Reflections on Seminary: 10 Reasons Why My Reflections on Seminary Will Be Horribly Weighted Towards the Negative

As graduation is near, I am starting to reflect on my seminary experience.  I’d like to do a series of reflective posts on the matter but I feel like I need to start out with this disclaimer first: my reflections will be very negative.  I’ve struggled a lot over the past two years and so because my emotions have been in turmoil, my reflections will most likely manifest those feelings.

1.   During seminary I Had mononucleosis for 5 months.  This is the number one, awful experience during my two years at seminary.  From July 2010 through November 2010 I left my room probably like 8 times and I could count on one hand the number of times that I actually made it to my classes.  I shopped for my wedding dress with mono and subsequently just picked one out of sheer fatigue.  This not only took a huge physical toll but it also wreaked havoc on my emotions so pretty much all I wanted to do was quit seminary and become a professional sleeper so that I could get over the damn disease.   Mono also brought some guests with it such as strep throat and tonsillitis, about three months apart so its not like I could do the suffering all at one time.
2. During seminary I gained 30 lbs and reached new lows of physical shape.  This is largely due to the five months of mono + emotional turmoil.  Lying in bed and eating to make myself feel better will definitely add some weight.  Unfortunately, though, because my body got so emaciated and weak during the illnesses, its going to take quite some time commitment to get it back to any sense of normal.  I’m definitely looking forward to doing this over the summer.  The 30 pounds also has caused a lot of emotional turmoil, especial with my impending nuptials a mere month and a half away.
3. During seminary I got my first speeding ticket.  Ok, this is a minor one but it traumatized me and it just seems to fit with my overall disdain for unfortunate events.  What makes it worse is that now I go the speed limit.
4. During seminary I had to go to the ER twice.  Another health folly.  The first one was at the end of my first year here – I had an infected wisdom tooth so I went to the ER to get antibiotics, for which they charged me a FORTUNE because my student insurance does not cover dental.  So later I got that tooth pulled.  Then, amidst the mono and the tonsillitis, I had a severe stomach bug or food poisoning.  Let’s just say there was hemorrhaging, pain, and lots of blood which landed me in the emergency room with my poor fiancé.  Congrats on your engagement…
5. During seminary I was/felt unable to do any of the ministry activities that I loved previous to arriving here.  This one was not so bad at first because I had sort of understood that grad school was going to require a hibernation (of sorts) from extracurricular activities.  It just so happens that all the reasons why I even came to grad school (love for discipleship, teaching the world and spiritual truths, leading bible studies, etc) were the activities that I had to cut out in order to give time to my studies.  I think that this also correlates with the difficulty I had getting involved with a church – it took me a while to find one I liked and then it ended up being too far away so I didn’t even find a church until the end of my first year here.  Then the second year I had mono and going to church, let alone leading and discipling and such was far from a realistic option.
6. During seminary I had my first boyfriend, first kiss, got engaged, and had my family meet my significant other for the first time and met my significant others’ family for the first time.  Ok, so these are obviously good things but they are MAJOR stressors and they don’t make the paper you have to write for systematic theology nearly as interesting as learning about this guy you’re dating.  In addition, all of these things were especially emotionally taxing for me because they were so new and I was having to explain everything to my poor family via emails and telephone conversations and it was new for them too, so they didn’t really help the stress level.
7. During seminary I was in a pretty dysfunctional living situation.  Enough said, I’m not going to go over this in more detail.
8. During seminary, I lived away from home for the first time in life.  This is hard!
9. During seminary I have had to plan my wedding.  Wedding are wonderful things – but when you just want to get married and be done with school because you think you’re never going to get over mono unless you sleep for two years, planning a wedding becomes a major distraction.  It is also a stressor and a time when people politics are often at their worst.  And also, I like it and prefer doing design things to writing papers at this stage in life.
10. During seminary I have reached all-time spiritual lows.  I feel like seminary alumni always warn you about the spiritual toll that seminary can take on you.  I would have had a hard time anyway but add the difficulties of seminary to all this other stuff and it just creates a spiritual desert.  Being so saturated in the Bible and theological topics, it gets harder and harder to open the Word again and try to glean some sort of personal and relational hope from it.  Prayer life is also at an all-time low.  It just feels like everything you’re doing is a ‘quiet time’ so it all begins to lose meaning and significance.  Prayer is something that I look forward to practicing more as I begin to heal from this series of unfortunate events.

