Thanks for taking up the issue of a moral standard, Amy. Lately there has been much trouble around this issue. I wonder whether it might be beneficial to equivocate: it seems there is a moral standard of right and wrong (God) but we humans have to be more careful than most of us are about judging who and what conforms to the standard set by God. I definitely think that people need to be morcareful about their interpretations of the word of God. Reading the latest thinking on postmodernism, it seems to me that people are indulging in false dichotomies. Even if the Bible contains the word of God (which I believe--) there remain problems with interpretation by humans of that word, and we don't need to follow postmodernism to extremes in saying that we are prisoners of language in order to reach that conclusion. It's so obvious that, as you point out, a moral standard exists for us as Christians. We just need to get specific with ourselves about interpretations and decisions around that standard.

Vicky

Vicky, I do agree that we need to be careful how we interpret the Bible, but I don't think it's as difficult as postmodernists suggest. There are principles of interpreting Scripture (hermeneutics) that take into account context, historical knowledge, etc.--principles that can help us to evaluate two different interpretations to find which one is the better one. Principles that can help us to get around our biases (of course, you have to want to do this, and it takes some work and practice to learn--more work than many are willing to do to understand the Bible). And of course some things are more plain than others, and we may miss things that others will catch.

But listen to what God says to the Israelites about His words:

Deut 30:1-14: "For this commandment which I command you today is not too difficult for you, nor is it out of reach. It is not in heaven, that you should say, ' Who will go up to heaven for us to get it for us and make us hear it, that we may observe it?' Nor is it beyond the sea, that you should say, 'Who will cross the sea for us to get it for us and make us hear it, that we may observe it?' But the word is very near you, in your mouth and in your heart, that you may observe it."

In other words, God has given us what we need, and it's not too difficult for us to understand. He has given us words that are "near to us" and not impossible to find.

On the other hand, since Genesis 3, nearly every movement away from God has started with the doubt that we can understand what God has really said.

Amy, I think we're in agreement, based on all that you have said, except for your last line: "since Genesis 3, nearly every movement away from God has started with the doubt that we can understand what God has really said." I would venture that nearly every movement to distort God's word has started with the certainty. American Southerners (and some northerners, and a number of Europeans) were certain that the Bible supported the practice of slavery. The persecution of reform-minded Christians in the early days of the Reformation reflected a certainty that the Catholic church held the keys to the truth about God, and should not be questioned.

On the other hand, many would say that faith involves certainty: I am personally certain that Jesus Christ died to save me, and I accept his salvation. And some would say that faith involves a willingness to accept uncertainty about some areas, apart from Jesus' salvation. I think certainty is wonderful but there is a trap lurking in it: the trap of going too far.

Vicky

Vicky, I think you bring up a very important question about certainty, and I hope you'll stick through this long answer because I think it's crucial for the body of Christ, and I think it relates to what I've been saying in these two posts.

First, the examples you mentioned weren't doctrinal heresies per se; they were people behaving badly, against the values and ideas of the Bible (and I don't believe the root problem of this is certainty, as I'll explain in a moment). It's heresies like Mormonism, Jehovah's Witnesses, etc., etc. that begin with the idea that "the Bible can't be trusted, but here's a new teaching you can trust." Once people are separated from the anchor of the Bible, they have no solid way to make moral decisions, and they're likely to pick things up that don't reflect God, His character, or truth.

In terms of your comments, here's something to consider: the trap isn't in going too far, the trap is in being wrong. For example, if we were certain about our understanding of the words of God, and our understanding was correct, and we wanted to live it out, it wouldn't be possible to go too far. By that I mean, we would know how to love and treat people correctly (not persecute, not enslave, etc.), and one can't do that too much.

Because we know that a hypothetical woman who was certain about what is actually true and good and who acted on it would be the most wonderful person of all, we can conclude that the issue is not about being certain, but about being wrong. Every movement away from God is a problem with being wrong about who God is and what He wants us to do, not about being certain (and being wrong results from either not trusting the Bible, or not understanding it). In fact, the best movements of God happen when people are certain about the truth and take a stand for that truth (e.g., Martin Luther). No one without confidence can withstand the kind of pressure that persecuted Christians have withstood.

