My good friend on TMB, Dena, posted this idea once in a thread talking about the husband being the "head" of the wife, and whether that entailed authority over her or not, and if it entailed any authority at all, what would it look like? The thread got fairly heated as I recall, but I stopped paying much attention when I read Dena's post. Literally -- her post was so thought-provoking that I had to walk away from the computer and think about it for an hour or so. And the best part is, she discusses authority in the church as well as in a marriage. Here's what she had to say (with emphasis mine -- pay special attention to it, at the end!). Check it out!
Within the house church, we don't have titles, or positions, or offices... we have individuals whom God has called to various functionings... those who function as deacons (practical servants), those who function as elders (spiritual servants), those who function as teachers, shepherds, evangelists, prophets, apostles...
None of them are "over" anyone else... they're servant-leaders (servants who lead by example). There's no hierarchy -- just Jesus as Head, and all the other brothers and sisters functioning, as called, under HIM - in unity.
They don't have "special rights" to be above anyone else... but they do have "special responsibilities", as called by God, to serve others in their various capacities. We don't so much submit to the person, or the position, or the title... we submit to the calling that the Lord has on that person...! Because that calling is for the blessing of the rest of the Body -- it's the Lord Himself, working through that person, and it's really to HIM that we're submitting!
And the PURPOSE of their servant-leading is to bring the whole of the Body into full, functioning maturity -- to reflect Christ.
So, within marriage, God has called the husband to a particular responsibility ... he's usually larger, stronger, and therefore more able to be a protector of the wife than vice versa. He's designed by God to focus, to zero in, to concentrate, on one specific thing (while the woman is more global, balancing several things at once - each has it's strengths and weaknesses), and to take initiative in a particular direction.
We're designed to work in concert -- not with him as the "boss," but with him making a way for me to go (as he would if he were literally leading me through a dense forest/jungle... getting rid of the obstacles, making it easier for me to navigate.
Perhaps, since this world, the cultures, even the historical Church, tends to be suppressive of women, and God would know this would happen, as a result of the Fall, He designed men with the task of creating an environment for his wife to thrive... to protect her, to lift her up, to encourage her, to present her to others in a way so that others would respect her and receive what she had to share... so that she wouldn't be sidelined...?
It's not because I'm "less than", it's because the enemy has sought to destroy the influence of women, and thus, my husband's responsibility is to present me as a person worthy of equal honor in the Body ...
And, I'm to submit to what the Lord has called him to do... to not get in the way, but to cooperate with what He is doing.
Because the PURPOSE of the husband's servant-leading is to bring the whole of the marriage into full, functioning maturity -- to reflect Christ.
My previous research on "kephale" (Greek "head") showed me that it had a connotation of the husband as "point-man" -- the first one into battle. Physically speaking, this makes sense because men are nearly always physically stronger than women. But Dena points out that part of his job as protector might very well be to make sure she gets equally respected by others who might not otherwise listen to her.
Since Grey does an admirable job of that, and I adore him for it, I am definitely inclined to agree with Dena!
Thursday, September 27, 2007
Thoughts on Authority
Been thinking a lot about authority issues lately. I know that I have them -- "issues" (read: problems) with accepting someone's authority over me who in my opinion isn't supposed to have it. Especially among believers this seems to be a problem.
On one of the message boards I sometimes haunt, a poster called "Nice" has this to say: "I wanted to add my thoughts on...the difference between to have authority to do something and to have authority over somebody. I think there's big difference between these two...I think that when authority is being exercised, it’s always in some kind of context; usually an organization that contains some kind of hierarchy. Organizations and hierarchies can be either flat, vertical or both (in it's structure). Such “organization” could be the family, the workplace, the government, an association etc. It is often said that the biblical "organization" is the vertical; most often referring to the order of creation (genesis 1:28 and 1 cor 11:13 and also Rom 13:1 (that last scripture isn’t about the order of creation)).
But I think Jesus, He who himself is the Word of God, adds another perspective when he says
"If anyone wants to be first, he must be the very last, and the servant of all." (Mark 9:35)
“Now that I, your Lord and Teacher, have washed your feet, you also should wash one another's feet. (John 13:14)
“Among those born of women there has not risen anyone greater than John the Baptist; yet he who is least in the kingdom of heaven is greater than he.” (Jesus talks about himself as if he was” the least” in heaven??) (Matt 11:11)
“The King will reply, 'I tell you the truth, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers of mine, you did for me.” (Jesus identify himself with the least) (Matt 25:40).
Some say those scriptures are about the attitude we should have as christians, and I think that's right. However I do think Jesus turns the human perspective up side down. I wonder if this could mean that there is a difference between “to have authority over …” and “to have authority to ….” if you understand what I mean with that. The first one can only (I think?) occur in a vertical organization. The second may very well be exercised in a flat (and more equal) organization.
For example if you have a spiritual gift, let’s say, to prophecy, than you have a God given mandate to do so. The person who prophecy has an authority to do so, but does he has authority over them who are receiving the prophecy? Hardly. At least I don't think so anyway.