Understanding the Green Gap: How and Why the Poor and Marginalized are Oppressed by the Green Movement

[Here is another paper that I wrote for my Political Theologies class.  It is not very good.  And I feel that I don't even do enough 'engaging' with the poor and oppressed. So don't think I'm not chiding myself here.  Because I am]

Introduction

Western Christianity has decided to jump onto the ecological bandwagon and join the ranks of Buddhism, Neo-pagans, Hindu’s and Baby Boomers (that were most likely hippies in their youths).  Well, perhaps that is not the best or most fair statement; but it is fair to say that the greening of Christianity is currently underway.[1]  Aging congregations that are going green have started to attract new and younger members, energy efficient churches are being built, and, “theologians now speak routinely of stewardship.”[2]  While some American Protestants remain wary of ecotheologies, it is safe to say that ecological care is trending even among some of the most conservative groups.  John Piper was interviewed about the issue and asked the question, “Is there room in reformed theology for environmental concern?”  Piper’s answer was, “Totally.”[3]  He went on to elaborate on his one-word answer but it is obvious that even Piper did not hesitate to affirm the importance to environmental care.  Fortunately, this new support for ecological care from conservatives has begun to open the doors for real change and effective, efficient, and Christ-centered stewardship.  On the other hand, the popularity of ecological care has also created superficial greening trends that sometimes lack real quality and serve only to hurt communities, leaving them jaded or completely unawares.

            Admittedly, I am a 24-year-old, white, female, seminary student so I fit the demographics of this greening trend.  Thus, this paper could be just another rhetorical flourish for superficial “greenwashing.”[4]  However, the goal of this paper is to do the exact opposite.  I argue that there are three different areas within the ecological crisis that many conservative Christians are failing to address: poverty, racism, and globalization.  To a large extent, all three of these issues perpetuate the ecological crisis and yet American Protestants still tend to lump ecological care into the category of stewardship – sometimes congregational but often individual.  In short, ecological care has repeatedly been understood as a relationship between human and nature.  I would like to posit that true ecological care can only be fully realized when humans are working in community.  Poverty, racism, and globalization, as I will explain, all hinder community and therefore, ecological health, which in turn, injures human health. 

Since I will be putting precedence on ecology as a social justice issue, I will rely heavily on Leonardo Boff’s works on liberation theology, ecology, and justice.[5]  Boff is a Brazilian Liberation Theologian, professor, scholar, and author.  While he does not support or express many Biblical doctrine’s deemed as ‘orthodox’ his viewpoint is still valuable, applicable, and helpful in an analysis of the ecological crisis.  You can rest assured that I hold to these more conservative doctrines (e.g. the inerrancy of scripture), so please feel that you are learning about Boff in a safe environment.  With that said, I will now embark on an analysis of poverty as it relates to the perpetuation of the ecological crisis.

Poverty and Ecology

In the past, it has been assumed that the poor “are more likely to engaged in environmentally deleterious behavior because they are incapable of thinking beyond the next meal.”[6]  This is a very problematic view that does not account for the structural oppression that hinders the poor from progressing.  Authors Leslie Gray and William Moseley say this very eloquently as they make the essential link between poverty and the environment.  They say

“While linking environmentalism and poverty alleviation (or economic growth) appears to be a laudable effort to unite concerns for conservation and social justice or economic development, a failure to examine rigorously and empirically the poverty–environment connection may mean that development theorists and planners are, at a minimum, inappropriately scapegoating the poor for problems they have not created, or worse, continuing to promote policies that undermine long-term poverty alleviation, food security and environmental integrity. In other words, this is one of those ‘big questions’ with which the scholarly community needs to engage.[7]

According to Boff, Leslie and Gray are choosing the correct starting point for their study of the ecological crises; namely, the poor.  Boff continually asserts that Liberation Theology must begin with a preferential option for the poor.  When the central focus is the preservation of Earth, then the divisions of humanity that are most threatened are not being helped by most attempts at creation care.[8]  I do want to emphasize that I disagree with Boff because I believe that Christ and the Bible should really be at the center of our theology; however, if we are attempting to understand how we should engage in orthopraxis, specifically in relation to our own local cultures, peoples, problems, and perversions, then Boff has a brilliant point!  Thus, as we think about ways in which to remedy or provide redemptive presence in the face of the ecological crisis we should start with the most marginalized.  If we merely focus on the preservation of the Earth, the West, or any particular type of development we will create a corrective model that continually and structurally undermines any progress for the people outside of that particular development.[9]

            In order to offer some practical ways in which we can view the ecological crisis with preference for the poor, I want to give some examples of how the crises disproportionately effects those in poverty.  Because of the length of this paper, I will merely espouse three of the many examples where the poor have been disproportionately affected by the ecological crises and/or where they perpetuate the ecological crises because their poverty is perpetuated by outside, structural forces.

            First, the demand for organic foods has continued to skyrocket as the green movement increases in popularity and trendiness.  Since demands are so high, organic growers have sometimes continued to expand in ways that look similar, if not identical to, their conventional counterparts – this means that workers are often exploited and oppressed in order to keep prices low.[10]  Thus, the larger organic companies continue to oppress the poor who are then forced to perpetuate the ecological crises through environmental degradation in which they must participate in order to survive their oppression.  To make matters worse, this process undermines long-term poverty alleviation.

