Who gets to speak for God?

Early in ministry I wrote a graduate school paper on women in ministry. I learned what wading into controversial waters meant because my professor flunked half of my paper for the theological pre-supposition of starting the argument with eschatology, although he gave me an “A” for my logic from there. At the same time, my conference minister made the paper available to the pastors of the conference because he found it to offer refreshing insight. Go figure. It was about this time that the theologian Tom Finger published his two-volume theology that started with eschatology. Go figure again.

Although the argument of gender roles in ministry is well settled for some into either conservative or progressive camps, it continues heartily for other congregations. Here is a sermon presented recently for one such family of believers:

WHO GETS TO SPEAK FOR GOD?

In our Scripture readings this morning, two texts are placed side by side. Acts 2 presents the apostle Peter’s explanation of what the Holy Spirit did and will do. People of all genders and ages who are filled with this Spirit will prophesy, proclaiming the good news of God’s saving work through Jesus Christ. The Holy Spirit’s action was the fuel behind the spectacular wonder of the Pentecost event.   The second text, near the end of 2 Corinthians 14, comes at the end of a substantial lecture from the apostle Paul on the use of spiritual gifts so that orderly worship might be maintained. Corinthian Christians, to whom he writes, had numerous issues that affected worship-competing over their favorite teachers, abandoning their marriages and getting drunk at the Lord’s table, for instance. Plenty of disorder there! Apparently some women were disorderly as well, although we are not told the why or what in a direct way. To address this Paul wants women not to speak and to restrict their discourse to conversation with their husbands at home. He appeals to the order of creation and the penalty of sin handed out at the Garden of Eden as the reason why.

Studied individually, these texts might seem to provide entirely different pictures. Studied side by side, we end up with a question: Who gets to speak for God, especially when the church meets for worship?

A pastor faced with controversial questions in their congregation knows immediately that their relationships are in jeopardy. No matter what they say someone will take offense. Say nothing and someone is offended. Say something and people in the congregation look to have their views confirmed. If not, there is offense.

With many such questions, Christian people are uninterested in how the Bible is interpreted in a faithful manner. They simply want their views confirmed. We are considering such a question today. As we work through the material it is important that we proceed with your understanding that I intend to be faithful not provocative, and with a commitment on your part not to be easily provoked. Together we might then consider the witness of Scripture.

The accompanying chicken-scratched diagram taken from one of my journals shows three ways many faithful Christians approach scriptural interpretation. Each one leads to a different response to the question, “Who gets to speak for God?” A fourth, that of disregarding the biblical text altogether, is not for our consideration in this study even though this is an approach many of us take for many dimensions of our lives.

I.   This first approach tends not to trust human experience as a reliable guide. Instead, the Bible provides a corral fence that governs one’s life. This type of biblical structure helps many people whose lives were wild and godless find forgiveness, health and help. This corralled point of view looks for biblical commands and tries to follow them without question because a person gets better results following these instructions than when they were their own moral guide. It isn’t necessarily legalistic, although a corral can become like a second type of law for some, and an inappropriate platform from which to judge the faithfulness of others.

II.  The second approach (the middle one in the diagram) brings a person’s life experience or their important questions to Scripture, looking for principles that helps them understand what happened to them, how they should live, or what answers they might find. You might map this as life–to faith–to life. the person starts with life experience, moves to the Scriptures for specific counsel, then seeks to apply what they learn (which makes for new life experiences). The Scriptures, then, are a funnel through which a person passes, hoping for guidance. This approach can get very topical and subjective, especially when the interpreter slices and dices rather than stepping back to look at the overall guidance of Scripture.

As a preacher, I normally avoid the second approach because I am committed to explaining biblical passages far more than preaching on pet topics. Even still, important concerns come before us that drive us to discover what Scripture says–this question of who speaks for God, for instance. As I trained for ministry, Dr. David Biberstine taught me a method of working with the whole of the biblical message in such a case. Once the related passages are considered in their entirety, the student of the scriptures drills down to guiding principles. This style brings this second style of biblical interpretation into the orbit of the third which I will show you now.

III.  The third style can be described as faith to life (the bottom picture in the diagram). In this case the Scripture funnels through me as I make myself open to receive it. Rather than conform myself to the Scriptures without discernment as in the first style, or choosing which Scripture to study based on my felt desire or need as in the second style, the Scriptures form me as I systematically study, ask questions, discern and am open to the insights of others.

