reason.cck.org.uk

"In your hearts honour Christ the Lord as holy, always being prepared to make a defense to anyone who asks you for a reason for the hope that is in you..." The Bible

In the final part of this trilogy of articles we will be considering what it means to be ‘a helper’ and whether all that we have discussed in the previous two articles is relevant today, or should this be adapted for cultural reasons?

To view the previous two articles on this subject please click here.

Specific role for women: Helper

When God created woman it is recorded that God said: ‘It is not good that the man should be alone, I will make a helper fit for (or corresponding to) him’ (Genesis 2:18). The original Hebrew (the language the Old Testament is translated from) for ‘helper’ is ‘ezer kenegdo’ in Genesis 2:18 could literally be translated as ‘a helper as corresponding to/opposite him’ from ‘ezer’ (help), ‘ke-‘ (as, like), ‘neged’ (opposite, corresponding to), ‘-o’ (him). ‘A helper opposite and corresponding’ to Adam is a good translation.

Therefore Eve was not inferior to Adam. The fact that the word ‘help’ (ezer) is often used to refer to an action of God is interesting, and illustrates the fact that both male and female roles derive from God. For example:

‘And I will ask the Father, and he will give you another Helper, to be with you forever, even the Spirit of truth (Third member of the Trinity)’ (John 14:16-17)

The job title given to women is also used to describe a characteristic of God. It is critical to understand this, to be a helper is to do as God does; the role should be held in high esteem. Feminist theologian Phyllis Trible expounds this idea in her article Feminist Hermeneutics and Biblical Studies (See footnote below). Women are to ‘come along side’, engage with the life of the church and support a broad range of activities within the church, as mentioned in the first article.

But surely culture has changed now?

Many parts of the Bible were written within a cultural context in which women were considered second-class citizens. Some have argued, from this basis, that the Bible’s views on men and women correspond to the culture in which it was written, rather than be part of God’s revelation. The argument follows that we have now evolved into an increasingly tolerant and equal society, and therefore we should ignore those sections of the Bible that teach about the differences between the sexes. This argument has had great influence in both Christian and non-Christian circles.

Firstly, does the Bible really assert inequality between the sexes? It is true that the Bible was written in a patriarchal society, but in contrast, the Biblical view of men and women was highly innovative in its day because of its inherent respect for women (John 4:1-26, Galatians 3:28). The Bible clashed with the culture of its day on these issues; it did not reflect it.

It is also true that the Bible is often descriptive, instead of prescriptive. For example, the Bible records events that involve slavery and war. The fact that the Bible records these happenings does not mean that the Bible endorses those things, but rather that they were common occurrences in those times (and now). Therefore, for some evils, it is true that the Bible mentions them and treats them as existent; however, they exist because of a result of human choice. As such, before humanity chose to reject God, evil did not exist. We find, in comparison to war and slavery, that the complementary nature (and thus differences) between the sexes were part of God’s creational standard at the beginning. In other words, the differences between men and women are good, and were not a product of human choice or culture. It is only a distortion of these roles as enforced by centuries of heavy-handed patriarchy that has encouraged us to throw the baby out with the bath water; to reject our differences and equate the concept of gender distinctions with sexism. This is also supported by the Bible; when discussing the role of women in the church, Paul appeals to creation rather than culture (1 Timothy 2 11-14).

Does this mean that men have a superior role than women in the church?

To place different value and worth on one role above another; to elevate one as being ‘better’ than the other, is to make a critical, and potentially dangerous, mistake. This is an understandable result of interpreting the Bible through the lens of our western secular thinking. However, it does not take into consideration the fact that equality does not necessitate men and women being identical and indistinguishable. The emphasis in biblical teaching is on the equality of men and women, and their equal standing before God. The functions given them by God, though important, are of a lesser concern, and are based on love and mutual servanthood. A man who is an elder, or even a married man, may be considered, and correctly so, to have an authority not open to women, but biblical relationships are build on our mutual equality, and therefore that authority should be a means by which to honour women, not to rule them. Likewise, the exercise of authority within the church should not produce power struggle, or hierarchy that benefits only those who are in eldership; but rather, a social structure that is designed to better care for all members of the Church. This follows Jesus’ view of leadership, namely a commission to serve others and not to be served.

Further reading supporting the view represented in this article:

1. Piper, John., Grudem, Wayne., (Editors), Recovering Biblical Manhood and Womanhood; A Response to Evangelical Feminism, Crossway books,1991

2. Audio Talk: ‘Isn’t the Bible sexist and out of date?’, Amy Orr-Ewing: http://www.bethinking.org/bible-jesus/isnt-the-bible-sexist-and-out-of-date.htm

3. James, Sharon., An Overview of Feminist Theology: http://www.theologynetwork.org/studying-theologyrs/an-overview-of-feminist-theology.htm

4. One of the main websites containing many articles supporting Complementarianism: http://www.cbmw.org/Articles

5. Peterman, Eric., Galatians 3:28 and Evangelical Egalitarianism: http://www.valleybiblefellowship.org/papers/galatians%203,28%20and%20evangelical%20egalitarianism.htm

6. Heck, D, V., The Philosophy of Women’s Ministry in the Local Church: http://www.grace4u.org/Topical/WomeninMinisty.htm

For articles on Egalitarianism:

1. One of the main websites that contains many articles supporting egalitarianism: http://www.cbeinternational.org/

2. Pierce, Ronald., Clarity, Charity and Confrontation in the Evangelical Gender Debate: http://www.catalystresources.org/issues/322pierce.html

3. Moore, Russell., After Patriarchy, What? Why Egalitarians are Winning the Evangelical Gender Debate: http://www.thedivineconspiracy.org/Z5209O.pdf

Feminist theology:

