Hot Topics - Part 5 – Women In Ministry, Part 2

(This article can also we found on our website
at http://www.bethelkingston.com under the tab called "Blog")

This Touching Base is a useful tool for small group discussion, personal reflection or in a one-on-one conversation. We believe that if the Sunday teaching is discussed outside of the morning services, it will be an opportunity to go deeper and build healthy community because God's Word needs to be discussed in community.

Okay we are into week two and no hate mail… so far, so good. Not that we are overly concerned about that, but at Bethel we do believe there is a better way to move forward than by slinging fireballs over the bow of opposing positions (please read the TB from last week to get the context).

This week, we are delving into the two common positions held on women in ministry. Before we get into this, we want to be very, very clear that there are certain positions we categorically reject because they do not measure up to the standard of E-D-C (equality and diversity in community – see Week 1). In general, the issue of equality is the lynch-pin in this equation: many positions that we will not entertain assert some kind of inequality, and we are sure that Genesis 1-2, and New Testament passages such as Galatians 3:28-4:7 are emphatic about the equal value and standing of men and women before God.


Question: What are the two positions in discussion this morning?

EGALITARIANISM (Mark) - the view that says all ministries are open to men and women. Gifts and maturity, not gender, determine ministry roles.

This was the first view we looked at. If you were with us then you will remember the puzzle analogy we used to illustrate how both sides of this discussion are about restoration. For this position I developed three guiding convictions that lead one to believe in egalitarianism. Adam will be more text specific.

Three guiding convictions that influence how we put the puzzle together:

1. Genesis 3:16 is a consequence of the fall
What is describe d in v.16, patriarchy, is not prior to the fall but as a consequence of the fall. Thus, we would see it as a violation of the picture of Gen 1 and 2, where equality and diversity are in community. Operating according to Gen. 3:16 is less than ideal. It is not something to be perpetuated but rather restored and healed. V.16 is a prediction, not a prescription.

2. The overarching plot of Scripture is about restoration, movement forward. (Like a river)
As you read the story of the Old Testament moving into the New Testament, who can deny the fact that not everything is nailed down? There is movement. Granted, there are many doctrines and teachings that have been nailed to the floor from the OT through to the NT, i.e. theft, adultery, sexual orientation, the nature of God etc. However, on some issues we see that what was mandated in the OT is now no longer applicable in the NT. As one writer said “God spoke in those days in those ways.” For example take the OT sacrificial system. Scripture makes it clear that we are under a new and better covenant. Circumcision is another example… are you men not glad that those days are passed? Read The Blue Parakeet listed in the bibliography below for a much better and thorough development of this point.

3. Included in that movement is women in ministry
“We believe God’s gracious plan of redemption is that everything between men and women might be restored to the beauty that existed during the first days of creation.” (Johnson, p.108) As you scan through the OT you see what one writer has called “grace notes”. These are examples of what could be and should be. These are “WDWD” (What Did Women Do) passages. As a group or on your own check out the following:

• Miriam - Spiritual Leader
She was one third of Israel’s triumvirate of leadership: Moses as a lawgiver, Aaron as priest, and Miriam as prophetess. When a later prophet, Micah spoke of Israel’s deliverance, he saw three leaders in Israel: “I brought you up out of Egypt…. I sent Moses to lead you, also Aaron and Miriam.” (Micah 6:4)

• Deborah - Presidential Leader
Some say she was the president, the pope and Rambo all bundled up in one female body (Judges 4-5).

• Huldah - Prophet above Prophets
2 Kings 22 - note that when she was chosen Josiah could have chosen Jeremiah, Zephaniah, Nahum, Habakkuk or Huldah. She is not chosen because no men are available.

But the greatest movement comes in Jesus ministry. Based on the cultural norms of the day, Jesus was a radical, stepping outside the boundaries and acting and leading in way that was about restoration.

Check out the following quote.

“He talked to an immoral woman about theology, worship and the state of her relationships, and the state of her soul (John 4). He pointed out to the men who were judging the woman caught in adultery that she was no more guilty than they were (8:1-11). He received Mary’s act of worship as being more meaningful than anything that was going on in the synagogues (12:1-8). He welcomed women into his inner circle of friends and disciples- and they were last at the cross (Mark 15:40-47). Women were first at the tomb (16:1-8, even though word of a woman witness in court was useless) and Jesus appeared first to some women and gave them the joyful responsibility of informing the disciples that he was alive (Mat. 28:8-10). Women were the first ones to bring the good news of the gospel!” (Johnson, p. 43)

Jesus is not the only one to model this restorative movement but Paul does as well. N.T. Wright said that after spending decades of academic study in Romans he found Romans 16 to be one of the most important chapters in the entire letter. Why? “Because of the numerous references to women in ministry in that chapter.”

Sooooooooooooooooooooo...... because of these guiding convictions about the nature and direction of Scripture on women in ministry, when we come to the difficult texts of the NT (WKSP- “WOMEN KEEP SILENT” PASSAGES), 1 Corinthians 11, 14,1 Tim 2, we are led to ask ...

• What was going on in the original context to cause Paul to say what he did?
• How do the silencing texts (wksp) fit within the larger theme and movement of Scripture? Are they contradictions or contextual?

We would see these as local situations not universal norms for all time.

