In the comments section of the review I wrote yesterday for Scot McKnight and Joseph B. Modica, Jesus is Lord, Caesar is Not: Evaluating Empire in New Testament Studies one commenter asked whether modern Christians should (A) pledge allegiance to the government under which they live or (B) do their best to be law abiding without going as far as pledging allegiance. This is an interesting question. Does pledging allegiance to the United States (or another nation) constitute something equivalent to being loyal to “God and Mammon,” something Jesus said is not possible, or (as I see it) can it be more akin to the words of the Prophet Jeremiah (29:7) who told exiles to “seek the peace and prosperity of the city” where they’d be taken, even commanding them to “pray for it?”
Personally, I suggested in response that a Christian pledging allegiance doesn’t have to mean absolute loyalty beyond one’s moral and religious convictions. Instead, I think it is possible to pledge allegiance meaning something like “I will do nothing to harm those neighbors with whom I share a government, an immediate economy, a overarching culture, land, and other possessions. I will do my best to live for the benefit of the city, state, and nation in which I live as long as this doesn’t contradict my allegiance to the Kingdom of God.” This allegiance can be multifaceted. One may oppose war or bad economic practices that lead our nation to harm other nations out of allegiance to one’s own nation. In other words, I don’t want to United States to invade Iran or bomb North Korea because I think it is bad for our people to have to be committed to those acts when there are other options. I may oppose my nation’s exploitive economic policies not out of disloyalty, but because I think our people will be grieved by their own evil over time and that if we harm others it will fracture potentially fruitful relationships with them in the future.
In other words, pledging allegiance doesn’t mean mindless subservience.
How would you respond to the question of whether or not pledging allegiance is compatible with Christianity’s confession that “‘Jesus is Lord’ to the glory of God the Father”?
I’ve been a low church evangelical for many years now. I entered Christianity through a sectarian Pentecostal group (some doubted we should celebrate Christmas because it was of “pagan origin”, so you imagine the type of ecumenism I was taught). I have thought about the teachings of Roman Catholicism, Orthodoxy, and Anglicanism/Episcopalianism and there are times when I find these groups quite attractive and other times when I find these groups to be concerning. Currently, I worship with a (modern, not Amish-like) Mennonite church, which I like because of their commitment to serious discipleship, and their emphasis on the Kingdom of God and the reconciling hope of their eschatology. Yet I worry at times that Mennonites are similar in some ways to my Pentecostal friends in that there is a lack of catholicity with little emphasis on the Lord’s Supper/Communion/Eucharist tradition that has enriched the church for hundreds of years.
As I have mentioned (see here) I have decided to participate in a group called “Read the Fathers”. One figure whose writings are listed early is Ignatius of Antioch (CE 35/50-98/117), a Bishop in the early church who is said to have been one of the more immediate successors of the Apostle Peter and a student of the Apostle John. I haven’t studied this figure enough to have an opinion on such claims, but that he was writing not too long after documents like the Gospel of John and the Book of Revelation were composed demands attention.
Is this gathering of U.S. Catholic Bishops the assembling of “the church”?
There have been several statements made in his epistle that seem to foreshadow the teachings of the more developed church, the ecclesiology to which aforementioned groups like Roman Catholics, Orthodox, and Anglicans appeal. As someone who is worshipping with Mennonites, who has been educated by Baptists and Reformed thinkers, who has taught in churches with roots in Lutheranism and Pentecostalism, and who (admittedly) prefers “low church” Christianity (though I have grown fond of some form of liturgy and practices such as following a form of the liturgical calendar), I thought I’d post some excerpts here for conversation.
The first to grab my attention is from Ignatius’ Epistle to the Ephesians(V) where he writes:
“Let no man deceive himself: if any one be not within the altar, he is deprived of the bread of God. For if the prayer of one or two possesses such power, how much more that of the bishop and the whole Church! He, therefore, that does not assemble with the Church, has even by this manifested his pride, and condemned himself. For it is written, “God resists the proud.” Let us be careful, then, not to set ourselves in opposition to the bishop, in order that we may be subject to God.”
This seems Eucharistic (though I am trying to avoid anachronism). The Bishop performs the rite at the alter providing the bread to the people, and to deny the assembly is of grave concern. He writes later (XIII):
“For when ye assemble frequently in the same place, the powers of Satan are destroyed, and the destruction at which he aims is prevented by the unity of your faith. Nothing is more precious than peace, by which all war, both in heaven and earth, is brought to an end.”
And then (XX):
“…breaking one and the same bread, which is the medicine of immortality, and the antidote to prevent us from dying, but [which causes] that we should live for ever in Jesus Christ.”
What we have in this epistle is the need to gather with the church, the importance of the Bishop, and the centrality of the Eucharist in worship. I struggled even more with a statement he made in his Epistle to the Magnesians (II):
“Since therefore I have been permitted to see you in the person of Damas, your godly bishop, and the worthy presbyters, Bassus and Apollonius, and my fellow-servant, the deacon Zotion, of whom may I have joy, because he is subject unto the bishop as unto the grace of God, and to the presbytery as unto the law of Jesus Christ.”
The Bishop of one church represents the whole local church to the other church through that local church’s Bishop. Later in the epistle he writes (XII):
“…that in everything which you do, you may be prospered in flesh and spirit, by faith and love, in the Son and Father and in the Spirit, in the beginning and in the end, along with your bishop who is worthy of all honor, and the fitly-woven spiritual coronal of your presbytery, and the deacons who are according to the mind of God. Submit yourselves to the bishop and to one another, as Jesus Christ [was subject] to the Father [after the flesh], and the Apostles to Christ and the Father, that there may be union both of flesh and spirit.”
