Frank Viola published an open letter from Jon Zens to Jim Belcher, the respected author of Deep Church, a book I read and reviewed here.
I found Deep Church to be an interesting read but as I mentioned in my review, I ultimately saw it as a beginning and not an end. I thought Jim Belcher recognized some important areas that need to be changed but I don’t know that the “third way” that he calls “Deep Church” was the solution or went anywhere near far enough. I agree heartily with a lot of what John Zens points out as weaknesses in Deep Church. I would certainly agree that when we read 1 Corinthians 11-14, we see lots of practices that are foreign to traditional church services and conversely lots of practices in traditional church services that are absent from Scripture. The critique seems a bit selective though, especially given some of what I have read from both Jon Zens and Frank Viola.
For example I wonder, for the sake of consistency, why this open letter doesn’t point out headcovering? That is right in 1 Corinthians 11 mere verses before the Lord’s Supper passages and if we are going to assume universality for the Lord’s Supper passages that indicate a full meal, why an entirely different interpretation of the verses immediately preceding them? Arguments that appeal to it being merely cultural or that Paul was addressing a specific (and unmentioned) situation in the Corinthian church fall as flat as arguments against a participatory church gathering. What about restrictions on women speaking in the church gathering? That is likewise right in 1 Corinthians 14: 33-35 (as in all the churches of the saints). It seems odd that some practices are considered sacrosanct (open participation, full meal Lord’s Supper) but others are explained away or ignored (headcovering, gender roles in the church gathering). I am in full agreement with Jon’s concerns about Deep Church and how it retains much of the practice and flavor of the traditional, institutional church. I would just ask why there seems to be the inconsistency?
I would certainly not encourage us to fill in the blanks in Scripture. Nor would I encourage us to apply an eraser or white-out to areas of Scripture. Consistency demands…consistency.
8 comments:
One minor quibble with the letter (OK, more than 1, just the 1 I am commenting on).
He says 1 Cor 14 shows there were "no leaders". Eh? Just because they aren't mentioned doesn't mean they were not there. Paul has plenty of other references to leaders. The house church crowd tends to be anti-leadership.
The more biblical solution, it seems, is to let Scripture define what leadership is supposed to mean. The problem isn't with leadership, it is with a non-biblical idea of leadership. Much of the house church movement seems to miss that.
Arthur – I enjoyed reading your response to Frank’s posting of my review of Deep Church.
The truth is, there is probably some inconsistency lurking in all of us! However, in the issue of head-covering I don’t think it is inconsistent to omit it as a concern for post-apostolic church life. There are many Reformed exegetes who see the head-covering mentioned in 1 Cor. 11 as a cultural particular, and not as a continually binding requirement for all believing women in all cultures for all times during times of public gathering.
Reformed scholar Jim Hurley pointed out that there were so many veiling customs in the first century that it is hard to pinpoint exactly what Paul had in view – especially since Jewish men prayed with their heads covered (“Appendix: Veiling practices in Judaism & Graeco-Roman culture of the first century,” Man & Woman in Biblical Perspective, 1981, p.254ff.).
If the Greek word for the female head-covering is to be practiced literally, then a hat or doily over the hair would not be sufficient. Kaluma would require that the face be covered, a covering not far removed from the Muslim burka (cf. Ralph Woodrow, “Should Women Wear Head-Coverings?” in Woman’s Adornment, pp.36-49).
Paul later summed things up by noting that “long hair is given to her in the place of (anti) a covering” (11:15).
The matter of “gender roles” and 1 Cor. 14:33-36 obviously opens a can of worms. As I see it, we do not ignore this issue or explain it away – we try to face it head-on and deal with it. I have extensively written on it in What’s With Paul & Women? Unlocking the Cultural Background of 1 Timothy 2, and Appendix 2 in this book deals with 1 Cor. 14:34-36. Also, my “1 Cor. 14:34-36 & Its Context” can be found at http://www.searchingtogether.org/women.htm .
Paul sanctioned women praying and prophesying in the body-meeting in 1 Cor.11. Thus, it would be a strange and strained use of Scripture to use 1 Cor. 14:34-36 to cancel out what has previously been approved by the apostle. I also believe that a hermeneutical priority is rightfully given to Acts 2:16-18. The forming of the ekklesia by the Spirit’s coming begins with the fulfillment of Joel’s prophecy that both males and females would prophesy. Peter is prompted to start with this because 120 men and women had just spoken the wonderful works of God in foreign languages. In the contextual flow of Paul’s thought in 1 Cor. 11, 12, 13 and up to 14:33, there is every reason to believe that the sisters were included in the praying and prophesying. To employ 14:34-35 to nullify the apostle’s gender inclusive train of thought is, I think, a very questionable – and possibly biased -- use of Scripture.
