a need for salvation in Christ, and are saved in exactly the same way, not by works but by faith in Christ Jesus. The verse mentions three areas of distinction - race, status, and gender. Nothing about any of those makes any difference in a person's need for or means of salvation. But those three areas of distinction do still exist. The Jews do seem to still have their own part to play in events that have been prophesied, and by Jesus' command were to be preached the Gospel first. Paul did not use this concept to try to keep the slave Onesimus from going back to his master Philemon, and there will always be those who are workers and those who are their masters or leaders. Likewise, there continues to be differences between the genders that go beyond the physical.
One of those areas of difference has to do with preaching and pastoring. The CBF speaker fails to recognize that God does not use everyone He saves in the same way. And even if he does recognize that some are called or gifted for this or that, he does not recognize that God considers gender in His calling. But the Scriptures that list the qualifications for pastors (or elders) of a church are very specific that the pastor be a "man of one woman." The qualification goes one way; it does not turn around and say "or a woman of one man."
There is more that could be said about that, but stepping away from the pastoral position, what about just preaching? First Timothy 2:11 instructs that the way the church is supposed to work is that women are not supposed to teach or to take authority over the men. That can be extremely offensive to some people. And so they try to explain it away by saying Paul was reacting to a problem with women who lacked proper training or understanding, or it was a cultural thing, that's just how things were done. But the problem with all these attempts to explain this verse into saying something other than exactly what it says is that the rest of the verse gives Paul's explanation for giving this instruction. It comes out of how God created things from the very beginning. There was an order in how and why God created man and woman.
Some will ask, "Can't God call a woman to preach?" as if to imply that if we say He can't, we are saying something is impossible for God, and thus they are attempting to set a trap. Contrary to what we sometimes say, there are wrong questions. Perhaps you've heard the question, Can God make a rock so big He can't lift it? That's a wrong question because it is illogical. The question of "Can God call a woman to preach?" is similar to "Can God tempt a person to sin?" God cannot tempt a person to sin, because it goes against His nature. Likewise, God cannot call a woman to preach within the local church context because it goes against His own Word. But God can and does definitely gift women to teach, and call them to teach, and that calling and that giftedness definitely should be exercised within the Biblical parameters God has given. Without really getting into the subject of God's "calling," our subjective sense of God's calling is limited by what He tells us forthrightly in His Word. If we sense God calling us into something that contradicts His Word, we either misunderstood what the message is or who it was from.
For more about this topic, you can see the articles "God's High Calling for Women, Part 3" (check out the other three parts, too) by John MacArthur or "Women Preachers" by Robert Lewis Dabney. Also, be sure to read the article "Able to Teach and Complementarian?" by Kim Pennington.
Note: I have dealt with only the I Timothy passage in this post, but this doctrine is not built on this single Scripture. The articles I have referred discuss other Biblical texts regarding this issue.
This past week, there was another gathering of people who call themselves Baptists. The Cooperative Baptist Fellowship (CBF) met in Memphis, where they made some pretty outlandish statements. Take a look at this one, for example, in a Baptist Press article. One speaker claims that some passages of Scripture "embody the Spirit of Jesus" more than others. Maybe I'll come back to that one, because that is big enough to go on about for quite some time. But as this same speaker considers the "spirit" of Galatians 3:28, he came to the illogical conclusion that, "if we were not going to ordain women, we were going to have to stop baptizing girls."
Egalitarians, those who believe that there are absolutely no differences aside from genitalia between the genders, almost always start their argument off with Galatians 3:28. They rip it from its context to make it say much more than it does. Its context is a discussion of salvation, and the verse makes the point that everyone, not just Jewish males, but every person, has a need for salvation in Christ, and are saved in exactly the same way, not by works but by faith in Christ Jesus. The verse mentions three areas of distinction - race, status, and gender. Nothing about any of those makes any difference in a person's need for or means of salvation. But those three areas of distinction do still exist. The Jews do seem to still have their own part to play in events that have been prophesied, and by Jesus' command were to be preached the Gospel first. Paul did not use this concept to try to keep the slave Onesimus from going back to his master Philemon, and there will always be those who are workers and those who are their masters or leaders. Likewise, there continues to be differences between the genders that go beyond the physical.
