Cruciformity ✙

Hermeneutical Deconstruction: Always Deferring, Never Arriving

Alex S. Leung — Wed, 07 May 2008 05:48:48 +0000

Deconstruction is hard to pin down in terms of its understanding of where to find meaning, to some degree because it is not looking for a meaning, but is usually trying to overthrow meanings to create new ones. Consequently, this approach can only loosely be called reader-response.¹ The focus of deconstruction, like that of structuralism,² is in fact neither on the author nor the reader as supplying the meaning, but on the text itself, which it attempts to read very closely. With the postmodern hermeneutical shift away from “understanding” and toward “reading,” it seems closer in its basic commitments to locating meaning(s) in readers, but it also attempts to let the text overthrow the reader as well.³ Curiously, deconstruction even acknowledges a role for an author, though that role is mostly negative: the author provides the framework that his text can undermine. But, as meaning is always “deferred,” always on the move, never arriving, it consequently can have no locus, and even though it has roots in both structuralism and in reader-response theory, it self-consciously tries to transcend the whole discussion of the locus of meaning. That solves the problem, but the cost (the loss of real determinate communication) is very great.

Dan McCartney, Let the Reader Understand: A Guide to Interpreting and Applying the Bible, (Philipsburg, NJ: P&R, 2002), 299-300.

cf. H.-G. Gadamer, Truth and Method (New York: Seabury, 1975).
cf. Claude Levi-Strauss, Ferdinand de Saussure, Noam Chomsky
David Seeley states: “Deconstruction is often misunderstood as allowing readers to attribute to the text any meaning they desire… [In fact] nothing could be further from the truth” (Deconstructing the New Testament [Leiden: Brill, 1994], 157).

Emerging Missional Fallacies in Postmodern Exegesis

Alex S. Leung — Sun, 20 Apr 2008 11:31:04 +0000

Earlier in the fall of 2007, I was invited by Rev. Ken Silva (SBC) of Apprising Ministries to serve as a correspondent for his online apologetic ministry. This past December, I finally responded to his invite and committed to writing 1-2 articles on the Emerging Church every month starting in January 2008. However, due to my busy January schedule and the extremely busy Spring semester here at Southern Seminary, I thus have yet to publish anything. I sincerely apologize for not living up to my self-proclaimed commitment and for my lack of foresight into my schedule.

Please know that my first responsibility is to my seminary studies; at the same time, please also pray that what I share with you here would be a fruit of and an overflow from the countless hours I spend reading the Scriptures and books on theology.

Emerging Missional Fallacies

On that note, I am excited to write to you concerning the Emerging Church and postmodern theology! In this opening half of the year, I will share with you how I came into contact with Emerging theology and the things that have led me to confront evangelical accommodation in today’s postmodern culture. Although I was very eager to write to you about the beliefs of Emerging churches, I found it necessary to write appealing to Emerging pastors to contend for the faith that was once for all delivered to the saints.

For there are certain pastors who have crept unnoticed into the church that are reading their own personal desired interpretation and ideas into the Bible’s text, ideas that are not necessarily extra-biblical but rather extra-textual to the passage preached on. These usually result from careless exegetical fallacies that remove the text from its original context¹. More specifically, I am concerned about ordained ministers of God’s Word are eisegeting an Emerging missional ecclesiology into the New Testament – where as 2000 years of biblical scholarship have found no explicit “missional” meanings in such passages whatsoever.

Since such exegetical fallacies are being performed by postmodern pastor-communicators who have been trained at evangelical seminaries and ordained by evangelical denominations, I am thus very disappointed at the failure of these teachers to rightly handle God’s Word. I am very fearful that our seminaries and denominational entities are neglecting their duty to train and discipline ministers who are not rightly handling the word of truth.

While I am only a first-year seminarian, I fear I may be stepping on the toes of spiritual giants who are much more well-read than me. However, as a man “of sincerity, as commissioned by God, in the sight of God”—I must speak in Christ (2 Cor 2:17). While such pastor-communicators may disregard doctrine as unimportant to the regular Christian as long as he just believes in Jesus Christ, I am not ashamed to say that I believe that doctrine is very, very, very important. For only through the Word of God can “the man of God may be competent, equipped for every good work” (2 Tim 3:17). Therefore, it is of utmost importance that ministers of God’s Word keep a close watch on themselves and their teaching (1 Tim 4:16). If we are not careful but sloppy in our handling of God’s Word, the blood of the sheep will be on our hands.

Called to be Missional?