Another example is if you’re a doctor, then you have the authority to diagnose and treat people but you don’t have authority over them do you?
In a marriage, we have different roles. The husband have the authority to be the head but does that mean that he has authority over his wife? Well, not if they are equal. That would seem contradictory to me. The children however, we can say we have authority over because they aren’t adults. When one says women can’t teach men because then they will exercise authority over men, then one must consistently say that women cannot exercise any form of prophesying, teaching or caring or anything else where the man must submit to the woman’s ministry. However, it seems to me that the Bible contradicts that (Luke 2:36, Rom 12:6 fwd, 1 Cor 11:5 )...
We are all to serve each other with the amount of talents ("authority") we've been given. Matt 25:14
And for that to be possible... We must submit to one another!
"Submit to one another out of reverence for Christ" Eph 5:21
Nice has hit the nail on the head here. She is talking about authority in a marriage, while I was talking about authority in the church, but the basic principle is the same. The pastor does not have authority OVER his congregants. He has authority TO... do what? Serve them. And yet how often does he serve them without lording it over them as well?
That's one of my biggest beefs with the institutional church lately: one person (a man) has charge over the whole group. He's the one who decides who is to speak when, what songs they'll sing, how everything will fit together, and he's the one who does the preaching.
This attitude of one man being in charge of everything is TOTALLY against scripture. As is the concept of one person doing all the preaching and teaching. The Bible tells us that "each of you" is to prepare a teaching, a song, offer a prayer, etc. and then take turns so that everything remains orderly. When's the last time you attended an institutional church where that happened? Even so-called "Bible believing" churches tend not to follow the format for gatherings that is laid out very clearly in 1 Corinthians.
Every believer is anointed, yes. Every believer is also an authority over every other believer, and is also to submit to every other believer.
Re Ephesians 5: I know I've mentioned this elsewhere on this blog, but I'll say it again: I discovered that in Ephesians 5, when it says wives should submit to their husbands, it's a continuation of thought in the previous verse: we believers are to submit to each other! It's not a separate thought at all, as I had been taught: it's the same word. It's not even a repetition of the same word -- that word is used only once, in the Greek, to cover BOTH the submitting to each other AND the wives submitting to their husbands.
That seems to say to me that all believers are to submit to one another -- wives in one way, and husbands in another. Husbands get to be the servant, "point man" and protector, and wives get to be the servant, strong rescuer (gen 2:18), and rule over the household (Prov. 31).
Key point there is that both partners are servants to the other. That is where TRUE authority lies: in serving. Not in taking charge.
On one of the message boards I sometimes haunt, a poster called "Nice" has this to say: "I wanted to add my thoughts on...the difference between to have authority to do something and to have authority over somebody. I think there's big difference between these two...I think that when authority is being exercised, it’s always in some kind of context; usually an organization that contains some kind of hierarchy. Organizations and hierarchies can be either flat, vertical or both (in it's structure). Such “organization” could be the family, the workplace, the government, an association etc. It is often said that the biblical "organization" is the vertical; most often referring to the order of creation (genesis 1:28 and 1 cor 11:13 and also Rom 13:1 (that last scripture isn’t about the order of creation)).
But I think Jesus, He who himself is the Word of God, adds another perspective when he says
"If anyone wants to be first, he must be the very last, and the servant of all." (Mark 9:35)
“Now that I, your Lord and Teacher, have washed your feet, you also should wash one another's feet. (John 13:14)
“Among those born of women there has not risen anyone greater than John the Baptist; yet he who is least in the kingdom of heaven is greater than he.” (Jesus talks about himself as if he was” the least” in heaven??) (Matt 11:11)
“The King will reply, 'I tell you the truth, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers of mine, you did for me.” (Jesus identify himself with the least) (Matt 25:40).
Some say those scriptures are about the attitude we should have as christians, and I think that's right. However I do think Jesus turns the human perspective up side down. I wonder if this could mean that there is a difference between “to have authority over …” and “to have authority to ….” if you understand what I mean with that. The first one can only (I think?) occur in a vertical organization. The second may very well be exercised in a flat (and more equal) organization.
For example if you have a spiritual gift, let’s say, to prophecy, than you have a God given mandate to do so. The person who prophecy has an authority to do so, but does he has authority over them who are receiving the prophecy? Hardly. At least I don't think so anyway.
Another example is if you’re a doctor, then you have the authority to diagnose and treat people but you don’t have authority over them do you?
In a marriage, we have different roles. The husband have the authority to be the head but does that mean that he has authority over his wife? Well, not if they are equal. That would seem contradictory to me. The children however, we can say we have authority over because they aren’t adults. When one says women can’t teach men because then they will exercise authority over men, then one must consistently say that women cannot exercise any form of prophesying, teaching or caring or anything else where the man must submit to the woman’s ministry. However, it seems to me that the Bible contradicts that (Luke 2:36, Rom 12:6 fwd, 1 Cor 11:5 )...
We are all to serve each other with the amount of talents ("authority") we've been given. Matt 25:14
And for that to be possible... We must submit to one another!