This third style has its own danger–that of reverencing the Bible ahead of the God who gives us its message. Someone with my commitment to biblical exposition must keep their guard against bibliolatry.

To use this third style well I start with the whole of scripture, not parts in isolation. Even when working with a specific text, I labor to keep the perspective of the larger scriptural narrative. I must also do my best to suspend my preferences and pray for insight that God’s Spirit will guide my preparation.

This style works well with systematic exposition of the Scriptures, The difference between it and the first style is that style 1 expects questions to be settled and no longer questioned, whereas style 3 assumes we are never done learning, discerning and finding new light. The difference between it and the second style is that style 2 expects that my questions determine which Scriptures will be studied, whereas style 3 puts the Scriptures in the position of examining me.

All three come with intentions to be faithful but lead believers to different conclusions about our question of who speaks for God. The first approach usually concludes that until Jesus returns men do the speaking for God–especially among a worshiping community. Paul tells women to keep quiet after all. The second approach tends to follow the dominant set of experiences within the congregation, often alienating those who do not share those experiences. If there are no women leaders, then men continue to lead. If women have positive experiences in leadership elsewhere, and tell the stories of how they sensed God working through them, then over time the Scriptures begin to be discerned differently. The third style, which I admit is my style of preference, offers an alternative I invite you to consider this morning–especially as a way for faithful Christians of many preferences to live together in unity and common mission. Let’s dig a little deeper.

**********

Rightly or wrongly, here are three principles of Biblical interpretation I follow as I prepare to preach and teach. They are especially useful when dealing with what appear to be differences within various Biblical texts. I find them to be a consistent and faithful framework. I share them knowing that someone here might disagree with me, and fully aware that other competent Bible teachers use different frameworks in their desire to be faithful.

1.Distinguish between direct and indirect references.

2.Rely on clear intent over implied meaning.

3.Defer to Jesus.

Let’s consider each more carefully.

Distinguish between direct and indirect messages. Let’s return to the two passages we are considering. The Acts passage gives a direct message of explanation of the events of Pentecost:  people of all ages and genders are going to be filled with the Spirit and prophesy. Paul’s long treatise on spiritual gifts (1 Corinthians 12-14) offers a repeated and direct message: orderly worship takes precedence over the exercise of YOUR spiritual gift. Each correction Paul asks for is in light of this direct message. Paul expects a servanthood that promotes the gospel, even if you or I must set aside our rights to do so. These direct messages are the heart of these texts and should be the heart of our faithful interpretation. They take precedence over any other message we might find there. Indirect messages we draw from passages, such as the role of women or men  in ministry, should not be the base for doctrinal teaching.

Rely on clear intent over implied meaning. This is especially true in trying to understand the connection of a specific text within the full scope of the biblical narrative.

CLEAR INTENT– in Acts 2, Peter’s words about who will prophesy did not originate with him. They come from the prophet Joel, looking ahead to the time after Messiah lives on earth and brings redemption. Passages like this one in Acts and the one that precedes it in Joel, point to God’s redeeming work and how it overcomes the penalties of sin given to men and women after the fall. One of my favorite such passages is Isaiah 65:17-25. It too points to God working to undo the results of Eden. One can even find the apostle Paul preaching this theme:

Before this faith came, we were held prisoners by the law, locked up until faith should be revealed. So the law was put in charge to lead us to Christ that we might be justified by faith. Now that faith has come, we are no longer under the supervision of the law. You are all sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus, for all of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ. there is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus. if you belong to Christ, then you are Abraham’s seed, and heirs according to the promise.” (Galatians 3:21-29 NIV).

I cannot locate the original source, but I have a quote written in my bible next to the curses of Eden in Genesis 3. It is from a favorite author of mine, Em Griffin, a former communications professor at Wheaton College. He writes, “there is no question women were relegated to a submissive role as a result of the fall. Pain and childbirth and hard toil in the fields were also tragic outcomes. But there is no reason to perpetuate the fruit of sin. We don’t object to anesthetic during labor or tractors to till the land on theological grounds, why then gulp hard at women giving direction to men?”

By laying these passages of God overcoming the penalty and curses of sin beside one another, we find a clear understanding that the genders are deeply similar but not completely identical. The different genders experience sin and overcoming sin in similar and differing ways. The God we worship offers salvation and the filling of the Holy Spirit to them all.