The example of an emerging missional fallacy I am responding to is in a postmodern exegesis of Ephesians 4, and to be exact verse 1:

1 I therefore, a prisoner for the Lord, urge you to walk in a manner worthy of the calling to which you have been called, 2 with all humility and gentleness, with patience, bearing with one another in love, 3 eager to maintain the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace. 4 There is one body and one Spirit—just as you were called to the one hope that belongs to your call— 5 one Lord, one faith, one baptism, 6 one God and Father of all, who is over all and through all and in all. 7 But grace was given to each one of us according to the measure of Christ’s gift.

Ephesians 4:1-7, ESV

Without providing the historical context nor the occasion for which Paul writes these letters, I recently heard one Emerging pastor describe the “calling” that we are “called” to actually has two meanings, namely a “double calling” of sorts. The pastor said that we are called to be Christians, and additionally, to do something. The calling to which Paul referred to, in which we must walk, and that very something we are are “to do” had thus been exegeted as “a calling to be missional”. ‘The consequence of being missional (whatever this means) is being an incarnational community’ (whatever this means), the speaker said (my paraphrase).

What is wrong with this deconstructive exegesis?

Firstly, I am not saying that the concept of being a missional Christian or an incarnational community is absent from Ephesians. From a careful study of the text in its literary context, it can certainly be an implication, and maybe even an important significance of the letter².

Secondly, I am not against the concept of missional living –- when it is described biblically as being a missionary of the Gospel of Jesus Christ wherever we are, whatever we are doing. After all, I am very supportive of The Resurgence missional initiative, as well as the missional/church-planting work of Pastors Mark Driscoll and Timothy Keller. However, I am saying that a careful grammatical-historical exegesis of such passages like Ephesians 4:1 can not possibly result in a “double calling”. When Paul wrote “calling”, he meant one thing – that is, one calling that the Ephesians have been called to. Therefore, to say explicitly in a sermon (or “conversation”) that the word “calling / called” that Paul used is simply to employ a blatant word fallacy³. Such is at the least misleading, if not a complete misreading of the text.

A Small but Important Distinction

While one may argue that missional living and incarnational community could possibly be a point of this text, it is more likely that such is an application from and subsequent result of being a “called” person of God. And while I do not want this article to be entirely exegetical, we must us take a brief look at the underlying Greek text of Eph 4:1.

παρακαλῶ οὖν ὑμᾶς ἐγὼ ὁ δέσμιος ἐν κυρίῳ ἀξίως περιπατῆσαι (peripatesai – Aorist Active Infinitive: to walk up and down, to walk about) τῆς κλήσεως (kleseos – Genitive Singular Feminine: a calling, call) ἧς ἐκλήθητε (eklethete – 2nd Person Plural, Aorist Passive Indicative: to call, summon).

All that is to say that the Ephesians should live in a manner that is worthy of the calling which they have already received. For since God’s love is so great, since his salvation is so powerful, and because God has already granted such reconciliation, we then should live accordingly. We should value God’s love enough that our lives be shaped by it.

The question inevitably is then, what is this “calling” (κλήσεως) with which we have been “called” (ἐκλήθητε)? What have the Ephesians been called to? What does the text actually say?

O’Brien appropriately notes that this admonition “arises out of the gracious, saving purposes of God (cf. 2 Cor 5:20), which ahs been presented in the first three chapters” (274, PNTC). “This appeal is grounded in the ‘indicatives’ of God’s saving work in Christ.” Notice the conjunction “therefore” (οὖν) at the beginning of verse 1. Hence, the calling refers to the Holy Spirit’s prompting that caused the Christians in Ephesus to believe in the first place. The author is thus urging his readers to live a life that conforms to their saved status before God. As is evident elsewhere in Paul’s letters, the Apostle’s use of “calling” refers to God’s choosing and election of some to salvation, “God’s drawing of men and women into fellowship with his Son through the preaching of the gospel” (275, PNTC).

A Life that Conforms to their Saved Status.

This is where the idea of missional living may come in to play in the text as the manner to which we ought to live. As we read on in the chapter, Paul speaks specifically of bearing with one another in love, humility, gentleness, patience, and maintaining the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace – characteristics of those who have been called by God. I do concede that being God’s chosen, “‘dedicated ones’ and messengers of his gospel, should transform every part of life. It involves the obligation to live in a manner that is in accordance with the name of him whose they are and whom they serve (Phil 1:29)” (Foulkes, TNTC, 116). Having been called into the purity and unity of the one body of Christ, we therefore have a divinely ordained responsibility in God’s purposes for the world.

