|
|
Free at Last |
Galatians 5: 1, 13-25
|
© John Ewing Roberts |
 |
|
|
|
INTRODUCTION Freedom is a rich word, loaded with theological and historical meaning. Today we concentrate on our freedom as Baptists to interpret scripture with the sole authority for our faith and practice being Jesus the Christ. SINCERE BUT DEAD WRONG The great church historian Roland Bainton wrote a classic book called The Travail of Religious Liberty.[1] In it he tells how an American doctor, Victor Heiser, served as the health officer for Manila in the Philippines during a cholera epidemic. News came "of a miracle in the bay, for a fisherman had observed upon the surface of the water a black streak in the form of a cross and the water was sweet. He summoned the priest, who confirmed the miracle. The people then paddled out with bottles and drank of the holy liquid. Investigation revealed a break in the sewer. The doctor then appealed to the militia to suppress the miracle. He was told that a riot might be expected..." Notice the elements of this true story. People were in need; they felt that their needs were being met. The fisherman was sincere; the priest may have been sincere but should have known better. The one man who knew the truth was told to expect a riot for sticking to his guns. There are clear parallels for these days. Our society is in need; our families are in need. Some people feel that the craving for order in the society and family can best be met by instructing women to submit graciously to their husbands. These people are sincere; perhaps their leaders are, but should know better. And those who know the truth and stick to our guns had better expect a riot. BAPTISTS AND FREEDOM Baptists are often rather raucous if not riotous over different interpretations of the same scripture texts. Sadly we seldom model the grace of disagreeing agreeably. Angry, self-righteous voices cry, "If you don't believe as I do, you don't believe the Bible." Some of this diversity springs from human nature. Some of it is the spawn of plain old orneriness. Some of it comes from our cherished freedom. Baptist freedom opens the door for a variety of interpretations and for great diversity among Baptists. Billy Graham and Bill Clinton are Baptists; Jesse Helms and Jesse Jackson are Baptists. A quick review of the history of Baptists in the south helps us understand some of our differences. Baptists in the south emerged from two very different traditions, the older being the Charleston tradition, going back to the late 1600's in South Carolina, when a group of Baptists migrated from Maine. The key word for these Baptists is order; they believed that the purpose of worship was to worship God, and that the preacher should have the best education possible in order to interpret scripture as effectively as possible. They were gentleman theologians.[2] Pictures of early pastors of the First Baptist Church of Charleston showed them wearing pulpit robes with Geneva collars in the Presbyterian style. The Baptist church historian Walter Shurden calls the Charlestonians "semi-Presbyterian." The first pastor of our church, Richard Fuller, brought the Charleston tradition from South Carolina to Baltimore and left an indelible stamp on our congregational life. The other tradition stems from Sandy Creek, North Carolina, where some Baptists came from Connecticut. The key word for these Baptists is ardor; they believed that the purpose of worship was not to worship God but to save souls, and that educated clergy were suspect. They thought that book learning kept a man from depending on the Holy Spirit. Unlike the city slickers in Charleston they preferred the frontier where they spread the gospel with evangelistic fervor throughout the southeast. Shurden calls them "semi-Pentecostal." He goes on to say that most Southern Baptist churches are a combination of these two traditions. At Woodbrook we try to combine them, but give preference to the tradition of our origins. The Sandy Creek types outnumber the Charlestonians, and are much noisier! With such freedom and such diversity we come up with varieties of interpretations of the Bible. I want to mention one area, family relationships, where Baptists have had much to say in recent times, and I want to offer you for your consideration one perspective for understanding the Bible in family relationships. FAMILY VALUES Baptist bodies these days are talking a lot about "family values," going on record in various resolutions, motions and amendments to let everyone know we believe in "biblical family values." To these declarations I can only say, "Good! I want the Bible to help our families. Our families need help, but of which biblical