Reflecting on the increasing sympathy toward homosexuality among evangelicals and what I believe will become an increased acceptance of it as time goes on, I realised the reason the Church is finding themselves moving in that direction is that we are viewing things from our culture’s starting point.  Whereas the Church and society both used to accept that there were fixed moral laws based either on the ten commandments or tradition, now there is a different way of determining what is right and wrong. The way to determine the new right is to ask, “Does it bring liberty?“ and to determine the new wrong ask, ”Is it oppressive?“.

Now, these began by being fairly strictly defined - oppression, at least, was seen in things like slavery and liberty was relief from this.  But as time has passed and more and more issues have been seen through this dichotomous lens, “oppression” has come to refer to anything that prevents a person from doing what they want, and “liberty” is the freedom to do what you want, as long as you don’t “oppress” another person. But it’s become far wider than that.  What big issue in the Church does not adopt the lens of liberty and oppression?  The Atonement - can the traditional view be seen as a form of child abuse?  The Openness of God - God has made everyone free to choose their own path without him open to changing futures.  Egalitarianism - women should be free to exercise their gifts and be equal partners in a marriage.  And so on.

What about society?  What things do we condemn?  Child abuse is condemned because it oppresses.  Slavery is condemned because it oppresses.  Patriarchalism is condemned because it oppresses. Racism is condemned because is oppresses.  Abortion is either condemned or championed, depending on whether you see the woman being oppressed by not being able to choose, or whether you see the child being oppressed by not being able to live.  Interestingly, to justify their cause, pro-abortionists needed to redefine babies in the womb as non-persons so that they would not be guilty of oppression.  But I cannot think of any big issue in society or the Church that people are passionate about that cannot (and is not) judged through the lens of liberty and oppression. 

The difficulty Christians are having in recognising this is that the Bible speaks against oppression and injustice and is a champion of setting the captive free, and certainly many of the things condemned are biblically right and true.  But what is being increasingly missed is that liberty and oppression are not the sole determinant of right and wrong.  It was only when I realised this that I understood how Tim Keller might have got to his conclusion that secular humanists interpret everything through the grid not of morality but of ‘freedom’.

Let’s look again at homosexuality.  Many younger evangelicals - especially in urban areas - have difficulty explaining why homosexuality is wrong.  They have grown up in a culture that says oppression is ultimate wrong and liberty is ultimate right.  They look at the hate that has been directed toward homosexuals, they listen to the framework of liberty and oppression with which homosexuals have presented themselves, and find themselves agreeing.  If homosexual people are born that way, then who are we to deny them the right to be themselves?  To do anything else would be oppressive.  And so on and so forth.  And the older guard have been totally unprepared to answer these questions and either said, “It’s wrong because the Bible says so,” - which is itself seen as oppressive i.e. forcing someone to submit to a code of behaviour “just because” - or they have agreed and have downplayed the “moral” side of the question and slowly re-oriented their own understanding of right and wrong.

The tragedy is that there are biblical answers to all of the questions these younger evangelicals have - the argument that homosexuals are born that way, that God has blessed homosexual ministers/churches, that sexuality is a private affair that does not infringe on the right of others.  But there needs to be some serious mining to find answers that will satisfy the liberty/oppression paradigm, and then use this same paradigm to explain why “non-oppressive” sins like pre-marital sex, cheating on taxes (fighting against the government oppressor), lying and so on are wrong, and break these young evangelicals out of the one-dimensional cage they have locked themselves into in response to their fathers’ one-dimensional cage of modernism.

Now up.

A lot of posts this week, including a number that didn’t get through.

Last week’s Christian Carnival CLXXI (171st for those of you rusty on Roman numerals) was/is at Light Along the Journey.

Christian Carnival CLXXII (172nd) will be at Crossroads next Wednesday, May 15th, though exactly what time zone that is in, I’m not completely sure.

I only know these things because of Jeremy Pierce.

Back in Part 1, I used the example of a manslaughterer and a murderer.  If the manslaughterer was jailed for 10 years in a medium security prison and the murderer for 10 years in a maximum security prison, the severity of each punishment - though of the same duration - would reflect the seriousness of the crimes. 