1. Young, Sally., Is Judith Butler’s approach to gender politics an improvement on previous form of feminism?: http://www.theory.org.uk/ctr-b-e1htm

2. Fiorenza, Elisabeth., ABSTRACT: http://www.pinn.net/~sunshine/book-sum/sf1.html and http://www.theology.ie/theologians/schuessler.htm

3. Trible, Phyllis., Feminist Hermeneutics and Biblical Studies, http://www.religion-online.org/showarticle.asp?title=1281

Tweet This  

In our previous article on this subject from December 2009, the Christian view of men and women was discussed, and their equal standing before God and each other. In the next two articles the nature and relationship between spiritual and functional equality will be developed; this article focussing on the role of men. Within the evangelical church today people take different theological positions on this matter, generally falling into two camps; Complementarianism (Often called Subordinationism by those opposed) and Egalitarianism. The objective of this text is not to create an in-depth comparative study between the two (if you wish to research the topics, I have supplied links at the end of Part 3), but to present a coherent summary of the biblical teaching regarding the role of men, considering the relevant biblical passages in context historically, and within the Bible as a whole.

Governing the church

There are some distinctive roles that women and men have been given as gender-specific. The Bible teaches that men only should be church ‘elders’, ‘governors’ or the like (Christians call them by different names). The most obvious passage of scripture supporting male eldership is 1 Timothy 2: 8-15. As I have mentioned in my previous article, the basis for gender distinction and differing roles derives from the Godhead. It is a profound thing, that such diversity of roles and equality of status exist within the Godhead, and the differences between us, as equal human beings, should likewise be celebrated.

In light of this, it should not be surprising that there are differences between the sexes. One such difference in role identified in scripture is that certain men have been given the task of caring for the church as leaders. As church governors, elders should be serving the church, not creating a dictatorship. The roles and hierarchy within the Godhead are not the result of a power struggle, and neither should it be so in the church, as Jesus says:

‘You know that those who are regarded as rulers of the Gentiles (non-Jews) lord it over them, and their high officials exercise authority over them. Not so with you. Instead, whoever wants to become great among you must be your servant, and whoever wants to be first must be slave of all. For even the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many.’ (Mark 10:42-45)

It should also be noted: men in general are not to be leading the church, only those men that have been given that responsibility. For example, a man who is not an elder would not have the right to exercise authority over other men or women in the congregation, just because of his gender.

Women and leadership

Conversely, women are not prevented from all leadership capacities on the basis of 1 Timothy 2: 8-15, for that assumption would contradict other passages that affirm women leaders, for example: Romans 16: 3-4, 6, 12, Acts 18: 24-26, Luke 1: 46-56. In Romans 16: 1-2 a woman called Phoebe is commended by Paul to the church in Rome, he says that she is a Patron of the church. A Patron is a person who supports another person or institution financially, or through other types of service. Phoebe is recognised as a woman who served the church in this way, and as a result became a notable figure, worthy of recognition.

Another role available to women from the time of the early church up until this day have become Deaconesses. A Deacon is a church leader, who helped the elders care for the congregation and the poor. Extra biblical historical records support the institution of Deaconesses, as Pliny the Younger (Governor of Bithynia in Asia Minor A.D. 112) writes as an opponent of early Christianity to the Emperor concerning the correct inflictions appropriate for Christians:

‘. . . This made me decide it was all the more necessary to extract the truth by torture from two slave-women, who they (Christians) called deaconesses . . .’ (Translation found in: Strobel, Lee The Case or Christ, Zondervan, 1998, Chapter 4, pp. 83-84)

Within Marriage

Likewise, within marriage men and women have different roles. The man is to love and serve his wife as Christ loves and serves the church (Ephesians 5:25-30). This type of leadership is very different from the common understanding of male ‘headship’, and it is due to this misconception that the roles of men and women in the church today have been so devastatingly misunderstood. This type of leadership should be governed by a love like that which Christ showed the church, a love that caused him to give up his life for her.

Some have argued, such as feminist theologians Elisabeth Schussler Fiorenza, Phyllis Trible and Sallie McFague, that this social structure leads inevitably to men ruling their wives as if they were their property. Unfortunately, this is exactly what has happened in the past (see Part 3 next week, subheading: but surely culture has changed now?). Men have used their position as ‘protector’, ‘servant’ and ‘leader’, and distorted it to become ‘ruler’ and ‘dictator’. However in such circumstances the man is in direct violation of scripture and it would be the duty of the church leaders to remind him of his biblical responsibilities. The misconception and misuse of the male role has consequently led to the dismissal of any kind of ‘traditional’ views of men. Although heavy-handed patriarchy should be challenged, the Biblical teaching on men reveals a type of leadership that should honour, respect and love women in a way that does not inhibit them, but rather, promote them.

In the next article, I will look at the role of women and discuss whether or not the differences between the sexes are inherent or culturally manipulated.

To view the first article in this series click here.

Tweet This  

Originally there was only one Church, founded by the apostles. This was, from time to time, challenged by various groups who claimed to represent ‘true’ Christianity, but which rejected key teachings of the faith, an issue which I hope to touch on below. In 1054 A.D. the Church split into Eastern (Orthodox) and Western (Catholic) churches due to divisions over the precise relationship of the Holy Spirit to the other persons of the Trinity (the Filioque controversy) and the authority of the Pope/Bishop of Rome. The Western church was further split into Roman Catholics and Protestants at the time of the Reformation, and splits along denominational lines (especially among Protestants) have continued ever since. It could be argued that this disunity is a barrier to the credibility of the Christian message.