family values do you speak, and why do you favor some Bible verses over others when it comes to family values?" For example, consider these very different models for families, all from the Bible. - Genesis gives us the family model of the patriarchs, Abraham, Isaac and Jacob - polygamy! - Matthew 19: 12 gives a startling model, that of "eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven." Jesus concluded this hard saying with "He who is able to receive this, let him receive it." Matthew does not record that a line formed. - Paul offers another family model in I Corinthians 7 when he writes "I wish that all were as I myself am...remain single as I do...to the unmarried...I think that in view of the impending distress it is well to remain as he is...those who marry will have worldly troubles, and I would spare you that...(vv. 7, 8, 25, 25, 28) - Jesus' family model bears no resemblance to a Norman Rockwell scene or an Ozzie and Harriet episode. In Luke 8: 19ff., when his mother and brothers come to him, he redefines the family and says, "My mother and my brothers are those who hear the word of God and do it." Let me leave you with a few other texts that must come into play when people speak of "biblical family values." Do we really want to include these two texts in our proclamation of "biblical family values?" (1) "Yet woman will be saved through bearing children, if she continues in faith and love and holiness with modesty." (I Timothy 2: 15). What about all the faithful, loving, holy, modest women who have never borne a child? Can they be saved? (2) "If a man has a stubborn and rebellious son, who will not obey the voice of his father or the voice of his mother...bring him out to the elders of his city..and...say, `This our son is stubborn and rebellious, he will not obey our voice; he is a glutton and a drunkard.' Then all the men of the city shall stone him to death with stones..." (Deuteronomy 21: 18-21 in passim). Do we really believe in stoning our sons? "SPARE THE ROD AND SPOIL THE CHILD" While we are on the subject of hurting children, let me say a word about a little noticed piece of Article XVIII in the Baptist Faith and Message Statement. Two of the scriptures listed support corporeal punishment of children: (1) Proverbs 13: 24, "Those who spare the rod hate their children..." (2) Proverbs 23: 15, "If you beat them with the rod, you will save their lives from Sheol." I realize that Baptists differ on the use of physical discipline, but surely, even those who believe in an occasional spanking don't believe in beating children with a rod! By the way, "Spare the rod and spoil the child" does not appear in the Bible. Bartlett's Familiar Quotations traces it through Samuel Butler (1612-1680), Richard Venning (1649), to the Greek comic playwright Menander (c. 342 - 292 B. C.) with a tip of a hat to half a verse from Proverbs 13: 24.[3] The most famous use of the word "rod" in the Bible is in Psalm 23: 4, "thy rod and thy staff, they comfort me." It is instructive to review how a shepherd used these implements. The rod was a tool to protect the sheep from wild animals who would prey on them. The shepherd never used his rod to beat the sheep; he used it to protect them. The shepherd used his staff, his crook, to pull them back from danger or to nudge them in the right direction. The good shepherd never whacked his sheep with a rod or battered them with his staff. He protected them and guided them. THE BIBLICAL PRINCIPLES FOR ALL RELATIONSHIPS If we speak of family values, we must follow the Bible's great overarching, all encompassing principles, or we will fall victim to being trapped by specific verses which taken out of context can be used to justify child abuse and spouse abuse. May God spare us from Bible abuse as an excuse for child or spouse abuse. One abused wife or child is one too many. I believe that the proper biblical basis for family values is the same as the biblical basis for all relationships. Here are the two great texts with roots in the Hebrew scriptures; Christians quote from the gospels. They are classic, centrist, timeless, and in no way marginal or confusing. (1) Just before Jesus told the great parable of the Good Samaritan, he said to the man we call the rich, young ruler, "You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your strength, and with all your mind and your neighbor as yourself." (Luke 10: 27) (2) In the Sermon on the Mount Jesus said, "In everything do to others as you would have them do to you; for this is the law and the prophets." (Matthew 7: 12) As we will see in a few minutes when we look at Ephesians 5: 21, "be subject to one another out of reverence for Christ," blends