            Second, even though organic growers strive to keep costs low (some through exploitation and others through ethical means), organic food is often much more expensive than food produced by conventional companies.  In an incredibly health conscious environment like Seattle, Washington one can readily find healthy and organic foods at places such as Whole Foods, Trader Joe’s, or local farmer’s markets.  The problem is that the poor are often priced out of these opportunities.  In Seattle, the basic cost for families is more expensive than what food stamps allow.[11]  Thus, if people cannot afford to eat healthy food, then they simply will not buy it, which then injures their own health, and perpetuates the ecological crises as they support (simply by what they buy) the companies that exploit the earth.[12]  One advocate for changing this downward spiral asserts that these racially and economically stratified food systems exploit the many marginalized in order to appease the few (often white) and affluent which leaves, “the people at the bottom to starve, materially and politically.”[13]

Race and Ecology

            As alluded to in my last quote, the people who are most marginalized are often the poor but they also tend to inhabit a racial minority.  In fact, the ecological crisis has an obvious and disproportionate effect on minorities.  For instance, studies have found that, “African-American communities will be the most likely to experience the greatest total years of life lost from diabetes,” as a result of out-of-balance food environments.[14]  “Food deserts” can be defined as a location with no or distant grocery stores, so the residents of food deserts do not have access to produce and definitely do not have access to food from places like Whole Foods and Trader Joe’s.  Many residents either do not have a car or do not have other modes of transportation to these grocery stores that are far away so they are forced to find their food at fast-food restaurants, gas stations, or quick marts.  These types of diets not only hurt the earth by supporting corrupt systems of manufacturing, they also hurt the individuals causing rising obesity rates lower life-quality. 

Below I have a Figure of the United States showing the percentage of households in food deserts according to the USDA’s standards.  Next I have a Figure that shows the racial makeup of the food desert areas in the Chicago and greater Chicago areas.  You will notice that the national food deserts occur heavily in the South East, which is known to be heavily populated by African Americans.  Similarly, the map of Chicago shows that the three areas that are the farthest from grocers are primarily African American communities.

Figure 1.  No Car and No Supermarket Store Within a Mile.[15]

Figure 2.   Distance to Grocers by Tract in Chicago and Chicago’s Food Deserts Are Nearly Exclusively African-American.[16]

With these images and data, it is easy to see that the ecological crisis disproportionately affects ethnic minorities.  This is again, because proponents of the green movement have failed to begin with a preferential option for the poor and oppressed. 

In the beginning of my paper, I said that these issues were being overlooked by a majority of Christians.  I can make this blanket statement because of the vast segregation that is found within the American Church.  First, Boff posits three ways of truly practicing liberating theology.  The following table expresses these three forms

1.	More or Less Restrictive	Sporadic visits or meetings or more regular visits such as through pastoral work or acting as an advisor or poor communities.
2.	Alternating	Alternating periods of scholarly work such as research teaching, or writing with practical works.
3.	Permanent	Permanently living with the poor and marginalized, making one’s home among them.

Table 1. Leonardo Boff’s three forms of practicing liberating theology.[17]

In his introduction to these three forms of commitment to the poor, Boff is adamant that it is impossible to produce good, sensitive theology and commitment to the poor and oppressed without some contact with them.[18]  Therefore, if Christians are to truly create and engage in whole and fruitful models of commitment to with and redemption of the earth and those suffering in the ecological crises – they must spend time with these oppressed communities.  All too often, ‘going green’ consists of shopping at Whole Foods, buying green light bulbs, and recycling.

            In 2008 CNN published an article by John Blake who interviewed researchers on the issue.   These scholars agreed that, “integrated churches are rare because attending one is like tiptoeing through a racial minefield.”[19]  Blake found that only five percent of the nations churches are integrated.  If churches are so segregated then how are the white, affluent churches creating a preferential option for the poor and oppressed?   In fact, I would suggest that many all-white churches lack the ability to create models of cultural engagement that take into account the poor and oppressed simply because they are segregated from them.  As Boff pointed out, there can be no healthy orthopraxis without real experience with the poor and oppressed.  If churches are to truly ‘go green’ in a holistic way, it will require them to integrate and serve the poor and oppressed.  Without experiencing oppression in a real, participatory way, Christians cannot create models for engagement and redemption that are concerned with those who are suffering most.

