A Part of Something Greater, Part II: Women's Ordination

Back in June I wrote a brief piece titled “A Part of Something Greater, Part I: Apostolic Succession” reflecting on my apostolic succession as an ordained elder through the Church of the Nazarene, and in that context briefly outlined my support for women's ordination. Needless to say, this is a very controversial topic which has given rise to a number of passionate articles, books, and sermons both for and against the idea. Below, I revisit the subject of whether the Church should ordain women in more detail and provide biblical evidence for why we indeed should.

Popular Arguments Against Women's Ordination

Since writing that piece, I’ve had many great conversations with my fellow brothers and sisters in Christ, many of whom disagree with my contention that in Rom. 16:1-7, Paul commends Phoebe as an ordained deacon, Junia as an Apostle, and Prisca as the pastor (with her husband) of a local church. They contend that 1 Cor. 14:33-35 and 1 Tim. 2:11-15 demonstrate that Paul forbade women to teach or speak in church, or to have any authority over men in the churches.

Many go further to claim that due to a misplaced accent mark in Rom. 16:7, Junia may actually be Junias (1) and that in any case, the above passages from 1 Corinthians and 1 Timothy preclude her from having the authority of an apostle or Phoebe the office of deacon. In the case of Phoebe, they argue that there is ample evidence of ancient orders of “deaconesses” and that Phoebe likely belonged to one of these (2), or that she was a servant or even hand-maid, as the Greek word for “deacon” can also mean one of these (3). And in the case of Prisca, they argue that she and her husband led something akin to a bible study in their home, and not an actual local church in the full sense of the word.

As we will see, each of these contentions is based on either a misreading of the text out of context, faulty manuscripts, or mistranslations of the Greek. It is my hope that this piece amounts to a convincing defense of my belief that not only should women be ordained today, but that God has always called women to ordained ministry. The Church is just now waking up to that fact.

An Apostle, a Deacon, and a Pastor Walk Into a Bar
First, though the Catholic Answers site cited above maintains it is unclear whether we should read Rom. 16:7 as referring to the female name Junia or the male name Junias, I disagree. The early papyrus P46 (from ca. 200 CE) as well as the early Coptic (3^rd century), Vulgate (4^th century), and Latin (5^th century) all use the feminine name Julia; while the Codex Sinaiticus, the earliest complete copy of the Bible from the 3^rd century calls her Junia (4).

Likewise, the early Fathers uniformly recognize that this passage refers to a woman named Junia (5). As John Chrysostom writes,

"To be an Apostle is something great. But to be outstanding among the Apostles - Just think what a wonderful song of praise that is! They were outstanding on the basis of their works and virtuous actions. Indeed, how great is the wisdom of this woman that she was even deemed worthy of the title of Apostle," (6).

It is clear that Paul doesn’t just intend to communicate that Junia (or Julia) and Andronicus are missionaries “sent” (“apostolos” means “one who is sent”) to minister in the general sense, as the only other Apostles he ever mentions by name are the Twelve, himself, Barnabas, Silvanus, and Timothy (7). All the others have been recognized as ordained clergy in the apostolic line of succession by the later Church. It goes to follow that Junia and Andronicus are as well.

Though some may contend that the fact that the Twelve were all men demonstrates women were not apostles in the same sense, I argue this just reflects the nature of Jesus’ earthly mission specifically to the Jews. After all, when Jesus initially sends out the Twelve in Mat. 10:5, he gives them the instructions, "Go nowhere among the Gentiles, and enter no town of the Samaritans, but go rather to the lost sheep of the house of Israel," and in Mat. 15:24, where Jesus says his own mission, "I was sent only to the lost sheep of the house of Israel." Paul affirms this in Rom. 15:8 when he calls Jesus a “servant (8) to the circumcised,” (ESV). If we used the reasoning that the Twelve were men, to prohibit the apostolic ministry of women; then we must use the same reasoning, and say that since they were all Jewish men, we must prohibit the apostolic ministry of Gentiles.

It seems to me that Jesus chose twelve male, Jewish apostles (and not twenty, or four, or three) because he was restoring a new Israel from the old. Just as the old Israel had twelve sons from which the nation sprang, so the new Israel had twelve new sons from which would spring the Church. And just as the old Israel expanded to include many sons (rather than remaining only twelve always), so the new Israel would expand to have many apostles, but now with both women and Gentiles equally among their number, among the first being Junia. And if the bishops (used interchangeably with "elder" in scripture) are the successors of the apostles, then surely there must be female bishops and elders just as there were female apostles.

That Phoebe is a deacon and not a deaconness is clear from the Greek, where Paul uses specifically the generic male noun "diakonon" rather than its female form; the exact same noun he uses to describe his own office in Rom. 15. This is also the first place where he uses "ekklesia", which refers to the organized, local church at Cenchreae where she pastors with the same authority with which Paul pastors to the Romans in ch. 15. That she bears the authority to act as Paul’s representative in Rome is evidenced by Paul's use of the Epistolatory formula "systemi de hymin" in Rom. 16:1 to commend her as “adelphe hymon” or “our sister,”(9).

Interestingly, even 1 Tim. 3:11 (which seems to envisage only male leadership) opens the possibility of ordination for women to the diaconate, where it says, "Likewise the women..." contrary to most translations which read "Their wives likewise..." (ESV) (10). This betrays a bias on the part of the translators who assume v. 12 restricts the office to men; but if we were to read it that way, we would then have to restrict the office to married men only.

Finally, that Prisca is a co-pastor along with her husband Aquila is clear from the fact that where both are frequently mentioned together, Prisca is more often than not mentioned first in precedence (11); and that both Aquila and Prisca (here spelled Priscilla) correct Apollos’ teaching in Acts 18:26. That Paul considers them equals in ministry is strongly suggested by his description of them as “fellow workers” in Rom. 16:3 (ESV). And that their church is just that, an organized, local congregation is evidenced by his second use of “ekklesia” in v. 5.

The arguments that these three women aren’t who Paul says they are must then fall on other passages for their support. And it’s these passages that I’ll address next.

Misreading 1 Corinthians 14:33-35 and 1 Timothy 2:11-15
Moving on to 1 Cor. 14:33-35, we find that the passage must be read in the context of its surrounding verses, dealing with speaking in tongues and disorderly worship (vv. 26-32, 36-40). Here Paul is writing in response to a specific problem of women interrupting the service to ask questions. That women can indeed speak publicly, pray, and prophecy in the service is demonstrated by 1 Cor. 11:5, as long as they do so with their heads covered. This itself should be read within the context of Paul's philosophy of submitting to the Torah to avoid unnecessary offense (1 Cor. 9:20), a philosophy which informs the entire dialogue (12).

