John Mark Hicks

Since the beginning of chapter eleven, Paul has been promising to boast if only for the sake of the Corinthians and his care for the church. The “super-apostles” have created a climate of boasting. This is quite suited to Greco-Roman culture where boasting is often how one announces their credentials and explains why they should be heard. The “super-apostles” have boasted that they are superior to Paul, and Paul feels the pressure to respond to their boasts.

But Paul is not quite ready to begin his boast. “I say again,” he writes, and repeats his point from verses 1-2. He thinks the whole project is foolish. The sort of boasting in which he will engage to satisfy the Corinthians is to play the fool, and since some already think he is a fool, he will “boast a little.”

In fact, the sort of boasting required by the Corinthians, and which Paul will do, is not “according to the Lord” (kata kurion) but “according to the flesh” (kata sarka). Paul’s “boastful confidence,” that is, his endeavor, undertaking, or substance, is not the sort of boast that “boasts in the Lord” (2 Corinthians 10:17-18) but boasts in the flesh (or, “human standards,” NRSV).

Paul’s boast, in some sense, is going to follow the pattern (according to the flesh) of the “super-apostles” which accords well with the Corinthian (and Greco-Roman) expectations of traveling teachers or preachers. Boasting in external credentials (rhetoric, success, education, prosperity, etc.) is, to Paul’s mind, foolish boasting, but the Corinthians think it is wise and perhaps necessary. Indeed, they “gladly put up with fools” who boast according to the flesh because they think they are wise. This wisdom, however, is according to the flesh; it is the wisdom of human failings, Greco-Roman expectations, and the power-brokers of decision-making governance. It is boasting according to human standards.

Nevertheless, for their sake, Paul will proceed with this kind of foolish boasting, though his particulars diverge from the “super-apostles” as he will ultimately and most importantly boast in his weakness rather than his strengths.

Yet, before he begins his boast, Paul reminds them of who the “super-apostles” are. They have revealed their internal motives through their behaviors and demands. If the Corinthians were truly wise and strong, they would recognize their Satanic strategies and practices. But, unfortunately, the Corinthians have been deceived like Eve was by the serpent, and they have been played like weak fools.

In 2 Corinthians 11:20, Paul describes how the Corinthians have been played with five verbs which, in fact, draw a contrast between Paul and the “super-apostles.” In their supposed wisdom, the Corinthians have put up with the foolishness of the “super-apostles,” and have, therefore, put up with oppressive behaviors: enslavement (“makes slaves of you”), predatorial practices (“preys upon you”), exploitation (“takes advantage of you”), haughtiness (“puts on airs”), and abuse (“gives you a slap in the face”).

These verbs, which characterize the “super-apostles,” also draw a dramatic contrast with Paul’s own approach to the Corinthians, as he describes himself in 2 Corinthians.  The below chart identifies the contrast; the chart is adapted from Frank Materia, II Corinthians: A Commentary (p. 258).

The contrast is stark. The intruders employ practices that seek to control and manipulate the Corinthians for the sake of their own gain and power. Paul’s practices arise from his passion for the gospel and its truth, and his practices conform to the ministry of Jesus himself who suffered and died for the gospel. Paul lives among the Corinthians as a co-worker, who earns his own keep, cares for them with the love of a father, and does not domineer over them like a master over a slave. This language reveals the hearts of the “super-apostles” in contrast to Paul’s own care and anxiety for the Corinthians.

Apparently, to use the barbs of the super-apostles or Corinthians themselves, Paul was “too week” to treat the Corinthians with the oppressive practices of legitimately credentialed so-called apostles. Paul’s passion for the Corinthians shines through his sarcasm but also his disappointment with some of them who have been taken in by these intruders.

Many today are disappointed with the church, just as Paul was disappointed with this Corinthian weakness. I, too, am disappointed with domineering leadership, ministers who exploit their position for financial gain, prideful power-moves, predatory practices in control and sexuality, and other abusive practices ranging from emotional manipulation to neglect to marginalization. While most have their own experiences of these sorts of practices, one only need to listen to the Mars Hill podcast by Christianity Today to hear the story of a contemporary “super-apostle” played out in the public square.

Nevertheless, Paul loved the church. He groaned over them, wept over them, and yearned for them like a loving father does for his children. He pursued the Corinthians in love and hope. And, at the same time, his pursuit included the confrontational style of 2 Corinthians 10-13. Paul does not avoid conflict. He neither excuses nor condones their practices, and neither does he ignore them. He identifies the predatory and exploitative practices of the super-apostles and calls the Corinthians to renewed service to the gospel of Jesus the crucified but risen Messiah.

Paul, as may we, loved the church with a passion that confronted its abusive practices while also calling them into more Christ-like patterns of behavior. The two are not mutually exclusive. Love will confront abuse, and love will also welcome the abused—and even the abusers as long as they bear the fruit of repentance.

Paul is about to do something foolish but necessary: boast.

Quoting Jeremiah 9:23-24, Paul has already disclaimed boasting except boasting in the Lord (2 Corinthians 10:17). But soon, in this letter, he will begin to boast in 2 Corinthians 11:21b-12:13. He is forced to play this foolish game because at least some of the Corinthians have welcomed those whom he calls “super-apostles” (11:5; 12:11). The Corinthians, apparently, relish the boasting of the “super-apostles,” and the Corinthians received them as representatives of Jesus. So, Paul must boast, but it is foolishness.

The word “fool” or “foolish” occurs eight times (11:1, 16 [2x], 17, 19, 21; 12:6, 11 in this section of 2 Corinthians (11:1-12:13). Those words only occur seven other times in the whole New Testament. By the time Paul gets to the end of his boasting, he exclaims: “I have been a fool!” (12:11). He spoke as a fool rather than “according to the Lord” (11:17). Yet, he does so because he is anxious for the health of the Corinthians.

However, this is all a bit of irony, even sarcasm. Paul will boast—and play the fool—but his boasting is of a different sort than the “super-apostles.” Paul does not boast for self-commendation but to defend his role among the Corinthians as their father in the Lord. His boasts are not lavish self-praise but his own set of credentials which are different from the “super-apostles.” Paul boasts because he is protective of the church rather than himself. In this way, he boasts in the Lord rather than in his own value.

The first four verses of chapter eleven explain why Paul will engage this foolishness.

• Bear with me in this foolishness as I am divinely jealous,
  • because I am your father who betrothed you to Christ
• I fear you have been deceived like Eve,
  • because you bear with any who preach another Jesus.

Paul asks the Corinthians to bear with him in his foolish boasting just as, it seems, they have borne with the preaching about a another Jesus. If the Corinthians have put up with and received the boasting of the “super-apostles,” then Paul expects them to put up with some of his own foolishness. This is especially true since Paul planted the church and is their father in the faith (1 Corinthians 4:15).

