Abi redefines and refocuses the controversy....

I have mentioned before that I'm not really comfortable with the terms currently used in the debates. I have had my synthesizing hat on for the past few years, looking to see if I could get my brain about things enough to describe what I have come to understand about the foundational issues that underpin the controversy.

Some of the key players in my thinking  these past 20+ years include: S. Scott Bartchy, Scot McKnight, C. S. Lewis, George MacDonald, Mont W. Smith, Lewis B. Smedes, Wayne Jacobsen, Alan & Deb Hirsch, Eugene H. Peterson, Neil Cole, Michael Frost, Tony and Felicity Dale, Len Hjalmarson, Wm. Paul Young and C. Baxter Kruger ... and all the thinkers of the past they have brought with them into today's arena. I would have a very difficult time separating the various threads each of these persons contributed to the wee tapestry I want to share today.

The following definitions are intentionally very dense as I try to squeeze 40 years and millions of words into something that begins to represent what I believe about how humans are meant to treat one another.  These concepts have been heated white-hot in wrath's purifying and restoring hell-fire (not sure whether I'm ready to join the May Synchroblog: What the hell? ... I may need a rest!) and hammered out on the anvil of spiritual formation over the past five years in my wee purple experience. And now they have been plunged to cool in the Living Water of Truth to harden and prepare for service.

My glasses are still a bit fogged from the steam...and I'm still a bit tender in places that have been pruned and cauterized...but I trust the love of Sarayu that sometimes wounds in order to heal.

I pull no punches today, so I know those brothers and sisters who have invested their lives in what is currently called Complementarianism will not be very happy with me.  The term "Patriarchal Subjugation" will probably offend them.  I am intending to be precise, not offensive. I endeavor to speak the truth in love, spritzing a bit of Trinitarian Windex on their Augustinian glasses, as Baxter says...but I know that they will not see differently until they get a new prescription.

And I realize that it is not my task to convince them and call them to repentance--that is the work of Grandmother! I trust that Jesus is on their journey with them right where they are and that the Spirit will lead them according to their readiness to follow.  I certainly know how long it took me to make this difficult transition. They are still my brothers and sisters in Christ, but that does not mean that I must agree with them.

If you've been following my thoughts over the past eight years, you will see how I've come to this particular synthesis. And, as Craig Groeschel told a group of us at a Church Planting Conference in Kansas about seven years ago:  I only guarantee what I'm saying for 90 days. The Spirit is always at work teaching and leading me toward deeper growth along this journey...and there's always something being pruned, weeded, mulched... hey, it's spring! ;^)

Here goes--I suggest that you read it slowly and out loud (if your surroundings allow!) 

Patriarchal Subjugation 

is a male-centered, domination-based 

functional social structure of scarcity 

implemented by coercion and aversion. 

It's Christian practice flows from 

Augustinian-based scriptural interpretation and tradition, 

which is influenced by the pagan Greek philosophy of Socrates 

as taught by Plato, Aristotle and others. 

(Interestingly, Socrates rose to influence 

as the 400 years of prophetic silence 

was beginning for the Hebrews 

and his philosophy was firmly entrenched 

in the dominant culture of the Roman Empire 

when, in the fullness of time, Christ was born.)

Its infiltration from Western Civilization into Western Christianity 

was as subtle as a pagan wolf in Christian sheep's clothing 

and its practice ultimately fosters bondage and stunted maturity—

both of the oppressor and the oppressed.

Its peace is built on the coercive order

and cruel efficiency of the PAX ROMANA.

[I will need to come back and unpack this later...

probably with lots of links

to things that have already been said better

 somewhere else!]

Perichoretic cHesed

is an other-centered, self-giving 

relational social structure of abundance 

implemented by gracious loving-kindness 

and manifests as unmerited favor, 

mutual submission and 

mutually-initiated helpfulness

based on the best interest of the other. 

It flows out of Trinitarian-based scriptural interpretation, 

which is influenced by the Hebraic covenant philosophy of YHWH 

as revealed to Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, 

and given to Moses in the Law,

known as the Old Covenant, 

and taught by the prophets. 

As it was radically reinterpreted by Jesus 

and introduced as the New Covenant, 

(cut in his very own body 

and shedding his very own blood,

to bring about our rebirth and adoption)

and taught by Paul and the very Early Church Fathers, 

its faithful and humble practice

results in the growing freedom

and growing maturity 

of ALL toward Christlikeness. 

