New Thoughts (10/07/18-10/15/18)
How Binding a Rule? (10/08/18)
I will be addressing this passage on two primary heads this time. On the one hand, there are wider questions of how churches relate, and how they are governed. On the other hand, there is the topic of the role of women in the church. I choose to attack the second matter first, in part because it is the more difficult to assess with clear eyes, particularly in the climate of the present day. I will just observe that it’s quite clear that it wasn’t all that much easier in days past, judging by the commentaries. It is a passage that all must wrestle with, man and woman alike, and in so doing, they must wrestle with themselves; with their preconceived notions and with their assumption of societal norms. We must, somehow, address the question of the woman’s role in church not from a perspective of how we should like it to be done, but rather from the perspective of what Scripture actually says. It doesn’t help matters that Scripture seems ambivalent, if not downright contradictory on the subject. Yet, when we think we have found contradiction in Scripture, it ever turns out to be the case that what is truly the case is that we have failed as yet to truly understand.
So, the basic declaration of verses 34-35 is, as Barnes observes, quite clear and seemingly obvious. We know what the instruction says: Women keep silent in the churches. It’s hard to find any justifiable nuance in that statement, isn’t it? And yet, even in this letter, we have seen something different said on the subject. Going back to Chapter 11, Paul did not offer so strong an instruction, but merely sought for a bit of decorum in the process of speaking. Don’t act like wild women, or like those ungovernable. But, nothing was said about ceasing from praying or prophesying. Does this, then, give us cause to limit our understanding here? Now, I’m actually going to postpone that question, because really, it belongs to the next section of the study. The first question we have to consider is just how binding a rule Paul is establishing. And let me stress, we are but considering it. I don’t think we are yet positioned to answer in full. It’s just that we should have these concerns in view as we look more fully at what is taught on the subject.
So, on the one hand, we have those like Barnes who find the message so simply stated, so forthright, as to brook no discussion. On the other, we find Calvin saying that this is a matter of indifference. In our terms, it is a secondary issue. You can believe differently on this topic without need of denouncing one another as heretics. That is not to say, it’s a matter we needn’t care about at all. We are discussing the worship of God, here, not which model of car is best. Given that this pertains to the matter of worship, it cannot be so indifferent as to warrant no thought. Propriety of worship deserves our greatest attention, for we have clear evidence from the Scriptures that God gives it His great attention, and does not take kindly to careless worship.
So, who is right? Is Calvin correct to say that what Paul establishes here is not law, so much as a concern for activities ‘at variance with propriety and edification’? Certainly, given the context of the chapter, I can see where he would come to such a conclusion. But, is it the intended conclusion?
I feel the need to stress the weight of this question. It’s not just a matter for debate. While we can accept that devout Christians can and do arrive at different perspectives on this question based on earnest examination of the Scriptures, what we cannot accept is that the conclusions we reach declare Scripture wrong. We cannot, for example, arrive at our viewpoint on the basis that Paul was wrong, whether in this passage, back in Chapter 11, or elsewhere in his epistles. We cannot write this off as something Paul screwed up because of his background. We may find commonality between what he instructs and what he learned from his training with the Pharisees, but if we see it applied, we must recognize that this is God’s choice, not just Paul’s. If God is not in control of Paul’s writing, then they have no place in Scripture. This is not to say that God dictated and Paul just wrote what he was told, but the Holy Spirit is a perfect editor, and would not permit that which did not correctly instruct the people of God to be given a place in the revealed will of God.
To put it bluntly, if God is not in control of His own Word, then we have nothing reliable on which to stand; the Bible is no more significant than any other book, nor any more trustworthy. We may have learned, in our youth, that textbooks, for example, were trustworthy, that history books and science books were trustworthy presentations of knowledge. I would have to say that we daren’t make such an assumption any longer, and probably shouldn’t have at the time, but this was the thinking. Yet, if they are reliable (or were), the Bible is more so. The Bible, first and foremost, has God as its editor and primary source. It is His self-revelation to man. No other text can or does make the claim. It is, secondly, the single most attested historical text extent. No other ancient text can be evaluated against anywhere near as many authenticated, ancient manuscripts. And yet, no other text is less readily accepted as genuine.
But, here’s the greater risk: If we cannot trust the Scriptures, then we have no trustworthy revelation of Who God Is, or what He wants from us. We have only traditions and opinions, and those are about as trustworthy as quicksand atop oil. If Paul can be wrong in these epistles, then either God can be wrong, which ought rightly to be unthinkable, or God is not in control – something just as horrendous to contemplate. If we cannot trust this, we cannot trust Him. If we cannot trust Him, then we are entirely without hope in this world, and there is no other.
And yet, as I said, we are not yet in position to answer our questions, only to be somewhat painfully aware of them. If, for example, the instruction of this passage is so blunt and straightforward as to brook no variance in interpretation, what are we to make of Deborah, back in the period of the judges of Israel? Was she not a prophetess? Or did the author misunderstand her role? Well, we might say that she was an exceptional case, forced to take up the task because none of the men around her would do so. But, that has some problems, doesn’t it? Was God caught out unprepared, that she needed to step in? Is the prophet’s role something for any person, man or woman, to take up as they see fit? I think not.
What shall we say of Anna, who prophesied over the baby Jesus at His birth? Was she out of order? If so, is it really likely that she should be given a place in the text? Or shall we write that off as Luke’s unwarranted interest in promoting the women involved in those early years? You see the problem, don’t you? The exceptions to the rule become so numerous as to make the existence of the rule somewhat suspect. So, hold these considerations in mind as we proceed. But, before we do, we must add some other questions to the list.
How Strong a Restriction? (10/09/18-10/10/18)
We come to the question of just how strong a restriction Paul is establishing here – and let me stress here. That is to say, what is the context for women keeping silent? Given the prior discussion in Chapter 11, it would seem reasonable to argue that it is not a full, under any circumstances prohibition. And yet, I think that is the more common viewpoint, at least amongst those who seek the meaning of the text and not the support of their preferred view. To be clear: This is not a prejudging of the answer, nor a slight aimed at those who see it differently. But, as Barnes suggests, the language is unambiguous in verse 34 – I would say with one exception, but ‘keep silent in the churches’ is not really something that one would look at and say, “What does he mean by that?”
So, yes, it is unambiguous. And on that basis, Barnes, like many others before and since, arrives at the conclusion that this is in fact a full-out prohibition against women exercising any of these gifts in the setting of gathered worship. Tongues, prophecy, and any other teaching art is declared off-limits, a thing women are not to be engaged in. The issue we have with this as the clear and only possible meaning is that prior teaching in Chapter 11, where no such prohibition is made. I forget exactly who it was, but one of our authors sought to harmonize the two by insisting that there’s no problem at all, because any woman who insisted on exercising such a teaching role, no matter her claim of divine impulse, was clearly not operating under the influence of the Holy Spirit. Right or wrong, that feels just a bit too manufactured for me to accept.