Not all disagreements are of equal importance

However, it should be noted that not all disagreements between different denominations are of equal importance. Many simply reflect different cultural practices or historical traditions rather than the core teachings of the faith. There are some doctrines, such as the Resurrection of Jesus Christ which are essential (see 1 Corinthians 15:17). Others, such as whether Christ will reign for a thousand years on the earth (or whether the church age is that reign), while by no means trivial, do not have that central status.

Creeds and confessions

Historically, the Church has identified its core teachings in various statements of belief, called creeds (from the Latin credo, I believe), mostly written in order to defend particular important beliefs which were being controverted by opponents. The main creedal statements (all written prior to the East-West schism) are the Apostles Creed (which developed from the confession of faith recited by new converts at their baptism in the early Church), the Creed of Nicaea (325 A.D.), the Niceno-Constantinopolitan Creed - more commonly known as the Nicene Creed – (381 A.D.), the Definition of Chalcedon (451 A.D.) and the Quicumque Vult, more commonly known as the Athanasian Creed, which dates from the 5th century A.D.  The teaching of these documents forms the core of what C. S. Lewis termed ‘mere Christianity’ which all Christians who hold to the historic faith would maintain.

The later confessions of various denominations, written after the divisions described above, such as the Thirty-Nine Articles of the Church of England, the Confession of Augsburg, the Westminster Confession, and so on, all reflect, along with their own denominational emphases, the core teachings of the early Church, as summarised in the creeds. Even in areas of dispute, such as the manner and meaning of the sacraments/ordinances of baptism and the Lord’s Supper, there is a core of agreement which most churches would accept.

Within evangelical churches, in particular, there is a further emphasis on the central message of the gospel, the need of sinful human beings for forgiveness and freedom from the power and penalty of sin, the atoning sacrifice of Christ on the cross for sinners, and the free gift of salvation offered to all who repent (i.e. change their mind and turn away) from sin and put their trust in Jesus Christ. Given the centrality of the gospel, it is worth noting the Joint Statement on Justification issued by the Roman Catholic Church and the Lutheran Church in 1999, which underlines the point that here also, as in other areas, there is a core of agreement across denominational lines.

Faith and morals

In addition to doctrinal unity on the more important teachings of the Christian faith, there is also a great deal of agreement on the moral implications of the Christian faith, both in terms of what it means for our individual lives (e.g. sexual morals, spiritual disciplines) as well as our social morality (e.g. the relief of poverty, social justice). Although we are not saved by doing good works (this is not taught by Scripture, and, as Catholic writer Peter Kreeft noted in his book, Fundamentals of the Faith, who wants to be loved as someone else’s “good deed for the day” anyway?), the New Testament consistently teaches that genuine faith results in a changed life. It is only “faith working through love” which saves us (Galatians 5:6) and not mere assent to doctrinal statements. As a result of this underlying unity, it is often possible for Christian churches of different denominations to work together on issues.

Holding on to the faith

Of course, there is a temptation, particularly in the individualistic West, to underemphasize unpopular teachings, or beliefs which might open people up to ridicule, such as those relating to the final judgment, or eternal life in a renewed creation. While it is understandable for people to not want to give needless offence, not all differences of belief and practice are trivial, and there comes a point at which the message can be stripped of its historic content to such a degree that it is no longer “Christian” in any meaningful sense of the word.

Unity in relationship with Christ

Finally, it is worth noting that the very heart of the unity of Christendom can be found in our common love and trust in the risen Lord Jesus Christ, the incarnate Son of God. One of the main reasons behind the creedal statements on the person and work of Christ is the conviction that the Jesus Christ of the Bible saves people from sin and hell, whereas false christs do not. All Christians, across denominational boundaries, believe in Jesus Christ and seek to live their lives for him.

Further reading

Philip Schaff, The Creeds of Christendom, contains the texts of the major creeds in the original languages with notes and English translations. Some links are included below:

•         The Apostles’ Creed (http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/creeds2.iv.i.i.i.html)

•         The Nicene Creed (Greek)(http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/creeds2.iv.i.ii.i.html)

•         The Nicene Creed (Latin) (http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/creeds2.iv.i.ii.ii.html)

•         The Athanasian Creed (http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/creeds2.iv.i.iv.html)

The Joint Declaration on Justification can be found on the Vatican website, at the link below:

http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/chrstuni/documents/rc_pc_chrstuni_doc_31101999_cath-luth-joint-declaration_en.html

Tweet This  

Bad Experience?

This is a commonly asked question, which often betrays a pre-supposition: having to go to church is tantamount to a life sentence in prison. Many people like the idea of a personal connection with God, but that’s my experience, right? What does my spirituality have to do with a load of other strangers?

There may be many reasons that you could think that. It could be that you were brought up going to a church which frankly made joining a crown green bowling club seem exciting (I can relate!!). It might be that you had a bad experience with some Christians before, that left you feeling hurt or rejected. Does this mean you should reject church for good?

In our modern day cynicism, alot of people get very scared about the idea of leadership; what does it mean that people are ‘in authority’ over me? That may trouble us - what will these people ask of me, they may want my time, talents and money? I can understand some of these concerns but whatever your experience (or lack of one) we need to take a look at what the bible says, rather than allowing our feelings or 1 or 2 previous bad experiences set our course instead.

Being a Christian

I need to be very clear at the outset that going to church does not make you a Christian, in the same way that being sat in a pub does not make me a pint of lager. We don’t just become a Christian by association, but we need to recognise our need to respond to Jesus individually. He has laid down his life, to pay off our debt to God. Ephesians 2:8-9 says that we become Christians because of a free gift that God has given us, through Jesus Christ. We do not contribute anything to God’s favour by coming along to church, or any other perceived good behaviour. It is unmerited favour, there is nothing we can do to get God to love us anymore than he does already! You need to make that choice to accept Christ’s work done on your behalf though (Romans 10:9).