Arthur –
The truth is, there is probably some inconsistency lurking in all of us! However, in the issue of head-covering I don’t think it is inconsistent to omit it as a concern for post-apostolic church life. There are many Reformed exegetes who see the head-covering mentioned in 1 Cor. 11 as a cultural particular, and not as a continually binding requirement for all times.
Reformed scholar Jim Hurley pointed out that there were so many veiling customs in the first century that it is hard to pinpoint exactly what Paul had in view – especially since Jewish men prayed with their heads covered (“Appendix: Veiling practices in Judaism & Graeco-Roman culture of the first century,” Man & Woman in Biblical Perspective, 1981, p.254ff.).
If the Greek word for the female head-covering is to be practiced literally, then a hat or doily over the hair would not be sufficient. Kaluma would require that the face be covered, a covering not far removed from the Muslim burka (cf. Ralph Woodrow, “Should Women Wear Head-Coverings?” in Woman’s Adornment, pp.36-49).
The matter of “gender roles” and 1 Cor. 14:33-36 obviously opens a can of worms. As I see it, we do not ignore this issue or explain it away – we try to face it head-on and deal with it. I have extensively written on it in What’s With Paul & Women? Unlocking the Cultural Background of 1 Timothy 2, and Appendix 2 in this book deals with 1 Cor. 14:34-36. Also, my “1 Cor. 14:34-36 & Its Context” can be found at http://www.searchingtogether.org/women.htm .
Paul sanctioned women praying and prophesying in the body-meeting in 1 Cor.11. Thus, it would be a strange and strained use of Scripture to use 1 Cor. 14:34-36 to cancel out what has previously been approved by the apostle. I also believe that a hermeneutical priority is rightfully given to Acts 2:16-18. The forming of the ekklesia by the Spirit’s coming begins with the fulfillment of Joel’s prophecy that both males and females would prophesy. Peter is prompted to start with this because 120 men and women had just spoken the wonderful works of God in foreign languages. In the contextual flow of Paul’s thought in 1 Cor. 11, 12, 13 and up to 14:33, there is every reason to believe that the sisters were included in the praying and prophesying. To employ 14:34-35 to nullify the apostle’s gender inclusive train of thought is, I think, a very questionable – and possibly biased -- use of Scripture.
Arthur, I posted a comment yesterday, but it has not appeared. Is it lost, do I need to re-post it, or are you still processing it? JZ
Jon,
Sorry, I moderate all the comments (primarily so I know when someone posts as the email notification doesn't seem to work and to prevent spam) It looks like I had ten of the same comments so I published one of them, I hope I didn't post the wrong one!
Jon,
Thank you for your thoughtful comments on a topic that often leads to more heat than light. Not shockingly I respectfully disagree with several points!
As far as headcovering, I would say that I am far less concerned with the specific covering (how much of the hair must be covered for example) and more with the principle that men ought not pray with their heads covered (contrary to Jewish custom) and that women ought to. I don’t see that verse 15 suggest that long hair is a sufficient covering when looking at the bigger argument, especially verse 6: 6 For if a wife will not cover her head, then she should cut her hair short. But since it is disgraceful for a wife to cut off her hair or shave her head, let her cover her head. It wouldn’t make any sense for Paul to say that if a woman won’t have long hair, she should cut her hair short which is what this verse would be saying if Paul intended hair as the covering. I also don’t see that 1 Corinthians 11: 2-16 is restricted to the gathering of the church. My wife covers whenever she prays. The headcovering question and the underlying principles regarding gender roles appear to be more universal in nature than just during church gatherings. Paul even transitions into his discussion of the Lord’s Supper with the statement “But in the following instructions I do not commend you, because when you come together it is not for the better but for the worse.” (1 Cor 11: 17) which looks like he is now addressing a specific issue that comes up when the church meets. So I don’t see that we can appeal to 1 Corinthians 11 as a normative statement for the church gathering. When we look at 1 Corinthians 14: 33-35 coupled with 1 Timothy 2: 11-15, Paul is making a couple of strongly worded statements that when read plainly, in my opinion, set forth gender relationships within the church that run all the way back to the Fall.
The bigger issue here is that it can be easy to be inconsistent even with the best of intentions. I am all for open, participatory meetings and full meals at the Lord’s Supper but I am very hesitant to say that when Paul say’s it is shameful for a woman to pray or prophesy with her head uncovered or that “as in all the churches” women should remain silent, we should override a direct command with an appeal to an event elsewhere.
Again, I respect and appreciate your position. Just don't agree.
Post a Comment