Friday, December 14, 2018

When the Church Was Only Women!

Scholars debate when the church proper began. Many would say at Pentecost, others would trace it back through the righteous of Israel in the OT, while another possibility is the empty tomb. If we take the resurrection as the launch of the renewed people of God with Jesus as the first of a new humanity, then the church began then. I am somewhat drawn to the latter view, Jesus the firstborn of resurrection, the first fruits, and then believers men and women were added to his people. They were empowered for life at Pentecost, but for the forty days from the Resurrection, they were his people, building to 120 or so, gathered in prayer, as God's newly formed community of the ekklesia of God, waiting in obedience for God's power to be unleashed into them (Luke 24:46-52; Acts 1:8-14). 

Assuming this is so, aside from Jesus who is the head of the church in any decent ecclesiology (Col 1:18), the first church was entirely made up of women! This is confirmed in all four Gospels even if we are a little unsure of how many and exactly was there. Mark tells us that the group included Mary Magdalene, Mary mother of James, and Salome (Mark 16:1). They are told Jesus is risen and to go and tell his disciples and Peter to meet him in Galilee. Hence, one can argue that the first church service at which an angel preached was held at that moment, and they were commissioned to take the good news to the others (evangelists). Matthew confirms that at least Mary Magdalene and the other Mary were there and Mark’s account is renarrated. We hear that they did go and the church had its second meeting in which the women leaders preached to the others and they then met Jesus in Galilee (Matt 28:1-20). Luke’s version confirms that the two Mary’s were there as was Joanna. Luke tells us that they went and told the apostles and others of their encounter (Luke 24:11). John too narrates that Mary Magdalene went to the tomb, and then ran to tell the others (John 20:1–2).

From this, we can trust that there was at least Mary Magdalene, almost certainly the other Mary (not the mother of Jesus or Mary of Martha's sister's fame), and possibly Joanna and Salome. Incidentally, by cross-referencing the accounts of the women across the Gospels, it is likely that Salome is the mother of James and John. Mary Magdalene had seven demons cast out of her, but she is not the woman who anoints Jesus in Luke 7 and is not a prostitute. Nevertheless, Mary Magdalene is an astonishing choice of the one who is the pioneer of God's church across all four Gospels. She is its leader, first preacher, apostle, and evangelist--one could argue.

All this tells me that the genesis of the church is women. They were planted as such by God through his angels. They are the first church planters. Obediently, as must all church planters, they went and did evangelism, announcing the good news. Others were only added as these first women told the men and they joined them. Hence, the whole structure of that church including its leaders and first preachers were women. Jesus, of course, is head, amen. So, not only was Mary the apostle to the apostles, she and others including Joanna, Salome, and the other Mary were the church. They are the “mothers of the living,” in an eternal sense so to speak (Gen 3:20)—the Eves from which the new creation was formed. They are the “mothers of Israel,” around whom the first church was formed (cf. Judg 5:7).

To this, I can add that the agreed head of the 
church, Jesus, came from Mary in his human form in which he heads God’s people. Her womb was the home of the head for nine months or so. The man came from women (1 Cor 11:12). He was utterly dependent on her, his life in her hands. She then mothered him to age. Indeed, we will celebrate this in the next weeks. What a joy! So while the church finds its origins in the Triune God, it also finds its genesis in women through whom God planted his Son and people, and who led that movement, even if for a short time.

The more I read Scriptures the more I find it implausible to deny women roles in church leadership and preaching ministries. Here, they are church planters and so apostles, evangelists and preachers, and the genesis of the new humanity in Christ. They were the first Jesus-formed church. They were the first Jesus-direct evangelists. They mother the church as they mothered Jesus and the new creation of God's people. May the Lord bless all people this Christmas, and especially blessed women. 

Tuesday, October 30, 2018

The Removal of Jesus from the Parliamentary Prayer

I see a group of Christians is going to the NZ parliament to protest the removal of the phrase “Jesus Christ” from the parliamentary prayer. Back in 2017, mentions of Jesus and the Queen were removed from the prayer by Trevor Mallard, the incoming speaker of the house when the Labour/NZ First coalition took the reins of the NZ government. He did so without any real consultation, which is strange considering the long-held traditions of Parliament (

In a Stuff online poll at the time, 50% said they didn’t like the removal. 17% liked the removal of the references to Jesus and the Queen, while 33% wanted the prayer removed altogether. So, it is fair to say, NZ is split down the middle. A majority of around two-thirds want a prayer, and half want Jesus and the Queen referenced.

The previous prayer went like this:

Almighty God,
Humbly acknowledging our need for Thy guidance in all things, and laying aside all private and personal interests, we beseech Thee to grant that we may conduct the affairs of this House and of our country to the glory of Thy holy name, the maintenance of true religion and justice, the honour of the Queen, and the public welfare, peace, and tranquillity of New Zealand, through Jesus Christ our Lord.

The replacement is this:
Almighty God, we give thanks for the blessings which have been bestowed on New Zealand.
Laying aside all personal interests, we pray for guidance in our deliberations, that we may conduct the affairs of this House with wisdom and humility, for the public welfare and peace of New Zealand.

I admire the Christians who are going to Parliament today to take on the Speaker on this. I heard a representative on the AM Show this morning, and he was humble and gracious. Good on them. I honour their desire to see Jesus Christ retained in the prayer. I want all New Zealanders praying to God through Jesus and so applaud them.

However, for a range of reasons, if it doesn’t go the way our blessed brothers and sisters want today, I suggest to Christians that we don’t need to get too worried about it either way.

First, there is still a prayer thanking God for his blessings, that the Parliament acts with wisdom and humility, and for the welfare and peace of the nation. Some of the things removed are good, e.g. the language is updated, and is less elevated and “holier than thou.” I am disappointed that God’s guidance is removed. I am also a bit sad that justice is not included in the replacement; surely, a left-wing government with a passion for social justice would include this. I wonder if it is removed because of the left’s concern that some are focussed on punitive justice? Restorative and social justice are great ideas. Still, it is a good prayer, and Christians can pray it heartily.

The second reason not to be worried is that it is not the Parliament which is commanded by God to pray for the nation in Scripture, believers are. In 1 Timothy 2:1–2, Paul urges that “supplications, prayers, intercessions, and thanksgivings be made for all people, for kings and all who are in high positions.” Hence, it is our responsibility to pray for Parliament. This we can do, whether they pray or do not.

So, perhaps it is a better use of our time to gather in prayer for Parliament rather than march on the said place to get a whole lot of people, many of whom don’t agree with the prayer, to hypocritically pray something they don’t believe in, or to stand in silence as it is done? By compelling people to pray this prayer, are we not demeaning the freedom of the gospel for them not to. Then again, I suppose they don’t have to join in. Still, it seems a bit rich to me—what divine right do we have to demand it? The new prayer might get more participation, as there may be more seekers and acknowledgers of some kind of divine being out there than we think.