Find out more about what it means to become a Christian here.

The Body of Christ

Despite the fact that a relationship with God is something to be enjoyed and accepted on a personal level, we are actually part of something much greater than this. 1 Peter 2:5 teaches us that we are ‘living stones’ as part of God’s house. Some of you may have been brought up to think that the church is the old looking building that people meet in. It really isn’t, it’s the people that God has brought into relationship with him. 1 Peter 2:9-10 reminds us that God is bringing together a people for himself, to bring glory to his name. You are a part of this!

God has made us all as different individuals with different talents. In 1 Corinthians 12 Paul reasons that we are like different parts of the same body, with skills to use. If parts of the body like an eye or a foot are missing then the body does not function to its fullest effect. Whatever gifts you have been given by God (You may not even know what yours is yet) as a church body we need your gift to become a stronger and more mature church like God wants us to be. Don’t deceive yourself, you have something to offer and it really matters. Whether you walk into a church which looks slick and is running amazingly, or a small one, God has particular things for you to do.

Become sharp

Christian life was never meant to be lived out on your own as we are reminded in scripture (Hebrews 10:25). We need other believers to spur us on in our faith, and to become mature people who know and are passionate about Jesus.

Wayne Rooney is a supremely gifted footballer as an individual, but ultimately he plays for Manchester United and England. This is where his true identity as a footballer is found, within a team context. He could play in his own garden, doing keep me ups but he is hardly fulfilling his purpose. How much more he accomplishes when together as part of a team; he wins Champions League trophies, Premier Leagues, FA Cup’s and (hopefully!!) the World Cup. How true this is for us as Christians too. Our spiritual experience is enormously impoverished by isolating ourself from our church family.

I’ve been a Christian for 21 years at the time of writing this and I’m still learning how incredible the God I know is. It really is a lifelong exploit and joy! I have needed other Christians to keep on spurring me on and sharpening me (Proverbs 27:17) along the way. Likewise, these Christians will need you to spur them on, just like you need them too. Conversely, when I have rejected time with other Christians I have seen this passion start to fade, and become a very faded and passive version of what God has made to be. My thinking becomes worldly, and my life becomes totally predictable. That is not a full life that Jesus saved you for.

Church -The passion of Jesus

Jesus is the most passionate person in the universe about the local church. He said ‘I will build my church and the gates of hell will not prevail against it’. In Ephesians 5, we hear that as a corporate body of believers we have become the bride of Christ. Now if you’re a bloke this may sound a bit weird, it may seem like you need to be a girl to appreciate this, but the point is that Jesus died for a people, not just an individual and he is building something significant to testify about him to the world. God wants to show off his different works of art to the world (Eph 2:10) in the form of church, a vast collection of redeemed lives to a broken world.

American Pastor Bill Hybels summarises this vision superbly:

‘I believe that the local church is the hope of the world…If they get it and get on with it, churches can become the redemptive centres that Jesus intended them to be. Dynamic teaching, creative worship, deep community, effective evangelism, and joyful service will combine to …strengthen families, transform communities and change the world.’

God is passionate about building his church, all over the world. It isn’t perfect, there are problems, but he is totally 100% committed to churches built on a foundation of Jesus. It follows that if you are a Christian you too would look to follow Jesus’ teaching, to build his church and make his name famous in the area where you live.

This is not an optional extra for those that are extra keen. We all belong in the local church. This is where we will thrive. It might be that you’ve been away from church for a season, I warmly invite you to consider checking out a good bible believing, Jesus-worshipping church in your area and quickly commit to one.

Looking for a church?

Based in Brighton, like to visit CCK? click here

We belong to the New Frontiers family of churches based all over the world.

There are many other good bible believing churches which are part of the Evangelical Alliance:

Tweet This  

Mulled cider & Love actually

In the last few weeks I have (like everyone else) been preparing for Christmas, and been doing my best to avoid going into Brighton. I have been enjoying that wonderful phenomenon known as online shopping, or more specifically Amazon.com. My wife Jac has also started to fill our home with those classic Christmas tunes again, Band Aid, Mariah Carey and others.

Christmas is a time of year that is associated with many different things for different people. It is often thought of as time to spend with our families and close loves ones. Many others will also crack out ‘Love actually’ on DVD yet again, have a few glasses of mulled wine (or cider ideally), and of course buy one another presents, some of which will no doubt be subtly making there way onto ebay in early January. If any of my family are reading, don’t worry I wouldn’t dream of it!

For others, Christmas may be a time that some will dread for a number of reasons. The struggle to fund sufficient presents, awkward conversations within a fractured family, keeping up appearances for a few days with distant relatives and for some, acute loneliness. Is this as good as we can hope for?

Where does Jesus fit in?

In recent years it may seem surprising that in what is often considered a more secular culture, there have been a number of songs recorded about Jesus by artists such as U2, The Killers, Green Day, Kanye West, REM and even Marilyn Manson. Whatever you think of him, Jesus still occupies a central part of our culture.

Jesus was a remarkable man, and according to a recent survey taken in June 2009 (published in The Daily Telegraph) around 33% of the UK population, say he is the dead person that they would most want to meet, ahead of figures such as Princess Diana, Marilyn Monroe, Shakespeare and Einstein. However, he is more than just a famous dead man. Jesus made some startling claims while he was on earth, he claimed to be God and not just to be a good human moral teacher. As the author CS Lewis writes, ‘he didn’t leave that option open to us, he didn’t intend to.’

Christmas celebrates the time when God put his plan of redemption for the world into action. Jesus voluntarily left behind the glory of heaven, to become a servant for humankind, a sacrifice and a substitute for the wrong we’ve done. As humans we’ve been made as relational people, to experience the joy of love. This love is wonderfully experienced in our personal relationships with one another, but there is an ultimate one that we have been made for, with our creator.

