So I have been hearing an abnormal amount of really old '90s worship music this summer. I went to a church that played a song from the year my sister was born. A quick message to all worship leaders. RETIRE A SONG AFTER TWO YEARS!!! No exceptions (unless you drastically re-arrange the composition on a hymn, like dramatically). You may be arguing with me in your head, but as a worship leader you have been given the divine charge of guiding your congregation into the presence of God. Countless Psalms of David exhort the singing of "a new song." I cannot emphasize the necessity of this enough. It is mission critical to the life of the church to be current in worship, and to always be allowing your heart to be led by the Holy Spirit. I want to share with you a quick story, and I hope you take it to heart. "And the LORD said to Moses, "Pass on before the people, taking with you some of the elders of Israel, and take in your hand the staff withwhich you struck the Nile, and go. Behold, I will stand before you there on the rock at Horeb, and you shall strike the rock, and water shall come out of it, and the people will drink." And Moses did so, in the sight of the elders of Israel [Exodus 17:5-6 (English Standard Version)]." Fast forward, just a bit.
"Take the staff, and assemble the congregation, you and Aaron your brother, and tell the rock before their eyes to yield its water. So you shall bring water out of the rock for them and give drink to the congregation and their cattle." And Moses took the staff from before the LORD, as he commanded him. Then Moses and Aaron gathered the assembly together before the rock, and he said to them, "Hear now, you rebels: shall we bring water for you out of this rock?" And Moses lifted up his hand and struck the rock with his staff twice, and water came out abundantly, and the congregation drank, and their livestock. And the LORD said to Moses and Aaron, "Because you did not believe in me, to uphold me as holy in the eyes of the people of Israel, therefore you shall not bring this assembly into the land that I have given them [Numbers 20:8-12 (English Standard Version)]."
You have a divine charge to usher the people of God into His presence. Continue to live in the influence of the most high God, and do not allow the worship of His Holy Name to become stagnated!
I have been going crazy lately over something I used to think was trivial. David Crowder re-wrote the words to John Mark McMillian's song "How He Loves," and it has been driving me out of my mind. He changed the lyric "so heaven meets earth like a sloppy wet kiss," to "so heaven meets earth like an unforeseen kiss." This is theologically reprehensible. The kingdom of heaven in no way meets earth like an unforeseen kiss! It has been the subject of books, and sermons, lectures, and doctoral dissertations. It is the single most anticipated moment that will ever come, more so perhaps even than the coming of Messiah! I have been so bothered by this, and I don't know what the answer is. The words "so heaven meets earth like an anxiously anticipated kiss," don't exactly roll of the tongue. I don't really know what to do here. Now I need you to understand something. I LOVE DAVID CROWDER! He is one of the incredibly small number of actually talented Christian musicitians, and he deserves respect. He is one of the most important artists when it comes to worship music, along with; Hillsong, Passion, Steve Fee, Phil Wickham, and Shane Bernard. Crowder (who typically comes to the rescue of our generation in propagating edgy worship music) has really sold this song short. If you are a worship leader, or a senior pastor, please sing the song the way it was written. Your congregation will get over the original shock, and will learn to embrace the song the way the original artist penned it (which I am always in favor of). Shalom
I would have never expected to find any semblance of theology in a Donald Miller book. He is who I read when I'm needing a quick read from a person who thinks differently than I. Finding a small tidbit of insight in his work proves that it is really all about the mind of the reader, not the mind of the writer. Profound thoughts can be found in mundane tasks or a shock read.
I love what Miller says about listening for the voice of God in his work "A Million Miles in a Thousand Years." He expounds on the Biblical truth that God is at work speaking quietly and in the stillness of life.
"The real Voice is stiller and smaller and seems to know, without confusion, the difference between right and wrong and the subtle delineation between the beautiful and profane."
-Donald Miller
I've been so struck by the necessity to live a well rhythmed life. Miller speaks to living in intimate relationship with the Creator, and listening to the subtle leadings and promptings. God's voice is often times smaller and more quiet than we realize. We are so far from the places we need to be to really get the full value of our ears.
God longs to speak and live in relationship to us. Our creator wants community with us in the same spirit of Adomic community. We must put ourselves in the places God can speak to us. In the still, the calm, the serene places of this world. His voice is still small, and yet rings true with great consequence.