Third, those Christians in Parliament and other Christian staff can continue to gather and pray together for their work as I am sure they do. This should spur them on to do so, as Christians in all work locations can gather and pray and should.

Fourth, the National Anthem is a sufficient prayer for the nation. We have an amazingly Christian anthem and while a number of NZers sing it without any real faith in it or as a prayer, we Christians can and do. Still, one day I am sure efforts will be made to change this too. If so, we should resist with grace, gentleness, and respect. However, if it is changed, again it is not the end of the world. We can sing it with gusto in our churches for the nation; that is our calling.

The final reason I think we should not kick up too much of a fuss on this is that the whole thing is that it is a relic of Christendom. We Christians claim that Christianity is the heritage of the nation whether we like it or not and that Christianity has shaped NZ more than anything else, and so we should keep praying it. I would agree that Christian ideals have shaped our culture hugely and I am hugely glad it has. Yet, Christian ideas are not the only ones that have formed us. There is Greek philosophy, paganism that covered Europe before Christianity, the philosophies and ideologies of Europe since the Enlightenment, Maori culture and religion that pre-existed the coming of the Pakeha, the many religions and ideas of the many immigrants who are now among us. These are all influential to some degree. We need to watch that we do not arrogantly demand that the world around us live as we live and pray as we pray. We do not want them to feel compelled into hypocrisy by our zealous expectations.

Why would we expect the world of people around who have not yielded to Christ the King and received his Spirit to do what we want? The early church was not seen standing on the steps of the Forum in Rome demanding the Roman rulers pray prayers to Jesus and God. They got on with being the people of God and changed the Roman world from the inside out with their passionate faith, refusal to use violence, social work, love, and worship. This is our call.

Christendom was a period where Church and State were aligned and supposedly nations lived out of the Christian faith. Anyone with a moderate knowledge of European history knows that this period was not a golden age of glorious holiness and honor of God. It was an up and down period, where the church was often fatally compromised as it became harnessed too closely to the State. Indeed, the establishment of the modern nation of NZ is a flawed story of Christianity and Colonialism. While the missionaries in many cases did their level best to moderate the colonial overwhelming of the Maori people in this nation, we are culpable to a great degree for the oppression of a culture. Thanks to the graciousness of the Maori people and ongoing efforts to bring justice, we live at peace and harmony as one people. We must not threaten this by demanding that our religion brought from Europe to NZ be given dominion. That is not the Jesus way. His way is the path of humble service, washing feet, and honouring the other.

It is not our divine right to run the nation. Indeed, when we have got into positions of running nations, we have proved little better than those who are not Christians. It is great that some Christians are working in the upper echelons of power, and God bless them that they be truly salt and light in those places, bringing the justice and compassion of Jesus with humility and service. Yet, we have no divine right to govern this nation, demand that they pray prayers we like, etc. We are right to partake in the democratic process, but with humility and graciousness and not demanding things our way.
Our call is to work in and from our local churches, going into the world, doing our God-ordained vocations, building the nation, doing it well, praying for it, honouring God, caring for the poor, inviting people to submit to the reign of God, forming communities that show the world what it looks like when males and females of all ages, cultures, stages, and social positions come together in love. We are to model the ideals of the Kingdom. As we do, we will find more and more people drawn to it, because God’s ways are great!

Our posture toward the government must be one of respect, submission, and humility. We will resist if they oppress and persecute us, but not with violent retaliation. We will challenge the government to do its work well of making this country one that is egalitarian, humanitarian, secure, fair, and just. We will model what Jesus came to establish—a kingdom in which grace, mercy, compassion, and love of God and others are lived and experience. We do not demand that they name our God in their prayers. We will pray for them.

I like the idea of us asking Parliament not to remove Jesus Christ from the prayer and reconsidering its reintroduction. It is good to ask, as long as we do so with grace and respect where respect is due. But if they say no, that is no big deal. We get on praying for them and being the people of God as we are called to be.

We can acknowledge that faith in Jesus and God in this country has waned to a degree. Yet, it is still much stronger than people think, even if many churches are not as full as they once were. Where there are people in churches, the waning of the faith around us means that there is a more active, committed group than there used to be in church. We are there not because it is cool and the done thing, but because we want to be. If we be the people of God well, more and more people will realise again that we need its ideals and power to keep NZ such a great place to be and live.

So, while I think Trevor Mallard should not have removed Jesus and the Queen without some decent consultation and while I wish they were still there, I am not concerned. Let us continue to pray for the government and all in authority, as Paul urged. Let us be people under God’s rule who really embrace the challenge to show love, compassion, mercy, and grace to all around us, respecting their freedom to reject or embrace God and Jesus. We continue to issue the invitation with gentleness and respect. We continue to sing our National Anthem as a prayer. We know God is with us and that the NZ government is his servant to govern on his behalf (e.g. Rom 13; Tit 3:1; 1 Pet 2:13–17). He will deal with them if they don’t. That is not up to us. Shalom.

Sunday, April 9, 2017

Isaac, Abraham's Only Son?

I had a second discussion today as well. I preached on Gen 22 last week, and an observant person noted that while the text says Isaac is Abraham’s “only son,” he actually had another son at the time, Ishmael.

This is a classic example of where we need to read a term in context to understand it. The term “only” is יָחִיד (yā·ḥîḏ). If we take it literally, there is a clash with Gen 16, where Ishmael is born. However, when we come to a term like “only” or “all” in Scripture, we shouldn’t just immediately think that every time it has a pure “same as everywhere” meaning. So, for example, in 1 Tim 4:10, Jesus is “the Savior of all people.” If we literalise this, we end up with universalism; Jesus saved everyone, period. However, when we consider all of Paul’s theology, clearly he did not believe this. What he means is that Jesus is the savior of all people who believe. Potentially, he is savior of all, if they will yield. So, we have to take care to interpret “all” here in context (especially of those who believe.”

Here in Gen 22, “only” does not mean his only descendant, but he is Abraham and Sarah’s only son, and he is Abraham’s only son of promise. More broadly, Ishmael is his son too, and God will bless him. But it is through Isaac, that God will fulfill his promises to Abraham’s seed.

So, some lexicons list the potential meaning as “only unique child” (Swanson, James. Dictionary of Biblical Languages with Semantic Domains: Hebrew (Old Testament). Oak Harbor: Logos Research Systems, Inc., 1997), 3495.

This and my previous blog, indicate that we have to interpret Scripture carefully, taking note of the context, and the wider theology of the writer in mind. This is a great example. While Abraham has another son, he and Sarah only had one son of promise, Isaac.

The Sign of Jonah and Three Days and Three Nights

I had an interesting conversation after church today. I preached on Jonah 2 and referenced the “sign of Jonah” from Matt 12:38–42. A wonderfully passionate Christian in my church was keen to discuss whether Jesus was dead three days and nights, which would align with Matt 12:40: “for just as Jonah was three days and three nights in the belly of the great fish, so will the Son of Man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth.” He went as far as suggesting that I was not taking Jesus at his word by not believing that Jesus rose three days and nights after his death.

