Ken directs the blog directly at the pastor in the form of an open letter, which makes me wonder why he wouldn't first try to speak the pastor privately about his concerns. Perhaps he is more comfortable using the safe method of ranting about it in writing to people who largely agree with him, instead of challenging face-to-face someone who clearly does not agree with him and also actually understands the Bible. Those who are educated and knowledgeable have always been Ken and Lori's greatest adversaries.
Ken begins with a half-hearted attempt to dismiss the need for cultural and contextual understanding of the Bible:
The new third principle of hermeneutics (how to interpret the Bible) is now to take what the text actually says, examine the context and culture of the time, then read modern day culture back into the text to make it relevant. If culture is strong enough on any one issue, it is allowed to trump the first basics of hermeneutics by claiming that what the Word actually says was only for “that church,” the Corinthians, or Ephesians, but no longer applicable for today.
Not surprisingly, this is not a faithful portrayal of the real position. We do not "read" modern day culture back into the text." Rather, often we must understand the original culture in order to determine what the author was really trying to say. Ken himself does this all the time when reading the Bible, he just doesn't recognize or admit it. For example, if the Bible speaks of God increasing your livestock, we understand that to mean wealth generally today. I certainly don't expect to wake up one morning expecting 1,000 sheep to have suddenly appeared in my backyard. Either we read the Bible as if it were written in a different language and different culture, or we read it as if it were written in English in our own culture. And, of course, only the former makes sense.
Further, it is as good a time as any to note that the view that women and men are equal is not a modern idea inspired by feminism. In fact, it dates all the way back to the early church (and is evident even in the writings of Paul, when properly understood). The patriarchal twisting of God's intent in the family and church creeped in only later when Christianity spread to the Greeks, who interpreted Paul's writings through the lens of the misogynistic views of the Greek philosophers, such as Aristotle. It is Lori and Ken who believe in a perversion of God's true design and have followed secular culture!
Your pastor may teach that in today’s modern Church, women are so much more educated than they were back in the days when Paul had to forbid them and shame them into not speaking in church. The letter to the Corinthians is now taught to be a “one off” issue that was not a problem in any other ancient church, just the Corinthians. These women were special as they believed that because they were free in Christ, they were allowed to fully participate in church services and they were shouting out ignorant questions and being disruptive instead of learning in silence. So, of course, we can all see why the apostle Paul would write, “Let your women keep silent in the churches, for they are not permitted to speak” (1 Corinthians 14:33).
Another partial misrepresentation (or, to use Lori's favorite term to misuse, "strawman"). It is people like Ken and Lori who "shame" women into not speaking in church, by implying there is something about their very nature that disgusts God enough that merely speaking aloud in church is somehow repulsive to Him. Paul himself never "shamed" women into not speaking in church, and in fact never told them not to at all. When Paul says women should remain “quiet”, the Greek word for quiet is “hēsuchia.” This word does not mean literal silence but rather calmness or “keeping one’s seat.” Paul is simply saying they ought to learn calmly and without disruption (which would apply to men as well). Also, there are 30 Greek words that translate into English as "speak," each having a slightly different meaning. When Paul tells women not to speak in church, he used the word "laleo”, which means simply “talk” or “converse.” In other words, Paul was saying nothing more than “don’t talk during church", something women in that culture, being mostly confined to the home and very limited in their freedom to interact with others in public, would not have known.
Ken is also wrong about how egalitarians interpret this verse. We do not believe it was a "one off" issue that only applied to the Corinthians. In fact, we believe it still applies today, but must be applied with wisdom. In the same way that 2 Corinthians 13:12 tells us to greet one another with a kiss, but we understand this not to be a specific command to kiss one another (which would be pretty weird in our culture) but rather simply a command to greet each other warmly, this verse telling the women to learn silently is applied today as a command to maintain order in the church. Ken and Lori have elevated the letter of the law over the spirit, and in so doing they have made obedience to this verse an empty ritual and no longer even understand the actual point behind it. Such blind obedience is not honoring to God, it is an attempt to earn brownie points with Him.
Let's see how Ken tries to refute the arguments against his legalistic interpretation of this verse:
Pastor, I have a question and I am not an uneducated person, so can I ask it? Didn’t you just say how important context is, and how the Bible was written with no chapter headings, verse numbers, or even punctuation marks? Okay, so if that is true, why did you not read the phase right before “let your women keep silent” where it says, “As in all of the churches of the saints” (1 Corinthians 14:32)? Would not the context and text itself in this case shed some light on whether or not “women keep silent” was just for the Corinthians, just for the ancient Church, or for all churches of all times? What could “All the churches of the saints possibly mean”?
Well, it means exactly what it says, and not more, as Ken wants us to believe. Like I said above, it did not apply only to the Corinthian church, but all the churches at that time as most of the women everywhere, not just Corinth, would have had the same limited social exposure. It does not, however, say anything about "for all time." It's rather bold of Ken to make such a big deal about being faithful to what the verse actually says, and before he even finishes to slip in his own idea, as if we wouldn't even notice!