All that is to say that such is the desired result of Paul’s double emphasis on election. Believers should live according to the manner in which they have been called – because God’s love is so great, and His salvation so powerful, and that He has granted us reconciliation. For God loves us in this way – by giving us His Son and calling us to receive Him by faith (John 3:16)! We should cherish God’s love for us to the point that we are shaped by it; subjects of the love of the King ought to love those seemingly unlovable ones. Klyne Snodgrass rightly draws out an important implication: “ ‘calling’ is used of the salvation and responsibility of every Christian, not of the ‘professional ministry’ or an elite group. This one call is for all Christians to live in accord with what God has done” (NIVAC, 196).

In application of verse 2, it would be appropriate to apply this in terms of living missionally and being the hands and feet of Christ to our neighbors. However, a careful exegesis of the text cannot have that as the goal of being called. Again, O’Brien correctly notes (276, PNTC) that the imperatives of verse 1 leads to two prepositions in verse 2 (with all humility and gentleness, with patience) and followed by two participial clauses which act as imperatives (“bearing with one another in love” and “eager to main the unity”). It is more than clear that these admonitions draw us toward the goal that we must aim for – preserving the unity (verse 3). We are clearly being called to cultivate the graces of humility, gentleness and patience, all of which are seen perfectly in the life of Christ, all of which are to lead us towards unity in the body of Christ.

Concerning this unity, Chrysostom puts it nicely:

“In the body it is the living spirit that holds all members together, even when they are far apart. So it is here. The purpose for which the Spirit was given was to bring into unity all who remain separated by different ethnic and cultural divisions: young and old, rich and poor, women and men.”

(Homily on Ephesians 9.4.1-3)

Conclusion

In conclusion, I hope it is clearly evident that whenever pastor-teachers preach God’s Word, we must not neglect the careful study and exegesis of the Scriptures in its original context in order to discern the meaning of the inspired words to its original audience. The implications of that meaning will only have power to save souls and transform lives when it is explained within the literary and historical context of the biblical passage, and the implication of God’s Word will only have its desired effect when its significance is rightly related and applied to the modern reader.

God’s Word is neutered of its power when a preacher falsely asserts that a biblical author meant two things in one word, when a proper grammatical-historical exegesis certainly proves otherwise. Once the semantics, cultural distance, context and genre of the Scriptures are studied carefully through proper exegesis, the resulting theological interpretation may then show itself to thoroughly grounded in the Bible and thus the core meaning of the text can be unleashed from the Scriptures. If today’s postmodern communicators can grasp the import of such methods of biblical studies –- and apply it -– I am sure we can arrive at a post-Emerging hermeneutic where the meaning of Scripture in its original context is applicable to all post-whatever communities.

D. A. Carson, Exegetical Fallacies. Grand Rapids: Baker, 1996
Robert Stein, A Basic Guide to Interpreting the Bible. Grand Rapids: Baker, 1994. pp. 37-46
Carson, Exegetical Fallacies, pp.27-64

When Our Knowledge of God’s Truth is Diminished

Alex S. Leung — Sun, 20 Apr 2008 06:34:37 +0000

“The loss of truth is being offset by increasingly adventurous experiments in worship and by various attempts at recovering a lost sense of mystery. My view is that this kind of offsetting is an illusion. There is no offset for the loss of truth. There can only be a cover-up of what has taken place. When our knowledge of God’s truth is diminished, our understanding of God is diminished, and no amount of contrived mystery through ancient liturgies or gathering in the presence of dim, flickering candlelight can compensate for the loss.

Emergents too, are standing outside the house that Ockenga, Henry, Graham, Stott, Lloyd-Jones, and Schaeffer built in that earlier generation. The difference is that they are standing outside the house, whereas the seeker-sensitives, the marketers, still imagine they are living inside it.“

David F. Wells. The Courage to Be Protestant. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2008. p. 18.

The Chief Occupational Hazard of the Preacher

Alex S. Leung — Tue, 15 Apr 2008 19:42:24 +0000

“Pride is without doubt the chief occupational hazard of the preacher. It I has ruined many, and deprived their ministry of power…. In some it is blatantly obvious. They are exhibitionists by temperament and use the pulpit as a stage on which they show off…. Other preachers are not like Nebuchadnezzars, however, for their pride does not take the form of blatant boastfulness. It is more subtle, more insidious, and even more perverse. For it is possible to adopt an outward demeanor of great meekness, while inside our appetite for applause is insatiable. At the very moment when in the pulpit we are extolling the glories of Christ, we can in reality be seeking our own glory, and when we are exhorting the congregation to praise God, and are even ostensibly leading them in praise, we can be secretly hoping that they will spare a bit of praise for us. We need to cry out with Baxter, “O what a constant companion, what a tyrannical commander, what a sly, subtle and insinuating enemy is this sin of pride!” (John Stott, Between Two Worlds, 320-321)

