Was Peter the First Pope?

Great apologetics essay by The Aristophrenium...and excellent example of why the synthetic principle (of hermeneutics) disallows us from building an entire doctrine upon ONE VERSE:

Was Peter the First Pope?

Hermeneutics in Everyday Life (Humor)

Being the astute student of hermeneutics that I am, I thought this was hilarious (and surprisingly spot-on!):

The Meaning of “STOP”

Hermeneutics in Everyday Life
by Tim Perry, Durham University.

Suppose you’re traveling to work and you see a stop sign. What do you do? That depends on how you exegete the stop sign.

1. A postmodernist deconstructs the sign (knocks it over with his car), ending forever the tyranny of the north-south traffic over the east-west traffic.

2. Similarly, a Marxist refuses to stop because he sees the stop sign as an instrument of class conflict. He concludes that the bourgeois use the north-south road and obstruct the progress of the workers in the east-west road.

3. A serious and educated Catholic rolls through the intersection because he believes he cannot understand the stop sign apart from its interpretive community and tradition.

Observing that the interpretive community doesn’t take it too seriously, he doesn’t feel obligated to take it too seriously either.

4. An average Catholic (or Orthodox or Coptic or Anglican or Methodist or Presbyterian or whatever) doesn’t bother to read the sign but he’ll stop if the car in front of him does.

5. A fundamentalist, taking the text very literally, stops at the stop sign and waits for it to tell him to go.

6. A seminary-educated evangelical preacher might look up “STOP” in his lexicons of English and discover that it can mean:

1) something which prevents motion, such as a plug for a drain, or a block of wood that prevents a door from closing;

2) location where a train or bus lets off passengers. The main point of his sermon the following Sunday on this text is: when you see a stop sign, it is a place where traffic is naturally clogged, so it is a good place to let off passengers from your car.

7. An orthodox Jew does one of two things:

a) Take another route to work that doesn’t have a stop sign so that he doesn’t run the risk of disobeying the Law;

b) Stop at the sign, say “Blessed art thou, O Lord our God, king of the universe, who
hast given us thy commandment to stop,” wait 3 seconds according to his watch, and then proceed.

Incidentally, the Talmud has the following comments on this passage: Rabbi Meir says: He who does not stop shall not live long. R. Hillel says: Cursed is he who does not count to three before proceeding. R. Simon ben Yudah says: Why three? Because the Holy One, blessed be He, gave us the Law, the Prophets, and the Writings. R. ben Issac says: Because of the three patriarchs. R. Yehuda says: Why bless the Lord at a stop sign? Because it says, “Be still and know that I am God.” R. Hezekiel says: When Jephthah returned from defeating the Ammonites, the Holy One, blessed be He, knew that a donkey would run out of the house and overtake his daughter, but Jephthah did not stop at the stop sign, and the donkey did not have time to come out. For this reason he saw his daughter first and lost her. Thus he was judged for his transgression at the stop sign. R. Gamaliel says: R. Hillel, when he was a baby, never spoke a word, though his parents tried to teach him by speaking and showing him the words on a scroll. One day his father was driving through town and did not stop at the sign. Young Hillel called out: “Stop, father!” In this way, he began reading and speaking at the same time. Thus it is written: “Out of the mouths of babes.” R. ben Jacob says: Where did the stop sign come from? Out of the sky, for it is written: “Forever, O Lord, your word is fixed in the heavens.” R. Ben Nathan says: Where were the stop signs created? On the fourth day, for it is written: “Let them serve as signs.” R. Yeshuah says….[continues for three more pages]

8. A Lubavitcher rabbi (Pharisee) does the same thing as an orthodox Jew, except that he waits 10 seconds instead of 3. He also replaces his brake lights with 1000 watt searchlights and connects his horn so that it is activated whenever he touches the brake pedal. He also works out the gematria of shin-tav-pey (S-T-(O)-P) and takes it to mean that the Rebbe Schneersohn, of blessed memory, will be resurrected as the Messiah after he has stopped at this intersection 780 times.