perfectly with the Great Commandment to love your neighbor as yourself, and the Golden Rule to do unto others as you would have them do unto you. Now that the general principles of biblical family relationships are before us, let us look at the Baptist Faith and Message's new Article XVIII. THE AMENDMENT TO THE BAPTIST FAITH AND MESSAGE STATEMENT Since the writing of the London Confession of 1644, Baptists have produced various confessions or statements of faith. The Baptist Faith and Message was adopted by the Southern Baptist Convention in 1925, and revised in 1962. The Southern Baptist Convention in Salt Lake City earlier this month amended the document by adding ... God has ordained the family as the foundational institution of human society. It is composed of persons related to one another by marriage, blood, or adoption. Marriage is the uniting of one man and one woman in covenant commitment for a lifetime. It is God's unique gift to provide for the man and the woman in marriage the framework for intimate companionship, the channel for sexual expression according to biblical standards, and the means for procreation of the human race. The husband and wife are of equal worth before God. Both bear God's image but each in different ways. The marriage relationship models the way God relates to His people. A husband is to love his wife as Christ loved the church. He has the God-given responsibility to provide for, to protect, and to lead his family. A wife is to submit graciously to the servant leadership of her husband even as the church willingly submits to the headship of Christ. She, being "in the image of God" as is her husband and thus equal to him, has the God-given responsibility to respect her husband and to serve as his "helper" in managing their household and nurturing the next generation. Children, from the moment of conception, are a blessing and heritage from the Lord. Parents are to demonstrate to their children God's pattern for marriage. Parents are to teach their children spiritual and moral values and to lead them through consistent lifestyle example and loving discipline, to make choices based on biblical truth. Children are to honor and obey their parents. Gen. 1: 26-28; 2: 18-25; Ex. 20:12; Deut. 6:4-9; Josh. 24:15; I Sam. 1:26-28; Ps. 78: 1-8; 127; 128; 139:13-16; Prov. 1:8; 5:15-20; 6:20-22; 12:4; 13:24; 14:1; 17:6; 18:22; 22:6; 23:13-14; 24:3; 29:15, 17; 31: 10-31; Eccl. 4:9-12; 9:9; Mal. 2:14-16; Matt. 5:31-32; 18:2-5; 19:3-9; Mark 10:6-12; Rom. 1:18-32; I Cor. 7:1-16; Eph. 5:21-33; 6:1-4; Col. 3:18-21; I Tim. 5:14; 2 Tim. 1:3-5; Titus 2:3-5; Heb. 13:4; I Peter 3: 1-17. "WHAT'S THE PROBLEM? IT'S IN THE BIBLE, ISN'T IT?" The amendment contains the theological equivalent to the black streak in the form of a cross in the Manila harbor in these words from the third paragraph, "A wife is to submit graciously to the servant leadership of her husband..." In recent days defenders of this article have been saying, "The liberal media has blown the part about women submitting all out of proportion. The part about women submitting is in the Bible, and if you have a problem, your problem is with the Bible." To this I say, "Yes, it is in the Bible, but could we please step back, take a deep breath, and study Ephesians 5, the source of this language of submission? Let us use our God-given freedom to interpret the sacred scriptures and study this passage, beginning at verse 21, "Be subject to one another out of reverence for Christ." In interpreting Ephesians 5, I do not desire to be politically correct; I want to be biblically correct. To understand this passage as it was meant to be understood when God inspired the author of Ephesians we need to have some background information about mission strategy, the city of Ephesus, the Greek word translated "submit," and the structure of the passage. A. Mission Strategy The person who set the missionary strategy for the early church was Paul, the apostle whose name appears in Ephesians 1: 1. Paul was passionate about telling people about Jesus the Christ, so passionate that he could put aside matters he cared deeply about if they would be obstacles between a person and understanding who Jesus was and is. He said: For though I am free with respect to all, I have made myself a slave to all, so that I might win more of them. To the Jews I became as a Jew, in order to win Jews. To those under the law I became as one under law (though I myself am not under the law) so that I might win those under law. To those outside the law I became as one outside the law (though I am not free from God's law but am under Christ's law) so that I might win those outside the law. To the weak I