Its peace is the very own peace of Christ Jesus, 

which is not at the world gives,

but rather removes both anxiety and fear

as all come to learn of their 

inclusion in the very Life Eternal

of the Father and the Son in the Spirit

as adopted children and joint heirs with Christ Jesus.

Perichoretic cHesed...

It's News...because we didn't know it.  And it's Good!  (HT: C. Baxter Kruger)

Grace and peace to you!

Abi

Abi ponders the roots of sin....

With gratitude to Mont Smith, Scott Bartchy, Scott Peck, Alan Hirsch, Paul Young, Wayne Jacobsen, Penelope Wilcock, Baxter Kruger...and so many others who have challenged my thinking. Thanks be to God....

* * * * * * *

I have come, over the past 20 years, to believe that understanding sin requires that we back up and understand the primary will of God...so that we see clearly the target that sin misses.

Belief is certainly part of the will of God, but perhaps that is too narrow, or not specific enough. What is it that we are to believe?

Scripture tells us repeatedly that God is love. Love is a relational term that needs the context of the Trinity --Father, Son and Holy Spirit -- for proper understanding. Too many see God as alone and distant in his holiness (Greek thinking) rather than engaged as an eternal relationship of love that includes all creation.

If God is by nature a loving relationship of mutuality and equality, where there is such unity of desire that can only be described as Oneness, then we have to ponder the meaning of creation.

I believe They created in order to share Their life of loving relationship with humans. History has been the process of humanity's education. And this is where sin comes in.

I believe that the problem of human sin is one of laziness -- of taking the easy way rather than embracing the necessary work of growing through loving relationships. This laziness partners with a desire for independence, because it seems easier (better!) to do things our way instead of entering into the growth required by love that fosters the other's best interest and finds a way in unity. This is why sin almost always is manifest as coercion -- trying to get our way by force.

This coercive way is sin because it misses the mark of loving the other as we love ourselves. It weakens or destroys relationship and introduces fear...and I don't mean holy awe....

And when we are afraid, we trust less...and, boom -- we get unbelief.

The serpent sowed seeds of fear by suggesting that God was not to be trusted -- that he was holding something back -- and the rule against eating of the forbidden fruit was a form of coercion. Laziness took that seed and gave it place instead of running straight to God for the truth.

The serpent stole their innocent dependence on God as Guide and they turned to independence instead of growing toward greater interdependence.

I have come to realize that much of Western Christianity is mired in the unfortunate blending of Roman/Greek philosophy, which forms a pair of legal/rational information-as-knowledge contextual glasses. This moves away from God's Hebrew experience + information = knowledge philosophy, which is founded on cHesed -- gracious loving-kindness -- within God's series of covenants. When that happens, misinterpretation will follow about the very nature of God and humanity...with the horrific results too many accept today as God's will. So very sad....

Only by the continual renewing of our minds by the Spirit will we have eyes that can see the Truth in Jesus, and this calls us to die to self so that we can be alive in Christ.

Lord have mercy on us in our blindness...and lead us out of the darkness of our own fallen thinking!

Amen!

Abi, Paul, Timothy...and subtle humor

Today, I have my dear brother in Christ, Len Hjalmarson, to thank for the inspiration behind this post.  He Tweeted a link to his post that collects important links concerning women in ministry.  Please take a look...particularly at the link to Don Rousu's post, since it is the one that provided my "missing link" moment!

If you have been following me for any length of time, you will have come to learn about my friend and mentor, S. Scott Bartchy...who was gracious enough to preach at my ordination 18 years ago.  His scholarship and friendship over the past 33 years has been so very important to me.  For this post, it is timely to link to this important post of Scott's from two years ago. While his post concerns Paul's letter to Philemon, the importance of what he calls "deep contexting" in paragraph 2.12 is so very important ... and is the point where translators so often fail us.

Go ahead and read it ... I'll be here when you come back.

You will see that Don Rousu has provided a bit of "deep contexting" for the tension-filled text found in 1Timothy 2:11-15.  I'm going to connect it to some teaching I heard and synthesized from Scott and others over the years.  I am sorry that I do not have links.  I am grateful that all the pieces fell into place for me today...even with a sluggish brain.  I only hope to challenge you with another view.