Here’s another possibility, and while it is not the first thing we might think of in reading this passage, it’s not so improbable, given the explanatory point of verse 35. Note that the concern Paul expresses there is that she’s raising questions. Clarke finds this to be cause to restrict the prohibition to that specific issue. If the woman is raising questions, or perhaps voicing objections to certain points being made in the course of a teaching, that is disruptive. Assuredly, this is so, Mr. Clarke, but I would have to ask, is it any less disruptive should the man do it? It seems to me the obvious answer is no, it is not. That said, Paul is a product of his upbringing every bit as much as we, and if we look back at that influence, we have the whole of Jewish practice to consider.
Let us recognize that the Jewishness of Paul’s background, or the reflections of that Jewish training in his instruction neither promotes his instruction as more valid, nor does it render his instruction something we can cast aside as mere cultural influence. The application to a particular church might allow us to treat the matter as less binding, but not the source of the instruction. Even in the case of application we should be careful of setting things aside, for the simple fact remains: The Holy Spirit has sovereign charge over His Word, and did not suffer error or false teaching to enter therein. This includes the choice of those texts which are accounted as canon, as well as the particulars of those texts. Paul’s teaching may, then, reflect much of Jewish practice, but this does not alter the fact that he is establishing the practice of the Church.
In this case, attempting to set the matter aside as cultural application to Corinth specifically, we have a very real problem. If, in fact, the second clause of verse 33 introduces the subject rather than wrapping up the previous discussion, then what Paul offers for instruction here is something that applies ‘in all the churches of the saints’. So, then, whether the prohibition is total, ala Barnes, or just this issue of disruptive questions, ala Clarke, it is not a Corinth-only matter. I think this can be held to be the case even if we allow verse 33 to apply to what precedes it. Others may see it differently. On a different day, it seems likely I would see it differently.
But, back to Clarke for a moment. He is not alone in noticing the Jewish connection. Certainly, what Paul instructs reflects the practice of the synagogue and the temple at least up to the time of the Gospel. Clarke observes the fulfilling of the prophecy of Joel on that first Pentecost. If, as Peter says, this was indeed a fulfillment of that prophecy, then the Spirit was poured out upon man and woman alike. If, in fact, the Spirit was poured out upon man and woman like, does it not stand to reason that man and woman alike might prophesy? If indeed they might prophesy, then by definition they might teach. There is nothing that specifically indicates that the women were present on that occasion, but then, there is nothing that specifically indicates they were not. We have the simple, “They were all together in one place” (Ac 2:1b). Once again, we have the question of how inclusive ‘all’ is. And once again, it’s not clear. But, the prophecy was. Peter’s explanation was. “Even on My bondslaves, both men and women, I will pour forth of My Spirit and they shall prophesy” (Ac 2:18). The only possible question that can be raised here is if this was a one-off, today only, event.
Now, we might suppose that the early church organized itself along the lines of Jewish practice, with men sitting on one side and women on the other. I’ve heard this suggested certainly, and it may very well be that, in spite of the more Gentile composition of the churches even at this juncture, this practice prevailed. After all, Paul always started with an outreach to the Jews in their synagogue, and always prayed that they might come to saving faith in Christ. Would he, then, establish a church wherein they would find things sufficiently familiar to be comfortable, or one that insisted they drop every shred of their former ways? It was going to be hard enough for them to mingle with Gentiles in this fashion, as evidenced in the early controversy with Peter back in Antioch. It would be harder still, given the much reduced, if not entirely eliminated role of the Feasts. Are they to face a situation in which even seating arrangements are foreign to them, and still suppose it is the God of Israel that you worship? That might be asking a bit too much of them.
If, in fact, this is how things were, with men and women across the aisle from one another, you can see how disruptive it would be, should the woman try asking her husband questions. In the synagogue, frankly, this would be unthinkable, and the instruction would be all but unnecessary. On the other hand, having worked for a team of Israelis at one stage, even discussions amongst the menfolk can be, shall we say, vigorous, even when amicable. For us, I suspect the idea of anybody raising questions or objections in the midst of the sermon is unthinkable. It’s just not how we roll. But, it would not have been unusual in the synagogue, which I think took a more discussion-oriented approach to teaching. It might resemble our adult Sunday School settings than the main worship service. Questions might be raised, points debated, perhaps references to other rabbinical teachings noted. But, it was the men who would do so.
Do you see how this reflects in our passage? If you have questions save it for later and ask your husband. That raises yet another issue, but save it for a moment or two. Here is the issue before us. If, in fact, God poured out His Spirit on man and woman alike, and if this was more than a one-time fulfillment, which would seem to be the case, given the evidence that women were in fact praying and prophesying ‘in the Spirit’ here in Corinth, if not elsewhere in the Church, on what basis are they to be restricted from doing so? Would you really insist that she keep silent while the church sings a psalm? I think not. Would you insist that she is not to take the lead in such singing? If the songs we sing in the course of worship are instructional in nature – and they ought to be – mustn’t they come under the same strictures as prophesying? And then, what shall we do with Miriam, who let the Israelites in song on the banks of the Red Sea?
What about prayer? Do we allow the woman to lead us in prayer? I’m not asking after current practice, I’m asking about implications of the text, and the question of how far-ranging Paul’s statement is intended to be. I can see much to Clarke’s argument that at least in these verses, the application is specific: Don’t be asking questions in the service. I’m still a bit perplexed as to why this wouldn’t apply to the men as well, but given the counterbalancing gifts of tongues and interpretation, prophecy and discernment, I suppose some level of questioning was to be expected in that time.
Clarke observes the same cause for the restriction, even if he opts for a more narrow application. The cause remains that such actions usurp the authority given to men. Now, understand that this is not some patriarchal defense of privilege, as it would no doubt be represented to us today. It is a simple matter of order in the church. We’ll come back to that point, I suspect, but for now, simply recognize that the issue isn’t one of sexism in any form, it’s orderliness such as will permit edification.
So, let’s go back to it. Suppose the seating arrangements did not in fact follow Jewish practice. Does that in any way alter the suitability of Clarke’s understanding of the matter? I think not. The disruption might not be so widespread, but I suspect every one of us has experience of the problem. You’re doing your best to remain engaged with the instruction being given, and the one next to you asks, “What did he just say?” Well, chances are that if you just remained silent and continued to listen, you’d be able to infer backward and fill in the blank yourself, but for many, that’s just not the way they operate. The natural inclination is to stop the train and get clarification right now before proceeding. There’s something to be said for that, in fairness, but it does have a tendency to derail the conversation. Or, if you’re the one asked, it forces you to turn your attention from the teaching to the question, and now you have your own gap to fill in. The disruption is in danger of spreading.
What we may not recognize, given that these things tend to happen in a stage-whisper, is that the disruption will not be for these two alone, husband and wife. Others are seated around them, and cannot avoid overhearing the question and any such response as may be forthcoming. They, too, are at risk of being pulled out of the lesson and into your question and answer. This is not edifying. This is distracting. And here’s the part we really don’t want to hear: It’s prideful.
