Last night in Melbourne, Christopher Watkin’s new book, Biblical Critical Theory: How the Bible’s Unfolding Story Makes Sense, was launched. There will be further launch events in Sydney, UK and the USA over the coming days.
The room at RTC (Reformed Theological College) was filled with many uni students, academics, pastors in attendance, and many others from various works of life. The food, wine, and conversations kept flowing late into the night (in the end I had to ask people to go home!). Each one of the 4 speeches last night was impressive and interesting, reflecting on the content of Chris’ writing (of course!) and the value this book may bring to the world of thought, university, church, and society.
The only downside of the evening was that we couldn’t get our hands on enough copies of the book. The first print was sold out even prior to its formal release date. People took a number and we swirled those little pieces of paper in a large bowl and then picked out numbers. 12 very excited persons (think of the atmosphere for a winning auction bid), then purchased a signed copy of Biblical Critical Theory.
I cannot recommend this book highly enough. As a reviewer recently said of Biblical Critical Theory, all the hype really isn’t exaggerated, and each of the addresses last night, given by Dr Sarah Irving-Stonebroker, Mr Barney Zwartz, and Dr Andrew Moody, testified to this. I am hoping that these talks may become available on The Gospel Coalition Australia website in days to come.
Allow me to share what I said at the beginning of the evening and the prayer in which I closed the event.
“Good evening and welcome. On behalf of The Gospel Coalition Australia, it is wonderful to see you all this evening for this special event.
My name is Murray Campbell. I serve on the National Council and State committee for The Gospel Coalition and I serve as the Senior Pastor at Mentone Baptist church. It is a joy to call Chris a friend and brother. I’ve had the privilege to know Chris and Ali for the past 9 years and have followed his work and writing with great eagerness and interest and benefit.
We are here to launch Christopher Watkin’s new book, Biblical Critical Theory: How the Bible’s Unfolding Story Makes Sense
The author of the monumental work the City of God, Augustine, lived during the turbulent times of the Roman Empire crumbling.
Augustine wasn’t from the City of Rome, although he would visit during the course of his life. He was born in the small provincial North African town of Thagaste. He would later live in Carthage. Yet, Augustine’s influence reached Rome and throughout the Empire, and indeed even throughout the world today.
Perhaps Yorkshire is a bit like Thagaste, and Melbourne is a modern-day Carthage.
Biblical Critical Theory: How the Bible’s Unfolding Story Makes Sense offers readers a comprehensive view of the world through the lens of the Bible.
Chris’ writing is clear, irenic, and profound. Chris understands the complexity of both the Bible and our culture. The work is deeply biblical and culturally masterful.
Time will tell how important this work will become, but I suggest that this is a significant body of thought that we will do well to read slowly and carefully and consider with seriousness.
Tonight we have 3 guest speakers with us who are each going to give a short address speaking to the book.
Dr Sarah Irving Stonebraker is a Senior Lecturer in Modern European History at the University of Western Sydney.
Barney Zwartz is Senior Fellow at the Centre for Public Christianity and was the Religions Editor at the The Age for many years
Dr Andrew Moody is a Melbourne-based theologian and Editorial Director for The Gospel Coalition Australia.
I’d like to invite Dr Christopher Watkin forward and hand over to him.”
“Our Father in heaven, we thank you for the mind and understanding you have given Chris. We thank you for this book written to help us understand your world and life in it. We pray that you will use Chris’ writing to give people confidence in the Bible, to see that it is a fountain of knowledge and wisdom and goodness, and a lens through which we can understand the world.
May it be read widely and deeply and be part of that chain of Christian thought that echoes through the generations, to point people to your Son.
No, Baptists have not sold their soul over same-sex marriage. What they have chosen is faithfulness to God and upholding gospel unity.
New South Wales Baptists have reaffirmed the Bible’s teaching on marriage and are following Jesus’ teaching on human sexuality. They have also reaffirmed the importance of the Baptist doctrine basis by requiring accredited pastors and churches to affirm these statements.
While the majority of Baptist delegates have supported the motions, not everyone is happy and for several different reasons. Some dissenters don’t subscribe to Baptist theological beliefs nor do they accept the classical definition of marriage. Indeed, among those who reject the classical understanding of marriage, they often find issues with many other basic Christian beliefs. There are others Baptists, who have expressed concern at the NSW and ACT decisions because they value the idea of autonomy over and above other baptist principles.
Erin Martine Sessions is a delegate at the NSW and ACT Baptist Assembly. She is one of a minority of baptists who disagrees with the direction taken in NSW and she’s written a piece on the ABC Religion and Ethics site, ‘Have Baptists just sold their soul over same-sex marriage?’
At times, it is hard to manoeuvre around Martine Sessions’ use of language and hyperbole. Describing the meeting as The Red Assembly is kind of silly. Invoking the Spanish Inquisition and using analogies such as stake burning and the Spanish Second Republic-inspired thought-policing, does little to forward this important discussion. And the inclusion of Moore College and Sydney Anglican as a wink-wink swear word is a cheap and unnecessary shot.
Let’s look beyond the colourful and misleading rhetoric and point out two basic problems with Martine Sessions’ argument, namely that the Assembly decisions go against Baptist principles.
First of all, the author neglects much of Baptist history. It is true that Baptists view autonomy highly, but it is also true that Baptists in association gather around shared theological foundations. Both things are true. She asks,
“Why did we suddenly depart from history and make a new category of statements we must support? To put it bluntly, because Baptists don’t have a doctrine of marriage”
Throughout the history of the Church, many confessions, statements, and creeds have come about as the result of doctrinal crises, social change, and political necessity. It’s not as though these beliefs only came into existence when a Council met or Assembly approved, but rather, what was already orthodox became formally recognised in writing. Issues surrounding sexuality, marriage, and gender are but the latest theological and moral ground that requires Churches to affirm Biblical teaching. Historically, Baptists are not exempt from or non-participants in this process. As I have demonstrated elsewhere, Baptists historically associate together around common theological convictions. Indeed Baptists have written and affirmed more statements of faith and association than possibly any other Protestant denomination.
in the case of marriage, in 2011 Australian Baptists Ministries affirmed that marriage is, “the union between a man and a woman to the exclusion of all others, voluntarily entered into for life”. Baptist marriage celebrants can only conduct weddings according to this definition. Although, there are examples of pastors and churches deliberately circumventing these rules in a variety of ways, and thus acting against Baptist belief and practice.
This position on marriage was not invented in 2011, rather due to social and political changes, baptist leaders wisely decided that it’s necessary to make explicit in writing what has always been the case, indeed, to affirm what is the historic Christian understanding of marriage.
For Martine Sessions to claim the NSW motions are unBaptist, is to grab hold of one strand of baptist thought and to ignore the others. Baptists have always made and required statements of faith and practice for association. As someone pointed out to me, it’s somewhat amusing to read that in order to reject Baptist confessionalism, she relies on a confession of sorts, one that she teaches her students!
The article also underplays how the issues at hand relate to vital Christian beliefs upon which fellowship is had or not. The majority of churches understand that this is the case. Martine Sessions misrepresents the nature of the topic at hand when asserting, they don’t want to associate ‘with people and churches who think differently to them’. This isn’t just about ‘thinking differently’, this is about believing basic, obvious, and essential Christian teaching. To categorise the issues as a matter of ‘thinking differently’ is quite an understatement.
For an association to not only exist but grow and be healthy, there need to be shared values, identity and purpose. No one is suggesting uniformity across the board, but agreement upon the basics. Advocates who place autonomy near the top of the list often have a habit of limiting or downplaying what is required for association. I happen to think that the autonomy of the local church is an important principle, but I also note that an association of churches, by definition, requires sufficiently shared common ground. The issues at hand are, contrary to Martine Sessions, crucial and necessary for genuine Christian unity and partnership. How can fellowship exist when there isn’t shared belief in the same Gospel? How can churches partner in mission together when one says repentance isn’t required and the other says it is? How can churches serve together when one accepts the words of Jesus about marriage and another does not?
We can’t disconnect our view on marriage from other parts of Christian theology. Those small number of pastors and churches who no longer accept the Baptist view on marriage are also redefining many more Christian teachings, including the gospel itself and sexual morality and repentance and our doctrine of scripture.
Imagine a player at a cricket club who decides that they no follow the rules for LBW. In their mind, it’s an unfair rule and disadvantages players who like to use their pads in front of the stumps. Or what of a coach who declares that instead of playing cricket, the team should be playing a hybrid version of cricket/ golf, as though golf will broaden the appeal of the game and attract more players. In both cases, the answer is no. One may reject the shape of the game and one can call it whatever you like, but it’s not cricket. As someone who has been part of cricket clubs for over 10 years, I suspect that any player or coach who tried to introduce such changes would be told either to shape up or move on. I realise the examples are somewhat goofy, but the point is clear.
When Jesus defines sexual relations outside marriage as immoral and when the Apostles describe sexual relations outside marriage as keeping people outside God’s Kingdom and contrary to the Gospel, how can baptist churches argue that we can remain in partnership together?
Surely, it comes down to the question, do baptists believe we can associate & partner with churches/pastors who hold, teach (and at times, practice) SSM? (and the theological corollaries that give rise to and flow from this position). The majority of delegates in NSW have said the answer is no, while a significant minority indicate the answer is yes (they may not agree with SSM but believe it is possible and even desirable to partner with SSM affirming churches. The issue isn’t just autonomy, but it’s also about what theological and spiritual unity is required to work together
I appreciate how a lot of Christians are concerned about using categories of sin in relation to marriage and sex. Doesn’t it make evangelism more difficult? Doesn’t it come across as harsh and unloving. What are we saying to our neighbours by insisting on our churches sticking with classical marriage? Aren’t we saying, that Jesus knows best? Aren’t we saying, that people matter so much that we won’t let our churches blow here and there along with the current cultural whim? Aren’t we saying that God’s vision for humanity surpasses the dominant view in any society? Aren’t we saying, that in Christ, both truth and love are found and that both holiness and mercy are uncovered?
These Baptist motions follow a similar trajectory to Jesus who, when confronted by progressive ideas about marriage and sex, reaffirmed the Biblical pattern. Of course, orthodoxy without love is like a saucepan lid crashing onto a tile floor. However, love without orthodoxy is nothing more than sentimentalism that misleads. We don’t need to choose between truth and love, for they are necessary and beautiful partners. In Christ, we see truth and love in perfect union. It is unloving for Christians to affirm same sex marriage or to teach that God is okay with forms of sexual expression that contradict his word. For Baptists to affirm Jesus’ teaching is not less than unifying, it is essential for maintaining genuine Christian unity.
Erin Martine Sessions is one of a number of baptists who are concerned by the events at last weekend’s NSW Gathering. I have already responded to the arguments put forward by Mike Frost (whose ideas I believe shaped Martine Sessions own article). Others are thankful that Baptists are declaring their faith in God and trusting his word and ways, and acknowledging that partnering together into the future is more faithful and fruitful when we can soundly affirm the foundations of the faith.
New South Wales and ACT Baptists are meeting tomorrow to discuss and decide an issue that denominations across the world are facing. There are a set of motions requiring churches and accredited pastors to affirm “Marriage is a covenant relationship ordained by God as a lifelong faithful union of one man and one woman. Sexual intimacy outside such a marriage relationship is incompatible with God’s intention for us as his people”.
The topic is broader than sexuality. In 2021 the NSW & ACT Assembly affirmed that both churches and accredited pastors be required to affirm the “basic doctrines, objects and values of the Association”
Depending on the outcome of the Assembly meeting, Baptist Churches that don’t affirm these positions may be required to leave the association and pastors lose their accreditation. This is of course a significant subject and one where we pray Christians will speak and listen graciously and especially listen to and believe what God has spoken in the Bible. Affirming marriage should not be a controversial issue among churches, and it is a sad indictment on churches that there is any dispute or disagreement here. To believe that God designed marriage to be between one man and one woman and that all other sexual relationships are sinful is doing nothing more than believing what Jesus taught and what the Apostles affirmed.
Sydney Baptist and Morling College lecturer, Mike Frost, has expressed disagreement with the move. He has written an article to presumably dissuade delegates from supporting the motions. While he is not saying that he supports same-sex marriage (I suspect he doesn’t), he argues that baptists can and should remain together even when we disagree over this issue. Frost’s position is problematic for several reasons.
First, he makes an important category error. He puts same-sex marriage under the umbrella of ‘non-core issues’. He uses the phrase repeatedly throughout his piece and he concludes with this sentence,
“But instead of rallying to fulfill these bold visions for Christian mission, we’re debating the ins and outs of how to expel a tiny number of churches that don’t agree with the majority on yet another non-core issue.”