When taken in the context of the entire Epistle, it is clear that women speaking in church isn’t shameful; but women speaking in the way Paul is referring to – that is interrupting orderly service to ask questions is shameful. The fact that the very people these women may be interrupting may themselves actually be women is demonstrated by 1 Cor. 11:5. If this isn’t the case, then 1 Cor. 11:5 must likewise become artificially generalized and all women must wear head coverings in church and all men must keep their heads uncovered.

Additionally, Gordon D. Fee and Douglas Stuart make the argument that this passage is likely an interpolation or gloss, as it is the only passage of this type which is found in two different places in the Greek manuscripts (13). Even if genuine, in my previous article, I argued that the emphatic of v. 36 likely means vv. 33-35 constitutes a quote or popular concept which Paul is correcting (14)(15).

Finally, I'd like to address 1 Tim. 2:11-15, which if taken prima facie would seem to be a universal prohibition against women preaching. But I do not think Paul intends it to be taken as such. Paul bases his reasoning in this passage on the fallen Eve, forced to submit to her husband as a result of the curse (16). Elsewhere, Paul reasons that the same curse is lifted in the new creation in which we are reconciled to God and each other (17).

If we are reconciled to God and each other in a new creation in Christ, then relationally we are to be as we were in the Garden, in perfect communion with God as when He walked with us there (18), and as equal reflections of God's image (19) in unity with each other (20) whether male or female.

That Paul uses the reasoning of the curse in his injunction toward Timothy may in fact be due to the church in Ephesus coming from a similar hedonistic background as that in Corinth, who had its own Temple to Aphrodite and a thousand "heteiras" or priestess-prostitutes (21). The Church tradition that Timothy was beaten and stoned to death during the festival of Artemis, and presence of her temple (one of the seven wonders of the ancient world) tells me that Ephesus was still very much under the curse Paul alludes to.

However, utilizing the general reasoning of the curse to justify the doctrine that all women are forbidden from speaking in church (and by extension, from ordained ministry) doesn't hold up when given the historical-cultural context of Ephesus and Corinth, the textual/manuscript problems of the texts cited, and in the context of Paul's teaching elsewhere (especially Rom. 16:1-7, 1 Cor. 11:5, and Gal. 3:28).

Conclusion: Women Should Be Ordained

Given all of the evidence, it seems clear to me that (contrary to popular belief) women not only can, but should speak in Church. Women not only can, but should lead congregations. And women were definitely ordained during the Apostolic era of the Church. Please understand, my position is not the result of postmodern influences or attempts to make Christian leadership more socially acceptable. After all, my denomination has affirmed women clergy since our founding, decades before women could even vote. My position is an exegetical corrective and not a social one. To maintain that women should not be ordained and should not lead congregations is to ignore the evidence cited above, and frankly stands in opposition to the work of the Holy Spirit.

Footnotes

(1) Fr. Grondin, Charles. Was Junia a Female Apostle? Catholic Answers. Web. Written April 06, 2018.

(2) The Revised Standard Version’s translates Phoebe’s title in Rom. 16:1 as “deaconess.”

(3) See Rom. 15:8, where in the English Standard Version, Christ is referred to as “a servant to the circumcised.”

(4) Preato, Dennis J. “Junia, A Female Apostle: Resolving the Interpretive Issues of Romans 16:7”. God’s Word to Women. Web. Retrieved Oct. 22, 2018.

(5) Thorley, John. “Junia, A Woman Apostle.” Novum Testamentum. Vol. 38, Fasc. 1 (Jan. 1996), 18.

(6) Chrysostom, John. In Epistolam ad Romanos, Homilia 31, 2, in Patrologiae cursus completus, series Graeca, ed. by J. P. Milne, cited by B. Brooten, 141.

(7) Thorley. “Junia, A Woman Apostle,” 18.

(8) Greek, “diakonos”.

(9) Greathouse, William M. and George Lyons. New Beacon Bible Commentary: Romans 9-16. (Kansas City: Beacon Hill Press, 2008), 264-265.

(10) Ibid.

(11) Acts 18:18, Rom. 6:3, 2 Tim. 4:19; cf. Acts 18:2-3; as well as Acts 18:26 and 1 Cor. 16:19 where Aquila is mentioned first.

(12) Metz, Donald S. “1 Corinthians” Beacon Bible Commentary: Romans, I and II Corinthians. Vol. 8. Ed. By A.F. Harper. (Kansas City: Beacon Hill Press, 1968), 453-454.

(13) Fee, Gordon D. and Douglas Stewart. How to Read the Bible for All Its Worth. (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2014), 88-89.

(14) Hyde, Ian. “A Part of Something Greater, Part I: Apostolic Succession”. Theological Discussions. Web. Written June 21, 2018.

(15) Verbrugge, Verlyn D. “1 Corinthians.” The Expositor’s Bible Commentary: Revised Edition. Vol. 11. Ed. By Tremper Longman III & David E. Garland. (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2008), 387. Only here, the commentator argues against it solely based on the passage’s length.

(16) Gen. 3:16.

(17) Cf. Gal. 3:28; 2 Cor. 2:17-18.

(18) Cf. Gen. 3:8.

(19) Gen. 1:27.

(20) Gen. 2:24.

(21) Strabo, Geographika, Book VIII, 6:20.

*Edited for spelling and grammar.

#Apostles #Ordination #Women #OrdinationOfWomen #ApostolicSuccession #Nazarene #ChurchOfTheNazarene

A Part of Something Greater, Part I: Apostolic Succession

This post lays out the reasons I pursued ordination in the Church of the Nazarene as well as a brief foray into some of the more controversial subjects associated with ordination, such as apostolic succession and the ordination of women. It’s my hope that this post provides a bit of a corrective to the all-too-often underdeveloped ecclesiology of many Evangelicals. At the end, I also included my lineage of apostolic succession traced all the way back to Jesus. Enjoy!

This past weekend I loaded my family into the minivan and we made the three hour drive up to Denver, where I was ordained an elder in the Church of the Nazarene. During the long drive, I had time to reflect on just what all this meant, and how I had come to the place where I would soon be formally consecrated to a lifetime of service. If you had asked me in High School or even in College if I was going to be a pastor, I probably would have laughed at the idea. But God has the habit of making funny ideas stick, and as I was drawn more and more into ministry, I eventually experienced the call to full-time pastoral ministry while deployed with the Army to Afghanistan in 2013.