I suggested that the sign wasn’t so much related to the exact three days and three nights, but that Jesus died and rose again, which parallels Jonah in the belly of the fish and being “resurrected” onto a beach. The exact timing is not the point. What I said, clearly did not satisfy my friend, and so I said I would do a bit more research.

The first thing to note is that in later references in Matthew’s Gospel itself, Jesus rises on the third day, both in a summary of Jesus’ teaching (Matt 16:21) and on his own lips (Matt 17:23; 20:10). Now, let’s say Jesus was raised on a Sunday (the morning of the first day of the week), then Sunday would be the third day in relation to Friday (Friday first day, Saturday second day, Sunday the third day). In the discussion, it was claimed that the first day began the night previous (in Jewish thought); this changes nothing because if the day began at night, Sunday morning is still the morning of the first day (which began the night before). So, in Matthew, on the one hand, Jesus says he will be three days and nights dead, but in the same Gospel, it will be on the third day, i.e. deceased for two nights.

Now, this would seem an insurmountable problem where Jesus contradicts himself. On the one hand, he says he will rise after three days and nights, but elsewhere he says “on the third day.” However, this is only if central to the sign of Jonah is the time period. This need not be the case, for there are differing views as to what the sign of Jonah actually implies. Smith articulates the dominant view in Matthean scholarship in his article on the “Sign of Jonah” in The Dictionary of Jesus and the Gospels (pp. 754–56) when he states that the sign of Jonah is the resurrection not its specific correlation in terms of date. This is proven by the fact that Matthew himself does not take it directly, moving from “three days and nights” to “on the third day.” Smith writes,

Matthew understands the resurrection of Jesus as the fulfillment of the “sign of Jonah” (12:40): “Just as Jonah was in the belly of the sea monster for three days and three nights, so will the Son of Man be in the heart of the earth for three days and three nights [only this limited time].” Matthew’s use of the phrase “after three days” in 27:63 (cf. “on the third day” in 16:21; 17:23; 20:19 par.) is an echo of the Jonah tradition and confirmation that Matthew understands Jesus’ resurrection as the sign of Jonah.

So, while Matthew says “three days and three nights,” the sign is not the time period, the sign is that Jesus’ rose as did Jonah “rose” from the fish. The time period is general, and we make a classic exegetical error when we feel we need to defend it as such. This is reading back modernist temporal expectations into the Bible world, where such things were not determinative.

Second, when Luke records his version of the Jesus’ material in Luke 11:29–32, he makes no reference to “three days and three nights.” He simply says, “For as Jonah became a sign to the people of Nineveh, so will the Son of Man be to this generation” (Luke 11:30). Smith says of this that there are disagreements among Lukan interpreters concerning the meaning of the sign with four views. The first is that just as Jonah was sent as judge to Nineveh, so Jesus will come as judge of humanity at the consummation of the ages. The next view is similar; just as Jonah preached repentance to Nineveh, Jesus preaches repentance, and the Ninevite response is what is required of Israel—repentance. Third, Luke’s main interest is his own generation at the time of writing—they need to repent. The fourth is the same as Matthew—the resurrection. Whatever Luke has in mind, it is not the three days and nights that is the issue. Perhaps because of the widespread understanding that Jesus rose on the third day, he reframed it, to ensure readers didn’t get confused (as some modern readers can be).

A third thing to note is that the better recognised Matthean scholars recognise that the “three days and three nights” is not significant and does not need to be taken literally. Here are three examples (and a fourth cited). Hagner writes:

Furthermore, Jonah was in the whale “three days and three nights,” yet Jesus rose from the dead “on the third day” (16:21; 17:23; 20:19; cf., however, 27:63–64). But this kind of minor discrepancy, the obsession of some modern interpreters, was of no concern to Matthew or to any of the evangelists, nor can it be allowed to affect the discussion of the chronology of the passion and resurrection of
Jesus (Donald A. Hagner, Matthew 1–13 (WBC 33A; Dallas: Word, Incorporated, 1998), 354).

Blomberg cites Gundry, “‘Three days and three nights’ represents a Semitic idiom for any portion of three calendar days (Gundry, Matthew, 244—who gives examples). An idiom is a particular form of expression natural to a language, person, or group. So, this is a general way of speaking, not meant for moderns to take literally. So there is no need to see a contradiction with the traditional Holy Week chronology, including a Friday crucifixion and Sunday resurrection, or to propose any alternative chronologies (C. Blomberg, Matthew (NAC 22; Nashville: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 1992), 206–207).

Finally, Morris, in agreement with Gundry and Blomberg writes:

As we count time, three days and three nights points inexorably to three periods of twenty-four hours each; we thus have a problem with the use of this expression for the time between Jesus’ death and resurrection: the period from toward the middle of the day on Friday (when he was crucified) to early on Sunday morning (when he was seen alive) comes short of what we understand by three days and three nights. But the Jews did not reckon as we do: they counted the day on which any period began as one day, and they did the same with the day on which the period ended. Thus we have Friday, Saturday, Sunday, three days; it does not matter that neither the Friday nor the Sunday was complete. According to the method of counting in use at the time, this is the period during which Jesus would be in the heart of the earth. Matthew elsewhere speaks of Jesus as rising “on the third day” (16:21) and “after three days” (27:63); there is no reason to think that he sees any difference between these expressions. However we understand it in detail, the expression indicates that after the crucifixion Jesus will be three days in the tomb (L. Morris, The Gospel according to Matthew (PNTC; Grand Rapids, MI; Leicester, England: W.B. Eerdmans; Inter-Varsity Press, 1992), 325–26).

The fourth thing to realise is that “the sign of Jonah” is effectively a parable. One of the dangers of “amateur” exegesis is allegorizing every aspect of a parable. This has led to some crazy understandings of sayings of Jesus; as if every small part of it must have a correlation. In the case of the “sign of Jonah,” this is tricky. For example, Jonah didn’t actually die; he was near death, was swallowed by a fish (saving him), and was vomited up alive on a beach. He did not die or rise from the dead. So, the analogy breaks down if we force the issue. What we need to do is to consider the context and Jesus’ wider teaching to grasp what it is that Jesus was saying. Here, he wasn’t saying that he was like Jonah literally in every respect, but that Jonah’s experience points to his forthcoming one in which he will die and rise again. The three days and nights need not be forced into an exact analogy, as this is general and approximate. Matthew himself does not consider Jesus was three days and nights in the tomb. If he had been, he would have been raised on the fourth day; rather, he was raised on the third day.