Paul compares himself to a father who has promised his daughter in marriage and thereby invokes a well-known cultural practice. First, there is an announcement—an engagement between the daughter and the man. Second, there is a betrothal period (typically a year in Jewish cultural) during which time the father protects the virginity of the daughter. Third, there is a marriage ceremony.

The comparison seems rather obvious. Paul betrothed the Corinthians to Christ when he planted (fathered) the church, giving birth to a daughter (the Corinthian church). As her father, his mission is to protect the chastity of his virgin daughter for the sake of Christ. On the wedding day, which is the day when Christ returns, Paul intends to present Christ with a virgin bride.

This explains Paul’s godly jealousy for the Corinthians in the face of his detractors and the intrusion of the “super-apostles.” He is like a father protecting his daughter from those who would seduce her into an illicit relationship.

But what is so illicit about a relationship with the “super-apostles”?

Paul fears they will lead the Corinthians astray from a “sincere and pure devotion to Christ,” just as Eve was deceived by the serpent through “its cunning.” Embedded in this language is a fairly weighty judgment against the “super-apostles.”

• They use cunning deceptions to lead people astray.
• They stand opposed to “pure devotion to Christ.”
• They serve the same role as the serpent who deceived Eve.

Comparing the situation with Eve, who was tricked by the serpent in the Garden of Eden, suggests how seriously he assesses the situation in Corinth. The chastity of his daughter is on the line with these intruders. They play the part of the serpent, which is perhaps why Paul compares them to Satan who “disguises himself as an angel of light” (2 Corinthians 11:14). In fact, one of the reasons for writing this letter is so the Corinthians would not be “outwitted by Satan” (2 Corinthians 2:11). This, then, is a dire situation where the virginal betrothal lies in the balance.

Moreover, the tactics of the “super-apostles” are filled with deception and “cunning.” These are the vices that Paul disavows with regard to his own ministry. Earlier Paul wrote, “we have renounced the shameful things that one hides; we refuse to practice cunning” (2 Corinthians 4:2). Paul comes to the Corinthians with honesty and an open heart, but the “super-apostles,” according to Paul, come with deceit and cunning. They want to deceive the Corinthians just as the serpent deceived Eve.

Why does Paul fear the Corinthians have been led astray from their “sincere and pure devotion to Christ” (2 Corinthians 11:3)? Because the “super-apostles”

• herald (announce) another Jesus
• bring a different spirit/Spirit than the one previously received
• accept a different gospel

Their message entails “another Jesus,” a Jesus other than the one Paul proclaims. Their practices exhibit a different (heteron) spirit/Spirit than the one with which God gifted the Corinthians. Their gospel is different (heteron); it is a different kind of good news, not the one Paul preached and practiced in Corinth.

Something is radically amiss here. What is “different?” I don’t think it is false teaching in the sense that it is a specific Christological heresy or a Judaizing group from Jerusalem. There is no indication in the letter that there was a doctrinal or dogmatic difference between Paul and the “super-apostles.” We know little, if anything, about the theological content of their teaching. On the contrary, the focus of Paul’s engagement with the “super-apostles” is focused on their self-commendation, comparative style of ministry, their disparagement of Paul’s ministry, and their deceitful practices.

If this is the case, then one may proclaim a theologically correct Jesus, a faithful gospel, and receive the Spirit of God (if “spirit” refers to the Holy Spirit), and yet herald another Jesus, embody a different gospel, and exhibit a different Spirit (or spirit). How is it possible to be a faithful teacher of the truth but lead people astray so that they give up their “pure devotion to Christ”?

The answer to that question lies in the rationale for Paul’s extended discussion of the ministry of reconciliation in 2 Corinthians 2-7. The sort of ministry in which Paul engaged is the opposite of what these “super-apostles” are doing. The heart of this is revealed in the nature of Paul’s boasting which contrasts with the nature of the boasting by the “super-apostles.”

Essentially, Paul pursued the ministry of reconciliation for the sake of the Corinthians and humbled himself among them, even to the point of suffering for the gospel. He endured hardship, suffering, and abuse for their sakes. This is the ministry of gospel. It is not self-commendation and self-promotion in order to enjoy prestige, status, or prosperity. This is where the contrast lies—the way in which each has approached the Corinthians as ministers of Christ (cf. 2 Corinthians 11:19-21). One example of this is that while Paul refused money from the Corinthians, the “super-apostles” apparently did not (2 Corinthians 11:7). Paul refused to “take advantage” of the Corinthians, but the “super-apostles” did (2 Corinthians 12:18).

While the content of our ministry—the message we proclaim—is of utmost importance, it can be subverted by the way we minister. Our mouths may say one thing but our practices say something different. In this way, the “super-apostles” promoted another Jesus with a different spirit that embodied a different gospel. And the Corinthians, Paul says, put up with it!

The modern church has the same problem. While some preach a relatively “correct” gospel with their words, their practices say something different. When pastors revel in their credentials, status, power, and wealth rather than taking on the ministry of reconciliation embodied by Paul, they herald another Jesus with a different spirit that embodies a different gospel.

What Paul feared for the Corinthians is still a live problem in the contemporary church and seemingly more so now than ever.

The message of new covenant ministry is, “Be reconciled to God.” This ministry of reconciliation proclaims the work of God in Christ and appeals to hearers (including the Corinthians) to accept God’s grace.

This ministry is a cooperative effort between God and Paul (and other ministers of reconciliation). God and Paul are co-workers, though Paul only plants while God gives the increase (1 Corinthians 3:6-9). Nevertheless, it is a partnership as God appeals to the world through ministers of reconciliation and, in this instance, Paul’s own ministry.

Indeed, this ministry has eschatological meaning, that is, it is the time anticipated by the prophet Isaiah (49:8) and is the arrival of the future in the present. The announcement of the day of salvation has arrived, and now is the time. There is no more wait; the future has already come and new creation has begun.

Nevertheless, Paul’s ministry among the Corinthians has been criticized by detractors who have created suspicions about his integrity and credentials. His ministry did not look like the “super apostles” or follow the patterns of other travelling teachers within the Greco-Roman world. This rendered his ministry suspect in the eyes of those steeped in that culture.

Consequently, Paul stresses that his ministry intends to put no obstacle in the way of others accepting the reconciling grace of God. In fact, Paul bends over backwards to facilitate that acceptance by his own willingness to serve (“servants of God”) in difficult circumstances and at great personal cost. This is Paul’s ministry resume, and this I how he commends himself “in every way” to both his supporters and his detractors.

His resume, however, is not a list of institutional credentials, powerful connections with people, or success rate. His resume is, in a word, “endurance.” Paul commends himself to others through his “great endurance.” His life basically stands up under the pressure (basic meaning of “endurance”) of his travels, ministry, and interactions with people. He endures—he keeps going and executing the ministry of reconciliation.