During this time, I also reflected on what ordination really means. In our individualistically American flavor of the Evangelical faith, community often takes a back seat and authority figures are mistrusted. After all, one of the central foundational beliefs of the Protestant Reformation was the affirmation of the priesthood of all believers (1); and with it, the belief that the Holy Spirit enables Christ followers everywhere, whether lay or ordained, to study and interpret scripture for themselves. Unfortunately for many, the individual becomes the highest authority for scriptural interpretation, with no regard for historical, cultural, or textual context or how the text was received through the tradition of the Church. Add to this juicy narratives of corrupt clergy in popular culture and it’s a wonder anyone would seek ordination at all.

The “Why?” of Ordination

So why do we need ordained elders and deacons? Well, frankly because it is biblical. Not only is communal fellowship, worship, and support extolled repeatedly in scripture as necessary to the Christian walk (2) with Paul even calling it “the law of Christ” in Gal. 6:2; but the two-fold ordination system is itself prefigured in the designation of Jesus’ closest twelve followers as Apostles (3), and his extended seventy-two followers who are likewise “sent" and  who, along with the twelve, prefigure the spread of His Gospel, first to Israel and then to the whole World (4).

Those who are “sent” in this way find their model in the Apostle Paul himself, who is called by God and whose call is then confirmed through the work of the Holy Spirit in community (5). It is clear in Paul’s treatise on the uniquely different roles of members in Christ’s body, that not all are called in this way (6) but all are called to be ministers of the Gospel in their own unique way. For those called to be sent out as leaders in the Christian community, their call is to be recognized and initiated by the apostolic laying on of hands (7) an act which is itself understood to be a means of grace by which the recipient is enabled by the Holy Spirit to minister with special authority in the Church (8).

That this ordination initially consisted of a dual system (of presbyter-bishops and deacons) rather than a tripartite one (of deacons, presbyters, and bishops) is evident in Titus 1:5-8 and 1 Pet. 5:1-2, where both presbyteros (translated “elder” and transliterated “priest”) and episkopos (translated “overseer” or “superintendent” and transliterated “bishop”) are used interchangeably to refer to leaders of congregations. This is further confirmed by the fact that a council of elders ordained Timothy in 1 Tim. 4:14, rather than explicitly bishops. Additionally, in Phi. 1:1 overseers and deacons are greeted, but not elders, presumably because elders are the same as overseers. Finally, the qualifications for overseers and deacons outlined in 1 Tim. 3 clearly envision a system of dual ordination rather than tripartite ordination.

The Sacred Responsibility of Ordination

The sacred responsibility associated with the authority received through laying on hands is grave enough to warrant detailed instructions on the required character of those to be ordained (9), as well as a warning that the one ordaining another shares responsibility for their actions (10). This authority has been passed on through the laying on of hands from the original apostles to every elder-overseer since as a confirmation of the special calling by the Holy Spirit to certain women and men throughout the ages.

That’s right, I said women. That the call to the orders of elder and deacon are open to women as well as men is evidenced by Paul’s recognition of Junia as an apostle in Rom. 16:7, Phoebe as a deacon and Paul’s emissary to Rome in v. 1 of the same chapter, and the New Testament’s repeated references to the missionary team Priscilla and Aquila who also led a house church, where Prisca is often listed first in precedence (11). Jesus regularly pushed the cultural gender barriers of his time, and women formed an integral part of his ministry. The argument that Jesus had twelve male apostles (to the exclusion of women) ignores the limited scope of his ministry which was initially restricted only to Jews as well (12). But just as the Gospel message was opened to the Gentiles in the apostolic era, an act which was prefigured multiple times in Jesus’ ministry; so also was it opened to women. After all, the division between Jew and Gentile at the time was at least as large as that between men and women, and yet the Gospel message was to transcend all these divisions.

The argument that 1 Cor. 14:33-35 and 1 Tim. 2:11-14 explicitly prohibit women from speaking in churches (13) ignores the great redefining statement of human relationships in Gal. 3:28 (ESV) that in Christ “there is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is no male and female.” Additionally, the placement of the emphatic challenge in v. 36 of the 1 Cor. passage suggests that Paul may have been quoting (and correcting) a popular slogan among the Corinthians, as he does later in the same letter (14). As for the passage in 1 Tim., it may be that the writer is referring only to the churches over which Timothy is to take charge, as a concession to cultural expectation. From context, it is evident that Timothy was not being charged to lead the Church Universal, but rather was tasked with the leadership of a particular grouping of churches (likely around Ephesus, where tradition holds he was later martyred), and so it would make sense that instructions to him be contextualized as well (15). The fact that his reasoning includes the fallen submissive state of Eve seems to contradict the understanding set forth in Galatians and elsewhere that in Christ, the curse which afflicted human relationships with inequality is lifted. Finally, it is worth noting that the very Incarnate Word of God was brought into the World by a woman (16), and that it was women who first preached the risen Christ to the apostles (17). If the Apostles themselves received the Word from women, then who can say that women are unable to preach the Word today?

The Safeguard of Apostolic Succession

The term “apostolic succession” is one which most Protestants probably aren’t at all familiar with, even though it governs the theology of ordination for 72% of all Trinitarian Christians (18)(19). This means that almost ¾ of all Christians believe that it is essential that an ordained minister can trace their lineage back to the original apostles through the laying on of hands by bishops (or, as I argued above, elder-bishops) throughout the ages. It’s such a big deal for the majority of Christians, that one of the common arguments against churches with Congregational or Presbyterian polities (which includes the vast majority of Reformed, Baptist, Pentecostal and Non-Denominational congregations) is that they don’t have apostolic succession, and so their clergy have no authority. This objection to the authority of a significant number of Protestant elders (and the legitimacy of their preaching and sacraments) is a major stumbling block to Christian unity.

For some, this might not be a big deal. But I, like the vast majority of Christians, including the Church of the Nazarene, affirm the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed’s statement that there is only “One, Holy, Universal, and Apostolic Church” (20)(21). And I take seriously Jesus’ prayer in John 17:21 (ESV) that we “may all be one” just as Jesus and the Father are one (22). This means that there is only one Church and it must be Apostolic.

Many of the communions with an episcopal polity believe that their distinct communion is the only true Church. Other churches with valid apostolic succession, and therefore valid sacraments, are defined as “particular churches” by the Roman Catholic Church, while those without are defined as “ecclesial communities. They generally understand catholicity (universal character) and oneness to refer to practical polity as well as spiritual reality; and apostolicity as being defined by both a valid line of succession from apostles to bishops, and through them to priests and deacons, as well as orthodox belief (23).