The key doesn’t fit the lock

As people we often talk of a sense of emptiness that there is in our lives, in our quest for meaning and purpose. We try many different things for satisfaction, even good things and try to squeeze them into ultimate things. The key does not fit the lock though. Consider the way that we try to define ourselves and find security and our identity in relationships, friendships, money, musicianship, a sportsman, a lover. None of these things are bad in and of themselves, but they were not designed to be the supreme definition of our lives. How could they? All of these things will come and go, they fade over time. There is only one thing that is truly unfading and will satisfy us completely, found in Jesus Christ.

We are out of sync with God, because we have all gone against him in our lives. We have elected ourselves as the decision maker, the purpose creator and the rock upon which all other things must be built around. This is what the bible calls sin, falling short of his perfect standard, in word, thought and action. The consequence is that we are separated from our perfect holy creator, and because God is just, he can’t just overlook our errors like some modern parents do with a spoilt child. Action needed to be taken.

Descending: God comes to us

Christmas celebrates God coming among us, in the first stage of his mission which would be completed at Easter with Christ’s death and glorious resurrection. He took upon himself the sin of the world, because we can’t earn our way to God. We couldn’t do enough good works and karma to achieve the necessary 100% perfect standard. Religion teaches us to try and ascend to God, Christianity teaches that God descended to us. This is crucial.

Jesus came to earth so that we could experience reconciliation. Jesus is in the business of mending relationships, firstly our relationship with God, but also our relationships with others.

We live in a world full of broken and wounded people who need to experience reconciliation with family members, neighbours and former friends. This is possible only when we see that through Christ justice was accomplished on the cross, sin was paid for, grudges can be dropped, forgiveness can be extended.

Conclusion

More than 2000 years ago, the God-man Jesus Christ came and dirtied himself by getting involved in human culture. He showed that he is not a distant God who created the universe and left it to chance. The incarnation of Christ is the central point of human history. We date our history around him, and history has never been the same since.

Today, consider the impact that the birth of Christ could have on your life. Whatever your situation this year, there is one who knows your every need, who restores relationships, and gives you a complete and unshakeable identity because of his love and compassion for you. He has made himself accessible, will you respond?

If you want to know more, why not come to our Christmas service.

Tweet This  

The Bible and Feminism

The stereotype that Christian women are thought of as second-class citizens in the church has emerged into common thought today. In many ways the source of these suspicions has been generated from outside the Bible. Some influencing factors are, firstly, the consideration that the Bible represents the values of an antiquated society that has now been proved suppressive and disregarded as obsolete. Secondly, the rise of a certain type of feminist theory has destabilised the distinctions between men and women. The assumption of this type of theory is that men and women are not only equal, but are the same. For example, feminist theorist Judith Butler has argued that gender should not be determined by sex, but rather by performance. Therefore, she denies that gender is predetermined by the physical. As such, she believes that equality of persons necessitates the removal of gender distinctions, and thus gender roles are defined subjectively due to one’s taste and preference. The Bible fully endorses one aspect of this feminism, insofar as it supports equality between the sexes. But in contrast, Christianity teaches femininity and masculinity to be different and complementary, and to be celebrated as such.

Women and Men are equal

The Bible makes it very clear that women and men are equal:

‘For all of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ. There is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus.’ (Galatians 3:27-28)

This is because women and men are both made in the image of God (Genesis 1:26-27). Being made in the image of God means that we reflect aspects of God. For example, we create, we use complex language and thought and we have the capacity to love. It also means that we live in community, as God does in the Trinity (Father, Son, and Spirit).

The Trinity and Identity

In many ways the Trinity is beyond the grasp of our mental capacities, but we can see aspects of God’s perfect unity between his diverse persons in the fact that men and women are equal in value, but different. There is Father, Son and Holy Spirit, but all are equally God. We are male and female, and are equally human. Ray Ortlund describes this well:

‘God exists as one Godhead in three persons, equal in glory, but unequal in role. Within the Holy Trinity the Father leads, the Son submits to him, and the Holy Spirit submits to both. But it is also true that the three persons are fully equal in divinity, power, and glory (the ontological Trinity). The Son submits but not because he is God Jr., an inferior deity; the ranking within the Godhead is part of the sublime beauty and logic of true deity. And if our Creator exists in this manner, should we be surprised and offended if his creaturely analogue on earth exists in paradoxical form?’

(Ortund, Raymond, Jr., Male-Female Equality and Male Headship Genesis 1-3, in Recovering Biblical Manhood and Womanhood: A Response to Evangelical Feminism, Ed. Piper, John., Grudem, Wayne., Wheaton, Crossway Books, 1991, p.92)

The roles of men and women in the church are derived from this basis, that we, equal and in complementary relationship, reflect God.

Let’s generalise…

The distinctions between men and women are, in many ways, quite general. The differences between us consist mostly of our proclivities, rather than what we can or cannot do. For many, involvement in the local church does not consist of clear-cut tasks or gender boundaries, such as, traditional stereotypes of women cooking whilst the men discuss theology. There are many overlaps in the roles and duties within the church. For example: leading group activities from small to large, working with the poor, running any sort of Christ-inspired social action (this can be anything from working with young children, to heading up petitions to local and general government), administration, leading worship, writing articles, apologetics, alpha courses, counselling, giving financially, encouraging, and the list could go on and on.

Therefore, men are not considered superior to women in Christianity, as we are all God’s image bearers. The fact that we are, as men and women, in some ways different and possess some gender specific roles is an analogy of the Godhead. One is no better than the other.

In the next article, we will look at this issue with regard to serving within the local church in some more specific areas.