Never Lose Heart in the Power of the Gospel

Alex S. Leung — Sat, 29 Mar 2008 19:44:10 +0000

“Never lose heart in the power of the gospel. Do not believe that there exists any man, much less any race of men, for whom the gospel is not fitted.”
–C.H. Spurgeon

My Soul Hangs for Time and Eternity

Alex S. Leung — Wed, 19 Mar 2008 19:46:03 +0000

“On Christ, and what he has done, my soul hangs for time and eternity. And if your soul also hangs there, it will be saved as surely as mine shall be. And if you are lost trusting in Christ, I will be lost with you and will go to hell with you. I must do so, for I have nothing else to rely upon but the fact that Jesus Christ, the Son of God, lived, died, was buried, rose again, went to heaven, and still lives and pleads for sinners at the right hand of God.”
–C.H. Spurgeon

Living Near Your Local Church: A Matter of Values

Alex S. Leung — Sun, 16 Dec 2007 06:54:42 +0000

Today is a good day to wish you lived near your local church, especially if you’re a Christian whose lives more than 20 minutes away from their local church in Toronto. The reason being that those of us who live along the Great Lakes are in the middle of a major snow storm: ever since late Saturday night, snow has been falling at a rate of 2-5cm per hour. By the time this storm passes through Monday morning, there would be almost 30 centimetres of snow accumulated. That’s Canada for you!

The church I go to at home in Toronto was open today for Sunday Service (9am for the English Service, 10:30am for the Chinese Service) but everybody was late, and the start of the worship service was delayed for about 15 minutes. Many who lived more than twenty minutes away, especially those who live in the suburbs like Markham, were either very late in arriving or never even bothered to come to church because of the snow. Numerous churches in the city have called it a Snow Day and canceled their Sunday activities. Today is a bad day to be driving anywhere, but the issue lies not so much on there being snow. We Torontonians are used to bad weather and traffic congestion. The problem is that the large majority of church attendees and members do not live near their church. Thus, I was moved to write this post after reading an article on this issue by Ryan Townsend (a fellow M.Div student at Southern Seminary) on the 9Marks blog — it appears to be a modern issue that many churches face today.

The Commuter Church

I may only speak for Chinese churches in the Greater Toronto Area, and I can only comment on what I have observed in my local church setting. But my local church in Toronto is a commuter church. Every Sunday morning there are numerous Acuras, BMWs, Mercedes Benz-s and a Porsche or two that make the 20 minute plus commute from their luxurious homes in the suburbs in York or Durham Region to church in the north-eastern corner of Toronto. Undoubtedly, questions arise as to why the large majority of the congregation lives so far away from their local church, and why they do not live nearer to where they fellowship and worship every week.

“If anyone comes to me and does not hate his own father and mother and wife and children and brothers and sisters, yes, and even his own life, he cannot be my disciple. Whoever does not bear his own cross and come after me cannot be my disciple.”
–Luke 14:26-27

The truth is, many who are long-time members of my local church have chosen to move out of the city and out of the local church community. Well, if we’re to be really honest, they actually may not have ever lived near the local church. Over the years, rising housing prices and land taxes have driven many out of the city to find larger and newer homes for cheaper prices in the suburbs of Toronto. Few housing options in suburban Toronto itself (Scarborough, North York) provide the luxury and space they desire, and so they flee, and over time, they flee further and further away from their local church. And since they have made so many friends at this church over the years they have been here, they stay.

The Heart of the Problem

I never wanted to write anything substantive on this issue of one’s proximity to their local church, but this issue has moved into my radar because at the heart of the problem is a Gospel issue; it is a matter of values. This issue can be very touchy, where somebody reading this may take it personally and be insensitive to the crux; I have no intention of attacking anybody personally for where they live (for there may be extenuating circumstances for where one resides, i.e. being nearer to their job). However, I do want to hit the pinata straight on its head and confront the over-arching Gospel issue.

I do not see the Gospel and its related ministries as being the foremost purpose behind our decision-making and priorities for housing. I see couples, new and old, moving further and further away from the local church. I do not see missions to the local church community to be any priority at all. I see people moving to bigger, cheaper houses in far away suburbs in order to sustain their yuppie lifestyle. When I consider new married couples of my generation and I see all of them moving out to nowhere-near our church, I cannot help but wonder why? I doubt the priority they have placed in the Gospel for their decision of where to live; I become more and more convinced that they choose to live out there for the sake of their lifestyle. It does not seem that the Gospel and the Great Commission is something the church as a whole values any longer; it seems that materialism and comfort is something we value above and beyond anything our faith demands.

