April 23, 2017
QUICKSAND 1 Timothy 2:8-15 1 Timothy 2:8-15
I have entitled this sermon "Quicksand" because that is what this text is. The great temptation here is to simply jump over this section and move on to chapter 3. Chapter 3, after all, is a great section on church leaders and what we should be looking for in them. In chapter 3, verse 3, among the attributes or characteristics we should be looking for in a church leader is that he is not "quarrelsome" or what might be translated as "pugnacious."
So if we want to avoid battles…if we want to avoid wars between ourselves…the smart thing to do is to just SKIP over this section we just read from 1 Timothy chapter 2. For how can we even think we can come through THIS section of scripture unscathed?
But then we have Bible verses like Acts 20:27 where the apostle Paul tells the Ephesian elders that he did not shrink away from declaring to them the WHOLE COUNSEL OF GOD. In like manner, would not our skipping over this section from 1 Timothy 2 be a "shrinking away" from declaring the whole counsel of God? Would it not be a case of saying, "This Quicksand is just TOO DANGEROUS so even though it is in the Bible, we're going to just play it safe and skip over it?" But that would just be a coward's way out.
So, we have this text before us and we're going to deal with it…verse upon verse, line upon line. Let's see if the quicksand swallows us up…
VERSE 8
Well, there's no real quicksand here…other than in most evangelical churches we don't see a lot of hand raising – particularly among the men. And that is while we sing whereas Paul is talking about raising hands while we pray!
As to the singing, the general consensus is that the reason males, in general, are not really "INTO" a lot of contemporary music is because, in general, it is quite feminine in its perspective. You see, GIRLS may be happy singing about how they just want to be with Jesus, and hold his hand, and look into his eyes, and feel his gentle breeze (or whatever) but it's not a real guy sort of thing. I heard a Christian comedian commenting on this very thing recently and he was making the point that in order to get guys really interested in singing songs in church we need to have the lyrics talking about sitting with Jesus and watching the big game, or maybe going hunting with Jesus.
I've got my 12 gauge and you brought you bow, Oh, Jesus, let me see what you know
Kill that pesky varmint or that tame little deer And I'll be among the first who will lend you my ear. Now THAT might get the guys singing…and even raising hands!
But what about hands lifted up in prayer?
Well, clearly, that was cultural. Think in your mind's eye of those pictures you may have seen of Hassidic Jewish men standing at the wailing wall, their heads bobbing, their hands lifted up – not high ABOVE their heads, but more in the position of a recently prepped surgeon waiting to go into surgery.
Now, does anyone really think that Paul cared whether or not we LIFTED our hands when we prayed? I don't think so. But what WOULD WE AGREE that Paul was concerned about? It was the lifting of "HOLY hands…without anger or quarreling."
Men long ago and still today can often get into fights with their hands.
More than one church has endured a fight – a real fistfight – between its men. Chuck Colson relates a humorous story to that effect in a chapter entitled "Extending the Right Fist of Fellowship" – chapter 8 in his book, The Body. (read pp. 94-95?)
One of the really good things about Burning Hearts Community Church is that on a consistent basis, there are more men than women who turn out for prayer at our weekly prayer meeting. Why this is, I do not know. But I have heard it remarked that this is quite extraordinary in the modern church. Men lifting up holy hands in prayer. Men, be men of prayer.
Okay…no real quicksand yet. VERSES 9-11
The ground starts getting a bit soft here.
Without question, Paul's statements here could be taken as a bit sexist.
Just as he encouraged MEN to pray with holy hands (as opposed to FIGHTING HANDS)… that is, he had something to say to men that tends to be more oriented to the masculine side of our race…here he has some things to say to women that are aimed at the more feminine side of our race. And so he addresses how women look
For the men, he addressed how they ACT.
But for the women, he here addressed how they LOOK. And what should they look like in the church?
Well, his point is that the women should be much more concerned about INNER beauty than OUTER appearance. And so instead of CONCENTRATING on the externals (braided hair, jewelry and fancy clothes), they should be CONCENTRATING on
good works (v. 10), a quiet spirit (v. 11) and submissiveness (v. 11).
Now, WHY is this ground soft?
The answer is because of the age in which we live.
Recently Vice President Mike Pence made the point that he doesn't meet privately or go out to eat just ONE ON ONE with any woman other than his wife.
When he said this, it brought up memories of Billy Graham who made the same point many years ago about his own life and ministry.
One would have THOUGHT, by the way, that Pence would have been heralded for his statement. Just think if other politicians followed that same example! In an age of scandal, one would have THOUGHT that Pence would be lifted up as setting a great example, but instead he was chastised by many women.
For we live in an age in which women, instead of seeking to be honored and respected, want to be heard. And (so it was argued back at Mike Pence), "If I, as a woman, have something I want to say to you privately, I want to be able to do so and not regarded by you as a sex object or potential blemish to your sexual purity or reputation!"
The point is: the age has changed. In some ways for the better, and in some ways for the worse.
And so if some women were given the opportunity to address St. Paul they would say to him… • Stop thinking of us in terms of being DIFFERENT than men
• We have brains and opinions just like men
• We're not just skirts for you to be enticed by or intimidated by • Grow up, Paul…grow up!
Yes, the ground is definitely getting softer.
Now, just a few comments before we get into the real quicksand this morning…
1. Men and women are NOT the same. We live in an age of confusion regarding issues of sexuality. Study after study is revealing just how DIFFERENT we are wired. And if we can be candid here, it is impossible to get around the point that men, by and large (and there may be exceptions to this)…but men…far more than women…are sexually aroused by what they SEE.