However, since I believe there are only two orders of ordination (that of elder-bishop and deacon) as affirmed by the New Testament and by John Wesley (24)(25), with the order of bishop being a later development which essentially delegated the tasks of bishops to those who had already been ordained into the order of elder-bishop; that means that I also believe any elder can lay hands on another and ordain them (as long as they also maintain the stream of orthodox belief as affirmed by the scriptures and early creeds). For the sake of order, if a church has bishops, then its elders should refrain from ordaining; but if necessity arises, I believe any elder has the apostolic authority to ordain. I also believe that ordination within the Church of the Nazarene does not simply mean I am ordained into the Nazarene denomination, but that I am ordained through the Nazarene denomination into the Church Universal (26).

Essentially, I believe most ordinations within Trinitarian churches have valid apostolic succession, even if many in those churches don’t fully understand what that means. This paves the way for better inter-church relations between denominations. Though I don’t think it necessary for all churches to merge into one polity, I do think it is essential to the biblical mandate to Christian unity that we at least recognize the legitimacy of other orthodox denominations’ ordinations, sacraments, and right to exist. And to that end, a mutual understanding of apostolic succession among all the churches becomes necessary.

Why the Church of the Nazarene?

So, why did I get ordained in the Church of the Nazarene? Well, number one, because the Holy Spirit called me to a lifetime consecrated to full devotion to Christ and the service of His Church in Word and Sacrament. It’s true that I could have done that in a number of denominations, but after much study, I decided that Nazarene doctrines best reflect scriptural orthodoxy: especially in its Wesleyan-Holiness emphasis that God can free us from sin in this life by the consecrating, sanctifying power of the Holy Spirit (27); its affirmation of the early ecumenical creeds (28); its Arminian belief that God has restored the human will to be able to either receive or reject grace (29); that grace can be walked away from after having been received (30); that that the Sacraments are means of grace and not only symbols (31); its use of both infant and believer’s baptism (32); and its dual system of ordination for both women and men (33).

To address each of these (often contentious) theological assertions would require a bunch more posts, but they were instrumental in my move away from a more Reformed understanding of Scripture. And though the manual never explicitly mentions “apostolic succession”, I believe history demonstrates that our succession is valid along the theological lines I laid out in the paragraphs above.

My Spiritual Lineage

So without further ado, both to outline my claim to apostolic succession and for pure historical curiosity, I’ve included the line ordination from me going all the way back to the apostles below:

I was ordained June 16, 2018 through the laying on of hands at the Colorado District Assembly of the Church of the Nazarene by General Superintendent Dr. Gustavo A. Crocker, District Superintendent Dr. David Ralph, and all the Elders present; Dr. Crocker using these words:

“Ian Devlin Leigh Hyde, I charge thee before God and before the Church, preach the Word, watch thou in all things, endure affliction, do the work of an evangelist, discharge the duties of your ministry, and take thou authority to administer the sacraments and to lead in the Church of Jesus Christ. And now, Ian Devlin Leigh Hyde, by the power vested in me as a General Superintendent of the Church of the Nazarene, I ordain thee elder in the Church of God, in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. Amen.”

Of the Nazarene General Superintendents…

Dr. Gustavo A. Crocker was ordained in 2003 by General Superintendent Paul G. Cunningham. Paul G. Cunningham in 1965 by Gen. Sup. Hugh C. Benner. Hugh C. Benner in 1923 by Gen. Sup. Roy T. Williams. Roy T. Williams in 1908 by Gen. Sup. Hiram F. Reynolds. Hiram F. Reynolds in 1886 by Bishop John Fletcher Hurst (Methodist Episcopal Church) (34)(35).

Of the Methodist bishops…

John Fletcher Hurst in 1862 by Bishop Thomas Asbury Morris (36). Thomas Asbury Morris ca. 1820 by Bishop Robert Richford Roberts (37). Robert Richford Roberts in 1802 by Bishop Francis Asbury (38). Francis Asbury in 1784 by Superintendent Thomas Coke (39). Thomas Coke in 1784 by Rev. John Wesley (Church of England) (40)(41). John Wesley was ordained presbyter in 1728 by Bishop (of Oxford) John Potter (42) and possibly consecrated bishop in 1763 by Bishop (of Arcadia) Erasmus (Eastern Orthodox Church)(43)(44).

Of the Anglican bishops…

John Potter was consecrated bishop in 1715 (45)(46). Jonathan Trelawney in 1685. William Sancroft in 1678. Henry Compton in 1674. Gilbert Sheldon in 1660. Brian Duppa in 1638. William Laud in 1621. George Montaigne in 1617. George Abbot in 1609. Richard Bancroft in 1597. John Whitgift in 1577. Edmund Grindal in 1559. Matthew Parker in 1559. William Barlow in 1536. Thomas Cranmer in 1533.

Of the bishops before the English Reformation…

John Longland(s) in 1521 (Roman Catholic Church). William Warham in 1502. Richard Fitzjames in 1497. John Morton in 1479. Thomas Bourchier in 1435. Henry Beaufort in 1398. Roger Walden in 1398. Robert Braybrooke in 1382. Thomas Brentingham in 1370. Simon Sudbury in 1362. William Edendon in 1346. Ralph Stratford in 1340. Robert Wyvil in 1330. Roger Northborough in 1322. John of Halton in 1292. Anthony Beck in 1284. Henry in 1255. Walter Kirkham in 1249. Walter de Gray in 1214. William of S. Mere L’Eglise in 1199. Gilbert Glanville in 1185. Peter de Leia in 1176. Roger of Cloucester in 1164. Thomas Becket in 1162. Henry of Blois in 1129. William of Corbeuil in 1123. Richard de Belmeis in 1108. Anselm in 1074. Thomas in 1070. Lanfranc in 1070. Siward in 1058.

Of the English bishops before the Great Schism…

Stigand in 1043. Eadsige in 1035. Ethelnoth in 1020. Wulfstan in 1003. Elfric in 990. Aelphage in 984. Dunstan in 957. Odo in 927. Wulfhelm in 914. Althelm in 909. Plegmund in 891 (47).