What? Prideful? How is it prideful to seek to understand what’s being taught? Well, to Paul’s point, it’s not prideful to seek to understand. What is prideful is the manner and the moment chosen. By insisting on immediate response, and disrupting, at a minimum, the one to whom you raise your question, you demonstrate that you set your own needs above the needs of others. It’s all but certain that this is done on a sub-conscious level. It’s not you thinking, “I matter more than they do. My needs must be met.” But, that’s what is going on just the same. My needs matter. If they conflict with yours, too bad. I win. As I say, this may well be sub-conscious, but that’s no excuse. It’s just evidence of the need for super-conscientious pursuit of that mindset that sets others above self, which gets us back to the full arc of Paul’s teaching in this letter. Seek love. Count others as more significant than yourself. Seek what will best serve to edify the most of your brothers and sisters, and pursue that.
Does this, however, preclude a prophetic word? If, in fact, the Holy Spirit has given her a prophetic word, then has He not chosen her to speak? Who then will tell Him He is wrong? Or, do we join the view that such a situation is purely hypothetical because the Spirit would never do such a thing; the woman who claims such inspiration is lying? I am still disinclined to pretend to having the answers, but you can see the questions.
Here is one more: Which women are addressed here? I mentioned that the text, while generally unambiguous as to its wording was not entirely so. We still have the question of women and men, or is it wives and husbands? I’ve pointed out in previous studies, including the previous study of this passage, that the same term gunaikes in this case, applies to both woman and wife, and the same term, andras, applies to both man and husband. I might observe the support this lends to the standard position as to husband and wife being one man, one woman, and in that order. Here, however, the understanding of which meaning is in view may have bearing on how we are to understand the restrictions.
I have to say that verse 35 leaves me pretty strongly convinced that it is indeed husband and wife that are in view. The phrase Paul employs, tous idious andras, is a possessive. It is yours, whichever it is. Well, your man would seem odd, and even if we heard it thus, there would be a strong tendency to hear, if not husband, then one well on the way to becoming husband in the statement. We then have idious, but it is not your idiot husband – different term. It is your own husband. I note it can take the sense of acting privately, though. So, there’s still the possibility that we have the whole phrase wrong, and it’s simply direct your questions to the man in private.
Here’s why I find the whole question challenging. If it is in fact wife, ask your husband, then what is to be done by the single woman or the widow? Is this instruction for wives only? Honestly, I think that’s a possibility, and it at least offers us a way of allowing Chapter 11 to comfortably fit with this lesson. If the Spirit uses singles and widows in these gifts, but not wives, then it really is an authority issue. The wife is under the authority of her husband, and for her to thus act as one in authority over him would be a breach of good order, and good order is needful for edification and the exercise of God’s love.
I note that the JFB, on the strength of that phrase, insists it would be unfitting even to ask another man for answers in private. It is her own husband or nothing. I cannot imagine, though, that the same God who saw to it that His children could come to Him regardless of station, providing the sacrifice of two stray pigeons for those too poor to bring their own livestock, would leave the single woman and the widow without recourse in their pursuit of the knowledge of Him. It’s out of character. The Wycliffe observes the problem, but offers no thoughts on the subject. Nothing is said of the matter. Look elsewhere, I suppose. Calvin, however, sees no injunction against directly ‘consulting the Prophets’ outside the setting of gathered worship. It is, after all, the service of worship that is in view, not the rest of the week.
I am not certain we can permit such a conclusion from this passage. However, if we are correct in the surmise that what is in view is the wife asking questions of her husband in the midst of service, then it would make sense to refer her to him in private for the remedy. If, in fact, this is the sole matter that is in view, then we really don’t have a problem at all, do we? She can speak as prophet or in prayer, if in fact this is her gift. But, when sitting under the teaching of others in the church, be a quiet learner. Save the questions for later. Again, my biggest issue with such an understanding is that it would seem it should apply to men just as readily as women.
We have much to resolve if we are to understand the message, do we not? If women can prophesy so long as they are covered, and thus demonstrating their proper submission to the headship of both husband (assuming they are wives) and Christ, why a total injunction here? If this is strictly husband and wife addressed in this passage, is it acceptable for the widow and the single to raise questions? If not, then where do they turn? Is it acceptable for wives to consult their teachers later, or are they stuck with whatever their husbands can offer by way of answer?
I am going to suggest that if we are to find anything approaching a correct answer here, we shall need to look at the full scope of the teaching on the matter. That means not just revisiting Chapter 11, but also those other places where Paul touches on the relative roles of man and woman in the Church. Now that we have our questions in order, perhaps we can pursue that effort.
The Full Teaching (10/10/18-10/12/18)
If ever there is a place for prayerful pursuit of study, this is certainly such a place. So, let us do just that.
Father, I know I can be rather cavalier in my pursuit of study, and negligent as to coming to You in my need for clarity. But, how faithful You have been in spite of this! How I love these mornings of delving into Your Word, seeking to understand better who You are, what You seek of me, and how You are shaping me. Yet, too often, particularly of late, I note that no sooner do I stop and the lesson is all but gone. This is not as it should be. Too often, as well, I find myself a little too impressed with my own words, and too little impressed with Yours. I pray that You might bring correction in these areas, and bring clarity and understanding in this issue of the role of the sexes in Your order of worship.
I confess to being more unsettled on the matter than I ought to be, given the office You have had me in these last several years. I confess, as well, to preconceptions built up from the combination of experiences and past teachings. So, then, as I undertake to look at these several passages that address the question of the woman’s role in Your house, please keep me true to the meaning of the text, open to both the questions and the answers, however much they agree or disagree with what I suppose I know at present. If I am to understand rightly, I shall need Your understanding. This is ever the case, though I so rarely acknowledge it of late. Let not pride convince me that I have all the answers when I don’t even have all the questions. Guide Your servant, that he might in turn be a reliable guide to Your sheep.
I suppose we should begin with the letter we have before us, returning to that earlier chapter – although not all that much earlier so far as the letter is concerned. It just seems that way because I have taken so long to proceed through the text. Let us, then, go back and revisit the first half of Chapter 11. We see the declarations of order. We are to imitate the Apostle as he imitates Christ (1Co 11:1), holding to those things he taught just as he delivered them. Note how this ties rather directly to the questions that close our current passage! It’s been one topic throughout. There is, though, another chain of command laid out. God is head of Christ is head of every man, and each man is the head of a woman (1Co 11:3). Note the articles carefully: the man is head of a woman. The definite article is present for man, absent for woman, and I believe (if I followed Pastor’s explanation correctly) this still implies the indefinite article for woman unless she is the direct object of ‘is’, which she is not. Head is the direct object, thus the missing article for head is taken as ‘the’, but for woman, ‘a’ is more appropriate. Too pedantic? I think not. Rather, it makes pretty clear where that authority applies. It is not a general, men have headship over women in all cases. It is each man has headship over one woman (I will infer at most) – his own wife. What, you might ask, of daughters? Well, they, too are under his authority or headship, but they are under the authority of his wife as well. So, then, they are simply not in view in this section.