COMPLEMENTARIANISM (Adam)

At its core, complementarianism sees the scripture giving primary responsibility for spiritual direction (teaching, leading) to male leaders, i.e. only men are given the responsibility to be elders and head/lead pastors (that is, a pastor whose primary functions include teaching, leadership and vision casting for the whole church, and who sits on the elders’ board). I use the words “primary responsibility” because complementarianism in no way excludes women from all positions of spiritual direction, but limits eldership and pastorship (as defined above) to men.

How do you begin writing about something you know is unpopular and will possibly offend someone? Is there a good way to start the sentence? Perhaps not, so I ask that you hold your tomatoes to the end and walk with me through the scripture as I look at this perspective.

One caveat before I begin: I hold this viewpoint not because of a particular view about men and women that I bring to the table. I have learned from and been led and influenced by various women in my life, and I appreciate them dearly. I unequivocally affirm Genesis 1 and 2 as they defend equality and diversity coming together in community. I hold this view tenuously as I know my exegesis is only as good as my own fallen mind and the fallen minds of others who have gone before me. But, I hold this view based on an issue of integrity – this is what I understand the scripture to say, and I know that ultimately I will stand before God on this issue. My objective is not to convince or cajole, but rather to educate and inspire. I pray these words accomplish that end.

How do complementarians put the puzzle back together, following the blueprint of scripture? There are two components; first, primary responsibility of male leadership and guidance was in the mind of God from the beginning. On Sunday we looked at several texts (Gen. 3:9, Hosea 6:7, Romans 5:12-14) that place primary responsibility for the fall on Adam’s shoulders. Were both Adam and Eve guilty? Yes, but Adam is called to account first. As you continue to survey the scripture and pick up puzzle pieces, the issue of primary responsibility being placed on male shoulders is reinforced both in the home and in the church. In Genesis 3:16, God sets the pattern for social life by emphasizing Adam’s responsibility to lead, and the New Testament picks up on this theme in passages like 1 Cor. 11:3, Eph. 5:22-33, Col 3:18-19, and 1 Pet. 3:5-7. Take Eph. 5:22 for example: the call on the man to lead the woman is a responsibility equated with the leadership, love and service Jesus provides to the church. This pattern is the basis for passages that call for male primary responsibility in the gathered church, described in passages like 1 Cor. 11:3 or 1 Cor. 14:34-35. Before moving on to the next point, let me stress that the pattern for male primary responsibility is the one which Jesus set: loving, servant-leadership.

Alone or with your group, read through Ephesians 5:22-33 again and identify the characteristics that Jesus means for His leaders to emulate.

As we continue to assemble the puzzle, the second key component is that Jesus (and later the apostles) endorses the primary responsibility of men by His choice of leaders for the early church. From his inner circle of three, to the rest of the twelve, to the replacement of Judas, to the conversion of Paul, and even after the establishment of churches (Timothy in Ephesus, James – Jesus’ brother – in Jerusalem), the pattern is that primary responsibility is given to men. Were women present and involved in the fledgling church? YES! Read Acts 1:14 or take the many examples Mark has given regarding prominent women in the early church. Women were critically important and deeply involved, but complementarians argue that even Jesus rested primary responsibility for the spiritual direction and growth of the early church on the shoulders of men.

So keeping these two components in view, when we come to a text such as 1 Timothy 2:11-13, a complementarian would argue to abide by the teaching that women have not been given the authority by God to have authority over men, as expressed in a primary teaching role. Does a complementarian argue therefore that no woman should teach, or that we should adopt a purely ‘literal’ reading of this text and silence women? NO! In fact, complementarians endorse women speaking publicly and teaching in some situations in the church because the scripture seems to affirm that ministry. Have a look at 1 Corinthians 11:2-16. What observation do you make? Women are DEFINITELY prophesying, in public, within earshot of men. Those who argue that women should ALWAYS be silent in church actually stand on very tenuous biblical ground. The issue in these kinds of passages is not that women speak or teach, but it’s that the speaking or teaching must serve under the model of men being primarily responsible for spiritual guidance.

One piece of the puzzle that might be missing for you at this point is this: can we really say men and women are equal in value and standing before God, and at the same time affirm that primary responsibility has been given to men and not women? This is a great question, and forces us to examine our expectation of equality. If we expect equality to mean that all roles in the home or church are open to any gender, then yes, complementarianism can be seen as fundamentally unequal. However, complementarians argue that men having primary responsibility has nothing to do with special status or superior gifting, but rather acknowledges the way God has chosen to hold his people together in community. A good analogy is a sports team with a captain: that captain is not necessarily the best player, and is no more valuable than the other members of the team, but they are given the responsibility to guide and direct the team during the game.

Equality is preserved in value and standing, but diversity is acknowledged in the roles distributed. Complementarianism acknowledges that women are heirs of God with Christ, equal to men in this respect (Galatians 3:28-4:7), and acknowledges that women have been given the same Spirit (Joel 2:38) and are often endowed with gifts of teaching and leadership (the NT passages about spiritual gifts do not assign certain gifts to certain genders). It is my conviction that when we re-assemble the puzzle and return to the garden, the tension of “primary responsibility” will be replaced by the bliss of harmony – perfect leadership is displayed in this, when the team or community operates in exact step with one another, seemly oblivious to the presence or responsibility of the leader.

BEFORE WE CONTINUE… THE OTHER SIDE
“So how can a woman be a complementarian?” by Carmen Gauvin-O’Donnell

Before Mark and Adam move on to the idea of coexistence, they asked me to include a few paragraphs in this TB because I am one of those women who do believe that complementarianism represents a more accurate picture of God’s plan. Obviously, I consider myself to be a soft complementarian or I would not be working for Bethel or doing a lot of the things that I do! :-) And that having been said, I think I will continue to wrestle with my position, because egalitarians have certainly shown some compelling arguments. And that’s okay… it’s the joy of living in the “here but not yet” kingdom!