I'm going to start with the end and work my way forward.  To prepare for this, I ask that you follow J. R. R. Tolkien's sage advice to those who would read imaginative works:  suspend your disbelief long enough to enter into the story so as to experience it as the author intended.  Listen all the way through.  Hear the whole tale.  Could it possibly be true?

Ready?

My paraphrase of 1 Timothy 2:11-15, inspired by The Voice, adapted from the New Century Version and building on the deep contexting of Rousu and Bartchy, goes like this: 


¹¹ Let that woman who is troubling your congregation learn by listening quietly and being ready to cooperate in everything. ¹² But I do not allow such a woman to teach or claim that a woman was the originator of or superior to a man, but want her to learn the truth peacefully, ¹³ because Adam was formed first and then Eve. ¹⁴ And Adam was not tricked, but Eve was tricked and became a sinner. ¹⁵ But that woman will be saved through The Childbearing if she continues in faith, love, and holiness, with self-control.

Need to take a deep breath or two?

It is important to remember a couple of things right off the bat:  this is considered to be a personal letter from Paul to Timothy -- probably a response to a letter from Timothy concerning his ministry in Ephesus.  It is full of insider information and context to which Timothy would have been totally aware.  Timothy would have been completely familiar with Paul's style of rhetoric and his use of humor and other "clever" speech.

The deep context Rousu provides is critical here concerning the culture in Ephesus regarding Artemis/Diana, as interpreted by the Gnostics.  What possibly was being taught by "that woman", among other things, was that women were superior to men because Eve was created first and that, being the Mother of All, she birthed Adam on her own -- with no need of a man. She possibly went further to claim that Eve was the "illuminator" who received "knowledge" from the Serpent and shared it with Adam.  So, they revered the Serpent as the Savior revealer of Truth.

Ugh...the twisting of Truth always comes from reading our own context into the Text, without regard for the deeper context.  This is why it is so important for those who teach to have learned in quietness and cooperation first.  It is just as difficult a task today as it was then.  Sigh....

So here we have Paul, responding to his "son in the Faith" with insightful encouragement and a bit of wit:

• All, men and women, are to be encouraged to learn the Truth in a posture of humility.
• Those who teach falsehoods are to be stopped gently and taught the Truth more fully.
• Just as in Corinth, those in Ephesus had problems with Jesus' new paradigms that subvert their ideas of power and patriarchy. They did not know how to embrace their new situation as brothers and sisters -- joint heirs of God in Jesus.  Where no man is called Father but God and no one is Lord but Jesus.
• As Paul said in 1Corinthians 11 (another passage requiring "deep contexting" and rarely getting it), Adam was created first -- and Eve came from him.  But Adam came from Christ, who created everything.  And Christ comes from God, as the Only Begotten. And now every man comes from a woman in the process of childbirth. It is not about power and hierarchy and authority and subordination, but simply about source in the perichoretic Circle of Life.
• Because Eve did not have enough education, she was tricked by the Serpent and sinned.  There is lots of room to wonder why Adam didn't speak up to defend her ... or why he had not educated her properly ... and, in the end, he went along and ate, too.  The point is to teach well -- without improper embellishment --  and correct error gently as it crops up.
• And in a delicious twist of humor, Paul reminds Timothy that salvation comes -- to that woman (and all humanity) -- through Jesus, who actually was born of a woman (The Childbearing) without the aid of a man!  That woman, if she continues to learn the Truth in faith, love and holiness, with self-control, will be saved.  As will we all....

So there you have it. 

I fully realize that there are a great many scholars who would not agree with me.  Listening for humor, irony, quotations -- this is difficult work in Koine Greek and First Century context.  But we must continue -- especially with the difficult passages that seem out of step with the rest of what Paul teaches and what Jesus lived.  We must all determine that we will learn in quietness of spirit and a humble heart that is open to the Spirit's still, small voice speaking the Truth that will set us free.

I hope that you were able to process this wee post with your disbelief suspended.  I pray that we will allow the Spirit to continue to lead us all into All Truth.  I yearn for the day when we can all truly be brothers and sisters in Jesus, sharing the Good News with those around us that our Father has already adopted them too...even if they don't know it yet! 

Be blessed!

Abi is a non-patriarchal conservative progressive egalitarian

Things have been very quiet at this blog -- for lots of reasons.  But I finally have the strength to speak to an issue that has been slowly bubbling on the back burner of my over-stimulated brain-on-fire:  I have to really disagree with the use of the word "egalitarian" to describe the opposite of "patriarchal" or "complementarian".