But it is also completely just to use duration of punishment as a measurement of severity.  So, in the example above, it would be just for both the man who committed manslaughter and the man who committed murder to be sent to a maximum security prison, but the first for 5 years and the murderer for 10 years.  The duration of the punishment would be the measure to see that the severity of the punishment fit the crime. 

If this is the case, why doesn’t God increase the finite severity of human punishment to reduce the duration of the punishment from infinite to finite?

The answer is this: It is impossible for any number of finite measures to equal another infinite measure.  In order for finite severity to be increased to equal the justice of infinite duration (and so reduce duration to something finite), the severity of the punishment would have to become infinite.  Yet, as we have seen, humans themselves are only infinite in terms of time of existence.  Humans are even less able to compensate for the eternity of eternal punishment than a boy with $5 to his name is able to compensate for the $30 million vase he deliberately broke.

Therefore, in order to remain just, God must redress the infinite repercutions of humans’ crimes through a punishment that lasts for an infinite duration of time.

The Glorious Exception.

There is one exception, however.  One human is able to bear infinite severity and so escape infinite duration of punishment - Jesus Christ.  As man and God, he endured the infinite severity of God’s justice through to the infinite recesses of his being and so absorbed both the just severity and infinite duration of punishment that we - those who are one with him - deserved.

In all of this we can see the terrible and wonderful justice of God.  There is no injustice in eternal punishment for humans because ever-exisiting humans have committed sins that last eternally.  And there is satisfied justice in the absorbtion of eternal punishment in the Godman, Jesus Christ, who is eternal in every way.

Praise God for his grace and fear God for his justice and run to Jesus because only in him can you truly do both.

Lesser love can act like hate (Luke 14:26)

1. The subjective value (love) given to one person can be greater or less than that given to another. Hence, a husband loves his wife more than other women; parents love their children more than other children; God loves His Son (Himself) more than anyone.

2. If a lesser love ultimately prevents or detracts from the glorifying of a greater love, the lesser love is NOT glorified. In fact, if the greater love will be glorified by the elimination of the lesser love, that will be done (a few conditions here). However - IT IS POSSIBLE TO GLORIFY (display the objective value of) something/one temporarily and still LOVE (subjectively value) something/one else more. But in a toss up of ULTIMATE glory, the lesser loved (subjectively valued) gives way to the greater.

3. If a lesser love contributes to (or even doesn’t prevent) the glorifying of a greater love, the lesser love is glorified and, in God, caught up in the greater love.

If this makes absolutely no sense to you, just pass on by.

Had a wee discussion in the comments section of Peter Smythe’s blog.  From what I’ve read of Peter’s blog, he’s a sharp thinker and I will keep reading it.  However, I’m not convinced of that he’s right about Jesus ascending to the Father between appearing to Mary in John 20 and then to “the women” in Matt 28.

What our little discussion did lead me to do, however, was to look at how people harmonise the accounts gospel accounts of the resurrection.  Bible.org has a section on harmonising the resurrection accounts, but the best I’ve read is the characteristically thorough (read “long”) answer to the question, Do the Resurrection accounts HOPELESSLY contradict one another? written by Glenn Miller over at A Christian Thinktank.

Check them out.

Review.

I said at the beginning of these posts that three answers have been given historically to the objection that eternal punishment for finite beings’ finite actions in a finite period of time is unjust.  They are:

1) God is infinitely great, so sinning against Him is an eternal offense deserving of eternal punishment;

2) sinners who will be in hell will be continually sinning even as they are being punished, and so ensuring their continued punishment for eternity; or

3) we are not able to understand the justice of God.  What looks like injustice to us is just because God has stated it to be so.

All three of these answers are true, but the objection itself is also full of false and illogical - human beings are not completely finite, the results of their actions are not finite, and the finite period of time in which they are carried out has no bearing on the justice of eternal punishment if the sinner and results of sin themselves continue to eternity.  If, therefore, justice is eye-for-eye and tooth-for-tooth, by that measure human finitude limits the severity of punishment to something finite, but humanity’s infinite period of existence justly extends that punishment forever.