IMPLIED–Someone studying the Pentecost event of Acts 2 might notice that public, marketplace preaching was effective in 1st century Jerusalem. This is an implication, however, not what the passage was written to convey. That same student, if considering 2 Corinthians 14, might notice that something gender related was happening in the worship services of congregations Paul founded, because Paul otherwise models Jesus’ approach (see below). Even still, trying to use 2 Corinthians 14 to prove or disprove who gets to speak for God moves into implied meaning and away from messages that are direct and clear.  The message about God redeeming women and men that they might carry his message far outweighs the secondary themes of marketplace sermons as a technique, or just what it was the Corinthian women did that was so disruptive.

Defer to Jesus. Jesus is the one to whom we defer when passages seem to offer different directions. Some Christian traditions defer to Moses as the means to interpret Jesus, some traditions start with the apostle Paul as the point of reference. Who you start with makes a difference in the conclusions you reach, even though each one takes Scripture seriously. Deferring to Jesus absolutely does not mean we throw away or disregard what certain biblical texts say, but that we seek to understand them in the light of what Jesus tells us and exemplifies for us.

Here is a practical for instance: let’s say I have an older sister who wants to be the boss of me.  She tells me to mow the lawn and take out the trash because she knows these are my responsibilities, but my mother tells me to take out the trash, mow the lawn and make my bed. These are differing instructions and differing sequences, but they are not opposed to one another. I can do what either one says without being disobedient. Still, one of these voices is the more significant authority in my life and I do best by seeking clarity from mom. The biblical interpretation model I follow is that I seek clarity from Jesus.

Using this principle, we can look at passages like John 4 where Jesus meets the Samaritan woman by the well. We learn that Jesus:

•Engages women and men directly.

•Establishes and offers the kingdom, available to all men and women.

•Works to remove the penalties of sin for all men and women.

•Commissions his disciples to be witnesses and disciple makers everywhere. Although the twelve were men, we are given a clear picture that his community of disciples included many women, that the first witnesses of his resurrection were women carrying the message to the disciples, and that women and men formed the first Jerusalem congregation.

In the case of the Samaritan woman, she becomes the means by which her entire village is introduced to Jesus. She was the primary carrier of the message.

***********

There are many aspects of this conversation we might consider. Perhaps you want to go further and carry this into who gets to be ordained to ministry, or the role of women and men in marriage. The topic at the moment is narrower, however, regardless of the implications. The purpose now is to consider who gets to speak for God, and using this method of trying to grasp the biblical scope and draw related principles before we answer, we discover the answer is those persons filled with the Spirit of God. This is not the conclusion everyone will reach. If you disagree it is incumbent upon you to join me in this search to understand the witness of scripture in our lives. No one need feel alienated or shut out if they want a more conservative or open approach than I have taken.

And let us remember for all controversial conversations such as these:

• Our competition is not Christians who reach different conclusions. Our competition is warmongering, poverty, the theft of freedom, sexual slavery, recruiting people into sinful and destructive lifestyles, and all that we might put in the register of evil.

• Congregations are made up of people who use different approaches to studying scriptures, sometimes even mixing and matching them to suit the conversation. We have to find a way of living together in our diverse approaches to being faithful.

• We bridge these differences in our embrace of the gospel, through submission to Scriptural direction and mutual accountability. Thus, a Christian congregation is well served to not set up an authoritarian structure (which historically has been filled by men), who lord authority over women and the congregation via lifetime appointments to the role. Neither is it well served by a laissez-faire structure where we all have a say to the point that each individual gets to be an autocrat and leadership roles are filled with people who must do what pleases ahead of what is right if they want to be effective. Instead, we must create structures that keep the gospel at the front of everything, and where women and men work together in mutual submission to Jesus Christ who teaches us to love God with all our heart, soul, mind and strength, and our neighbors as ourselves.

This is important for a congregation calling its next pastor. Who gets to speak for God here? Some of you feel it must be a man and you are quite vocal about it. Some of you are open to a woman  and are far more silent for fear of bringing tension or offense.  Maybe there are others who feel far more strongly on either side of this than I have described. The call from today’s sermon, is to remember that you  serve Christ and one another before your own rights, to remember that faithful Christian might reach different conclusions based on the approaches they take to Biblical interpretation, and that we are responsible to find ways to live in unity and a unified witness in the face of hideous evil.

Let us do it to the glory of God who makes women and men and fills them with his Spirit that they might prophesy.

-mark l vincent