Contrary to what Frost asserts, our understanding of sexual relations is a gospel issue. Our understanding of sexuality and marriage is connected to our view of Jesus, the Bible, the nature of sin and salvation, and more. Jesus was clear when he described sexual relations outside marriage between a man and a woman is porneia.
The Apostle Paul is also clear,
“Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor men who have sex with men 10 nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God. 11 And that is what some of you were. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God.”
Jesus and Paul define homosexual relations as sinful and keeping people outside the Kingdom of God. I don’t see how Frost can declare that this is ‘yet another non-core issue’ when the Bible is pretty clear that it is.
In 1 Timothy Paul spells out as unambiguously as anywhere in the Bible how any sexual relations outside marriage contradict sound doctrine and the gospel,
“We also know that the law is made not for the righteous but for lawbreakers and rebels, the ungodly and sinful, the unholy and irreligious, for those who kill their fathers or mothers, for murderers, 10 for the sexually immoral, for those practicing homosexuality, for slave traders and liars and perjurers—and for whatever else is contrary to the sound doctrine 11 that conforms to the gospel concerning the glory of the blessed God, which he entrusted to me.”
Mike Frost telling his readers that this is a non-core issue, doesn’t stack up according to the Scriptures. These are not matters on which Christians can agree to disagree. This is a gospel matter. Where people cannot agree on the gospel, how can there be partnership and association?
Second, Mike Frost makes another category error. His heading proposes that requiring common assent to Baptist doctrine is, ‘Breaking up the family in pursuit of uniformity’.
The suggestion of uniformity is misleading. This isn’t about uniformity, it is about standing together on clear and gospel issues.
No Baptist is asking for agreement on every dot and flick and iota. No Baptist is demanding a uniform position on eschatology or the gifts of the Spirit. No one is asking for uniformity in the style of church service. Frost’s own article provides several examples of where Baptists have agreed to disagree. In suggesting that same-sex marriage is on par with these other issues is a serious mistake. Again, if Jesus calls an activity sin and if Paul says an activity keeps a person outside the Kingdom of God, how can we partner with churches who teach this harmful idea?
Genuine Christian unity is both theological and spiritual, and the two belong together. Paul writes to the Ephesians,
“Make every effort to keep the unity of the Spirit through the bond of peace. 4 There is one body and one Spirit, just as you were called to one hope when you were called; 5 one Lord, one faith, one baptism; 6 one God and Father of all, who is over all and through all and in all…14 Then we will no longer be infants, tossed back and forth by the waves, and blown here and there by every wind of teaching and by the cunning and craftiness of people in their deceitful scheming. 15 Instead, speaking the truth in love, we will grow to become in every respect the mature body of him who is the head, that is, Christ”
Unity requires speaking truth in love and standing against teaching that is false and dangerous. It is because Christian unity is so precious, that remaining in that which unites is of such importance
I have argued elsewhere that baptists historically have written and affirmed doctrinal statements and positions when the need arose. There is a popular view today among Baptists that we are anti-creedal and that we don’t want or need statements of faith in order to join together. The saying, ‘no creed but Christ’ may sound appealing, but it’s neither historically true nor wise.
Throughout 400 years of Baptist history, various baptist fellowships have written confessions and statements of doctrine and required assent to them. One of the little-known facts about baptists is that we have more doctrinal statements than probably every other protestant denomination! The desire among NSW baptist churches to stand on the Christian view of marriage (and more) isn’t less than baptist, it is in keeping with many baptists historically (including those in Australia).
Third, Frost speaks of a bold vision for mission, but how can there be a shared mission when churches (or pastors) don’t share the same message?
Mission is about telling people the good news of Jesus Christ, but if two churches believe two different gospels, how we can partner together?
For instance, Baptist pastors and churches who support same-sex marriage do not accept that repentance is required, rather these relationships should be celebrated by churches. How can two churches go on mission together when one says repentance is necessary and the other says it is not?
Our neighbours and communities don’t need churches that play the lyrebird and mimic back to them their own moral and spiritual proclivities. The gospel of Jesus Christ is far more compelling, subverting and beautiful.
I recall an observation made last year by British historian Tom Holland,
“I see no point in bishops or preachers or Christian evangelists just recycling the kind of stuff you can get from any kind of soft left liberal because everyone is giving that…if they’ve got views on original sin I would be very interested to hear that”.
Affirming basic Christian beliefs will serve both our churches well, and our local communities. Anything else is a pathway to a brittle skeletal institutionalism and an irrelevance to the Kingdom God is building.
While it’s great to hear Mike Frost advocating mission, he’s sticking a cork in the breech here. How can shared mission take place when there isn’t agreement on the gospel and what it means to repent and what it means to be saved? Indeed how can there be partnership in any meaningful way when the very thing that unites Christians is disputed and even denied by some?
While Frost wants everyone to keep singing together, the reality is those baptists who advocate same-sex marriage are singing a different song, with different lyrics and melody. Their position not only contradicts the formal position on marriage, some are actively seeking to change this established position. The point is, these Baptists are unlikely to be satisfied until such time the denomination has changed to Australia’s latest views on sexuality and gender. After all, if they are serious about this being a justice and gospel issue, as I have often heard, how can they rest until the baptist view accepts same-sex weddings and marriages?
The notion that we can and will all live together in a joyful forward movement mission is somewhat disingenuous, given the ambition of some baptists is to change core baptist convictions.
I’m praying for tomorrow’s meeting. Of course, it is difficult. If our churches are not able to have these important conversations and if we are not prepared to affirm the very things for which Christ died, then what are we about? God honours the faithfulness of his people. It may not win us popularity votes or praise in ecclesial halls, but there is something remarkably simple and attractive and good about faithfulness and sticking with what God says.
The people who often suffer most through these conversations are same-sex attracted Christians who believe in Jesus and are living faithful and celibate lives for the sake of the Kingdom. To have churches teaching that they need not repent and should instead live out their desires is a great and terrible disservice to these brothers and sisters. Should we not support and encourage them in godliness by affirming the same Gospel together?
I trust other State Unions may look on at what is transpiring in NSW and take courage to also stand and make these clear affirmations and positions for the sake of the Gospel around Australia.
Below is a discussion paper shared among a leadership training group at Mentone. It’s not attempting to answer every question or to journey down every pathway, but to outline the how and what and whys of our understanding of this passage of Scripture. This paper (and the seminar) served as background to a sermon series on 1 Timothy in 2022.
The New Testament’s vision of Christian ministry and mission is often likened to a household. There are many people in a house. Everyone is valued and essential. Everyone is identical in our union with Christ and also differing in the ways we contribute and serve. The Church is also likened to a body. Christ is the head and each member belongs and performs an integral role albeit in many different ways. The New Testament teaches us that it is only as the body works together in unity that churches grow and become healthy and mature.
As we read Bible passages such as Romans ch.16 and 2 Timothy ch.4 we find men and women partnering together for the Gospel. It is a wonderful display of grace and how the Gospel reorients lives. At the same time, the testimony of the Scripture doesn’t ignore God given order and cohesion. The New Testament demonstrates men and women contribute to the maturity of the local church and to the growth of the Gospel in ways that often overlap and at other times are quite distinct. One of the difficulties for churches today is to uphold both overlap and distinction without losing either one.
The focus of this paper is the meaning of 1 Timothy 2:11-15. The reason behind this restriction isn’t a belief that this is the most important Bible passage addressing the issue of men and women in the church. As I’ll explain below, reading the entire Bible is vital for understanding what it means to be a man and what it means to be a woman and how the two relate in the various contexts of life, including church. The reason for narrowing the focus here is a straightforward one: at Mentone, we are preaching through 1 Timothy in 2022, and given the controversial nature of some of Paul’s words in ch.2, I believe it is worthwhile providing a more detailed explanation in a paper, in addition to the sermon that will be preached. This paper will also provide material that will be used at a seminar for leaders at Mentone.
I also want to acknowledge that while many Christian brothers and sisters will agree with much, if not all, of the material I present in this paper, others will disagree with aspects. Disagreement on these issues can occasionally be a primary issue, depending on the nature of the objection. Disagreement can also be significant and not rank as a first order issue. On other occasions there can be room and grace to continue partnering together on mission and ministry projects.
Before we come to the text of 1 Timothy ch.2 it may be helpful to explain something of where I am coming from and also to outline some broad biblical themes that aid us in reading the text in the bigger picture of biblical revelation and God’s plan of salvation. I’ll begin with highlighting two foundational beliefs. I will then offer a word in raising awareness of how existing assumptions and commitments can impact the way we read the Bible. Finally, before discussing 2:11-15, it is worthwhile providing a summary of the broader context for 1 Timothy.
ii. 2 Foundational Beliefs
As we begin, it’s important to highlight two beliefs that I am convinced about and that form part of the background to my reading of 1 Timothy ch.2: the nature of Scripture and the nature of male and female.
The first is this, I believe God’s Word is both true and good. What God teaches about men and women, family, church and about life and society isn’t designed to destroy or harm or abuse, but presents to us the good life. If we come to the Bible with the assumption that the Bible is wrong or harmful, it makes the following conversation difficult. It also reveals that you are turning to another authority to shape your views about men and women.
Second, men and women are not interchangeable, meaning that alongside our shared humanity and intrinsic dignity, there are also creational and God glorifying differences. I believe this for several reasons: 1. the Bible says so. 2. Observation and experience affirm this is so. 3. Science confirms this is the case. The purpose of this paper isn’t however to explore personal observations or scientific evidence for what constitutes male and female, but it is to outline the message of 1 Timothy ch2.
Assuming the Bible is both true and good, we want to let God’s word be our guide on these matters.
At the very beginning of the Bible, we learn that there is one race (mankind) and there are two genders (male and female).
Built into Genesis 1:27 are these 2 key components between men and women: There is both equality and difference. Male and female equally bear the imago dei and they are differentiated.
“So God created mankind in his own image, in the image of God he created them; male and female he created them.”
In our Western cultures, we have seen a gradual shift in the way we think about men and women1. There are societies in history that have not thought of women as having equal status as men. Such attitudes contradict how God made things in the very beginning. Indeed this is one of the subversive ideas found in the Lord Jesus and in the early Church; women are elevated.
As we consider the past we ought to tread with some caution. Suggestions that women were always treated inferior to men, especially prior to the 20th Century, is far too simplistic, historically myopic, and can even be a case of enthocentrisicm. Sadly, this was often the case, but not always and it is hubris for 21st Century people to look down on previous generations with automated smuggery. For example, we can say that churches who followed the New Testament’s teaching on men and women did in fact view women highly. We can also recognise that much good was accomplished in the 20th Century to restore the dignity and equal worth of women (ie education, voting rights). However, the thinking didn’t settle there. The pendulum has moved and has swung from ‘equal and different’ to the idea that women are no different to men. Whatever men can do women can and ought to do. This is often referred to as second wave feminism. In more recent years societal thinking has again shifted, to the point where gender no longer exists in any objective sense. Gender is fluid and therefore men can be women and vice versa, sex and gender have been divorced from each other, and there is a growing number of gender options. As I write, some people suggest there are more than 70 genders, while Facebook provides a list of 58 gender options.
I’m assuming that we (who are present at this seminar) affirm that a man is a man and a woman is a woman2. If the two sexes differ and yet complement each other, how do they differ and complement?
If there are two sexes and these two sexes complement each other, they must therefore have some distinguishing features. Is this explainable purely by or limited to biological differences? Are the differences simply cultural conventions? Does the Bible teach that the two sexes are complementary? If so, how so?
If someone asked, what does it mean to be a boy or what does it mean to be a girl, what might you say? There is much in common between boys and girls because of our shared humanity. We want to stress how these shared attributes weigh more heavily than any difference but is nothing distinct? Is there anything that differentiates boys from girls and girls from boys? The point in raising the question here is to demonstrate that we know intuitively that there is difference and there must be difference, and yet it is often difficult to suggest that this is the case. Part of the difficulty lies in the fact that in today’s culture it is unpopular to suggest there is difference. Not only are men and women equal, but the culture is trying to eradicate any differences, whether it is biological or psychological or theological. This intentional obliteration of gender identity and roles cuts against sound judgment. For example, common sense tells us that fathers and mothers are not identical in their roles; there may be much overlap but they are not synonymous. As another example, when it comes to mentoring it is wise for a younger woman to be discipled by another woman and a man discipled by a man. These are not merely social constructs, but instinctive understandings of what works and is good, and these cross cultural boundaries and times.
There are two dangers that I believe we need to avoid: 1. Making too much of the idea of difference between the sexes, and 2. Making too little of this reality. Either excess will see us damaging the body of Christ, individual lives, and our Gospel witness to the world. At the same time, and without diminishing the Bible’s teaching, we will see churches coming to slightly different conclusions as we grapple with God’s purposes. In trying to faithfully apply Scriptural principles churches will make decisions that differ; not fundamentally different but rather, variations on the biblical theme. This requires us to exercise grace toward one another and not assume motives or fidelity because of these diverse applications.