We proceed into what is, for us, a rather odd discussion about head coverings. Being of an age when hats are rare, and but a few denominations consider this as applying in any literal sense to the present day, the whole discussion seems a bit of an anachronism. Can’t we just edit this out for the modern age? No. But, we must work harder at finding the point and its application. What did the head covering signify? It was a mark of submission to another, and I would insist, another earthly, authority. The wife wore her head covering as a marker of her marital status. It’s not a burka, mind you, but there are similarities insomuch as it declared this one taken and belonging to another. For the man in God’s house, then, Paul concludes any such emblem would be an utter disgrace (1Co 11:4), yet for the woman, it remains a necessity, if she would wish to be seen as something other than a temple prostitute.
And there, I think, we get at the core of the injunction. We see, throughout this letter, the ways in which Corinth had been melding pagan practice to Christian worship. It’s no surprise. It’s the culture they brought through the door with them, and much as we would do, it colored their approach to worship, because it was what they knew. At the same time, they were discovering this marvelous liberty in Christ. Paul’s admonition, then, is to not allow liberty to become license. Women, just because you carry a message borne of the Spirit does not mean you are to throw off the normal order. It does not render you liberated from the headship of your husband any more than it renders you liberated from the headship of Christ. Order remains. Don’t, then, take this liberty and twist it into the shapes familiar from your pagan past. The temple prostitutes go bareheaded. Don’t you do likewise. They also shave their heads to make clear that they are not infested. Indeed, that’s the chief reason for being bareheaded. It allows ready inspection by the clients. Is this what you would have thought of you?
But, the passage proceeds, and this is where it gets more difficult for us. “For indeed man was not created for the woman’s sake, but woman for the man’s sake” (1Co 11:9). Is it not clear, then? Man has authority over woman. Or, is it more husband over wife? Further, the passage continues by saying that in the Lord, neither is woman independent of man, nor is man independent of woman (1Co 11:11). This circles back to original point regarding the chain of authority, as all things originate from God. So, as to authority and as to order, the man takes precedence although there remains this interdependency. What we cannot suppose from what is in this passage is any superiority of the man. It’s not a matter of quality or character, any more than is our salvation. It’s simply what God ordained. It holds because He, the Head, has so commanded.
Perhaps we would be better served to look elsewhere. How about the letter to Ephesus? Towards the end of Ephesians 5 we find our subject once more addressed, but let’s get back to the start of that chapter and set some context. The general instruction is to be as children imitating God our Father, by walking in love, as Christ loved us (Eph 5:1-2). And the extent of that love is arresting, isn’t it? For He ‘gave Himself up for us, an offering and a sacrifice to God as a fragrant aroma’. There’s your model, boys. This proceeds to a lengthy section regarding the avoidance of immorality, impurity, and greed. This is followed by a reminder of the Light, Whose children we are, and that ‘all things become visible when they are exposed to the light, for everything that becomes visible is light’ (Eph 5:13). That’s a rather enigmatic statement, but I would take it to indicate that what the Light of Christ exposes is Christ-likeness in the elect. This is not cause for negligent ease, but for diligent care and attention to His will (Eph 5:15-17). It is a call to live this new lifestyle in which we speak to each other in psalms, hymns, and spiritual songs, giving thanks for all things in the name of our Lord Jesus (Eph 5:19-20). Then comes the more challenging instruction.
“Be subject to one another in the fear of Christ; wives to your own husbands, as to the Lord” (Eph 5:21-22). This draws us right back to the message of our own letter, doesn’t it? That oughtn’t to surprise, given that the letter to Ephesus was written, as I recall, from Corinth. I suspect that might have fueled the concerns for immorality as well, given the nature of that city, and its clear impact on the church. So, we come to this: Husband is head of wife, as Christ is head of church, and here, we go back to the opening thought, as He is, in this role, the Savior of the body (Eph 5:23). As church is to Christ, so wife is to be to husband. But, note well: This sets at least as difficult and lofty a necessity upon the husband as upon the wife: She is to be to you as the Church is to Christ. He gave Himself up for the Church. There is your model. Just so, husbands ought also to love their own wives as their own bodies (Eph 5:25-28). See the concluding thought: Paul’s primary objective is the life of the Church, that mystery relationship of which marriage is a type. Nevertheless, the message applies to the type: Let each of you love his own wife as himself, and let each wife see that she respects her husband (Eph 5:32-33).
What have we learned? Again, there is that tension of mutual subjection, but in such a fashion that leaves the husband in caring charge. It is not given to him to be a tyrant, nor even a benevolent dictator, but rather, a loving shepherd. I am reminded of the imagery that came up in a recent Table Talk issue covering Psalm 23. The shepherd was comforter and defender, provider and warrior. That’s the idea, I think. And, as they subject themselves to one another, with the husband in this more masculine role, there is a place for the wife’s respect for him to grow. It is not guaranteed, mind you, for we remain fallen people in a fallen relationship in a fallen world. But, it’s possible. As she sees that his actions are taken in loving care, not domineering demand; as she comes to recognize the dangers he willingly faces, the self-sacrificial actions he undertakes to see to her well-being, respect is the natural response.
Now, it must be said, that while this focuses on the marital relationship, he has in fact pointed us to the larger picture of the Church, and the context in which this passage is set clearly concerns the larger Church. It’s not a lesson for marrieds only. It’s for all. The married are simply the clearest visible example. Or, at least, they ought to be. That’s a part of the purpose of marriage, to be this visible example. I do not see, however, any direct injunction against women participating as teachers in the church in this case. Indeed, we might suppose them included in the call to speak to one another in psalms, hymns, and spirituals, as well as in giving thanks to God. Is this not at a minimum singing and prayer? And, in fairness, how far removed is proper singing of songs such as he commends from teaching? Our songs are not just mindless melodies, one hopes. The songs of David are certainly instructive. Many of our own songs take as their topic the words of David. Many others deliver theological riches in a pleasant tonal package. Are they not instruction? Is it still acceptable that the woman might actually lead a song, or ought this to cause us to gasp at the insolence of such an act? The call is to be subject, not to be silent; at least in this body of instruction. Indeed, we might say the call is to not be silent.
Well, let’s try the other proof text that always comes up in this discussion. I speak, of course, of that letter of advice sent to Paul’s favorite student, Timothy. More than advice, it is a command entrusted to Timothy (1Ti 1:18). That command begins in earnest starting in chapter 2. Pray for all, including kings and authorities, knowing that God desires all to be saved and come to know His Truth (1Ti 2:1-8). That concludes with, “Therefore I want all men in every place to pray.” Well, is that men as in humankind, or men in exclusion to women? Good question. What follows gives us cause to suppose the latter. For now, he turns to the women. “Likewise, women should adorn themselves modestly, not in showy, expensive garments” (1Ti 2:9-10). The ‘likewise’ suggests a change of focus from men to women, although the call set upon them ought rightly to be set upon men as well. It is not our finery that is our adornment, but rather, good works. I admit it’s a bit of a mystery to me why he keeps this focused so exclusively on the women. Perhaps the men of the region in which Timothy taught were not particularly inclined to such self-adornment, although I’ve not read anything to suggest this was the case.