Like Adam, my position stems from my reading of scripture, as well as a (very imperfect but developing) understanding of how perfect and loving Jesus is in His headship. He loves His bride the Church so much that he died for her, and He asks our husbands to do the same for us, for instance. So I, as a woman, have no difficulty at all in submitting to loving male spiritual headship when it’s working on resembling Jesus… I should think that most of us would feel that way, male or female!

So why only male elders/pastors? Again, because of scripture, and because I know the quality of what I’ve seen at Bethel: If you think that the (awesome!) men (all married) who lead our church aren’t cognizant of the importance of women, or their influence in their decision-making, think again! After all, Bethel is strongly shaped by the fact that our staff is 50% women (Jamie, Amy and I… hear us roar! :D ) And with all that, I see God’s plan working best at Bethel because spiritual headship is assumed by godly men. “Well Bethel’s one thing, but what about when they’re not godly?” you might ask. I’d reply that the fact that people aren’t perfect doesn’t change the plan God has. God, you’ll remember, is perfect.

I firmly believe, though, that one of the issues which has really shaped our understanding of the relationships between men and women has nothing to do with our extensive biblical study, unfortunately: instead, we have all been shaped by our society, and just because society says so, doesn’t necessarily make it right. Just try looking at television in this day and age for instance and you’ll notice men being portrayed as sex-obsessed, well-meaning idiots and women somehow being the only intelligent, reasonable ones. That’s ridiculous. Another example is that you can look at the word “submission”, which has somehow become a dirty word, as if the one submitting is somehow inferior to the one he or she is submitting to. You know, she’s some sort of doormat or something. And yet, when we run back to Scripture (now there’s a thought! :D ), there stands Jesus, in perfect submission to the Father’s will. Does HE strike you as a doormat? Hey, for that matter, do I strike you as a doormat?! :D

So there you go: I believe that I can be fully used of God in ministry best when I allow myself, like Christ unto His Father, to be under the authority of loving male spiritual headship.

Still think I’m nuts? Call me! Let’s have coffee and do some of that “iron sharpening iron” stuff! (Prov. 27;17)

LEARNING TO COEXIST

Now we could go back and forth all day. Debate or accuse… Do I just accuse Adam of being sexist and he accuse me of being a flaming liberal? (two common responses.) Do I pack my bags and leave? Some do, some will.

How about coexisting, i.e. living in unity but not uniformity?

There are some positions taken on this issue where coexisting might be very difficult. But what we are talking about this morning are two positions (puzzle assemblers) that we think can coexist and in fact do at Bethel. There are women and men who hold Adam’s view that find ways to coexist with men and women who hold my view. They thrive in the same local church, and they are model of grace and humility.
How is that possible? There are some principles that come out of Romans 14 - a text showing that this issue of disputable matters is not new to us. Back 2000 years ago, there arose the issue of unclean food and sacred days, and while the issues were different there are some helpful tips on living in unity but not in uniformity.

Caveat:
There are all kinds of disputable matters – baptism (dunk or sprinkle, babies or adults?), young earth/old earth, return of Christ (before or after a tribulation?), tongues, divorce and remarriage etc. We have our core beliefs (i.e. the Deity of Christ, the authority of Scripture, adultery, theft, sexual orientation) but there are some beliefs where Scripture is not as clear as for others.

As a group or on your own, read Romans 14 and discuss the how-tos of coexisting. You might want to add to the list. Also, don’t just think about this issue of women in leadership, think about other issues where you have had to learn to live in unity but not uniformity on disputable matters.

1. I need to guard my attitude, not judging, not condemning, not looking down (Rom. 14:1-4,13)
2. I need to accept the fact that they stand before God on this issue. Let them work it out 14:4, 10, 11, 12 - It might not be for you/me to try to win them over to your side, although there’s nothing wrong with iron sharpening iron
3. I need to encourage them to seek Christ. That is where we all need to be v.5-8
4. I need to adjust my understanding of the church. Not everyone is on the same page. Romans 14 makes this pretty clear. You will never find a church in perfect alignment with what you believe about disputable matters.
5. I need to act out of love not……? V.15 - On this issue it is very easy to act out of anger, unforgiveness, or past hurt that distorts current dialogue. Paul says in v.14 of Rom. 14 that he KNOWS and is PERSUADED that nothing is unclean. If we understand Paul to be inspired by the Spirit when he writes that, then we can assert that there is no unclean food. However, Paul accepts the opposite perspective for the sake of love.
6. I need to do what leads to peace and mutual edification – v.19-21
7. I need to respect a person’s conscience on this matter. Ultimately someone’s conscience must be shaped by the authority of God’s word. V.23
8. Can you find other principles of how to coexist in this text?

Once again, take some time to pray on this matter. This can be a messy issue, but healthy churches dialogue on these kinds of issues, in love.

“Lord help us as your Church to love one another deeply. To uphold both our brothers and sisters as equals. To appreciate the diversity we see in each other, to celebrate it, honor it, and protect it. Build your Church where equality and diversity engage in deep meaningful community. Holy Spirit come upon us, save us from ourselves and make the Bride of Christ, the Church, a fountain of life, an oasis of healing, where Your truth sets us free. Amen.”