1 Timothy 2 is not the only Bible passage that talks about men and women. There are many Bible passages that teach a God given anthropology about men and women. Developing a full biblical picture requires us to examine more Bible and theology than time permits. However, the task before us in this paper is to understand 1 Timothy 2:11-15.
iii. Recognise a priori preferences
Before we examine the Biblical text it is important to acknowledge a simple fact; no one comes to the Bible without ideas and desires, as though we are neutral. We don’t live outside our cultural moment. We live and breathe at a particular time in history and in a country that exudes certain cultural preferences, orthodoxies and heresies. In addition, familial influences and personality play a role in developing life’s thesis and antithesis. Life experiences, both positive and negative, the encouraging and the painful, all influence the way we think and the attitudes we hold.
Thomas Schreiner recently wrote a short article for Christianity Today where he responds to suggestions that a classical reading of gender roles in the Bible is more the result of cultural baggage than it is the teaching of Scripture. He reminds us that cultural prisms are something we all must contend with but such imports don’t make reading the Bible an impossible task,
“There is always a danger that we have reacted to or imitated the society around us. We are all influenced by culture and should receive any critique that returns us to scriptural witness in good faith. We should listen charitably to brothers and sisters who view things differently—and none of us should be above reforming and nuancing our views… there are social and cultural forces operating on both sides. No one is exempt, and no one inhabits a neutral space when it comes to gender dynamics.
Every argument for every perspective should send us back to the biblical witness. The word of God still pierces our darkness and can reshape how we think and live. The Bible can and should still be heard, believed, and followed—even though we are all fallible and culturally situated.”3
Every word and every phrase in 1 Timothy 2 has been pulled apart and a thousand opinions offered. The careful study of Scripture is of insurmountable value and has been the practice for believers since the words first came upon the pages of the original manuscript. However, one gets the impression that some new interpretations of ch.2 require an understanding of the Greek language that is greater than what even most first-century readers had and require us to know what may or may not have been going on in Ephesus and other Ancient civilisations.
I want to contend that reading the Bible text accurately and faithfully is not as difficult as many people make it out to be. I don’t mean that a cursory or sloppy reading will produce a faithful interpretation, but it is not the near impossible task that we are sometimes led to believe. Remember Paul wrote his letters to be read broadly across churches, some would probably have little knowledge of the particulars of the original recipients and these Scriptures were inspired by and preserved by the Holy Spirit for churches across cultures and time. Of particular interest is 2:8 where Paul indicates that his instructions are not limited to Ephesus but for ‘everywhere’.
I suspect some of our difficulties lie not with the Biblical text as much as they do with our cultural lens and expectations. For example, many see the word ‘submit’ and assume that this is a morally objectionable notion. Yet, the Bible tells us that God the Son submitted to his Father. Similarly, we read the word, ‘authority’ and our natural impulse is to resist and even treat the word as a synonym for abusive power. However, the Scriptures tell us that all authority and power have been given to the Son, and the Bible exhorts believers to obey all kinds of earthly authorities (whether parents or governments or church elders). To take one further example, there are some churches (albeit a very small number) who see the word, ‘quiet’ in 2:12 and wrongly conclude that women should never speak in church.
Our cultural preferences and influences are not an irreducible tunnel resulting in us being unable to truly know what the Biblical text means. It is, however, crucial for us to humble ourselves before the Lord, to pray and ask the Holy Spirit to check our motives and grant us understanding and a heart to embrace what God says.
Also, the way in which biblical principles work out in practice will vary among fellow believers and churches. It’s not that the principles are hidden in a London fog, but it is inevitable that there will be variations as the same theme is applied in local situations. The shoe may be the same, but we may wear different sizes and walk across different terrain. Clarity and humility work together. Conviction and compassion are perfect partners.
iv. Reading Bible texts in their context
Despite the way v.12 is sometimes perceived (or used), I am not employing this sentence as the lynchpin for interpreting all other Bible passages. A similar mistake is to treat Galatians 3:28 as the pivot verse for understanding the roles of men and women in the church. I believe that both verses are important and I would argue from the text itself, 1 Timothy ch.2 is providing a pattern for churches beyond Ephesus, but one thing we must avoid is playing Scripture against Scripture or ignoring verses that challenge the way we think.
To decide how narrow or broad we are meant to take the instructions of ch.2, we are helped by these 3 rings of context. 1. The instructions themselves, 2. The broader teaching in 1 Timothy, and 3. the broader framework of both the NT and the OT. On this point, I wish to offer a brief comment about context beginning with the outermost ring and making our way inward.
1. The Context in all Scripture
Genesis ch.s1-3 are pivotal to reading 1 Timothy ch.2 as the Apostle uses them to explain why congregational preaching/teaching is limited to qualified men.
The position I am convinced of is one that most Christians have believed and taught for millennia, namely, when it comes to the dignity, identity, and roles of men and women:
A pattern is established (Genesis 1 and 2).
The pattern is overturned and frustrated (Genesis 3).
The pattern continues and is protected under the Mosaic law but is frustrated through sin and the fall (OT).
The pattern is affirmed and also redeemed by Christ (The Gospels).
The pattern is expressed in the home and in the church, with the added meaning that men and women are imaging the ultimate: the heavenly bride and bridegroom (Epistles, Revelation, Gospels).
My hypothesis is this: the pattern for relationships and God’s concern for order and godliness found in 1 Timothy is consistent with and supports other parts of the Bible.
Throughout both the Old and New Testaments men and women know and serve God. There are many men and women who are noted for their faith and obedience to God, and who are used by God to achieve his purposes. Romans ch.16 is a wonderful passage filled with the names of numerous women and men who are serving alongside Paul for the sake of the Gospel. Gospel ministry requires and gains from a team working together. Men and women are necessary coworkers, without which, the Gospel will not advance. It is however a mistake to conclude that there is no pattern established for church order or no difference between the two sexes. For example, Ruth is one of the giants of the Bible, a truly monumental model of faith in God. Ruth did not however nor did she attempt to, assume any of the roles reserved for men.
Both the Old Testament and New Testament demarcate some differences in gender roles. Christian Ethicist Andrew Walker uses the language of, “Not Identical, Not Totally Different“. 4
For example, the task of priest, of shepherding, and of ruling is given to men: whether it is Noah, Abraham and the Patriarchs, Moses, Aaron and the priesthood, Joshua, Gideon, Elijah, David and the Kings that follow, the 12 Apostles, Paul and so on. This is not to say that men take primacy of place in God’s work. Far from it. Women regularly feature in the Biblical story and are held as examples of faith. It is however a mistake to conclude that prominence equals ‘leadership’ or that equality means sameness. Sarah, Ruth, Naomi and others did not function as rulers or priests, but that does not denude their extraordinary contributions in God’s redemptive purposes. Some of these women were influential, such as Queen Esther and Deborah. In the case of Deborah, one of the issues of her day was men sidestepping responsibility. While Deborah heralds as a godly Israelite, she steps up because others were not. Even then, the book of Judges notes that when it came to military matters she did not overturn Barak’s job in leading the army. We should say, look at these women of God and learn from them and be encouraged by them. And we can uphold these examples without making them into something Scripture does not describe or prescribe, just as we should not misattribute to men in the Bible characteristics and roles that are not present.
There is a consistent pattern in both the OT and the NT for certain leadership roles. Why this may be the case will be considered later on. I will however make one comment for now, lest readers assume that I’m affirming a ‘patriarchal’ position (I’m using the word in the way it is commonly used today). Just as the teaching of Scripture conflicts with certain contemporary understandings of what it means to men and women, the Bible’s narrative does not fit neatly into the ‘patriarchal’ norms of other Ancient Near Eastern Civilisations. At various important points, both the OT and the NT clash with views about men and women from Egypt to Babylon and to Greece. Both Israel and the Church are called to be separate from and stand out from the world around. In fact, one of the repeated dangers for God’s people in both Testaments is an eagerness to borrow from and adopt the sexual ethics from surrounding cultures, and hence why God frequently calls for sanctification:
“Although the whole earth is mine, you will be for me a kingdom of priests and a holy nation.’ (Exodus 19:5b-6)
“But you are a chosen people, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, God’s special possession, that you may declare the praises of him who called you out of darkness into his wonderful light.” (1 Peter 2:9)
2. The context of the whole letter
The broad context of 1 Timothy shows us that ch.2 is exploring a subject bigger than men and women; this is about God’s church and how God’s household is to conduct herself. The reason why a church’s shape and structure matters is because of God’s intent for the church to be a visible representation of God’s truth. In the way we live and organise ourselves, the Church is designed to reveal God’s truth to the world. This central message of 1 Timothy is articulated in the very middle of the letter,
“Although I hope to come to you soon, I am writing you these instructions so that, 15 if I am delayed, you will know how people ought to conduct themselves in God’s household, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and foundation of the truth. 16 Beyond all question, the mystery from which true godliness springs is great:
He appeared in the flesh, was vindicated by the Spirit, was seen by angels, was preached among the nations, was believed on in the world, was taken up in glory.” (1 Tim 3:14-16)
Paul is convinced that God’s church is a particular type of community. We are not free to organise ourselves in any fashion. God owns his household and his church is to be built on God’s truth. It shouldn’t surprise us therefore to find Paul giving Timothy instructions about right conduct. These instructions include barring false doctrines and teaching sound doctrine and organising orderly and godly public worship, properly functioning leadership, and godly relationships between various members of the church.
3. The immediate context: 1 Timothy 2:1-7 is about the Church’s godliness and Gospel witness.
The setting for Paul’s instructions in ch.2 is the public gathering of the church. This section isn’t dealing with the workplace or general society or the home. There are Bible passages that address those settings. 1 Timothy ch.2 gives instructions for relationships in the church. What is evident is Paul’s concern is not only with what takes place in these gatherings but how we exercise these activities.
“I urge, then, first of all, that petitions, prayers, intercession and thanksgiving be made for all people— 2 for kings and all those in authority, that we may live peaceful and quiet lives in all godliness and holiness.
3 This is good, and pleases God our Savior, 4 who wants all people to be saved and to come to a knowledge of the truth.
5 For there is one God and one mediator between God and mankind, the man Christ Jesus, 6 who gave himself as a ransom for all people. This has now been witnessed to at the proper time. 7 And for this purpose I was appointed a herald and an apostle—I am telling the truth, I am not lying—and a true and faithful teacher of the Gentiles.
A new section of Paul’s letter begins in 2:1, as the opening words indicate. Paul combines the strong conjunction, ‘then’ (literally, ’therefore’), with the adverb ‘first of all’. Together these serve to introduce new material, much like a chapter heading.
The verb, ‘to urge’, “implies urgency but also encouragement. Paul is about to describe a positive priority. The importance of what follows is underscored by “first of all.”5
New Testament scholar Robert Yarbough makes an interesting point about the prayers of vv.1-3: God is concerned for good order in society, for kings and authorities and how we live in goodness under them for the sake of the Gospel. Our life in the broader world matters and so does our life together in the church. It should be of no surprise to see God not only desiring good order in society but also in the church.
The same ‘therefore’ is used again in verse 8, and this serves to connect vv. 8-15 with vv.1-7. Therefore is both pointing readers back to what has just been said and forward to what Paul is about to teach. The reason for these prayers is so that we can live quiet and peaceful lives in godliness and so that the church can offer an attractive Gospel witness. Verses 5-7 function as a parenthesis, expanding on the evangelistic desire expressed in vv.3-4. Given that v.8 hangs off vv.1-7 (and note the continuing theme of prayer), Paul is not changing course from the topic of public gathering but is continuing to outline what should take place when the church comes together. As Yarbrough says,
“He [Paul] is rather refreshing the focus of his discourse, which is worship and prayer. In vv. 3–7 he veered a little to the side; v. 8 and following pick up where v. 2 left off.”6
In other words, the instructions given to men and women in the church are set in the context of godliness and Gospel witness. Chapter 2 then functions as a precursor for what Paul has to say about leadership roles in the church in ch.3, namely Elders and Deacons and their qualifications. This organising of God’s household serves to further display that we belong to God.
“While ch. 2 focuses on worship “in God’s household, which is the church” (3:15), ch. 3 moves to the character of those who qualify to be appointed to preside in that worship and oversee in that household. Neudorfer notes that none of the qualifications or qualities about to be set forth are merely local or “just cultural” in nature, raising the question of why many find it so easy to apply those labels to much of ch. 2.”7
It would be strange to suggest Paul’s teaching on Elders and Deacons contradicts what he teaches in ch.2. But of course, what we find is congruence between the two chapters. Note these two aspects of teaching from ch.3: First, Elders are to be men (cf Titus 1:6). “The Greek is explicit that the overseer is a male.”8 + 9 Whereas Deacons may be male and female, both 1 Timothy 3 and Titus 1 make the point that the Elders/Pastors are to be men. Second, one of the few features that distinguish Elders and Deacons is that Elders must be able to teach.
v. The Text 2:8-15
Therefore I want all people everywhere to pray, lifting up holy hands without anger or disputing.
