Unity & Purity
Author: teejtc / Category: ReligiousI’ve noticed, that one of the main difficulties in the church (most specifically in my Classis) is the balance of Unity and Purity. Or more precisely, which deserves priority. Some argue that we must establish purity in order to have unity, others that we must have unity in order to facilitate purity.
The root question, I’d suggest, is not really whether we give priority over unity or purity, but whether we view the Christian faith as predominantly a religion that focuses on sin or one that focuses on holiness. We have a history of behaving as if the former is true, rather than the later, however there’s a problem with that. The problem? Jesus worked the other way around.
In his day, Jesus was surrounded by religious authorities who viewed impurity (let’s connect that with sin, for the sake of argument) as “catchy.” An impure person, in the midst of “pure” people, could contaminate the others. Jesus, obviously, worked the other way. Rather than catching others’ IMpurity, he spread purity (and health, justice, etc.)
The question of unity and purity, becomes a question of which we work at THROUGH the other. We can either work towards unity THROUGH purity, or we can work towards purity THROUGH unity. Working toward unity through purity, typically plays itself out as judgmentalism. When we work that way, we judge those who are different from ourselves and create unity by culling out everyone that we don’t like or aren’t comfortable with. So, can we work the other way around? Can we work towards purity THROUGH unity? YES! MOST CERTAINLY!
Purity is made possible by the Spirit working in us - something usually done most effectively in community. Let’s face it, God seldom (although occasionally) works in our lives through great bolts of lightening. Instead, God works in us through the holy community that we’ve been planted in. The community (in unity) provides the setting, the facilitation, and the impetus for purity.
So, either we work against sin (through judgmentally eliminating those different from us, or those we don’t like) assuming that we’d somehow “catch” their impurity. In this situation we create false unity through a mis-informed understanding of how purity works. OR we live in unity, working towards holiness, assuming that the purity of the community enables pure-living of the individual. In this situation, we live in true unity and establish the setting where purity can truly flourish.
I haven’t a single question that Jesus’ ministry was more the latter than the former.
Grace and Peace,
`tim
27 Responses to “Unity & Purity”
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
January 30th, 2006 at 12:08 pm
Hey Tim, congrats on your new little one!
I wonder how you interpret 1 Cor 5:1-8 in light of this post. Paul deals quite directly, against sin, (much the same kind of sin we’re dealing with) and he calls us to imitate him, as he imitates Christ…
January 30th, 2006 at 5:53 pm
Steve,
I’d say that, as with anything else in the realm of scripture or theology, proof-texting is wrong. 1 Cor. 5:1-8 cannot be quoted ignorant of 1 Cor. 1:10-14 (a unity-based argument). It’s not a question of whether or not we’re opposed to sin, it’s a question as to whether our faith is fundamentally sin-based or fundamentally holiness-based. Both recognize that sin exists; both note that sin is destructive to both the individual and the community…sin-based faith, however, is law-focused..right/wrong obsessed (VERY anti-Pauline). Holiness-based faith, however, takes sin seriously but is focused on what’s right and appropriate rather than what’s wrong and inappropriate.
It’s a matter of which foundation we’re going to build our expression of the faith on. The scriptures are clear…that foundation is, and must be, grace. Sin-based faith is not grace-centered.
Thanks for the congrats…we’re enjoying her immensely. (Not getting as much sleep as we used to, of course….. oh well)
Grace and Peace,
`tim
January 30th, 2006 at 10:12 pm
While proof-texting may be dangerous, so is casting a dichotomy between sin and holiness (or as you say, sin-based-faith and holinesss-based-faith). While Paul does challenge the legalism of ‘law’, he certainly is not soft on sin. In the Bible, sin does not equal laq. That is where I think you are walking a fine line. There is no dichotomy in scripture between sin and holiness.