What follows identifies the context and content of this endurance. Paul employs a beautiful rhetorical structure by the use of three prepositions:  “in” (en), “through” (dia), and “as” (hos). 

The first series, “in” (en, 18 times), identifies the circumstances and means of this endurance, and Paul arranges the first set of particulars in groups of three.

• in great  endurance
  • in afflictions
  • in hardships
  • in calamities
    • in beatings
    • in imprisonments
    • in riots
      • in labors
      • in sleepless nights
      • in hunger

The first group generalizes Paul’s circumstances; his ministry is characterized by all sorts of troubles from sicknesses to difficult situations to tragic moments. It lacks specification but provides a horizon for thinking about the troubles Paul endured. The second category names external attacks and hostile pressures as part of his ministry experience. The third category is more personal from his incessant hard work to fatigue and hunger. In other words, Paul’s ministry circumstances were not triumphant but troublesome. His ministry was not always received warmly but often aggressively rejected. He often found himself overworked, fatigued, and physically deprived for the sake of the ministry of reconciliation.

His resume did not look like a successful and honored ambassador that Greco-Roman standards expected. It looked like rejection, failure, and inauthenticity. But this is Paul’s boast (or commendation): this is what it looks like to participate in the ministry of Jesus the crucified but risen Messiah.

The second set of particulars in the “in” (en) series are communicated in groups of four. Both groups are still headed by “in great endurance” but are different in intent. While the first nine in the first set of particulars focused on the circumstances of his ministry, the second set focuses on the means of that ministry. In other words, the second set raises the question, “how did Paul endure?” or “by what means did Paul live out his calling in those circumstances?”

• in great endurance,
  • in purity
  • In knowledge
  • in patience
  • in kindness

• in great endurance
  • in the Holy Spirit,
  • in genuine love
  • in truthful speech
  • in the power of God

The first grouping points to Paul’s integrity in terms of how he endured his troubles. Purity and knowledge probably refer to the authenticity of his ministry; he was faithful to his own commitment and his own knowledge or understanding of the message of reconciliation. Patience and kindness probably refer to his sanctified demeanor as he responded to hardships and hostility.

The second grouping probably points to the means that enabled Paul to maintain his integrity and his kind demeanor. The Holy Spirit, the love of Christ, the truth of the message, and the power of God have shaped his vocation. He depends upon divine empowerment to endure hardships.

Together, Paul’s ministry endures through authentic and gentle responses filled with the sanctified presence of the Holy Spirit. Indeed, Paul demonstrates this sort of integrity and commitment in this letter itself as he appeals to them, as a minister of reconciliation, to continue in the grace of God.

The second series, “through” (dia), seems to characterize how Paul proceeds in his ministry. He utilizes weapons of righteousness even as he is subjected to slander and dishonor as well as glory and praise.

• through weapons of righteousness
  • for the right hand and for the left
  • through glory and dishonor
  • through slander and praise

While there are several ways to understand “weapons of righteousness,” it probably means that Paul uses weapons (ministry skills, strategies, etc.) that are righteous. He does not use evil, deceit, or hatred in his ministry. Paul pursues his ministry with integrity—he uses righteous weapons.

The meaning of right and left hand is subject to varied understandings. Some suggest it is an allusion to Roman armor: sword in one hand (offense) and a shield in the other (defense). However, it seems more probable that it is part of the contrast that follows in the other two lines. In other words, right and left hand may symbolize adversity (hostility?) and prosperity (success?).  In this case, we have the three contrasts as pictured above.

These contrasts reflect Paul’s commitment to stay the course and continue his ministry whatever the response may be to it. Some will welcome, honor, and praise him while others will oppose, disrespect, and slander him. Whatever the case, Paul does not give up! He endures.

The third series, “as” (hos—a comparative particle), offers Paul’s perspective on his hardships. He knows the real story; he knows himself.  While he may experience the first in his hardships, he knows the latter is the real story

• as imposters and true
• as unknown and known
• as dying and, behold, we live
• as punished and not killed
• as sorrowful but always rejoicing
• as poor, but making many rich
• as having nothing and possessing everything

While some regard him as an imposter, consider his ministry a path of death and suffering, or they don’t know him, Paul knows the truth about himself, lives in Christ, and is known by God (if not by anybody else!).

While Paul experienced punishment, sorrow, poverty, and paucity, Paul knows the real story is that he is not killed but lives to proclaim the message, he has a deep sense of joy in the midst of hardship, his poverty is for the sake of making others rich, and his paucity is only apparent as he possesses everything through his co-inheritance with Christ.

Instead of listing his credentials—which he could have done as Philippians 3 illustrates—Paul locates the authenticity of his ministry in his endurance.

This is how Paul understands new covenant ministry. Essentially, as co-workers with God in the ministry, servants of God endure suffering with integrity by the power of God whatever the circumstance because we know who we are in Christ. And this is how Paul sees himself; it is his ministry resume.

Ministry involves struggle, wounds, and hardships. Yet, Paul refuses to lose heart; he won’t give up. What drives this perseverance? It is because he keeps his eyes fixed on what is unseen rather than on what is seen. He keeps his eyes on eternal glory rather than temporary affliction. He keeps his focus on the resurrection of Jesus rather than his ministry struggles.

Therefore, Paul writes, “we do not lose heart” (4:1, 16). Despite the struggles, the ministry of reconciliation is too important because the glory of God is revealed and mediated by the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus the Messiah (4:7-15). Moreover, the struggles, in comparison to that eternal glory, have a limited—though painful—shelf life.  

However, it is important to frame Paul’s words in a contextual and healthy way. I think the following two frames miss Paul’s point, though they are present among many Christians.

• Some think Paul tends to minimize present pain, abuse, and wounds in favor of some kind of escapism. This, then, diminishes the reality of suffering in favor of some mansion in the sky.

• Some think Paul affirms a dualism between material and spiritual realities that ultimately annihilates materiality (including the body) and exalts spirituality (i.e., the soul or spirit). This, then, tends see salvation through the lens of the immortality of the soul. When the soul escapes the body, then the soul receives eternal life without the body.

I think both perspectives miss the essence of Paul’s meaning. They seem to assume some kind of Platonic understanding of Paul. In this view, Paul depreciates materiality in favor of spirituality such that only the spiritual (what is unseen and eternal) is real and the material (what is seen, including suffering) is dispensable and insignificant.

Paul’s contrasts in this text can lend themselves to this way of thinking. Indeed, these verses have been used as proof texts for some kind of Platonic thinking. His language is conducive to such a conclusion if read through Platonic lenses. 