I very intentionally omitted one Essential Attribute of God in the last section (and yes I did so with fear and trembling). Divine Simplicity states that “God's nature is not composed of parts [Bounds].” At first glance this was not problematic to me, I understand Divine Oneness, making Divine Simplicity an easy pill to swallow... However, I saved the discussion of Divine Simplicity because I believe it to be inseparably linked to the Doctrine of the Trinity. The Doctrine of the Trinity was alluded to throughout all of the Old Testament, but it was never realized by the Jews. In an effort to establish God as One, they neglected the leadings toward the Doctrine of the Trinity. In Christ we gain the fullness of the Doctrine. Directly preceding the assent Christ says, in Matthew 28:19 “Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit [NIV].” This statement is loaded with significance. It says that the disciples are to baptize in the name: a singular noun, implying that there is one God – Divine Oneness. He then goes on to say “of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit [NIV].” There is then, only one God, but we begin to understand that He exists in three persons. Divine Simplicity has its life in this; God exists in three persons, not three parts. How can God be one, but be three persons? The tension of these two statements, while originally problematic, has served as a source of wonder for me as I have continued to explore this fundamental doctrine.
There are two analogies that I have bought into that do fantastic justice to my understanding of the Trinity. My favorite one, and the easiest for my mind to understand is the Tree analogy. The Godhead is like a tree; The Father is analogous to the Roots, the Son analogous to the trunk, and the Spirit analogous to the leaves and branches. This analogy shows the unity of the Godhead, but it does not do justice to the distinction of the persons. The second one, which is very difficult for my mind, is the analogy of the Apostles. This view does great justice to the distinction of the Persons while not giving adequate unity to the Godhead. We are left with a problem, how do we rationalize these two analogies, and arrive at a full understanding of God? I must sadly postpone the continuation of this topic until I get to the topic of God as Trinity; this is merely a preliminary discussion to add depth to the Doctrine of Divine Simplicity.
God is entirely other. All that we understand is insufficient to describe the nature of the God. We have adopted verbage to attempt to do justice to our collective understanding of God, describing but never explaining. Orthodoxy has taken great care in the discussion of the Godhead, the nature, essence, or Ontology, of God.
We know first of all that God is uncreated; “There is not reality beyond Himself to which He owes His being [Bounds].” We know this principal as Divine Aseity. In the ancient world, that existed after the fall, there was a prevalence of acceptance that a god existed. Many civilizations believed in many gods, most of which were fickle, and limited in power. These mythic gods often bore god-children among each other, and grew to and lost power in the heavens. When we look at the one true God, that of the Judeo-Christian tradition, we see that God is not born of another being, or that He is not derived from a substance that predated Him, but is in fact uncreated.
Due to His Aseity we know that He does not depend on any other being for His existence. We know this idea as Divine Independence. I believe that there is truly one, and only one God that exists. I refute the ideas of polytheism, which would require other gods to exist, and I also refute henotheism. God is not merely the greatest of gods among gods, He is the only; this doctrine is known as Divine Oneness. In fact there is a series of Scripture verses that were threaded together by early Jews called the Shema; Deuteronomy 6:4-9, Deuteronomy 11:13-21, and Numbers 15:37-41. My Freshman year of college I set myself upon the task of memorizing some sections of Scripture; the first one being Psalm 139, and the second being the entirety of the Shema. The importance of the Shema was that it is the foundational text for the doctrine of Divine Oneness. We must remember the affirmation of this text that “The LORD our God, the Lord is one [Deuteronomy 6:4, NIV].” I needed to assert the Oneness of God as a precursory note to the Doctrine of the Trinity, in order to prevent confusion.
We also understand that God is living. What we know to be life is only a reflection of the Divine Life. “God's life is the eternal, un-derived energy of His being, enabling life, change, and movement in creation [Bounds].” What we know to be life is but a shadow of the true Life that is an ontological facet of the Godhead.
One of the most precious facets of God is His infinity. We understand that space and time are merely constructs of God, a skeleton upon which to create all that we know. When we begin to look at the ontology of God we must understand that God exists outside of, as well as within time. It is pertinent to know that God cannot be circumscribed, He transcends all spacial relations, making Him both transcendent, and immanent; which we call the Immensity of God. We know that time and space are created by God and that He is not bound to them (immensity), we also know that God was never created but always existed (aseity), He is currently alive, and we understand that God will always exist into the future; all of this to say I have built a case that God is eternal in nature. God's Divine Eternality is a key principal to understanding the manor in which we speak of God. He has always existed, and will always exist - but how?