January 30th, 2006 at 10:51 pm
If you read what I wrote, you’ll notice that I didn’t “cast a dichotomy” between sin and holiness. I forced the question as to whether building our faith on an anti-sin focus is appropriate when Jesus clearly presented a faith that was pro-holiness. The two are obviously related, but it is an important matter of perspective.
This may sound like semantics….it IS importnat though. If the church is primarily sin-focused, the NT is worthless. If the church is holiness-focused and grace-centered..well, then we can claim to be Christian.
Grace and Peace,
`tim
January 31st, 2006 at 12:02 am
I suppose I am uncomfortable with the dichotomyt of your either/or: “either we work against sin (through judgmentally eliminating those different from us, or those we don’t like) assuming that we’d somehow “catch†their impurity. In this situation we create false unity through a mis-informed understanding of how purity works. OR we live in unity, working towards holiness, assuming that the purity of the community enables pure-living of the individual.”
I think the Bible teaches that being “against sin” and “toward holiness” are part of the same thing.
January 31st, 2006 at 9:52 am
While it is quite true that the Bible DOES teach that “against sin” and “toward holiness” are two parts of he same coin, it also teaches that Christianity is essentially a grace-based religion whose followers have nothing to fear from sin.
A basically anti-sin approach to Christianity 1) teaches us that the faith is primarily about what you DON’T do (rather than what you are and what you DO do), 2) creates a faith that is prone to judgmentalism and legalism (which, it obviously shouldn’t be despite our fondness of it), 3) tends to belittle grace and over-emphasize “earning” forgiveness and salvation, and/or 4) Allows us feel good about ourselves when we create false-unity by kicking people out (or more subtly un-welcoming them until they leave).
There are, of course, other problems as well, but those are a few. It’s not a matter of whether we are against sin OR towards holiness…it’s a question of which is the foundation that we work from…We’re too obsessed with sin (which, for those of us in the reformed tradition, is a historical habit) and too little obsessed by grace.
Grace and Peace,
`tim
January 31st, 2006 at 8:12 pm
I think your categories are unhelpful and create a false either/or that is dangerous. God is so anti-sin that he sent his own Son. Just as God is so pro-grace that he sent his own Son. I am reminded of Q/A 2 of the Heidelberg Chatechism:
“Q - What do you need to know in order to live and die in the joy of this comfort?
A - First, how great my sins and misery are; second, how I am delivered from all my sins and misery; third, how I am to be thankful to God for such deliverance.”
January 31st, 2006 at 9:08 pm
And how do you propose anyone comes to know their sin and misery outside of the community of the faithful?
Or, perhaps, it doesn’t matter. If “we” manage to predetermine those whom God will extend grace towards, we don’t have to worry about “wasting our time” on people who don’t meet our standards….er…um…I mean, God’s standards….
A little cynical, but honestly, isn’t it the community of the faithful through whom the Holy Spirit most frequently works?
Grace and Peace,
`tim
January 31st, 2006 at 9:46 pm
What? The Heidelberg Chatechism Q/A 3 is pretty helpful here, too:
Q - From where do you know your sins and misery?
A - From the law of God
Also, the Holy Spirit works through the Word and Sacrement within the community of faith.
Of course, this all gets away from the unhelpful either/or distinction you are making.
Thanks for the conversation.
Blessings, RogueMonk
January 31st, 2006 at 10:59 pm
This doesn’t get away from my distinction at all (which really is more of a distinction of emphasis, not content)…this is the content of my distinction.
You’ve just made my point. If we decide to play judge and jury by kicking people out of the community, we effectively remove them from the primary ways God brings people to repentance: Word, Sacraments, Fellowship, Discipline (in the real sense of the word….not punishment), etc.
Legalism, besides being unbiblical, removes people from the community which is, essentially, the atmosphere within which God convicts and changes them.
I’m not belittling the importance of sin…quite the contrary! I’m suggesting that the very center of the Christian faith is that sin is overcome by grace….which we are called to extend to all.
You’re thoughts are well-taken, I look forward to your continued insight.