Now comes the hard part, the part touching on our immediate concerns. “Let a women quietly receive instruction with entire submissiveness. But I do not allow a woman to teach or exercise authority over a man, but to remain quiet” (1Ti 2:11-12). This is again referred back to the Creation order. Adam came first, and remember, it was Eve who was deceived, not Adam (1Ti 2:13-14). Now, you will find many who will quibble with Paul’s assessment here. Surely, Adam’s sin was the greater because he knowingly joined her. He hadn’t been listening to the Deceiver, as she had, or at least we are given no evidence of him doing so. He failed as her teacher and protector. All that may well be so, and yet, Paul’s words to us here in this letter must be accepted as Truth. They remain the Word of God. It does not, I must observe, declare Adam innocent in the matter. It simply points out that her deception began the Fall. His complicity didn’t render him innocent, but neither did it remove her role in the matter.
So, on the basis of the Fall, Paul insists that the woman should not be granted to teach or exercise authority over the man. It’s rather like he’s saying, “Look what happened last time we tried that.” This really gets us to the crux of the issue, though, and it’s a point we’ve seen raised by our various commentaries. To teach is, by its very nature, to exercise a sort of authority. If we are to hold that prophesying is teaching, then this, too, must be ruled out, mustn’t it? And again, I find myself back at the matter of song. If our songs impart doctrinal Truths, how are they not teaching?
I’ll be honest. I don’t particularly like where this letter leaves us on the subject, but I don’t see a lot of room to dance around the seemingly obvious message. “Let a woman quietly receive instruction with entire submissiveness.” I don’t think we can write this one off as simply a matter of raising questions or objections during the teaching. If it were just that part, I might be able to convince myself to see that as the intention, but it has that follow on. “I do not allow a woman to teach or exercise authority over a man.” That’s pretty hard to argue away.
Titus also offers something on the subject; although we might suggest that here Paul addresses wider issues of culture, and not just the service of worship. It is a brief discourse on orthopraxy, living out sound doctrine. In this, Paul speaks to men and women separately. The instruction to each is not all that different, really, but is differently emphasized so as to address the innate differences that define the two sexes. Men are to be temperate and dignified, for instance, and sound in faith, love, and perseverance. Women are to avoid gossip and overdoing it with the wine, instead being reverent teachers of what is good (Ti 2:1-3).
Wait. Did Paul just instruct women to teach? Isn’t that contradicting what he told Timothy? No, for it continues, and what follows indicates where that teaching applies: In encouraging younger women. That is to say, older women should instruct the younger women in righteousness. They should love their husbands and their children. They should work at home. They should be subject to their own husbands (Ti 2:4-5).
And men: Similar call. Young men should be taught to be sensible, showing pure doctrine by good deeds, acting in a dignified manner, speaking in an appropriate manner. The instruction spreads from there to address societal relations, such as those of the slave. But, the sum of it is this: Give those who oppose the Church nothing by which to put the Church to shame, don’t provide them fuel for their calumnies (Ti 2:7-10).
So, then, while this does address the relationship of husband and wife, I’m not sure we could really accept that it has any bearing on the matter of gathered worship. That’s not the focus. The focus is on what you do when you go home after worship. How do you live it?
The passage in 1Peter 3 has a similar focus. It is looking at how we can live out our faith in trying circumstances. When Peter calls for wives to be submissive to their own husbands, it is with a distinctly evangelistic purpose. They may be won without a word by your behavior (1Pe 3:1). Peter likewise draws forth from the deep wells of Scripture to indicate that this has been a longstanding order. He chooses Sarah as his example, who adorned herself with submission to her own husband (1Pe 3:5-6). And, again like Paul, Peter does not leave the husbands to be dictators, but calls upon them to ‘live with your wives in an understanding way’, and honor her as a fellow heir to grace, a partner in prayer (1Pe 3:7). Again: a good lesson for relations in general, but not specifically addressing the worship service.
It seem, then, that we have primarily this text, and the letter to Timothy to guide our thinking, and as I observed from the Timothy text, it really doesn’t give us much opportunity to add nuance to the message, not that we really ought to be looking for such opportunity. “I do not permit a woman to teach or exercise authority over a man” is just too direct to admit of any other interpretation, isn’t it?
The Wider Application (10/12/18-10/13/18)
Where, then, have we arrived? I find the evidence of 1Timothy particularly compelling, as concerns the varied roles of men and women in the service of worship. I do think it leaves many questions unanswered, and in particular the one I have raised in regard to leading songs or prayer. It seems to me that to allow this activity is inconsistent with the Complementarian view. If they are not permitted to teach men, does this not encompass all aspects and methods of teaching?
I can concur with Clarke that Paul’s concern in our text is with disorder and disobedience. And, were this the only text to address the nature of gathered worship – if we did not have the letter to Timothy – I might accept his conclusion that it is only the matter of interrupting with questions that is in view. But, I think we must accept that the scope of disorder is wider than that example. The whole discussion on church order has encompassed this topic of disorder. That has not simply been about men and women. It has addressed all manner of disruptive practices, from all trying to teach at once, to praying in an unbecoming fashion, to abusing the ordinances. It has all really come down to pride versus love. All the actions which are rejected are demonstrative of pride, or what Barnes likes to refer to as ostentation. It’s what I have been calling the Church of “Look at me!”
Clarke wants to exclude those upon whom God poured out His Spirit from this injunction, and I can certainly see why he would. But, we need to be careful, I think. At minimum, we should need to limit any such exclusion to those upon whom God has truly poured out His Spirit, and not allow it to apply to those who merely think it to be the case. But, even then, given the rest of this chapter, I think we attempt an exclusion that is not given. Nothing is said to suggest that those who have been jostling for position in exercising gifts of tongues or prophecy were fakers, or dupes of lying spirits. It’s not the sources that have been called into question, but the fallen flesh of those who have received. The validity of the gift has not been denied. The deployment of the gift has been corrected.
Disorder is indeed the issue, because, as Barnes writes, “Where there is disorder, there is little religion. Religion does not produce it.” Set aside any negative connotations you have been taught to associate with religion. Religion is not some bad, faith-damping behavior peculiar to the old guard. Religion is what this is all about: It’s the body of doctrine taught and the body of doctrine lived. Where sound doctrine is soundly lived, it will not produce disorder for the very simple reason that its Author is not a God of confusion, but of peace (1Co 14:33a). All that is written in this chapter, all that is presented in Scripture in regard to the nature of worship, and the nature of the life formed by worship flows from that basic understanding. If God is orderly, so too ought to be His people. Worship is not to devolve into frenzy, as it did with the worshipers of Baal, as it did with so many of the gods of Rome and Greece, as it does even to this day with the Muslims and, sadly, with certain branches of Christianity. It misrepresents God to serve Him thus, for our service is to be given in emulation. Thus, Paul’s repeated call in this letter: Imitate me (1Co 4:16); imitate me as I imitate Christ (1Co 11:1). If I cease to emulate Him, by no means take me as your example. But, then, find one who does and emulate him.
Do you see how that same mindset addressed the question of societal relations that we just looked at? This is the same basis for that instruction on marital relations, familial relations, and workplace relations. In all these things emulate your Master as a good disciple. Demonstrate His character by yours, that you may be a successful ambassador of Christ. Do not be conformed to the world. Rather be transformed by the renewing of your mind (Ro 12:2), and so, become transformative. Do you wish to make a difference in this world? Then cease trying to please it, and cease trying to make the Church look like it. How can you make a difference by trying to be the same?