One of the most helpful ways, I've found, to understand God is by the attributes He demonstrates in relation to the created order. We often call these attributes the omnis because they are attributes of God that must be understood in the scope of God's Infinity.
The first speaks to God's way of being present within and without the created order. God is omnipresent. God exists in all places at the same time. He has never entered a place in which He was not already present. To further articulate what I said earlier, God cannot be circumscribed. The scope of His presence is infinite, and simultaneous. Not only can He go anywhere, but He currently is everywhere. God does not enter your heart when you accept His saving grace, He's already there. The Godhead is fully present in hell. When we are in worship it is more helpful to help each other understand that God is altogether present than to pray for God to “come into this place.” We see in Scripture a precedent laid down that while God is everywhere, He does exist differently in certain places and times in history (not to be confused with dispensationalism). This is illustrated in Acts 2:1-3 “When the day of Pentecost came, they were all together in one place. Suddenly a sound like the blowing of a violent wind came from heaven and filled the whole house where they were sitting. They saw what seemed to be tongues of fire that separated and came to rest on each of them [NIV].” We see that the person of the Holy Spirit was existing differently to them in this time and in this place, but Omnipresence explains that the Son, and the Father were all equally present. It is very important that I point out that I believe that the Godhead always exist, and act in concert, even if one Person is acting distinctly. We also see this in the life of Christ. The Spirit and Father were not less present in the salvific moment of the Cross, but it was the Son that was existing differently. This principal is not only true of the Spirit and Son, but is also true of the Father, as we see in the Creation narrative.
The second concept is that of Omniscience, and describes the truth of God's knowledge. I believe that God knows all that has happened, is happening and will happen. His knowledge is actual in that its not merely that He could know all, but that He actually does know all. He does not restrict His knowledge in any way, I would assert that His knowledge is consummate. We also understand that His knowledge is eternally perfect, in that it does not begin imperfect, gradually moving toward perfection, but has and will always exist perfectly – never growing in its scope. We also have this understanding called “middle knowledge;” which states that God has always known every possibility that could happen. We are called to hold in tension the fact that while God has always known all that could and will be, this knowledge does not in any way determine events. This is one of the places where God's Omniscience and God's Omnipresence overlap. God is eternally present; He exists inside as well as outside of time, and therefore He exists in all of time and space, as if He is experiencing all of history in an instant. God allows the created order the power of free will, giving each human a will that is in the image of God's will. Thus God knows all, and free will is still exercised.
I also believe that God is Omnipotent; or all powerful. In fact in order for God to be God, He must be all powerful. While God's power is over all things, it exists in such a way so as to empower creation, and enable the freedom of other things. I mentioned earlier that I believe that God's omnipotence is defined by His character; this means that God cannot be other than He is. God cannot exhibit cruelty for instance, not that He does not have the power to do this, but that cruelty is in fact powerlessness, or privation of power; simply put power is not cruel. God's power can be coercive or persuasive in nature. God is in complete control, yet He does not always control. This means that God can push His creation into His will, and pull it toward His will. God operates coercively at times imposing His will on the created order, and persuasively at times, leading and drawing the created order into His will; a topic that will be dealt with in depth under Providence. The most important thing to understand under the Doctrine of Omnipotence is this; God cannot do anything because His character informs His will. There are three viewpoints that articulate God's omnipotence. One states that God is able to do absolutely anything, and that His character is subject to His power; God could become a tyrannical destroyer in an instant, ant that nothing is preventing Him from doing so. The second one states that while He can do anything, He won't; or His character directs His will. My belief is that God's omnipotence is subject to His character and that there are some things God simply cannot do. God can only be that which He is.
Revelation itself comes from the word “apocalypsus,” or unveiling. It is this idea that God in His divine wisdom has chosen to make some things known to humanity. Revelation is three fold; it is for everyone, its not a small scale epiphany like in your Bible study, and it is not just a prophetic word brought forth in a worship service. Ultimately the entire world benefits from a revelation. There are two divisions to revelation, and I'm going to deal with them each in turn. Revelation exists as an indirect and indiscriminate revelation of God, or general revelation. This most often happens in nature and in the inner searching of the human psyche. It is placed within the reach of all human beings and is able to be discovered. “It is the glory of God to conceal a matter; to search out a matter is the glory of kings (Proverbs 25:2, NIV)” One may learn about God by observation, and contemplation. A more profound way revelation is understood is in the method of special revelation. Special revelation is both discriminant and direct in nature. It is pin point focused on events, and direct insertions of God in time. This form of revelation is seen most often in the context of history, the Bible, and the Christ event. The church is in turn charged with the propagation of special revelation.