The word Paul uses here to address men is different from the word for men in v.1. The NIV is correct in rendering it ‘all people’. Paul uses anthropos in v.1, a word that can mean humanity or mankind; it’s not gender specific. However, Paul’s choice of word in v.8 is gender specific.
Also notable is the generalisation of Paul’s instruction. He indicates that these commands are not just for one place and time, it’s for men everywhere, beyond Ephesus, “I want men everywhere to pray”.
This isn’t the only instruction that’s given to men in this letter, far from it. Whereas most of Paul’s words for men will be positive, this however concerns turning from a negative and instead adopting a positive posture in the church. Why does Paul’s teaching to men focus on ‘anger’? Surely anger isn’t only a male attribute?
1 Timothy 2:8 seems to support the idea that anger is a greater issue among men than it is for women. In a paragraph where Paul is making distinctions between men and women in the church, it is observable to Paul that a proclivity toward anger is one characteristic that sufficiently differentiates men from women. It’s not the only distinctive attribute but it is one.
It’s not that women don’t experience anger. Of course, women can be angry, for good reasons as well as for sinful reasons. Is there however something in Paul’s statement that rings true?
In 2018, The Conversation published an article on differences between men and women. The focus was on ‘happiness’ and how men and women experience happiness in different ways. The article also speaks of the converse. According to the piece, research demonstrates that men and women express anger differently.
“However within these studies lies a significant blind spot, which is that women often do feel anger as intensely as men, but do not express it openly as it is not viewed as socially acceptable.
When men feel angry they are more likely to vocalise it and direct it at others, whereas women are more likely to internalise and direct the anger at themselves. Women ruminate rather than speak out. And this is where women’s vulnerability to stress and depression lies.”
This makes sense of Paul’s observation about men raising hands in anger. It’s not that 1 Timothy 2:8 is valid because of what researchers are learning, but rather we shouldn’t be surprised to find reality matching what Scripture teaches and affirms. Paul wants sinful behaviour to be repented of and replaced with godly action, which in this case means prayer.
From v.9 Paul shifts his attention from men in the church to women. V.9 begins with the adverb, ‘also’ (or ‘similarly’). Just as men are to behave in a certain way in church, similarly women are to behave in a certain way. The fact that Paul gives separate instructions here for men and women is evidence of there being a differentiation of the sexes in terms of roles. Given the connection between v.8 and vv.9-15, it is also difficult to argue for the contemporary relevance of the instruction for men and then argue for culturally bound and therefore non applicable instructions for women. In addition, Yarbrough makes this salient point by quoting another scholar, Thomas Oden,
“The actual subject of this paragraph [1 Tim 2:9–15] is extraordinarily deep-going theologically—not merely petty moralism or culture-bound moral advice. It ranges widely over subtle themes of the relation of outward and inward behavior; the nature of leadership and its relation to sexuality; and salvation history from the fall to redemption, from Eve to incarnation. Hence it is regrettable that some treat it only as a petty moral regulation so filled with sexual bias that it is disqualified from serious modern consideration.”10
There are two sets of instructions given to women here: the first relates to clothing and the second concerns learning. In terms of dress Paul wants women to emphasise the heart over fashion, and good deeds over style.
9 I also want the women to dress modestly,
with decency and propriety, adorning themselves,
not with elaborate hairstyles or gold or pearls or expensive clothes,
10 but with good deeds, appropriate for women who profess to worship God.
The second instruction concerns learning and teaching in the context of church gathered.
11 A woman should learn in quietness and full submission.
The verb ‘should’ isn’t a suggestion as it may be read in English. In the original language it is a present imperative, which means it has the weight of a command with ongoing relevance: ‘Let a woman learn”. Also note how the imperative isn’t pitched primarily at women in the church, but as Yarbrough explains, this is “to Timothy as the person responsible for oversight of Ephesian worship. The sense of Paul’s command is “See to it, Timothy, that the woman who seeks to learn does so.”11
The manner in which women should learn is twofold. There is a word for silence and Paul doesn’t use it. Rather he says, quietness, which denotes an attitude of attentive listening. Paul reiterates this concern for quiet learning in v.12. In a useful essay on 1 Timothy 2:11-12, New Testament theologian Hefin Jones explains,
“The kind of “quietness” envisaged has been much discussed since both biblical and non-biblical usage suggests either a “silent attentiveness” or a “freedom from disturbance. While neither necessarily implies absolute silence, and both imply that the function of quietness is to aid learning (2:11), the idea of “freedom from disturbance” chimes with the instruction to men to pray “without anger or disputing” (2:8).” 12
The fact that Paul exhorts submission in other places, including men submitting (ie 1 Corinthians 16:15-17; Ephesians 5:21), does not take away or weaken what is prescribed here.
’Full submission’ further confirms the manner in which Paul sees women learning in the church gathering. Rather than contesting or arguing (perhaps this was an issue in the Ephesian church), they should submit to the teaching of God’s word. Again, this should not be understood as a negative, but rather Paul is arranging the church meeting such that women can attend to the teaching of God’s word. On this phrase about submission, the Apostle is not advocating a universal submission of women to men, an interpretation that is not only incorrect but is fraught with moral and social problems. Again the context is speaking of the church gathered and the time for the public teaching of God’s word.
12 I do not permit a woman to teach or to assume authority over a man; she must be quiet.
Following the positive instruction in verse 11, Paul gives this prohibition in verse 12. It is joined to the previous sentence with a small adversative, ‘and’ or ‘but’. The prohibition is teaching and having authority over a man, and the setting for this imperative is the local church, as opposed to other situations.
More words have been written on each word of this sentence than can be read or responded to for a paper such as this. I highly recommend these two excellent volumes which address many of the alternate views that have appeared in recent years, as well as providing a lucid and convincing explanation for the classical Christian reading.13 Rather than diving into the rabbit hole and responding to all the possible explanations, I will try and outline the essence of this verse, and then explore Paul’s grounding for this instruction.
The Apostle does not permit in the local assembly women to exercise two activities: teaching and authority over men. What does teach mean and what does authority mean?
First of all, there is some debate over the syntax of this verse: is Paul speaking of two separate activities (teaching and authority) or one (authoritative teaching) or something else? Andreas J. Köstenberger and Tom Schreiner are among those who maintain that Paul is speaking of two activities14. Whether Paul has in mind one or two activities, the reality is, Elders exercise their authority primarily through teaching (1 Tim 3:2) and teaching is most often an authoritative action (cf 1 Tim 5:17).
The verb ‘to teach’ signifies the transmission of the faith to the people of God15.
“Teaching here involves the authoritative and public transmission of tradition about Christ and the Scriptures (1 Cor. 12:28–29; Eph. 4:11; 1 Tim. 2:7; 2 Tim. 3:16; James 3:1). The rest of the Pastoral Epistles makes clear that the teaching in view is the public transmission of authoritative material (cf. 1 Tim. 4:13, 16; 6:2; 2 Tim. 4:2; Titus 2:7). The elders in particular are to labor in teaching (1 Tim. 5:17) so that they can refute the false teachers who advance heresy (1 Tim. 1:3, 10; 4:1; 6:3; 2 Tim. 4:3; Titus 1:9, 11). It is crucial that the correct teaching and the apostolic deposit be passed on to the next generation (2 Tim. 1:12, 14; 2:2).”16
Paul uses a rare word for ‘authority’ in v.12. The fact that this particular word only occurs once in Scripture isn’t problematic, nor is it an argument for claiming we can’t really know the meaning of the word. In the First Epistle to Timothy Paul uses more than 60 hapax legomena!17 Throughout the New Testament, 100s of words appear only once.
Al Wolters is among notable scholars who have undertaken extensive research into the use of this word in ancient literature18. He concludes that ‘exercise authority’ conveys the right meaning. Coupled with teaching, Paul is describing two positive actions. In the Greek language, when 2 infinitives are coupled together they carry the same direction, either both a negative or both a positive. In this case, it would mean Paul is prohibiting wrongful teaching and wrong authority or he is prohibiting women from exercising teaching and authority. Given that ‘to teach’ is denoted positively in the NT it follows grammatically that ‘authority’ also holds a positive meaning. In other words, the view that Paul is only banning ‘domineering behaviour’ doesn’t hold up to either the word studies or Greek syntax.19
At Mentone Baptist Church we currently use the NIV 2011 Bible translation. While the NIV is on the whole our preferred translation, like all other Bible translations, it suffers from some problems. The 2011 revisions made one change that is unfortunate and needs to be explained here lest readers misappropriate how 2:12 reads in this translation. NIV has changed from “have authority” (in the 1984 edition) to “assume authority”. It is not that “assume authority” is incorrect but that it is less clear. The Committee on Bible Translation made the decision because they did not want to present either a complementation or egalitarian reading of the word, and hence settled on a translation that was believed to be neutral.20 How so? If having or exercising authority is the better translation, then the issue Paul is addressing is authority. If “assume authority” is the more accurate rendering, then the problem is one of an inappropriate assumption of authority.21 In other words, is Paul arguing that women should not teach or exercise authority over men in the church or is he arguing against an inappropriate styled authority, hence the Apostle is supportive of women exercising due authority over men in the church? On this point, I agree with Kevin De Young who notes the advances of etymological studies over the last 30 years and how this has clarified the meaning of ‘authority’, not made it more ambiguous as the NIV now leans. In contrast to the decision made by the NIV Committee, other new Bible translations, such as the popular ESV and also HCSB, stick with the more literal and transparent “exercise authority” and “have authority”.
Another approach to minimising the contemporary relevance of this Scripture is the cultural argument. There is now a significant body of work dedicated to proving Paul’s instructions in vv.11-12 are dealing with a specific issue in Ephesus and are therefore not active today. Of course, Paul is speaking to particulars going on in Ephesus, but that does not mean his instructions are only intended for that specific church, place and time. The fact that there was false teaching in the Ephesian church is undeniable. It would be quite bizarre to suggest otherwise given Paul speaks about false teaching in his letter on a number of occasions (1:3-11; 4:1-3 6:2; 6:20). It is possible that women were participating in this teaching but that is far from clear). On the other hand, Paul does name men who are espousing falsehood.
Thomas Schreiner is among recent scholars who have demonstrated the paucity of these reconstructions, “some scholars are far too confident about their ability to reconstruct the life setting in some detail.”22 Schreiner isn’t saying that none of these proposals have merit. Rather, he is rightly pointing out that it is unwise to reframe the reading of Scripture based on fragmentary evidence that lies outside the Bible and which requires theorising and drawing firm conclusions from scant secondary information.
As Schreiner notes, even if one could firmly establish, as an example, that the cult of Artemis had unduly influenced the behaviour of women in the church and was behind his prohibition on teaching, it is still a leap in the dark to conclude that Paul’s teaching can only be situational and not hold universal relevance. As we will see shortly, Paul grounds his instructions not in Ephesus but in creation. Not only this, but these instructions fit well with what is taught elsewhere in the New Testament about including Titus 1 and 1 Corinthians 11.
“Even if some women were spreading the heresy (which remains uncertain), we still need to explain why Paul proscribes only women from teaching. Since men are specifically named as purveyors of the heresy, would it not make more sense if Paul forbade all false teaching by both men and women?”23
“If we were to claim that documents written to specific situations do not apply to the church today, then much of the New Testament would not be applicable to us, since many New Testament books were addressed to particular communities facing special circumstances. Universal principles are tucked into books written in response to specific circumstances.”24
Limiting the application of vv.11-12 to the Ephesian Church poses other textual issues, both in the immediate context and in the broader scheme of things. For example, egalitarians are then required to change vv.13-15 from being the reason or grounding for Paul’s teaching, to Paul providing an illustration of what not to do. The example of Eve becomes an illustration of women behaving badly rather than the theological frame of the creational order which provides a pattern for order in the church. Again, Schreiner is helpful here,
“Those who adhere to the egalitarian position argue that the γάρ (“for”) introducing vv. 13–14 indicates not reasons why women should refrain from teaching but illustrations or examples of what happens when women falsely teach men. This understanding of the γάρ is unconvincing. When Paul gives a command elsewhere in the Pastoral Epistles, the γάρ that follows almost invariably states the reason for the command…Frankly, this is just what we would expect, since even in ordinary speech, reasons often follow commands.”25
How do we decide how and when principles are applicable and when they are not? We are aided by the words themselves as they are explained and argued by the biblical authors and arranged in the context in which they were written down. There is one further reason and it is provided by Paul in verses 13-15.