Benefits, Benefits, Benefits

There are obviously many practical benefits for living near your local church. As Townsend has listed: it saves time and gas money from commuting, makes the process of getting to and from church easier, facilitates ministry and service in the community, creates a more tangible corporate witness in the community, and makes the Lord’s Day more restful. Much more can be said about the serendipitous benefits of living near your church. But the fact of the matter is, given the option of living near one’s workplace or one’s church, inevitably the workplace wins out — for that is where you would commute 5 days out of 7. Logically speaking, it would be more practical and feasible on the wallet to live near your job and have a shorter commute to work. Be that as it may, people who live in the Greater Toronto Area or any large city for that matter, inevitably are forced to commute through traffic congestion every weekday because that is just the way urbanism has affected industry and employment. Therefore, living as close to work would be the logical decision to make.

However, if we are truly disciples of Jesus and if we truly confess Him to be our Lord, then we would give up our material and financial luxuries for the sake of the Gospel — would we not?! For the Gospel itself is illogical, and the way of the Kingdom is foolish to those who do not believe. For what good is salt if it loses its saltiness? And what good is light if you hide it in your house and hide it in your car while you commute? The question we must ask ourselves as disciples of Jesus Christ is rightly thus: “Where is a biblically healthy church that I can plant myself and my family, for the sake of our own discipleship and ministry?” After we have answered this question honestly for ourselves, then and only then are we able to obediently follow Christ in our subsequently important choices of work and play.

True Disciples Know Better

For we are not naive and ignorant baby Christians who do not know of the necessity of living near the church. Our own Pastor and a Guest Speaker has preached on the need to move into the church community, and yet many still reject the pleading of our earthly and Heavenly Shepherd. Unfortunately, hypocrisy inevitably is seen where our own Pastor and all our Elders live nowhere near the church. I know that we believers all fall short of His glory on numerous occasions, myself included. It is just very sad and unfortunate that this consequence of the fall has become the standardized norm — a bad habit which the Good News of the Christ’s Cross has given us the power to overcome. The church leaders — the Pastors, Elders and Deacons — must be an example themselves for the rest of the church to follow; otherwise there would be no substance or weight when they exhort others to do what they themselves have not done: live near the church.

“So therefore, any one of you who does not renounce all that he has cannot be my disciple.”
–Luke 14:33

If we are to be His true disciples, God has said that it would cost us a lot, just as it had cost Him His own Son’s life. God gave us His Son, Jesus the Christ to die in our place, for our sins, that we may be counted righteous in His sight. And as those who have been brought from death to life, are we not compelled to start doing the right thing, and take up our cross? As those who have been ransomed and redeemed from the slavery of sin and idolatry, are we not compelled to give up the treasures of this world and start building His kingdom here on earth? And as those who have been saved from the wrath of God and delivered out of darkness and into His marvelous light, are we not compelled to be God’s hands and feet in in our backyard (which also should be our church’s backyard)?

Maybe it’s time to reconsider where we work. Maybe it’s time to reconsider where we live. And maybe it’s time we all considered living near our local church.

Are you a Non-Christian?

Alex S. Leung — Thu, 13 Dec 2007 06:49:53 +0000

In an article by Robert M. Bowman Jr. on Mormonism, he begins the article with an insightful overview of Christianity through the lens of a 5-ring delineation of churches that are included in the religion of Christianity. What is noteworthy is who is included in the 5th ring, which is generally regarded as technically not Christian in terms of the validity/soundness of their expression of Christian faith:

Christianity includes an incredible diversity of belief and practice. (The numbers I use here are extremely rough approximations for sake of getting the big picture.) (1) About a billion people—about half of all Christianity—are found in the Catholic Church. (2) About a quarter of a billion people belong to one of the Orthodox or Eastern churches (which includes Greek Orthodox, Russian Orthodox, etc., and also the Coptics and other groups). (3) Nearly a third of a billion people are associated with some conservative Protestant church or movement, either evangelical Protestant or Pentecostal. (4) Another quarter of a billion people belong to mainline, mostly moderate to liberal, Protestant denominations.