Submitting to the Bishop brings unity, and it models Jesus’ submission to the Father, and the Apostles to Christ and the Father. He writes in his Epistle to the Trallians (II), “For, since you are subject to the bishop as to Jesus Christ, you appear to me to live not after the manner of men, but according to Jesus Christ, who died for us, in order, by believing in His death, you may escape from death.”
Subject to the Bishop as to Jesus Christ?
Submit to the Bishop as to Christ? Always? What if my Bishop was John Shelby Spong?
Now, as I said, I want to avoid anachronism. I realize that a “Bishop” doesn’t seem to be as authoritative as it might come to be later. There doesn’t seem to be Archbishops. It could be argued that at this stage in the history of the church a Bishop was like the “Sr. Pastor” over the church in a city. There was no acknowledgement of anything like denominations, so you wouldn’t have a Lutheran pastor, a Presbyterian pastor, and so forth and so on. You’d have one, single pastor (Bishop) who oversees other leaders (Presbyters and Deacons). We know from the emergence of groups like the various gnostic sects that this idea is challenged, and that catholicity is “in flux” for the perspective of historicism, but for those of us who affirm that Spirit’s guidance in developing the church to become what most of us would consider “orthodox” (e.g., Trinity, deity of Christ, nature of Christology, function of canonical books) what do we say to this (and other statements by Ignatius in other epistles)?
Also, for pragmatic purposes, in light of Ignatius’ words, what do you think he would have said if someone said, “My ‘Bishop’ is John Shelby Spong! Should I remain under his authority?” How would Ignatius have advised people under the episcopal rule of Spong? or Bishop Katharine Jefferts Schori? or an Arian Bishop or a gnostic Bishop?
Your thoughts on this subject are welcome, whether you be of a tradition with Bishops or without Bishops. What do you think of the need for Bishops today? What do we do if we think Bishop lead churches have strayed from the Gospel?
I know that writing in support of egalitarianism in the church is likely to result in much antagonism. I understand why this is so. There is a lot at stake if the case for male superiority is weakened. It has implications for our privileged gender. Many good Christians find forms of complementarianism to make more sense of various biblical texts, though I contend it is often the coherence of their worldview that is being defended, not the major motifs and trajectories of Scripture.
Recently one person accused me of being more concerned with being a “progressive” than submitting to the plan of God for human gender. Such statements can be returned quite easily. It may be that one’s “conservative” views make them blind to the work of God. In fact, someone could aim to be “biblical” like those who argued for divorce on the basis that it seemed permitted freely in Scripture, yet Jesus stated that it was Moses’ response to the hard heartedness of the people (Matthew 19.8; Mark 10.5). So it is altogether possible that Scripture can be inspired to condescend to the place where humans reside.
While I don’t claim to know the mind of the Apostle Paul on many matters I do find some of his prohibitions against the full equality of women in the church to be this sort thing. What it quite amazing to me though is that within the same corpus of writings there are plenty of affirmative statements toward women and their full participation in the church. Sadly, many exegetes of the Pauline Epistles are quick to magnify those statements that seem antagonistic to women that they ignore the others.
One example would be how the same aforementioned person said this: “I don’t think women can be pastors/bishops. The requirements are clear – ‘the husband of one wife.’” He was referencing 1 Timothy 3.2 where a ἐπίσκοπος is required to be married to one woman only. I have a couple preliminary problems with this loose referencing of a proof-text:
(1) I am not convinced that the characteristics outlined in the Pastoral Epistles are universals. I think we should use them as a model for determining the type of people who should lead, but to argue that these epistles aren’t contextual seems misguided to me.
(2) It is common in language, even the English language, to make generalized statements referring to people in the masculine. I could say, “If a Republican is elected President this year I sure hope that he…” This statement may expose a gender bias, but it says little to nothing regarding gender qualifications for the office of the President.
These are immediate observations. Secondary to these points is the short-sightedness of this sort of proof-texting. In v. 8 the discussion has transitioned to deacons (διάκονος). We know little about the ebb and flow of early church government, but it does seem that an bishop/overseer has a more authoritative role than a deacon who is more of a “servant” to the church. As the author addresses the qualifications of deacons he mentions women deacons in v. 11. I know some translate γυναῖκας as “wives” like (surprise, surprise) the ESV, but I see this as an address to candidates who are women deacons. What is quite funny about this is that immediately in v. 12 the author writes, διάκονοι ἔστωσαν μιᾶς γυναικὸς ἄνδρες (Let deacons be the husband of one wife.), which is the same statement given to bishops/overseers.
In the Epistle to the Romans, which few doubt as authentically from the Apostle Paul (in juxtaposition with the Pastoral Epistles), a woman named Phoebe is called a sister by Paul (ἀδελφὴ) and she is commended to the church at Rome as διάκονον τῆς ἐκκλησίας τῆς ἐν Κεγχρεαῖς. If she is a “deaconess of the church in Chenchreae” then this is further confirmation of a woman as a deacon. Some argue that διάκονον should be translated “servant” here which is grammatically plausible, but I think such a suggestion is politically motivated. That she has this particular standing in a particular assembly makes it quite evident in my estimation that she has a particular office/role like the deacons elected in the Book of Acts and like those described in 1 Timothy.
So my friend who found the statement “a husband of one wife” to be something that disqualifies women from the role of overseer in the church has failed to notice the same phrase used to discuss deacons soon thereafter and that we have examples of women deacons in the early church.
Let me say one more thing about deacons. Some have noted that Acts 6.3 describes the Apostles as searching for “seven men” to be deacons and men were chosen. While I have disdain for the false dichotomy between narrative and didactic literature I do not think that in the context of Luke-Acts this particular author intends to promote a gender-exclusive role in the church. Of all the New Testament authors that of Luke-Acts is the most egalitarian by far. It is not a good argument to say that this is prescriptive as much as it was descriptive.