There, I said it.  I am starting to feel better already, but I will continue and explain myself some.

My dear mentor, S. Scott Bartchy, PhD., is still in the process of the final edit of his long-awaited book:  Call No Man Father.  I long for it to be finished, but in the meantime there are a few links to articles he has published which can give you some of the general background.

Who Should Be Called Father?
Undermining Ancient Patriarchy
Secret Siblings

On page 145 of his article "Who Should Be Called Father?", Dr. Bartchy addresses the third of three barriers to understanding how Paul has been misunderstood as supporting patriarchy (and with it, hierarchy) in the section entitled Egalitarianism Is Not the Opposite of Patriarchy.

The problem is that is has become common to blur the distinctions between two ancient Greco-Roman social institutions:  politics and kinship.  They are not opposite ends of the same social-political spectrum.  They are on completely different spectrum.

Patriarchy belongs to the semantic field of kinship -- the realm of the family.  Egalitarian belongs to the semantic field of politics, referring to things like equal access to the vote, to positions of public leadership, and to ownership of property. The opposite of patriarchal dominance is not egalitarian anarchy/cooperation.

Because of this ongoing confusion, we have not assigned a proper term.  We must slog along with, um, non-patriarchy.  This is the term used where the power of the fathers and males has been undermined in favor of the Heavenly Father's leadership of his Kingdom Family of siblings who follow Jesus as First Born, Lord and Master.

In the same way, the opposite of egalitarianism is not patriarchy but monarchy, oligarchy or despotism.  And part of the confusion came from Roman Emperors who disguised their monarchy behind a kind of public patriarchy -- the pater patriae, the father of the fatherland.

Understandable yet regrettable...and, ultimately, something that must be made right by those who call Jesus Lord and no man Father but God.  Jesus, and Paul, turned the power of the patriarchs on their heads.  There was no longer an entitlement to power over ... but a command to love and serve as Jesus loves and serves.

Jesus, and Paul, called on the men to give God's place back...to let God be Father of those who accept his amazing offer of adoption as siblings of, and joint heirs with, Jesus Christ.

* * * * * * *
In a really funky way, the polarized politics in America is caught in this same kind of semantic problem.  Stay with me all the way through, please...so you understand where I am coming from:

• Conservative means faithfulness to the "status quo" -- and is meant to apply to the Constitution as intended by the original authors.  The Framers have the same problem as the Apostle Paul as folks try to twist and expand and change the original meaning of their writings.  Conservatives believe that the Constitution cannot mean today what it did not mean when the Framers wrote it.  This requires diligence with regard to historical and linguistic and social and political distance ... because history and language and society and politics have changed over the past two centuries.  
• Progressive means adapting to the changing meanings of history and language and society and politics -- and is meant to apply to learning from history, updating colloquialisms, removing barriers to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness in society and seeking peaceful unity in politics.  If this requires amending the Constitution, there is a policy in place that is to be followed.

I find it interesting that American politics has continued the Roman error, where many on both sides of these terms see them as opposites.  Some Conservatives yearn for a kind of Political Patriarchy that gives lip service to a kind of Christian Monarchy.  Some Progressives yearn for a kind of Political Oligarchy that gives lip service to a kind of Social Patriarchy.  

But the American experiment is one where neither of these scenarios fit.  We are honored to have a Constitution to which we are pledged to be faithful.  It is, indeed, our "status quo" and it must be conserved.  And as a free people, we are honored to be self-governing and choose our representatives.  We need to continue to progress as we learn better what justice and mercy and rule of law look like, so that we can build on the Framer's Foundation.

We conserve the contents of the Constitution for everyone's benefit.  We make progress as a society and a republic by following the rule of law and practicing responsible freedom at home and abroad.  Neither of these endeavors are aided by methods of coercion that leads toward patriarchy or oligarchy.

It's still true that power does tend to corrupt -- and absolute power corrupts absolutely.  This is why God's power is made perfect in our weakness.  When we submit to one another in cHesed -- looking out for the best interest of the other, according to the covenant -- the world sees that we live in a different Kingdom.  A Kingdom where Jesus is King and God is Father.  Lording it over others has no place in the lives of those who follow Jesus Christ -- not in their home life, not in their business life and not in their political life.  Life is messy and it takes time and humility and good humor to "...listen one another into free speech."