The Third World and Ecology

            Until this point, I have primarily focused on local issues in the United States.  Since we are living in an increasingly globalized nation, models for engagement and redemption that are concerned with those who are suffering most must maintain a preferential option for the Third World.  In an article for Colorlines, Michelle Chen writes eloquently and explains how the First World /Third World relations are a macrocosm of the structural inequality we see at home.  She writes, “global inequality mirrors the one here at home, where the downturn has exposed systemic gaps between the privileged and the growing ranks of the impoverished.”[20]  This is because most programs for progress do not start with a preferential option for the most marginalized.  Instead, Chen says, they are “premised on privileging a few at the expense of everyone else is bad for all. It turns out that there’s actually something inherently good about social equality.”[21]  This is often because even our communal efforts at sustainability and stewardship still exist in a framework that makes money primary.

            There are many examples of the injustices that these practices have brought to the Third World, the earth, and consequently the rest of society.  In 2006 a few professors, theologians and authors worked together to write a book entitled, Justice in a Global Economy: Strategies for Home, Community, and World.  Within this book there are examples of the injustice that different regions have experienced due to globalization:

American-based multinational companies ensure profits by selling genetically engineered seed that produces a ‘seedless’ harvest; thus, farmers will not be able to save some of the crop to plant as seeds the next year as their traditional practice.  International oil companies with interests in Nigeria gain consistent profits by drilling in the oil-rich region of the Niger Delta, while the traditional fishing and farming economy has been destroyed by oil-based pollution.  Native American families for whom fish for whom fish from America’s Great Lakes are a dietary staple face a high risk of brain damage for their current and future children due to high mercury levels in the fish, which have been contaminated by mercury dumped in the lakes.[22]

Here, it very clearly that the benefits of globalization are not available to all, and some are extremely adversely effected by it.  Again, the Christian needs to begin with a preferential option for the poor.  Daisy Muchado, a contributing author of Justice in a Global Economy, says that we, as Christians, need to ask ourselves one question as we face seemingly endless injustices: “Who are the victims of globalization?”[23]  Muchado’s conclusion is that Christians must become aware and educated about injustices if they are to provide any sort of remedy.

            Awareness of injustices borne out of globalization is exceedingly difficult to foster.  I mentioned earlier that the American Church is very segregated, thus many white, affluent churches struggle to understand the situation of the oppressed and marginalized even when their neighbors might be the ones suffering.  Likewise, there are miles and oceans in between the physical lives of white, affluent, Americans and the central-Indians who can no longer save their seeds or the Nigerians who can no longer fish due to oil pollution.  It is hard enough for people to integrate and experience other’s suffering in the United States so the long distance of global issues ads more difficulty. 

Boff’s three forms of orthopraxis are essential here.  The first mode of practice could include short-term missions; the second, sermons, research and books; and the third could entail completely leaving the United States to live and serve in another country.  Ironically, there are some reasons to believe that justice abroad is more sought after than justice in the United States.  With the consistent growth of Pentecostalism and passion for addressing the social needs of people in their communities, there has been an equally great fall from Christendom in the Western world.[24]  In fact, authors and sociologists Donald E. Miller and Tetsunao Yamamori state that, “the demographics of Christendom are being turned upside down – quite literally, because the vitality of Christianity is moving from the Northern Hemisphere to south of the equator.”[25]  This means that, for whatever reason, Christians abroad are responding more appropriately to their local injustices.  In fact, it may be that the United States is the nation that needs to receive foreign missionaries.

Conclusion

Indeed, the local needs of the oppressed and poor are vast in the United States and in comparison to the global Church, North America and Europe are in spiritual darkness.  It has been my goal to espouse some ecological issues that the Western church tends to ignore, either deliberately or passively.  The popularity of ecological care has created superficial trends that sometimes endanger both humans and the earth rather than heal them. 

First, we looked at the relationship between poverty and the ecological crises and found that the poor are being marginalized by many of the plans for a greener America.  If the plans do not start with the poor in sight, then they will be overlooked.  Second, we looked at the ecological crisis in relationship to race and we found that minorities are more likely to experience adverse effects from the ecological crises – yet, Churches continue to be segregated which does not allow for white, affluent Christians to gain an understanding of the situation of the oppressed.  Lastly, we endeavored to understand the global injustices that are often perpetuated by local behavior here in the United States.  It is these three issues that I wished to discuss and hopefully offer some new and convicting insight into how the American Church should respond.  Ultimately, I hope that we will heed Boff’s suggestion and seek true compassion with the oppressed by suffering with them, even if it puts our own safety and comfort in danger. [26]

---

[1]Joel Garreau, "Environmentalism as Religion," The New Atlantis, Number 28, Summer 2010, pp. 61-74, http://www.thenewatlantis.com/publications/environmentalism-as-religion (Accessed April 4, 2011).

[2]Ibid.

[3] John Piper, “Is There Room In Reformed Theology for Environmental Concern?” desiringGod: Resource Library, June 29, 2010, http://www.desiringgod.org/resource-library/ask-pastor-john/is-there-room-in-reformed-theology-for-environmental-concern (Accessed April 4, 2011).