Tweet This  

Introduction

Christians believe that Jesus is the Son of God, and not merely a human teacher. This central idea has long been challenged by opponents of Christianity, and opposition has again, in recent years, come to prominence with the appearance of books such as The Da Vinci Code by Dan Brown.

Jesus was a man

Of course, at the very outset of this discussion, it is worth remembering that Christians also believe that Jesus was a real flesh-and-blood man. There were some early teachers (such as the “Docetists” and “Gnostics”) who denied this, arguing instead that Jesus merely appeared to be human (see, for example, section 93 of the Acts of John). It is curious to see such documents being referred to as evidence of early Christian belief in a merely human Jesus (see, for example, pages 231 and 234 of The Da Vinci Code), when this is something that their authors denied.

The Council of Nicaea of 325 A.D.

At the core of the dispute, however, is the idea that the Council of Nicaea in 325 A.D. voted to make Jesus divine, when, previously, Christians had accepted him as a human teacher. This interpretation of history is largely supported by the Jehovah’s Witnesses and is a key aspect of the storyline of The Da Vinci Code.

The Council of Nicaea consisted of about three hundred bishops (tradition places the number at 318), and was convened by the emperor Constantine the Great in order to end the divisive disputes in the church, which arose from the teaching of Arius. It is interesting to note that only twelve years earlier, the Edict of Milan, issued by Constantine the Great and his eastern counterpart Licinius Augustus, had granted toleration to Christians after centuries of persecution. Many of those who attended the Council of Nicaea had experienced persecution directly during the reigns of the emperors Diocletian and Maximian, and it seems unlikely, having withstood such opposition in the past, that these church leaders would have been easily persuaded to abandon their belief for reasons of political expediency.

The teachings of Arius and the decision of the Council

Before looking at the decision of the Council, it is worth noting that Arius did not actually deny that Christ was, in some sense, divine. It was the nature of his divinity that was in dispute at Nicaea. Is Jesus eternally divine, or is he a lesser, created divinity? All of which is very far from the idea that a human teacher called Jesus was made God by a vote.

The debate centred on whether Christ was of the “same essence” (Greek: homoousious) as the Father, or whether Christ was merely of a “similar essence” (Greek: homoiousios) to the Father, as argued by the Arians. The majority of members of the council were not prepared to compromise on their beliefs, even by a single letter, and overwhelmingly accepted the final text of the Creed of Nicaea (not to be confused with the later Nicene Creed).  Although the character Leigh Teabing in The Da Vinci Code speaks of “a relatively close vote” (page 233ff), there were only two bishops, Thomas of Marmarica, and Secundus of Ptolemais, who refused to accept the creed.

Earlier testimony to the divinity of Christ

In addition to the Creed of Nicaea, there is earlier testimony to the idea that Jesus was considered divine from among second century Christian writers. These include, among others, Irenaeus of Lyon (born early second century A.D.) who, commenting on John 1:1-2, noted that, “That, which is begotten of God, is God” (Adversus Haereses, I.8.5) and Justin Martyr (born circa 100 A.D.), who argued that, “The Father of the universe has a son; who also, being the first-begotten Word of God, is even God.” (First Apology, chapter 63).

There are also hostile witnesses, including the second century pagan author, Lucian of Samosata (born circa 120 A.D.) who wrote about a cynic philosopher (and temporary Christian convert) called Peregrinus, “It was then that he learned the wondrous lore of the Christians, by associating with their priests and scribes in Palestine … next after that other, to be sure, whom they still worship, the man who was crucified in Palestine because he introduced this new cult into the world.” (The Passing of Peregrinus, section 11). Other pagan authors, such as Hiercoles and Celsus, also mocked the idea of Jesus being worshipped, and it is hard to understand why they would have done so if he had only been made divine by a vote in the 4th century.

Furthermore, while there is not space in this article to consider this point in any detail, the considerable testimony of the New Testament itself to the divinity of Christ should also be borne in mind (see, for example, John 1:1, John 5:18, John 20:28, Romans 9:5, I Corinthians 8:6, Colossians 2:9, Titus 2:13 etc.). In this context, it is worth remembering that there are many early manuscript copies of the New Testament, or portions of it, including manuscripts which pre-date the Council of Nicaea.

Conclusion

I would argue therefore, that there is clear historical evidence to show that belief in Jesus as both fully human and fully divine is very far from being a 4th century invention, decided by the vote of a council. Rather, the followers of Jesus, from the very beginning, have acknowledged him to be, what he claimed to be, the eternal Word of God come in the flesh.

Suggested further reading:

J. Ed. Komoszewski et al., “Re-inventing Jesus”, especially chapters 14 – 15.

Carl E. Olson et al., “The Da Vinci Hoax”, especially chapter 4.

Tweet This  

Surely one of the most misunderstood things in the UK today is what it means to become a Christian. Because of the confused culture that we live in, I will need to start by dispelling a few myths about what it doesn’t mean along the way!

So simple

One of the amazing things about the Christian message is that it is so simple that even young children are able to understand it for themselves. This is one of the major stumbling blocks for so many people; that becoming a Christian requires a real sense of humility to accept it. We live in times where generally we like to have felt that we have earned whatever we get in life. If we have got a beautiful wife, it’s because we are sufficiently good looking, powerful or wealthy enough to attract them. If we have got a good mark in exams or coursework, it’s because we have been competent enough to achieve it. In essence we like the idea that things work on a system of ‘karma’.

The big story

However, the values of Christianity are quite different. The grand story of the Bible  goes like this: In the beginning God was intimately involved in the creation of the universe, and looked upon it and saw that it was good. He was thrilled, in much the same way that we are on one of the amazing nights where we gaze up at the skies and are in awe of what we see. He fashioned men and women in his image to come and steward the earth.