Those who try to make politics a subset of religion err.  America is not an experiment in Christian Theocracy as an upgrade of Hebrew Theocracy.  America is not an experiment in Christian or Marxist Collectivism, either.  America is an experiment in being a Representative Republic made up of many Sovereign States -- of the people, by the people and for the people -- where there is tremendous freedom for progress toward a more perfect union and freedom from oppression in all its forms -- especially those known as patriarchy and oligarchy.  Out of many States we forge the United States of America -- and we need to respect and value each person and each state to the best of our ability.  And when we are wrong, we need to repent and progress toward that more perfect union -- the one the Framers envisioned.

Those Americans who are also followers of Jesus have an opportunity to join this wee purple abbess as she endeavors to live as a non-patriarchal conservative progressive egalitarian.  

O, that would be glory, indeed!

Be blessed....

Abi and "The Church"

Well, as seems to be consistently the case, I know it is time to read something when I actually am able to read it.  That happened this week as I finally read So You Don't Want to Go to Church Anymore, by Jake Colesen.

Friends of Abi will remember that I have been processing the impact of a weekend Wayne Jacobsen spent with our Short Yellow Bus missional group over two years ago.  As a result of that event, I first read Wayne's He Loves Me, which was a good reinforcement for what I heard in person.  I have since read it maybe three times.  It takes a very long time to make new maps of territory you have lived with for your whole life....

It took be a little longer to read his Authentic Relationships, because I had spent so much energy on authentic EVERYTHING over the past 12 years. But I found there were ideas that had changed in subtle ways, along with so many other things this Virtual Abbess has pondered the past four years.

Before I went on my "stimulus fast" for my tired brain, I was listening to Wayne's Transitions podcasts.  More reinforcement for what I had read and heard.

So why did it take so long to get around to reading the Jake Colesen story?  I am trusting Father, as I strive to live more in Kairos time, that it was finally the right time.

It certainly was.

Jake story covers about four years ... hmmm, it will be four years since I started blogging next week.  It is a story that speaks to so much of my story, it is quite uncanny.  But the best part -- and the reason I think it was finally time -- was realizing that I am finally moving into that reconstruction stage.  Where living loved is getting closer to life than thought.  Where living free is on the rise ... and living full is on the horizon, over the next hill.

Similarities:

• Jake moved from one career to his dream of paid pastoral ministry -- only to find that there are lots of things that are just not right in the way the church-as-institution plays out.  My move from organizational management -- and my long-time sense that church-as-business was not always very holy -- brought up some interesting, um, challenges as my dream of pastoral ministry came true.  I handled some better than others...and, with Dickens, I would realize that -- "It was the best of times; it was the worse of times."
• Jake tried to incorporate some of the new things he was learning ... with some fairly disastrous results.  Can you can "misunderstood assumptions"?
• Jake was devastated by the poor way "crises" were handled by the leadership ... and lived many years with lots of people have a totally wrong ideas of why he left -- and why he wasn't even going to church somewhere else.
• It seemed to get worse before it got better ... with lots of "huh" times, trying to figure out what Father was up to.
• It usually comes down to people not knowing what Jesus is really like.  They've heard lots about him, but it wasn't translating into a dynamic, living, relationship.  The culture of institution falls far short of the experience of journeying with Jesus -- and those who cross your path.

In the end it came down to realizing that the Church -- the Bride of Christ -- is a reality to be lived rather than a place to go with programs to implement and expectations and responsibilities met.

* * * * * * *

Freedom ... lots of talk about it these days.  So I was interested to run across a pamphlet (sorting and consolidating books) I've had for some 30 years, by my ministry mentor.  And his thoughts about freedom (that it is so often sacrificed for security -- not just in society, but in the Church) took me to some other thoughts I had been sharing here and at Jesus Creed about M. Scott Peck's ideas about laziness....

I have been wondering if it is time to read that section of The Road Less Traveled again.  I think it might be. Then I will have more to say....

In the meantime I am learning to lean into Father's love for me ... to embrace the challenge to live free from condemnation and false security ... so that I may live full -- of life in the Spirit.  As I experience life in the Church, I am content to let Father take care of the on which journey others are traveling.  Father knows where each of us are and meets us there.  Whew ... I don't have to be the church police any more!

Be blessed on your journey.

Abi

Abi's thoughts about reJesus and UNTAMED....

