Church and Chicks (among other things...)

Church structure is a difficult thing to define. How one should operate is, to be truthful, a largely unanswered question, still after thousands of years of maintaining and creating churches around the world. To be sure, no two churches are alike; Christianity is, at least in trivial doctrinal matters, the most diversified religion one can belong to, and it shows. There is a vast spectrum of governmental systems in churches, ranging from heavily organized and collectively linked Catholic cathedrals to loosely defined and secretive house churches across dangerous parts of the globe. Why, then, are these diversities so extreme, and is a single one "more biblical" than the rest? To even attempt to answer that question, we've got to examine why government would be important in the first place - and that ties heavily into what the purpose of churches are to begin with. The Bible is at least perfectly clear on this - oh, it's put in different ways, but it's easy to draw a general mission statement from it: A church's goal is to prepare believers for evangelizing in its area, and perhaps more importantly sending new and existing believers out to new areas to, well, make more churches. Now, this presents, in any culture, a logistical dilemma, and logistics requires organization. The Bible agrees. In Paul's day, churches were lead by teams of "elders" - in most cases, people who had been in Christ for some time, and these councils of Christians would direct the inflow and outflow of converts and church planters, keeping doctrine in check through letters and sending out long-standing representatives, like Paul and Timothy. Since then, different levels of inner and outer organization have surfaced, birthing the spectrum and seemingly disjointed faith we have today. Fun stuff, huh?

My church, whom I have learned to respect deeply, has tried to reverse the explosion of variety and revert back to the basics, so to speak, of church management. Inside, we're simply lead by a group of elders, who, just as plainly as in Paul's experience, serve to invite new believers and send out existing ones. There is only the biblical distinction of teaching and serving pastors, nothing more specific or complex. Outside our building, we're also trying to follow the Bible. Our church relates to a simple grouping of other churches around the world, who share beliefs and statuses electronically, but also transfer representatives to check in and share among other churches, not as "guest speakers," but as relating elders bringing their guidance to the church they visit. Overall, I think it's a pretty noble goal, and I believe I agree with the whole thing.

Rats, now I have to talk about women. I really didn't structure my last bit to carry that...

In class, we've explored a couple different interpretations of the controversial passage in Paul's letters to Timothy concerning women. The first, the take-it-like-it-looks view, states that women, who are better suited to listen and not speak, shouldn't teach over a group of guys, because they are easily confused and wishy-washy in their morals, not to mention greedy, self-centered drama queens when given too much power. That is, of course, exaggerating, but it was my reaction to reading through the passage. The other possible interpretation, a little rough but immensely less rude, explains that, possibly due to a reigning she-cult in Ephesus, women should not always serve over men, but should be treated as equals, not given too much power and control, but, like the rest of Paul's teaching about women and marriage, should serve with their husbands as a single unit.

I am not sure which of these two views my church holds fast to, but I do know one thing: no-one there would regard a woman as less valuable than a man in any way. It is true that all of the elders at my church are men, but each, as Timothy dictates, is married, and relies heavily on his wife as a partner and adviser. I could see my church following either goal, because neither one says that a woman can't have a say in the course of evangelism, and both say that only a loyally married man can take part in leading the direction of his church. The more hotly debated question of whether a woman can't teach over men at all or whether she simply can't only teach over men is a harder issue, and one that does not seem completely outlined in my mind. I halfway hope that N. T. Wright is correct in his theory surrounding the passage, but I'm just not sure.

A dynamic threesome...

The three letters we read in class are certainly similar on the surface, but in order to understand the point of each of them, we've got to consider what each is saying on its own. Paul was writing to very different groups of people in each letter, and that of course affects the entire tone of his writing. For example, Paul is usually very praising of the Philippians, but makes a special point to them to avoid argument and strife among themselves, citing Christ as an example; that's really the only criticism he offers. In Ephesians, however, Paul broadly states a large list of basic dos and dont's, not really as a specific condemnation, but rather as a general statement of Christlike character. In Colossians, Paul draws up a similar list, but explicitly states that the church had previously practiced those bad things, and needed to renovate their thinking. The message of Christs' example is applicable in all three cases, evident based on its constant appearance throughout Paul's letters. It serves as a universal bridge to anyone who can endeavor to become more like Chirst, who, frankly, is everyone.

It can safely be stated that the three passages from Ephesians, Philippians, and Colossians are really the same message, worded slightly differently for the purpose of reaching different audiences. The broad point over each of these passages is the call to change to be like Christ. In each, Christ's character is lined up against the sinful nature of the world's, and the benefits of life in Christ are laid out for the receiving. Paul also makes a point in each to emphasize Jesus' saving us from our sins; without that there's no point in striving to be like him. There is something deeper in each of these letters, however, that we outlined in class that most people glance over. Taking time to understand each brings out a fascinating point. Paul is not saying that we should seek to be like God - Philippians makes clear even Jesus didn't do that - we're to be like Christ . Why the distinction? Well, for one, Christ was human . A perfect human, but flesh and blood nonetheless. It's our job, therefore, not to seek out equality with God - that's impossible; God is sovereign - but to conform to Christ, who represents the blameless human life; and as Colossians puts it, who is  our life.