The outer person is seen and experiences affliction while the inner person is unseen and experiences glory. The contrast is a strong one; indeed, rather stark. The question, however, is this: what is the nature of the contrast? I don’t think it is Platonic. Rather, it is eschatological.

The contrast is not material versus immaterial, or earth vs. heaven, or physical versus spiritual. Rather, given Paul’s argument, the contrast is between this present evil age and the age to come which is, in some sense, already here. It is an eschatological contrast.

This eschatological frame, which Paul describes in several places, contrasts the “first Adam” (this age) and the “last Adam” (the age to come), who is the resurrected Jesus. In Adam, all die, but in Christ, all will be made alive (1 Corinthians 15:22). Death came through Adam (Romans 5:12), but resurrection life comes through the Lord Jesus, who is the firstborn of the new creation.

Reading this text in the light of 1 Corinthians 15 and, more immediately, in the light of 2 Corinthians 4:12-15, we see the contrast is between a world of death, affliction, and suffering and the resurrection life of Jesus. The former age is Adamic (conformed to Adamic death and suffering), and the latter is Christic (conformed to Christ).

The Adamic world is filled with human beings whose bodies are dying, decaying, and wasting away. The world is filled with affliction, and we see the reality of suffering all around us. We live in the Adamic age: death and suffering.

The Christic world includes not only future glory which is the resurrection from the dead (2 Corinthians 4:14), but it also includes the present glory of the indwelling of the Spirit and our transformation. The inner person is being renewed daily through its transformation from glory to glory into the image of Christ (2 Corinthians 3:18). It is a present experience rather than a merely future one. The glory of God is already at work in the lives of those who are in Christ. And it is the unseen work of God by the Spirit of God.

This is not a radical dualism but a recognition of the nature of the present human condition in contrast with the glorious present and future for humanity. Inwardly we are being transformed from glory to glory even as our body decays, but the hope is that the body will be raised and it, too, will be transformed into the glorious body of Christ (Philippians 3:21). This is not soul versus body, but rather than the union of soul and body in the hope of the resurrection.

Suffering is the major point. Paul participates in the Adamic world through suffering and affliction, and he also participates in the Christic world through transformation into the image of Christ. While the outer (the Adamic) is perishing, the inner (the eschatological glory) is renewing Paul toward a future resurrection and fully sanctification.

The Adamic affliction is light and momentary in contrast with the present and future experience of Christic glory.

How might we legitimately call our suffering “momentary and light”? Does this diminish our affliction?

It is helpful to remember the suffering Paul endured in his ministry before we too quickly dismiss Paul as one who is insensitive to suffering or minimizes suffering. His own story is filled with persecution, beatings, stoning, shipwrecks, anxiety, betrayals, rejection, and opposition from the principalities and powers. Paul knows suffering.

At the same time, Paul also knows glory. He has seen the resurrected Lord. He has experienced the power of the Spirit in his life, including his own transformation into a disciple of Jesus. He knows the glory of God because he believes in the resurrection of Jesus and its eternal consequences for his body, soul, and the creation itself.

At the same time, this slight momentary affliction has meaning:  it prepares us. What does that mean? 2 Corinthians 5:5 also uses this term (prepare) to describe how God is preparing us for our glorious resurrection.

Momentary affliction produces something. It will produce glory, particularly the glory of the resurrection.  Just as good works produce thanksgiving to God (2 Corinthians 9:11) or godly grief produces earnestness (2 Corinthians 7:11), so our light and momentary suffering produces eternal glory. 

This is true not only in the light the resurrection of Jesus as the final goal where we will be conformed to his glorious resurrection body (Philippians 3:21), but it is also true in the present moment as we experience glory in the middle of our suffering or even through our suffering. In Romans 5:3-4, Paul “knows” that suffering produces perseverance, and perseverance produces character, and character produces hope! God is at work in our suffering for the glorious purpose of conforming us to the image of Christ, transforming us from glory to glory.

But how can we maintain this perspective on suffering? How can we in the midst of such difficult, painful, and unbearable affliction consider our suffering light and momentary?

Paul answers. We set our gaze—keep our eyes on, pay attention to, or keep our focus on—what is unseen rather than what is seen. We keep our focus on the eternal glory—experienced in the present and anticipated in the future. From the perspective of eternity, the suffering appears light and momentary. This does not diminish the pain but compares it with the goal God has for those in Christ. The eternal reality of the resurrection far outweighs what is seen (the affliction). That is our hope.

We don’t live by what we see but by faith in what is unseen, which is ultimately the hope of the resurrection. The God we serve is the “God who raises the dead” (2 Corinthians 1:9). As Paul continues in 2 Corinthians 5:1, we don’t give up because “we know” that we will exchange our earthly tent for an eternal building, our resurrection body.

Therefore, we don’t lose heart. We are the ministers of eternal glory, both now and in the future. We are ministers of God’s eschatological reality, God’s glory. Consequently, we don’t give up.

Some Corinthians thought Paul was fickle and unreliable because he changed his plans and did not show up in ways they expected or Paul had intimated. Paul responded that his decisions—his plan changes—were  rooted in God’s faithful grace rather than human wisdom.

There was more, however, to the situation than simply the rearrangement of Paul’s intended visits to Corinth. It is also involved the nature of Paul’s presence. In person he appeared weak and uninspiring, but his letters were bold and audacious. To Paul’s critics, it was obvious why he wrote letters in the place of visiting the congregation: Paul’s presence is ineffective.

Consequently, Paul needed to explain why he wrote a letter rather than visiting. In general, Paul made decisions according to the grace of God (1:11-1:22). In other words, his faithfulness to the grace of God moved him to write a letter rather than visit. More specifically, it was for the Corinthian’s own good that Paul wrote a letter rather than visiting. Paul acted in the best interest of the Corinthians, that is, writing a letter rather than visiting was the best way for Paul to pursue a ministry of reconciliation toward the Corinthians in faithfulness to God’s grace.

It Was to Spare You

God is central to Paul’s own identity as well as his relationship with the Corinthians. God’s own identity is the centrifugal reality that shapes their life together. Paul has already articulated this in several ways in this first chapter of 2 Corinthians.

• God is merciful and consoling (1:3)
• God raises the dead (1:9)
• God is faithful (1:18)
• God establishes believers (1:21)

Here, in 1:23, Paul appeals to God as a witness as to his motive for substituting a letter for a visit. Paul has already appealed to his conscience and integrity (1:12) but now appeals to God’s own integrity. He swears an oath upon his own life (literally, “soul”) in the presence of God, and such appeals occur elsewhere in 2 Corinthians (11:31; 12:19). Paul wants the Corinthians to know his decisions were made with a deep sense of his own integrity and before the presence of God.

The motive for writing instead of visiting? To “spare” the Corinthians.