However, it was at this point that the first man and woman (Adam & Eve) were tempted to go against God and they decided to disobey God in their desire to become equal to God, and having autonomy and power themselves. When they committed this offence, they put a barrier between themselves and God.

Like Father like son

As the human race has gone on, things have not changed. As our forefather Adam set the precedent for how we would behave. The bible says that we are all individually inclined to go our own way, to want to be God ourselves, and to be the judge for how we want to live our life. Romans 3:23 says the very sobering words. ‘For all have fallen short of the glory of God’.  In short, we find ourselves in a mess and separated from the very creator who we were made for relationship with.

Around 100 years ago, The Times newspaper invited a number of key thinkers and philosophers of the time to write essays on the question ‘What’s wrong with the world?’.  One man’s response was short, very short in fact: ‘Dear Sirs, I am, Sincerely yours, G.K. Chesterton’. There is something very refreshing about this witty yet deeply truthful response.

In 21st century Western culture we want to blame almost everything on other people; we may laugh when we hear the latest ridiculous lawsuit filed against a company ‘for eating cheese that was so cheesy it caused mental distress’, but we tend to pass the buck often whether its our family upbringing or some other circumstance. We need to face up to the truth: we are guilty of doing wrong.

Jesus enters the arena

I’m so glad that wasn’t the end of the story and that God didn’t just leave us stranded in our guilt and shame. Jesus Christ the second member of the Trinity, came down to earth and entered human history, that is God-in-human skin. He added humanity to his divinity. He left the glory of his heavenly throne, not to be served by us, but to serve us. How remarkable is that!

Having lived a relatively low key life, he went on to teach the most phenomenal and radical teaching, and healed many. Thirty-three short years on from his birth he was to be brutally crucified. The worst thing was to happen in history; the death of the Son of God. Who could have thought this terrible evil and injustice upon an innocent man could become such a liberating truth for us?

Grace triumphs

This is, remarkably, exactly the way that God chose to demonstrate his justice and his love for us. Jesus on the cross took the penalty for all of our guilt, for both the things that we did which we shouldn’t have done, and the things we should have done that we didn’t do. For every time that we spoke out in a hateful way against a friend or family member, and for every time we didn’t walk across to help a stranger in need.  All of these events, although they were sins against the people involved were sins against him.

Becoming a Christian means recognising this simple fact, and knowing that karma will not be enough to deal with it. The U2 singer Bono rightly acknowledges the following:

“I’d be in big trouble if karma was going to finally be my judge. It doesn’t excuse my mistakes, but I’m holding out for Grace. I’m holding out that Jesus took my sins onto the Cross, because I know who I am, and I hope I don’t have to depend on my own religiosity.”

Like him or loathe him, this is an interesting admission from a man who has done much to try and make the world a better place, more than most. Yet he knows its not enough!

We can’t pay our way back into a relationship with God, the price is way too high. The only man who was in credit with God, Jesus, paid it all for us. The question is will we accept this free gift of Grace?

God’s grace was given to us, because of the exchange that took place. Jesus took all of our sin on the cross, and then three days later he rose again to show that he had conquered this evil and even death ultimately! We now have the opportunity to know God personally in this life, and we will spend eternity with him in heaven too.

Conclusion

So becoming a Christian does not mean we are British, that we went to church when we were younger. It doesn’t mean we are a good person, in fact it means recognising that we are not good enough. We are all in the same boat, whether we’ve been raised going to church or not, we were all cut off from God, but we all have equal opportunity to accept what Jesus did for us on the cross and to know God personally.

Romans 10:9 says the following:

If you confess with your mouth, “Jesus is Lord,” and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved.

If you know that you’re at this point where you are ready to go for it and accept Jesus into your life, then its worth speaking to a friend who you know has a personal relationship with Jesus, and come along to a good lively bible believing church, who will be able to help you develop your relationship with God further. If you’re in Brighton, we’d be delighted to have you along at CCK. For further information, click here.

Tweet This  

If you consider yourself a sceptic about Christianity or a Christian who is looking for honest answers to some of the toughest questions, then this book was quite simply written for you. Tim Keller is a pastor in New York, who has put into writing the kinds of questions that he is asked on a regular basis about Christianity such as ‘ How can a good God allow suffering?’, ‘Hasn’t science disproved Christianity?’ and ‘How can a loving God send people to hell?’

In this book, Keller takes an unusual approach to defending Christianity, in that he essentially divides the book into two. The first half is dedicated to answering objections that are often raised against Christianity, but in the second half of the book he somewhat changes his approach. Many people often believe that the burden of proof is on Christians to show why they believe in ideas that go beyond mere naturalistic thinking. However, Keller shows very clearly through philosophy, literature and reasoning that there are in fact many assumptions made in atheistic and agnostic worldviews in practice; such as when we consider the origins of moral values, and indeed meaning in life, amongst other things that are a significant problem.

Tim Keller manages to come across as thoughtful and persuasive while maintaining an intellectually credible yet accessible work.  Overall, I would suggest that this book is a must-read for anyone, whether you consider yourself a person of faith or not. This will challenge many of your pre-suppositions to the core.

Tweet This  

One of the key things to note about the era of 1st century Palestine, is that it was primarily an oral culture. This means that information was rarely written down about  things that we might today consider to be highly significant ( let alone every single minor event; a stark contrast to 21st century western society). The main way that information was passed on was through verbal communication. However, we do still have a good number of documents which help to verify information about Jesus and the origins of the early church.

The primary sources for Jesus’ life are the Gospels in the Bible.  The main two sources are Tacitus and Josephus. These two records are very important because they verify the death of Jesus at the hand of Pontius Pilate, which collaborates the Gospel records (Mark 15:1-15, Matthew 27, Luke 23, John 18:28-40).