Scripture I believe that because God directly appealed to man through the writers of the Scriptures that they are very special in nature. I believe that Scripture is authoritative. That it is a piece of literature above all others both in its content and nature. It has a specific power granted it by the Holy Spirit, and is in fact so full of the anointing of God that it is a means of grace for those that hear it. Grace is the “unmerited work of God through us, in us, and for us [Bounds]“ Theology is in fact one of the primary means by which God administers grace “it is the balm, the healing salve that works to heal the soul [Bounds].” We, as Christians, deeply revere the Scriptures because we believe the words to be those of God Himself, dynamically inspiring the writers of the Text. We know that the authority of Scripture comes from God. There is little value in trying to prove the validity of Scripture, what we must rely on is the “testimoium internum Spiritus Sancti,” or the internal testimony of the Holy Spirit. I also believe that the Scriptures are plenary in nature, and that every word is equally as inspired as the next. It has been the practice of the Church to focus on those verses that most resonate with the current world, but we know that regardless of the apparent relevance, or highlighter-worthiness of a passage, God is equally present in every word. I believe in the Primacy of Scripture. Scripture is the final source of authority on all matters of faith and practice [Bounds]. We believe Scripture to be unique and unrepeatable, that it is unlike any other source text. We see in the Canon the purposeful preservation by God of the worldview, and vocabulary of the writers. For instance in the Pauline Epistles we see a higher form of Greek than in that of Peter's writings. While maintaining the fact that Scripture is without error, we as readers cannot demand of scripture what it does not offer; we call this Irenic Inerrancy. One must allow the Scriptures to speak to the discrepancies within itself. One must not ask of Scripture what it doesn't ask of itself. I believe that “Scripture itself must determine according to its intent the scope of that inerrancy [Bounds].”
I have chosen for, this paper, to operate under the methodology laid out for me in my Theology course. Founding all of my understanding on the Holy Scriptures, knowing it is not only enough, but is in fact beyond sufficient for all pursuits of knowledge. Yet it is apparent upon the study of Scripture to discover that it is in fact not as clear as we would like it to be. I describe the tools for understanding this way. The Canon is the foundation, solid and unshakable, fully sufficient. Upon that is the work of those great saints that have gone before us. It is said that “if we are able to see further than those that have predated us it is simply because of the work they built for us to stand on [Bounds].” Thus we see this great Tradition laid for us of the Consensual theology of the Church, that which is understood everywhere, always, and by all. We look to the past on the basis of the law of “proximal authority,” that is those authors living closest to the days of the Apostles must hold the chief weight of our understanding. Next is the communal convictions of my denominational conviction, or my “small t” tradition. This tradition is found in the teachings of the Wesleyan church, and greatly influences the things I do. These traditions in a sense frame a cognitive house upon the foundation of scripture. I then rely on the logical reasoning of my mental facility, which adds walls and windows to this house. Lastly there is this personal experience, different for every person, which gives the personal nature to every home. All of the other elements can almost be arrived at apart from a person, but it is the experience that really finishes off this analogy. You cannot have understanding without each of these pieces, but I believe that the order is what is essential. It is not any individual point, but the whole process, which I believe if deviated from can have devastating consequences. For instance, if experience is what was foundational, you may arrive at the heresy that all roads lead to God because a family member is not following Christianity, a conclusion that is sorely mistaken. Or if you were to focus on tradition you would be the type of person Jesus preaches against in every message against the lives of the Pharisees. There is an order and a rhythm to understanding that we must learn. This rhythm is known as the Wesleyan Quadrilateral, and is the hierarchical ordering of these four pieces of methodology. The Apostles' Creed is the principal Tradition text that I will be working with.