became weak, so that I might win the weak. I have become all things to all people, that I might by all means save some. I do it all for the sake of the gospel, so that I may share in its blessings. (I Corinthians 9: 19-23) For example, Paul could put aside some highly prized values for the sake of this mission strategy. Take the matter of circumcision. Some Christians of Jewish background argued that if a Gentile became a Christian, he had to be circumcised. Paul disagreed; he wrote in Galatians 5: 6 that "In Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor uncircumcision is of any avail, but faith working through love." However, he backed away from this position for the sake of his mission strategy. Although he strongly believed that a man did not need to be circumcised when he became a Christian, he took Timothy and had him circumcised before they went on a missionary journey because they were headed to places where there were Jews who would not give them a hearing if Timothy were not circumcised. (Acts 16: 2) That was quite a sacrifice for the young man to make, but Paul wanted his missions partners to be willing to be all things to all people that by all means he might save some. (As to those literalists at the North American Mission Board who were so agitated last year this time over missionizing the Jews, all I can say is this: "If you are going literally to follow biblical values in your witness to the Jews, you had better have your credentials in order!) B. Ephesus Ephesus was a good place to test Paul's missionary strategy. In Galatians 3: 28 Paul wrote, "There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus." But for the sake of the mission strategy of becoming all things to all persons that he might win some, the author of Ephesians seemed prepared in Ephesus to back off from his statement "in Christ there is neither male nor female" by making what to our ears sound like some rather stringent requirements on women. Let me explain. In Ephesus there was a huge temple to the goddess called Artemis by the Greeks and Diana by the Romans; her temple was one of the seven wonders of the ancient world. The Diana worshipped here was not the chaste goddess of the hunt and moon abstracted by artists from classical Greek mythology. Probably the most popular Hellenic deity, Diana had an enigmatic and multifaceted personality. In Ephesus her fertility characteristics are striking. Her cult statues produced by silversmiths for the tourist trade (Acts 19: 35ff.) represent her entire chest covered bizarrely with two dozens breasts, described by the Anchor Bible Dictionary as "a multi-mammary grotesque." We see the darker side of her personality when she is connected with Hecate, a goddess of witchcraft. In Homer's Iliad Artemis is called "a lion to women" because she kills women in childbirth. In Aeschylus' tragedy Agamemnon she calls for the human sacrifice of the virgin Iphigenia. In Sparta in her rites boys were whipped until they bled.[4] I believe that the missions strategy in such a setting called for Christian women to keep a low profile in worship to avoid confusion with practices at the Temple of Diana. Ephesian Christians were expected to win people to the Lord without baffling them over Ephesus' particular women's issues. Then they were meant to take the time to educate new believers that in Christ there is neither male nor female. (Galatians 3: 28) Clearly the general principle of "in Christ there is neither male nor female" meant that in the wider community and as an embracing principle for all time Christians were to honor women and give them respect. It had been that way from the time of Jesus' ministry when women named Mary Magdalene, Joanna, and Susanna among many others accompanied Jesus and the twelve on their travels (Luke 8: 1-3). It was that way at the end of Jesus' earthly ministry when the men had all gone home; the first person entrusted with the Easter message was a woman, Mary Magdalene (John 20: 17-18). When the Holy Spirit energized the Christian community on Pentecost in Acts 2, Simon Peter quoted Joel's good word that sons and daughters would prophesy. We could speak of Lydia, Phoebe, and Priscilla whose name usually precedes that of her husband, Aquila. In summary women were never meant to be "second class citizens" in the church, but in some settings for the sake of reaching people they might be asked to assume a lower profile. C. Language and Structure The red flag word in Ephesians 5 and in the Article XVIII of the Baptist Faith and Message is "submit." We need to know what the word means and how it is used in Ephesians 5. The word in Greek is hupotasso, which the standard Greek New Testament dictionary defines as "submission in the sense of voluntary yielding in love."