[4] Greenwashing Index, “Why is Greenwashing a Problem,” About Greenwashing, http://www.greenwashingindex.com/why.php, (Accessed April 1, 2011).

[5] Leonardo Boff, Ecology and Liberation: A New Paradigm (Maryknoll, NY: Orbis, 1995).

Leonardo Boff, Cry of the Earth, Cry of the Poor (Maryknoll, NY: Orbis, 1997).

Leonardo Boff, Introducing Liberation Theology (Maryknoll, NY: Orbis, 1986).

[6] Leslie C. Gray and William G. Moseley, “A Geographical Perspective on Poverty-Environment Interactions”, The Geographical Journal, Vol. 171, No. 1, March 2005, pp.9-23.

[7] Gray and Moseley, 10.

[8] Boff, Cry of the Earth, Cry of the Poor, 112-113.

[9] Boff, Cry of the Earth, Cry of the Poor, 113.

[10] Michelle Chen, “Appetite for Equity”, COLORLINES: News for Action, May 15, 2009, http://colorlines.com/archives/2009/05/appetite_for_equity.html (Accessed May 1, 2011).

[11] Pheong Cat Le, “Poor Are Priced out of Healthful Eating: Basic Cost Families More Than Food Stamp Benefits Allow,” Seattlepi.com, January 28, 2007, http://www.seattlepi.com/default/article/Poor-are-priced-out-of-healthful-eating-1226707.php (Accessed April 3, 2011).

[12] Robert Kenner, director, Food, Inc.  DVD (New York, NY: Magnolia Pictures, 2008).

[13] Chen, “Appetite for Equity.”

[14] Mari Gallagher, Good Food: Examining the Impact of Food Deserts on Public Health in Chicago (Chicago, IL: Mari Gallagher Research & Consulting Group), http://www.marigallagher.com/site_media/dynamic/project_files/Chicago_Food_Desert_Report.pdf (Accessed February 2, 2011), 6.

[15] Chris Wilson, “Dinner at the Kwik-E-Mart: Food Deserts in America,” Slate Labs: Experiments in Multimedia Journalism, http://labs.slate.com/articles/food-deserts-in-america/ (Accessed, April 2, 2011). And, Report to Congress, “Access to Affordable and Nutritious Food: Measuring and Understanding Food Deserts and Their Consequences”, USDA, June 2009, http://www.ers.usda.gov/Publications/AP/AP036/AP036fm.pdf (Accessed, April 2, 2011).

[16] Gallagher.

[17] Boff, Introducing Liberation Theology, 23.

[18] Boff, 23

[19] John Blake, “Why Many Americans Prefer Their Sundays Segregated,” CNN Living, August 2008, http://articles.cnn.com/2008-08-04/living/segregated.sundays_1_black-church-small-church-pastor?_s=PM:LIVING (Accessed April, 2011).

See Also:  Curtiss Paul DeYong and Michael O. Emerson, United by Faith: The Multiracial Congregation As an Answer to the Problem of Race (Oxford: Oxford University, 2003). And:  Michael O. Emerson and Christian Smith, Divided by Faith: Evangelical Religion and the Problem of Race in America (Oxford: Oxford University, 2001).

[20] Michelle Chen, “One Step Forward, Two Steps Apart on the UN’s Development Goals,” COLORLINES: News for Action, September 2010, http://colorlines.com/archives/2010/09/millenium_development_goals.html, (Accessed April 2, 2011).

[21] Ibid.

[22] Pamela Brubaker and Rebecca Peters, eds.  Justice for a Global Economy: Strategies for Home, Community, and World (Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox Press, 2006), 79.

[23] Ibid, 119.

[24] Donald E. Miller and Tetsunao Yamamori, Global Pentecostalism: The New Face of Christian Social Engagement (Berkeley, CA: University of California, 2007), 2.

[25] Ibid, 17.

[26] Boff, Introducing Liberation Theology, 2.

IN DEFENSE OF A MILLENNIAL VIEW: CONCILIATORY MILLENNIALISM

[So...I had to write a paper defending 'a millennial view.'  First, let me just say that I spelled millennium wrong on the title page of my paper.  That is the point I'm at in the semester.  Second, I didn't defend any of the major views (postmillennialism, premillennialism, or amillennialism) because I hate them all and I think that all three make objective statements that cannot be objectively known given the scripture we have.  So I made up my own view: Conciliatory Millennialism.  And its probably heretical.  Or someone else has articulated the same thing much better.  Either way...here it is....]