Adam Davies, Mark Kotchapaw
If interested in joining or starting a small group contact bethelcommunitygroups@gmail.com


Hoekema, Anthony. Created in God’s Image. 1994: Eerdman’s

Johnson, Alan F., Gen. Ed. How I Changed My Mind About Women In Leadership – Compelling Stories from Prominent Evangelicals. 2010: Zondervan

www.macleans.ca – We refer to an article on their website posted in October of 2010: http://www2.macleans.ca/2010/10/18/raising-our-boys/

McKnight, Scott. The Blue Parakeet – Rethinking How You Read the Bible. 2010: Zondervan

www.npr.org – We refer to an article on their website posted in June of 2011 - http://www.npr.org/2011/06/27/137342682/the-end-of-gender

Piper, John (with Wayne Grudem). 50 Crucial Questions About Manhood and Womanhood. 1992: The Council on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood

Piper, John and Wayne Grudem, Eds. Recovering Biblical Manhood and Womanhood – A Response to Evangelical Feminism. 2006: Crossway Books

Stackhouse, John Jr. Finally Feminist – A Pragmatic Understanding of Gender. 2005: Baker Academic

Stott, John. Guard the Truth – 1 and 2 Timothy. 1996: InterVarsity Press

Webb, William J. Slaves, Women and Homosexuals – Exploring the Hermeneutics of Cultural Analysis. 2001: IVP Academic

Hot Topics - Part 4 – Women In The Bible
Equality and Diversity in Community

(This article can also we found on our website
at http://www.bethelkingston.com under the tab called "Blog")

This Touching Base is a useful tool for small group discussion, personal reflection or in a one-on-one conversation. We believe that if the Sunday teaching is discussed outside of the morning services, it will be an opportunity to go deeper and build healthy community because God's Word needs to be discussed in community.

This morning we begin a two-week series that is, for some, very hot. You can speak to some about this issue and before they even form their words, their face says it all. Our goal in this two-week series is to teach what the Biblical view is on women, model what it means to co-exist with others whose view may be slightly different and to help people understand how the Bible champions the value of women. And although men can experience sexism as well, our focus is mainly on the experience of women. Our big idea for Week 1 is that even in our diversity (how we may differ in interpreting some of the harder texts) we share a lot of common ground. What is that common ground? What should we believe about both sexes? Genesis 1-2 provide great words of blessing for both genders.

EQUALITY GEN 1, 2

The first thing we noticed on Sunday morning is that God speaks words of EQUALITY to both men and women. Where do you see God speaking about equality in Genesis 1-2?

Genesis 1:26-27 is crystal clear: men and women are BOTH created in the image of God. So when we speak about equality, in the first place we see equality of VALUE. What does this mean? It means that the value of a man is equal to the value of a woman in the eyes of both man (generic, not masculine) and God. God lavishes his affection and excitement about His new creation on BOTH the man and the woman. When does God celebrate? AFTER both the man and the woman have been created. We said on Sunday that the centerpiece of this question of equal value is the reality of the image of God, not male plumbing! (Mark’s line, not Adam’s)

The other part of equality is STANDING. Image is not only bound in our creation, but it’s bound to our re-creation – read Ephesians 4:24 and Colossians 3:10 to see what we mean. We bear the image of God not only because of who formed us, but because of who saved us. There is no distinction between who receives the Spirit (Joel 2:28-29) and there is no distinction between who receives God’s promises and inheritance (Galatians 3:28-4:7). God does not give his Visa card to the men to shop at Holt Renfrew and then turn around and give the women a few dollars to spend at Value Village; both are ascribed the same worth.

But do you know anyone that does not believe women are on an equal footing or equal worth? Have you ever seen anything in culture that has compromised this truth? Ever seen something in Scripture that would make you think otherwise?

For example someone might ask, “If male and female are equal then why is God predominantly portrayed as male?” In our highly sensitive culture on this issue some see this as bigotry and sexist. However, when you understand the context we discover that one of the reasons that God being described as male was to demonstrate to us that He is a person, not less personal than the humans He has made. As a person He holds us accountable in a way that a universal principle could not. God is not an impersonal law. This would have contrasted the paganism of the day where one’s view of god was not personal. All agree that when Scripture calls God “Father” or “King,” we are not to understand by these that God is literally male. God (ESSENCE) does not have male hardware. One other point is that there are plenty of Scriptures that portray God as acting like a mother. ‘You deserted the Rock who fathered you; you forgot the God who gave you birth’ (Deuteronomy 32:18). God is here represented as the divine parent, both male and female. Elsewhere, God cries out ‘like a woman in labour’ (Isaiah 42:14), and showers the people with the affection of a mother (Isaiah 49:15; 66:13)—while Psalm 131:2 compares God’s love with quiet rest in the arms of a divine mother.

DIVERSITY

Not only does the foundational text of Scripture (which all of Scripture needs to be interpreted through) teach equality but it also teaches diversity. If you are in a small group talk about the difference between the sexes. In Gen 1, 2 we see diversity. Open up the text and finger through the following examples:

a) Diversity seen in the creative act. Contrast Gen 2:7 with v21,22
b) Diversity seen in the timing of creation. Who was created first? Is it possible that once God was warmed up he did his finest work in creating Eve last?
c) Diversity seen in Adam’s (the first Adam… not Adam who’s speaking this week… oh this is confusing) comment. Check out 2:23. There is similarity and dissimilarity. Bone of my bones, flesh of my flesh suggests what? Note the Hebrew for man is “ish”, the Hebrew for woman is “ishah”. Note the sound play between the two names. Similar yet dissimilar.
d) Diversity seen in the “hardware”. The mandate to be fruitful and increase in number 1:28 was given to both of them. Yet without Eve, Adam would have had a hard time, to say the least. He needed someone a little different.