Someone who trusts that God's word is correct and that she can understand it (if she works at it) is much more likely to submit to its teachings, to adjust her opinions to those of the Bible, to reflect God's character, to take a stand for the true goodness of God, and to live a true Christian life that blesses others.

I would never caution people against studying the Bible, understanding it, and coming to confident conclusions about what it says (and by "confident" I don't necessarily mean "absolutely certain"). I would encourage this greatly! What we ought to caution against is being prideful, treating people badly, being stubborn about views that we haven't studied, or not being open to new information that might adjust our views.

I know that for postmodern Christians, certainty is the culprit, but that statement only supports the premise of these two posts. They think certainty is the issue rather than the issue being one of right vs. wrong. What they're thinking is, if we can't discover who is right and who is wrong when it comes to doctrine (because we can't trust our ability to understand the standard), then we must discourage everyone from being certain about anything. It doesn't occur to them that the way to prevent bad behavior is to convince people to change their false beliefs about God and about how people ought to act. The cure for people behaving badly is not to reduce certainty (I know of no great person of history who did not have a high degree of certainty); the cure is to reduce wrong ideas and encourage people to be certain about the right ones.

I think this focus of Postmodern Christians on reducing certainty rather than reducing false beliefs will have devastating consequences in people's perseverance, in missions, and in the ability for people to withstand the pressures of the culture.

Again, power and certainty in themselves are neutral. The things we ought to be focusing on are true/false, right/wrong, and good/bad behavior. But when people have no way to determine true/false, right/wrong, good/bad (with a standard), they fall back on the more easily measured presence of power and certainty--two morally neutral qualities that say nothing about what is really important.

Amy, I think we are on the same page about "What we ought to caution against is being prideful, treating people badly, being stubborn about views that we haven't studied, or not being open to new information that might adjust our views. " And I think we are on different pages about "people behaving badly." I think that misinterpretation (what you rightly term "being wrong") about God's will, Scriptural teachings, and so forth does cause people to behave badly--pride, and all those other vices, may cause bad behavior also. But my point, in which I may differ with you, or not (if I'm misinterpreting your words...) is that a certainty about reading may cause harm if the reading turns out to be a misreading, and even well-intentioned Christians may misread, or believe a misreading, so we must be careful and prayerful in our certainty.

I didn't really mean to attack certainty, per se, so thanks for pointing out the potential excesses following from my statements.

Finally, I'm really not a postmodernist--I think postmodernism tends to throw the baby out with the bathwater by proclaiming all language as dubious and fraught with danger. I don't accept their premises on that score. I'm just cautious, perhaps--

Vicky

Vicky, thanks for reading my long-winded response! ;)

"Even well-intentioned Christians may misread, or believe a misreading, so we must be careful and prayerful in our certainty."

I absolutely agree that Christians can be wrong in their interpretations, and as I said, it's those wrong interpretations that have caused problems--so no disagreement there.

My hope, though, is that Christians will start to think primarily in terms of seeking to believe right things (a subject the Bible talks about extensively) rather than having their first concern be about their level of certainty (a subject the Bible says nothing about). Does that make sense?

In other words, to avoid people getting hurt, we ought to be careful and prayerful in our determination of the true meaning of each passage, and we ought to be careful and prayerful in how we treat people who disagree with us.

The issue of our certainty is secondary to the above issues on which we ought to be focusing. But here's where I think certainty does come into play: we ought to acknowledge which of our positions are essential and have good, careful reasons behind them and which are non-essential and not entirely clear in the Bible (or ones we haven't studied enough to have a well-informed opinion). We'll have more certainty about the first category than the second. We ought to acknowledge that there are some things we'll uphold and argue for to our death, and there are some things we can let go.

And don't worry, even if you were a postmodernist, you'd still be welcome to read and discuss what we write! I was just responding to your statement about what you've been reading, and I was hoping to clarify this issue as much as possible so that as you're reading, you'll be able to separate the good, biblical ideas from the not-so-good ones entering our culture from other sources.