According to Wayne Grudem’s Systematic Theology, the word ‘millennium’ means one thousand years.[1]  This specific term comes from Revelation 20:4-5 which reads:

[4] I saw thrones on which were seated those who had been given authority to judge. And I saw the souls of those who had been beheaded because of their testimony about Jesus and because of the word of God. They had not worshiped the beast or its image and had not received its mark on their foreheads or their hands. They came to life and reigned with Christ a thousand years. [5] (The rest of the dead did not come to life until the thousand years were ended.) This is the first resurrection.[2]

These two verses have been at the center of debate in the study of last things, or eschatology, both historically and currently.  In an effort to produce an unprecedented study of the three major millennial interpretations, editor Darrell L. Bock has put together “an interactive presentation” of three scholars views on the millennium in his book, The Millennium and Beyond.[3]  After reading Bock’s book and conducting a small bit of research on my own, I have come to the conclusion that none of the most common interpretations of the millennium are adequate.  My concluding thesis, which I will attempt to prove within this paper, is this: of the postmillennial, amillennial, and premillennial views, none are sufficient ways in which to understand the millennial reign of Christ and it is more helpful to confess less specific and more common beliefs concerning when and how Christ will return.  Therefore, I am proposing a medium between all three viewpoints, which I will call conciliatory millennialism.

I have come to believe in my thesis for two main reasons; first, because the doctrine of the millennium is wrought with complications that espouse inadequacies within all three of the major interpretations.  Second, it is clear that all three of the aforementioned interpretations have a foundational, common ground.  In order to promote unity and ultimate truth we should seek to confess these common convictions that are vastly more important than the controversial and minute details that make these three opposing views distinct.  The following portion of my paper will be dedicated to the brief and succinct exposition of the complications of the doctrine and the specific confessions of conciliatory millennialism.

At the outset, there seems to be a problem with all three viewpoints given that each one can be supported by a responsible treatment of scripture.[4]  If each of these viewpoints follows from sound exegesis, then how can one be right while the others are wrong? Bock’s book employs three authors that are dedicated to their personal, millennial viewpoints based on a hermeneutical, theological, and exegetical rational.[5]  These three opposing viewpoints stem from agreement on primary issues and diverge on very precise and secondary issues.  Grudem rightly notes that each viewpoint is most responsible when argued from scripture and all three of Bock’s authors have done so.[6]  Thus, a responsible hermeneutic can lead to three different conclusions.

Another complicating factor is that these three conclusions have tended to be popular at different points in history, which suggests that they are somewhat fickle in nature.  For example, Grudem notes that, “postmillennialism tends to increase in times when the church is experiencing great revival…and when it appears that great progress is being made in overcoming the evil and suffering in the world.”[7]  Similarly, Millard Erickson states that, “…all three millennial positions have been held virtually throughout church history, at different times one or another has dominated.”[8]  Because we can observe that each view has been popular at different times, it is clear that the doctrine of the millennium has tended to be informed by experience rather than scripture.  This is a real danger in the formation of millennial viewpoints and it proves that we need to pay special attention to what the Bible actually prescribes and describes in contrast to allowing our experiences weigh and measure the Word of God.

Lastly, the doctrine itself is paradoxical which makes it clear that we cannot comprehend the chronological minutia involved in Christ’s return.  Grudem makes this paradox clear by pointing out verses that affirm Christ’s soon and visible return for which Christians should eagerly wait, and at the same time we do not and cannot know when this event will happen.[9]   Scripture has explicitly told us that there is an element of mystery to Christ’s return and therefore we should wait in trusting faith for this event.  Scripture’s explicit acknowledgement of mystery, the various trends of popularity for the three views, and the fact that all three views can be argued from a responsible hermeneutic illustrate that all three positions are trying accomplish confess more than scripture permits and are therefore inadequate.

If then, it is true that all three positions are inadequate we are forced to create a medium between the three.  I call this medium conciliatory millennialism because it affirms the confessions that all three positions have in common.  Grudem helps to articulate these common confessions:

“No matter what their differences on the details, all Christians who take the Bible as their final authority agree that the final and ultimate result of Christ’s return will be the judgment of unbelievers and the final reward of believers, and that believers will live with Christ in a new heaven and a new earth for all eternity.  God the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit will reign and will be worshiped in a never-ending kingdom with no more sin or sorry or suffering.”[10]

Thus, the term millennium as used in Revelation and as understood through a thoughtful reading of other eschatological verses that Erickson, Bock and Grudem have pointed out ought to illicit four primary confessions or objective truth statements that all Christians should agree uppon:

1.     There will be a sudden, personal, visible, bodily return of Christ in the future.[11]

2.     Christians should eagerly long for Christ’s return in a way that informs their actions.[12]

3.     We do not know or need to know exactly when Christ will return; it is a mystery.[13]

4.     The results of Christ’s return will be judgment, reward, and a new heaven and new earth under Christ’s rule for eternity.[14]

As far as the literal or figurative thousand-year reign is concerned, the Bible and even the verses in Revelation do not give us enough information to make objective truth statements about the details of these future events.  Instead, we must be content to hold to conciliatory millennialism that confesses these three possibilities:

1.     It is possible that the miraculous signs have already been fulfilled, but it is also possible that some or all have not yet been fulfilled.