Fifth, the whole question of exactly when Jesus was crucified and when he rose is vexed. However, it does not affect this question. The disciples became aware of Jesus’ resurrection on a Sunday morning (the first day). However, the Synoptic Gospels (Matthew, Mark, Luke) appear to say Jesus was killed the day after the evening Passover Feast, the Passover Day (15 Nisan)—remember that Jews began the day in the evening and so the Passover meal is on the evening before the day (Matt 27:57, 62; Mark 15:42; Luke 23:54; John 19:31, 42). John, however, seems to see the Last Supper as occurring the day before Passover, the day of preparation (14 Nisan). Either way, however, the Gospels make clear that the Sabbath comes the day after his death (Matt 27:57–28:1; Mark 15:42–16:1; Luke 23:54–56; John 19:31), so we still have Jesus rising on the third day after his death. The question is, was he killed the day before the Passover or on the day of Passover? He rose on the third day. This is demonstrated across the NT where “the third day” is referenced in relation to the resurrection, not “three days and three nights” (Matt 16:21; 17:23; 20:19; Luke 9:22; 13:32; 18:33; 24:7, 21, 46; Acts 10:40; 27:19; 1 Cor 15:4).

Finally, one of the suggestions is that the Sabbath in mind is/was not the actual Sabbath, the seventh day of the week. This supposedly creates space for the three days and three nights. However, "Sabbath" is mentioned seven times in the Passion chapters and fifty times over the Gospels. There is absolutely no indication that its use is any different in the Passion Narratives to the use of the term across the four Gospels—it is the Sabbath, the Seventh Day, holy and sacred to Israel. To postulate alternative calendars is problematic, although it is tried. In my view, it becomes very dodgy to feel one can interpret the Greek word differently from place to place to try and fit in one’s interpretation of “three days and three nights,” especially when Matthew did not seem to feel the necessity himself!

So what was Jesus doing in the sign of Jonah in Matthew’s Gospel? He saw in Jonah’s near death and his being spewed up on the beach as an appropriate a parallel to his own mission and its outcome; actual death and actual resurrection. It is a ready-made analogy. Jonah was a Jewish prophet, Jesus the Jewish Messiah. Jonah preached a message of repentance, so did Jesus (Matt 4:17; 11:20). Jonah preached to Gentiles, so Jesus’ message would be taken to all nations by his disciples (Matt 28:18–20) (but not by Jesus himself, Matt 10:6; 15:24). Jonah was in a fish and as he puts it, the belly of Sheol, for three days and nights; so would Jesus be in the grave and rise on the third day. None of the analogy is perfect, so why should be force the time frame in such a way? (especially when Matthew and Luke do not do so). Jesus was more than a prophet. He did not preach directly to Gentiles but did preach repentance. Jonah did not die, Jesus did. Jonah did not rise again, but his experience and language approximate that of Jesus. So, it was highly appropriate that the “sign of Jonah” was assumed by Jesus in this way. We do not need to line up every part. To do so, we would have to do the same for every one of Jesus’ messages, parables and all. That is a modernist approach to Scripture that becomes very unhelpful as we feel we have to defend every jot and tittle and dig bigger and bigger holes for ourselves trying to place modernistic exactitude on ancient writings. Clearly, for the NT writers, it wasn't an issue. If it had been, they would have tidied up such things. Why should it be for us?

One more thing to add, as a post-publication edit. The context is Jewish leaders demanding signs. Jesus is saying that they will get their sign, the sign of Jonah--the resurrection. That is the real point not exactly three days and nights. For a Jew, 'on the third day' should be enough as the time frame is an idiom and general.

Wednesday, April 5, 2017

Who Is the Foremost Theological Provider?

The other day I was at the graduation of another college. Overall it was a great experience, it being wonderful to see another group of students graduate. I was especially pleased to see a relative and some friends gaining postgraduate awards. Hats off to the hard work done by the staff and students who serve Christ in that context. This institution is doing great things for our Lord Jesus, and for that, I give thanks and praise.

The leader of the institution gave a great crisp message in which he stated how the college loves the things of God, I was stirred by this. He articulated his hope that the students would embody humble servanthood in their ministries. I wanted to shout a loud amen. I wanted to come to this college! A student then spoke, quite brilliantly to be honest. He was a great advertisement for the work this college is doing.

Later came the keynote speaker. He gave a good presentation but lost me with one of his lines, a statement to the effect that this institution is NZ’s leading theological provider. Being a faculty member of another one in the same context, this piqued my interested and those around me. In fact, knowing I work down the road in the same business, the guy beside me elbowed me in the ribs, and I almost cried out in pain (that would have gone down well at that said juncture), while family and friends all turned their eyes toward me. Not sure why. Jokes.

Anyway, it got me thinking, what makes an institution the ‘leading’ or ‘foremost’ one in a context? Is it size? Is it more students? Is it the growth rate? Is it scope, a wide diversity of people? Is it the most Phds on the faculty? Or the least? (Often PhD people are lost in the clouds. Well I am). Is it that the students are faster at their work? Fatter? The more agile? Shorter? Older? Younger? Weirder? Stronger? Is it the number of branches? Overseas partnerships? Is it how good looking the faculty and/or students are? Is it decided in a sports event? Who holds the cup at present? Is it how much praying everyone does? Or worship gatherings? Or the quality of the café, the food? In NZ we have a thing called PBRF (Performance Based Research Funding), where institutions are ranked regarding their research outputs. Is it that the college is more or less liberal? Is it a matter of race? The more people of a certain ethnicity, the better? I am being a bit flippant—but then again, it is a really interesting question.

As I pondered this question, I came up with an answer. God decides I suppose. Or does he? And how? Does he have a great ranking system as he looks down from on high—this institution or that institution ranks above that and for this reason? I doubt it. What I think he is looking for is the sort of thing the leader of the institution articulated earlier on in the celebration—God is looking for people who love him, who love the Word, who love the Church, who love the mission of God, who love serving him, and do so with a deep humility. Then, each one who works in any part of God’s great work on planet earth will be judged on the quality of his or her service. This comes at judgment day (1 Cor 4:1-5). In the meantime, we urge each other on, in humility considering others above ourselves.

In the wider world, ranking oneself is important, including in education. For example, there are all sorts of ranking lists of the universities of the world. I don’t think this is appropriate for us as we serve God. We shouldn’t talk about the leading church in a denomination, in a country, in anything. We shouldn’t talk about our institution as the best, greatest, foremost, leading, or whatever adjective we want. Rather, we should humbly all serve God with our whole beings and want the best for ourselves and others in Christ. I rejoice that the institution in view is going great. It may well be NZs leading theological provider? Praise God. Perhaps the speaker had had a word from God about that. Good for him. The truth is I think in reality, who knows? Who cares? Let God decide, if he is going to, and I don’t he will. Anyway̧, we are not competitors. We are brothers and sisters, working as God’s coworkers, used by him to educate and equip people for service today. We are on the same team. We want all such institutions to flourish all over the nation and nations. May that be so.

Anyway, it was a great day out seeing the flourishing of a sister institution. Shalom. I pray they go from strength to strength and many students pour through their doors going out to renew communities all over the world. Shalom.

Wednesday, March 29, 2017

Should Women Lead Churches and Preach?

