Mega-Church Celebrity Culture

On today's program, I addressed the Mark Driscoll fiasco and the underlying issues of celebrity culture within evangelicalism. I addressed the recent controversies surrounding both Mark Driscoll and Ergun Caner, and how they reflect a dangerous ecclesiology inherent in contemporary evangelicalism.

Here is the program

Unionism and Mortal Sin

Today's program covered a number of topics as I answered listener questions. I discussed the nature of unionism and different perspectives of fellowship, the distinction between mortal and venial sin in Lutheranism and Roman Catholicism, and a Lutheran view of perseverance.

Here is the program.

Answering Arguments for Women in Ministry: the Old Testament

I was pointed to an article by one of my readers regarding the issue of women in ministry. This article (which can be found here)is an official document of the Evangelical Covenant church in defense of their allowance of female clergy. This is particularly interesting to me because I was raised in the Evangelical Covenant church, a small church body which has its roots in Swedish Pietism. Because this paper gives many of the common reasons that many use to argue for women in ministry, I have decided to respond to the major arguments utilized here.

The first part of the article presents evidence from the Old Testament that women were active in the ministry of Israel. Exodus 38:8 mentions women who minister, as does Exodus 15:20-21. The gift of prophecy was sometimes given to women, such as Deborah in Judges 4-5. The story of Deborah also demonstrates that a woman could be fit as a leader for the people of Israel. This is then placed in contradistinction to other ancient societies which did not allow women any place in leadership, assigning her a relatively insignificant role in society.

What these texts demonstrate is not an egalitarian perspective on gender, but simply that God loves and utilizes both sexes to accomplish his purpose. It is significant that the Biblical narrative places women in a higher role than did many other ancient societies. This shows that both men and women are created in the imago Dei; it does not mean that their roles are interchangeable.

The unique male role in spiritual leadership is demonstrate in several places and institutions throughout the Old Testament. The two primary roles which governed the faith and civil law of Israel were the priesthood and the monarchy. The priesthood is first seen with the story of Melchizedek in Genesis 14. This priest was a male, who Abraham offered tithes to. This priesthood was typological (Hebrews 5:6), pointing to Christ as the true high priest. There was then a priesthood instituted through the tribe of Levi. Aaron was instituted as the high priest at the time of the Exodus, and the priesthood continued through his male lineage. The priesthood, both Melchizedekian and Levitical, is an office instituted solely for men. One could argue that this was done solely for the purpose of cultural sensitivity, due to the fact that women were not respected in the Ancient Near East. However, this is negated by the fact that there were female priests in some ancient pagan religions.

Similarly, the monarchy was passed on through male lineage. Saul was appointed as king, later to be removed from the throne so that David would rule over Israel. The monarchy passed to Solomon, and then to his male descendants. There were no female kings. This is significant especially because the monarchy of the Old Covenant was, like the priesthood, typological. Christ, through his incarnation, death, and resurrection, fulfilled both the roles of priest and king. He did this because these were the two most important institutions in the life of the nation of Israel, and both were limited to males.

The role of prophet is also linked almost exclusively to men. As the paper demonstrates, there are certain examples of women who prophesied at times. There were even exceptional cases like with Deborah, who was a leader and prophet. However, the normal pattern is for a prophet to be male. Just take a look at the prophets who have written books which are included in Scripture: Joshua, Ezekiel, Daniel, Jeremiah, and all of the minor prophets. They were all men.

We can gather some important truths in the Old Testament regarding the role of women in the spiritual life of the church/Israel. First, women are an essential part of the life of Israel. God created both male and female in his image, giving them both inherent dignity. Women have exceptional skills and are utilized for God's purpose. However, women were not designed to be the spiritual leaders of Israel. The priests were men. The kings were men. The prophets were most often men. Of the three leadership roles prominent in Israel's worship life, two are tied exclusively to males, and the third is most often attached to a male figure. This does not mean that either sex has more worth, dignity, or ability than the other; it simply shows that God created both genders to compliment one another, with different tasks in both the world and the church.

Alphabet Soup: Lutheranism in America

On today's program I discussed the various Lutheran church bodies in America. I gave some history and talked about the various theological and practical issues which divide these churches from one another. Here is the program.