Grace and Peace,
`tim
February 13th, 2006 at 10:47 pm
I’m coming back after a brief hiatus- sorry to be so slow to converse!
Tim, you say, “Christianity is essentially a grace-based religion whose followers have nothing to fear from sin.” I don’t see how you can square this with Matthew 5:21-30 or Hebrews 10:26-27: “If we sin willfully after we have received the knowledge of the truth, there no longer remains a sacrifice for sins, but a certain FEARFUL expectation of judgment…”
If your point is that the Church shouldn’t be essentially against the bad stuff in the world, but more FOR Godly living. I agree. But we can’t separate this from avoiding, shunning, not tolerating, and yes judging sin (1 Cor 5, again).
In comments 8-10, you’re talking past each other by missing the TIMING of judgment. Obviously, we don’t immediately kick out a visitor or new member when we learn they are homosexual (a hypothetical for-instance
). We come along side them, teach them what Scripture says, and see how they react over time. If they get adamant, try to get Scripture to excuse their sin, etc. it’s time for discipline. If they accept God’s standards and try to live up to them, grace is always called for.
So at the end of the day, the question is, “Is this sin?” Some say yes, others no. In other words, it’s disingenuous to cast the debate as between inclusivists and exclusivists…
February 13th, 2006 at 11:00 pm
Also, in response to comment 2, I’d say that to take seriously 1 Cor 1:10-14 and 5:1-8, Paul is calling for unity for all Christians around Christ and around the righteousness He calls us to teach. Paul saw no problem kicking out in absentia a guy disobeying God willfully, while at the same time calling for the unity of the Body.
This is a contradiction to you, it seems: “This is not grace. This is not Scriptural. This is not keeping the unity of the Church.” When Paul (Scripture), the theologian of grace, does this very thing (kicking out a member for moral reasons), while calling for unity at the same time!
Perhaps you misunderstand the intentions of upset “conservative” RCA people. We don’t want to excommunicate anyone who ever might have thought they were gay. We want to minister to them, as you do. We don’t want to intimidate or scare away or rant at anyone. But we DO want to discipline those willfully rejecting God’s standard for righteousness. We DO want to define that standard a certain way, according to the obvious interpretation of Scripture, and contra a spirit of getting the world’s in-thing to be OK’ed by Scripture somehow.
February 13th, 2006 at 11:50 pm
Steve…just a couple of responses, it’s late and (as you surely understand, with a 6 wk old in the house we’re not getting the sleep we used to!
)
First of all, I’m surprised that you (honestly surprised, this isn’t just rhetorical) would so quickly cast out the doctrine of the “peserverence of the saints.” That is, after all, the only way to read your argument in 11. I cannot do that. Perhaps I’m too reformed for some - I believe that nothing (and I actually mean nothing) can remove us from God’s love…I hope that reminds you of a familiar passage….
This isn’t a “weak on sin” position; this is a “strong on grace” position. It is one that holds firmly to the belief that we are chosen, our salvation is accomplished and made known to us (a presentation that you’ll notice is not accidently trinitarian) regardless of whatever we do or don’t do, think or don’t think, like or don’t like, etc. Does that mean sin isn’t important? nope. It DOES, however, mean that sin - for the chosen, isn’t the point - grace is. The elimination of sin is what we do IN RESPONSE to that grace (again, a concept that I KNOW you’re familiar with - having personally sat through your senior exams
)
Regarding 12…while I’ll admit there is a time and a place for excommunication (albeit a VERY rare time and place). Teachings, throughout the Pauline corpus, are far more interested in unity. Indeed, a vast majority of Romans tackles that very topic. Bearing with one another, even when we hold strong and opposing views, is foundational to the faith we’re called to live out (see esp. Romans 14, 15 and the second portion of 16.) Does that mean sin is unimportnat? of course not…but the law of love is primary (Romans 13). The call to eliminate sin in one’s life arises out of our love of God and neighbor and our thankfullness for what God’s done….let’s not pretend, despite all the rhetoric, that this whole debate over homosexuality (which actually wasn’t the key point of my original post) has, in any way, reflected that truth.