As Paul explained later in the letter, he had warned them during his second visit that he would not “spare” the impenitent when he visited for a third time (13:2). While some had suggested that Paul was too weak and ineffective to act boldly toward his opponents and the impenitent, Paul had assured them that he would do so in accordance with the gospel. Exactly what that entailed is not necessarily clear at this point though future parts of the letter may help us understand what kind of action Paul had in mind. Neither is it entirely clear whether the problems are theological (doctrinal), moral, or both. At this point, Paul depends on their shared knowledge and experience, and he has no need to explain the details to the Corinthians. That leaves us—2000 years later—a bit in the dark.

At the same time, his intent to “spare” them expresses his desire to give space for their faith rather than lord it over or “control” (NRSV) their faith. The word kurieuomen (“we control” or “lord over”) is the verb form of kurios (Lord). Only Jesus is Lord and lords over the faith of others. Believers—brothers and sisters in the body—do not exercise lordship over each other, including Paul.

On the contrary, Paul, Timothy, and Silas (1:19), and perhaps Titus as well, are “co-workers” with the Corinthians. They, the apostolic team and the Corinthian believers, are co-participants in the mission of God, and the apostolic team wants to work with the Corinthians for their joy.

Joy is a rich, robust word. It is not a simple synonym for happiness, though there is semantic overlap. Joy expresses a deep sense of relationality, communion, and experience of God’s own life. The apostolic team wants to cultivate joy in the Corinthian community rather than hardship, grief, and conflict. It is something Paul wants to enjoy with the Corinthians so that his joy is also their joy and vice versa. This is part of the reality that the ministry of reconciliation produces—joy. In essence, Paul spares them a visit in this moment in order to serve the goal of the ministry of reconciliation between himself and the Corinthians. He wants to experience joy among them once again.

Paul does not seek to control their faith but work with them because the Corinthians, too, like Paul, “stand by faith” (NRSV). Actually the phrase may mean “stand in the faith” as well as “stand by faith.” Perhaps Paul is intentionally ambiguous, and either way the point is that “faith”—allegiance to the gospel of Jesus the Messiah as the revelation of God’s own faithfulness—is the realm or means by which the Corinthians remain in the presence of God and co-workers with Paul in the kingdom of God.

It Was To Avoid Further Grief

Joy is the end-game for Paul—shared ministry in the gospel of reconciliation. Paul seeks reconciliation with the Corinthians. Consequently, he wants to avoid disruptions to that process, including another conflict-ridden visit like his previous (second) one. That was a painful or grief-filled visit.

Paul is not specific about what caused the pain or why he experienced it as such. Whatever that cause (and more is revealed later in the letter), it is the opposite of Paul’s intent. Paul seeks their mutual joy rather than grief. When the Corinthians are grieved, Paul, too, is grieved. There is no joy in their relationship or in the gospel. In other words, another visit—at least in the immediate aftermath of the second one—had the potential of generating more grief than healing, and that did not serve the interests of Paul’s reconciling ministry.

Confrontation is sometimes necessary, but we also want to pursue the best possible means of securing reconciliation. Paul chose a letter rather than a visit, though another visit was in the immediate future.

In order to promote reconciliation and embody the gospel in their relationship, Paul shifts from making another visit to writing a letter. His letter is bold in its language and severe in its confrontation. But it arose out of the anguish and distress of his heart accompanied by “many tears.”

This conscientious appeal to God, his own conscience, and to the Corinthians for reconciliation—for joy—between himself and the Corinthians expresses Paul’s heart, which contains his “abundant love” for the Corinthians. While the letter may have produced grief and hurt among the Corinthians, Paul does not write it to generate pain but to secure mutual joy in the gospel.

Paul’s commitment to the gospel of reconciliation is at stake in his relationship with the Corinthians. He ministers in the gospel for the sake of the world, including the Corinthians. His heart is breaking; his life has lost some of its joy. Consequently, he confronts the Corinthians not only because of his love for them as his children (he is the “father” of their congregation, 1 Corinthians 4:14-15), but because it is part of the ministry of reconciliation in which he and his apostolic team are engaged.

The Corinthians have become a sort of test case for the ministry of reconciliation itself. Can the gospel truly effect reconciliation? Can it last?

Paul’s heart is heavy with anguish and grief about the potential answer to that question between himself and the Corinthians.  He loves them, wants what is best for them, and seeks to know joy with them again. But at this moment—the moment between the painful letter and Paul’s reunion with Titus (2 Corinthians 7:5-12)—Paul is anxious about their response to his most recent letter (which is 2 Corinthians).

How will the Corinthians respond? That remains the open question at this point in 2 Corinthians.

This is a historic moment, and it is one I welcome. Dr. Candice McQueen has been appointed the President of Lipscomb University beginning in September, 2021.

What would David Lipscomb think about a female leader of the school he and James A. Harding founded?

The views and opinions expressed in that article are my own and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of Lipscomb University.

I fully celebrate the appointment of Dr. McQueen as the President of Lipscomb University. I do not affirm David Lipscomb’s position as presented in this article. Rather, the shift from David Lipscomb’s own personal position (and practice of the school in his day) to the present practice (including hiring Dr. McQueen) is the point of the history in this article.

I appreciate the need for historical sympathy for how enculturated people are, including ourselves. We are all, to some extent, people of our times, and we may have thought differently if we lived then or Lipscomb lived now. In that sense, of course, we extend grace as we hope others will extend grace to us. To raise the question for Lipscomb about a female president in 2021 is rather anachronistic, to say the least.

At the same time, we must tell the truth. But we don’t tell the truth to berate the past; we tell it to understand ourselves, our journey, and the present moment. I hope that is part of the function of this article.

My interest in this piece is to illustrate the shift in understanding over the past 100 years. In 1911, it would have been inconceivable for those associated with the Nashville Bible School to invite a woman president to lead the institution. David Lipscomb did not believe women should be public speakers or any kind of public leaders, whether in church or society.

Lipscomb regarded this question–whether women should have public leadership in society–as the same sort of point as female leadership in a congregational assembly. According to him, both were rooted in the nature of men and women as well as rooted in the created order. One was as sinful as the other.

Of course, as readers of this blog would know, I do not think either is sinful. In fact, I believe congregations and institutions should encourage the use of gifts in both public and private spaces, in both church and society.

This is the link to the Christian Chronicle opinion piece.

1 Corinthians 14:34-35 commands silence for women in the assemblies of the saints. Is that absolute, qualified, circumstantial, quoting opponents, an interpolation? Its meaning and application are contested, and in the history of that discussion, both in the American Restoration Movement (e.g., Guy N. Woods, B. B. James) and in other traditions of Church history (for centuries women were not permitted to sing in the sacred gatherings and excluded from choirs), some have taken the plain and clear meaning of 1 Corinthians 14:34-35 to include the exclusion of women from singing in the assembly.