Of the Roman Catholic Popes…

Formosus in 864 (48). Nicholas I in 858 (49)(50). Benedict III in 855. Leo IV in 847. Sergius II in 844. Gregory IV in 827. Valentine in 827. Eugene II in 824. Paschal I in 817. Stephen IV (V) in 816. Leo III in 795. Adrian I in 772. Stephen III (IV) in 767. Paul I in 757. Stephen II (III) in 752. Zachary in 741. Gregory III in 731. Gregory II in 715. Constantine in 708. Sisinnius in 708. John VII in 705. John VI in 701. Sergius I in 687. Conon in 686. John V in 685. Benedict II in 684. Leo II in 682. Agatho in 678. Donus in 676. Adeodatus (II) in 672. Vitalian in 657. Eugene I in 655. Martin I in 649. Theodore I in 642. John IV in 640. Severinus in 640. Honorius I in 625. Boniface V in 619. Deusdedit (Adeodatus I) in 615. Boniface IV in 608. Boniface III in 607. Sabinian in 604. Gregory I in 590. Pelagius II in 579. Benedict I in 575. John III in 561. Pelagius I in 556. Vigilus in 537. Silverius in 536. Agapetus I in 535. John II in 533. Boniface II in 530. Felix IV (III) in 526. John I in 523. Hormisdas in 514. Symmachus in 498. Anastasius II in 496. Gelasius I in 492. Felix III (II) in 483.

Of the Popes consecrated before the fall of the Western Roman Empire…

Simplicius in 468. Hilarius in 461. Leo I in 440. Sixtus III in 432. Celestine I in 422. Boniface I in 418. Zosimus in 417. Innocent I in 401. Anastasius I in 399. Siricius in 384. Damasus I in 366. Liberius in 352. Julius I in 337. Marcus in 336.

Of the Ante-Nicene Popes…

Sylvester I in 314. Miltiades in 311. Eusebius in 309. Marcellus I in 308. Marcellinus in 296. Caius in 283. Eutychian in 275. Felix I in 269. Dionysius in 260. Sixtus II in 257. Stephen I in 254. Lucius I in 253. Cornelius I in 251. Fabian in 236. Anterus in 235. Pontain in 230. Urban I in 222. Callistus I in 217. Zephyrinus in 199. Victor I in 189. Eleutherius in 175. Soter in 166. Anicetus in 155. Pius I in 140. Hyginus in 136. Telesphorus in 125. Sixtus I in 115. Alexander I in 105. Evaristus in 97.

Of the Apostolic Fathers to the Apostles…

Clement I in 88. Anacletus (Cletus) in 76. Linus in 67. Peter in 32. Jesus!

Footnotes

(1) Cf. Mat. 28:18-20; 1 Pet. 2:5; Rev. 5:9-10.

(2) Cf. Gen. 2:18; Ecc. 4:9-10; Eph. 4:2-3.

(3) The word “apostle” comes from the Greek apostolos used first in Mat. 10:2 in reference to the twelve closest followers of Jesus and is continually used throughout the New Testament, referring not only to the original twelve, but also specifically Paul and Barnabas in Acts 13:1-3, where they are also consecrated (“set apart”) and ordained through the laying on of hands.

(4) Luk. 10:1-16.

(5) Acts 13:1-3.

(6) 1 Cor. 12:27-31.

(7) Referenced in Acts 6:1-6 when the first seven deacons are ordained by the apostles, and in Acts. 13:1-3 when Paul and Barnabas are ordained as apostles.

(8) 1 Tim. 4:14; 2 Tim. 1:6.

(9) 1 Tim. 3; Titus 1:5-8.

(10) 1 Tim. 5:22.

(11) Acts 18:18, Rom. 6:3, 2 Tim. 4:19; cf. Acts 18:2-3 and 1 Cor. 16:19 where Aquila is mentioned first.

(12) Mat. 10:5-6; 15:24.

(13) “Speaking in churches” or preaching is a fundamental task associated with the apostles. Cf. Acts 6:2.

(14) Cf. 1 Cor. 15:29-34. Also Cf. Verlyn D. Verbrugge. “1 Corinthians.” The Expositor’s Bible Commentary: Revised Edition. Vol. 11. Ed. By Tremper Longman III & David E. Garland. (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2008), 387. Only here, the commentator argues against it solely based on the passage’s length.

(15) “Apostle Timothy of the Seventy.” Orthodox Church in America. Web. Retrieved Jun. 21, 2018.

(16) Cf. Mat. 1:18-2:23; Luk. 2:1-20, John 1:14.

(17) Luk. 24:9.

(18) Out of 2.385 billion Trinitarian Christians, 1.726 billion belong to either the Roman Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox, or Anglican Communions. The number of churches which adhere to apostolic succession is actually a little higher, as the Assyrian Church of the East, as well as some Lutheran and Methodist bodies emphasize its importance as well.

(19) “List of Christian Denominations by Number of Members.” Wikipedia. Web. Retrieved Jun. 21, 2018.

(20) “Historical Statement.” Manual 2017-2021. Church of the Nazarene. Web. Retrieved Jun. 21, 2018.

(21) “The Nicene Creed.” Creeds of Christendom, with a History and Critical Notes, Vol. 1. Christian Classics Ethereal Library. Web. Retrieved Jun. 21, 2018.

(22) Cf. John 10:30.

(23) I define “orthodox belief” as that which affirms the validity of scripture, the writings of the apostolic fathers, and the pre-schism creeds of the 4th century in ordering Christian belief and practice. After the schisms, beginning with the separation of the Assyrian Church of the East, and continuing through the schisms with the Oriental Orthodox, Eastern Orthodox, and Protestant churches, I believe no single polity can lay claim to full catholicity or oneness as laid out in the Nicene Creed.

(24) Through whom I also trace my apostolic succession. Wesley observed that for two centuries the Alexandrian Church (which all major communions agree still holds apostolic succession) ordained through presbyters alone.

(25) McClintock, John. Cyclopaedia of Biblical, Theological, and Ecclesiastical Literature. Vol. 6. P. 170. Web. Retrieved Jun. 21, 2018.

(26) Para. 502. “Theology of Ordination.” Manual 2017-2021. Church of the Nazarene. Web. Retrieved Jun. 21, 2018.

(27) Ibid. Para. 10.

(28) Particularly the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed and the Apostles’ Creed.

(29) Ibid. Para. 7.

(30) Ibid. Para. 8.

(31) Ibid. Para. 12-13.

(32) Ibid. Para. 12.

(33) Ibid. Para. 502.

(34) “General Superintendent (Church of the Nazarene).” Wikipedia. Web. Retrieved Jun. 21, 2018.
(35) “Vermont Conference” in Annual Conferences of the Methodist Episcopal Church: Spring Conferences of 1886. (New York: Phillips & Hunt, 1886), p. 66.

(36) “John Fletcher Hurst.” Wikipedia. Web. Retrieved Jun. 21, 2018.

(37) “Thomas Asbury Morris.” Wikipedia. Web. Retrieved Jun. 21, 2018.