Miscellaneous Points.

1. There is a doctrine called annihilationism that teaches non-Christians will not suffer eternal punishment, but rather will be annihilated out of existence.  The main reason for this doctrine is that many Christians dislike the idea of eternal punishment and cannot see the justice in it.  However, in view of the eternal existence of humans - even if we only count the saved who bear the marks of being sinned against - such an act would actually be unjust. 

2. Ever wonder why the unrighteous are raised from the dead?  Could it be that the sins committed in a body against bodies will also be reaped in a body?

3. Doing a search on the internet, I came across India’s page on hell.  Her solutions to the justice or injustice of hell are very similar to mine, and she discusses a wider range of questions.  Worth a look.  Check it out.

4. The next (and last) post in this series discusses why God does not limit the duration of punishment from eternity to a finite period of time by increasing the severity of punishment to compensate - except in one instance.

The third part of the objection follows easily from the last: Sin committed in a finite period of time does not make the sin finite.

Think about a student at school.  If he seriously assaults someone, the matter is not over when the bell rings at the end of the day!  Police will be called in and it will affect every area of his life for a long time.

Just because sin is committed during a finite period of time does not prevent the consequences from transcending that period of time, as long as the sinner and the effects of the sin also transcend that period of time.  It is completely just that the effects of sin that last for an infinite period of time will be punished for an infinite period of time.

This is exactly what the Bible teaches:

John 5:28-29 Do not marvel at this, for an hour is coming when all who are in the tombs will hear his voice and come out, those who have done good to the resurrection of life, and those who have done evil to the resurrection of judgment.

2 Corinthians 5:10 For we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ, so that each one may receive what is due for what he has done in the body, whether good or evil.

Matthew 25:31-46 When the Son of Man comes in his glory, and all the angels with him, then he will sit on his glorious throne. Before him will be gathered all the nations, and he will separate people one from another as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats. And he will place the sheep on his right, but the goats on the left. Then the King will say to those on his right, “Come, you who are blessed by my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world. For I was hungry and you gave me food, I was thirsty and you gave me drink, I was a stranger and you welcomed me, I was naked and you clothed me, I was sick and you visited me, I was in prison and you came to me.” Then the righteous will answer him, saying, “Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you drink? And when did we see you a stranger and welcome you, or naked and clothe you? And when did we see you sick or in prison and visit you?” And the King will answer them, “Truly, I say to you, as you did it to one of the least of these my brothers, you did it to me.”

“Then he will say to those on his left, “Depart from me, you cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels. For I was hungry and you gave me no food, I was thirsty and you gave me no drink, I was a stranger and you did not welcome me, naked and you did not clothe me, sick and in prison and you did not visit me.” Then they also will answer, saying, “Lord, when did we see you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or naked or sick or in prison, and did not minister to you?” Then he will answer them, saying, “Truly, I say to you, as you did not do it to one of the least of these, you did not do it to me.” And these will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life.

The second part of the objection is also false.  Even in the finite areas of human existance, human beings commit infinite sins.

In the Old Testament, justice was measured like this:

Leviticus 24:17-22 Whoever takes a human life shall surely be put to death. Whoever takes an animal’s life shall make it good, life for life. If anyone injures his neighbor, as he has done it shall be done to him, fracture for fracture, eye for eye, tooth for tooth; whatever injury he has given a person shall be given to him. Whoever kills an animal shall make it good, and whoever kills a person shall be put to death. You shall have the same rule for the sojourner and for the native, for I am the Lord your God.

It was more involved than this, but the basic understanding of justice then, as it is today, was “what you have done to others shall be done to you.”

Human beings are eternal - they exist for an infinite amount of time - and injury to humans (physical or not) caused by sin lasts in one form or another as long as the person sinned against exists.  Justice, therefore, requires the same or equivalent injury to be handed down to the offender.  Even in the cases where sin is redeemed into something good, the sin itself was still negative and equivalent punishment for the offender is just.