Issac Marlow, an English Baptist, published a tract in 1690, and, in part, stated: “The Women ought neither to teach nor pray vocally in the Church of Christ, is generally believed by all Orthodox Christians, and is asserted from 1 Cor. 14.34, 35. . . and 1 Timothy 2, 11, 12. . .I therefore greatly marvel that any Man should assert and admit of such a Practice as Women’s Singing; and that any Women should presume to sing vocally in the Church of Christ, when he positively and plainly forbids them in his Word: for Singing is Teaching, Coloss. 3.16. and Speaking, Ephes. 5.19, both of which are plainly forbidden to Women in the Church.”

Marlow’s question is this: if silence means women cannot speak, and singing is a form of speaking, then why do most [Protestant] congregations encourage women to sing when they are discouraged from other forms of speaking based on 1 Corinthians 14:34-35?

Marlow is cited by Beth Allison Barr, The Making of Biblical Womanhood: How the Subjugation of Women Became Gospel Truth, pp. 120-1, an excellent book about the history of patriarchy or complementarianism.

From within the Restoration Movement (Stone-Campbell Movement,” David Lipscomb, “Paul’s Words and ‘Woman’s Opportunity,’ Gospel Advocate 34.42 (October 20, 1892) 661, wrote: “As to the claim that woman is not silent in church when she is singing, we grant it, and if Paul had enjoined unqualified silence upon woman in the church, it would be wrong for her to sing; but this he has not done. The prohibition is restricted to speaking–‘it s not permitted unto them to speak.'”

For convenience, below are links to the discussion between Renew and myself. I hope you find the series informative as well as reflective of attitudes that honor God and bear witness to the fruit of the Spirit.

I only respond to Renew posts that explicitly interact with my book Women Serving God.

1. Renew’s Review (Part 1): Hermeneutics.
2. My Response to Part 1.
3. Renew’s Reply to my Response to Part 1. (I also copied it into #4 below.)
4. My Rejoinder to Renew’s Reply to my Response to Part 1.
5. Renew’s Review (Part 2): 1 Corinthians 11.
6. My Response to Part 2.
7. Renew’s Review (Part 3): 1 Corinthians 14.
8. My Response to Part 3.
9. Renew’s Review (Part 4): 1 Timothy 2:8-15.
10. My Response to Part 4.
11. Renew’s Review (Part 5): Elders.
12. My Response to Part 5.
13. Renew’s Review (Part 6): Marriage.
14. My Response to Part 6.
15. Renew’s Review (Part 9): Where Does Egalitarianism Lead?
16. My Response to Part 9.
17. Renew’s Summary (Part 12).
18. My Response to Renew’s Summary.
19. Renew’s Final Response to My Comments on their Summary.
20. Christian Chronicle Review by Sproles.
21. My Response to Chronicle Review by Sproles.

For Adam was formed first, then Eve; and Adam was not deceived, but the woman was deceived and became a transgressor. Yet she will be saved through childbearing, provided they continue in faith and love and holiness, with modesty.

If the reasons Paul gives for 1 Timothy 2:11-12 are difficult to understand and subject to a wide range of meaning in addition to the questions and interpretations surrounding 1 Timothy 2:11-12 themselves, it is precarious to assume their universal import and impose restrictions on women based on this text. There may be situated cultural reasons rather than universal ones for Paul’s words in 1 Timothy 2:8-15.

Eleven Questions

1.  What is the significance of “first”? Is it prominence in a marriage, primogeniture rights, narrated chronological sequence? What does “first” entail? What sorts of honors, rights, privileges, inheritance, or authority are involved? Why does Paul appeal to “first” rather than “headship” explicitly if this is his meaning?

2.  What is the significance of the fact that Adam was not deceived but Eve was? Does this imply something about women as weaker, uneducated, more gullible, or inferior? How does this factor into Paul’s rationale?

3.  Why is it important to emphasize that Eve was deceived? How does this illuminate the situation in Ephesus? How does it illuminate why women are not permitted to “teach or have authority” over a man?

4.  Why is the transgression of the woman noted but not the transgression of Adam when in other places Paul highlights the transgression of Adam and the responsibility of Satan?

5.  What is the transgression of Eve? Is it merely the eating of forbidden fruit or is it also the assumption of leadership authority in the marital or spiritual relationship between Adam and Eve? Is the transgression of Eve the same as the transgression of the women in 2:9-12, or is the transgression of Eve similar because both the women of 2:9-12 and Eve were deceived?

6.  What is the nature of the rationale? Does it provide a ground for a universal principle or an example (narrated story) of why deceived people (in this case women) should not teach?

7. Why does the rationale contain events from both creation and the fall? How is the “fall” part of the rationale for 2:11-12? Are these two separate rationales (creation and fall) or is this a narrated sequence derived from Genesis 2-3 about Eve as a deceived woman?

8.  What does “saved” mean? Does it refer to salvation from sin, from the curse (a reversal of Genesis 3:16), from death, or taking her proper place in the domestic world rather than public life?

9.  What does “childbearing” mean? Does it refer to the birth of the Messiah, to child-rearing, to childbirth itself, or is it a metaphor for domestic life in general?

10.  Who is the “she” of verse 15 and who are the “they”? Is this merely stylistic? How are the “she” and “they” connected? Is it Eve who represents all women and “they” are all women? Is it about husband and wife (“they”)? Are the “they” the women of 2:9-10?

11. To what extent does Genesis 3:16 as the reversal of the fall through salvation and hope for healthy marriage and/or sexuality play a factor in understanding Paul’s rationale?

Six Interpretations

The first three interpretations are essentialist readings (that is, there is some thing about the created nature of reality) of Paul’s rationale while the final three interpretations are about the situated nature of Paul’s rationale. The former lend themselves to universal applications (though there is a difference in whether it applies to home alone, home and church, or to home, church, and society). The latter lend themselves to limited applications to the situation in Ephesus.

1. For Adam was formed first as the image of God, then Eve as an inferior helper; and Adam was not deceived because he was not as gullible as Eve, but the woman was deceived because her nature is more gullible and became a transgressor that ruined the whole human race for which she is punished, according to Genesis 3:16. Yet she [Eve or women] will be saved from further sin, ruin, pain, or perhaps even death through childbearing as she keeps to her domestic responsibilities, provided they [all women and/or her children] continue their Christian discipleship in faith and love and holiness, with modesty.

This is the dominant interpretation of the post-Constantinian church. The rationale suggests that women are not equipped for leadership in the home, church, and society because of their secondary essence. Their role is confined to the domestic sphere.

