Randal Rauser's Blog, page 64

If you’re going to say it is a sin for a woman to preach, you better be prepared to say more

This morning, I posted the following on Twitter:

Here’s the problem with complementarianism in a nutshell. The historic justification has been that they are less intellectual & more emotionally unstable than men, but that’s clearly sexist. Women are no less well equipped than men to be profound teachers and leaders. So one might then retreat to the justification that it is somehow against the order of creation for women to lead, but without some underlying justification/rationale, that too just looks like sexism. Last stop: “The Bible commands it”; translation: “My interpretation of Paul’s words in 1 Cor 14 and 1 Tim 2 commands it.” So we’re left with profound female leaders vs. a couple of contested commands in occasional documents (letters). The cognitive dissonance is significant.

I was prompted, in part, to post those tweets due to an unfolding conversation I had with a complementarian named Tyler Tebo. Tyler was a good sport and stuck with my questioning much longer than many folks would. But here is my lesson: If you’re going to say that it is a sin for women to teach or preach, you need to be able to state clearly when/where/why that is a sin and when/where/why it is not. As I try to demonstrate, in pursuit of consistency, complementarians often find themselves backed into casuistic absurdity.

Here’s our conversation:

TT: Being a false prophetess spurting bad theology is a great sin. A woman preaching is also sin. So, I think his point is that there multiple sin issues going on here.

RR: When is a woman teaching a sin and when is it not a sin, in your view?

TT: Preaching and/or teaching (mixed groups) during worship services.

RR: So teaching a mixed group in adult Sunday school isn’t a sin? Or is that also part of the worship service? And if so, how do you define “worship service”?

TT: Yes women shall not teach men. Whether it be from the pulpit or bible class. God instituted an order and gave men and women different responsibilities. Equal in value, different in roles.

RR: Okay, so it isn’t just “worship services”. It’s also “bible classes”. How do you define a “bible class”? And are there any other restrictions where women teaching is also a sin, or is that it?

TT: Just bible classes where men are in attendance. A bible class is when Christian’s get together to exegiete scripture. Nothing wrong with women teaching other women and children.

RR: Okay, so a woman can teach systematic theology, pastoral theology, philosophical theology, or church history, just so long as she does not exegete Scripture. Is that your view?

TT: If it is outside of the gathering of the saints on the Lords Day. I don”t see why not. The context for what I was arguing was in the church service.

RR: So on your view, can a woman preach if they do not exegete the Scripture but instead depend on exegesis provided by a man?

TT: No they cannot preach or teach scripture. Sorry of I muddied the waters unintentionally. But by no means during the gathering of the saints should they teach or preach scripture. But shall instead remain silent

RR: You specified the Lord’s Day. Can they exegete or preach Scripture at a time other than the Lord’s Day?

TT: They can do an all womans bible study.

RR: To summarize, on your view, it is a sin for women to exegete the Bible or preach to men at any time (not just the Lord’s day and not just in worship services or Bible classes). Is that your view?

TT: Correct

RR: I appreciate your patience as I seek to clarify your view. So if a woman has a PhD in New Testament and she published a critically lauded monograph on the Gospel of Matthew, and she is teaching a mixed class on systematic theology (which you’ve said would not be a sin). But then a man in the class asks her to explain a verse in Matthew, the text on which she is a recognized expert. On your view, it would be a sin for her to answer his question. Correct?

TT: No, I dont think that would fall under official teaching. So, to try and dive more into my point. Venue is important. A college classroom isnt part of a congregational meeting. In a congregational meeting, members are expecting official teachings of the church. It would also be voluntary, whereas a a member of a congregation would be commited to going to a weekly service and hearing teachings.

RR: But you already endorsed this summary of your view: “it is a sin for women to exegete the Bible or preach to men at any time (not just the Lord’s day and not just in worship services or Bible classes).” Are you changing your view now?

You can go on Twitter if you want to see any further discussion. But you get the gist: if you’re going to accuse women of sinning in virtue of preaching/teaching, you should be clear on when, where, and why it’s a sin. Forcing yourself to answer those questions consistently may bring you to reconsider (or at least greatly nuance) your claim that it is a sin.