Conversations with students and on Facebook suggest to me that there is a rise in concern over women in ministry; particularly, their exercising leadership and authority in a church and preaching/teaching groups including men. As such, I thought I would write a blog explaining why I passionately defend women in all forms of ministry in an uncluttered way. If people want to, it is not difficult to track down resources that go into such things in more detail. The positions I espouse are widely held among egalitarians where gender is concerned.

Before outlining the reasons, a few caveats are in order. What I will say does not deny that men and women are different, and that gender is a glorious gift. Some aspects of our genderness are set, e.g. where women are concerned, giving birth and breast-feeding. Gender is a creational gift. This blog accepts this premise but presents a list of reasons why I believe the Bible endorses that woman can lead churches and preach.

This issue is treated as a secondary theological issue by many. At one level this is correct—one is not saved on the basis of one’s view on this issue. However, for women who are called to ministry, this is essential to their identity in Christ, and it cannot be treated as a secondary issue. It is a primary issue where Christian identity is concerned. As such, I am passionate about the issue.   

1.     The Creation-Fall narrative supports gender equality 
In Genesis 1, both men and women are made in the image of God. They are jointly commissioned to fill the earth and rule over creation. Aside from the obvious fact that women will bear the children and feed them in the initial phase, there is no evidence of role differentiation in this. We are commissioned to rule together over creation.

In Genesis 2 woman is created as a ‘helper’ to the man. Some read this as a subordinate role for women. However, the Hebrew for ‘helper’ is ʿē·zěr. It is used sixteen times in the Old Testament, mostly of God as helper of Israel (Exod 18:4; Deut 33:7, 29; Pss 20:5; 70:5; 89:19; 121:1, 2; 124:8; 146:5; Hos 13:9). As such, there is nothing in this term to suggest subordination. Women and men are together to rule creation.

In Genesis 3 we read of the ‘Fall’ of humanity into sin. There is a range of consequences of human rebellion against God. The serpent which deceived men and women is cursed to slither on the ground. Women will experience pain in childbearing. Men will have a tough time farming. The other consequence is that men will rule over women. Some read this as God’s ideal. However, this is a result of the Fall, a result of human sin.

As such, the creation ideal is co-regency of men and women over creation and not gender discrimination of any sort.

2.     The Old Testament and Jewish literature gives evidence of women in leadership
In the period after entering the land of Canaan until the establishment of the Davidic monarchy, Israel was led by Judges. One of these Judges is a woman, Deborah. She is described as a prophetess and the wife of Lappidoth. It states in Judg 4:4 that she was ‘judging Israel at the time.’ There is no criticism of her doing this, it is simply stated. After seeking help from Barak to attack Sisera’s troops, she went with him, and the victory was gained. So, we have an example of a woman leading Israel in the OT, and there is no criticism of this here. In fact, she is a heroine of Israel’s story (see Judg 4 – 5).

While there are no other leaders of Israel who are women, there are significant other women. There is Esther who through great courage, brought about the deliverance of Israel from destruction. In the Apocrypha, there is Judith who did the same. There are also prophetesses; women who proclaim the word of the Lord to Israel. These include Miriam, the sister of Aaron, who sang the first song of the Scriptures after the Exodus  (Exod 15:20). Huldah is another prophetess. A group of men including the priest Hilkiah went to her, and she proclaimed the word of the Lord to them, predicting the deliverance of the king from the forthcoming destruction of Jerusalem because of Israel’s idolatry. The men delivered her message back to the King at the time (2 Kings 22:14–18; 2 Chron 34:22–28). They were thus, taught by a woman the word of God. At the time of Christ, one such prophetess is mentioned in Luke 2:36, and she too was speaking of Christ ‘to all who were waiting for the redemption of Jerusalem.’ This would include her speaking to men of God’s redemption.

3.     Jesus gave no indication of limiting women regarding Christian leadership.
There is no example of Jesus stating that a woman cannot be a Christian leader or preach his word. However, women travelled in his entourage from the beginning and were witnesses to his death (Mark 15:40–41; Luke 8:1–4).

It is claimed that the appointment of only men among the Twelve Apostles indicates Jesus was limiting women in ministry. However, this is flawed. None of the Twelve was a Gentile. Are we to argue that Jesus limited ministry only to Jews? It does not follow as simply as this. Interestingly, in Luke 10, we have Jesus appointing 70 (or 72) ‘others’ to go out in ministry. The pronoun ‘others’ is masculine and can be argued to include only men. However, the masculine in Hebrew and Greek is used inclusively of men and women. We cannot then be certain these 70/72 were all men. Did they include women? Did some of the group include the women of Luke 8? While this is an argument from silence, this silence cuts both ways. We cannot rule out there being some women among them. Nor can we be certain they were.

In Luke 10 we also have the incident at the home of Martha and Mary. Jesus is dining there. Martha is busy with the preparations for the meal, functioning as the ideal middle eastern hostess. Instead of joining her sorting out the hospitality, Mary sits at Jesus’ feet listening to him teach. In ancient terms, this is the position of a disciple. In Judaism, discipleship was limited to men. So, her decision was radical in two ways—first, she was taking up the position of a disciple, second, she was assuming the position only men were permitted to do. Jesus congratulates her choice. Now, we cannot push this to say she can be a leader; but she certainly was a disciple, and there is no limitation placed on her discipleship.

We also see that there were female disciples of Jesus in Mark 3, Matt 12, and Luke 8. Jesus is told that family members, concerned for his sanity, are outside and want to speak to him. Jesus looks around the room and says, ‘Who are my mother and brothers?’ He then looks around the room and says, ‘Here are my mother and my brothers. For whoever does the will of my Father in heaven is my brother and sister and mother.’ The inclusion of women in these sayings shows that there were disciples in the room who were clearly women.

We see Jesus’ attitude to women preaching to men in John 4. He encounters a sinful Samaritan woman. Jews would normally not associate with Samaritans, and a Jewish religious leader at the time would have nothing to do with a sinful one! She would be avoided for fear of ritual contamination and the need for purity rituals. Yet, Jesus asks her for a drink of water. They have an interesting conversation in which he prophetically identifies her as a sinful woman. She is blown away, and realises he is the long-awaited Messiah (the Samaritans called this figure, ‘the Taheb,’ meaning restorer). She runs to her town and tells the people she has found the Tabeb. They believe her and come out, and most of the town become followers of Jesus. She thus evangelises her town. She proclaims the good news. She is the first mass-evangelist in John’s story (aside from Jesus himself). There is no criticism of her for her act by the writer John, or from Jesus.

The other celebrated moment of female proclamation is after the resurrection. In the earliest Gospel, in Mark 16, the women are told by a young man (likely an angel) to take the news of Jesus’ resurrection to the men. This person is a messenger of God, so it is God telling women to preach to men. Matthew and Luke take up the same story (Matt 28; Luke 24), and they do so. This leads to the men rushing to the tomb and realising Jesus has risen. In John’s Gospel (Ch. 20), the same thing occurs, with Mary being the key figure telling the men that Jesus has risen. She is then the first to encounter Jesus after his resurrection. She is told to go to the men and tell them of his ascension. Here we have explicit examples of God and Jesus telling women to give witness to the resurrection and ascension of Jesus. They are to preach freely to both men and women.