2. For Adam was formed first with primogeniture rights where the chronological order is an enactment of a divine hierarchical intent, then Eve as a dependent helper in the human vocation; and Adam was not deceived as a good, instructed leader would not be, but the woman was deceived as she listened to the serpent and became a transgressor when she assumed a leadership that did not belong to her and led her husband into sin. Yet she [Eve or women] will be saved from the further effects of Genesis 3:16, sin, ruin, pain, or perhaps even death through childbearing as she keeps to her domestic responsibilities, enjoys renewed marriage/sexuality with her husband in reversal of Genesis 3:16’s distortion of the intended created order, and refrains from public leadership in the church, provided they [all women or her children] continue their Christian discipleship in faith and love and holiness, with modesty.

This interpretation grounds Paul’s teaching in a hierarchy of roles. Because men have primogeniture rights, which is how “first” is understood, they are invested with the responsibility to authoritatively lead the home and church. It is a hierarchy of authority. For some, this includes society as well, but for others it is restricted to the home and church alone. Women are excluded from particular roles by virtue of a hierarchy of authority.

3. For Adam was formed first as the prominent leader, then Eve as a co-worker and marriage partner in the human vocation; and Adam was not deceived because he was instructed well, but the woman was deceived because she was uninstructed and the woman became a transgressor due to her lack of learning. Yet she [wife] will be saved from the further effects of Genesis 3:16, sin, ruin, pain, sexual exploitation, or perhaps even death through childbearing in the context of her married home life as a kind of reversal of Genesis 3:16’s corruption of God’s intent, provided they [husband and wife] continue their marital relationship and life in faith and love and holiness, with modesty.

This interpretation locates Paul’s rationale in the marriage relationship as grounded in the story of Adam and Eve. The application of the text, according to this interpretation, relates to household relationships rather than public leadership in the Christian community. This may be an accommodation to culture, or it may reflect an understanding of husband-wife relations patterned after Adam and Eve in creation.

4. For Adam was formed first, then Eve in contrast to pagan and Gnostic myths that say otherwise or give prominence to the woman; and Adam was not deceived and, though instructed, sinned with his eyes wide open, but the woman was deceived by the lies of the serpent and became a transgressor. Women should learn the mystery of godliness rather than trust the deceivers and their myths. Yet she [women] will be saved from pain and death through childbearing as a kind of reversal of Genesis 3:16’s corruption of original mutuality and/or sexual exploitation, provided they [all women] continue their Christian discipleship in faith and love and holiness, with modesty rather than seeking the help and aid of Artemis or other pagan gods.

This interpretation locates the rationale in the context of the conflict with false teaching in Ephesus. Some were promoting female dominance and priority (including teaching that Eve was created first or had some priority). Paul responds with the chronology of the Genesis narrative and the role of Eve in the fall. Further, in contrast to how women sought protection (salvation) in childbirth from Artemis, Paul counsels they trust God through continuing in faith, love, and holiness.

5.  For Adam was formed first in chronological sequence, then Eve was created to complete humanity so that together they might pursue the human vocation; and Adam was not deceived and, though instructed, sinned with his eyes wide open, but the woman was deceived because she listened to the serpent and then Adam listened to Eve and through her deception the woman became a transgressor. Women should learn the mystery of godliness rather than trust the deceivers and their myths. Yet she [women] will be saved from this false teaching through honoring their marriages and having children rather than embracing asceticism as part of the false teaching as a kind of reversal of Genesis 3:16’s corruption of original mutuality, provided they [Christian women or husband/wives] continue their discipleship in faith and love and holiness, with modesty.

This interpretation believes the problem in Ephesus was generated by the presence of false teachers. Just like Eve, some women were deceived into following and promoting their myths. Paul’s resolution is the rejection of the asceticism that plagued this false teaching and encourages women and men to embrace healthy sexuality, including having children as well as continuing in a godly marriage and community.

6. For Adam was formed first in chronological sequence, then Eve was created to complete humanity so that together they might pursue the human vocation; and Adam was not deceived and, though instructed, sinned with his eyes wide open, but the woman was deceived because she listened to the serpent and then Adam listened to Eve and through her deception the woman became a transgressor. Women should learn the mystery of godliness rather than trust the deceivers and their myths. Yet she [Eve] will be saved from her transgression through the birth of the Messiah [“the childbearing”], provided they [all women or the women of 2:9-10] continue their discipleship in faith and love and holiness, with modesty.

This interpretation understands the problem in Ephesus was generated by the presence of false teachers. Just like Eve, some women were deceived into following and promoting their myths. Paul’s resolution is the birth of the Messiah who will save from sin all those who continue in faith, love, and holiness.

Renew has recently published the ninth part of their series on Bible, gender, and the church. This is my response.

However, attention to my book is only minimal. Consequently, I will only respond to places that explicitly address my own particular thoughts.

I found this article problematic in many ways. I think there are too many assumptions and projections rather than helpful interactions with the claims of evangelical or biblically-based egalitarians. But I will not take the time to note this. I will only address what explicitly overlaps with my own book, Women Serving God.

Renew’s series, as a whole, responds to the publication of my book, Women Serving God. The following are links to the discussion between myself and Renew in the blogosphere.

1. Renew’s Review (Part 1): Hermeneutics.
2. My Response to Part 1.
3. Renew’s Reply to my Response to Part 1. (I copied it into #4 below.)
4. My Rejoinder to Renew’s Reply to my Response to Part 1.
5. Renew’s Review (Part 2): 1 Corinthians 11.
6. My Response to Part 2.
7. Renew’s Review (Part 3): 1 Corinthians 14.
8. My Response to Part 3.
9. Renew’s Review (Part 4): 1 Timothy 2:8-15.
10. My Response to Part 4.
11. Renew’s Review (Part 5): Elders.
12. My Response to Part 5.
13. Renew’s Review (Part 6): Marriage.
14. My Response to Part 6.
15. Renew’s Review (Part 9): Where Does Egalitarianism Lead?

I will begin by quoting the first set of paragraphs from Renew’s article (Part 9) that address my book.

“For example, a careful reading of John Mark Hick’s Women Serving God shows an advocacy for men and women achieving egalitarian ideals: equal status, equal power, equal opportunities in all that is done in the gathered church—but in a way that rejects biblical hierarchies as something distasteful.

Servanthood seems somehow antithetical to clerical authority and hierarchy.[2]

In fact, Hicks infuses secular ideals, without acknowledging their source, with Jesus’ teachings on service, humility, and the importance of using one’s giftedness.

Infusing secular ideals with Jesus’ teachings seems like a smooth mix appropriate for this cultural moment. But is it scriptural? And where does an unchecked egalitarianism lead?