In these 3 sentences the Apostles gives us a reason for the instructions he has just outlined,
“13 ForAdam was formed first, then Eve.
14 And Adam was not the one deceived; it was the woman who was deceived and became a sinner.
15 But women will be saved through childbearing—if they continue in faith, love and holiness with propriety.”
“For” (gar) indicates that Paul is giving a reason for his counsel about women.”26 The instructions are not grounded in Ephesian culture (although they certainly speak into it) but according to the creational order which God brought into being before there was any sin in the world.
Paul is not only stating that there was an ordering in creation, he is saying that it remains today. “Paul draws, then, on the protology, chronology, and teleology of Gen 1–2 to make application in his own time in Ephesus”27. It should be noted that Jesus provides a similar argument when he affirms God’s intention for marriage according to Genesis 1-2.
These verses provide us with the threefold summary of salvation history: there is creation (v.13), and the fall (v.14) and redemption (v.15).
V.13 affirms the goodness of creation. There is no inequality between the first man and the first woman, and there is distinction: God made male and female. The fact that Adam was made first is reason for intending certain men to lead in the church and not women. In other words, there is something built into the way God made us that God intends certain men to take the responsibility of church leadership (primarily exercised through the public teaching/preaching). I understand why in our egalitarian societies we struggle with this notion, but that is what the text says. Given (as I said at the outset) that I believe God’s word is good, it means that we may need to think harder about why we resist what God is saying. One of the shameful ways these verses have been read on occasion is by voices (who’ve sadly held much sway in some past generations) who have diminished the value and role of women, rather than building up women and praising God for their indispensable roles. God does not squash women and where churches and men have done so, repentance is necessary.
V.14 is not acquitting Adam of responsibility for the fall and placing all blame onto Eve. Far from it. In the letter to the Romans Paul makes Adam culpable for bringing sin into the world and with it, death.
“just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all people, because all sinned—“ (Romans 5:12)
“For as in Adam all die” (1 Corinthians 5:22)
It is also true that Eve was deceived. Paul is alluding to how Eve overturned the order of creation by taking the lead instead of Adam. But the story doesn’t end with Genesis ch.3 and with 1 Timothy 2:14. Verse 15 speaks of redemption.
V.15 is in my opinion the most difficult one to comprehend in the entire passage. The phrase, ‘saved through childbearing’ may come across as confronting for our society. Too often in public rhetoric and in private lives, having babies has become an obstruction to womanhood and even a sexist suggestion. When a woman bearing children is considered a disruption or problem, it reveals how much how messed up our society has become. Children are an incredible blessing and good, they are not an obstacle to avoid or overcome. But what is Paul getting at in v.15?
The verse can’t be saying that salvation comes literally through giving birth to a child because salvation is received through faith alone in Christ alone, and not by anything we do. Paul isn’t contradicting what he has already established in ch.1:12-17.
There are 2 main lines of interpretations and both have merit. He may be using child bearing as an analogy, to speak of the coming of Christ. That is, the one by whom salvation comes, was born of a woman. Through Eve who eventually became a mother, came the promised line of the serpent crusher, Jesus (cf Genesis 3:15). This is a possible interpretation and it highlights the privileged role a woman had in God’s plan of salvation, a unique gift given to her.
More likely however is that Paul is saying to women in the church, be the women God desires you to be. This makes greater sense of the final phrase in v.15, “if they continue in faith, love and holiness with propriety.” It is important to stress, Paul is not saying that every women can or ought to have children (clearly that is not the case), but he is using as an analogy, a characteristic that is unique among women. In other words, women are not saved by subverting God’s purposes in creation and in the church, but by being the redeemed women God has called them to be in Christ Jesus. Therefore, don’t diminish your womanhood, but glory in it, in Christ Jesus.
VI. Objections to the classical reading of 1 Timothy ch.2
I have mentioned some of the objections to the classical view of 1 Timothy ch.2 throughout this paper, although my aim has not been to focus on these but rather it is to outline the positive and what I believe is the most compelling case.
To get a sense of the wide ranging arguments against the classical reading of 1 Timothy, see this summary by Yarbrough,
“For exposition and refutation of egalitarian claims that this text is unclear or not central to Paul’s argument (M. Evans, G. Fee), that it nullifies logic and justice (S. Motyer), that redemptive history has moved on from Paul’s circumstances (W. Webb), that Paul’s argument is illogical (P. Hanson, P. Jewett), that Paul was speaking only of women who spread heresy or were uneducated (G. Bilezikian, B. Mickelsen, P. Payne, P. Zehr), that Paul is calling only for conformity to norms of his time (P. Towner), and many other objections, see Schreiner, “An Interpretation of 1 Timothy 2:9–15,”.28
To repeat and respond to every proposed reading is simply not possible here, given there are literally dozens of objections and suggested alternative interpretations. However, to give readers a sense of the main kinds of objections to the classical reading of 1 Timothy ch.2, I’ve summarised them under 4 broad themes.
1. Paul is wrong and the text is therefore irrelevant. Paul represents a patriarchal society and promotes a misogynist view of women; this needs to be rejected.
In response, without question misogyny is sinful and should be opposed in and by churches. But to call hateful any view that affirms some kind of male and female difference in church is untrue and intellectually irresponsible. Also, to conclude that the writings of the Apostle Paul are wrong is to presume we know better than God and to place ourselves over and against Scripture. As Christians, this is not a position we can hold.
2. Paul is addressing a specific cultural issue that renders the prohibitions irrelevant today.
What these ‘cultural issues’ depend on which commentator is espousing the theory. I acknowledge that each biblical book was written for an original audience prior to ourselves, and this group of believers were facing particular cultural and spiritual issues, and these often shaped the way the biblical authors wrote their material. These cultural issues are clear and apparent, other times they are not. In the case of 1 Timothy 2, attempted historical reconstructions that are used to remove the contemporary significance of Paul’s instructions suffer the following problems: First, Paul grounds his argument in creation. Second, they depend on hidden backgrounds that are not at all apparent or are based upon fragmentary pieces of evidence Third, the issue is not women wanting inappropriate authority (misread of the verse) but authority exercised over men in the context of the local church. Fourth, when it comes to false teaching in Ephesus while women may have been involved, Paul names specific men tied to this teaching but not women. In other words, the issue of false teaching is not a gender related issue. Five. the letter to Titus contains similar teaching and yet is written to a different setting (Crete, not Ephesus).
While we shouldn’t discount recent scholarship and it is wise to carefully weigh up new insights and information, we should at the same time be wary of new interpretations that don’t find deep historical support. We should be wary of extra-biblical material that’s deemed necessary to rightly read and interpret a biblical text. Extra-biblical information may enhance our readings and enrich our applications, but we should take care if these should significantly change our readings of the biblical text and therefore the way we conduct ourselves as God’s church.
3. The words used by Paul have a technical or narrow meaning, which does not prevent women from preaching and teaching God’s word in the public assembly or prevent women from serving as Elders. I’ve commented on some of these arguments throughout the paper.
4. What about the other parts of the Bible? Aren’t women leading elsewhere, and if so, is it right to place this Scripture over and above other Scriptures? Please take note of the following:
4.1. Be careful of arguing false equivalencies. For example, the NT shows us women praying and prophesying in the church but these activities are not preaching or pastoring. Women serve as deacons but concluding from this that they also served as Elders is a false equivalence. For want of a better analogy, to illustrate the problem with this line of argument: men and women are equal, therefore men can be mothers!
4.2 Paul argues for a creational order that is evident in the home and in the church. He argues for equality, not sameness.
4.3. Other NT teaching is congruent with the understanding outlined in 1 Timothy ch.2.
4.4. We make our churches poorer and even disobedient if we are not encouraging women in ministry and to teach and lead in a whole range of areas. Anyone arguing that because men should be elders, women therefore shouldn’t serve publicly or in any capacity, is another example of false equivalence. Not only that, this view is simply wrong and unhealthy.
VII. Implications from 1 Timothy ch.2
This chapter of Scripture signals several important lessons and encouragements about the way we conduct ourselves as a church.
i. God is concerned with godliness for both men and women
ii. God is concerned with order and right relationships in a church
iii. God is concerned with salvation. This cuts against the grain of ancient societies where a woman’s eternal status was often not cared about
iv. God is concerned with Gospel witness. How we relate to each other posits a positive witness to the world around us. This is of great significance in our current age where there is so much confusion about gender matters.
v. God is concerned for women and men to learn and grow in Christ.
vi. The formal preaching/teaching of the church and the role of Pastor/elder is reserved for qualified men.
Vii. Don’t undermine creational mandates and patterns, and appreciate how Christ redeems.
Because of the way we sometimes read these verses (both complementarians and egalitarians), I want to stress that 1 Timothy ch.2 is not saying that women should not have a public role in church. This cannot be the case. The view that women should not speak at church gatherings is countered by the Scriptures themselves. For example, Ephesians 5:19-20 and Colossians 3:16- 17 address the entire congregation and exhorts everyone to speak and teach God’s words to one another in song. Interestingly, both of these passages then proceed to discuss marriage and uphold distinct roles within marriage. 1 Corinthians 11 begins a lengthy discussion on church life and Paul includes a discussion about women praying and prophesying during the gathering. In Romans ch16 Paul names many women and men who form his ministry team and who are serving Christ together in a variety of ways.
Neither are these verses saying that women can never teach the Bible. The Bible encourages and gives examples of women teaching other women and children. Timothy’s mother and grandmother are given special mention for their Christ-like example to him. Priscilla and Aquila together discipled Apollos. As I have mentioned earlier, we must be careful and avoid making the Bible say more than it is communicating or less than what it is teaching us. The examples of women teaching and being involved in Christian ministry is not an argument for women exercising any role in the church, and neither is Paul’s prohibition on teaching in 1 Timothy 2 a ban on all teaching and ministry for women in the church.
Rather than signalling a negative view of women or Paul necessarily dealing with an issue of unruly or heresy teaching women in Ephesus, his positive emphasis on letting women learn reveals a very high regard for women in the church. Here lies the issue, in our current societal thinking we struggle to hold together both affirmation and difference, or equality with distinction. What we discover in 1 Timothy and elsewhere in the New Testament is God’s reconciling and sanctifying power at work, not to defuse creation, but to redeem men and women.
The fact that there is nothing new or innovative in my explanation should give cause for encouragement, not suspicion. Surely, Western readers of the 21st Century are not the first to read this passage faithfully. We do not sit above churches in the rest of the world, whether those existing today or from 100 years ago or 1500 years ago. There must be very good reason established from Scripture and in support by Scripture for churches to change doctrine on any matter. In my view, the new readings of 1 Timothy ch.2 fail to meet the necessary standard.
I recall Claire Smith sharing the story of a university aged woman who had just become a Christian29. The woman was from a non Anglo-Saxon ethnic background. She read 1 Timothy and Claire asked her, did you find ch.2 difficult? The woman replied,
“No, it’s easy. Paul is saying women shouldn’t teach in church, because that’s the way God wants it.”
Smith then admits how some people will support that “her ethnic cultural background probably made it easier for her to do that.” But Smith continues: “But can you see that the opposite might also be true—that our culture influences our reading of the text, and that many of the difficulties we find in it might exist because of our culture and our personalities and not because of the text itself?”
I appreciate that there are Christian brothers and sisters who will disagree with some of what I have written, perhaps with much. I am aware of how cultural preferences and pressures can influence the way I read different parts of the Bible. I do also believe it is a cop-out to say that we cannot know what the Bible means today for this presses against the God who gave us his word that we might know him and know how to live godly lives together for his glory. I also think that it is hard to deny how much the massive cultural changes of our times have influenced the way we view life, especially topics relating to family life and marriage and even what it means to be a man and to be a woman.
Thomas Schreiner suggests,
“It is a modern, democratic, Western notion that diverse functions suggest distinctions in worth between men and women. Paul believed that men and women were equal in personhood, dignity, and value but also taught that women had distinct roles from men.”30
“It also seems to ignore how many women, through the ages and around the world, have found the Bible and its message far more liberating than oppressing. This largely Western, university-based hermeneutic seems out of touch with perhaps most women who are active in the church as Bible readers and believers worldwide.”31
To capture a more complete view of men and women and how we serve together in the local church we need to consider the full portrait given to us by God in his word. But as I explained at the beginning of this paper, my aim here is to outline a treatment of 1 Timothy ch.2 in light of the forthcoming sermon series on this Epistle at my church. For an example of these interdependent connections and service, we may turn to Bible passages including 1 Timothy 5, Titus 2, Romans 16, amongst others.