The really frightening thought is this: If sin was only against other human beings, eternal punishment would still be just.  But when you think of injury against God as a result of sin, equivalent punishment against the offender becomes an horrific thought!

Human beings commit sin that has ramifications for an infinite period of time.  The eye-for-eye just punishment for each of those is likewise infinite.

The main objection to eternal punishment, as I understand it, is that finite people committing finite sins during a finite period of time cannot justly deserve eternal punishment.  As compelling as this argument may seem at first, it is really just bundle of false premises and illogic.

Humans are not Completely Finite.

For starters, humans are not completely finite.  Yes, they have finite understanding, finite abilities, and finite potential, but they will exist for an infinite amount of time.  In other words, humans are eternal.

Now, if people want to argue that finite understanding, abilities and potential can only reap a finite level of severity of punishment, the Bible itself teaches exactly that.

Luke 12:47-48 And that servant who knew his master’s will but did not get ready or act according to his will, will receive a severe beating. But the one who did not know, and did what deserved a beating, will receive a light beating. Everyone to whom much was given, of him much will be required, and from him to whom they entrusted much, they will demand the more.

Revelation 20:12-13 And I saw the dead, great and small, standing before the throne, and books were opened. Then another book was opened, which is the book of life. And the dead were judged by what was written in the books, according to what they had done. And the sea gave up the dead who were in it, Death and Hades gave up the dead who were in them, and they were judged, each one of them, according to what they had done.

But to argue that finite understanding, abilities and potential can only reap a finite period of punishment is to confuse categories. 

Duration of Punishment as Measure of Severity.

Now, this confusion is understandable because our justice system will often use the length of internment as the measure of severity, and will give shorter sentences to those who did not fully comprehend the ramifications of their actions so as to impose a less severe punishment.  Justice, however, does not require that severity be measured in terms of time. 

Say two men killed their wives: one committed murder and the other committed manslaughter.  The judge sentences the murderer to ten years in a maximum security prison and sentences the man who committed manslaughter to ten years in a medium security prison.  To object that it is unjust to punish both for the same amount of time does not follow as long as the severity of the punishment handed down is less to the one who committed manslaughter than to the murderer.  (Note: none of the justice in this story is to scale!)

Biblically, this is the case with eternal punishment - the duration of punishment is the same for all punished, but the severity of their punishment is limited according to the actions and deeds of each person (which in itself is broader than we would understand).

The main objection to eternal punishment for unsaved humanity, as I understand it, is that finite people committing finite sins during a finite period of time cannot justly deserve eternal punishment.

Historically, this objection has been given three answers:

1) God is infinitely great, so sinning against Him is an eternal offense deserving of eternal punishment;
2) sinners who will be in hell will be continually sinning even as they are being punished, and so ensuring their continued punishment for eternity; or
3) we are not able to understand the justice of God.  What looks like injustice to us is just because God has stated it to be so.

All of those answers are true, but by answering they all give the objection a validity it just does not possess.  The truth is this argument against eternal punishment is just a bundle of false premises and illogic.

This series is going to explain the invalidity of the main objection to eternal punishment and in the process explain why eternal punishment is not unjust.

One final note before I begin: I am aware that the concepts infinity and finitude are not the same as eternity and temporality.  In fact, once that is understood, the objection falls flat on its face.  However, I don’t have much faith that too many people would appreciate the distinction, so I’m going argue using eternity as an infinite period of time and temporality as a finite period of time and hopefully get the same points across.

In the Bible, the words “faith” and “believe” are the same word - faith is the noun; believe is the verb. So, when you are believing, you have faith, and faith is the name for believing.

But we Christians use “faith” and “believe” so often that they lose some of their meaning - or worse, take on extra meanings. Faith, for some of us, has come to mean merely giving a nod to the Biblical worldview. For others of us, it is a force we work up in ourselves that brings about whatever we want - or should! But neither of those are what Biblical “faith” and “believing” is about.The Biblical meaning is easier to see when we replace “faith” and “believe” with the word “trust”.