Cornelius Tacitus (born A.D. 52-54)

A Non-Christian Roman historian, in A.D. 112, Governor of Asia, son-in-law of Julius Agricola who was Governor of Britain A.D. 80-84. He wrote in the reign of Nero, making reference to Christians in Rome, and to Jesus’ death:

‘But not all the relief that could come from man, not all the bounties that the prince could bestow, nor all the atonements which could be presented to the gods, availed to relieve Nero from the infamy of being believed to have ordered the conflagration, the fire of Rome. Hence to suppress the rumour, he falsely charged with the guilt, and punished with the most exquisite tortures, the persons commonly called Christians, who were hated for their enormities. Christus, the founder of the name, was put to death by Pontius Pilate, procurator of Judea in the reign of Tiberius: but the pernicious superstition, repressed for a time broke out again, not only through Judea, where the mischief originated, but through the city of Rome also.’ (Translated quote found in: McDowell, Josh., Evidence That Demands a Verdict, 1990, Scripture Press, p.82)

Flavius Josephus (born A.D. 37)

A Jewish Historian, in A.D. 66 he was the commander of the Jewish forces in Galilee. The following quote has been debated as to its entire validity. Certain sections of the text have been judged, by some, as unlikely to have been written by a Jewish scholar. For a preliminary overview of this see: Strobel, Lee The Case or Christ, Zondervan, 1998, pp.78-80. However, the important sections attesting to the life and death of Jesus are reliable. Josephus’ writings were translated into the Arabic, which does not contain those sections of the text that have been judged suspicious. The following is a quote from the Arabic translation:

‘At this time there was a wise man who was called Jesus. And his conduct was good, and (he) was known to be virtuous. And many people from among the Jews and the other nations became his disciples. Pilate condemned Him to be crucified and to die. And those who had become him disciples did not abandon his discipleship. They reported that He had appeared to them three days after his crucifixion and that He was alive; accordingly, He was perhaps the Messiah concerning who the prophets have recounted wonders.’ (Translated quote found in: McDowell, Josh., Evidence That Demands a Verdict, 1990, Scripture Press, p.82)

Thallus (a Samaritan-Born historian)

He wrote in A.D. 52, which is one of the earliest writers concerning the life and death of Jesus. Unfortunately we no longer have the originals of his work, but a man called Julius Africanus, who was a Christian writer of about A.D.  221, discusses his work. He cites a section of Thallus that confirms that there was a darkness that covered the land after Jesus died, which is also recorded in Luke 23:44 and Mark 15:33. He writes:

“ ‘Thallus, in the third book of his histories, explains away this darkness as an eclipse of the sun – unreasonably, as it seems to me’ (unreasonably, of course, because a solar eclipse could not take place at the time of the full moon, and it was as the season of the Paschal full moon that Christ died)’ (Translated quote found in: McDowell, Josh., Evidence That Demands a Verdict, 1990, Scripture Press, p.84)

Phlegon

A first century historian, like Thallus, his work is now lost. However Julius Africanus (above) in A.D. 221 again quotes a section of his work:

“ ‘During the time of Tiberius Caesar an eclipse of the sun occurred during the full moon’ ” (Translated quote found in: McDowell, Josh., Evidence That Demands a Verdict, 1990, Scripture Press, p.84)

Lucian of Samosata

Roman of the Second century: he wrote in The Passing Peregrinus:

‘ . . . the man who was crucified in Palestine because he introduced this new cult into the world . . . Furthermore, their first lawgiver persuaded them that they were all brothers one of another after they have transgressed once for all by denying the Greek gods and by worshipping that crucified sophist himself and living under his laws.’ (Translated quote found in: McDowell, Josh., Evidence That Demands a Verdict, 1990, Scripture Press, p.82)

Suetonius (A.D. 120)

Another Non-Christian Roman historian writes in Life of Claudius:

‘As the Jews were making constant disturbances at the instigation of Chrestus (another spelling of Christus), he expelled them from Rome’ (Translated quote found in: McDowell, Josh., Evidence That Demands a Verdict, 1990, Scripture Press, p.83)

Plinius Secundus, Pliny the younger

Governor of Bithynia in Asia Minor (A.D. 112). The following quote comes from a letter that he wrote to Emperor Trajan. The main concern of his letter is how to treat the Christians. In the second century, during the reign of the Caesars, the populace was expected to worship Caesar as a god. This the Christians did not do. Pliny had been putting to death those Christians who would not bow down to a statue of Trajan. In the letter he writes the following:

‘They affirmed, however, that the whole of their guilt, or their error, was, that they were in the habit of meeting on a certain fixed day before it was light, when they sang in alternate verse a hymn to Christ as to a god, and bound themselves to a solemn oath, not to do any wicked deeds, but never to commit any fraud, theft, adultery, never to falsify their word, not to deny trust when they should be called upon to deliver it up’ (Translated quote found in: McDowell, Josh., Evidence That Demands a Verdict, 1990, Scripture Press, p.83)

Further reading

There are many more sources that attest to the origins of the early church, and many instances where books are quoted, which no longer exist, but would have been accessible in the day in which they were quoted. For further research, I have suggested some books below:

• McDowell, Josh., Evidence That Demands a Verdict, 1990, Scripture Press, Chapter 5.

• Strobel, Lee The Case or Christ, Zondervan, 1998, Chapter 4

• Bruce, F. F., Jesus and Christian Origins outside the New Testament, Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1974.

• Habermans, Gary., The Historical Jesus, Joplin, Mo.: College Press, 1996

To view Ruth’s recent testimony about how she became a christian, click here

Tweet This