But, back to our more internal issue of church life. The issue, as I said, is one of ostentation, but it is ostentation, in this case, because it is usurpation. It is taking on an unsuitable role. It is never suitable to assume office for oneself. One is called, or one has no business there. Aaron didn’t assume the priesthood. He was called to it, ordered to it. David did not assume kingship, even with the anointing of God clearly delivered upon him. Saul, on the other hand, assumed the priestly role to himself, and look where that got him. As regards those who lead the church in our own day, it is no different. To assume the office of elder to oneself, or to simply shove one’s way into the pulpit, as it were, is never right. Sadly, I should have to say that in many cases, this is what has happened. Many a church is saddled with a pastor who was never called, but assumed the office unbidden. This, it should be clear, is the Devil’s own influence, who was first to try the game of usurpation. It’s his MO. And, it’s a failing model we ought rightly to avoid at all cost.
How wonderful it should be if our politics could return to such a mindset, if indeed it ever truly reflected such! Imagine a political class that was not self-seeking and power mad. Imagine leadership that was called to serve because of a widely recognized quality and capacity for office, rather than simply because they had better backing and hired better advertisers. Imagine a leadership that actually led, rather than making fine speeches.
On the contrary, imagine a church led by the likes of most of our political class. Imagine an elder board more concerned with their own prestige and position than with the well-being of the church. Imagine a pastor who is only in it for the money. I’d like to think that’s unimaginable, but if it is, it’s only because there are too many real-life examples to require us to use imagination.
This is the issue that informs Paul’s instruction on women teaching. For them to take up the teacher’s role would be a usurping of the ordained order. Note: It is not man who ordained it so, but God. God has established an order. He having established it, we can know that it is good. We can also know that it is purposeful. If you have been given a charter to teach, it is good that you do so, and will serve the purpose of God. By corollary, we must accept that refusing to do so at least attempts to counter the purpose of God. That holds for Moses insisting that God got the wrong man to go deal with Egypt. That holds for us saying this isn’t the time because we’re too busy with other things. Oops.
Why does Paul insist that women ought not to teach men? If our commentators are correct, it is because the office of teacher by its very nature entails a degree of authority. My, but if you are teaching and have not at least the authority of knowing your subject, you probably ought to cease and desist immediately before you do irreparable harm to your students! But, certainly in the culture of that day, (and I don’t really think it’s changed,) the teacher is an authority figure. It’s true in our colleges. It’s truer in our churches. Now, without leveling any suggestion of inequality, what is said is simply that God has appointed certain people to certain duties. Men have one set of duties, and women another. Is that so hard to accept?
Would we accept that children and adults ought rightly to have equal footing and equal opportunity to serve in any given office? Would you cheerfully hand over the reins of your corporation to a toddler? Would you be well-served by a teenager in the White House? Hopefully, we can still recognize that such things would be not merely foolhardy but downright dangerous. Why? We’re all equal in the sight of God, aren’t we? Well, yes we are. Nothing said here has altered that fact. But, I still don’t want my plumber trying to serve as my surgeon, nor my surgeon as my plumber. Both are eminently useful individuals in their appropriate endeavors. Both are likely to be a disaster trying to fill one another’s shoes.
The point is to avoid becoming a distraction. In the worship of God, God is doing something. In pursuit of that which He is doing, He has ordained particular offices, particular activities, and a particularly orderly flow to gathered worship. Why? Is He just OCD? No. Is He a control freak? No. But, He is orderly and peaceful in His own being. He will have an orderly and peaceful people to worship Him in an orderly and peaceful fashion. This is at least a portion of what it means to worship Him in Spirit and in Truth.
A wider application might consider the point that God has made distinctions, and these we ought to recognize and respect. Certainly, in spite of modern attempts to dissuade us of this obvious truth, there are distinctions between male and female, and distinct roles befitting husband and wife. They are befitting by our nature, although nature will admit to exception. They are befitting, more to the point, because God has ordained it so. It is not a case of God likes you more, or God likes me more. It is not a case of God declaring one or the other incapable when it comes to the particular duty. It is quite simply this: He has assigned you this duty and not your spouse. He has assigned your spouse their duty, and not you.
Thinking, as we are intended to do here, in the setting of the Church, He has assigned His gifts to His people according to His plan and purpose. The main focus here has been on using your assigned gift according to the instructions on the label, as it were, but there is also the undercurrent of not trying to exercise the gift not given. If you are not possessed of the gift of teaching, don’t teach. If you are not, more importantly yet, called to that office, don’t assume it. Don’t take it as your right or some such nonsense. There is nothing shameful in not being called to any particular office. Your gift may not involve offices at all, and what of it? Shall you therefore reject what God has given? Rather, respect the gift given you and use it to edify your brothers and sisters, as you glorify God together.
Now, it must be observed, going back to that more intimate relationship of husband and wife, that if a requirement has been set upon her to hold her questions for later, a requirement has also been set upon him to do his best to answer those questions. She is not silenced because she is stupid, or unworthy to learn. If it came down to worth, we should all have to be silent! No, it’s simply an outwardly directed concern for others, a love for them that takes their edification as more important than one’s own. But, now we are home, now the lesson has been fully imparted. Yet questions remain. The husband’s own outwardly directed concern for others ought to compel him to enter into that postponed discussion with earnestness, offering answers where he may, and seeking out the answers where he does not have them.
Husbands, you are called to be ready! Much like the sudden need to defend your wife from physical danger will not admit a delay while you go train and prepare, so her need for answers on these serious matters of faith should not have to wait for the day when you’ve managed to get around to looking into the matter. Were I to consider my own semi-glacial pace of study, such a pause would likely last years. No, husband, that’s not the way, but be prepared, in season and out, to give answer. And if your preparations fail to provide an answer in spite of your good efforts, then it behooves you to seek it in the council of those in your church family who might have them. There is no shame in confessing, “I don’t know.” It is, however, shameful to stop there.
I like, as well, the implications of the approach Paul advises. For, if she has the option of asking when they get home, this implies that discussions of the things learned during gathered worship are the expected practice. We are not supposed to be a church that comes together for entertainment. We are not supposed to be forgetting the sermon as soon as we exit the doors. I’ll grant that some amount of learning will happen even with such a lackadaisical approach, but it’s the little bit gained by osmosis, not the rich nutrients that might come of fully digesting the lesson. Is it any wonder that preachers find it necessary to repeat the same points over and over again? They know us! They know us, of course, because they know themselves. We’re all forgetful people, and it requires earnest effort for us to hold fast to what we have heard.
Consider. My morning practice has been to review the day’s devotional in Table Talk before beginning my efforts here. But, get me five minutes into this exercise and how much do I recall of what Table Talk had to say? That’s a matter of five minutes, and it’s all but gone from memory! What about last week’s sermon? I can tell you the book, and the approximate text. Can I recall the point? Not really, no. It’s no fault of the preacher, though. It’s me. It’s mankind. Blame it where you will, we are a forgetful lot.