The Apostle's Creed I believe in God, the Father Almighty, Creator of heaven and earth, and in Jesus Christ, His only Son, our Lord. Who was conceived of the Holy Spirit, born of the Virgin Mary, suffered under Pontius Pilate, crucified, dead, and buried. He descended to the dead. The third day He arose again from the dead. He ascended into heaven and sits at the right hand of God the Father Almighty, from thence He shall come to judge the quick and the dead. I believe in the Holy Spirit, the holy catholic church, the communion of saints, the forgiveness of sins, the resurrection of the body, and life everlasting. Amen
The Creed creates the framework for Tradition, and grants a call to create a comprehensive coherent account of the Christian faith [Bounds]. As traditionally explained the Apostles' Creed is split into twelve articles. Each one has been systematized and will be addressed accordingly. There is a very specific order to the Creed. For instance, God is referred to as the “Father Almighty.” The word Father is the principal modifier to His being almighty, that is, He is first father, and then omnipotent. God's character informs His will. God cannot act against the character of God. We call this “Divine Command Theory,” His character limits His will. The understanding that His power is qualified by His identification as Father, is essential to many of the understandings that will be dealt with, thus we see that the exact wording is important. The history of theology can in many ways be traced back to the widespread memorization, recitation, and examination of the Apostles' Creed. It allows even the most uneducated of people to succinctly communicate orthodox Christian beliefs. While the Creed does not concretely establish the deity of Christ, the full understanding of the Trinity comes to us eventually, and the Apostles' Creed is still the foundational theological text. There are a number of disciplines of Systematic Theology that will be defined as well, although great detail will only be paid to that of Theodicy as it pertains to the understanding of the work of God, bearing in mind that every discipline mentioned is deserving of an entire paper, perhaps later in my life. All of this however, is of naught if not for the call of theology to change the Christian's life, to apply Christian Faith to contemporary life [Bounds]. On that note, it must be understood that the Truth is meant to be interpreted in the context of of community, implying a Christian's right relationship to the Church as essential to their growth.
Theism: monotheistic belief that “conceives of God as personal and active in the governance and organization of the world and the universe. The use of the word theism as indicating a particular doctrine of monotheism arose in the wake of the scientific revolution of the seventeenth century to contrast with the then emerging deism which contended that God — though transcendent and supreme — did not intervene in the natural world and could be known rationally but not via revelation [Orr, English Deism: Its Roots and Its Fruits, p. 234].”
Amid the anti-denominational war we see a cry from the post-modern everyman; we want to understand transcendent universal truth. Post-moderns want to know what has been true across the vastness of the Christian tradition, and not the petty doctrinal disputes between sects. We want to be a part of something that makes a difference and that is bigger than ourselves. We want to be a part of something authentic. Where people aren't involved in scandal, or where nobody is fleecing us for our “own good.” Post-moderns can see a fake a mile off, we know when somebody is insincere, and we have no patience for us. There is this attitude I feel in every group of post-modern adolescents that screams for sincerity. Out of this we hear a call, a plea for teachers of good Orthodox theology. We want to know the truth, beyond the opinion. We are a part of the swing of the pendulum back to that which is held the most dear by the Church. We discover this brilliant teaching from Vincentius, a Gaul, wrote a treatise outlining the problems with Augustine's view of predestination called “the Commonitory.” He outlines an operating principal for the acquisition of theological understanding that I will embrace for all of my future academic pursuits. In order for us to fortify our minds against heresy and pop-theology we must look first to Scripture, and next to the Tradition of the Church; that which is universal, has been held by antiquity, and is consensual among believers. I will endeavor to delve into the vast pool of theology and to portray my understanding of its nature to the best of my ability. One of the more interesting parts of my theological journey is simply the early years of my interest. I started my reading in my bedroom, apart from society. Whenever I would try to talk about it I was met with a consistent lack of interest. So frustrated I became with this that I internalized all of my thoughts. Untempered by society, and uncorrected by people of superior intellect my understandings remained narrow, and shallow. It wasn't until my time at Indiana Wesleyan that I finally felt encouraged, being able to discuss and ask deep questions. It has served as an invaluable part of my understanding of what it means to wrestle with theology. I have come to the understanding that theology is meant to be discovered in the context of community. That it is supposed to be discussed and corrected if one is to really learn and excel. With these understandings I would like to state my intent for this paper. I am departing on a literary journey to accomplish four ends. First, to participate in the great conversation of theology, thus creating a framework by which to both teach those of lesser understanding, and to seek correction and guidance from those of higher understanding. Secondly, to create a reference point to steer my future theological pursuits. Thirdly, I aim to bring clarity to my systematic understanding, to be able to clearly convey the principles of theology in a coherent manor, and to create stock verbiage to use in my local church ministry. Lastly, but most importantly is to bring more strength and love to my relationship with God, the author and perfecter of our faith.