Unfortunately we struggle to celebrate diversity. On Sunday we gave a couple of examples as how our culture either over-minimizes diversity and ends up hurting people (we question the decision of a Toronto couple who are not going to teach gender roles to their child, nor will they tell anyone what gender their child is, and we learned about the sad trend that a one-size fits all education system that once ostracized and disadvantaged women is now leaving Canadian boys in the perpetual Kindergarten sandbox), or over-emphasizes the differences leading men and women on a path of mutual destruction and Gender-mageddon!!! (there is actually a video-game out there called “Gender Wars”). The only celebration we seem to do well on a regular basis is that of sex: men in our culture place incredible value on a woman’s looks and liberality (not the political kind). Men, what do you appreciate about women, and what can you learn from them? Women, what do you appreciate about men, and what can you learn from them (don’t say ‘nothing’… I’m sure you can find something if you look hard enough!) What does Proverbs 31 teach us to celebrate in a woman? Check out the text.

COMMUNITY

When you look at Genesis, what do you learn about community? Do you see its origin in the creative work of God? Do you see its goodness? Do you see community in Genesis as a place of companionship and celebration? Do you see it as a place of acceptance? Genesis teaches us a lot about what community IS. It also teaches us a lot about what community _ _ _ _ (rhymes with fuzz). Community not only exists, but it expresses equality and diversity in action. In Genesis, the commands God gives to fill the earth and subdue it are given to humanity, BOTH men and women are meant to carry them out. Not only that, but the very language that God uses of Eve as Adam’s “helper” is active, and is the same language God uses of Himself. This word “ezer” in Hebrew is almost always used to describe the kind of help that God provides to people in desperate need of Him (see Psalm 70:5 for an example). God is not creating a pawn or a subordinate for Adam, but rather a rockstar-ette to come along beside Adam as to fully participate in the task God has given them.

How does the New Testament most commonly talk about community? 1 Corinthians 12:12-27 and Ephesians 4:1-6 say it best, we are a body: equally valuable, diverse in calling and ability, and deeply interconnected to achieve what God has called us to do. The body, the community of God’s people is meant to be the place of truth-telling, hurt-binding, sickness-healing and life-transforming where all are valued, honoured and accepted.

Does this not sound wonderful? Who wouldn’t want to be part of a marriage or church or workplace that upholds equality and diversity all within the context of a community that celebrates those attributes? However, is that what happens in the workplace, the church, the gym, etc.?

Some of you (women) as you listen read this are experiencing some dissonance. In theory it sounds great but in practice it has not always been what you have experienced. Community has not always been done well. How do we know? One indicator; Pain.

Equality has in some cases become inequality, diversity has resulted in adversity and community in some cases has become an unequal playing ground. Women most definitely have been at times burned and men can also experience the same prejudice. Think about this.

Instead of equality and diversity celebrated in community what are some words that would describe some women’s community experience in the church or the market place?

What are some of the destructive ways some women have processed this in their hearts? (insert men for women if that would be relevant to the discussion.)

Gen 3 tells us that we had a great fall and how it has played out has not always been biblical or God-honoring. Next week we are going to look at what happened when sin entered.

As a group or an individual take some time to reflect upon this teaching. Is there anything in your heart that you need to repent of that has in some way compromised God’s amazing blueprint here in Gen 1, 2? Do you need to ask God to heal your heart in how you feel about women or in how you feel about men?

As a man, am I guilty of seeing women only as sexual creatures not fully appreciating all that makes a woman beautiful in the eyes of God?

As a woman have I harbored anger that has developed a bitter root? Forgive for your health’s sake, since that other person may never acknowledge their sin on this issue.

Finally pray this prayer together. This is what we are praying for Bethel!

“Lord help us as your Church to love one another deeply. To uphold both our brothers and sisters as equals. To appreciate the diversity we see in each other, to celebrate it, honor it, and protect it. Build your Church where equality and diversity engage in deep meaningful community. Holy Spirit come upon us, save us from ourselves and make the Bride of Christ, the Church, a fountain of life, an oasis of healing, where Your truth sets us free. Amen.”

See you next week!
Adam Davies, Mark Kotchapaw
If interested in joining or starting a small group contact bethelcommunitygroups@gmail.com


Hoekema, Anthony. Created in God’s Image. 1994: Eerdman’s

Johnson, Alan F., Gen. Ed. How I Changed My Mind About Women In Leadership – Compelling Stories from Prominent Evangelicals. 2010: Zondervan

www.macleans.ca – We refer to an article on their website posted in October of 2010: http://www2.macleans.ca/2010/10/18/raising-our-boys/

McKnight, Scott. The Blue Parakeet – Rethinking How You Read the Bible. 2010: Zondervan

www.npr.org – We refer to an article on their website posted in June of 2011 - http://www.npr.org/2011/06/27/137342682/the-end-of-gender

Piper, John (with Wayne Grudem). 50 Crucial Questions About Manhood and Womanhood. 1992: The Council on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood

Piper, John and Wayne Grudem, Eds. Recovering Biblical Manhood and Womanhood – A Response to Evangelical Feminism. 2006: Crossway Books