(5) This leaves roughly a quarter of a billion people whose forms of Christianity do not fit into any of the aforementioned categories. Within this none-of-the-above category is a wildly diverse assortment of religious communities. If each major type of Christianity represented in this fifth category were its own species, it would look like the Mos Eisley Cantina on Tatooine or an assemblage of delegates to a parliamentary meeting of the United Federation of Planets (take your pick!). It includes (deep breath) Adventism, British-Israelite groups, Christian Science, the Family, Jehovah’s Witnesses, Latter-day Saints, Messianic Judaism, Metropolitan Community Churches, New Thought, Oneness Pentecostalism, Rosicrucianism, the Sacred Name movement, Swedenborgianism, the Unification Church, Unitarian Universalism, The Way International, and many, many others.

Read Bowman’s entire article here.

Speaking, Pink, Elephant (Conclusion)

Alex S. Leung — Sun, 14 Oct 2007 18:11:38 +0000

Concluding Remarks

I never planned to write this blog series. I feel like 2 Timothy 3:12 is happening to me and as such, I cannot be silent: “Indeed, all who desire to live a godly life in Christ Jesus will be persecuted, while evil people and impostors will go on from bad to worse, deceiving and being deceived.“ That is why I must conclude this series with some direct responses to exegetical fallacies employed by the pastor question. The concerns here are for the issues in question; there is no intent to make all this ‘personal’. I really hope y’all could know my brotherly affection and care for this wayward minister and join me in praying for her and those who have heard her speak.

“Even with Scripture’s help I’m not sure anyone can adequately determine the answer to that questions completely — what it means to be woman of God, or what it means to be a man of God. Scripture is clear though on what it means to be in Christ, Scripture is clear on what it means to be a godly human being, Scripture is clear on what it means to be the imago dei, which is the image of God.”

Let me first say that whenever a preacher starts off by throwing out the sufficiency and inerrancy of Scripture in the beginning of a sermon, there is consequently no reason for listeners to believe anything he, or in this case, she, says. Whenever anybody speaks and then commends others to obey their spoken truth apart from Scripture, therein lies no authority or power whatsoever in their words to transform lives.

We can adequately determine from Scripture what it means to be a woman or man of God. For if Scripture cannot give us sufficient answers to all our questions of faith and practice, then it is powerless for our nations to be saved, people freed or changed. And if that be the case, then it would be completely futile for anybody to open their mouth and supposedly preach a word from an powerless religious book. We might as well shut up, shrink into a ball, and cry like a baby because our faith is based on some obscure, unclear and erroneous book — from which we can derive no hope whatsoever.

Fortunately, the inerrant Scripture is our sole source of written divine revelation, which alone can bind the conscience, and it is the Bible alone which teaches us all that is necessary for our salvation from sin and is the standard by which all Christian behavior must be measured. Just as the Article I of the Baptist Faith & Message reads,

“The Holy Bible was written by men divinely inspired and is God’s revelation of Himself to man. It is a perfect treasure of divine instruction. It has God for its author, salvation for its end, and truth, without any mixture of error, for its matter. Therefore, all Scripture is totally true and trustworthy. It reveals the principles by which God judges us, and therefore is, and will remain to the end of the world, the true center of Christian union, and the supreme standard by which all human conduct, creeds, and religious opinions should be tried.”

“While I believe that men and women have distinct differences in how we actually carry out the imago dei, I believe we are called to live for the most part in very similar ways.

Ok, fine, I’ll give you that — I know some supposed evangelicals today like to use Latin vocabulary from the apostate Church of Rome. Is it really necessary and that much cooler to say “imago dei” instead of just “image of God”!? God bless you if you need to use Latin in order to boost your self-esteem or substantiate biblical Greek and Hebrew.

Further, how is it that one can so quickly contradict themselves in one sentence, and then in the next sentence, substantiate these similarities between the functions of the two different gender by providing generic behavioral commands that are for all believers. Let me pause to scratch my head at this confusing argument. *pause* ~scratch scratch~ Scripture does tell us many specifics about how all Christians ought to live, and specifics about how men ought to live, and specifics about how women ought to live. As previously mentioned, we have for example Ephesians 5:21-33; Colossians 3:18-19; 1 Peter 3:1-7; Titus 2:5; and 1 Timothy 3:4, 12. Add to that, Romans 12:9ff gives us some pretty clear “key things” that true Christians must do, which includes, “Do not be haughty, but associate with the lowly. Never be conceited.”

“Do women have specific roles in the church? I think the answer to that is yes… and no. Yes because we are all called to live according to the gifts that God has given us. And that’s not to say that we all run around claiming random gifts for ourselves. What that means is the gifts that God has affirmed in us we use for the glory of God. So yes, women have specific roles in the church, they have specific roles according the specific gifts God has given them. But no, because not all of us have been given the same gifts, or are called to the same gifts.”