Recent research has shown that where a name is mentioned in the Gospels, this person is likely an eyewitness to the event that is known to the writer of the Gospel and a likely source of the material. There are some women mentioned in the Gospels by name, and as such, they gave witness at gatherings within the church and perhaps beyond to their experiences of Jesus. They shared their stories as part of the proclamation of early Christians.

Jesus also exhibited a permissive rather than restrictive approach to people in ministry. Three Gospels tell of a situation when John comes to Jesus concerned that there was someone outside Jesus’ entourage casting out demons in his name. Jesus’ attitude was not to restrict this person but rather that the disciples recognise that this person is on the same side as they are and so, ‘do not stop him!’ One can apply this to the question of women in ministry. If one has reservations, rather than restrict, permit, as that person is serving Jesus and the Gospel (see Mark 9:38–40; Luke 9:49–50).

Jesus’ definition of ministry as service is also relevant. In Mark 10 (also Matt 20:20–28; Luke 22:24–30), when the disciples are concerned about who is the greatest and sitting at his right and left sides (positions of supreme honour), Jesus repudiates their attitude. He tells them not to lead as the Gentiles do with authoritarian, autocratic leadership. Rather, they are to serve as he himself came to serve and give his life for the world. Ministry is then service. As another biblical scholar says to the question of whether women can serve in all positions of ministry, ‘Ministry is service. Why would we stop someone serving Jesus.’ Such acts are autocratic and domineering. Rather, we would encourage them and support them.

So, all in all, Jesus was a radical where women are concerned. He allowed them to be disciples. He never forbade involvement. They may have been among the 70/72. There is no judgment on the Samaritan woman who evangelised her town. He chose women to be the first bearers of the gospel of the resurrection to men. He exhibited a permissive attitude to all who sought to minister in his name.

4.     There is indication of the freedom of women to lead in Acts
In Luke’s account of the growth and expansion of the Christian movement in Acts, there are no women appointed to positions of leadership. When the disciples replace Judas, it is with a man, Matthias (Acts 1:26). When they appoint seven leaders to care for the needs of Grecian widows in Acts 6, they are men. However, by their names, we can deduct that they were Gentiles. This demonstrates a movement from a purely Jewish leadership to Gentile converts. This is important because it shows that the church was breaking out of its cultural cocoon. One can argue the same where women in leadership are concerned, in regards to gender.

There is no limitation on women in Acts either. There are two key female figures referenced. The first is in Acts 16, Lydia. She is a God-worshiping Gentile woman who is one of a group of women who worship God outside the city gates (there are insufficient men to form a synagogue in the town and no evidence of male Jews). She is the first convert in Philippi and plays hostess to the Pauline team. As the only convert in Philippi with a knowledge of Judaism, she is likely the first leader of the church. Certainly, her home is its initial base.

Priscilla is a key figure in Paul’s letters (also Prisca). She is married to Aquila, and she and her husband are Roman Jewish Christians who come to Corinth when Claudius expelled the Jews from Rome in AD 49 (Acts 18:1–2). She is named before her husband on some occasions, likely indicating her prominence. She and Aquila teach Apollos the finer things of the Christian faith in Acts 18:24–28. The verbs used (invited, explained) are plurals, indicating that together, Priscilla and Aquila explained the way of God more adequately to Apollos. Hence, we have a woman teaching a Christian man matters of faith. She is also named with Aquila as a ‘co-worker,’ a term used by Paul in his letters to speak of those who serve in the gospel with him (Rom 16:3). This includes Philemon (Phlm 1) who is a church leader. She and Aquila are named as co-hosts of church gatherings (Rom 16:5; 1 Cor 16:19; 2 Tim 4:19). All indications are that she was an important Christian church leader who also taught men.

In Acts, we read of the appointment of elders in the churches (e.g. Acts 14:23; 20:17). The term is masculine, and so some assume these are all men. However, as noted previously, the masculine is used inclusively across the Bible and ancient world (and in many places today). We cannot be certain that these were only men.

So, in Acts, while men dominate the leadership of the church, there are notable exceptions, and it is not certain there were no women among the leaders of the many churches that sprang up.

5.     Paul limits women in leadership in two letters while in the other 11 there is no such limitation

While some scholars question the Pauline authorship of some of Paul’s letters, I see no reason to dispute that the thirteen letters ascribed to Paul are not his. In eleven of his letters, Paul places no restrictions on women in ministry. These include two letters written to churches Paul himself did not plant, Romans and Colossians. In Romans and Ephesians, he gives lists of gifts imparted by the Spirit, and places no limit on these, whether gender, race, or social status. God gives his gifts as he chooses. Indeed, in Rom 12:4–8, he expressly tells the Romans that they should let those with certain gifts express them. One of the gifts is leadership. If it were very important to Paul that only men do the leading, surely he would have said something to this church that did not know him directly. There is no limitation on women in Romans, 2 Corinthians, Galatians, Ephesians, Philippians, 1 and 2 Thessalonians, 1 and 2 Timothy, Titus, and Philemon.

An alert reader may consider that the instructions concerning elders in 1 Timothy 2 and Titus 1 rule out women in eldership. In these letters, Paul states that those appointed to eldership are to be married men. Yet, this does not state unambiguously that women (or single men for that matter) can never be elders. It simply says that in those situations they need to be married men. It is unclear whether this applies to all churches for all time, particularly when we do not read of this in any other context in the NT.

In two letters there appear to be restrictions. In 1 Cor 14:34–35 women are commanded to be silent in the churches, not permitted to speak, in submission, asking their husbands at home if they have questions. On the face of it, this would seem to rule out women speaking in church. Yet, there are many indications that this is not an absolute prohibition and it relates specifically to this church in Corinth. First, in 1 Cor 11:5 women are permitted to prophesy in church, i.e. to speak out the word of the Lord they receive. Hence, the prohibition cannot be absolute. Further, in 1 Cor 14:26, all are to bring things to share in the community, whether a hymn, a teaching, a revelation, a message in tongues, or interpretation. There is no restriction. So, what is going on in 1 Cor 14:34–35. The whole context of 1 Cor 14 speaks of out of control members of the worshiping community, blabbering away in tongues, and prophesying uncontrollably. The best explanation of vv. 34–35 is that Paul is putting in place a restriction on this. He is seeking to bring the church out of disorder to order. It seems in this church, the behaviour of the women was at the heart of the issue, and Paul is seeking to move the church from worship chaos to order. That there is nothing similar in eleven of his other letters is supportive of this.