Stackhouse, John Jr. Finally Feminist – A Pragmatic Understanding of Gender. 2005: Baker Academic

Stott, John. Guard the Truth – 1 and 2 Timothy. 1996: InterVarsity Press

Webb, William J. Slaves, Women and Homosexuals – Exploring the Hermeneutics of Cultural Analysis. 2001: IVP Academic

Hot Topics - Part 3 – Abortion (Part 2)
“Sure… I can see where abortion might be wrong… but what about…?”
Guest posting by Carmen Gauvin-O’Donnell

(This article can also we found on our website
at http://www.bethelkingston.com under the tab called "Blog")

This Touching Base is a useful tool for small group discussion, personal reflection or in a one-on-one conversation. We believe that if the Sunday teaching is discussed outside of the morning services, it will be an opportunity to go deeper and build healthy community because God's Word needs to be discussed in community.

Last week Mark opened the topic of abortion by delving into God’s word. There we saw (in Psalm 51:5) that what is in the womb matters, because the baby is a (sinful) person from the very beginning, even if he or she may go through different stages of development (zygote, fetus etc.). Only persons can be sinful.

I was also able to help Mark out by coming up and talking about the challenge that has been articulated by some people (i.e. “okay, so the fetus may be human, but it’s not a ‘person’…”). I explained that what does or does not define someone as a person is usually a very arbitrary, personal, list, and that such lists can be ultimately very dangerous:

• They will tend to include things which should not be included (i.e. some radical animal rights groups have started suggesting that animals have the exact same rights as human beings)
• At the other end of the spectrum, they will exclude things which should be on the list. As an example of the dangers of this idea, in the first service I mentioned that the Nazis had made lists of who should or should not live, and most genocides happen because one group decides another has no right to live.

I also provided the SLED acrostic that you can use, that will answer most peoples’ arguments about the unborn: Size, Level of Development, Environment and Degree of Dependency. See last week’s TB for more information on that.

Well as a result of that talk, Mark and I both got some questions which we thought we’d briefly respond to in this Touching Base (by the way, we LOVE that about the congregation at Bethel: no topics are too hot, no questions too difficult that we can’t all wrestle with them!)

a) What about the poor woman who has been raped? What about pregnancy in a young teenage girl?

I thought I would answer these two questions together.

As I explained last week, one of the most important things to be conscious of is that, while abortion is a very emotionally-charged issue, what we MUST remember, above all, is this:


So as you can see, there is only one question to be answered: Wwhat is the unborn? We need to know the answer because we all agree that it’s wrong to kill an innocent human being.

So when the question of rape or the age of the mother is brought up, the question isn’t about the mother, as sympathetic as we might be with the sometimes-tragic circumstances. The question to be answered comes down to this: what has the baby, a human person, done that he deserves to lose his life?

The pro-abortion groups have pulled off a very neat trick here: they have taken the baby out of the equation completely and made it all about the mother, when the question is all and only about the baby. No matter how tragic the circumstances or how emotional the situation, we as Christians must remember that it’s all about an innocent child. What we will do with this most defenseless of God’s creations? That’s why outstanding organizations like the Kingston Pregnancy Care Centre exist, so they can provide alternatives to abortion.

b) What happens to a fetus who dies while she’s still in the womb?

Firstly, we can look at Romans 1. In it, Paul tells us that all men and women are without excuse before God because He reveals Himself as Creator in the awesome universe all around us (for you armchair theologians out there, this is called “General Revelation”). Since a fetus has never had the opportunity to see that general revelation, God’s mercy must rest upon her. I am also reminded of King David’s words when speaking of his dead infant son, “I shall go to him, but he will not return to me.” (2 Sam 12:23) This can be understood to imply that the child is in heaven, where he will eventually be joined by David.

Also, again God’s grace must be present since this is a human being who will never get the choice to decide whether or not to follow Christ.

Finally, we can also rest in Genesis 18:25: “Will not the Judge of all the earth do right?” We can concede that at times God’s plan is a mystery to us on this side of eternity. There are times when we must bow the knee and simply say, after Job, “Though he slay me, yet will I hope in him.” (13:15). We know that God’s justice, mercy and grace are perfect and we know He will always do the right thing.

As an aside, some have said that, in that case, why not encourage abortion since then we’re guaranteeing that more people go to heaven? This is wrongful thinking for two reasons:

• We are commanded not to murder (more on this below)
• God ultimately gets to decide who lives and dies, from conception to natural death. Anything else means that we are playing God, which we are also commanded not to do.

c) Why does the New Testament appear silent on this issue?

This argument is actually put forward by some as an argument in favour of abortion (just as some say that since Jesus didn’t talk about homosexuality that had to mean he was in favour of it).

Firstly, there are a couple of reasons why there would be no problem with the silence:

• Klusendorf (p.139) writes that a study of the Jewish culture and writings of that time shows it to be a profoundly anti-abortion one (among others, the historian Josephus wrote about the anti-abortion laws of the time; the Sybiline Oracles also pronounced as “wicked” those who had abortions)
• In very early Christian history (mid to late 1st century), the Didache, a document published to guide the early church, specifically speaks of abortion in paragraph 2.2: “You shall not kill a child in the womb nor expose infants.”

So since the culture surrounding the writing of the New Testament was pro-life, there would be no reason to even bring it up when it was being written. It was obvious to everyone.

Secondly, the silence of the New Testament is not compelling to me personally, since Christians are people of the whole Bible: it seems to me that “You shall not murder” (Deut. 5:17) pretty much covers abortion, doesn’t it?