One of those areas of difference has to do with preaching and pastoring. The CBF speaker fails to recognize that God does not use everyone He saves in the same way. And even if he does recognize that some are called or gifted for this or that, he does not recognize that God considers gender in His calling. But the Scriptures that list the qualifications for pastors (or elders) of a church are very specific that the pastor be a "man of one woman." The qualification goes one way; it does not turn around and say "or a woman of one man."
There is more that could be said about that, but stepping away from the pastoral position, what about just preaching? First Timothy 2:11 instructs that the way the church is supposed to work is that women are not supposed to teach or to take authority over the men. That can be extremely offensive to some people. And so they try to explain it away by saying Paul was reacting to a problem with women who lacked proper training or understanding, or it was a cultural thing, that's just how things were done. But the problem with all these attempts to explain this verse into saying something other than exactly what it says is that the rest of the verse gives Paul's explanation for giving this instruction. It comes out of how God created things from the very beginning. There was an order in how and why God created man and woman.
Some will ask, "Can't God call a woman to preach?" as if to imply that if we say He can't, we are saying something is impossible for God, and thus they are attempting to set a trap. Contrary to what we sometimes say, there are wrong questions. Perhaps you've heard the question, Can God make a rock so big He can't lift it? That's a wrong question because it is illogical. The question of "Can God call a woman to preach?" is similar to "Can God tempt a person to sin?" God cannot tempt a person to sin, because it goes against His nature. Likewise, God cannot call a woman to preach within the local church context because it goes against His own Word. But God can and does definitely gift women to teach, and call them to teach, and that calling and that giftedness definitely should be exercised within the Biblical parameters God has given. Without really getting into the subject of God's "calling," our subjective sense of God's calling is limited by what He tells us forthrightly in His Word. If we sense God calling us into something that contradicts His Word, we either misunderstood what the message is or who it was from.
For more about this topic, you can see the articles "God's High Calling for Women, Part 3" (check out the other three parts, too) by John MacArthur or "Women Preachers" by Robert Lewis Dabney. Also, be sure to read the article "Able to Teach and Complementarian?" by Kim Pennington.
Note: I have dealt with only the I Timothy passage in this post, but this doctrine is not built on this single Scripture. The articles I have referred discuss other Biblical texts regarding this issue.
Friday, June 6, 2008
From Greatest Pastime to Greatest Pursuit
You won't find me writing about sports very often on here. This will be one of those rare times, this time because it involves a friend and a brother in Christ. His name is Byron Shores. He gets out there and contends hard for the Kansas City Royals, although he won't be knocking out the new scoreboard with a grand slam home run and he won't be making any game-saving catch. What he will be doing is encouraging the fans to root loud and hard for the Royals as their mascot, Sluggerrr. And, as this article points out, just as he strives for a win for the Royals, he also contends for wins for the King.
For the next several days (until the next issue is posted), the front page should have a picture of Sluggerrr. Unfortunately, there is no picture of Byron. It makes me think of the verse to "Good Ol' Boys" that is not played as part of the theme song to the show "Dukes of Hazzard." Waylon Jennings sings, "I'm a good ol' boy, you know my mama loves me. But she don't understand they keep a-showin' my hands and not my face on TV." Unlike some of us who could use a big costume, Byron is actually not all that ugly.
For more pictures and information about Sluggerrr, you can check out his MySpace page.
For the next several days (until the next issue is posted), the front page should have a picture of Sluggerrr. Unfortunately, there is no picture of Byron. It makes me think of the verse to "Good Ol' Boys" that is not played as part of the theme song to the show "Dukes of Hazzard." Waylon Jennings sings, "I'm a good ol' boy, you know my mama loves me. But she don't understand they keep a-showin' my hands and not my face on TV." Unlike some of us who could use a big costume, Byron is actually not all that ugly.
For more pictures and information about Sluggerrr, you can check out his MySpace page.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)