The other passage is 1 Tim 2:12–15, in which Paul states that while he permits a woman to learn, he does not permit a woman to teach or to exercise authority over a man (as some translations put it). Again, this would appear to directly reject women having positions of leadership and even preach. However, there are big questions over this. I have raised the first, why does Paul never say this elsewhere. The first clue is that Paul says ‘I do not permit.’ This is a matter of his own decision in this instance, not that of Jesus. In 1 Cor 7:10, 12, Paul carefully distinguishes between his own instruction and that of Jesus. Here, it is clear that it is his ruling. He does not permit them to teach. The problem in the Ephesian community in 1 Timothy is false teaching (it is signalled at the start of Ch. 1). Again, it would seem that there are women in that church who are being easily deceived and are misleading others through false teaching. Paul is reeling them in. The second verb is an interesting rare Greek word which does not simply mean ‘have authority,’ but speaks of domination. In fact, the term is used elsewhere of murder. Hence, Paul is concerned with domineering authoritative women who are teaching falsely. So, he tells them that he does not permit this. As such, I, and a good number of other NT scholars agree that this is not a general barring of women in leadership for all time, but a situational response.

When we consider that Paul does not limit women in his other letters, and speaks of spiritual gifts without gender limitation (including leadership), it seems rather a strange interpretative decision to apply this to all churches for all time.

There are three other aspects of Paul’s letters that speak to this. First, there are some women mentioned in his letters who are active in ministry. I have mentioned Lydia and Priscilla (he calls her Prisca). In Romans 16, there is Phoebe, who is a church deacon (the masculine is used). We do not know what the deacons did, but it means she holds some position of leadership in the church. She is a ‘sister,’ likely meaning a comrade in the gospel. She is a prostatis, meaning that she was a wealthy woman who offered financial support to others in ministry, and it may mean she is a significant leader (the term can mean leader). She is also commended because it is likely that she delivered the letter to the Romans. The letter-bearer usually read the letter out and explicated its meaning to listeners. All indications are she was a significant woman in leadership.

Another key woman is Junia in Rom 16:7. The name is only found in the feminine, so she is a woman. She is linked to Andronicus, who is likely her husband (kind of like Priscilla and Aquila). She is a relative of Paul, a Jewess, and who has been in prison with Paul. Romans 16:7 tells us that hoitines eisin episēmoi en tois apostolois. This Greek phrase can mean ‘well known to the apostles’ or ‘well known among the apostles.’ The vast majority of recent scholars studying Romans is the latter as it is a more natural reading of en and ‘the apostles’ is a vague grouping. As such, it is likely that Andronicus and Junia were male and female apostles. This is not in the sense of being from the Twelve, but in the sense Paul often uses it—those with a significant missional ministry of planting Christian churches (e.g. 1 Cor 12:28; 2 Cor 8:23; Eph 4:11; Phil 2:25). Richard Bauckham, Ben Witherington III, and I all agree they may have planted the church in Rome after returning home from Pentecost.

Other women are mentioned in Romans 16 as workers including Tryphaena, Tryphosa, and Persis and they are likely gospel workers as well.

Other women of significance include Nympha who hosts a church in her home (Col 4:15), Apphia, who is named with Philemon (Phlm 1), and Euodia and Syntyche. The latter two women are especially interesting. Most scholars agree that one of the main reasons, (many would say the main reason), Philippians was sent is that the church was in danger of coming apart because of a dispute between these women. Throughout Philippians, unity is stressed until in 4:2–3 Paul mentions them by name and asks another member of the church to help them come together in unity in the Lord. Paul is so passionate, he is sending Epaphroditus, Timothy, and he himself will leave his situation in Rome and travel 1400km or so to the church to help resolve the problem. He describes them as co-workers who toiled with him in the gospel mission. These are clearly significant women! Philippians is the only one of Paul’s letters addressed not just to the whole church, but to the overseers and deacons (1:2). As such, many scholars believe they are from one of those two groups, probably house church leaders, who have fallen out. It is notable that Paul does not tell them to stop ministering! He tells them to sort out their disagreement. He wants them to keep serving in the gospel but in unity. This is a strong endorsement of women in ministry, but with the right attitude (this applies equally to men of course).

A second additional factor is Paul’s radical social vision in Galatians 3:28 where he says to the Galatians that ‘there is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is no male and female’ in the church, they are ‘all one in Christ Jesus.’ This gives a radical social vision of a church in which the great social divisions that beset the Roman world and the world today are torn asunder in Christ. There is no place for racism, elitism, or sexism. All are one. All are equal in Christ. The situation in Galatia is that there were Judaizers demanding that the Gentile converts become Jews to experience full inclusion and salvation. They were essentially saying that one race is supreme. Paul is here saying, all races are on par before God, as are men and women, slaves and the free citizens. There is no room in God’s church for prejudice and treating people as second class citizens. One of the dangers of limiting women is that those who do are behaving like these Judaizers and Paul’s treatment of Judaizers in his letters is strong—they are violating the gospel. The gospel brings people of all status’, races, ages, and both men and women into the freedom of the gospel. Central to this freedom in the gospel is the freedom to serve God as called and gifted, with the attitude of Christ, the fruit of the Spirit. To limit one portion of the church in ministry is extremely tenuous where the gospel is concerned.

The third issue is Paul’s attitude in 1 Cor 9:19-22. In this text he speaks of how, where culture is concerned, he adapts his practice dependent on the culture. So, among Jews, he lives as a Jew, following Jewish protocols. Among Gentiles, he lives as a Gentile (not in their sin of course), living in a culturally appropriate way. He does so without compromising the essence of the gospel. When we think of a place like NZ, if we apply this to the question of gender, surely this would mean being adaptive. In our culture, a woman can be a CEO and even Prime Minister. It would seem culturally appropriate that women would lead churches.

Overall, we can say that Paul does limit women in certain circumstances but that this does not apply to all churches even in his situation and certainly not over all of the time, in all places. Rather, he has a compelling vision of women working alongside men in the gospel and of Christian communities that break down such barriers. Where people stand in the way of the freedom of the gospel, they put themselves in a perilous position before God (as did the Judaizers).

6.     There is no limitation on women in leadership in the other writings of the NT
When we read through the rest of the NT in Hebrews, James, Jude, the letters of Peter and John, and Revelation, we read of no limitation on women. Interestingly, 2 John is addressed ‘to the elect lady and her children’ which can mean a reference to the church (bride of Christ, elect of God), or it can be an individual. If the latter, we could have a reference here to a significant Christian woman. Another woman is mentioned in Rev 2:20–23 who teaches falsely. The problem is not that she teaches, but what she teaches.