(38) “Robert Richford Roberts.” Wikipedia. Web. Retrieved Jun. 21, 2018.

(39) “Francis Asbury.” Christian History. Christianity Today. Web. Retrieved Jun. 21, 2018.

(40) Though ordained Superintendent in 1784 by John Wesley, Coke had already been ordained a presbyter in the Church of England in 1772. If one affirms that elders and bishops form a single order, then this should be the date recorded. But since he took on the role out of necessity, due to the lack of Anglican clergy available to administer the sacraments in the United States after the American Revolution, Wesley confirmed the call by consecrating him in 1784. It was this necessity which also prompted Wesley’s move to take on the role of bishop, which had lain dormant in his role as presbyter in the Church of England, but which was nonetheless valid by virtue of his ordination as presbyter-bishop.

(41) “Thomas Coke (Bishop).” Wikipedia. Web. Retrieved Jun. 21, 2018.

(42) “John Potter (Bishop).” Wikipedia. Web. Retrieved Jun. 21, 2018.

(43) There is hotly debated evidence that John Wesley may have been consecrated a bishop in 1763 during a private meeting with an Eastern Orthodox bishop named Erasmus of Arcadia. The validity of this evidence would require a whole other paper, but if it is true, then the rest of the lineage would be through the Eastern Orthodox bishops of Arcadia and the Patriarchs of Antioch (rather than through the Church of England and the Roman Catholic Church); though they would still end at Peter just as the line through the Popes of Rome does.
(44) Cooke, Richard J. The Historic Episcopate: A Study of Anglican Claims and Methodist Orders. (Eaton & Mains, 1896), 144-145.

(45) “Potter, John.” Encyclopaedia Brittanica. 1911 ed. Web. Retrieved Jun. 21, 2018.

(46) Drews, Carl. “The Apostolic Succession of the Anglican Mission in America.” 2004. Web. Retrieved Jun. 21, 2018. Used as the source for John Potter through Nicholas I.

(47) The first Archbishop of Canterbury in this line of succession.

(48) The last Pope of Rome in this line of succession.

(49) The dates for Nicholas I to Peter correspond to their consecrations as Pope of Rome. Whether they were consecrated bishops before this date is unknown in many cases.

(50) “List of Popes.” New Advent Catholic Encyclopedia. Web. Retrieved Jun. 21, 2018. Used as the source for Nicholas the 1 through Peter. Agrees with the list by Carl Drews, cited above.

Note: A special thanks to Jared K. Henry, whose own efforts to trace his lineage of apostolic succession in his post “My Ordination Means Something...” on his blog, Taking the High Road, inspired me to do the same.

#Apostles #Ordination #Women #OrdinationOfWomen #ApostolicSuccession #Nazarene #ChurchOfTheNazarene

Six Challenging Questions Regarding God's Ethics

Below are my responses to six challenging questions by an atheist friend regarding God's ethical behavior in the Bible. These are questions I've struggled with deeply myself, so I definitely identify with those who question the often harsh or seemingly unfair behavior of a God who's supposed to be good and leading us toward a perfect relationship with Him, each other, and creation.

1) Would you drown everyone except 8 people and a boatload of animals?

I think this story is a great example of the use of myth to convey truth. Especially in Genesis, but also throughout the Torah, there are many places where the text incorporates myths from other cultures and usually gives structural clues in the Hebrew as to the nature of the myth. An example of the parallelism within this story is found in the opening verses. In v. 5 “God saw [Heb. wayyar'], v. 6 “the LORD was grieved [Heb. wayyinahem]... his heart was filled with pain [Heb. wayyitasseb]” and on and on. Hebrew parallelism is regularly used both in mythic and poetic genres and suggests a carefully crafted structure, not just a historical account. This is a myth, and while there have been local destructive floods throughout history, Noah's flood almost certainly didn't happen literally.

When this story was included in the Torah, the Jews were in the midst of the Babylonian exile and though they knew the special character of their God, they wanted a way to viscerally convey this character to their people, so they used stories which were familiar, i.e. the Babylonian Epic of Gilgamesh (for the flood), the Atrahasis Epic and the Enuma Elish (for creation), and Enmerkar and the Lord of Aratta (the Tower of Babel). Other sources may have been used as well, but these may have been lost. But what is most interesting is not the parallels with these other myths, but what is unique to the Hebrew myths. In the Assyrian, Babylonian, and Sumerian stories, the gods are pissed that humans are too noisy. We just party too hard, baby. So they want to kill us. Then when they realize they'll starve without our worship, they praise one of the gods who sneakily saved Utnapishtim (Noah). The Hebrew God on the other hand, cares about social justice and the violence that spreads through the earth. In fact, the Hebrew contrasts in the language with humanity's violence and the goodness of creation suggests that the violence was so bad, all humanity would have slaughtered each other completely. This means that by saving 8, God saved 8 more than would have survived without intervention.

This story's placement within the book of Genesis also serves an important theological purpose. It is the culmination of the acts of Adam and Eve, which first brought rebellion and deception into the world and out of that, the first acts of violence. This is foreshadowed in the skins with which they are covered, and carried on in the story of Cain and Abel, which in narrative structure (especially in Cain's dialogue with God) mirrors almost exactly the exchange between the first couple and God. Destruction was the inevitable path humanity was already on. I find it very interesting today, that in the face of climate change, we find ourselves in the same place again (only this time our violence is toward the earth and not just toward each other). If humanity cannot change its ways, it may very well destroy itself. I think that is the ultimate point of this story.

It is important to note as well that the Jews reading the Torah during the Babylonian exile would have immediately recognized these stories as myths (both because they were already familiar with the Babylonian myths and because of the Hebraic structural clues); yet even as myths they communicate essential truths about God and humanity: that we have the potential to utterly destroy ourselves, and that God cares about social justice and wants to show mercy to those who will reject the path of violence.

2) Would you consider women as property?

In the ANE (Ancient Near East) all the way through Greco-Roman times, women were indeed seen as property, either the property of the clan itself (whose authority was recognized either in the elder males, or a patriarch) or the property of the pater familias (head of household). These authorities generally had the power of life and death over the men and women under their control. It was through this cultural lens the original audiences (and even authors) of the biblical texts saw their relationships to each other and to their God (or gods). But what is very interesting about even the Old Testament is that, despite many brutal passages read in today's Western cultural light, there are some pretty huge changes to the status of women and all vulnerable classes (including widows, orphans, the poor, and migrants/immigrants) taking place in scripture.