Bizarrely, the egalitarian and individualistic ideals in Western civilization are in the midst of working themselves out and are now being mixed into Critical Theory and the new cultural Marxism. These ideals continue to evolve and merge, being fueled by the new focus on human emancipation from all perceived forms of systemic oppression. Critical Theory derives its ideas of power, justice, and equality from postmodernism and soft forms of Carl [Karl, JMH] Marx’s ideas. Critical theorists place the blame for all that’s wrong in the world at the feet of unjust social structures and systems. According to Critical Theory, these systems maintain power by truth claims.”

My response.

I found this rather strange. I never use the term egalitarian in my book. I do make a biblical case for the full participation of women in the “gathered church” (assembly). This is based upon the giftedness of women and that God distributes these gifts to both male and female for the common good of the assembly.

With respect to the assembly, Renew actually agrees with me in this regard with the one exception of preaching or “authoritative teaching” (as is claimed in earlier blogs). So, because I affirm the privilege of women to preach in the assembly or teach authoritatively, I have now “infuse[d] secular ideals . . . with Jesus’ teaching.” Moreover, I am, in some way, indebted to or profoundly influenced by Critical Theory and the new cultural Marxism.

I wonder how many people actually see cultural Marxism in Women Serving God. I don’t think it is there at all. I think I would need a bit more evidence from Renew that I have been shaped by such thinking and utilized it “without,” Renew charges, “acknowledging” the source of those ideas. I affirm the source of my ideas in the book. I get them from the Bible.

It seems, as I read Renew, it is cloaked under this assertion: “Servanthood seems somehow antithetical to clerical authority and hierarchy.”

The footnote to that statement refers to a section entitled “At Table with Jesus” (pp. 145-146).

Renew actually quotes part of a paragraph later in the blog. Here is the paragraph they quote.

“The table of Jesus is not about power and control. It is not about clerical authority. It is not about prerogatives and status. It is not about hierarchy. It is about mutual service and ministry. The table is where we serve each other.…unfortunately, the table—like leadership in the worship assembly—has become the place for hierarchical positioning.”

Renew characterizes “hierarchy” as a “human structure in which some people have more authority or power than others who are in submission to them.”

Renew affirms the “hierarchies” of “male headship in marriage (Eph. 5:3), a dad’s leadership in families (Eph. 6:4), and elderships in churches (1 Tim. 3:1ff).”

My “distaste toward hierarchy,” as Renew calls it, does not entail a distaste for spiritual authority and submission as Renew claims. I affirm that the Spirit’s gifts to the body carry authority with them and the response of others is to submit. At the same time, this does not institute a hierarchy that stratifies a community on the basis of race [Jew/Gentile], gender [male/female], economics [enslaved/free], ecclesiastical status [clerics] and cultural status [e.g., political or celebrity figures], but a community of mutual submission (Ephesians 5:21). Rather, the distributed gifts function within the community as expressions of spiritual authority and submission.

The question, then, is not whether there is authority and submission but rather the nature of that authority and submission. I contend it is not a matter of gender or clerical hierarchialism.

More specifically, my discussion of the table is directed at power, control, and clericalism that institute a status that ranks the participants at the Lord’s table in some way. I am describing what happens at Eucharist or at the Lord’s Supper. We are at the table together as mutual servants, not as ranked agents of power.

Is there gender hierarchy, much less clerical hierarchy, at the table of the Lord? May only men serve the table of the Lord? May only men officiate at the table of the Lord and speak the gospel at the table? May only clerics officiate at the table of the Lord?

I suggest that one of the great contributions of the Restoration Movement is the subversion of sacerdotal or clerical authority and the practice of the priesthood of believers (though only male in the assembly for much of the Restoration Movement). Alexander Campbell debated this point with N. L. Rice. Campbell (Campbell-Rice Debate, p.583). Of course, Campbell maintained the gender hierarchy (p. 584: “We never, by word or action, sanctioned either female or minors as baptists”). I assume–I would be happy to know for certain–Renew encourages women who disciple others to baptize them (which is a revision of the historic Christian position).

The gathered community comes together as a priesthood of believers without clerical distinctions. There is no hierarchy at the table of the Lord, either clerical or gendered. We sit at the table as fellow-servants, priests of God, members of the body of Christ, and without unique rank, status, or prerogatives.

When we turn the table of the Lord or the assembled gathering into a clerical and/or gendered expression of hierarchical stratification, then we undermine the meaning of the table and the quench the Spirit’s distribution of gifts within the body.

This is not Critical Theory or a new Marxism. It is a biblical theology of giftedness and the priesthood of all believers. As to specifics of male headship and elders as an expression of male hierarchy, I encourage readers to read the interactions in the previous blogs for a discussion of the texts and particulars.

To end, I am disturbed by the rhetoric present in the blog. “It requires scholars (like John Mark Hicks and Scot McKnight) and church leaders to re-interpret or explain away at least 8 male authority roles in Scripture…” Renew apparently thinks it is the “university elites, cultural influencers, and evangelical scholars like Hicks and McKnight” that come to conclusions that women may fully participate in the assemblies of God. This sets up the potential for a kind anti-intellectualism, which I know Renew does not want to cultivate. It does, it seems to me, play to a base with whom such rhetoric will resonate and create an automatic suspicion without hearing the evidence. In the same way, using the buzz words “Critical Theory” or “Marxism” functions as a kind of red flag (even red meat) that creates even more suspicion without hearing the evidence of the book.

More to the point, it is inaccurate. There are examples of such advocates who came to their own conclusion without university elites or scholars. For example, the early 19th century African American Jarena Lee (d. 1864) was the first female AME preacher. I could name more, such as Phoebe Palmer among others. In any event, such characterizations as “elites” is ad hominem; it is a rhetorical appeal to a base that mistrusts “university elites.” I think that unworthy of the history of our dialogue through these blogs. It participates more in the political partisan rhetoric of our time than it does in a biblical and theological discussion among people who both affirm the authority of Scripture.

Moreover, the charge that I have re-interpreted and explained away texts equally applies to Renew’s position. The soft complementarianism Renew affirms has to reinterpret 1 Corinthians 11:2-16 so as to permit women praying and prophesying in the public assembly, 1 Corinthians 14:34-35 as only applying to disorderly women or the function of weighing the speech of other prophets, and 1 Timothy 2:12 as only applying to the authority of elders (and perhaps preachers). Each of those is a re-interpretation of the historic position of the church which explains away the dimensions of the text that are inconsistent with a soft complementarianism–which is a new position in the history of the church, just as much as egalitarianism is.

Further, the charge that one needs a 1,000 page book to understand the Scriptures in order to be an egalitarian instead of reading the plain text of Scripture is equally true for the soft complementarian who has re-read Scripture through the explanation of books, articles, and blogs in order to maintain a soft complementarianism. One needs a 1,000 page book to defend such re-reading and explanations as well.

I trust readers who have ingested Renew’s blog will give a fair hearing to my book. If so, I have no ill will toward those who disagree with me.

Peace to my friends at Renew.