[5] The most thorough of all published New Testament theological word studies (Kittel) mentions the idea of voluntary submission in discussing hupotasso.[6] A fine Christian psychologist named Lofton Hudson pointed out that this word comes from the Greek prefix, hupo-, meaning "under," and the verb, tasso, meaning "arrange in order" (the same root gives us "tactics" in English). The idea, as he explained it, is not to be a door mat for your spouse but to get under someone in order to lift him or her up, giving structure to the relationship. Even Archie Bunker understood this idea when he counseled his son-in-law, "Meathead," "always to put your wife up der on a pe-dest-al (sic)." The structure of Ephesians 5 makes it clear that mutual submission is the principle for relationships between a husband and wife, not one-sided submission of the wife to the husband. We know this because the section on how husbands and wives are to relate begins in verse 21, with the general principle "Be subject to one another out of reverence for Christ." The principle stated clearly in the opening verse is mutual submission based on reverence for Christ. The next three verses (22-24) are directed to wives and explain how mutual submission works in their case. Then come seven verses for husbands (25-31). Men receive much more guidance on their way of mutual submission. Then come two verses to sum up the section (32-33). The idea from beginning to end is that of mutual submission. Elsewhere Paul states the same idea in these words: "...the wife does not rule over her own body, but the husband does; likewise the husband does not rule over his own body, but the wife does." (I Cor. 7: 4) FREE FROM CREEDS, FREE FOR THE SPIRIT OF CHRIST IN SCRIPTURE I hope that this background helps us move away from being stuck with the confusion created by the Baptist Faith and Message amendment which inserted "wives submit" (verse 22) without including the previous verse (21) about mutual submission. And I hope it has been helpful to be clear on the great general biblical principles for relationships and to have some sense of mission strategy and how it needed application in a town like Ephesus where Diana was worshipped. But that still leaves us with Article XVIII. Are we as Baptists obliged to submit to it? No! It is not binding on us as a free, autonomous Baptist church. In fact, nothing in the Baptist Faith and Message is binding. Listen to this quote from its preface. ...we do not regard them (confessions of faith) as complete statements of our faith, having any quality of finality or infallibility...Confessions are only guides in interpretation, having no authority over the conscience...they are statements of religious convictions, and are not to be used to hamper freedom of thought or investigations in other realms of life... Baptists are a people who profess a living faith. This faith is rooted and grounded in Jesus Christ who is "the same yesterday, and today, and for ever." Therefore, the sole authority for faith and practice among Baptists is Jesus Christ whose will is revealed in the Holy Scriptures. A living faith must experience a growing understanding of truth and must be continually interpreted and related to the needs of each new generation. Throughout their history Baptist bodies, both large and small, have issued statements of faith which comprise a consensus of their beliefs. Such statements have never been regarded as complete, infallible statements of faith, nor as official creeds carrying mandatory authority... Baptists emphasize the soul's competency before God, freedom in religion, and the priesthood of the believer. However, this emphasis should not be interpreted to mean that there is an absence of certain definite doctrines that Baptists believe, cherish, and with which they have been and are now closely identified. (For those who want a synopsis of cherished Baptist doctrines here is a list from a standard book on Baptist history.