Why I love Alan & Debra Hirsch

When I went to Neil Cole's first Organic Church Conference in Long Beach, CA, in January of 2007, I did not know the Hirsches.  As I was trying to decide which seminars to attend, I thought Alan's sounded interesting.  It was beyond interesting ... it was mind-blowing.  Not in what Alan was saying -- but that he was saying what I had come to in my heart, but didn't know how to articulate.  I later told Alan that listening to (and, later, reading) him was for me just like reading C.S. Lewis was in the 70's:  seeing/hearing what I had come to believe in my heart but had no words with which to articulate it.

It will come as no surprise to my friends that what links me to Alan is our common embrace of Hebraic thought over and against Greek/Platonic thought.  This need to approach all things of God through a Hebrew filter is what drives my insistence on understanding cHesed and using cHesed glasses to view scripture and discipleship and relationship.

Really ... if one wants to understand scripture and the Incarnation, there is no way to get there without learning to think like a Hebrew.

UNTAMED

I will have to unpack their book later, but suffice it to say that it is a fabulous book -- and one perfect to use with a small group.  The thoughts for pondering at the end of each chapter are priceless.  And I must say that it is a book that really whets one's appetite for more.  Especially the hint that Deb will be writing a book of her own.  I look forward with great expectancy to that one!

For a wee abbess known for asking hard questions and telling it like it is, this book was so refreshing.  My frequent feelings of "abi-normal" ness were met by companions who share them.  It helped me understand even more why I resonated so strongly with both of them at that conference.

The Abbess highly recommends that you get their book.  You will not be sorry.

reJesus

Alan's newest book with Michael Frost is also wonderful.  I found myself nodding along as I read.  So  much frank analysis and fresh views of where we are as little Jesuses ... and where we need to be.  Another book to process with a group, although they do not have the wonderful discussion helps at the end of their chapters.

That being said, it was a bit of a shock to run into what I consider a bit of infiltrating Platonic Greek thought in their discussion of Paul's Vision of the Jesus Community in Chapter Seven:  The Church That Jesus Built.

Beginning with page 168, there are a number of examples where they embrace the understanding of "head" as authority rather than source.  Frankly, I was shocked by this.  One of the challenges of bridging time and space and culture and language is to realize how words are used at different times with different connotations.  Consequently, the next few pages brought a few raised eyebrows rather than head nods.  These were also the only times in the book that their words didn't ring true and their thoughts did not convince.  For me, at least, this was a missed opportunity to free the wild Messiah from another misconception.

In using the Ephesians1:22 verse where Christ is head over all things for the church, we  have an example where head is clearly used as a metaphor for authority -- over all things FOR the church.  And I agree with their conclusion that this means that all Christ's influence is used to benefit the church.  This is cHesed -- looking out for the best interest of the covenant partner.

But when Paul goes on to speak of the church as the Body of Christ, then the head metaphor must change from authority to one of source -- both as to origination as well as to sustenance.  I know that this is a hotly debated issue ... and getting hotter still.  But there is some important context which I find compelling.  And I am hopeful that Alan might find it so as well.

One of the critically important ancient arguments has actually been one of physiology -- concerning the location of the mind (the center of intelligence, reason, thinking, and decision-making).  In Paul's day, there had been two camps:  head and heart.  ( I am indebted to my friend, Dr. S. Scott Bartchy, for sending me an important article on this by Troy W. Martin from Saint Xavier University.  I am sorry that I do not have a link to it to include here.)

Plato, Philo and Plutarch held the head to be the center of intelligence, reason, thinking, and decision-making -- the center of control of the body.  It was no jump for those of that camp to see Paul's use of head as control or authority.

But Aristotle and the Stoics held the heart (kardia) as the center of intelligence, reason, thinking, and decision-making.  Many translators have shown this confusion when they chose to translate Paul's use of kardia as "mind" rather than "heart."

This, then, frees Paul to use "head" in what many see as the more common metaphorical sense -- as the source, origin and one who sustains life rather than the ruler and authority over another.

If we are to really hold to the Hebrew mindset, we must realize that when God came in Christ, he did not come to rule and exercise authority over humanity.  Even as we recognize him as Lord and Savior, Jesus shows himself to be the quintessential covenant-maker and covenant-keeper who uses all his power and influence for the best interest of the covenant partner -- us.

