Prescriptive or Descriptive?
During class last week, we were talking about church leadership. We spent some time looking (of course) at I Timothy 3. At the end of our discussion, our teacher casually mentioned that he didn't feel that church leadership, even church eldership, was limited to men.This led to a few raised eyebrows (a very few...the class is, after all, split almost 50/50 down gender lines) and a brief conversation between Jim and I about the nature of these New Testament texts that have caused so much disagreement over the years. Jim used these terms which I'd never heard before, but helped me distill my own feelings. He said that some looked at these passages prescriptively and some saw them descriptively. In other words, some feel that they are a prescription for how the church is supposed to be and some feel that they are a description of how things were.
It makes a big difference, doesn't it? From one viewpoint, there are ways to do things and ways not to do things. From another viewpoint, there are events which we can use to help us decide how to do things today. I'm interested in input, but first I have to say one more thing which is far more important than either viewpoint. I am so grateful that people can talk about their own perspectives but still appreciate and esteem the perspective of others. In my lifetime, the church has come very far in its ability to coexist with different interpretations. It's wonderful to be able to have these conversations and come away from them without rights and wrongs.
So? Prescriptive? Or descriptive?
posted by Thurman8er @ 9:02 AM
4 Comments:
I shall leave the definitions for those who are far wiser and educated than I, but I have done a lot of "mind-changing" in the past few years. What stands out to me now is that perhaps the bible is more a "narrative" of Christianity in that first century and the "teller" of the Good News about our Saviour, rather than a complicated list of do's and don'ts. So, I guess I would categorize things as "descriptive". But then, I've deleted this "Law of Silence" thing from my vocabulary, as well, and in doing so, I have experienced much greater "freedom in Christ". I know there were deaconesses in the first century...however, from a cultural point of view, perhaps that wasn't a time where women would have been accepted as Elders. But in today's world, I certainly wouldn't exclude that possibility. Women can STILL lead, without being called "elders", in many, many ways however.
And I consider your sister as much a deaconess as any other "title". That's what I think.
I'm definitely in the descriptive camp, but then, I almost went to seminary myself.
Prescriptive or descriptive? Now that's phraseology I haven't heard before. Figuring the difference between the two is probably the difference between theology and church practice.
I tend to agree with timeless on the differences of our time to the time of Paul. Perhaps "church leadership" will be the next barrier to be broken down by women or at least in our fellowship. That is, if our church is still considered in "our fellowship?"
The difference in prescriptive and descriptive creates a difference in point of view that tends to separate people. Both views have their value. I personally think that there is a healthy tension to try to balance them. However that is very hard. If a person follows the descriptive view too closely, they may lose sight of the leadership that the Bible should have for their life. If a person follows the prescriptive view too closely they may become legalistic and not allow the leading of God's Spirit. Yes, the Bible was written in actual historical times where the cultural norms were different than ours. However, we should not become proud and think ourselves above our forebears to pick and choose our beliefs as we wish. That is too much like our pagan modern culture. On the other hand, God's eternal principles are not always easy to pick out of the mundane human examples we are given. God does expect us to do the best we can with the resources He has given us (The Spirit, reason, wisdom of older Christians, even worldly tradition).
I find myself very uncomfortable when I hear people adamantly supporting one view over the other. Sometimes issues like this can seem to be a case of opposites where both sides can't be both true. I remember a mentor of mine suggesting that issues like this where both seem to have some Biblical support in some way, but where we have trouble getting them to mesh in our minds, is like two parallel lines (to our view), but in God's view they are not parallel and actually cross at some point we can't see. It is that crossing point we have to aim for. But since we can't see it, we aim for God and let him work out the details.
By the way, prescriptive and descriptive comes up in discussion of language itself. There was a big switch made in the 20th century in English Dictionaries from prescriptive to descriptive, that caused shock waves in libraries and schools. Do you teach people the "correct" way or do you "describe" what is out there and let people do as they like. There are still people who hunt down the prescriptive editions of the dictionaries and treasure them as the last outpost of sanity. Then there are the people who think that those people are a bunch of elitist jerks. But if you teach "correctness" you lose touch with natural changes in language. If you teach the latest fads of language, you lose social coherence of the larger social group as regional differences diverge, not to mention the ability to understand the treasury of historical writing that has come before.
Do we have a similar problem religiously? By teaching "correctness" are we losing touch with societal changes that impact our relevance to the society around us? By trying to be too "relevant", are we losing touch with truths that God wants us to hold on to, truths that make us relevant to the kingdom? I think Hebrews 12:1-3 is a good course of action. Let us fix our eyes on Jesus. It's not about who has power; Jesus has been given all power. It's not about who has authority; Jesus has been given all authority. It's not about me; it's about him, and his kingdom. I am to use whatever God given abilities and gifts I have to build up his kingdom and honor him. I don't think he intended me to force my way into peoples faces and say you have to do things my way. That way lies division.
Does it bother me that I am a woman who doesn't exercise public religious roles very often? Not really. It's not that I don't think I have something to give. It's more like I don't think it is my season for that type of role. When I became a mother, it was hard to change gears and make my family my primary focus, but it is a change that I know that I will not regret. Besides, my generation's church is not my mother's generation's church. What is acceptable for me, was unthinkable for my mother. Not because of any real difference in our abilities but because of what our peers consider normal and acceptable. Of course this can cause generational friction. Alas.
Post a Comment
<< Home