The vision God gives us in his word is one worth pursuing and it is important and worthwhile having these conversations together as we sit under His word. One of the tremendous blessings at Mentone is how God’s people believe in the sufficiency and authority of God’s word. Even when we disagree on some matters or share different insights, we have this common base from which we grow together in love and grace and truth.
In 2015 Morling College hosted a symposium, The Gender Symposium: Evangelical Perspectives on Gender, Scripture, and the Christian Life. David Starling offered this encouragement in conclusion to the event, and it is my encouragement also to those who are reading this paper,
“the conversation goes on, with us or without us on board. And it is a conversation worth having. If the gospel is about the Lordship of Jesus over all things; if it teaches us a wisdom that touches on every aspect of human life and relationships; if the saving purposes of God made known in the gospel embrace the whole of our humanity (and indeed the whole creation), then this is not a topic we ought to shrink back from or push to the margins as unimportant. The gender conversation is a conversation worth having. Somewhere within the big, swirling ocean of public conversation about gender that we participate in as Christians (and amongst the various private and sub-cultural tributaries that feed into it) is the particular conversation we have been engaged in today: the in-house conversation between Christian brothers and sisters who love the same Lord Jesus and who read and believe the same Scriptures, yet differ on how those Scriptures are to be interpreted and applied to matters of gender.”32
1 see Carl Trueman’s excellent treatment of the subject, ‘The Rise and Triumph of the Modern Self: Cultural Amnesia, Expressive Individualism, and the Road to Sexual Revolution’ (Crossway, 2020).
2 We acknowledge there are medical conditions, commonly referred to as intersex, whereby a person is born with both male and female biological features. Intersexuality is extremely rare.
5 Yarbrough, Robert W.. The Letters to Timothy and Titus (The Pillar New Testament Commentary (PNTC)) (p. 180). Eerdmans. Kindle Edition.
6 Yarbrough, Robert W.. The Letters to Timothy and Titus (The Pillar New Testament Commentary (PNTC)) (p. 194). Eerdmans. Kindle Edition.
7 Yarbrough, Robert W.. The Letters to Timothy and Titus (The Pillar New Testament Commentary (PNTC)) (p. 218). Eerdmans. Kindle Edition.
8 Yarbrough, Robert W.. The Letters to Timothy and Titus (The Pillar New Testament Commentary (PNTC)) (p. 223). Eerdmans. Kindle Edition.
9 Paul uses the gender specific andros rather than anthropos
10 Yarbrough, Robert W.. The Letters to Timothy and Titus (The Pillar New Testament Commentary (PNTC)) (p. 178). Eerdmans. Kindle Edition.
11 Yarbrough, Robert W.. The Letters to Timothy and Titus (The Pillar New Testament Commentary (PNTC)) (p. 202). Eerdmans. Kindle Edition.
12 See the chapter written by Hefin Jones in Murphy, Edwina., ‘The Gender Conversation: Evangelical Perspectives on Gender, Scripture, and the Christian Life’. Wipf & Stock, an Imprint of Wipf and Stock Publishers. Kindle Edition.
13 Women in the Church (Third Edition): An Interpretation and Application of 1 Timothy 2:9-15. Eds. Andreas J. Köstenberger and Tom Schreiner. Tim Keller and D.A Carson speak highly of Robert Yarbrough’s Pillar commentary on the Pastoral Epistles.
14 Women in the Church (Third Edition): An Interpretation and Application of 1 Timothy 2:9-15.
15 John Dickson (who is a convinced complementation, holds that the role of Senior Pastor is reserved for qualified men) argues that Paul has in mind a narrow view of teaching here. He believes the verb to teach in v.12,
“is not about conveying Christian truth in all its forms. It is about transmitting and preserving for a congregation the apostolic traditions of the gospel. It certainly does not refer to all that one might include under the modern rubric of a “sermon.”
Dickson’s view (which he has adopted from a small group of evangelicals from previous generations) however has found little traction amongst New Testament scholarship.
16 Kostenberger, Andreas J.,Schreiner, Thomas R.. Women in the Church (Third Edition): An Interpretation and Application of 1 Timothy 2:9-15 (pp. 190-191). Crossway. Kindle Edition.
16 hapax legomena is the technical phrase for words that appear only once in a document
17 cf Wolters chapter, ‘The Meaning of Αὐθεντέω’ in Kostenberger, Andreas J.,Schreiner, Thomas R.. Women in the Church (Third Edition): An Interpretation and Application of 1 Timothy 2:9-15 (p. 65). Crossway. Kindle Edition.
19 cf Kostenerberger’s contribution, ‘A Complex Sentence’ in Kostenberger, Andreas J.,Schreiner, Thomas R.. Women in the Church (Third Edition): An Interpretation and Application of 1 Timothy 2:9-15 (p. 117). Crossway. Kindle Edition.
20 It should be noted that among the scholars who serve on the NIV translation committee are complementarians, and so one should not assume that they are supportive of a egalitarian rendering of v.12
The Andrew Thorburn story is returning to media attention. The Age is tonight* reporting that Thorburn “has hired legal counsel and is pursuing legal action against the club after he was forced to resign.”
Thorburn lasted as Essendon’s CEO for less than 24 hours. Journalists went hunting and tracked down several ‘controversial’ comments made in sermons at Thorburn’s local church some 10 years ago before Thorburn had joined. As newspaper columns appeared, Victoria’s Premier, Daniel Andrews came out and publicly attacked Thorburn’s church,
“those views are absolutely appalling.”
“I don’t support those views, that kind of intolerance, that kind of hatred, bigotry, is just wrong.
“Those sort of attitudes are simply wrong and to dress that up as anything other than bigotry is just obviously false.”
Within hours Andrew Thorburn was given an ultimatum by the Essendon board, choose the club or his church. Thorburn chose his church.
In a statement, Thorburn explained,
“Today it became clear to me that my personal Christian faith is not tolerated or permitted in the public square, at least by some and perhaps by many. I was being required to compromise beyond a level that my conscience allowed. People should be able to hold different views on complex personal and moral matters, and be able to live and work together, even with those differences, and always with respect. Behaviour is the key. This is all an important part of a tolerant and diverse society…
…Despite my own leadership record, within hours of my appointment being announced, the media and leaders of our community had spoken. They made it clear that my Christian faith and my association with a Church are unacceptable in our culture if you wish to hold a leadership position in society.
This grieves me greatly – though not just for myself, but for our society overall. I believe we are poorer for the loss of our great freedoms of thought, conscience and belief that made for a truly diverse, just and respectful community.”
I’m not here to comment on any potential legal action, for such things are beyond my expertise. As this story will fire up again over the coming days, it is worth highlighting once more the extraordinary nature of the decision made by Essendon Football Club and the interference by Victoria’s Premier.
I was speaking with a member of the Victorian Government recently. He was quite open and adamant in his support of Essendon’s stance against Andrew Thorburn. One on the hand, he acknowledged that it’s against the law to discriminate against a person’s faith, but in the same breath, he insisted Thorburn shouldn’t lead Essendon given his connection with a Melbourne church. Not only that, this MP told me that any suggestion people of faith could lose their job because of their beliefs, is nothing more than ‘scaremongering’. Given that we were literally talking about a live example, I don’t think he was aware of the irony filling his words. Not only that, what a cold response to thousands of Victorians who now feel vulnerable in the workplace.
As I was thinking about the conversation afterwards, the issue is one of semantics or rather, it’s a game of bluff. He sees the issue through the lens of ‘values’, rather than religion.
He could say (correctly so) that it’s against the law to discriminate against someone in the workplace on the basis of their religion and yet he also believes it’s legitimate to force someone out of their job if their values don’t align (Ie their religious values). In other words, we don’t live in a society where there is a neat division between religion and secular, or between private and public. Everything is religious. Every value and action, every job and interest, is shaped by underlying commitments and views of the world, and these inevitably take on a religious flavour. It’s not as though some sexual ethics belong to a neutral space while religious views are found elsewhere. All values are religious in nature.
Victoria is like Ancient Rome where there is a god for everything. We’ve dispensed with the names; there’s no praying to Juno, Diana and Venus. We simply sacrifice to and live for sexual freedom, power, wealth, or whatever is our ultimate aim. Hence, when a religious view clashes with an assumed (or stated) value, the value wins out as though it’s morally omniscient. That is why football, like cricket and rugby league, is no longer about playing the game. Sport is attached to a set of dogmas, and sponsors often serve as the priests, making compliance certain, while the Board acts as bishop. Of course, an AFL Club isn’t a church or a Christian school where particular religious views are necessary. Having the right kind of religious view shouldn’t be a prerequisite for senior management in the ‘secular’ business or sporting world, but as the Andrew Thorburn case demonstrates, such distinctions no longer apply.
Values is simply a disguised way of talking about a person’s deep beliefs and practices. Values aren’t distinct from religion; values are always an expression of religious convictions, whether we attribute a god to them or not. The situation in Victoria, as our Premier has expressed, is that if a Christian’s ‘values’ don’t align with a place of employment, they may well find themselves receiving similar treatment to Andrew Thorburn. They may protest, as did my politician friend, ‘it’s values, not religion’, but such smoke and mirrors don’t fool anyone.
Essendon’s President David Barham also attempted to play this game of dodgeball. When announcing Thorburn’s resignation, he tried to blur the lines,
“I also want to stress that this is not about vilifying anyone for their personal religious beliefs, but about a clear conflict of interest with an organisation whose views do not align at all with our values as a safe, inclusive, diverse and welcoming club for our staff, our players, our members, our fans, our partners and the wider community.”
Political theologian, Jonathan Leeman, is right,
“secular liberalism isn’t neutral, it steps into the public space with a ‘covert religion’, perhaps as liberal authoritarianism…the public realm is nothing less than the battleground of gods, each vying to push the levers of power in its favour.”
That is the world we inhabit. This is the air we breathe. It may take a little time for HR departments to catch up with the reality of what their guidelines and directives signify, but we no longer have to speculate or hypothesize: we have one very public case in point glaring at us.
Before I finish up, I noticed that there are a few details in The Age reporting that are incorrect:
First, City on a Hill is not a ‘small’ church. It is probably the largest Anglican Church in Melbourne, and one of the largest Anglican Churches in Australia.
Second, it is not a ‘conservative church’ as opposed to normal or standard. City on a Hill adheres to the same beliefs and practices that are typical of Christian Churches across Australia and the world. This Church sits comfortably within the same orthodox Christianity that has existed and flourished for 2,000 years.
Third, there is no homophobic material on their website. What one finds, as with other Christian Churches, is the Jesus driven belief that sex is a great God given gift reserved for marriage between a man and a woman. And let’s not forget, that Australian law reflected a classical view of marriage until 5 minutes ago. There is nothing phobic when Jesus called out sexual transgression. He did so because people matter and ignoring God’s design is a perilous trip. The extent to which Jesus loved was crucifixion. Jesus didn’t bleed hatred on the cross, but love and mercy toward the same people transgress God’s good ways.
One may not like or agree with Christianity but throwing around language like phobic is lazy and untrue. Churches follow Jesus’ example, by loving and welcoming everyone who comes along. We don’t have to agree with every word, action, and value in order to love and welcome another. If that ethic was true, then Jesus is the world’s worst social heretic! Thank God, that “God demonstrates his own love for us in this: While we were still sinners, Christ died for us.” (Romans 5:8)
*all the major newspaper were reporting the story by the end of the evening
Praise God for the good news of Jesus Christ that was preached across Victorian churches yesterday. In a weird kind of way, our newspaper friends seem to be obsessed with the casual clothes being worn by those speaking from the front, but whether in a t-shirt and jeans or in dressed in a robe of some sort, Christ was preached and for that, I say, Amen. Instead of throwing eggs at all of the folk who’ve been deriding Christians and churches this week, we prayed for them and longed for them to grasp how good is God’s grace.
While Christian churches enjoyed time together and welcomed visitors, I noticed there were a few religious voices preaching on the street corner from a different book. They are unhappy with Guy Mason and Andrew Thorburn, and Christians like them. Some have even come out in support of Essendon Football Club.
Writing in the Guardian, Uniting Church minister, Elenie Poulos, suggested that Andrew Thorburn’s exit from Essendon Football Club wasn’t a religious freedom failure.
“It is about leadership and organisational values. As many commentators and engaged observers have already pointed out, Thorburn’s appointment appears to have been a failure of the recruitment process. He found himself leading two organisations with values that clashed, one just happened to be a religious organisation.”
It seems as though a few people have bought into this theory.
One Melbourne Baptist repeated the rumour,
“It isn’t controversial or problematic to suggest that someone can’t lead two organisations with opposing values simultaneously. City on a Hill is a church organisation that espouses a very specific set of views on women and sexuality, among other things. They do not allow women to be ministers or to preach. They do not allow LGBT people full participation in the church. They have particular views on divorce and remarriage. The AFL have a different set of views. They clearly promote LGBT inclusion and equal rights for women. It’s clear that you couldn’t possibly lead with integrity toward these two opposing visions.