What do you think? Do these answers make sense? Do you agree or disagree? There are many more questions that could be asked and answered - don’t hesitate to contact us and ask! And if you can, take some time this week to talk with your group or other people about this vital issue for our times.

Finally, take some time to pray for all the defenseless in our midst that we, as followers of Christ,, would have the courage to stand and defend them.

Carmen
If interested in joining or starting a small group contact bethelcommunitygroups@gmail.com



The Didache, or The Teaching of the Lord Given to the Gentiles by the Twelve Apostles, can be read online, along with commentaries, at http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/didache.html

The Evangelical Fellowship of Canada (www.evangelicalfellowship.ca) “The Evangelical Fellowship of Canada (EFC) is the national association of evangelical Christians in Canada. It gathers Evangelicals together for impact, influence and identity in ministry and public witness” Their website has a page titled “Abortion/Fetal Rights” at http://www.evangelicalfellowship.ca/page.aspx?pid=365

Klusendorf, Scott. The Case for Life. Wheaton, Illinois: Crossway Books, 2009.

Life Training Institute (www.prolifetraining.com) “LTI was started by our president Scott Klusendorf in order to create a ministry that focused entirely on pro-life issues with the goal of maximizing its impact through single-minded dedication. Simply stated, our sole purpose is to train others to save lives. That's what we're all about.”

Stand to Reason (http://www.str.org): “Stand to Reason trains Christians to think more clearly about their faith and to make an even-handed, incisive, yet gracious defense for classical Christianity and classical Christian values in the public square.” Their website contains hundreds of pages of free resources and training material on many apologetics issues, including defending the pro-life position (search the website for “abortion”). Together, Greg Koukl and Scott Klusendorf have created the outstanding course, Making Abortion Unthinkable, which is available for purchase on the site.

Hot Topics - Part 2 - Abortion
What’s In The Womb Matters!

(This article can also we found on our website
at http://www.bethelkingston.com under the tab called "Blog")

This Touching Base is a useful tool for small group discussion, personal reflection or in a one-on-one conversation. We believe that if the Sunday teaching is discussed outside of the morning services, it will be an opportunity to go deeper and build healthy community because God's Word needs to be discussed in community.

Once again in Canadian politics the abortion issue seems to be gaining some momentum in terms of moving to the front of public debate. In a recent interview with Evan Solomon, host of CBC TV's “Power & Politics”, Stephen Woodworth (MP, Kitchener Centre), said the law defining a human being dates back to centuries-old English common law and Parliament has a responsibility to lead a debate on whether it's time to rewrite it. "Our definition of human being says that a child does not become a human being until the moment of complete birth," he said.

So we believe that every Christ-follower should be doubly-equipped…

… with the best of science to understand that what’s in the womb does matter. “Embryology textbooks uniformly state that new human life comes into existence upon completion of fertilization…” (Scott Klusendorf, The Case for Life, p. 49)

… AND with what Scripture has to say about what is in the womb. Often in our world, even as Christians, we only allow the scientific data to shape our worldview on the unborn. However, we must also dig into God’s word on this issue. We believe that when we do, God’s word will show us what it is that science clearly points to - that what’s in the womb matters.

In this Touching Base, I want to outline four statements from scripture that will help us to see this.

What’s in the womb is described with the language of personhood from conception.

Text: Psalm 51:1-6
Read through this text. The most salient verse for our purposes today is verse 5.

Note in v1-4- What was David’s sin? (adultery with Bathsheba) Who had he ultimately sinned against?

But notice v5- David says that he was sinful… only from birth? Not just birth, but conception.

Conception- Hebrew meaning hot - fertilization.

How can someone be guilty at birth if they haven’t done anything? How does verse 5b answer that question?

Our guilt is not rooted in behaviour alone but in our nature. We are sinful by nature, not just because of our actions. David is stating a biblical teaching which is not unique to his pen alone but which is found throughout scripture. If you are studying this in a group, you may want to search up other scriptures that talk about the sinful nature.
Here is my point: What is synonymous with a sinful nature? Do cells have a sinful nature…? Does “potential life” have a sinful nature…? Scripture makes it very clear that humanity, persons, have human nature. David is using the language of personhood, “sinful from conception” to describe what is in the womb at conception. What’s in the womb matters.

However, there are a number of pro-choice advocates who would say personhood does not come into being until later. Carmen spoke about the following two in particular:

• Mary Anne Warren, an American writer and philosopher, asserted that a person “is a living entity with feelings, self-awareness, consciousness, and the ability to interact with his or her environment.” (Klusendorf, p.52) And so a human fetus can’t be a person with rights since it has none of these. One point to note is that, by that definition, any sleeping person can be killed since they fail the test as well. But the most important point to note here is that Ms. Warren is simply making an assertion (as opposed to providing evidence), without explaining why persons should be defined this way.

• Another idea has been articulated by Paul D. Simmons, a university professor and minister. He “concedes that zygotes (early embryos) are biologically human but denies they are "complex" or "developed enough" to qualify as "persons" in a biblical or philosophical sense. ‘No one can deny the continuum from fertilization to maturity and adulthood,’ writes Simmons. ‘That does not mean, however, that every step on the continuum has the same value or constitutes the same entity.’” (Klusendorf, p.52) In other words, since these things only “develop” later, the zygotes aren’t persons.

Answers to these arguments are to be found at the end of the Touching Base, using the SLED Test.

What’s in the womb is morally accountable to God.