"Submit to one another out of reverence for Christ" Eph 5:21
Nice has hit the nail on the head here. She is talking about authority in a marriage, while I was talking about authority in the church, but the basic principle is the same. The pastor does not have authority OVER his congregants. He has authority TO... do what? Serve them. And yet how often does he serve them without lording it over them as well?
That's one of my biggest beefs with the institutional church lately: one person (a man) has charge over the whole group. He's the one who decides who is to speak when, what songs they'll sing, how everything will fit together, and he's the one who does the preaching.
This attitude of one man being in charge of everything is TOTALLY against scripture. As is the concept of one person doing all the preaching and teaching. The Bible tells us that "each of you" is to prepare a teaching, a song, offer a prayer, etc. and then take turns so that everything remains orderly. When's the last time you attended an institutional church where that happened? Even so-called "Bible believing" churches tend not to follow the format for gatherings that is laid out very clearly in 1 Corinthians.
Every believer is anointed, yes. Every believer is also an authority over every other believer, and is also to submit to every other believer.
Re Ephesians 5: I know I've mentioned this elsewhere on this blog, but I'll say it again: I discovered that in Ephesians 5, when it says wives should submit to their husbands, it's a continuation of thought in the previous verse: we believers are to submit to each other! It's not a separate thought at all, as I had been taught: it's the same word. It's not even a repetition of the same word -- that word is used only once, in the Greek, to cover BOTH the submitting to each other AND the wives submitting to their husbands.
That seems to say to me that all believers are to submit to one another -- wives in one way, and husbands in another. Husbands get to be the servant, "point man" and protector, and wives get to be the servant, strong rescuer (gen 2:18), and rule over the household (Prov. 31).
Key point there is that both partners are servants to the other. That is where TRUE authority lies: in serving. Not in taking charge.
Sunday, September 9, 2007
Out of the Mouths of Babes
This just blew me away this morning. First of all, Scot and I "went to church" this morning (poor Grey had to stay home and get some sleep--he's been working 3rd shift for weeks now), to visit with some friends who've been raving about this church. On the way home, I was talking with Scot about it. Now, we haven't "gone to church" for weeks and weeks -- usually we go only when we start missing our friends too much... and while I'm on the topic, that business of "church isn't a social club" is for crap. I am coming to think that the social aspect is the ONLY reason to "go to church" at all! The teaching is usually questionable, being based as it is in church traditions rather than in scripture; the corporate worship is lovely, but that's part of the social/fellowship aspect of it; the prayer is great and so is the meet'n'greet time... but every single aspect of "going to church" that appeals to us has to do with the fellowshipping with the Body!
So Scot and I compared this church with the one we've been attending for the last three years, and concluded they were about the same. Neither one of us was wowed by them. So just on a whim, I asked Scot what he thought the best way to learn about Jesus would be. With no prompting or discussion of home churches in his hearing or anything, this is what he said (in his own words):
"I think that we should get a whole bunch of people who all love Jesus. And we should meet them at our house. Outside. When it rains hard, we should cancel the meeting. If it rains only a little, we can meet them inside. And in the winter, we can meet them inside, and all have hot chocolate while we're exploring the Bible a little."
He went on to explain that he thought the kids should go into a bedroom and do whatever they wanted, but that they could still come out and be with their parents if they wanted to. I asked him if there should be any singing (since that's one of the things he hates most about the church we attend; the singing is quite loud), and he thought for a long moment before deciding, "There should be some QUIET singing."
I asked him if there should be a sermon during the meeting, and he didn't think there should be. "But someone could teach a little, if they wanted to," he offered. "And someone else could pray."
Wow. I was blown away. Not only is this EXACTLY the sort of "church" that Grey and I have been absolutely longing for, for months -- but he outlined fairly accurately how 1 Cor 14 tells us a church meeting should be run!
We haven't talked to him much about any of this. Can he call it, or what?
So Scot and I compared this church with the one we've been attending for the last three years, and concluded they were about the same. Neither one of us was wowed by them. So just on a whim, I asked Scot what he thought the best way to learn about Jesus would be. With no prompting or discussion of home churches in his hearing or anything, this is what he said (in his own words):
"I think that we should get a whole bunch of people who all love Jesus. And we should meet them at our house. Outside. When it rains hard, we should cancel the meeting. If it rains only a little, we can meet them inside. And in the winter, we can meet them inside, and all have hot chocolate while we're exploring the Bible a little."
He went on to explain that he thought the kids should go into a bedroom and do whatever they wanted, but that they could still come out and be with their parents if they wanted to. I asked him if there should be any singing (since that's one of the things he hates most about the church we attend; the singing is quite loud), and he thought for a long moment before deciding, "There should be some QUIET singing."
I asked him if there should be a sermon during the meeting, and he didn't think there should be. "But someone could teach a little, if they wanted to," he offered. "And someone else could pray."
Wow. I was blown away. Not only is this EXACTLY the sort of "church" that Grey and I have been absolutely longing for, for months -- but he outlined fairly accurately how 1 Cor 14 tells us a church meeting should be run!
We haven't talked to him much about any of this. Can he call it, or what?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