The former Essendon CEO was not sacked for being a Christian and was not punished for going to a particular church. He was asked to choose which organisation he would lead. He made his choice. That’s how religious freedom works.
Essendon’s grievous error was in failing to have the conversation before he was appointed. That’s on them.”
These attempts to reconstruct events that transpired only a few days ago is like returning to the scene of the crime and trying to hide the murder weapon while everyone is looking on.
As we know, revisionists are often the ones who write the history books, so it’s important to challenge this disinformation. Anyone who has read the Essendon Football Club’s statement and read Andrew Thorburn’s statements, listened to Premier Daniel Andrews, and a host of journalists and commentators, will know that this issue is precisely about the man’s religious beliefs and his association with a mainstream Christian Church.
Let us be clear, the only reason this became an issue is that the church Andrew Thorburn belongs to holds views about homosexuality and abortion that contravene the dogma of 21st Century authoritarian secularism. If only he had chosen the right kind of church, one that our Premier approves. If only Thorburn was Chairing one of those dying progressive churches in inner city Melbourne. We know the ones, we drive by and we see the, ‘for sale’ signs on the front gate.
Trying to split hairs over being Chair of the Board s vs being a church member, or belonging to church vs holding religious beliefs, is ridiculous and ignores the very words spoken by the various parties involved.
Andrew Thorburn knows why he was forced to resign,
“today it became clear to me that my personal Christian faith is not tolerated or permitted in the public square”.
Essendon has even admitted that had they known about the beliefs taught at Thorburn’s church they would not have hired him in the first place. The Victorian Premier made it clear to the entire State that Christians holding to what are essentially normal Christian beliefs, is unacceptable. It is not without reason that many Victorian Christians are now wondering when they will be asked to leave their places of employment.
Ro Allen, the Victorian Equal Opportunity and Human Rights Commissioner, is under no illusion. Allen told the ABC,
“It’s definitely a values conflict to employ someone who’s not just a passive member of a church [but on the board]…They’ve [City on a Hill] actively worked against LGBTI people.”
By the way, both of those comments are untrue.
If that’s not enough to convince the revisionists, read what The Age’s Business Columnist, Elizabeth Knight, said,
“A decade or two ago, corporations and their stakeholders may have tolerated Thorburn’s association with a church with strong views on the homosexuality and abortion. But not today.
Whether Thorburn personally holds those extreme opinions is irrelevant, Essendon is a valuable and highly recognised brand, and it cannot afford to be tarnished by any proximity to views that are deemed offensive by a big chunk of its fan base and the broader community.”
It is sad although not surprising to find that among the revisionists are some voices who belong to certain churches. They are our modern-day Demas’ and Alexanders, and so it’s important to call them out. But let’s not allow their efforts to cast a shadow over what took place in Bible-believing, Jesus honouring, people-loving churches across Victoria yesterday.
Let’s thank God and rejoice in what was a great day for churches. I’ve heard exciting things from City on a Hill yesterday and my own church had a super day.
One of the things that struck me most during church was how the words of the songs came even more to life than usual. The reality of Jesus and his cross, the beauty of God, and the hope found in Him, really does matter more than everything. No wonder the congregation sang with such gusto and praise.
As we opened the Bible together and heard about Jesus, I was reminded how Victoria needs more of Jesus, not less. He may not be welcome at the footy or in the workplace or school, but there are communities of ordinary Victorians meeting every Sunday and getting to know him more. People from all kinds of backgrounds, ethnicity, sex, gender, and jobs, yet find in Christ the greatest joy and hope.
When we read the Bible, we discover how Jesus frequently disagreed with people’s morals, lifestyles, and beliefs. We also find how Jesus could show extraordinary love, grace, and kindness toward those very same people. Biggest of all, in love, Jesus sacrificed his life for people who disapproved of him in the strongest terms. The social and political leaders were so incensed by Jesus’ views that they nailed to a cross, and on the cross, he cried out, “father forgive them”. There really is something astonishing about this Jesus.
CS Lewis once said,
“I remember Christian teachers telling me long ago that I must hate a bad man’s actions but not hate the bad man: or, as they would say, hate the sin but not the sinner. …I used to think this a silly, straw-splitting distinction: how could you hate what a man did and not hate the man? But years later it occurred to me that there was one man to whom I had been doing this all my life — namely myself. However much I might dislike my own cowardice or conceit or greed, I went on loving myself. There had never been the slightest difficulty about it. In fact the very reason why I hated the things was that I loved the man. Just because I loved myself, I was sorry to find that I was the sort of man who did those things.”
Even to our Premier and the Essendon, come along one Sunday and visit a Christian church. You may be surprised by what you see and hear, and perhaps even persuaded.
Business columnist for The Age, Elizabeth Knight, writes that there is an irreconcilable difference between business and Christianity, which means businesses and even AFL Clubs are right to exclude people on the basis of religious beliefs.
“Business doesn’t mix with religion in the same way it doesn’t mix with pleasure. Some would argue that AFL is a religion among its legion of fans, but first and foremost it’s a business. Andrew Thorburn and Essendon’s management that stupidly appointed him as the chief executive should have understood this.”
“A decade or two ago, corporations and their stakeholders may have tolerated Thorburn’s association with a church with strong views on the homosexuality and abortion. But not today.
Whether Thorburn personally holds those extreme opinions is irrelevant, Essendon is a valuable and highly recognised brand, and it cannot afford to be tarnished by any proximity to views that are deemed offensive by a big chunk of its fan base and the broader community.”
Victorian Christians are understandably shaken this week, given Premier Daniel Andrews public attack on Andrew Thorburn which added pressure on Essendon’s board to see him out the door after less than 24 hours in the role. And now we have a business columnist for one of the country’s major newspapers, justifying businesses no longer employing people of faith.
We should note that it is illegal for the workplace to discriminate against job applicants and employees on the basis of their religious beliefs, but here we are with a business columnist pretty much saying that’s how it needs to be.
Let’s not play the hypocrites game that is being kicked around this week: ‘it’s not about personal religious beliefs’. Pretty much everyone who has said this has also added in the same breath, ‘he had to go because of his views and association with that church’.
Elizabeth Knight doesn’t even feel the need to hide the religious vilification that is spilling out this week. Those standing against Thorburn feel as though the crowd is behind them and cheering on them as though they’re at the Colosseum.
A word to readers who haven’t yet lost their sense of decency and the belief in the good old-fashioned sense of tolerance. When Knight says that businesses can’t afford to be ‘tainted’ by association with churches like City on a Hill, let’s be perfectly clear about what this means. City on a Hill is a normal, typical, mainstream Christian Church that teaches, believes, and practices the historic faith. They are no more controversial than Jesus and the Apostles and every faithful Christian Church since.
It is true, that there are a few ‘Christian’ voices speaking in support of Essendon. Let the reader note: those folk are the very same ones who’ve given up the Bible and the Gospel and instead bought the theology from the same book as the Essendon Football Club. They tend to be the same voices who supported Daniel Andrew’s conversion laws to ban Christians from speaking and convincing to individuals of the Christian view of human sexuality. Even praying with people can result in a criminal conviction! Unsurprisingly, their churches are declining into obscurity whereas traditional churches are far more likely to see growth. That’s not hubris, it’s the way it works.
My bigger point here, one that I’ve made already this week and one that we’ve been warned about for years now by Christian leaders including Stephen Mcalpine, is that the workplace is not a secure or safe place for Christians (nor indeed for Muslims and Jews). Many Christians were already nervous at work, even fearful, because of the pressures to celebrate all manner of “diversity” events. Admitting you’re a Christian is like telling people you have COVID and you’re about to cough all over them! If Essendon can find a way to remove a high profile Christian man, of course, others can do so, and indeed it’s been going on for some time now.
Andrew Thorburn was right when he said,
… today it became clear to me that my personal Christian faith is not tolerated or permitted in the public square.
Elizabeth Knight is nodding her head,
“Running Essendon was a job that Thorburn could have managed even as a side hustle. But it’s hard to see where he will get his next gig, even after the current controversy dies down.”
Christian, be clear about your convictions and don’t let this temporary and passing age cause you to stumble or fall short.
Christian, be wise in how you conduct yourself at work and on social media.
Christian, show kindness even toward those who oppose you.
Christian, talk to your pastors and church and shore up ways we can support and encourage each other
Christian, “Consider it pure joy, my brothers and sisters, whenever you face trials of many kinds, because you know that the testing of your faith produces perseverance.” (James 1:2)
Life is often like a game of footy (it’s not really, but Hollywood type tropes are always popular!). Bare with this analogy because it has a happy ending.
Life is like a game of AFL: it’s tough, it’s exhausting and there are two sides battling it out against each other. One of my favourite football moments was the 1999 preliminary final win Essendon played Carlton. The bombers came into the match as raging hot favourites. The Navy blues won by a single point (happy ending)!
The story surrounding the new and now former Essendon football club CEO, Andrew Thorburn, has entered the fourth day. The saga continues to dominate the news with a collation of new articles and opinion pieces in the newspapers and with interviews on radio and TV.
Andrew Thorburn was forced to resign from Essendon after less than 24 hours, for no reason other than he holds a position of leadership in his local church. The Premier of Victoria and the mob went after him until the football club pressured him into resigning.
Essendon is adamant, the issue isn’t people’s religious beliefs while in the same breath they explain that it is precisely about people’s religious beliefs. The spin is oxymoronic and as clear as day but that doesn’t subdue the voices who cannot tolerate biblical Christianity. Indeed, Daniel Andrews doubled down yesterday, once again calling Christians ‘bigots’ and painting churches as the most awful of people, while suggesting society needs more “kindness”.
As all of this is going on, I’m reading through the Old Testament book of 2 Chronicles. I was struck by some key moments in this Bible reading, including how ‘right now’ the story feels. Let me share with you 2 encouragements and a warning.
First, faithfulness to God sometimes leads to strong opposition
The reading was chapter 32. In the previous chapters, Judah’s new King, Hezekiah, restored God’s Temple and reinstated the right practice of sacrifices and worship.
In the opening sentence of ch.32, we read this,
“After all that Hezekiah had so faithfully done, Sennacherib king of Assyria came and invaded Judah. He laid siege to the fortified cities, thinking to conquer them for himself.”
Hezekiah had the difficult job of shaking up a nation that was behaving like a footy team on muck up day and it all going horribly wrong. He worked tirelessly to turn the nation around and restore life and community to how God intended it to be. Then we read, ‘after all Hezekiah had so faithfully done, their very life and worship is threatened.
The idea of faithfulness leading to opposition is a regular motif in the Bible. For example, in Acts ch. 8, the world’s first church (which was of course in Jerusalem), grew in number and maturity when all of a sudden persecution broke out. The opposition was so severe that Christians were forced to leave the city, abandoning their homes and jobs, and even the church.
“On that day a great persecution broke out against the church in Jerusalem, and all except the apostles were scattered throughout Judea and Samaria. Godly men buried Stephen and mourned deeply for him. But Saul began to destroy the church. Going from house to house, he dragged off both men and women and put them in prison.”
Christians can live and work with integrity and generosity and kindness, and go beyond for the good of the workplace, and still be called all manner of insults and untrue swipes made against them, and even be forced to resign. Niceness, and not even godliness, will protect churches and careers in our culture that is bent on everyone worshipping from the same high altar of sexular secularism.
Remember, trusting Jesus sometimes brings significant opposition into your life.
Second, when facing opposition for faithfulness take courage and confidence in God.
Hezekiah’s response to Sennacherib was to exhort people to look to God
“Be strong and courageous. Do not be afraid or discouraged because of the king of Assyria and the vast army with him, for there is a greater power with us than with him. With him is only the arm of flesh, but with us is the Lord our God to help us and to fight our battles.”
In this example, Sennacherib is humiliated and defeated much like that famous Preliminary final in 1999. It doesn’t always work out that way. So, in the Acts 8 story, the persecution in Jerusalem forced people to leave their homes and places of work. It pushed families and church communities apart. Nonetheless, this did not weaken Christian confidence in God and their conviction in the Gospel,
“Those who had been scattered preached the word wherever they went.”
God used the terrible situation of unjust and brutal discrimination for mission and spreading the gospel and starting new churches.
Third, be aware of the dangers of pride
Sennacherib spoke and acted with a determined arrogance and with such confidence that he was on the right side of history. He didn’t need to coat his rhetoric in the language of tolerance. Without equivocation, preached against those God worshippers.