We find ourselves today in a world torn between two approaches to truth; modernity and post-modernity. My parents generation was part of an epic struggle to refute all the things of the Great Generation, from morality, to their approach on all things scientific and philosophical. They thew out church liturgy, music, and everything else that echoed of old. My generation now finds itself in a precarious scenario; we have no history, nor direction. See in the midst of burning everything that has formed society over the generations, the modernists threw out everything that gave value to culture. My generation is left with the aftermath of the decisions of the modernists. Thus we, the post-moderns, have been scattered in every direction, having no semblance of connection. The ramifications of this are evident on the front page of every newspaper, and in the captions of every newscast. The fascinating thing about this is that in trying to create a world for their children, free of the tyrannies of past generations, the modernists have made children that crave those very tyrannies. I find myself a part of a world that wants to belong to the vastness of history, a generation that longs to find truth, and to join in the time line of this world. In a way our parents never thought possible we are embracing hymns, and longing for the next arrangement of a classical song, updated in our chords, and dripping with theological strength. Churches everywhere are beginning “liturgical services,” because they provide us with stability. The linear approach of our parents is obsolete. A pastor that preaches “ten ways to get your life on track” will be thought trite and self-righteous. The students in today's world want pastors that will ask big questions, and stand in the muck and mire of this world with us. We want to know scripture, but not just the scriptures, we want to know the Hebrew, Greek, and context. I come from a worldview that thirsts to swim in the deep streams of life, and longs in all ways to make a true lasting difference.
I come from western Michigan, an area wrought by a homogenous religious culture. Five out of six congregations come from a Calvinistic background, and are so intrenched in tradition, that nobody understands the need and call for evangelism. This fact is interesting because my church has what I call hyper-evangelistic theology. I've spent most of my childhood learning how to reach my classmates for Christ, while never in fact learning much about Him. I am embarrassed to say that I came to school here with far less Biblical and theological understanding than I care to admit. You see, I was so well trained to win new followers, that I never really looked at what I was winning them to...
I also come from what I would call a hyper-conservative environment. A tradition of people that are trained to take everything at face value, to never doubt the pastor, and to take every letter of the Word as unquestionable truth. We explored in class the subject of innerancy, as a three divisions, but I would say I came from a place even more extreme, a scriptural view that the Bible is innerant, and our brains our too simple to understand any of it, and thus we should not even try to rationalize the apparent contradictions.
My generation also comes from a culture rife with pop-theology. Authors like John Piper, Brian MacLarren, and Joel Osting preach concepts that are enticing at first glance, but are horrendous in implication. Ideas that God wills people to hell, that God is not just, and that all God wants of us is our happiness. We need to know the truth, and to understand the true meaning of what it is to be a disciple of Christ.
“Then God said, 'let us make man in our image, after our likeness. And let them have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the heavens and over the livestock and over all the earth and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth.' So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them.”
Genesis 1:26-27 [NIV]
The first two chapters of Genesis are loaded with symbolism, meaning, and the foundations of theology. For instance; by the second verse the discussion of the Trinity is begun (Genesis 1:2 “and the Rûwach of God” or the Spirit of God), by verse four we see the original state of creation (it was good), and we have the cosmological framework for time set up. The rest of this creation story is equally pregnant with essentials of the conversation of God's interaction with His creation. There are two events in the first five chapters of Genesis that are written about more than any other; the creation account, and the fall of humanity. Sandwiched, however, in the middle of these two principals is the story of the creation of man, that is mankind (the Hebrew word for man, adam is the generic term for mankind and becomes the proper name Adam [Archaeological Study Bible, p.5]), but specifically the creation of woman, and her place in the created order. It is one of the most pressing issues in the life of the Church, and one that I believe is widely misconceived. It is the intent of this discourse to articulate the innate equality of women in the site of God in creation, the hierarchical consequences of the fall, and the plan of God on earth to reconcile creation from the moment of the fall all the way through the salvific Christological act. As a Christian, operating out of a Christocentric philosophy, we see the scripture in light of Christ's coming, and the teaching He delivered. In Matthew 22:36-40 Jesus says that the entirety of Scripture revolves around people; loving God, and loving each other. Scripture then in the eyes of Jesus is a redemption narrative, restoring His creation to right relationship with each other and Himself, at any cost. A compilation of verses from Deuteronomy and Numbers from the Torah is the most obvious source for Jesus' quotation, but we must look back further.
