Labels…

Labels have their place.

I suppose.

However, labels often can be divisive. Particularly theological labels. Instead of throwing around labels for ourselves, why don’t we spend more time talking about the issues that the labels are supposed to reflect?

For example, if I walked into a group of people and said, “I’m an egalitarian,” what would that accomplish? What would people hear me saying? Invariably, some of the people would not understand the term. Others would nod their heads in agreement, wanting to claim the same label for themselves. Others would squirm uncomfortably, having certain understandings and assumptions (some correct and some incorrect) about egalitarianism in general. If this were to occur, what would I want to be claiming for myself? I might wish merely to say, “I believe women can teach in the church.” If that’s all I were saying, then I’m not necessarily saying anything that a complementarian would not agree with. Or I might wish merely to say, “Men and women are equal in the sight of God.” But, as it is, many people would hear me saying all sorts of things. Some would hear me acknowledging that I think homosexual marriage is legitimate. Some would hear me saying that I think women ought to pastor and be elders of churches. Some would hear me saying that wives should rule the roost. Some would hear me making claims about my political leanings. And again, some would not hear me saying anything intelligible at all because they don’t understand the term. Let’s not pick on egalitarianism/complementarianism only. If I walked into a group of Christians and said, “I’m a Calvinist,” what would people hear? Some would hear me saying that I don’t think evangelism is necessary because God’s already chosen who will be saved, so it doesn’t matter what I do. Some would hear me saying that I think John Calvin is the greatest theologian in church history. Some would hear me saying that I don’t think people have free will. And again, some would not hear me saying anything intelligible at all because they don’t understand the term.

So, let’s stop throwing around labels so quickly. We are too quick to make assumptions about people and things based on labels that we claim. Let’s get this out in the open: labels claim certain things. Some of the things a label may claim we may not intend to claim for ourselves. Sometimes we take on labels because we’ve heard the opposite position and we aren’t convinced that it’s true. For example, a person may claim to be an egalitarian because they just don’t think the complementarian position is the best way to understand the relevant passages of Scripture that discuss (as the complementarian sees them) different roles for men and women as part of God’s created order. But this is no reason to claim, “I’m an egalitarian,” without examining the claims egalitarianism makes for itself as a summary of beliefs. Every label has underlying beliefs, interpretations of certain passages of Scripture, and commitments, and we ought to be more careful about claiming a label without investigating very carefully all of those beliefs, interpretations of certain passages of Scripture, and commitments to be sure that we want to buy “the whole package.” And let us certainly not run into the trap of saying, “The Bible just isn’t clear on this issue.” Now, I’ve heard both complementarians (though fewer) and egalitarians (many times) make this statement, and it boggles my mind! This is a slippery slope, indeed. Once we start saying that the Bible isn’t clear on certain issues that we have disagreements about, do we not run the risk of sacrificing more and more of the Bible’s teaching along the way, saying that things aren’t as clear as we thought they were? And, in the first place, if the Bible isn’t clear on this issue, then why claim either label?? If the Bible isn’t clear on this issue, then that ought to mean that it supports neither position, so why accept a label that you think has insufficient biblical support? But, I think this is typically a smoke-screen of sorts, to alleviate disagreement. And, while we’re on this issue, how can we say the Bible is unclear on an issue that it addresses in so many different passages? Maybe people who say this are only thinking of 1 Tim. 2:8-15 and 1 Cor. 11:2-16 (both of which, I agree, are very difficult passages, perhaps among the most difficult in the Bible). But what about Eph. 5:22-32; Col. 3:18-21; 1 Pet. 3:1-7; Gen. 1:28; 2:7-24; 3:1-24; etc.? These passages, among others, address the issues from a fundamental level, and they ought to give enough data that no one could claim that the Bible is not clear on this issue, and claimants of both labels ought to strive to understand each of these passages in their own respective contexts and conclude how he or she ought to live in light of what they claim/command. Furthermore, to suggest (particularly in an overtly condescending tone of voice) that “it’s just their interpretation” automatically (and arrogantly) discloses that you believe your interpretation is the superior interpretation…which you already made obvious by claiming the label and all that it claims!! This is no argument at all; again, it just sidelines the real issues, which are wrapped up in the passages of Scripture themselves! Can we actually discuss the different interpretations to see which one makes more sense of the data, which seems to be more faithful to what the text says?? By making this claim, you’ve made it seem like you do not, in fact, care about the issues; you’re just wrapped up in the label! But, I digress….