2.     It possible that we are currently in the millennial reign of Christ but it is also possible that we have not yet entered into the millennial reign of Christ.

3.     It is possible that the term millennium in Revelation refers to a literal thousand-year reign but it is also possible that the word is used in a more poetic, prophetic, figurative, or metaphorical sense.

Altogether, I argue that these nine points come together to create conciliatory millennialism which highlights the objective truth statements that can be made concerning the final results of Christ’s return and delineates the various Biblical possibilities that scripture posits about the details of these future events. Within my viewpoint I put total emphasis on the first four points as being non-negotiable.  In addition, I argue that one cannot make final objective decisions about the possibilities of the last three points, given the mystery and silence in scripture.  Thus, all three viewpoints – amillennialism, postmillennialism, and premillennialism – are inadequate and conciliatory millennialism is the proper eschatological confession.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Bock, Darrell L. Bock and Stanley N. Gundry, eds.  Three Views On The Millennium and Beyond.  Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1999.

Erickson, Millard. Christian Theology.  Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 1998.

Grudem, Wayne. Systematic Theology: An Introduction to Biblical Doctrine.  Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1994.

---

[1] Wayne Grudem, Systematic Theology: An Introduction to Biblical Doctrine, (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1994), 1109.

[2] Revelation 20:4-5 NIV, emphasis added.

[3] Darrell L. Bock and Stanley N. Gundry, eds.  Three Views On The Millennium and Beyond (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1999), 7.

[4] Grudem, 1095.

[5] Bock, 8.

[6] Grudem, 1111.

[7] Grudem, 1111.

[8] Millard Erickson, Christian Theology (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 1998), 1212.

[9] Grudem, 1092 & 1093.

[10] Grudem, 1094.

[11] Ibid, 1092.

[12] Ibid.

[13] Ibid, 1093.

[14] Ibid, 1094.

Two Views on Women in Ministry: Part II

I know I said I would post on each chapter that I read, but I haven't had time. I've been reading Two Views of Women in Ministry and my reflection/review is due this Monday. Here is my mostly-final draft. It had to be no more than 5 pages so this doesn't even do the issue justice...

Two Views on Women and Ministry, edited by James R. Beck and Stanley N. Gundry, is a refreshing and illuminating resource for the current debate on women’s roles in the church. From the outset, all four contributing authors are dedicated to treating each other and the topic with respect, sensitivity, and authentic reflection. All four authors are also entirely dedicated to the integrity of scripture and they go so far as to assert that,

We believe one can build a credible case within the bounds of orthodoxy and commitment to inerrancy for either one of the two major views we address in this volume, although all of us view our own positions on the matter as stronger and more compelling (15).

The two major views that the authors address in the book are an egalitarian perspective and a complementarian perspective; of these two views Linda Belleville and Craig Keener represent the egalitarian camp and Craig Blomberg and Thomas Schreiner represent the complementarian camp. In the pages that follow I will attempt to express the most valuable points of each author’s arguments and then express my own personal view and the primary reasons why I have the opinion that I do.

The book begins with a thoughtful and intricate egalitarian perspective written by Belleville. As a doctor, professor of biblical literature, and author, Belleville’s credentials show her exegetical prowess and she presents a chapter to match. If you did not believe that an egalitarian could be committed to orthodoxy and inerrancy of scripture, Belleville should have thoroughly challenged, if not destroyed, your assumptions by the end of her portion of the book. At the most fundamental and reduced level, her chapter shows the reader that the scriptures concerned with women and ministry (either explicitly or implicitly) do truly leave room for an egalitarian interpretation. In addition, Belleville sheds light on the varying, significant, and supported roles in ministry that women have held throughout history and in the Bible. Regardless of which camp you find yourself in, her chapter proves to be a good read that will help to either affirm or challenge already existing convictions.

Following Belleville is a complementarian perspective written by Blomberg. Blomberg’s chapter does not show the exegetical intricacy displayed by Belleville; instead, Blomberg displays a deep sensitivity to scriptures and historical Christian witness as a whole as well as within their context. His chapter is well-organized as he expresses his opinion systematically – touching on the Old Testament, intertestamental period, the New Testament, and church history. In addition he recognizes the link between roles of women and men in marriage as well as in the church. Blomberg celebrates women in ministry, affirms that women may have any spiritual gifts that the Holy Spirit wishes to bestow and at the same time, the office of pastor and elder are reserved for men; the positions themselves are not ‘gifts of the Spirit’. In the same vein, he makes it clear that pastors and elders occupy an office of utmost service. Pastor and elder are positions that should imitate the service and love of Christ, wherein decisions are made for the best interest of the flock. In addition, Blomberg argues that churches should seek to encourage women’s involvement in the church. If a woman has the gift of teaching or knowledge, it is the pastors’ and elders’ responsibility to utilize, develop, and exhort such a gift.