Chuck Swindoll relates the true story of a family who were on vacation and saw a sign for a NATURE area and so they turned off. Thinking they were driving into a botanical garden kind of area (and not realizing it was a nudist colony area) they were shocked when several bicyclists – both men and women – went riding by not wearing a stitch of clothing. The couple's young children were in
the back seat. After the bicyclists passed, their son said,
"Hey, did you see that? They weren't wearing helmets!"
Just as adults and children may see things differently, so too men and women see things differently.
We're just not the same.
And so Paul addresses women challenging them to wear modest clothing. He doesn't HAVE to say that to the guys because by and large it just isn't a GUY thing. But more than a few women have become the focus of men's visual attention AT CHURCH when they came dressed in such a way that shouted out: Look at me!
2. There is a difficult line between modesty and beauty.
Paul wants women's beauty to come from what is inside. And no one
will disagree as to the value of that. But by that is Paul suggesting that it doesn't matter what we look like or (for example) what we smell like?
Many years ago, I came to know a church family that no one seemed willing to befriend. This grieved this couple.
But there was an outstanding reason as to why this was the case. And while I was aware of the problem I could not really address it until I had visited them in their home.
Now, as I told you some weeks back, one of my few talents is that I can hold my breath for a very long time. This is something I used to work at though I have let it slide in the past decade or so. But back then, at least, I was nearly unbeatable. And so it was that upon entering this couple's house and taking one breath of air I suddenly thought, "I know I can't hold my breath as long as this visit is going to take." For each time I took a breath I thought I was possibly going to throw-up. The stench of animal urine was unbelievable. And these people – these friendly people and their children – carried that aroma with them whenever they came to church. No wonder no one wanted to sit by them; no wonder no one wanted to be in a small group with them. And no wonder no one ever invited them to their house.
What's the point?
Just as we can SMELL unattractive, we can LOOK unattractive. And though Paul is desirous that the women of the church possess and show a beauty that comes from within, to suggest that women
should, therefore, not care about their outer beauty would be a misapplication of the text. For while the Bible teaches us in Proverbs 31:30,
"Charm is deceitful and beauty if vain" it also goes out of its way to mention the beauty of women like Sarah, Rebekah, Rachel, Abigail and Esther…to name just a few.
VERSES 12-14
Okay, it is here we begin to sink fast.
Again, another time or another culture and there would be little problem with this text. Take this text and read it to the church
in Romania, or Manchuria, or Rwanda, or Turkey, or Vanuatu and you'll have no problem. But in western Europe, in the U.S., or in some parts of Latin America and… well…it's quicksand.
So the problem is not so much the text as it is with how it sounds in certain cultures. And here in the U.S., this sounds like misogyny – a hatred of women – clothed in
religious garb. Indeed, read these verses within the context of a male dominated and run 21st century Christian church and it is hard to accept the notion that the church is
anything other than a "good old boy's club" that seeks to silence and suppress women. But let's not just stop with this text. Let's push it even further. And if it is quicksand that we are
standing in, let's add in Portland cement to the mix and see if it doesn't sink us and then bind us forever. Jimmy Hoffa, here we come!
1 Corinthians 11:2-16. And Paul – remember…that SINGLE MALE…has even more to say… 1 Corinthians 14:33-35
Are you enjoying this…guys???
They talk about CLASS WARS, but this has all the makings of GENDER WARS.
This is going to run us into next Sunday, so with that in mind (and we still have verse 15 to consider) let's lay some groundwork for deeper study…
1. Paul's view of the role of women in the church was driven by his understanding of history. Note here how he appeals back to the creation narrative of Genesis chapter 1. He makes two points based upon the narrative regarding Adam and Eve….
1. That Adam was created FIRST, before Eve. That is, Adam was the ELDER of the two, and
2. While Adam sinned, it was Eve who was beguiled or deceived.
On the basis of the creation narrative, Paul is in effect making the point for male
HEADSHIP OVER WOMEN. To Paul, headship is based upon Seniority and Wisdom. And since Adam had seniority over Eve and he was not the one who was deceived, Paul argues men should be considered as being the "head" over women.
If that is the case, it logically follows that if Eve had been made before Adam, and/or Adam was the one who was deceived (instead of Eve), then men would be subject to women.
Now, you may not like Paul's line of thinking. You may say, "What happened between Adam and Eve is immaterial to how we interact today." But it is interesting that Paul does not here suggest a position of male dominance based upon a male's height, weight, strength, or speed. In most cultures of the world, CHIEFS are generally those that are the biggest and baddest of those within the tribe. Stephen Ambrose, in his book Undaunted Courage (the story of Lewis Meriweather and his adventure to make the first transcontinental trip following the Missouri River westward towards the Pacific Ocean) writes of how Lewis brought back with him some of the Indian chiefs to meet our nation's chief, Thomas Jefferson. But to a man these chiefs were GIANTS – huge men with huge appetites for meat.
But Paul makes no such appeal to a man's physique or any other thing that one might say is of note and that is particular to men. He notes only that our first parents (Adam and Eve) were created in a
particular order and that that order was and is significant for us today in our homes and in the church.
(This, by the way, will be the focus of our study next Sunday, dealing with the nitty-gritty of the relationship between men and women in the home and in the church)
2. Paul's sole focus is on the issue of having authority. This is not a discussion on who is smarter, stronger, wiser or better. His position is not that women are inferior or that he believes they are intellectually inferior. Again, THAT would be misogyny. Rather, his sole issue is that a placing of women over men is a challenge to an order that God established by making Adam before Eve and over Eve.
So this is not about male dominance. Rather it is about male precedence. It is not about male superiority.
Rather it is about male authority. It is not about male importance.
Rather it is about male placement. This doesn't get us out of the quicksand.
But it does help explain that there was and is a reason beyond male chauvinism that lies behind the reason churches have male pastors and teachers.