Text: Psalm 51:1-6

Notice another biblical truth about what is in the womb. Whenever someone sins there are two questions we often will ask- what and who? What did they do? (we are just nosey) and Who did they sin against? In David’s case in v.1-4 we know both the “what” the “who”. But notice verse 5. What is the what? And who is the who?

What - What did we do/sin? Lots, if you look at our lives since exiting the womb. But our actions are rooted in a sinful nature, not some kind of bad psychosis. A sinful nature inherited, passed down to us from Adam (Romans 5). Sin is not just an action but a state of being/nature.

Who - The context of Psalm 51 makes it pretty clear that the Who of our sin is ultimately God.
So get this, David is saying that we are accountable to God, not after birth or at the age of accountability as we sometimes talk about but our accountability starts at conception. We are liable before God at that “hot” moment. Again note that things, inanimate objects and even life do not share in this unique kind of accountability that humanity or persons do. What’s in the womb matters - he/she is accountable to God.

What’s in the womb is the focus of immeasurable love/value.

Key Text: Psalm 139

A. Seen in God’s involvement
v.13” inmost being”- actually it is the Hebrew word for kidneys. This is probably so because in dismembering an animal the kidneys are the last organ to be reached.

Knit - note the intimacy of this imagery as the wool or fabric passes through the hands of the Maker.

Then read v.14, 15 - an amazing statement that science would agree with. God’s involvement speaks of our incredible value. We are constructs of God. But note the following comment:

“For many on the academic and secular left, natural rights are nothing but an oppressive ideology because for them human nature is nothing but a fiction. ‘In the understanding of the post- modernists,’ writes Hadley Arkes, ‘there is no objective nature of human beings, and no settled truths that arise from that nature: What we call human nature is socially constructed from one place to another according to the vagaries of local culture.’” (Klusendorf, p.65)

A biblical worldview is not based on a social construct, but on a divine construct.

B. Seen in God’s healing and restorative work. (Back to Psalm 51)

The common “scar” we all share as persons is a sinful nature. A nature that has been damaged by sin. What is the full story behind that scar? For example we all have physical scars. What is the story behind some of your physical scars? Our shared scar is a sinful nature and the story behind it is one of incredible love, sacrifice, healing, and restoration. David experienced God’s healing from his sin but he looked forward to that day when Jesus would come - God’s medicine in a physical ”bottle.” Read Acts 2:22-28. Also read Galatians 5:16-26 about our new way to live. What’s in the womb? Not just cells, not just life - but a person - scarred, yet a scar that shows that they are the object of God’s love.

What’s in the womb has intrinsic, not functional, value.

“Intrinsic”: inherent, built-in
“Functional”: you have to earn it

We live in a world that often equates worth with performance, productivity, assets, education. But when David says, “sinful from conception” David is illustrating the incredible worth and value of each human being. The analogy of the sin nature as a scar speaks of value – an object of love, an object of intimate involvement by God. Without a word being spoken by that person in the womb, without a degree being earned, without a culturally-acknowledged achievement, without a bank account to boast of or a trophy pointing to success - with nothing functionally accomplished, that sinful-natured person, although morally accountable to God is the object of God’s immeasurable love, fearfully and wonderfully knit together. The God of the universe makes provision for salvation without that person lifting a finger or taking a single step:
“But God demonstrated His love towards us, in that while we were yet sinners (even at conception) Christ died for us.” (Rom. 5:8)

That is the great mystery of the gospel, the good news: God’s love is not based on our maturity, performance or contribution but simply on God’s grace and mercy.

Now, some pro-choicers would disagree and say that our worth is based on functionality: size, level of development, environment and degree of dependency. Carmen referred to this as the SLED Test on the weekend. At the end of this TB you will find an extra document explaining what the SLED test is and how to answer those arguments.

Our prayer is that you would understand both the science and the theology of what’s in the womb and protect the person God loves.

If you or someone in your group has had an abortion, read the context of Psalm 51. Even in his sin, David experienced God’s forgiveness. Next week, in part 2 of this Hot Topic, the Kingston Pregnancy Care Center will be with us, as well as the Evangelical Fellowship of Canada, who will be presenting in the morning services.

Mark
If interested in joining or starting a small group contact markkotchapaw@gmail.com


SLED Test



Klusendorf, Scott. The Case for Life. Wheaton, Illinois: Crossway Books, 2009.

The Evangelical Fellowship of Canada (www.evangelicalfellowship.ca) “The Evangelical Fellowship of Canada (EFC) is the national association of evangelical Christians in Canada. It gathers Evangelicals together for impact, influence and identity in ministry and public witness” Their website has a page titled “Abortion/Fetal Rights” at http://www.evangelicalfellowship.ca/page.aspx?pid=365

Life Training Institute (www.prolifetraining.com) “LTI was started by our president Scott Klusendorf in order to create a ministry that focused entirely on pro-life issues with the goal of maximizing its impact through single-minded dedication. Simply stated, our sole purpose is to train others to save lives. That's what we're all about.”

Stand to Reason (http://www.str.org): “Stand to Reason trains Christians to think more clearly about their faith and to make an even-handed, incisive, yet gracious defense for classical Christianity and classical Christian values in the public square.” Their website contains hundreds of pages of free resources and training material on many apologetics issues, including defending the pro-life position (search the website for “abortion”). Together, Greg Koukl and Scott Klusendorf have created the outstanding course, Making Abortion Unthinkable, which is available for purchase on the site.