Well, that doesn’t really answer the question does it?! (NO!) Further, an ordained minister of God’s Word should not be asking listeners, “What are the qualities of a godly women? Do women belong in positions of spiritual leadership” and only answering that question with another question “What do you think?” All preachers should have learned in seminary that it is inappropriate to ask What do you think in a sermon, and further, that it is outrageously inappropriate to leave this questioned unanswered with silence.

The problem is that in our fallen world, even Christians have faulty consciences that are marred by original sin, henceforth rendering our ability to interpret Scripture all the more difficult. Those who have been gifted and called must not be unclear in the study of God’s Word to explain what it means, and to make the main point of the Scripture the main point of the sermon. We do a disservice to the sheep under our care if we neglect to appropriately shepherd our sheep, ultimately letting them be possessed by legions of evil and be drowned in the sea of confusion.

Beloved, although I was very eager to write to you about our common salvation, I found it necessary to write appealing to you to contend for the faith that was once for all delivered to the saints. For certain people have crept in unnoticed who long ago were designated for this condemnation, ungodly people, who pervert the grace of our God into sensuality and deny our only Master and Lord, Jesus Christ.

Jude 3-4

Speaking, Pink, Elephant (part 2 of 2)

Alex S. Leung — Fri, 12 Oct 2007 18:08:48 +0000

“Evangelical feminists” and egalitarians use Galatians 3:28 as the primary texts in support of their view of equal gender roles, however, it is a passage that is interpreted baldly out of context and exegeted horribly to present their side of the story.

Here is the paragraph wherein verse 28 lies:

23 Now before faith came, we were held captive under the law, imprisoned until the coming faith would be revealed. 24 So then, the law was our guardian until Christ came, in order that we might be justified by faith. 25 But now that faith has come, we are no longer under a guardian, 26 for in Christ Jesus you are all sons of God, through faith. 27 For as many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ. 28 There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is no male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus. 29 And if you are Christ’s, then you are Abraham’s offspring, heirs according to promise.

Galatians 3:23-29

Since a seminarian friend has written a good article explaining the verse’s context, I don’t want to repeat what he’s already said. I will however affirm some important points and add some significant points from my own brief study of Galatians 3:28.

Context

Galatians 3 should be understood as Paul’s response to Galatians 2:11-14. (See G. Walter Hansen’s commentary on Galatians by in The IVP New Testament Commentary Series) In that previous chapter, Apostle Peter is rebuked for dinning with Gentiles in one minute and in another minute he stopped once Jews saw him fellowshipping with the Greeks. The issue there was whether or not it was appropriate for Jews to fellowship with Gentiles, which clearly Peter and the Galatians were confused about. However, the Apostle Paul saw through that specific question to the larger issue at hand, which he contends as the denial of the Gospel of Jesus Christ.

This is why Paul says that Peter’s “conduct was not in step with the truth of the gospel,” as Peter had treated the Gentiles as unwanted/unworthy for fellowship upon the sight of his own Jewish people even now, after the inauguration of the New Covenant in Christ Jesus. On Peter’s part, it was hypocritical for him to behave in such an un-Christian manner and thus badly misrepresenting the Gospel he was ordained to proclaim.

To take Galatians 3:28 out of its original context here is to neuter the power of God for the salvation of all who believe — first for the Jew, then the Gentile — but indeed, all who believe. Paul never intended what he says here to be about “gender roles” or what it means to be a woman of God in ministry; to read an interpretation of gender equality into this text is simply ignorant and bad hermeneutics. I come from a public school and haven’t even taken a course on Hermeneutics yet, and still, this Jew-Gentile-Gospel context could not be any clearer to me.

You are all one

Egalitarians use this verse to support their view of equality between the two genders, imploring that this verse to say that men and women are equal because it says that “all one in Christ Jesus.” For unbelievers who have not been given new eyes to see, and even for self-proclaimed Christians who do not study the text, the context, and the words present, such people will probably come to that incorrect and misinterpreted conclusion.

Certainly, for those who have been baptized by the Holy Spirit and regenerated by Christ thus share in Him — His imputed righteousness. “you are all one” does not mean “you are all equal.” Just because all these groups are one does not mean that they are equal in any, or every sense. The equality that is present — that is, the element that both Jews and Gentiles, slaves and the free, males and females — indeed, that all Christians share in common is Christ Jesus himself! From this passage, what they share in common is Christ and only Christ, nothing more and nothing less; from this passage, we are equal in this one respect and in no other.