9. A scholar from the Jesus Seminar concludes that the passage “STOP” undoubtably was never uttered by Jesus himself because being the progressive Jew that He was, He would never have wanted to stifle peoples’ progress. Therefore, STOP must be a textual insertion belonging entirely to stage III of the gospel tradition, when the church was first confronted by traffic in its parking lot.

10. A NT scholar notices that there is no stop sign on Mark street but there is one on Matthew and Luke streets, and concludes that the ones on Luke and Matthew streets are both copied from a sign on a street no one has ever seen called “Q” Street. There is an excellent 300 page doctoral dissertation on the origin of these stop signs and the differences between stop signs on Matthew and Luke street in the scholar’s commentary on the passage. There is an unfortunate omission in the dissertation, however; it doesn’t explain the meaning of the text!

11. An OT scholar points out that there are a number of stylistic differences between the first and second half of the passage “STOP.” For example, “ST” contains no enclosed areas and 5 line endings, whereas “OP” contains two enclosed areas and only one line termination. He concludes that the author for the second part is different from the author of the first part and probably lived hundreds of years later. Later scholars determine that the second half is itself actually written by two separate authors because of similar stylistic differences between the “O” and the “P”.

12. Another prominent OT scholar notes in his commentary that the stop sign would fit better into the context three streets back. (Unfortunately, he neglected to explain why in his commentary.) Clearly it was moved to its present location by a later redactor. He thus exegetes the intersection as though the sign were not there.

13. Because of the difficulties in interpretation, another OT scholar amends the text, changing the “T” to “H”. “SHOP” is much easier to understand in context than “STOP” because of the multiplicity of stores in the area. The textual corruption probably occurred because “SHOP” is so similar to “STOP” on the sign several streets back, that it is a natural mistake for a scribe to make. Thus the sign should be interpreted to announce the existence of a shopping area. If this is true, it could indicate that both meanings are valid, thus making the thrust of the message “STOP (AND) SHOP.”

14. A “prophetic” preacher notices that the square root of the sum of the numeric representations of the letters S-T-O-P (sigma-tau-omicron-pi in the Greek alphabet), multiplied by 40 (the number of testing), and divided by four (the number of the world–north, south, east, and west), equals 666. Therefore, he concludes that stop signs are the dreaded “mark of the beast,” a harbinger of divine judgment upon the world, and must be avoided at all costs.

In Defense of Complementarianism...(Submitting to Your Husband, and Fun Things Like That)

Yesterday, our head of Women's Ministries asked me to critique an article that ran in a particular, well-known Christian magazine for a Bible study leaders' meeting we are having tomorrow. (I have to be careful about naming the magazine, since they are publishing one of my own articles this Fall). However, you can link to the original here.

Just for fun, I banged out a rebuttal while reading the article through - paragraph by paragraph. I decided to respond completely off-the-cuff; no outside commentaries and no sources except the Bible itself. So for once, you will not be reading me quote Charles Spurgeon, John Macarthur or R.C. Sproul. (Besides, I already know what each of them think on the issue at hand, and I happen to agree. Now THERE's a shocker).

The text of the article is below. My comments are in red. Enjoy.

When We Can't Agree to Disagree

The idea that men and women are created differently, in ways that complement each other, sounds okay. But often, this “equal but different” thinking results in a hierarchy that can lead to distortions of truth, or even emotional and physical abuse. The abuse (of any kind) is not caused by the complementarian position, but rather by the sin nature. Note 1 Peter 3:7, Ephesians 5:25 (which commands SACRIFICIAL love on the part of the husband) and Colossians 3:19. In no way can the clear Scriptural command for husbands to lead in the home be misconstrued as a “power trip”.

For years, I thought that as with many theological side issues, sincere Christians can agree to disagree when it comes to gender roles. Some churches let women lead and teach the whole congregation, others interpret the Bible to say that women can only lead and teach other women, and in some cases, there are limits beyond even that. (I’ve heard of one church that doesn’t allow a woman to be the head of women’s ministries.) Some churches condone homosexual behavior. Some ordain gays pastors. Some even allow notorious abortionists to be ushers and members in good standing. Does this make it right? Disobedience to Scriptural injunctions is still obedience, regardless of what semantics you use to dance around the issue. Since when are God’s commands subject to majority rule?