This change begins with the creation myths at the beginning in Genesis (two are found here, as well as another six uses of creation imagery in the Psalms). In the opening verses, men and women are created equally (Gen. 1:27-28). Even in the second story (ch. 2-3), when Eve is taken from the rib of Adam, their relationship is like that of a river. The mouth of the river might be its “head” or its source, yet no part of the river is more important than another. It is all river. Inequality is first mentioned after humanity has sinned, and is described as a consequence of our sin (Gen. 3:16). In this context, all human inequality is the direct result of human sin and is not part of the original created order.

From this point forward, any law code, or instruction, or even mythic (or possibly historic for some) story must be read in the context of human-created inequality. So, in this context, let's say God decides to begin speaking into history and changing things. I think God began to do this gradually, because an outright revolution of thought would have been utterly rejected (as I've stated elsewhere, I think God's relationship with humanity is not deterministic, but a give-and-take, and we have a say in it). The Torah laws represent a compromise, and an understanding that God is not done interacting with (and changing) the nature of our relationship.

Even the more brutal laws are a vast improvement in terms of social justice when compared with either ANE cultural practice or other written law codes (such as Hammurabai's). Where in other cultures, slaves were held for life against their will, in the Torah they are set free the seventh year, and all debts forgiven after seven sets of seven years (the 50^th year of the debt), meaning a debt could not be passed to children or over the estate (as the land was held in trust for descendants forever). The concept of the Jubilee year is remarkably more progressive than even today's debt laws. And where in the ANE, if a slave did a crime they were given a harsher punishment then a rich person, in the Torah all are punished for crimes equally (though harshly). Additionally, where women leaders were unheard of in much of that world, some of the oldest sections of the Torah include the stories (and song) of Deborah, a female judge who leads an army and prophecies to the people (Jg. 4-5), as well as women who kill kings (Jg. 4:21; 9:53) and who decide the destinies of princes (cf. Rebekah, Jacob & Esau). It's certainly not a perfect image of women, but if the Torah were all humanity needed to move into perfect relationship with each other, with creation, and with God; then Christ would not have come (this point is what much of my theology hinges on).

Even in the NT, Jesus and Paul provide a vast improvement in the treatment of women and their status. Women form a central part of Jesus' ministry. It is a woman who brings the Incarnate Word into the world (Mary), and it is women who first discover the empty tomb and bring the Proclaimed Word into the world (by telling the disciples). It is a Canaanite woman who actually bests Jesus with a riddle/analogy in one of the best uses of irony in scripture (Mt. 15:21-28) and it is women who have some of the most intimate discussions and interactions with Jesus (Jn. 4:4-26; Lk. 7:36-50). Women even sit at the feet of Jesus, and listen as his disciples which was unheard of at the time (Lk. 10:38-42). And, even though a later bishop (who wrote Timothy) uses Paul's name to place limits on women leadership in his congregations, Paul himself elevates the role of women, proclaims them equal with men (and all people regardless of background) (Col. 3:11, Gal. 3:28), and even praises the work of women leaders in the church and commends Junia, a female apostle (Rom. 16:7).

3) Would you yourself or would you condone owning another person?

No, I wouldn't. And I don't think God would either. Though Paul tells slaves they should serve their masters, this should be read in the context of the unequivocal rejection of violence by Jesus and the early church, and in Jesus' and Paul's statements regarding the equality of all individuals. Paul's admonition in this case is actually a position of nonviolent subversion of Roman structures. Christians were to serve (whether free or slave) in such a way that defied the expected reaction to those placed in bondage or forced in anyway. It was indeed a revolution, but a revolution that rejected force and instead relied on the overwhelming power of love to change people's hearts, even the oppressors.

As for the Torah references to slavery,  I stated earlier that I think these are concessions to the cultural mindset and state of sin, violence and oppression in human affairs so that God could begin to define humanity's relationship with each other and with God, and that even they were a vast improvement over contemporary societies. The laws are a stepping stone into relationship, but they do not bring us into ideal relationship with God. That's why the Incarnate Word (Christ) took on flesh, but only once human beings were ready for such a radical event to take place.

4) Would you condone beating said person as long as they didn't die right away?

Well, since I rejected slavery in the previous sections, I suppose I'd beat the s*** out of a free man (I kid, I kid). Again, I think the Torah was a progressive approach to the brutality of human beings and was part of the process of God breaking into our interactions with each other and beginning to establish the grounds which would form our relationship with Him (generally framed within the cultural practice of covenant). This progress continues with the ministry of Jesus, who as the Christ, reframes the entire relationship and sheds new light on the old ways.

It is deeply unfortunate that for many centuries the church forgot these important lessons and took steps backward. Still, God's value and love for women, the oppressed, and the alien has shown through in the work of many saints and mystics through history who tapped into the heart of God and shared it with others. And I think that when the progression of scripture is taken as a whole, and informed in the light of the writings of the early Church fathers, we see a definite movement toward rejecting violence and embracing mercy as a reflection of Christ's character.

5) Do you think eternal torture or annihilation for temporal crimes, unbelief or just 'wrong' thoughts is just?

Nope, and I also don't think scripture refers to eternal torture or annihilation. In the Tanakh, death was vaguely referred to as Sheol. This may have been understood as a shadowy existence, though many Jews believed a person lived on in name only, that they were wholly material infused with the “ruach” or “breath” of God, and that their bodies simply returned to the earth with no afterlife. There are many poetic allusions to death in the OT and very few of them suggest some type of afterlife.

When Jesus talks about Gehenna, much of what he was talking about was actually referring to the upcoming destruction of the Temple in Jerusalem (which happened 40 years after he died and a few years after the gospel of Mark was likely written). Like almost all prophets (including John of Patmos, who wrote Revelation), he was speaking of contemporary conditions and the near future. Now, ever since Clement of Alexandria (and the Alexandrian school), many have ascribed deeper allegorical meaning to these utterances, and I think that's fine as long as we recognize that there are certain lessons which can apply to every generation, there are certain ones which apply only to the original generation, and there may be some that refer to an apocalyptic final future (but these interpretations must always be taken with a grain of salt).

I do think scripture affirms a bodily resurrection, though I don't believe in an immortal soul (which I think is a Greco-Roman syncretic addition to later Christian thought). In fact, I think many of our modern Christian thoughts around the afterlife are Gnostic holdovers that need to be re-examined. Honestly, if an immortal soul was all that was needed for existing, a bodily resurrection wouldn't be necessary. But as Paul states, without the bodily resurrection of Christ, we have no bodily resurrection. And if we have no bodily resurrection, we have no hope (1 Cor. 15:3-19). While much of scripture is infused with myth, I affirm the historicity of the death of Jesus and the discovery of the empty tomb, as well as the perception by the disciples that they saw the risen Lord soon after. It through understanding these specific events as historical that my faith in Christ takes shape.