For we hold that one is justified by trust apart from works of the law. (Rom 3:28) 

And to the one who does not work but trusts in him who justifies the ungodly, his trust is counted as righteousness. (Rom 4:5) 

Therefore, since we have been justified by trust, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ. (Rom 5:1)

Unless your faith in Jesus is trust in Jesus and you trust when you believe, no matter how well or badly things work out you are not exercising Christian faith. And how do you know you are exercising Christian faith?  You are willing to let go of everything else.

The question has been raised by one or two in our Church (and answered by some): Does the Bible teach women can be deacons?

The question is not an easy one to answer.  There are three places in the Bible where the Greek word for deacon is mentioned. 

In Romans 16:1 Paul mentions Phoebe and describes her as a diakonon i.e. a deaconess.  The problem is that diakonon can be used as a title in the Church, or just to refer to someone as a servant (the meaning of the word deacon).  It is not possible to be totally sure which it is.  Paul could be saying, “Phoebe, an official deaconess of the church…” or “Phoebe, a servant of the church…”.

Then there is Philippians 1:1 which contains a greeting to overseers and deacons, but it is impossible to tell whether women are included in either of these groups.

The third text, 1 Timothy 3:8-13, is the only one that actually gives us any help.  It is a list of qualifications for the official position of deacons, right after a similar listing for elders.  It begins by giving some qualifications in verses 8-10 and then begins talking about gunaika, and here is where the difficulties start.

11  The women (gunaika) likewise must be dignified, not slanderers, but sober-minded, faithful in all things.

Gunaika means “women”, but in this context does it refer to the wives of male deacons or female deacons?

In favour of “wives”:

• it appears just before an explicit reference to deacons’ wives in v12;
• it provides a different list to the one in vv8-10 which would seem unusual if it was the same position being discussed;
• in those times the behaviour of wives reflected on their husbands.
• there are no unambigious examples of female deacons in the New Testament.

In favour of “deaconesses”:

• While not exactly the same, the qualifications mentioned in v11 are very similar to the ones in v8-10 and could be seen as generally gender-specific: dignified v8 - dignified v11; not double-tongued v8 - not slanderers v11; not addicted to much wine v8 - sober-minded v11; let them also be tested first; then let them serve as deacons if they prove themselves blameless v10 - faithful in all things v11.
• the qualifications for deacon do not include teaching.  Teaching is restricted to men in 1 Timothy 2:12 and included in an elders’ qualifications in 1 Timothy 3:2, but is absent from a deacon’s qualifications.
• “…the Roman government was aware of Christian deaconesses (female deacons) by A.D. 112.” Craig S. Keener, The IVP Bible Background Commentary. New Testament, p613. 
• when discussing the qualifications of elders in vv1-7, Paul does not require specific qualifications for elders’ wives.  Why deacons and not elders? 

The arguments against arguments for…

Almost all of these arguments are answerable by the other side.  Below I have repeated the above arguments and added a possible reply to each.

Replies to the arguments for gunaika meaning “wives”:

• it appears just before an explicit reference to deacons’ wives in v12; Reply: The fact that deacon’s wives are mentioned explicitly after v11 could indicate just as easily that a new subject is introduced. 
• it provides a different list to the one in vv8-10 which would seem unusual if it was the same position being discussed; Reply: The lists are different but similar enough to be describing a the same position.
• in those times the behaviour of wives reflected on their husbands; Reply: The behaviour of an elder’s wife is not listed - why a deacon’s wife?
• there are no unambigious examples of female deacons in the New Testament. Reply: The main reason Romans 16:1-2 is ambiguous is because there is debate about whether women were deacons in the New Testament Church.  Chicken and the egg argument.