“On what are you basing your confidence, that you remain in Jerusalem under siege? 11 When Hezekiah says, ‘The Lord our God will save us from the hand of the king of Assyria,’ he is misleading you, to let you die of hunger and thirst…13 “Do you not know what I and my predecessors have done to all the peoples of the other lands? Were the gods of those nations ever able to deliver their land from my hand? 14 Who of all the gods of these nations that my predecessors destroyed has been able to save his people from me? How then can your god deliver you from my hand? 15 Now do not let Hezekiah deceive you and mislead you like this. Do not believe him, for no god of any nation or kingdom has been able to deliver his people from my hand or the hand of my predecessors. How much less will your god deliver you from my hand!”
I’ll admit, as I read about Sennacherib, I couldn’t help but think of a certain Victorian Premier. That’s not necessarily good hermeneutics; I’m just noting a striking parallel.
It ends in disaster for Sennacherib, as it always does for those who think outdoing God is a great strategy.
Here though lays the warning. Instead of turning to humble thankfulness, Hezekiah took a leaf out of Sennacherib’s playbook. He became proud.
“Hezekiah’s heart was proud and he did not respond to the kindness shown him; therefore the Lord’s wrath was on him and on Judah and Jerusalem”.
There is no space in the Christian life for self-righteousness or moral superiority or an us versus them mentality. Hezekiah learnt that lesson the hard way. Sometimes churches do slip into that behaviour and even when Christians face unfair criticism we can exude a certain hubris. We need to guard our hearts against this.
I’m grateful for how Andrew Thorburn expressed himself in his public statement, as I am thankful for the ways City on a Hill staff have responded.
Of course, the story of Hezekiah does not ultimately end with us or point to us. Rather, it is another historical reminder of how desperately our world needs the perfect King, who sees all things and understands all things and who acts justly and mercifully.
2,000 years after this promised King came into the world, He remains the litmus test for truth and goodness. This week’s events have again demonstrated that we can’t stop talking about Jesus. No matter how hard the sexual revolution pushes and no matter how loud authorities secularists are, and even when a State Premier denounces Christian employees in the workplace, we can’t escape Jesus of Nazareth.
No matter how events unfold in the State of Victoria, don’t enter that unbefitting space of hubris. We can speak confidently but never brashly. We can live with thankfulness but not with pride. After all, every Christian knows what it’s like to stand with the Sennacherib’s of this world. in his great mercy of God want us over. That is why when we experience fellow Victorians and even our Premier standing against, we respond with kindness and resolve, with grace and with confidence in Christ.
As Christians in Victoria wait to see job security crumble and the window for career advancement shrink, keep taking our example from Jesus, and more so, rest your hopes in him
Philippians chapter 2 says
“have the same mindset Christ Jesus:
Who, being in very nature God, did not consider equality with God something to be used to his own advantage;
rather, he made himself nothing by taking the very nature of a servant, being made in human likeness.
And being found in appearance as a man, he humbled himself by becoming obedient to death— even death on a cross!
Therefore God exalted him to the highest place and gave him the name that is above every name,
that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, in heaven and on earth and under the earth,
and every tongue acknowledge that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.”
With the same air of predictability as Geelong winning the Grand Final last week, the media have identified yet another Christian in the sporting world who believes, well, what Christians believe.
Writing for The Age, Noel Towell and Kishor Napier- Raman, have sounded the siren against Essendon Football Club’s new CEO, Andrew Thorburn. The controversy? Apparently, Thorburn is a confessing Christian who belongs to a church that believes in Christian things.
They are at pains to tell the world that,
“Andrew Thorburn is chairman of the City on a Hill church that preaches against gay sex and abortion.”
“it was Thorburn’s other gig as chairman of conservative Christian church City on a Hill that raised eyebrows on Sunday.
City on a Hill will look the other way on same-sex attraction, as long as you don’t act on it, but abortion is always a no-no.
It’s not clear where Thorburn stands personally on those issues, but his role as chairman of the church’s board requires him to advocate for the furthering of the church and its beliefs.
We asked the club how Thorburn’s links to the church squared with those commitments to diversity and inclusion that we’re always hearing about from AFL clubs and the league itself.”
Not to be outdone, the Herald Sun’s Sam Landsberger has thrown more intensity around the ball with comments like this,
“New Essendon CEO Andrew Thorburn is the chairman of a church organisation which preaches controversial beliefs around homosexual behaviour and abortion.”
As a Carlton supporter, I have as much affection for the Bombers as I do for an elbow to the head, but even I can see there is no reportable offence here. The reality is, there is no story. If Thorburn was Jewish or Muslim, would the media be running with this story? Of course not. The AFL is careful to protect religious players (as they should) and even laud their religiosity. This is just the latest round of what is becoming a rough conduct tactic to either knock Christians out of high profile positions or to bully them into submission. As with the Manly 7, journalists see their jobs as naming and shaming sportspeople who stand out from the crowd. We’re all for diversity and tolerance so long as it fits with the current trends!
Christians are the new version of the Essendon drug saga; dirty and not to be trusted. We are not only seeing this in sport but in academic institutions, some businesses and even in schools. As The Age opinion suggests, Thorburn’s Christianity must raise concerns about his fitness to hold the role of high priest to the footy club’s inclusive policy. Of course one might ask, but what about tolerance toward Christians? Are Christians to be excluded from yet another sporting code because they hold to orthodox and everyday Christian beliefs? Let’s be clear, we’re not talking about some weird cult-like fanatics, this is normal and historic Christianity.
The name of the game today isn’t tolerance, it’s capitulation. The dominant culture doesn’t allow competitors or opponents, and the AFL wants to lead the way. The new sporting code only has room for 1 team. Everyone is to wear the same colour jersey and sing the same team song, and dissenters aren’t welcome. No wonder, journos feel the moral compulsion to turn into dibber dobbers and report Christians to society’s favourite umpire: the mob.
I do find it ironic that despite constant calls to Christians, demanding that we keep our views to ourselves and not talk about them in public, the media yet again wish to draw out a man’s personal beliefs into the public square for interrogation, and possibly to see him lose his job.
I don’t know Andrew Thorburn and I couldn’t tell him apart from the Essendon cheer squad…or firing squad (depending on the season). But I am familiar with City on a Hill. COAH is one of those Churches that believe the Bible and think Jesus is the Son of God and is convinced Jesus really did rise from the dead. And contrary to all those ‘relevant’ churches whom the media approve of, Bible Churches like City on a Hill are growing. Progressive churches are losing people faster than GWS, whereas churches who cherish that ancient faith are the ones holding steady or seeing membership rise It’s fascinating to see that despite pundits packaging relevance with progressive theology and ethics, the reality is quite different. People long for a hope that is more secure than a Sherrin wobbling about on the deck, and they are searching for a truth that cuts through the thin layer of cultural populism.
I wonder if the journalists have spoken to any of the hundreds of members at Thorburn’s church, and asked, what they think about the church’s teaching? Why are they convinced the Bible stands opposite to phobic behaviour?
What these journalists fail to appreciate is that the high views of God and the Bible that COAH affirms (as does my church and 100s more across Melbourne) are the vital ingredients for showing grace and mercy. Jesus didn’t come into the world because he agreed with our sexual ethics and our mistreatment of society’s most vulnerable. He disagreed in the strongest terms and yet loved. AFL is one of those rare sports where athletes crash and tackle and break their bodies for the sake of the team. Jesus did more, he laid down his life on the cross for his opponents. If that’s the kind of religion City on a Hill preaches and Andrew Thorburn believes, then I reckon he may bring some much needed grace and strength to the world of football.
The funeral for Her late Majesty Queen Elizabeth was filled with ceremony and pageantry on the grandest scale. The sights and sounds were more than impressive. Thousands of soldiers marched and guarded the route of the funeral procession. Military bands played a funeral dirge to the impeccable timing of the bass drum. Inside Westminster Abbey the choral singing was sublime. Even from viewing the funeral at home in my living room one could not help but be swept up.
Every detail communicated dignity, grandeur and majesty.
We have never before witnessed a funeral on such a scale and may never again. Hundreds of Princes, Prime Ministers, and Presidents representing nearly every nation on earth joined together at Westminster Abbey. Alongside religious leaders, dignitaries, and ordinary members of the public, all sat together as we said farewell to Queen Elizabeth. Millions of people lined the street of London and Windsor to catch one final glimpse of a much-loved monarch. It is estimated that as many as 4 billion people across the globe watched the funeral.
For a few days culminating in yesterday’s funeral, the world slowed down a little. News outlets gave attention to a single story. For a period of 10 days news readers and reporters dressed in black as a sign of respect and mourning. Television stations paused normal programming, and even limiting comedy and satire out of respect for the Queen’s death. Sporting events were postponed or observed a minute’s silence.
As I watched the funeral last night, intently and moved by what I was hearing and seeing, I was struck by the contrast between Queen Elizabeth’s funeral and that of Her Saviour and Lord.
Instead of honour and respect from world leaders and from local populations, Jesus’ journey to the grave was marked with disdain and abandonment. Kings and Governors didn’t honour him with kind words; they condemned him to death. Crowds didn’t line the streets to pay their respects; they jeered as he dragged a cross through the streets. Religious leaders didn’t pray for him, they mocked him. Soldiers didn’t protect him, they drove nails through his hands and feet, spat on him and gambled away his clothes. His friends, filled with terror, either ran away or stood at a distance in shock and silence. As a final attempt to mock Jesus, a sign was placed over his head that read, “Here is the king of the Jews”.
How and why would the Prince of glory subject himself to such ignominy? And how is it that a Queen should look to Him for mercy and grace? And how is it that this Jesus, despite the very best attempts was not erased from history but instead has become the focal point and end of history?
One of the most famous accounts of Jesus’ death was in fact written prior to that day, and yet, the prophet Isaiah foretold with precision the undertaking God’s Servant would follow. As Her Majesty had years earlier determined the details of her own funeral, so in advance, God announced the path his only Son would take,
“He was despised and rejected by mankind, a man of suffering, and familiar with pain. Like one from whom people hide their faces he was despised, and we held him in low esteem.
Surely he took up our pain and bore our suffering, yet we considered him punished by God, stricken by him, and afflicted.
But he was pierced for our transgressions, he was crushed for our iniquities; the punishment that brought us peace was on him, and by his wounds we are healed.
We all, like sheep, have gone astray, each of us has turned to our own way; and the Lord has laid on him the iniquity of us all.
He was oppressed and afflicted, yet he did not open his mouth; he was led like a lamb to the slaughter, and as a sheep before its shearers is silent, so he did not open his mouth.
By oppression and judgment he was taken away. Yet who of his generation protested? For he was cut off from the land of the living; for the transgression of my people he was punished.
He was assigned a grave with the wicked, and with the rich in his death, though he had done no violence, nor was any deceit in his mouth.”
Every detail in the Queen’s funeral suggests importance and splendour deserving of a monarch. And yet the true wonder and glory of what we saw and heard was not about Her Majesty, but about the One to whom she placed her trust. Her faith and her hope rests in the King who laid aside eternal glory and entered this broken and sinful world to die a sinner’s death as our substitute. The grandeur and awesome sights of the Queen’s funeral are but a tiny and pale reflection of the hope of resurrection she has in the One who gave his life as a ransom for many.
It was no coincidence that these words of Jesus were read out loud during the service,
“I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me. If you really know me, you will know my Father as well. From now on, you do know him and have seen him.”
In the part of the world where I live, we often reduce life to a bucket of cotton candy. We distract ourselves with sugary treats that promise bursts of happiness and pleasure and personal advantage. We’ve bought the marketers presentation. Life is driven by gaining sensory experiences which give us regular dumps of dopamine. The secularist’s dream and immanent frame has tried to block out transcendence with guarantees of sexual freedom and fulfilment, and offerings of entertainment, leisure, comfort and success. Eventually, the sugar rush wears off, and the realities of age, uncertainty, failure, pain and even death knock on our door. Her Majesty’s final gift was not to elevate herself and encourage the world to look at her, but rather to consider the One whom even monarchs must bow the knee.
The hope in which Queen Elizabeth looked and trusted is for great and small alike, for royal and commoner together. Her hope rested in a King who has walked the path of suffering and death for us and who in love shares his glory with all who lay their lives at his feet.
Take a moment to dwell on these words, which were the final words sung at Westminster Abbey and which formed part of the Scripture readings. Consider, where else can such amazing and certain hope be found?
“Finish, then, thy new creation;
true and spotless let us be.
Let us see thy great salvation
perfectly restored in thee.
Changed from glory into glory,
till in heav’n we take our place,
till we cast our crowns before thee,
lost in wonder, love and praise.”
“Where, O death, is your victory?
Where, O death, is your sting?”
The sting of death is sin, and the power of sin is the law. But thanks be to God! He gives us the victory through our Lord Jesus Christ.” (1 Corinthians 15:55-57)