While I do not have a definitive answer, I have been looking at different possibilities for interpretation. One, is that the condition popularly known as “hell” (a word which never appears in scripture) is actually a post-resurrection state of an individual (or even a state in this life), where they are so filled with rejection, bitterness, and hate that they are agonizing and suffering in the midst of their willful separation. If this is the case, then I think that God's mercy is so great, that in the very moment this person were to turn to God, they would be immediately accepted into the Body of Christ. This could leave open the possibility for even universal reconciliation among all human beings (and, I interpret “human being” to mean all life that has evolved the agency to enter into relationship). Though, there may be some who would so much rather wallow in their own bitterness and general crapitude, that even though they may be resurrected into the midst of Paradise, still they would eternally and wilfully suffer in their own personal “hell.”

If these possibilities are the case, then perhaps scripture (and Jesus) is using the creative imagery of Gehenna and fire to describe these states. There are many places throughout scripture where concrete terms are poetically used (such as in the Psalms and Proverbs) to describe more abstract concepts. A great example is the female personification of wisdom in the proverbs. Concrete imagery (especially in prophetic and apocalyptic works) helps us to grasp almost ungraspable concepts.

6) Would you let your son be tortured and killed to solve a problem you created?

Which one, Samson or Conan? That's right, I named my sons Samson and Conan (I like epic characters, what can I say?). Anyway, I assume you are referring to Christ. I think this is where the doctrine of the Trinity comes into play (though it is a very sticky topic, with much of its thought originating well outside the scope of scripture and more in the context of 4^th century Greco-Roman culture and Greek philosophy). I think that Christ as God's Son may be understood to the effect that the substance, Being God is eternally, coequally Personalized in perfect internal relationship as the Trinity. This relationship becomes our model for relationship, and it is with this understanding that Christians call Jesus the Son. We believe that the Son eternally proceeds from the Father, just as a Word is the expression of the Originator, while at the same time Being the Originator.

That might sound like a lot of word salad (and I think some of the 4^th century and later formulations border on word saladness), but its better if we go back to my point in a previous post about how the symbols of language fail to fully register direct experience, and even less so, direct being (in this case, the Being of God). Part of the value of the symbolic language of Sonship is its connections to sonship (as in the Son of Man, the Son of David) in the OT, and Jesus' special context within Israel. Anyway, the point is, it is God Itself who took on flesh, was tortured, and was killed for a problem that we created. If we have free will (and I think we do, at least in a limited way in our environment), and we were created for relationship with God, creation, and each other, and to be able to create or destroy (as God does, cf. Gen. 1:26-27; Deut. 30:19), then we need to take responsibility for our own actions. Honestly, this is the point of humanism, and helps explain humanism's roots within Christianity. We are responsible for our own problems, and our decision to enter into Christ signals our willingness to be part of the solution.

Final Thoughts

I hope these responses help any readers who are struggling with the idea of a God revealed in scripture and in flesh. As I said earlier, they are the fruit of my own struggle, and it is my hope that they save you some time and maybe some heart-ache; and will hopefully lead you down the path toward the truth (wherever that may lead you).

#christianity #atheism #interpretation #hebrew #women #torah #tanakh #bible #ethics

Abortion and the Language of Ownership

I recently read a Huffington Post article regarding a sermon preached by Pastor Jeff Crawford at Cross Church, where he states that a woman's body is not her own, but belongs to God. Theologically, he seems to be working from the point that if creation belongs to God, and humanity within it, then naturally our bodies belong to God. While I do not think that it was his intention to single out women's' bodies over men's; the fact that a male preacher is using the logic of ownership when speaking about the relationship between God, a woman's body, and a developing fetus, tends to reinforce the image of the church as a patriarchal organization whose chief purpose for being is to control people.

The Language of Ownership v. The Language of Emancipation 

While there are many who share the view that God “owns” us, I think that this is a misreading of scripture, especially when read in the context of Jesus' mission. There are definitely many religious leaders who frame their understanding of morality in terms of ownership and servitude, which borders on the rationale for slavery. But there are many others who frame their religious understanding of morality in terms of grace, freedom, and love. I tend to think that whatever the individual moral positions being debated (whether abortion, the death penalty, civil rights, etc.), the second line of thought is more helpful and a better paradigm for human beings to operate under.

While the Bible definitely addresses issues regarding ownership and property, they are almost always concessions to the human desire to find our identity in terms of control and occupation. God knows that humans have a tough time sharing. If we all were able to equitably distribute resources, then there would be no need for economic, political, or judicial systems. We would still be living in the paridisical relationship for which we were created. However, because we have chosen to corrupt our relationship to God, each other, and creation through sinful action, any attempts or even dreams of utopia tend to fall short. The Bible doesn't address issues of ownership because such a system is what God desires. It addresses these issues because it must address the reality of our fallen, selfish state and the inequality with which we tend to frame our relationships.

In fact, I would argue that the entire concept of ownership is a human (and relatively recent) invention. To frame our understanding of God, the cosmos, or ethical practice on terms of “ownership” will always pit human beings against each other. I think that if God exists, and if God created and sustains the cosmos, with life and an evolving humanity within it (with free will); then this means that even God has relinquished any "right of ownership" in favor of developing a relationship with humanity founded on mutual love.

Something which owns another, cannot expect the other to freely choose right over wrong, life over death. Ownership (and slavery, which is ownership of the body) is the language of force and violence. Redemption is the language of peace and reconciliation.

Applying the Language of Emancipation to the Abortion Debate

To bring this back to the issue at hand, I think we should address abortion theologically and in the context of the gospel message: which is the proclamation of redemption through love, and freedom through reconciliation (Lk. 4:17-21). I do not oppose abortion on the grounds of God's right of ownership (after all, the ownership argument still doesn't address the status of the fetus within the woman's body). I oppose abortion in most cases because all life is sacred, and the potential for life is sacred. Even if a fetus is part of a woman's body, its growth is still a sacred part of the life which God created. The sacred nature of life should be the focal point for the theological and philosophical consideration of abortion; instead of notions regarding ownership of the woman's body, or the individuality of the fetus.

I have no doubt that both sides value life. But for us to come to any kind of truly ethical conclusion, I think we should value BOTH the life of the mother and the potential of life for future generations, represented in the fetus. Using “ownership” as an argument is simply misleading, and I would argue, may even be contrary to the core of the gospel message.

#abortion #pro-life #pro-choice #women #God #ownership #emancipation #Gospel