As Andreas Köstenberger writes,

“Of course, some insist Paul’s statements in Galatians 3:28 imply a change in human relationships. But whether a change in human relationship is implied in Galatians 3:28 or not, this does not appear to be the point Paul actually intended to make. The interpreter should take care to distinguish between authorial intention and possible implications. Moreover, it seems questionable to focus on the implications of Paul’s statements to the extent that the point Paul actually intended to make all but retreats into the background.”

(“Gender Passages in the NT: Hermeneutical Fallacies Critiqued,” Westminster Theological Journal 56 (1994), 277. As quoted in Biblical Foundations for Manhood and Woman. Wheaton, IL: 2002, 106. Emphasis mine.)

Subsequently, we should note the universality of this shared element of Jesus Christ that is evident in this passage and not just the oft-pulled verse 28: verse 26 “for in Christ Jesus you are all sons of God, through faith”, and verse 27 “For as many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ”. That is why Paul exhorts that there is unity between all who are in Christ: despite our differences, and in spite of being so diverse in who we are, we share a unity in Jesus Christ.

One female pastor recently preached, saying:

“How we understand the word as its written in its original context, and how it’s written and understood today are equally important. It’s true that there are passages in Scripture that hold to a patriarchal understanding of women - meaning that men have authority over women. But it’s also true that there seem to be an equal number of examples of Scripture that actually speak to an egalitarian view of women in the church as well. That isn’t to say that women are over men, it’s to say that they are created equal.

We need to remember that scripture is written in at particular point at a particular time for a particular audience, and in the same way we read Scripture in our particular setting and sometime our lens gets blurry because of how we see Scripture in our own culture.”

Men and women are created equal in value and in worth, according to the image of God of which we all are designed to reflect. However, what we do as male and female are different and complementary, and that is indeed to say that men and women have different primary roles and functions that they are responsible for in the home, in the church, and in the world. I do not know of anywhere in the New Testament that commands us to or implies that we should live under patriarchal relationships; rather, Scripture calls us to consider others better than ourselves and to outdo one another in showing honor. While we must consult passages like Ephesians 5 on this issue of gender roles, we cannot and must not blur our spiritual lenses and put a veil over ourselves with our own ideas, biases of what we would like Galatians 3:28 to mean. To do so is eisegesis, a sin that all Christians must be aware of and repent of when we do it.

On this note, Wayne Grudem writes,

“To say that we are “one” means that we are united, that there should be no factions or divisions among us, that there should be no sense of pride and superiority or jealousy and inferiority between these groups that viewed themselves as so distinct in the ancient world.”

(Biblical Foundations For Manhood and Womanhood. Wheaton, IL: 2002, 42)

There is neither… nor.

I doubt anybody would have the audacity to argue from Galatians 3:28 that there no longer exists Jews or Greeks, males or females. In Biblical Foundations for Manhood and Womanhood, Richard Hove notes on page 122 that the figure of speech utilized here is a “merism”, where pairs of opposites are used as a literary device to express this notion of universality. Thus, these three couplets of “there is neither” cannot mean abolishment of the races, servant relationships, or genders. The Apostle Paul also wrote in his epistle to the Ephesians that husbands and wives should act differently according to their different roles.

This negation is in regard to sonship in Christ, for that is the controversy in Galatia which is the concern of this epistle. Paul confronts the Galatians in response to their false belief that only Jews are sons and heirs in Christ. There is no distinction or partiality between anybody — regardless of race, occupation, or gender — in so far as we all are baptized in Christ; all who are in Christ are sons and thus heirs according to His promise!

“Jews should no longer think themselves superior to Greeks, freed men should not think
themselves superior to slaves, and men should no longer think themselves superior to women. They are all parts of one body in Christ, and all share in equal value and dignity as members of one body in Christ.” (Grudem, 43)

In context of redemptive history, this verse is significant in its exhortation that not only actual sons of Abraham (Jews) can be sons and heirs of Christ who would obtain His inheritance, but all who are in Christ. In the New Covenant inaugurated by the shedding of Christ’s blood, those who hear the Gospel with faith are thence justified as sons of Abraham (Galatians 3:5-6, 7-9). And so these blessings of Christ are universal for all people who believe in Christ.

That is why in Galatians 3:28 there is a unity between the genders that preserves, not abolishes, our unique differences as male and female, and our differing functions and responsibilities as men and women are shown to be supremely and equally valuable for the cause of union in Christ.

Also consulted for this post: Recovering Biblical Manhood and Womanhood, eds. John Piper and Wayne Grudem (Wheaton, IL: Crossway Books, 1991).

To be concluded…
(I have a few more things to say, so I shall close this series tomorrow with some concluding remarks)