7.     There are significant problems with applying a limitation of women teaching men in practice
Another issue with the limitation of women is how should it be applied. If we say, women can teach women and children, at what age does this come into play. In Jewish culture at the time of Christ, twelve was the coming of age into adulthood. In the Greco-Roman world, it was 12-16. As such, if we are strictly applying that women cannot teach or lead men, should they lead youth groups? Can they lead worship? If they do, can they say anything? Can they give any teaching? 1 Corinthians 11:5 tells us that Paul permitted them to prophesy and pray in church. What is prophesying? Is a sermon inspired by God prophesying? When does a prophecy or a prayer become teaching or preaching? It gets ridiculous to think that people would be sitting listening to shut the woman up when she moved from one to the other. As such, the listening men would be judging legalists not listening to content, but to the violation of the injunction. I have heard actual stories of such things, like the old guy in a church who would bang his walking stick on the ground loudly if a woman crossed the line. This is unworkable.

8.     Many of the things that enter the discussion are post-biblical and speak of Church tradition, not Scripture
Finally, many of the things that are discussed concerning women in leadership are post-biblical developments. Ordination, for example, is not found in Scripture. It developed in the church. There is no universal formal process found in Scripture with people spontaneously rising up in mission, sometimes appointed, and sometimes not. Similarly, what we call preaching is not found in the NT. Most of the sermons mentioned are evangelistic, when people are converted, publicly or in synagogues. The idea of a weekly Sunday message is a post-NT development. How relevant is the teaching of the NT to this? Finally, the idea of a single church leader (e.g. Bishop) is also a post-biblical development (second century). The language of leadership in the NT is always plural (e.g. Phil 1:2). There is a multitude of leaders. So, how can we argue biblically over whether that person must be male? That seems stupid. In reality, much of the argument is about church rules and regulations that come from the period after the NT. As such, one can argue that the whole debate is spurious. God raises up leaders as he wills. He gifts as he wills. He calls as he wills. Who are we to say that God is not raising women! He raised Deborah. He commissioned Mary Magdalene to be the bearer of the gospel of a resurrected Messiah. Paul worked alongside women. While he did limit the role of women in two instances, in his other eleven letters, he places no limitations, worked alongside women, and encouraged people to live out of the gifts and call (whoever they are). Jesus had no trouble with a terribly sinful woman leading her town to Christ. We may be standing in the way of the Spirit if we block women from ministry. We may be like the Pharisees who thought Jesus was ministering under the power of Satan. Jesus warned them that a sin against the Spirit is the ultimate sin for which there is no forgiveness. That is worth thinking about.

So to all women of God who feel called to ministry and have been so gifted—go for it! Do so with the attitudes of Christ. Please bear with those of us men and women who will criticise you and even seek to silence you. Don’t let them stop you. God bless you all. Shalom.

Saturday, December 24, 2016

Why Not an Alms Race Instead?

Further to my blog yesterday, today when asked about his tweet, US President Elect Donald Trump had this response: “Let it be an arms race. We will outmatch them at every pass and outlast them all.”

Glorious! Sounds like a game of Survivor: “outwit, outplay, outlast.” Have you noticed that the word Twit is found in the first of these terms? Just saying.

I won’t go over the ground I covered in my previous blog in which I suggested that while Donald is right to say that the world needs to come to its senses concerning nuclear weapons, as leader of the “free-world” and “the greatest country on earth,” and as a citizen of this world, he should lead the conversation toward global disarmament. I can hear Hillary’s words in July resounding in my head: "A man you can bait with a tweet is not a man we can trust with nuclear weapons.” She had her flaws, but one of them wasn’t this kind of macho bravado crap.

Incidentally, Vladimir’s response is wonderfully reassuring: “Indeed, they have more missiles, more submarines and more aircraft carriers, we aren’t arguing with that, but we are simply stronger than any aggressor.”

Anyway, isn’t it great to see the leaders of the two most powerful countries in the world posturing for position? I suggest we have a celebrity boxing match and the winner takes all. Might work out a bit better than a nuclear holocaust. Would be very entertaining too.

A better suggestion is that instead of the escalation of an arms race the two great powers have an Alms race. The term “alms” is not used that much anymore. According to the Oxford Dictionary, “alms” are “(in historical contexts) money or food given to the poor.” So, instead of more arms, we need more alms. Why not an alms race to see which nation can be the most benevolent toward the suffering in the world?

According to one source, at the moment, 80% of the world lives on less than $10 per day. The poorest 40% of the world’s population account for 5% of the world’s income. The richest 20% have 75% of the world’s income. Just over a quarter of children in developing countries are underweight and malnourished. 72 million children in the developing world have no access to schools. A billion people cannot read. I could go on with endless statistics, but we get the point. At the same time, less than a percent the world spends on weapons each year would put every child into school. It costs $1.8million USD to build each nuke, perhaps that money could be put to much better use resolving the problem of poverty.

Jesus talked about the wealthy giving to the poor more than anything else. As Donald thinks the Bible is the greatest book in the world, he can check this out for himself in such passages as the Sermon on the Mount/Plain (Matt 5-7; Luke 6), the many parables like the Good Samaritan (Luke 10), the Rich Fool (Luke 12), the Rich Man and Lazarus (Luke 16), and other examples like the Rich Ruler (Luke 18), Zacchaeus (Luke 19), and the generous widow (Luke 21). In fact, just about everything Jesus said explicitly or implicitly calls for the wealthy to give alms to those in disadvantage and need. Alongside non-violence, it is one of the central aspects of Jesus’ teaching.

On the other hand, the Don (oh that’s Bradman, whoops) will struggle in vain to find a text which endorses the building of weapons of mass destruction. Despite claiming to have the full weaponry of the Lord of Armies at his disposal (the one who nuked Sodom and Gomorrah), Jesus simply wasn’t interested in that way of being human. The world was controlled by despots at the time of Jesus, the likes of the Caesars and Herod. Jesus came to the world to turn such nonsense upside down. He showed us another way. Don and Vlad don’t seem to have worked that out yet.

So, my challenge to the VP-elect is rather than building yet more than the 7.700 nukes he has at his disposal at the touch of a button (what a comforting thought), he should seek to up the US’s game concerning alms-giving. What we need is not an arms race, but an alms race, whereby the wealthy of the world put their extensive resources to work to alleviate the suffering of the millions in poverty. He can do this personally, with his enormous personal empire. Now he has at his disposal the wealth of the richest country in the world.

As we head into Christmas, this makes sense, for Old Saint Nick is famous for this very thing. So come on Don, give up behaving like a tough guy in the playground, acting staunch, making threats, warning wannabees that you will give them a good old fashioned hiding if they threaten you. Instead, let’s see you be the most radical and generous President in world history leading your nation in upping caring for those in need. After all, this too is a part of the “great” American tradition. You could become even more famous, Saint Donald! The guy who fixed the problems of poverty and income disparity. Not the guy who led the world into another arms race, cold wars, and who knows what else … God have mercy!

Then again, if he does build up his arsenal and nuclear war breaks out, the world’s poor will be incinerated. So, I suppose there are always other ways of solving problems. I would suggest that this is not the best one, unless you don’t mind a “bit” of collateral damage.

So seriously Don, Vlad, and anyone else who cares to have ears to hear, this Christmas let’s launch an alms race. I dare you, Don, I dare you.