Thoughts on the Visible/Invisible Church Distinction

In the pietistic tradition, the distinction between a visible and invisible church is highly emphasized. This doctrine made its way into the Waltherian school of Confessional Lutheranism; sometimes it is confessed that the church is purely invisible, though it has certain visible "signs" of its presence. There is some wisdom in separating true faith from external ecclesial structures, since faith is a matter of the heart, but ultimately I think this tradition misses the intimate connection between the physical and transcendental within Luther's thought. In reading an article titled "Luther's Double-Faceted Concept of the Church" by Vilmos Vajta (in the volume: Manns, Peter et. al. Luther's Ecumenical Significant: An Interconfessional Consultation. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1984.)I came across the following quote of Luther which explains the relationship between the visible and invisible rather well:

"Therefore, for the sake of better understanding and brevity, we shall call the two churches by two distinct names. The first, which is natural, basic, essential, and true, we shall call 'spiritual, inner Christendom.' The second, which is man-made and external, we shall call 'physical, external Christendom.' Not that we want to separate them from each other; rather, it is just as if I were talking about a person and called him 'spiritual' according to his soul, and 'physical' according to his body, or as the Apostle is accustomed, to speak of an 'internal' and 'external' person. So, too, the Christian assembly is a community united in one faith according to the soul, although according to the body, it cannot be assembled in one place since every group of people is assembled in its own place." (Luther's Works Volume 39, page 70)

For Luther, there is an essential connection between the two aspects of the church. It's not as if there are two separate churches, one visible and one invisible, but the church contains both a visible and invisible aspect. This is commensurate with Luther's sacramental theology which maintains the reality of the earthly and heavenly elements in vital connection to one another. Thus Luther's view of the church is not that of an ethereal Platonic reality as some allege, but is thoroughly incarnational. Not only is this more consistent with Luther's own theology, and that of the church catholic, but portrays the usage of ecclesia in the New Testament.

Does 1 Timothy 3:15 Support the Roman Magisterium?

Due to all the talk in the blogosphere about Jason Stellman's announcement that he is converting to Rome, I felt that it was a good time to answer a question posed by one of my readers regarding a text frequently used by Roman apologists, 1 Timothy 3:15.

"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." (NIV)

The claim made regarding this particular passage is that if it is the church is the pillar and foundation of the truth, then sola scriptura cannot possibly be true. If Paul held to sola scriptura, surely he would have labeled scripture the pillar and foundation of the truth rather than the church. This is then assumed to be the case only in the Roman church, rendering all Protestants, Anglicans and Lutherans wrong. I find this argument unpersuasive. Here are a couple reasons why:

First, notice what the text doesn't say. A comment made in passing about the church is hardly grounds for assuming an infallible magisterium under the Roman Papacy. This text says nothing about any magisterium or Pope. There is no definition of the church given in this text at all. Does it refer to the church in the apostolic era? The Eastern Orthodox church? The Coptic church? For a Roman Catholic to simply assume that it refers to what would become the modern Roman Church is highly isogetical. The text does not say anything about the infallibility of the Church. It doesn't give justification for the convening of infallible church councils. It doesn't give the Roman bishop authority to establish dogma by decree when speaking ex cathedra.

Second, the text doesn't state that the Church is the sole foundation of the truth. Look at the way the text is translated in the ESV:

"if I delay, you may know how one ought to behave in the household of God, which is the church of the living God, a pillar and buttress of the truth." (ESV)

Here is the Greek text:

"ἐὰν δὲ βραδύνω, ἵνα εἰδῇς πῶς δεῖ ἐν οἴκῳ θεοῦ ἀναστρέφεσθαι, ἥτις ἐστὶν ἐκκλησία θεοῦ ζῶντος, στῦλος καὶ ἑδραίωμα τῆς ἀληθείας·" (SBL)

Both translations of the text are possible renderings. Paul could either be saying that the church is the foundation of the truth or a foundation of the truth. The absence of a definite article leaves either translation as a possibility. Irenaeus for example is just as willing to call scripture the "ground and pillar of our faith." (Against Heresies 31:1.2) He did not assume exclusivity to the claim that the church is the foundation of the truth.

All of that being said, neither translation renders the Lutheran approach to sola scriptura false. I can't imagine any Lutheran shying away from the statement that the church is the pillar and foundation of truth. The church is where the gospel comes to God's people. It is where the Scripture is proclaimed with boldness. The church is where faith exists, and where the sacraments come to God's people. Surely, there is nowhere else on earth other than in the church where the truth of the gospel is proclaimed. If someone were to ask where the truth is in American society, I could easily answer, "not the government, not in the broader culture, certainly not in the public school system, but in the church!" To assume anything beyond this of one statement made in passing without any broader explanation is reading far too much into the text.