I'm quite certain that you are doing a fantastic job, Amy. This is good stuff.

Thanks for the encouragement, Tim!

"I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she must be silent." 1 Timothy 2:12

I think there was a point in time when this verse was absolutely correct, and I think that time has passed on.

If that's not relativism than what is?

If you recognize that some scriptures are culturally conditioned than it's not that big a jump to say that scripture relates to us relative to it's cultural imbedding.

You may not like the word relativist, but in some sense, you allow some of it into your thought process Amy. Call it good exegeses or hermeneutics if you like, but if you ask me it's relativism, and that's a good thing.

When did it become incorrect that Paul was telling Timothy and the Ephesian church that he does "not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man [but that] she must be silent"?

I think that it is still correct that Paul was telling Timothy and the Ephesian church that he does "not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man [but that] she must be silent." Unless of course you don't accept Pauline authorship of the Pastorals, in which case someone else is is telling Timothy and the Ephesian church that he does "not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man [but that] she must be silent." Nothing relativistic about it. Paul or whoever it is is telling Timothy and the Ephesian church that he does "not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man [but that] she must be silent."

Does your church have no women speaking at all during the church service? No testimonies, no singing. Does your church do head coverings, and no braids as well? Do you teach that women are saved by childbearing? (1 Tim 2)

Although my given name is Timothy, I was not the recipient of Paul's letter (as awesome as that would be), nor do I go to the church in Ephesus, so I'm not the one to ask about whether the Ephesian church to which Paul was writing practices these things.

What little I do know is that the issue is not so much whether or not Paul was condemning these things in the Ephesian church in the first century, but whether Paul's directives were intended to be normative for all Christians. The reason some have reached this conclusion is the reference to Adam and Eve in vv. 13-14 of chapter 2. I lean toward the conclusion that Paul intended these things to be normative, yet I acknowledge that good people exist on both sides of this debate. To suggest that complementarians are deeply sexist, however, as some critics are wont to do, is a complete and total misrepresentation of the position in question.

Timbo,

I didn't originally want to do this conversation, but that's ok, it's an interesting one. Originally I just figured the passage I mentioned was as good a passage as any to discuss the bible relating to us, relative to our place and time in history, since Amy was the original author, and is apparently ok with taking some authority and doing some teaching, something I am assuming just from the fact that she is a part of this blog team, all of which I have no problem with. (arguabally posting on a blog like this gives a person some type of authority and is certanly teaching.)

But then timbo, you mentioned that you do believe that women shoule be silent and not have authority. I agree that this does not have to be an incredibly sexist position, and I think your summary is apt: "but whether Paul's directives were intended to be normative for all Christians."

What I don't understand, and Amy fell free to chime in here as well, is why if these passages are normative for today, that official teaching and authority is off limits, but doing some teaching, having some authority, not braiding hair, and not covering heads is ok?

What am I missing?

It appears that your position chooses some passages to be taken very litterally, but then others not so much. So how do you decide? I'm not trying to pick a fight here, I mean obviously I disagree at this point, but maybee I'm missing something. Help me out.

Given that this is a secondary issue for me, I'm not into this discussion that much either.

"But then timbo, you mentioned that you do believe that women shoule be silent and not have authority."