I disagreed with this view, known as Complementarianism, but I figured, well, if that’s how they roll, then okay. But now, I’m starting to change my mind: often, it is not okay. Because if you take Complementarianism to the extreme, it becomes destructive. Your subjective opinion of what “the extreme view” of complementarianism may lead to is irrelevant. What matters is GOD’S view, and He has clarified it nicely for us in His Word with very little wiggle-room. The biblical view does not sanction “destructive” behavior. The disciples called Jesus “Lord”. Was their relationship “destructive”? It was based on presupposed authority, which is God’s ideal for both marriage and the Church.

Last week I received an e-mail linking to a news story that alleges that Saddleback Church in California counseled a woman to stay in an abusive marriage and also scolded her for “gossiping” about her marriage when she tried to ask for help (this story was all over Twitter and Facebook this week too). Saddleback (led by Purpose-Driven pastor Rick Warren) teaches Complementarianism—the wife must submit to her husband and that divorce in this instance is not an option. An e-mail linking to a (probably biased) news story which was reported on social networking sites hardly makes for Gospel truth. How is “abuse” defined in this case? Was it physical, or did she just not like her husband’s attitude towards her? The term “abuse”, unfortunately, has become wildly subjective and can mean almost anything. Facts need to be checked before allegations are made. Saddleback endorses many unbiblical beliefs and practices. That may well be the case here. If leadership behaved inappropriately, that still doesn't nullify a biblical position.

For the record, Saddleback pastor Tom Holladay told GFL he could not reveal specifics of confidential pastoral counseling, but that Saddleback always counsel a woman (or man) in an abusive situation to leave and find a place of safety. They would, however, urge couples to get counseling and try to reconcile. Sounds biblical to me so far. Biblical grounds for divorce = abuse, abandonment, or adultery.

In the family, Complementarianism plays out like this: the man is the head of the household, and the ultimate authority. They cite Ephesians 5:22, which says that a wife must submit to her husband, and the husband should love his wife. The woman must submit to that authority, which comes with the man’s protection and provision. There are plenty of women who obviously want protection and provision.

They conclude that the husband is the head of the family. I cannot find a verse in scripture that says a man is supposed to be the head of the family. 1 Corinthians 11:3-11. What the Bible says is that the relationship between a man and his wife is like a head and a body. It also says that women are supposed to honor, love and submit to their husbands – Titus 2:4; Eph. 5:28; etc.

Egalitarians (the opposite of Complementarian) like myself see the head and body analogy is an illustration of the unity, or oneness that God intended in creation. You may see it that way, but the pattern of male headship was unilaterally established in Genesis 3:16. Reading one’s own agenda into the text is called iesogesis. A husband and wife need to be a team, like a head and a body. A body needs the head, the head needs the body. “Team” within the context of familial and Church authority is a man-made concept rooted in Humanism,not biblical teaching. God makes the rules; not us. Even Christ, in His humanity, submitted to the Father: not out of a condition of inferiority, but of role. (Hebrews 5:8). Are we allowed to invent our own preferred rendering of that verse, whilst the Second Person of the Trinity voluntarily took on a submissive role? We cite the same biblical passage, but we look at the wider context, starting with verse 21: “Submit to one another out of reverence for Christ” (emphasis mine).

Whoa. Now you’re deliberately taking it out of context. The “one another” comes just AFTER Paul is clearly addressing the collective Body, and is talking about relationships WITHIN THE CHURCH. He exhorts those in the Church to speak to one another with psalms and spiritual songs, to resist evil, etc. He hasn’t yet touched on the family unit, nor each person’s role in it. By that logic, you could claim he was telling parents to submit to their children!