[7] We treasure these four basic Baptist principles: (1) The sacred scriptures the sole norm for faith and practice (2) The New Testament church composed of Baptist believers (3) The priesthood of all believers and the autonomy of the local congregation (4) The principle of religious liberty and the separation of church and state. Notice that freedom pulsates and surges through all four.) WHAT NEXT? There has been a lot of talk about the "submission thing" not only among Baptists but in the form of questions and jibes from people who know we are Baptists. Last Sunday I heard one of you say that he didn't expect his wife to submit graciously to him; he would be glad to settle just for submission of any kind! Another man said that he didn't expect submission, but he'd like to have just a little bit of "graciously." The most striking comment came in an email from a retired seminary professor: "If God had intended for women to be so submissive, she would have created men a lot smarter than they are!" On a more serious note, what can you say when this submission business comes up? You can take the opportunity to educate your friends and neighbors, the people on the coffee break, the folks around the water cooler. I suggest you say something like this: "Yes, this year's Southern Baptist Convention did what it did, but remember that there are all kinds of Baptists" (use the Billy Graham-Bill Clinton line). Tell them that Baptist freedom can lead to different interpretations. Mention the Golden Rule as a better principle than women as doormats. And invite them to Woodbrook where you don't have to check your mind at the door, and where we minister to the biblically challenged and to recovering literalists. FREEDOM TO CHOOSE We are free to choose. That's the point of Galatians 5: 16ff. Paul says, "Live by the Spirit, I say, and do not gratify the desires of the flesh." (Galatians 5: 16) I would classify under desires of the flesh the desire of theological thought police to control homes and families, denominations and churches, the unhealthy and dangerous need to dominate submissive women and children. I would list under desires of the flesh the pathological need to have one person, a man, in charge. Whatever happened to the concept of partnership, of give and take, the Golden Rule and the Great Commandment?! Paul says, "For freedom Christ has set us free. Stand firm, therefore, and do not submit again to a yoke of slavery." (Galatians 5: 1) If we stand fast in our freedom, the Spirit can bear fruit in our lives. "The fruit of the Spirit is... love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, generosity, faithfulness, gentleness, and self-control." (Galatians 5: 22-23) CONCLUSION Our service began with a litany on religious liberty derived from an address by a Baptist preacher on the capitol steps in Washington in 1920. I would like to conclude with the final paragraphs of another sermon delivered by a Baptist preacher in Washington on the steps of the Lincoln Memorial in 1963. It will likely be remembered as the most significant sermon by a Baptist minister in the 20th century. Its final sentence provides today's sermon title. To the final paragraph I will presume to add the words "women and men" because we need to hear them today. So let freedom ring from the prodigious hilltops of New Hampshire. Let freedom ring from the mighty mountains of New York. Let freedom ring from the heightened Alleghenies of Pennsylvania! Let freedom ring from the snow-capped Rockies of Colorado!Let freedom ring from the curvaceous peaks of California! But not only that; let freedom ring from Stone Mountain of Georgia! Let freedom ring from Lookout Mountain of Tennessee! Let freedom ring from every hill and mole hill of Mississippi. From every mountainside, let freedom ring. When we let freedom ring, when we let it ring from every village and every hamlet, from every state and every city, we will be able to speed up that day when all of God's children, black...and white..., Jews and Gentiles, Protestants and Catholics, women and men, will be able to join hands and sing in the words of the old Negro spiritual, "Free at last! Free at last! Thank God Almighty, we are free at last!"[8] Notes: [1] Roland H. Bainton, The Travail of Religious Liberty [New York: Harper Torchbooks] 1951, pp.255-256 [2] E. Brooks Hollifield, The Gentleman Theologians: American Theology in Southern Culture, 1795-1860 [Durham, North Carolina: Duke University Press] 1978, 262 pp. [3] John Bartlett, Familiar Quotations, 14th edition, Emily Morrison Beck, editor [Boston: Little, Brown and Company] 1968 [4] The Anchor Bible Dictionary, David Noel Freedman, editor-in-chief [New York: Doubleday] Volume 1 A- C, Hubert M. Martin, Jr., "Artemis," pp. 464-465 [5] A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature [Chicago: The University of Chicago Press] 1957, p. 855 [6] Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, edited by Gerhard Kittle and Gerhard Friedrich, translated by Goeffrey W. Bromiley, [Grand Rapids, Michigan" Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co.] 1972, Vol. VIII, Gerhard Delling, "hupotasso," p. 40 [7] Robert Torbet, A History of Baptists [Philadelphia: Judson Press] 1950 [8] Martin Luther King, Jr., "I Have a Dream," August 28, 1963, Lincoln Memorial, Washington, D. C. |