For that matter, why did you not explain the second half of the verse and the verses following the words “let your women keep silent… but to be in submission, as the Law also says.” Was this submission spoken of by the apostle unique to this church? Why is the apostle appealing to the Law when he makes this command?
Ken avoids digging too deeply here because he knows the evidence is against him. What "law" is this verse referring to? It is not Old Testament law, since there is no command of this nature in the Jewish laws. If anything, it would be the Roman laws in that particular time and place, in which case this verse would have followed Paul's command elsewhere in the New Testament that Christians should do their best to follow human authorities to maintain the good reputation of the Gospel. But this would be quite different from claiming that those Roman laws were somehow divine in nature and must be followed for all time, as Ken wants to believe! I have also heard an argument that the "law" simply is referring to the moral law that requires all of us to honor one another, not talk over each other, and be respectful. Likely a case could be made for either, but what is clear is that the reference to "the law" in no way means this command is to be followed to the letter for all time.
Pastor, there cannot be a passage of scripture that is more clear in its text and context than this one, but by the time you get done with it, we are all confused.
No one is confused but you, Ken, and I'm not even sure you are. I think you just want to confuse the rest of us to maintain the power with which you are so certain your male nature bestows upon you. "No passage of scripture is more clear in its text and context than this one?" If this verse is so clear, and we should interpret others with the same superficial "plain-reading" method you suggest, what about the following verses? Does Ephesians 6:5 condone slavery? Does Luke 14:26 teache that we ought to hate our families? Does 1 John 1:3:9 teach that Christians never sin? I'm sure you would agree they don't, but this immediately shatters your attempt to get us to believe that these verses are clear as they read in their English translations and that we should be afraid of studying any further.
I am just curious, Pastor, but how do you know that these women were uneducated chatter boxes?
Well, Ken, some people study history and try to learn more than the minimum necessary to maintain their dogmatic views. You have access to a computer, why don't you try Googling it? I have some great articles I could recommend. Your implication that this historical fact is not true reveals your profound, intentional ignorance on the subject.
I guess the bigger question, Pastor, is why are you going against what the church universal and what your own church has taught from the beginning?...Did our purposeful, omniscient, and sovereign God allow His Church to get His Word all wrong for 2,000 years?
The fact that the church has taught or believed something for the majority of its history does not alone imply that it must be correct. Ken, have you heard about the Reformation? It is absurdly easy to find plenty of beliefs in the church that were wrong but yet persisted for centuries. Clearly God is not stepping in and correcting every wrong belief. Besides, what do we do with the positive view of slavery and racism that was so prevalent even in the church throughout the centuries? I suspect Ken would have been on board, using these same arguments to defend his views!
Pastors, when you teach that the these passages are only for the Corinthians and Ephesians, just two early churches and not “all of churches of the saints,” you undermine all of scriptural authority. You make up hypotheticals and make believe stories trying to explain away what the actual text and context say. Your whole basis of truth and ability to trust God’s Word are undercut, and your own authority called into question.
We know that women form the backbone of the Church in many ways, as without them the service of the church could not exist, but now they want more. This idea of living in submission is foreign to this culture as a cry for “equality” is what many believe the Church needs. And how does one gain equality? Women must be more up front, be able to preach and teach men, and exercise authority in the Church! After all, it is the only way they can feel empowered, and isn’t empowerment what God is all about? Didn’t God send His Son to rule and reign from Jerusalem, or did He send Him as a Suffering Servant who modeled for us both the roles of the Godhead and how one gives up their rights to equality to sacrificially serve the needs of others?
If our pastors are going to be relevant to try and create a “safe place” for our young women, they too often give up the solid principles of interpretation to adopt the feminist talking points. They listen to scholars like NT Wright and become enchanted with his guesswork and story telling on these important scriptures.
In the end, most of Lori's blogs make very little reference to the Bible and are easy to see for the rambling they are. But occasionally, there is a blog like this, which is far more dangerous. Ken uses the same methods of the devil himself by sprinkling some truth throughout so that those who are not educated will be impressed by the "knowledge" and "scholarship" presented, and will be tricked into thinking Ken actually knows what he is talking about. This is why it's so important for each of us to know the Bible for ourselves, and not simply take the word of "teachers" who have their own interests in mind and are counting on their followers to not check into it for themselves. Ken is a wolf in sheep's clothing, a false teacher, and I hope more and more are able to see this and are not swayed opportunistic twisting of the words of God! As we truly study the Bible, we find that Ken is full of it, that the "evidence" for Ken's anti-women views is far thinner than Ken implies, and, eventually, that such evidence does not exist at all.
Isn't it interesting that we hear nothing from Ken and Lori about hypocrisy or even abuse in the church? Nothing about the real problems, but when women are allowed to speak, they lose their minds. They're not concerned with holiness or obedience to God at all. It's all about power, nothing more.
Link to the original blog: https://thetransformedwife.
No comments:
Post a Comment