The post If you’re going to say it is a sin for a woman to preach, you better be prepared to say more appeared first on Randal Rauser.

May the 33,000 Be One: Debriefing a Catholic/Evangelical Dialogue

Last night, I participated in a dialogue between Roman Catholics and evangelicals at Taylor Seminary in Edmonton. The main speakers were Dr. Brett Salkeld (Catholic) and Dr. Jo-Ann Badley (evangelical). I was one of two respondents.

In my comments, I echoed a point touched on by Salkeld, namely that while “Roman Catholic” is a clearly defined concept with necessary and sufficient conditions, “evangelical” is, rather, a family resemblance term that is consistent with being Roman Catholic. That contrast leads to what Salkeld called an asymmetry in the discussion between these two parties.

Then I pointed out the elephant in the room: participants on each side of ecumenical discussion frequently assume that the other is fundamentally in error and needs ultimately to be converted to their position. While that may, in fact, be true, I offered a different way to think of things. I asked folks to consider the most admired evangelical and Roman Catholic of the 20th century (Billy Graham and Mother Teresa). Does it seem plausible that Graham was so powerful and impactful in his ministry and yet he somehow missed the fact that God ultimately wanted him to become a Catholic?  Conversely, does it seem plausible that Mother Teresa was so powerful and impactful in her ministry and yet she somehow missed the fact that God ultimately wanted her to become a Baptist?

If that seems implausible to you, then you have a prima facie good reason to believe that God may call specific individuals to participate in distinct ecclesial communions. And that means that God may likewise be calling contemporary participants in ecumenical discussions to distinct ecclesial communions. And that, finally, means that you and I don’t have to view ecumenical dialogue between intra-Christian communions as a pretence for quasi-evangelistic outreach. It could, instead, be a case of the diversity of the body of Christ engaging in self-discovery as to that very diversity (1 Cor. 12).

In his final reflections, Salkeld addressed my comments and noted that it was a difficult topic. He then speculated on the possibility of non-Catholic communions that could retain their distinctiveness while entering into full communion with Rome so that in addition to Roman Rite Catholics there could be Mennonite Rite Catholics, Lutheran Rite Catholics, and yes, even Baptist Rite Catholics. It’s an intriguing thought … much as the idea of terraforming Mars is an intriguing thought. But in each case, it’s a long road from here to there. Still, we can dream, can’t we?

During my talk, I mentioned that Dave Barrett’s World Christian Encyclopedia estimates 33,000 distinct Christian denominations in the world. That observation became fodder for the best line of the night. In his concluding words for the evening, Taylor’s dean, Ralph Korner, observed that while the God of three persons is One, so may a church of 33,000 denominations be one.

Amen to that.

The post May the 33,000 Be One: Debriefing a Catholic/Evangelical Dialogue appeared first on Randal Rauser.

On the Pseudo-Piety of Shutting Down Questioning By Asking Who Are You, O Man?

This morning, I tweeted my old (2012) review of David Lamb’s book God Behaving Badly. The review includes an extensive critique of Lamb’s attempt to rationalize and baptize biblical violence. Not surprisingly, I received a pseudo-pious reply from some self-righteous fellow who actually had the temerity to begin with “Who are you, o man?”.

Who are you, o man, who answers back to God?

— triggerman1976 (@triggerman1976) January 22, 2020

For full effect, play my video rendition of the tweet:

According to folks like this fella, asking questions and challenging particular biblical readings is a sign of impiety. Truly pious people don’t ask questions. They don’t wrestle with texts. They don’t explore various readings in an attempt to bring life and coherence to their deepest convictions. No, they just keep their head down and accept what they’re told, lest they be shamed with another stentorian reprimand of “Who are you, O Man [or Woman]?!”