It is never in anyone's best interest for someone to rule over another.  That way leads to dependency and immaturity.  No, the way of Christ for his Bride is one of love that submits and grace that serves and mercy that initiates and supports.  There is no wielding of authority or ruling by coersion.  There is only wooing and waiting for the return of cHesed from the Beloved.

No, there is no way to biblically show Christ as the head of the Church his body in such as way as to allow husbands to rule with authority over their wives -- not at least in a way that is internally consistent for our God who is Love -- mutuality-in-equality. 

To have Paul making an appeal to order out of the wild freedom Jesus brought to the downtrodden is to really miss the point here.  He calls men to realize that Jesus had stripped them of their patriarchal power and calls them to love their wives by submitting to their needs, to be gracious to their wives by serving them and showing mercy to their wives by initiating and supporting their growth to maturity in Christ.  As sister in Christ first, wife second, the brethren are to embrace the mutuality-in-equality modeled by Jesus -- within the Trinity as well as within the disciples/the 120.  As wild as this freedom was for the sisters, it was a real twister for the brothers.

Paul finally gets around to speaking it explicitly in Ephesians 5:29-30, where he shows that nourishing and caring for his Body is what Jesus is about. As Alan and Michael say so clearly:  lets not tame Jesus and make him the opposite of what he said and is.  I say the same about Paul:  let the wild apostle of the wild Messiah be set free from our image of his message!

...stay tuned, there will be more about UNTAMED and reJesus from Abi!

God as Supreme Situational Leader

While I wait for Scott to flesh out more of his book as to what it means to be siblings in the Kingdom, I want to revisit a concept that just keeps getting more focus for me ... and today got the 3D treatment!  Wow!

When I was getting my Organizational Management degree, we used an amazing textbook that introduced me to the Hersey and Blanchard theory called Situational Leadership.  (Even though the most current hardcover edition is really expensive, an earlier paperback edition will get you everything you need to get a grip on this important concept without breaking your book budget.)

During that particular class, it dawned on me that this is so right because this is a descriptor of the way God leads.  (It doesn't hurt that Blanchard is a follower of Jesus.  I don't personally know about Hersey.)  Wow ... this insight back in 1994 was very important to my thinking about leadership.  (My experience with managers and leaders has left much to be desired, as recounted in my chapter of Volume One of the Wikiklesia Project.)

And, much like Chesterton's famous quote that Christianity was found difficult and left untried, this concept is the same.  Our ideas of leadership and management gravitate more to the few telling the many how to think and what to do.  We tend to lead according to our style and strengths, rather than leading according to the readiness level of those following.

When Jesus called on the fathers to put down their right to dominate, he was asking them to influence instead of coerce.  It is so much harder having to consider each individual and how you can best empower them to do their best to accomplish God's will....

It is the way of love, this leading by influence.  Equipping.  Building up.  Supporting.  Releasing.

Sometimes you have to simply tell folks what to do, step by step, because they lack the skills to know what to do. 

Sometimes you have to engage folks, because they have some skills they can use, but just aren't able to take on the responsibility.

Sometimes you have to collaborate with folks, because they are skilled and able to take on tasks, but aren't confident enough to take on responsibility.

And sometimes, yes, sometimes you are able to delegate to folks, because they are both competent and confident enough to take the ball and run with it.

...and then we have to remember that God meets us at each of these various stages in our own lives, depending on the task that has been laid out before us!

So, relax!

Lighten up!

Trust Papa! 

His faithful cHesed will always provide what you need to accomplish the task.  The buck stops with him, actually....

Blessings,

Abi

Jesus' Radical Good News Requires 3D Glasses

So my husband and I were talking today about my new cHesed glasses: they are not only purple, they are 3D! (And no, I don't know to represent that with my already photo-shopped picture.)

Anyway, let me try to explain these 3D glasses. (Get a refresher on my old glasses here.) All the properties of my old glasses remain intact ... but the 3D component makes otherwise ordinary words of the Scriptures (especially in the New Testament) jump off the page. The first part of the 3D factor is the context provided by understanding first century Mediterranean society's foundational patriarchy, which Jesus (and Paul) subverted.

I started talking about this in my last post. And I'll be talking about it for a long time as I continue to process Dr. Bartchy's research and upcoming book, Call No Man Father. Stop and think for a moment what it meant for Jesus' followers to hear him say that they were to call no man father but their heavenly Father. The implications for this one statement are played out through the Gospels and the rest of the New Testament. I want to look at one today.