Part of our problem, I think, is that we come to view the worship service as a passive activity. We come, we sit, we listen politely, and then we go home. But, another piece of human nature is our tendency for day dreaming. If we are not proactively reining in our thoughts and focusing our attention on the message, then our thoughts will drift elsewhere. It may be silly thoughts like wondering what lunch will be. It may be more serious matters, like chewing over events of the last week, or mental review of tasks that lie ahead in the next. But, these have no place in the present. You came here to worship God, not to set up your day planner. If you are here to worship God, what are you doing center stage? Here, I think, is our greatest issue of orderliness in the Church, and it’s all but invisible. Are you present? Are you engaged? If you catch yourself drifting, what shall you do?
This goes back to something we saw in the last section, as well. If you’re having your own private worship service there in the pew, reading a different text because it happened to catch your eye, or maybe you’re bored by the sermon or some such, you’re out of order. You’re isolating yourself from the family of which God made you a part. It’s wrong. It’s offensive, even if He is the only one who really notices. And frankly, if He’s offended, isn’t that what really matters? The things hidden will be brought into the light, and this self-centered pseudo-piety is bound to be on the list. It reeks of a sense of superiority, a determination that it is beneath you to be bothered with what’s going on in service. You’ve advanced beyond these mere normal, and only come because of a sense of duty or some such nonsense. But, what you’re not doing in that moment is worshiping God, whatever you’ve convinced yourself, and whatever your appearance. You have made yourself a church of one, and this is not the practice in any church of the saints.
Recognize that last point: There is no private practice of Church. There is no individualistic approach to God. I am inclined to argue, as I have before, that there is no private message from God. That is not to say that He never speaks to an individual on an individual basis, for clearly He does. We would have no Bible to read were it otherwise. Every one of the Prophets, every one of the Apostles – Paul most certainly, John clearly, but the others as well – had this personal input. But, observe! It was not for them to keep to themselves. It was given to be given. You don’t get to have a personal revelation that is uniquely yours. You don’t get to have a private interpretation that simply blows off any interpretation that differs (2Pe 1:20). What is given is given for all.
Likewise, what is given as the nature of worship and practice is given for all. Over and over we hear this from Paul. This is not something unique to you. It is the practice of all the churches of the saints. What I give you as doctrine is no different than what I give everybody else. I don’t have one gospel for you, another for these folks in this other city. There is one gospel, one body of doctrine, one holy God, one Catholic Church. That is not, to be unnecessarily clear, the Roman Catholic Church that is in view. It is a matter of universality and unity. It is universal in that it transcends location and, I should observe, it transcends denomination. It is not so universal as to encompass the Universalist perspective of accepting faith in most anybody or anything. It is universal in unity, and that unity is a unity of doctrine. Yes, we have our distinctives and our points of debate, but as concern the core tenets of the Gospel, and the singular claim Christ has to being our Lord and Savior, no debate can be admitted in the house of God. God is One. Whether, then, you worship Him from the pews of a Baptist church or a Methodist, a Calvinist church or a Charismatic, it is either the God revealed in Scripture who is worshiped and whose Truths are imparted, or it is no church.
There is no variant gospel that is worthy of acceptance. Would that I could simply say there is no variant gospel, but variant gospels abound. They are, every one of them, an abomination, the work of the devil, and rightly to be condemned. The Scriptures admit of no other response. Claims that such a rejection of any new teaching amount to the same hidebound failure as the Pharisees are attempts at misdirection. For one, that was not the issue with the Pharisees. Their issue was having replaced sound doctrine with more readily maintained human traditions. They had lowered the bar until they could clear it, and then declared that holiness. Their issue was hypocrisy, an issue we surely share, for we, too, are fallen critters. But, the issue was not that they refused to allow novel interpretations of Scripture. The issue was that they failed to understand Scripture.
Edified by Other Churches (10/15/18)
I suspect I shall find as I move into the next passage, that I had second thoughts about retaining verse 36 as part of this one. But, for now, let us wrap up the current study in two steps. First, I would look at verse 36 as it serves to sum up the issue to date. That issue, as Calvin observes, is the haughtiness that displays in the Corinthians. As individuals, they were exceedingly, if not exclusively self-centered. This shows in the corrections that have had to be brought in regard to their practices. They came with their gifts, but not to serve others, only to aggrandize self. They came to the love feast, but not to love one another, only to seek or demonstrate advantage. They proudly proclaimed their liberty in Christ, but not to counter legalistic tendencies, only to excuse sins.
It is no wonder, then, that when they came together as a church, that church as a whole was similarly self-centered. This shows in the necessity of repeatedly pointing out that there were other churches with a shared common practice. Corinth was neither the be-all, end-all of churches, nor the wellspring from whence Christianity had sprung up. They were part of a larger community, a larger fellowship – the One Catholic Church. But, their choices in worship gave no respect for the churches which had planted them, nor for those that they might have planted. Calvin looks at this sad situation, and wisely looks to his own day. It’s not just here as a dusty history lesson. It’s here for our edification. His reaction? “Would to God that there were no Corinth in our times, in respect of this fault, as well as of others!” Sadly, this is not the case.
What of us? Is the modern church free of Corinthians? Hardly. Everywhere we turn, it seems, we find individual churches or even whole denominations seemingly throwing off the entire two thousand year history of Christianity and striking out on their own course. If it’s not the church of “Look At Me”, it’s certainly the church of “We Know Better”. Every time we see a new ‘movement’ arising, we ought to be at the very least suspect. Chances are it’s little more than a new program. Chances are that the new program doesn’t so much as dip a toe into the stream of theological conformity, won’t even give a nod to doctrinal continuity. We know better. We have no need of Calvin or Luther, of Augustine or Athanasius. Why, we barely have need of the Apostles! Indeed, we’re not quite certain that they got the message straight. Pretty sure we’ve corrected a few spots there. This is the modern perspective. We hear of it as the new perspective on Paul, or the search for the historical Jesus, or the primitive church movement, or any number of other so-called innovations.
“How intolerably assuming is this behavior!” Those are Matthew Henry’s words in response to Corinth’s tendency to assume an authority they didn’t have. I can only imagine that it would likewise be his reaction to much of what passes for church in our day. Paul, he notes, was fully adept at delivering a rebuke with all authority when such rebuke was needful. And there is no question but that verse 36 starts one of the severest rebukes found in this epistle – and that’s saying something!
What it ought to be saying to us, at minimum, is that this is no squabble over preferences, such as we might expect over a change to the paint color in the lobby, or the carpets in the sanctuary. This is a serious issue, and one that must be corrected if the church in question is to survive and remain part of the kingdom of God. Now, the Calvinist in me cringes at the implications of that statement. Surely, if this were a true church, then it must persist. But, the truer statement is that the true church, which may or may not have been within a given local church militant, absolutely will persist. That said, though, if the local church is determined to go its own way, God will let it go, removing His lampstand from their midst. But, until and unless He sovereignly determines that the local church is dead to Him, our call is to reprove that which needs reproving in hopes of a full-throated repentance on their part.