It’s ironic, really, that by believing something as simple as “Grace is bigger than sin,” so many people think I’m “liberal.”
In any case, I must stop. Sophia’s sleeping, maybe I can get a half an hour or so before she wakes up again
Grace and peace,
`tim
February 15th, 2006 at 1:54 am
My only argument in #11 related to perseverance is a direct quote of Heb 10:26-27, which you dismiss as not fitting in with perseverance! Although I’m convinced you can’t “out-Reformed” me, if you want to keep the label “Perseverance of the Saints” and throw out Heb 10:26-27, I guess it’s up to you. I think your doctrine is faulty in who you define as a “saint.” It is not anyone who professes faith in Christ, but all who actually possess faith in Him. Anyone who actually possesses faith who is confronted with their homosexual sin will come to repentance, as they - by definition - seek to conform their lives to his will.
Yes, I’m aware that while we were still sinners God showed us grace, which is greater than our sin. I also know we ought not continue to sin, that grace may abound. Grace is an even stronger motivator to holiness than God’s justice, honor or majesty. How much more ought we to be concerned about sin, BECAUSE of the grace we’ve been given.
Last para.: I think you’re just ignoring half of the Bible, which focuses on holiness, without which no one will see the Lord. Of course that holiness is imputed to us in Christ, but we are called to work out our salvation, to grow in the grace of Christ, not to say, “Grace is bigger than my sin.” And we are called to do this with others, too (Gal 6:1). It is not loving to not tell people that what they are doing is sin when they don’t know.
It is not your mere “grace is bigger than sin” that gets you in trouble. I affirm that, too. It is your inferences from that to the rest of your post.
February 15th, 2006 at 7:56 am
Come on Steve…let’s not turn this into that kind of an argument…I’m not suggesting that I can “out reformed” you. I’m suggesting that you’re concept of some of our key doctrines places too much emphasis on human action.
Your whole argument here tries to speak out of both sides of the mouth. That’s the problem between you first and second paragraph. In the first paragraph you essentially argue that sanctification must be accomplished prior to justification and in the second paragraph you essentially argue (which I’d agree with) that justification actually is the cause and purpose of sanctification. The problem is, you can’t have both.
You can’t argue that grace is greater than sin and still argue that sin is greater than grace. Holiness, as you note in your second paragraph, arises out of our thankfulness for what God has already done. There’s no sense in arguing that AND trying to turn it into a prerequisite for God’s grace at the same time - it just not consistent.
The elimination of sin in our lives can be a difficult and life-long process. And, often, in our younger years we don’t even recognize some things a sin that, in as we grow and mature, we do. That’s both reasonable and appropriate - the more mature we are the more discerning we should be. The problem is that many congregations don’t get that. They try to make the elimination of sin (or at least the handful of sins that are obvious or particularly disturbing to them) a prerequisite to God’s grace. Jesus didn’t tell people to stop sinning before he healed and forgave them. He healed and forgave then and THEN told them to stop sinning. I’m suggesting we should work the same way; we should presume that, and minister as if, grace is previous to and more powerful than anything else. Elimination of sin arises OUT OF that, not PRIOR to it.
Just a side note: I’m not arguing that sin is an unimportant concept, I’m arguing that it’s a secondary one and that whenever we try to make it primary, as many in our tradition (unfortunately) do, we’ve messed around with the scriptural way of doing things.
Grace and Peace,
`tim
February 15th, 2006 at 7:58 am
[...] Steve and I have been continuing a discussion on Unity and purity at: http://tenclay.org/blog/2006/01/30/unity-purity/ [...]