Jesus operated in what is known as a Talmudic interpretation [Young, Jesus the Jewish Theologian, p144] of scripture, which means that He was not only well versed in the Scriptures, but also in the recorded rabbinic discussions of His day. One of the common practices of a Talmudic rabbi, like Jesus, was to look to the principal of first mention [Fergussen, Wright, Packer, New Dictionary of Theology, p44], which calls into question the first place in Scripture where a given principal or understanding is born. Where was the idea of the relationship between God and mankind formed, and how is mankind to interact? We look to the Genesis Creation Narrative to find the answers to this question. In Genesis 1:27 God creates mankind. Now, mankind was created very specifically last, and in a very special way. We learn that mankind was created in the image an likeness of God. An early heresy dispelled was that God exists as both male, and female, which is simply not true, but rather that the Godhead exists in community. The Godhead exists in trinity, and each person has infinite love toward both of the other persons. If God did not exist triunely His love would have been egocentric in nature, something we know not to be true. Thus we see, reflected in the relationship of the Godhead, the love meant by God in creation. The maleness and femaleness of the people, is a reflection of the image of the Godhead [Oden, The Living God, Systematic Theology: Volume I, p.181]. We see this beautiful language set up in Genesis 2:24 where two whole people, become one whole person. While it is not a direct correlation, it is very symbolic of the distinction and oneness of God. There is this equality set up in the persons of mankind. Apart from one another they do not reflect the Godhead.
Its interesting to learn that Genesis is the only ancient creation narrative, of which there are many, that talks about the creation of woman. From its onset the one true God is wanting to communicate the equality of humanity “This is the only full account of the creation of woman in all of ancient Near East literature [ASB, p7].” We have this understanding that the God of the Old Testament is the only true God, not that He is greater than other gods, but that no other God exists. In the current of what is then the one true creation narrative we find that God created man and female equal. There is a thread in the scholastic communities that explains the creation of Eve. The etymology of the word rib in Hebrew is the same root of the word center, and they are often used interchangeable in the ancient world. Thus we note that in taking a rib of Adam's, God is symbolically showing that Eve is taken from the very center of what it is to be man. This thread of understanding states that it is important to realize that she was not made by man's head, the source of the man's power, that she might be ruled or lorded over by him. It is also important to see that she was not created from his feet, to be trampled by him [Walton, Matthews, Chavalas, The IVP Bible Background Commentary: Old Testament, p. 28]. In this teaching we see the intentionality of God. This is eventually expounded upon with verse 23 “This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh [NIV].” Adam was not only saying that she was one with him, she was saying so much more. To a Jew bone was the strongest part of a person, and flesh, the weakest. Woman was man's strength, and his weakness. Back in verse 18 it says “I will make a helper suitable for him [NIV].” In his sermon titled “Sex by Design,” Peter Yoshonis points out that the word used for helper here is the word 'êzer, a word that is most often used to describe God (see Psalm 33:20 “Our soul waits for the LORD; He is our 'êzer and our shield [ESV].”). Woman was not meant to be man's petty servant, but in the likeness of God, was meant to be the strength of man. There is this sense, buried in the Genesis narrative, that mankind can only exist as male and female, that it would be incomplete and fragmented if either gender were to be missing, or unequal.
By the third chapter of Genesis however everything is about to change...
“Now the serpent was more crafty than any beast of the field which the LORD God had made. And he said to the woman, "Indeed, has God said, 'You shall not eat from any tree of the garden'?" The woman said to the serpent, "From the fruit of the trees of the garden we may eat; but from the fruit of the tree which is in the middle of the garden, God has said, 'You shall not eat from it or touch it, or you will die.' "The serpent said to the woman, "You surely will not die! "For God knows that in the day you eat from it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil.”
Genesis 3:1-5 [NASB]
The Genesis Fall is classically understood from two theological principals that we glean from St. Augustine of Hippo. He states first that because only good was created in Genesis that evil is in fact not created but rather a brokenness of the good, we call this notion privation of the good [Augustine, Enchiridion of Augustine]. We know that man was both created in the image and likeness of God, and is thus meant to be like God, as well as meant to appreciate beauty. We see the serpent of Genesis 3 using the way mankind was created to twist the good creation of God. This privation was accomplished by telling Eve that she would be like God, and by calling attention to the inherent beauty and utility of the fruit. The act of creation was change, because it had not previously existed (the dotrine of ex nihilo creation [Aug., Ench. p.35]), and thus because it was changed, it was able to be changed; which it was. One of the things that is interesting to note is that until the fall man and woman enjoyed a beautiful sense of equality. Enter the fall, we see a tragic repercussion; as a result of the fall a new hierarchy began within the life of humanity. “...Your desire will be for your husband, and he will rule over you [Genesis 3:16, NIV].” No longer was man and woman existing in a state of equality, but this divisive order had begun, that has continued into this day.