Replies to the arguments for gunaika meaning “deaconesses”:

• While not exactly the same, the qualifications mentioned in v11 are very similar to the ones in v8-10 and could be seen as generally gender-specific; Reply: Even though the lists are similar, they are different enough to suggest deacons and gunaika are two separate groups.  It doesn’t stretch belief that deacons’ wives would have similar qualifications.
• the qualifications for deacon do not include teaching.  Teaching is restricted to men in 1 Timothy 2:12 and included in an elders’ qualifications in 1 Timothy 3:2, but is absent from a deacon’s qualifications; Reply: The fact that teaching is not mentioned in the deacon’s qualifications does not require female deacons to have existed in NT times.
• “…the Roman government was aware of Christian deaconesses (female deacons) by A.D. 112.” Craig S. Keener, The IVP Bible Background Commentary. New Testament, p613; Reply: The mention of “deaconesses” after the New Testament was written does not necessarily mean they existed or were allowed during New Testament times.
• when discussing the qualifications of elders in vv1-7, Paul does not require specific qualifications for elders’ wives.  Why deacons and not elders? No decent reply.

I personally consider the arguments for “deaconesses” to be the stronger ones, but the clincher for me is the question: Why would Paul require deacons’ wives to undergo evaluation and not elders’ wives?  I have not come across a reasonable answer to that question.  In light of that, and in the absence of any evidence against women being deacons, I understand female deacons to be biblical.

BUT…

Male deacons and female deacons are not exactly the same.

The main division between elder and deacon is usually taken from Acts 6:1-7, where the Apostles’ appointment of the Seven was to relieve them of distractions from prayer and preaching.  While an elder’s (and apostle’s) job is wider than only prayer and preaching, the distinction between the Apostles/the Seven and elders/deacons seems to be the same - elders are concerned with governing and spiritual oversight; deacons serve in order to free them from nuts and bolts concerns.  In lieu of a more specific description of what a deacon’s responsibilities are, it would seem that the best job description is broad - something like “serving in a recognised capacity”.

This, of course, means the position could cover anything, including teaching or having authority (being the head) over men, something not permitted for women in the Church.  If we are going to be faithful to Scripture, then, there are some functions that are within the parameters of a deacon’s job description that are not available to deaconesses.  In fact, when eventually we read of a formalised structure within the post-NT church, the responsibility of deaconesses was to look after females alone and channel their serving in that direction.  Biblically, however, there is no command suggesting women are to serve only women.

A test case: Our Church. 

In our Baptist Church the constitution has elders and deacons making up the “Church board” (a biblical term found in Hezekiah 19:3).  The elders provide spiritual oversight and leadership, and deacons look after church maintenance, working on and implementing policies, buildings, money, funding of ministries, etc. and are the only ones able to actually vote on the board.

All this is within the parameters of “serving in a recognised position”, but there is need for some discernment as to whether any of the functions carried out by deacons in our church could also include having authority over men, and so exclude deaconesses.  For example, 

1. Are areas where deacons look after and maintain material possessions and manage resources examples of having authority over men or are they examples of having authority only over material things?
2. Does having a say in where money is to be spent an example of acting as head over the congregation?
3. Is voting to approve or disapprove of funding for a new ministry part of what Paul meant in 1 Timothy 2:12? 

A lot of these situations are difficult to call, and without an explicit policy in the Church people are left to decide for themselves and act accordingly in whatever area of the Church they serve - whether having the title “deacon” or not. 

In my view, in our Church as it is presently structured, a woman can serve as a deacon but decide in what areas she is overstepping biblical prohibitions and restrict her involvement.  For example, should a female appointed as a deacon feel that voting on the board gives her illegitimate authority, one solution would be to take part in discussions and serve the board in a deacon’s normal capacity, but to abstain from voting.  (This would deal with the objection that eventually arises when an all male leadership is in place - “Who will give us a female perspective?”)  Another woman may decide to only contribute when matters they feel comfortable participating in are on the table.  Another may decide that making continuous decisions about what they can do and can’t do is too pedantic and come to the conclusion that, for her, being a deacon is not an option.

Conclusion.

I believe that Paul outlines qualifications for female deacons in 1 Tim 3 and so confirms that women are able to function as deacons though with some restrictions regarding the areas and capacity in which they serve.  While some situations are relatively clear, most can only be judged rightly with wisdom, prayer and grace.