Now you're ready to slip these 3D glasses on so that you look out with this context:

• Fathers, who were used to being the dominant figure in their families and society, were asked by Jesus to give up their right to dominate their wives, children and slaves -- and other less powerful men -- in order to become children of the heavenly Father.
• This new status would appear to be "weak" in their society, but in the Kingdom of God, it would be "strong" in the power of cHesed's love, grace and mercy. The "greatest" in this Kingdom would be the "least" and the eager servant of all. This was the stance Jesus took and he expected it of his followers.
  
• The ones given admittance to the Kingdom of God would be those who were like a child -- one who has no status, no power, no influence ... but lots of love and trust and devotion to the Father, as well as to the brothers and sisters in Father's family.

Okay, got 'em on? Take a read through Matthew 18 (here it is in The Message).

Have you ever read through this chapter with a single context in mind?

How does 3D change what you see?

...oh, there will be lots more. Later.

A Tale of Two Words....

Okay...the Abbess has been driven from her silence! Jonathan Brink asked this question on Facebook: Is it possible to be both complementarian and egalitarian in gender relationships. And there were 75 comments! There seemed to be a significant amount of talking past each other ... and instead of tacking something on to the end of a conversation that is over, I decided to break my silence here.

While busy doing lots of things that I promise to blog about ... later ... I have begun reading through the manuscript of my ministry mentor (I will be blogging a lot more about this.), giving him another set of eyes with a different view as a way of checking whether he is connecting with his intended readers. This is fabulous work and I am pleased to get to see it as it is being fashioned into a book.

One of the articles Scott sent me to review before sending actual chapters had this section title: Egalitarianism Is Not the Opposite of Patriarchy. Well, that got my attention! He goes on to say that scholars (and their readers), "have largely ignored the fact that patriarchal systems in general and the ancient Mediterranean system in particular socialized men not only to dominate women but also to gain the upper hand over as many other men as possible. Along with social analysts and journalists, they have also mistakenly assumed that the terms egalitarianism and patriarchy describe opposite ends of the same social-political spectrum. Inadvertently, they have blurred the distinctions between two ancient social institutions: politics and kinship. These two missteps lead inevitably away from comprehension of Paul's implicit and explicit critique of the patriarchy of his day."

He goes on to say that the opposite of egalitarianism is not patriarchy as such but monarchy, oligarchy, or despotism. Complementarianism is a term invented fairly recently by Fundamentalist Theologians to disguise the patriarchialism it represents. It is almost as if they vaguely understand that there is a problem with patriarchy ... but the cost of dealing with the problem is too high.

Dr. Bartchy continued: "On the one hand, the term patriarchy belongs to the semantic field of kinship, the realm of the family. On the other hand, the term egalitarian belongs to the semantic field of politics and refers to such things as equal access to the vote, to positions of public leadership, and to ownership of property."

I wrote in the margins of the article this comment: "Perhaps it (egalitarian) is confused because women were largely seen as property being freed from patriarchal tyranny."

Rather than acknowledging that Jesus, and Paul, were first freeing women (and other men) from the domination of patriarchy, complementarianism continues to embrace patriarchy (missing much of Jesus' and Paul's point). Egalitarians mix their apples with oranges when trying to mix kinship with politics ... largely because there is not an opposite to patriarchy that is to be embraced.

Which leads to the title of Scott's book: Call No Man Father. We who believe in Christ Jesus are called to be joint heirs with him as children of our heavenly Father. There is only one Father. Everyone else is a brother or sister.....

This is just the first of many posts to come as I ponder this anew.

Stay tuned.

* * * * * * * *

Update: For some reason I cannot post a comment! This is the first time this has happened to me... maybe Google Chrome has an issue. In the meantime, I would like to add my comment here:

Welcome, gracerules!

If the big shift Jesus called for (and Paul echoed) was for those who were the patriarchs to put down their privilege, the sisters and the children and the slaves and the brothers were not supposed to have an uprising against the fathers -- but those who were fathers or husbands or slave-owners were to radically change the way they interacted with those who they formerly were welcome to dominate.

Subversion of patriarchy was an inside job. ;^) Which also means that it can only be defeated from the inside as well.

Perhaps this is why the church is where it is today ... too many have not heard the call for the fathers to become brothers?

Thanks for visiting and for your comment!