While someone (likely not a female translator) put a subhead right after verse 21, in the original text there were no subheads. So the next verses explain mutual submission—wives, submit to your husbands, and husbands, love your wives. Nice try, but notice he doesn’t mention husbands and wives until AFTER verse 21. Context clearly shows Paul is switching gears – from relationships and appropriate behavior within the collective Body at large, to the relationship between spouses at home. Paul is talking about unity and oneness. He concludes his teaching with a reminder of the oneness theme, and mutual nature of submission: “each one of you also must love his wife as he loves himself, and the wife must respect her husband” (Eph. 5:33). Which destroys your original argument: that complementarianism is inherently abusive. The command to love (and elsewhere to “rejoice in”) the wife does not negate the divinely-given order of authority (1 Cor. 11:10; 1 Timothy 2:12). The author really needs to study hermeneutics before making such a claim.

In churches that embrace Complementarianism, women rarely have the right to exercise their leadership gifts fully. Completely untrue. Half the people on earth are female – there’s plenty for us to do. When a church says that the man has more authority, can use his gifts more freely, it communicates a value (intended or not) that men are of greater value. I disagree. If the issue in wanting to serve is that one has a lower platform because of gender discrimination, I would question one’s motivation to actually want to serve. Is it to have a greater voice? Be more visible/influential? These are the wrong motives. If one has a true desire to serve, one will do what needs doing (and there are always people who need encouraging; meals to be brought to the sick; vacancies in the nurseries and Sunday School classrooms needing to be filled). A woman CAN find a way to use her gifts just as fully amongst other women as she would be able to in the population at large.

And so if a woman (who has less value) complains of abuse, it is easy in that system to discount what she says, or blame her. So in addition to being abused by her husband, the woman is also abused by her church. That’s quite a stretch, and a hypothetical situation at best. However, even if a legitimate scenario of true mistreatment, the injustice done does not negate the Bible’s clear teaching on gender roles. Cases of child abuse do not render the Bible’s command to discipline our children obsolete. Just because sinful people will twist, misconstrue or use God’s law to their own advantage does not make that law any less valid.

Think that doesn’t happen? In 2008, Southern Baptist Theological Seminary professor Bruce Ware said that when women, “as sinners” try to usurp their husband’s authority and “do what they would like to do,” their husbands--also as sinners--might “respond to that threat to their authority” by being abusive (http://equalitycentral.com/blog/?p=14). Key word here being “sin”. By no means is that scenario being condoned.

If marriage is understood as a hierarchy, then the person at the top of that structure can easily conclude that he has permission to do what is necessary to maintain power. Not if he is following the example of Christ, which is the whole point of Ephesians chapter 5. Verse 25 sums it up nicely: “Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her.” NOWHERE is abuse of authority rationalized in Scripture. We cannot simply say, “Well-intentioned Christians can agree to disagree” if those Christians argue that abuse is the husband’s prerogative, or worse, the wife’s fault. A Christian cannot biblically make that claim, because God Himself is described as a protector and defender of the innocent (Psalm 68:5). It is where we must stand up for true Christianity, which does not condone violence in any form, and which teaches mutual submission, not hierarchy. First part of that sentence is true – Christianity does not condone violence. However, she sets up a false dichotomy in the second clause, because authority does NOT presuppose violence. Again, Christ is the model and the ideal. Even in the authority of the Church, where discipline is sanctioned, it is never punitive but always restorative – the goal is reconciliation; not vengeance. Would the author argue that Church discipline is unchristian, because “taken to an extreme”, it can lead to abuses? Any God-given command or principle can be twisted or abused. That does not make the teaching running throughout all of Scripture, and the plain meaning of the text, any less valid.

"Jesus Christ opened the privileges of religious faith equally to men and women. He gave His message publicly and privately to women as well as men. The frequent and prominent mention of women in the Gospels is in itself noteworthy by contrast with their status in Judaism. Christ gladly received their public testimony. There can be no doubt as that regards to spiritual privilege, Jesus considered the two sexes equal. As regards to spiritual activity, there is a difference between that of men and women." ["Role of Women in the Church," Dr. Charles Ryrie]