February 18th, 2006 at 12:44 am
I’m sure that I cannot adequately resolve this argument. But I have to say that I am disturbed when any of my sisters and brothers start talking about the church in terms of WE and YOU or even thinking that someone is talking about who is more reformed than the other. It seems to me that reformed is a destination we never reach in this world, we’re all reforming as best we can, and if we start thinking anybody is more or less there (which is not what I read in Tim’s posts) we’re in deep trouble.
Now I’m going to leave Paul behind and go back to Jesus for a second–Jesus who simultaneously set very high standards for a sinless life, standards none of us could meet, and also put a high premium on grace. When asked by John’s disciples whether he was bringing about the promise, Jesus asked them to report what they had seen. While our Lord could have given a set of regulations on who was in and who was out, who was or wasn’t doing what Christ calls us all to do, he instead gave us signs to observe.
So what are we to do with places where the Kingdom is clearly alive and at work and the ministry is being carried out by people who are, by the definition of many of us, and by certain readings of the Scripture, continuing in unrepentant sin? What are we to do with the fact that certain readings of Scripture would say that ALL of us in RCA ministry are in unrepentant sin? What do we do with those readings of Scripture that consider some sins unimportant?
I know that there is an element of “us” and “them” in the Christian calling. I know that God will eventually divide us. I’m more than a little concerned about any attempt at that division by mere mortals.
February 21st, 2006 at 4:48 pm
Tim, I think we agree on the doctrines of grace; you’re just misreading my first paragraph. I don’t say there that sanctification must come before justification. I say that one must possess faith to be justified. I want to be true to Heb 10 which I quote by affirming that there are some professing members in the church who will fall away from the faith they profess, because they never possessed faith to begin with.
I agree that grace comes prior to sin. Yet, when a professor of faith in Christ is working actively against the standards God sets forth, we can question whether the professor possesses such faith. “By your fruits you shall know them.” Wheat and tares.
Recently, an RCA pastor who has performed homosexual unions was called to a congregation in another classis. The classis asked him to repent of performing these unions before they would approve the call. “Go and sin no more.” He would not, so they didn’t call him.
What would have happened if the adulterous woman of John 8 would have gone back on the street, soliciting her next “trick”? Heb 10 has the answer, and it is applicable today on this issue.
February 21st, 2006 at 5:01 pm
James,
When Tim says that I “cast out the doctrine of the peserverence of the saints,†and that my “concept of some of our key doctrines places too much emphasis on human action” he is certainly calling my doctrine less-than-Reformed. My response simply noted that Tim shouldn’t so quickly come to judgment on my opinion without noting that I quoted Heb 10:26-27.
What to do where the Kingdom seems to be alive? Look at Joseph and his brothers. God worked for good even when his brothers sold him into slavery. But would we honestly exhort the brothers to make the sale at the time, just because we knew that God would work it for good? No! I’ll celebrate God’s work, in spite of impurity, while working to purify the church, too.
The rest of your post still doesn’t explain 1 Corinthians 5. The only answer I’ve gotten so far is that we’re not supposed to proof text. If that’s the case then you have no argument, either, because you just “proof text” something Jesus said. I’m gonna write it off because you’re “proof-texting.” (I’m being sarcastic here, to make a point.) You can’t just ignore parts of the Bible by calling it “proof-texting.” This is no way to dialogue.
Responding to Jesus with John’s disciples: this isn’t a “God is blessing my ministry, so I must be doing the right thing” argument (which is full of holes in itself). Instead, Jesus is quoting different parts of Isaiah, declaring that He is indeed the Coming One, the Messiah. Besides, Jesus gives us lots of “regulations” for following Him in Matt 5-7…
February 21st, 2006 at 8:07 pm
Steve, although I understand the move you’re making with Hebrews 10 (I presume you’re talking about verses 25+) and I agree that there are some (probably many in the church who will be judged without faith) the question I’ve been trying to raise is whether or not you believe anything (anything at all) is enough to remove God’s grace from someone.
I don’t believe there is. That’s the whole point I’m trying to get across. “The Law is only a shadow of the good things to come” we read in Heb. 1:1 - which is to say that a legally-based approach to the faith is a dim and weak precurser to “the things to come” — i.e. Grace.