Labels can be useful. They do provide us with a concise way to refer to a larger body of beliefs. But we must be more careful about how we use labels. Particularly in public forums, we ought not simply throw out labels and make sweeping claims with them. Rather, let’s do the harder, more significant, more potentially unifying work of discussing together the issues behind the labels. So, let’s get together and talk about why a person might want to claim the label “egalitarian.” Let’s open the Bible to those passages of Scripture and see if the egalitarian position holds its water, justifies its claims. Let’s strive to be as consistent as possible in our theology. And let’s not discount another person’s thoughts because they claim a particular label. Let’s talk together and strive to conform our thinking to the teachings we find in the Bible, and if someone else has a better understanding of the data than we do, let’s be humble enough to acknowledge it and change our minds to conform to Scripture. So, we might have to repent (change our minds and our behavior) for some of the beliefs we’ve held and the labels we’ve claimed. Our theology informs and affects our behavior, even if we’re not aware of it, and we ought to live in light of our beliefs. But may our beliefs, and thus our behavior, be formed and shaped and directed by the Bible, God’s revelation of himself, pointing us to Jesus, crucified, buried, raised from the dead, and now seated at the right hand of God interceding for believers, and calling us to live as he lived on this earth (1 Jn. 2:6).

Paul’s Teaching on Widows Marrying

Last night, a classmate astutely pointed out a couple of tough texts in Paul’s letters that seem to contradict one another. The texts are 1 Cor. 7:39, which says, “A wife is bound to her husband as long as he lives. But if her husband dies, she is free to be married to whom she wishes, only in the Lord,” and 1 Tim. 5:11-12, which says, “But refuse to enroll younger widows, for when their passions draw them away from Christ, they desire to marry and so incur condemnation for having abandoned their former faith.” So, Paul, can widows marry, or do they “incur condemnation” if they marry? This, of course, is one of the reasons many scholars say that 1 & 2 Timothy and Titus must not be written by Paul. However, let’s look closely and see what each of these passages is trying to say.

1 Cor. 7:39 is fairly straightforward here, but I think it is important to take careful notice of the way Paul says what he says. Paul says that the widow “is free to be married.” She may choose whether or not to marry again; she has the right or the freedom to marry…with one important limitation: “only in the Lord,” which I understand to indicate that the man whom she would marry must be a believer. But, at any rate, the widow may marry if she so chooses.

1 Timothy 5 is a little more complex. The issue Paul wants Timothy to address is whether or not a widow should be enrolled on the church’s official list of widows who receive support from the church. The widows who are to be taken care of by the church are only widows who have no other family who can support them. Thus, these widows are completely alone now that their husband has died (1 Tim. 5:5). Therefore, Paul says that these widows put their hope on God and are devoted to constant prayer because they are in desperate need. So, the church, as the body of Christ, must supply their needs, as God answers their prayers through the church. Then, Paul adds some other qualifications that widows must meet in order to be enrolled and thus taken care of by the church. They must not be younger than about 60 years old (which was a rare age for people to live in his day anyway), and must have lived lives of godliness up to that day (1 Tim. 5:9-10). This is where verse 11 comes in. Paul commands Timothy not to enroll younger widows, which I suppose means widows younger than about 60 years old (but I suspect he has much, much younger women in mind). His reason for this refusal of younger widows is his observation that their sexual impulses run rampant now that they are left all alone, tempting them to abandon their faith in Christ. Since their sexual desires are unable to be abated, he says, they will then desire to be married again, to fulfill their sexual needs. And Paul seems to be saying that this desire to be married will lead them to incur condemnation, but the specific reason they receive condemnation is because they “have abandoned their former faith.” This is an odd phrase, indeed, but I think it refers to their profession of faith in Christ, since earlier he indicated that their sexual desires, as they get out of hand, would draw them away from Christ. So, how does their desire to be married fit into this scheme?

Well, I think the main issue that we need to hold onto is that Paul is concerned that younger widows will deny their faith and abandon Christ if they are put into this situation. We also need to keep in mind the purpose of the list on which these widows are being enrolled. Widows are enrolled because they have no one left in their families to care for them, and they are turning to God to provide for them through the church. So, I think the issue with the younger widows is that, once they have been placed on the list, and therefore are receiving care from the church, they are more prone (perhaps) than older widows to be drawn away from relying on God to meet their needs through the church, and have a tendency to desire for another husband to take care of their needs (including their sexual needs, which the church cannot provide). I think this is the case because Paul says that, instead of being enrolled on the official support list, younger widows should go get married, “and give the adversary no occasion for slander”! Thus, Paul is concerned to protect the faith of these young women. Their condemnation is due to their response to their widowhood, not specifically because they desire to marry again. He also predicts that such women will not only abandon their faith, but they will even become idlers, gossips, and busybodies, which Paul may mean to include their carrying of false teaching from house to house.