That only shows that my Twitter critic doesn’t know very much about Christianity and its Jewish roots. “Israel” doesn’t mean Submission. That’s Islam. My pious Twitter critic is confused. Rather, “Israel” means to strive or struggle with God. And the identity of this people is embodied symbolically in the story of Jacob and his wrestling with the angel: “The man said, “Your name will no longer be Jacob. You have wrestled with God and with men, and you have won. That’s why your name will be Israel.” (Gen 32:28, CEV)

Christians have been blessed to be grafted into Israel. And so, to be Christian, to be faithful, isn’t a matter of tossing pious sounding platitudes from the hinterland that quash questions and damn doubts. On the contrary, it is to ask questions, wrestle with texts, exploring various readings as one seeks to bring life and coherence to their deepest convictions. Struggling with God isn’t impious. On the contrary, it’s precisely the opposite: the true disciple shows his or her mettle through the boldness and courage to undertake this journey.

And if that’s what God has revealed to be the true identity of Israel, then who are you, O Man, to say otherwise?

The post On the Pseudo-Piety of Shutting Down Questioning By Asking Who Are You, O Man? appeared first on Randal Rauser.

My Monday Morning Rant Against Evangelicals Who Undermine the Bible

This morning, a tweet from Fuz Rana got under my skin. I should begin by saying that he seems like a nice chap and Reasons to Believe is less bad than Answers in Genesis. However, being nice and less-bad cannot save one from the fundamental error of treating the Bible as a confirmatory textbook for 21-century science. Behold:

If Scripture is true then the scientific record and biblical creation narratives should align.

"The Great Unconformity and the Cambrian Explosion Conform to Genesis 1"https://t.co/mGmBrI39KH pic.twitter.com/uJmssSjPrB

— Fazale Rana (@RTB_FRana) January 14, 2020

And now, my rant:

Christian apologists do enormous damage when they teach such facile & erroneous notions. The Bible is a dizzyingly diverse collection of ancient documents written in the worldviews (and obsolete science) of ancient people for the purpose of making us like Jesus (2 Tim. 3:14-17).

Rana’s treatment of the Bible is equivalent to saying the “Norton Anthology of American Literature” must be “true” only if it teaches contemporary science. The category is nonsensical, the demand erroneous, the conclusion bound to fail.

It’s like a chapter from Screwtape Letters: “This is how you undermine the Bible, Wormwood. Insist that for it to be “true” it must be “scientifically true”, the poems, the narrative, the law, the prophets, the proverbs, the epistles, the apocalyptic. All of it! Bwa-ha-ha!”

At that point, I decided that I was on a roll and so I segued to a more general rant pointing out the irony of evangelicals and fundamentalists who purport to defend the authority of the Bible while misinterpreting the Bible and thereby undermining its authority:

Christian evangelicals & fundamentalists are good at pointing out when they believe that Catholics or liberals are undermining “the authority of Scripture.” But the irony is that they undermine that authority all the time.

They do it when they read the Bible in a literalistic fashion which does violence to the varied genres and complex historical and literary contexts in which those texts were written.

They do it when they insist that the Bible must conform to 21st-century science in order to be the “Word of God.” They do it when they persuade themselves that the Bible supports American nationalism, civilian access to military-grade weaponry, opposition to legitimate refugee claimants on the southern border, endless blessings for upper-middle-class suburbanites, and support for (gag) Donald Trump.

So let me suggest that before you lecture others on what it means to undermine the authority of Scripture, you might consider getting your own house in order first.

And to think, all that from a single tweet. Yikes.

The post My Monday Morning Rant Against Evangelicals Who Undermine the Bible appeared first on Randal Rauser.

On Evangelical Triumphalism

Evangelicals often take pride in the fact that they are growing and mainline churches are shrinking. But it is worthwhile keeping in mind that the reasons for expansion or recession are complex. I know many churches that grew because they conformed to the culture and many that shrank because they didn’t.

I’m not saying that describes evangelicals and mainline Protestants respectively. But I am saying that it isn’t obvious that this isn’t at least sometimes the case. So tread carefully with the triumphalism, okay?

The post On Evangelical Triumphalism appeared first on Randal Rauser.

Blog Survey

Here is simple, one-question blog survey on Twitter:

This is a survey for people who read my blog at https://t.co/yZckrsOuAU. How long have you been reading my blog?