I’m not saying that there isn’t right or wrong. I’m saying that right and wrong are secondary to grace…that right and wrong come after grace.
Sure, one’s behavior innately reflects whether or not they’ve been graced with salvific faith. However, we also have to remember that one’s behavior reflects their discernment, understanding of gospel, situation in life, and development. Some of my behaviors may be disturbing to you (and surely visa-versa) but that doesn’t necessarily mean that either of us are “reprobate” - it means that we understand the scriptures differently (perhaps even prayerfully and through the guidence of the Spirit), that we’re at different stages of our pilgrimages towards God’s will. (Which - let me step out on a limb here - I’m willing to suggest that neither of us have finished.:???:)
There are a number of theologically concepts (within the realm of ethics, spirituality, worship, etc.) that true, prayerful Christians are going to disagree with - that disagreement doesn’t necessarily indicate a lack of faith or a lack of discernment or a lack of attentiveness to the scriptures or the spirit. Does that possibility exist? Sure. But I’m convinced it’s rare.
My relion profs in college thought quite differently than I did, at the time. Some things I’m still convinced they were wrong about; some things I’ve changed my views on. The fact that grace is primary to law means that I can live in community with them despite those (sometimes quite major) differences.
As for the adulterous woman. My guess is that Hebrews 10 is not what Jesus would call us to, but rather, Matthew 18:22. If, when Jesus returns Matthew 18:22 has proven ineffective, judgement will be sure and swift. But that’s then….not now.
Grace and Peace,
`tim
February 21st, 2006 at 8:11 pm
Regarding #19….Although I think maybe Steve is asking for James’ response, and I don’t pretend to know James’ mind well enough to do that. I’d suggest that 1 Cor. 5 ought to be read in the context of 1 Cor. 4:21.
Grace and Peace,
`tim
February 24th, 2006 at 1:02 pm
I agree with you: nothing can remove God’s saving grace from us. (I believe there is a temporary non-saving grace from which we can fall away - see Heb 6:4-6).
I also agree that right and wrong come after grace, as in our liturgy, as in history where God redeemed Israel from Egypt, and THEN gave the law. (Also see 1 Cor 10:1-5: what appeared to be saving grace wasn’t).
I understand your point, that our disagreements shouldn’t translate into defining each other outside of God’s saving grace. I agree with this on more minor issues. We just disagree over what’s major and minor. Paul was perfectly comfortable defining an adulterer outside of the church in 1 Cor 5; Jesus was comfy doing the same based on the Pharisees desires and deeds, in John 8:39-44.
Jesus gives the keys of judgment in the kingdom to Peter, the earthly church. Individuals are called to forgive; the assembly is called to judge righteously. We certainly may judge before Jesus returns (Matt 18:17-18). Matt 7:1-5 is a warning to judge in the context of the Golden Rule - as you would want to be judged.
1 Cor 4:21 - Paul is begging the church do judge the man on its own, without him having to come and do it.
Just because we aren’t perfect and don’t know everything doesn’t mean we leave off judgment. God has given us many things that we can know for sure; not based on our arrogance, but on His revelation. It appears that my list of things we can know and infer from Scripture is longer than yours…
February 25th, 2006 at 7:50 pm
There are a lot of people with “lists” longer than mine….a long list of of things about which to judge others isn’t something to be proud of, in my book.
While there is much that we can know and infer from scriptures, it doesn’t take much historical knowledge to see that biblical, prayerful, spirit-led people have often fallen down on “both sides” of a number of issues. If nothing else, that fact ought to keep us humble when our lists threaten to exclude or judge.
The problem is, far too many church leaders are intensely lacking in said humility. Jesus strongly discourages us from judgementalism but strongly teaches humility - why is it acceptable, today, to do just the opposite?