Matthew Henry writes, “Those must be reproved and humbled whose spiritual pride and self-conceit throw Christian churches and assemblies into confusion, though such men will hardly bear even the rebukes of an apostle.” Have you any doubt of the accuracy of that assessment? It is widespread today, this tendency to reject all correction. It is widespread in the church, or at least the so-called church. John rightly spoke of such men as antichrist, and that spirit is rampant today as it has bene from the outset. Today, we might readily insist that antichrist has a bigger megaphone, and has learned to use it to great advantage. The web is full of such false preachers spreading their poison to a worldwide audience that is found willing to pay for their own poisoning. Would to God it weren’t so, but where we encounter it, much as we would doubtless prefer to stay well clear of it, we must, I fear, sully ourselves with their message sufficient to bring reproof to those who may yet be reached for repentance.
Hear, O, Church! There is one God, and one Word of God given to “all the churches.” You know, you’d think this message was declared often enough to protect the believer from a tendency to go chasing after some other teaching, but clearly it is not. I know I’ve hit on this point already during this study, but it’s important. What we have in the written Word of God, the Holy Scriptures consisting of those books agreed upon as canon by the councils of the holy Church is that one Gospel we are to believe. Cursed is he who adds to them, and cursed is he who removes so much as one word from them (Rev 22:18-19). This is serious. It’s serious enough that Paul, who really needs no new perspective, writes, “Even if it’s me bringing the word, or an angel from heaven: If it’s contrary to the gospel which we have preached to you, let him be accursed. I’ve said it before. I say it again now: If any man is preaching to you a gospel contrary to that which you received, let him be accursed” (Gal 1:8-9). It’s not just the Judaizers, although they remain active enough in modified fashion today. It’s not just the Gnostics, although they, too, are plenty active today. It’s every attempt to play fast and loose with the Word of God, or to discount it in favor of whatever the purported winds of the Spirit are doing today. I tell you plainly, if what that spirit is doing is not pointing us to the Word of God and the God of the Word, it is not the Spirit whose wind fills your sails, but the spirit of antichrist.
So, then, I am perfectly content to maintain that this Word of God, given to “all the churches” was given for all time. There shall be no updates, nor are any needed. We have been given, in this text, everything needful for salvation and for holiness. We have been granted to observe the whole plan of God, start to finish, in its pages. What did you expect to find added? You don’t like the way God has chosen to organize His church? Take it up with Him. You don’t think His methods are effective in this modern age? He did more with twelve imperfect men that you will ever do with all the powers of the Internet, and all the computers that shall ever be made. Not to worry. He’s got it well in hand. For my part, I will not relinquish the Scriptures to whatever new teaching comes along. I will hold to the text God gave, knowing full well that there is to be no update. Our call is not to invent and improve, or to reimagine church. Our call is to stand and stand some more. Let the charges of being a Pharisee come. They demonstrate no error in us, but rather a lack of comprehension on the part of those leveling the charges. “Stand fast, young mule. Stand fast.”
You will forgive me, I hope, if I allow Mingus to provide a word of encouragement to the people of God. I know nothing of his faith. I know that advice, however, is sound advice for the people of God, when it comes to the Apostolic Word of God made sure. Learn from it. Learn what other churches have already learned. Why do you suppose Paul keeps pointing them out? You’re not alone!
I think of the issues that beset our own church when we were convinced we knew better. It was not a matter of doctrine, at least not directly, but rather a recovery from losing a long-serving pastor. Good council was received, but the general sense was, we know better. We’ll set our own course. And so the church did, and suffered for it. Arguably, it still feels somewhat of the fallout from that decision to this day, although the church did eventually repent of that foolishness and pursue the course originally advised.
As concerns Corinth, it is often noted – in fact, I have often noted it – that they are the only church in which we find any discussion of these gifts. Were they, then, the only church to experience them? It’s tempting to think so, particularly if your inclination is to write off the gifts as some sort of historical anomaly. Much easier to discount them if it was just something about Corinth. But, is it just something about Corinth? I don’t believe so. The repeated reference to the practice in all the churches would seem to preclude any idea that Corinth had, in fact, been given a unique outpouring of the Spirit. More likely, the case is as Matthew Henry suggests; that those other churches had maintained orderly use of their gifts, and so required no correction. Given that this was the norm, neither was their cause to commend them for finally getting it right. It’s not, then, that gifts were absent in other churches, but that other churches, while they had their disorders, did not have disorder in the gifts or in their general approach to gathered worship.
The point, as Calvin writes, is to learn from what other churches have already learned. It’s not just the gifts. It applies far more widely. It’s almost that famous Santayna message again, isn’t it? “Those who are ignorant of history are doomed to repeat it.” I’m paraphrasing from memory, so the exact wording is doubtless off, but the point remains. “These things were written for our edification, upon whom the ends of the age have come” (1Co 10:11). The primitive churches had only the Old Testament as the written word for edification. We have the benefit of the New Testament; the Gospels, the Epistles, the Revelation. We have the benefit of millennia of wise and gifted fathers of the Church teaching sound doctrine, countering false doctrine, and always turning us back to that Word of God, once given. The point is to learn from it.
What will we do with it in our own day? Have we once again concluded that our judgment is better than that of other churches? Certainly, we suffer such inclinations as we cast our eyes across other denominations. Obviously, we have a better grip on doctrine, else we would go there instead. But, that’s hubris speaking, not wisdom. What of history? Do we write off every tradition that’s older than our own generation? Many do. Should we join them? The answer by now is obvious. No, we should not. We should look at Corinth not as an example of a magnificent outpouring of the Spirit, but as a case study in how to get it wrong.
That assessment begins to come clear with the closing verse here. If, in fact, you were the only church in existence in all time and space, perhaps you could assume the right to define how things are done. Even then, you should be wrong, for God alone has that right. But, maybe we can soften it just a bit: You have the right to declare what it was God said, and figure out how to put it into practice. But, barring Adam, there has never been such a church, and even Adam didn’t do such a great job of it, did he? The problem we are shown here, the problem that Corinth is being forcefully reminded about, is that if they have the right to differ, so does everybody else. There is no catholic church, just a random collection of unlike groups who happen to apply the same name to their individual idols. The question, then, is will you obey the historical tenets of orthodoxy, or will you insist that your judgment excels all others throughout history?
I’m sure those in the Roman Catholic church would look at the Protestant Reformation and insist that this is exactly what happened on that occasion. I’m equally sure that many, if not most of the Reformers shared that concern. Luther, we well know, did not wish to launch a new denomination, or to abandon the Church of Rome. No. The Church of Rome abandoned him, and abandoned the clear text of Scripture. Calvin likewise sought reform, not rejection. But, when those whose repentance you seek come seeking your life instead, it will tend to shape your response.
I’ll conclude with this thought from my first pass through the passage. “That Church even transcends the bounds of time. It extends back to Adam, and it extends forward to the day of Christ’s return and beyond, onward into eternity. It needs no new order, for it is ordered according to the perfect plan of its perfect Head and Founder.” Or has it come to you only? To the faithful, I once more say, “Stand fast young mule. Stand fast.” And may we be found thus standing, having built upon the firm foundation of the Word, when Christ returns.