— Tentative Apologist (@RandalRauser) January 19, 2020

The post Blog Survey appeared first on Randal Rauser.

Secularists imposing their religion

In case you’re wondering about part two of my religion vs. theism series, it’s in the works. And now, without further ado:

A few days ago, I posted this tweet:

What about secular crap? Is that okay? https://t.co/SgEs66lUMu

— Tentative Apologist (@RandalRauser) January 15, 2020

A fellow named Blue Collar Heathen then asked me for a good example of secular crap. So I gave as an example Nicholas Humphrey’s 1997 Amnesty International lecture. In a thesis to warm the cockles of Richard Dawkins’ heart, he argues that the state should take children away from religious parents. Seriously, that’s what he says.

Here is an excerpt:

“children have a right not to have their minds addled by nonsense. And we as a society have a duty to protect them from it. So we should no more allow parents to teach their children to believe, for example, in the literal truth of the Bible, or that the planets rule their lives, than we should allow parents to knock their children’s teeth out or lock them in a dungeon.”

So who gets to define “nonsense” in this Orwellian vision?

Secularists like Humphrey, of course! They decide what is “nonsense” and thus what we should “protect children” from. Here’s my question: who will protect the children from people like Humphrey?

The post Secularists imposing their religion appeared first on Randal Rauser.

Straining Theological Gnats

I came to Briercrest College in the fall of 2002 to teach in a one-year sabbatical-replacement position. Prior to accepting the position, I asked about the dispensationalism in their statement of faith but I was assured that the school was actually going to be removing that as a requirement to teach at Briercrest, and so they did. That was part of a larger trend of many conservative schools revisiting confessional statements that had been written decades earlier and had required conviction on idiosyncratic eschatological minutiae. That was a positive trend, a rejiggering of confessional statements to focus on that which truly unites (e.g. the second coming) rather than that which unnecessarily divides (e.g. the interpretation of the millennium).

But not all schools are moving in the right direction. Case in point: Christian apologist Clay Jones just announced that he’s leaving Talbott (graduate school of Biola) because he is not persuaded that (progressive) dispensationalism is definitely true. In my humble opinion, that is a Board of Trustees that has chosen to major on minors and strain theological gnats. Very sad. I have been a critic of Jones (particularly his defense of the Canaanite genocide) but I respect his intellectual courage and principled determination not to blur his conviction for secure employment.

The post Straining Theological Gnats appeared first on Randal Rauser.

Creating People and Universes: On reading premodern theologians in light of modern science

If conservative Christian theologians think it makes sense to cite premodern theologians on the scientific creation of the universe, they should also cite premodern theologians on the scientific creation of the human fetus. So you better revise your “life begins at conception” nonsense. Rather, the male body is ensouled forty days after conception, the female 80 or 90 days. Thus, abortion is morally permissible before “quickening.”

Conversely, you could say that premodern theologians didn’t have the science we have either on the creation of the person or the creation of the universe. Not that we’re blaming them for that, of course. But it’s simply the case that we know a lot that they did not. And in that case, let contemporary science inform your opinions.

The post Creating People and Universes: On reading premodern theologians in light of modern science appeared first on Randal Rauser.

Here’s a Thought: Why Don’t We Not Strawman Each Other?

In my experience, atheists and Christians commonly strawman each other. For example, the atheist criticizing Christianity assumes Christianity includes a narrow exclusivism with eternal conscious torment so that, for example, the 10-year-old Jewish girl who dies in Auschwitz goes straight to hell. Such a view has nothing, per se, to do with Christianity.

To be sure, the Christian regularly returns the favor by assuming that atheism entails a bracing nihilism and metaphysical reductionism such that life has no meaning or value and human beings are only hunks of data-processing meat.

Each of these views represents the most implausible and problematic expressions of their respective positions and thus to reject Christianity or atheism on such grounds is classic strawmanning.

The post Here’s a Thought: Why Don’t We Not Strawman Each Other? appeared first on Randal Rauser.