Grace and Peace,
`tim
March 2nd, 2006 at 4:28 pm
A longer list isn’t a better one; I didn’t mean that. (We talk past each other a lot). A Scriptural list is a better one, and I think Scripture has more standards by which we can judge than you think.
What do we say to the man who has committed outright adultery, but says he prayed about it and God gave him a Spirit-led peace about it? We humbly judge him for it, according the Scripture-defined standards.
You assume that when people advocate judgment they must lack humility. This does not follow.
March 3rd, 2006 at 9:48 am
You have a good point - a scriptural list is the better one. I don’t disagree at all. What I disagree about, apparently, is how the scriptures say we ought to respond to those lists…specifically, that they aren’t worth much at all.
I agree that the scriptures define for us particular standards of behavior, faith and ethics; the problem with what I understand your position to be is that it approaches those standards from a law-ordered view of Christianity rather than a grace-ordered one. It’s not that I think you don’t believe in grace, it’s that law seems to be the hermeneutic that you approach grace from. I’m arguing that it ought to be other way around.
Regarding an adulterer, sure there’s a place for conviction and (if we must use the word) judgement. That place must always arise out of theological atmosphere of grace. Set standards are secondary of behavior and ethic are secondary to a grace-based faith.
As for the idea (which I admit) regarding judgment and lack of humility - It’s not so much an assumption as it is an observation. I’m not making it up in my head, I’m observing it in the church. There’s a huge difference.
Oh, if only others in our classis and denomination could have this discussion….:sad:
Grace and Peace,
`tim
March 6th, 2006 at 12:27 am
I guess you’ll have to try again to show me what a grace-based hermeneutic looks like. I’m stuck on the Apostle of grace kicking an adulterer out of the fellowship in absentia (and chewing out the Corinthians for not having the guts to do it without him), wishing the Judaizers would castrate themselves, calling down damnation on those preaching a distorted Gospel, and opposing Peter to his face.
If your only concern is with the MANNER in which we judge, I’m with you. We shouldn’t be mean to people.
But I’m quite sure that our standards for judgment are different. THAT’S the issue. As long as that issue is avoided, we’re not getting anywhere.
I’ve come to the point where I’m just appalled that the sinfulness of homosexual practice is even being questioned. I respect the guy who says, “Well, yes, Paul does teach that women shouldn’t teach with authority; I think he was wrong.” I don’t respect the guy who tries to contort Scripture to say the opposite of what it obviously says.
March 6th, 2006 at 1:43 pm
First of all, this whole discussion has absolutely nothing to do with women in ministry. One can believe that women have a rightful place in the ministry without saying that Paul was wrong…indeed Paul himself recognizes (and lifts up) women who are in ministry in some places, while condemning it in others. Please don’t try to bring things into this that aren’t even remotely related.
Secondly, regarding a grace-based hermeneutic, the answer is simply this: Grace is the foundational doctrine through which the scriptures and the Christian faith (as a whole) must be interpreted. God’s Grace. A divine, and not-fully-understandable, grace. A grace that cannot be lost, cannot be overcome, cannot be earned and cannot be deserved.
Paul, in EXTREME situations, suggested it can be appropriate to expel someone from the community - but that wasn’t a norm, that was a rare and extreme exception.
An exception that the church ought to enter into rarely and only in extreme cases. Why? Because, that type of behavior is essentially saying that someone is outside of God’s grace…it’s plunging our noses into God’s business - a business that Calvin, and all (as far as I know) of the reformed theologians that speak about predestination tell us we’d better not do. We do not and cannot discern who is “in” and who is “out.” It’s simply not something that God has given us the ability to do.
So, since we cannot willy-nilly declare some in and some out, we have the responsibility to extend grace to all - knowing that some will not respond.
Again, it comes down to Grace being the defining theology that determines everything else. Without it, there is no such thing as Christianity. Is that extreme? Of course, but then Grace is extreme. Anytime we place anything over and above it, we’ve abandoned the core of the gospel.
Grace and Peace,
`tim