Be careful, David. I said I lean toward the complementarian understanding, which is a great deal more nuanced than you seem to give it credit. It is not simply a question of whether or not we think that "women should be silent and not have authority." Clearly, I blog with Amy, so I don't think she should be absolutely silent. But that doesn't mean that we are picking and choosing what to take as normative, and what to take as outdated. It is of the utmost importance in understanding this issue to understand as best we can what exactly it was that Paul was condemning. Do you know that the word for authority Paul uses in 1 Timothy 2:12 is different from the word he uses elsewhere? In 1 Tim. 2:12 he uses authenteo which conveys a different nuance than exousia, which is "his usual term for 'the normal exercise of authority'" (Towner, IVPNTC). Furthermore, "He chose an usual word that could carry negative conntations such as 'to usurp or misappropriate authority or 'to domineer.'" So what implications does this have for our understanding of the passage? And how do Paul's responses to other situations in which women were either encouraged to minister, or were told to submit, play into all this? As you noted, Paul talks about how childbearing will save women. What does this mean? So, the issues are far more complicated than you make them out to be. To determine whether or not the passage should be normative for today requires us to determine what Paul's intent was in its original context. Only when we have some idea of what Paul was saying to Timothy and the Ephesian church can we determine whether or not he meant it to be normative for all Christians in all times. To be sure, what we think should be the case influences what we see in the text and how we interpret difficult passages, but the issue is far more complicated than accepting what our English translation says divorced from its original context. Interestingly enough, when I knew little about biblical hermeneutics, I was more inclined to take the passage in an egalitarian light. However, as I look at these issues more fully, the more I understand that they are far more complex than saying that I think a woman should be silent and not have authority. As for resources, check out the CBMW for the complementarian side and the CBE for the egalitarian side. There are good people on both sides of this debate.

That should be: "He chose an unusual word. . . ."

David, that's an interesting challenge, but I think you're misunderstanding what relativism is.

It's one thing to say that you know the meaning of Paul's words but you think they don't apply and quite another to say that we can't really know what Paul meant. In fact, by your saying you think those ideas are not correct today, you're already saying you're not a relativist when it comes to understanding the words of the Bible because you're saying you understand them and think they're wrong.

A relativist would say that every interpretation of that verse is equally valid (note I'm talking about meaning, not application), or that we shouldn't try to judge other interpretations or convince anyone of our interpretation using reasoning because we can never know which interpretation is correct. A non-relativist would acknowledge that there was one intended meaning of that verse, would seek to understand that meaning using all hermeneutical skills and historical information, and then try to apply the principle within it as best she could to our culture today.

[Incidentally, I absolutely agree with the principle that men ought to be the leaders of families and churches for reasons I've stated before but won't go into now (it would get us completely off track). That might look a little different today, but I still think it's wise advice--and I've put my money where my mouth is, turning down the position of elder offered to me in my own church.]

If by "recognizing that some scriptures are culturally conditioned" you mean that "Paul was influenced by his culture to write something that God didn't intend for all Christians to read and take seriously in all times," then I disagree. But that would simply be an argument over what the Bible is, not a question of relativism.

If you mean that "the principle would look different when lived out today because our society looks so different, and yet the principle remains," then I agree. That's simply a question of application, not meaning.

If you mean that "God never intended for this to be followed at all times because of A, B, and C reasons," then I disagree, but still, you're not a relativist, because you're trying to understand what God has communicated to us in the Bible, and you're stating your position as one that is true.

The Law is another example of the non-relativist idea that it's possible to find that God never intended something to be followed by all people. God wrote about what he wanted the Israelites to do as a nation and included this in Scripture, but He intended these laws to be for the ancient nation of Israel for a purpose, and today you and I are not under these laws (even though I would argue they illustrate enduring principles that show us who God is and how we should act). That doesn't mean we're relativists because we believe the Israelites had to follow the Law but we don't. It just means that we're making a determination of the intended meaning based on all of Scripture as to the purpose of the Law and whether or not God intended for us today to be under it.

So to sum up, you are saying that you understand Paul's words, you understand what their purpose was, you understand how God would expect us to apply them to ourselves today, and you believe your position is the correct one. You can see how this example, then, would not qualify as relativism.

so I hate to admit it, but yah your right, I'm not a relativist ; ) That said, I lean more in that direction than you. Technically no, but culturally yes, if you know what I mean.

Ironically it goes back to something you would agree with (I think) the depravity of humanity. even if your not a calvinist, you can brodely agree with the idea of the total depravity. If total depravity is true, than how are we in a position to make abselute truth claims? (yes I am contradicting myself by suggesting that total depravity is true) : )

Keep up your relatively good work (yak yak) : )

Thanks for reading, David! :)