If one were to look at history, one would observe the lack of attention paid to women. They are not included in stories, not valued by political leaders, not regarded for opinion, and not allowed to be educated in almost every past civilization. They have no place in government, no position in the home, no property, no voice.
Yet there is this glimmer of hope. Immediately following what has become known as the Curse a radical turn is taken in the tone of God toward humanity; a tone that savors strongly of the first two chapters of Genesis. “The Lord God made garments of skin for Adam and his wife and clothed them [Genesis 3:21].” It is impossible to define the nature of God – it is far too complex, and lofty for our minds. However we learn certain things of God from His word, among them is that God is immediately compelled to reconcile His creation to Himself once it has fallen. We entered into a sinful and depraved existence at birth, but part of the salvific act of Christ is that God longs to reconcile us to right relationship; made apparent from the foundations of time. We see this call to the restoration of gender equality from the very first story in the Bible. God was at work in the lives of women all throughout the Old Testament. The lives of Deborah, Ruth, and Esther prove that God left no room for women to remain at the bottom of the hierarchical system. All of these point to the eventual coming of the Messiah, where all things would be made right again. The belief of the Jews throughout the entirety of the Old Testament was that God would be at work in His creation, through His Messiah, restoring the world. It is also important to note that at the time when most of the Old Testament was written Jews had a very weak understanding of the afterlife. This concept grew over time to the current theological interpretation we have today, but to a Jew in the Old Testament, they expected the changes the Messiah brought to be for that point in history. That the redemption of creation was meant to happen in this lifetime, not in the next. Thus when many people argue that equality, and sanctification are only dreams, able only to be actualized in death, they are sorely mistaken, and in grievously poor exegesis of Scripture.
In conclusion it must be understood that from the beginning of creation - mankind was meant to exist in a state of equality, that inequality was merely a result of the fall, and that the restoration of Biblical gender equality is meant to be achieved in this lifetime. All persons must be doing their part to inform and propagate the equality of genders. This is accomplished by a personal commitment to reform your perception of gender, and by a fervent effort to reform that of others. Everyone must be at work in the act of redeeming and restoring the woman of the Church.
Reflection: I began this research paper as a look into God's design for sex, and it really morphed as I progressed. The Wesleyan Church has always taken a strong stance on the elevation of women to roles of pastoral leadership, and in the world at large. They architected, and actualized much of woman's suffrage and helped women to achieve the place they currently enjoy. The work is hardly over. I saw this deep need to research, and to portray the original respect of woman. One of the things that stuck out to me so intensely was that inequality was a result of the fall. Dr. Chris Bounds spoke in class one day about the fact that God, by nature, MUST in fact move to redeem. It is as though one component of who God is, is redemption. This paper helped to make the idea of woman in ministry that much more simple to me. A precedent was set in Genesis as to God's heart for woman, one that continues forever.
Works Cited:
“The Holy Bible: New International Version,” International Bible Society, copyright 1973,1978, 1984 a.d.
“New Dictionary of Theology”Sinclair B. Fergussen; David F Wright, J.I. Packer. Downers Grove, Illinois. Inter Varsity Press. 1988 a.d.
“Archaeological Study Bible, an illustrated walk through Biblical History and culture.” Grand Rapids, Michigan. Zondervan Publishers, 2005 a.d.
“Strong's Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible.” by James Strong. Madison, N.J. World Bible Publishers Inc. 1986 a.d.
“The IVP Bible Background Commentary: Old Testament” by John H. Walton, Victor H. Matthews, and Mark W. Chavalas. Downers Grove, Illinois. Inter Varsity Press. 2000 a.d.
“Jesus the Jewish Theologian” by Brad Young. Ann Arbor, Michigan. Hendrickson Publishers. 1995 a.d.
“The Living God, Systematic Theology: Volume 1,” second edition. By Thomas Oden. Peabody, Massachusetts. Hendrickson Publishers Inc. 2008 a.d.