Blomberg, then, is followed by a second egalitarian position that is most compelling and authentic. Written by Keener, this chapter is similar to Belleville’s in that Keener first lists the various positions that women historically held in the Bible and then expresses his own opinions on particular scriptures. What is so interesting about Keener’s chapter, however, is his personal note at the end. Keener used to occupy the opposing camp, he was a complementarian. After pouring through scripture, witnessing the mistreatment of women in ministry, and recognizing the worth of the argument as it related to Biblical inerrancy, apologetics, and interpretation, Keener was compelled to change and share his new egalitarian position. In conclusion, Keener agrees that people have every right to charitably disagree with the egalitarian view; however, rendering the opposing viewpoint as trivial, heretical, and sinful is unhelpful and slanderous.

Lastly, we have a second complementarian perspective written by Schreiner. I could barely hold in my excitement when I (finally) began to read about the three Greek words: presbyteroi (“elders”), episkopoi (“overseers”), and poimainein (“shepherd”). Until Schreiner’s chapter I had not read such a clear explanation of the terminology at hand in the debate. It is these three words or positions from which most complementarians exclude women. Schreiner shows the reader that women hold a vast array of other positions, but they are never mentioned as holding one of these distinct three in the bible. Schreiner, too, is very concerned with the dignity and sanctity of women. After his portion on terminology he readily defends women’s rights and involvement in ministry before he even attempts to argue for their exclusion from the three offices. Schreiner’s treatment is incredibly helpful and most compelling while he argues for a complimentarian position as well as the involvement and importance of women leaders and workers in the church as organization and institution.

After this brief summary of Belleville, Blomberg, Keener, and Schreiner’s positions, where do I stand? Before reading this book I would have reluctantly called myself a complementarian, and I still do. I believe that a woman should not hold the office of elder, overseer, or shepherd but outside of those official roles in the institutionalized church, women should serve and lead in ministry. I say my position reluctantly, because I do not think the terms egalitarian and complementarian are particularly helpful and I also think that the doctrine of women in ministry should really be a secondary concern in the life of the church and individual Christians. Sometimes, it does come to the fore, but ultimately we should be more concerned with questions of soteriology, Christology, and the Trinity. I understand that the doctrine of women in ministry may and does overlap with these other doctrines, but in general, the issue is divisive rather than unifying.

Now, I claim to be a complementarian but let me make one thing clear: I do not believe it is a sin to be egalitarian or that it is a sin when a women holds the position of elder, overseer, or shepherd. Rather than a conviction, I call my identification with the complementarian camp a preference because I do not believe I have the right to say that egalitarians are sinners and wrong in the sight of the Lord. If Two Views of Women and Ministry were to teach anything, it should be that both views can be well-argued – if both views are present then there is not enough information to warrant moral judgment against one or the other. Another doctrine that seems to be of the same vein is infant baptism versus dedication. I prefer infant dedication because I think it is better argued in scripture and in the historical witness of the church, but would I be so bold as to say that infant baptism is a sin? Definitely not. Similarly, people often compare women’s ministry with homosexuality. The logic flows that if passages on women in ministry are contextual rather than timeless, then so must be the passages on homosexuality. I disagree, for homosexuality is only ever condemned as a sin; women in ministry, however, are often commended and sometimes excluded.

As a complete novice, my complementarian position is supported by five observations. First, women’s dignity is more important than complementarian or egalitarian positions. Both women and men are created in the image of God and both receive commendations for ministry within the bible. There is no question that men and women are equals in dignity and value. Second, women and men can have the same spiritual gifts, aptitudes, character qualities, and temperaments. While there are stereotypically male-gendered qualities and female-gendered qualities, there is no temperament or aptitude that is always ontologically or biologically predicated by one’s gender. There are exceptions to the norm, and the Spirit gives to whom he wills. In addition, as women are able to play sports, received education, work, and raise families, they are continually exhibiting that women can have male-gendered qualities and abilities. Third, altogether in scripture, I see an undeniable typology of male headship. Adam was created first, the Levite priests were all male, God is given the male pronoun, Christ was a man, Christ had 12 male disciples, Christ and the church are likened to a husband and wife where Christ is the man and the church is the woman, and mentioned elders within the New Testament church were male. I know that scholars can refute various aspects of this typology, but for me, the complementarian argument is too strong and the egalitarian argument relies far too much on silences from scripture rather than overt proclamation. Fourth, within the complementarian tradition, mutual-submission and service is always ideal. Everyone must submit to Christ and serve one-another. The first shall be last and the last shall be first. Complementarians should view headship as the lower position and submission as the true privilege, for Christ’s crucifixion is the ultimate display of selfless headship, love, and authority.