letters from kamp krustyThey take their funnel cakes a lot more seriously in Knoxville.
About this Entry
Posted by: branthansen

Visit branthansen's Xanga Site

Original: 7/6/2006 4:42 PM
Views: 187
Comments: 9
eProps: 13

Read Comments
Post a Comment
Back to Your Xanga Site


Who gave the eProps?
2 eProps!2 eProps! 2 eProps from:
Steve_11
freemanlaw
Jackie0720
DougHannah
THEVOICE_1
RevJeffreyNE

1 eProp 1 eProp from:
djohnson123

Thursday, July 06, 2006

 

A Man Named Knofel

A man named "Knofel" says he's been wrong, all these years, about a divisive issue in the church:  women in leadership.

Whatever you think of his conclusion, please allow these remarkable things to sink in:

1)  This guy's name is "Knofel", and

2)  He's in his 70's, and has made teaching doctrine -- while taking the Bible very seriously -- his life.  And he's not only willing change his mind, he's allowing a much-younger woman (!) to inform his thinking, even mentor him in this area. 

Like I say:  Right or wrong, that's impressive, and possibly costly, one presumes, in his circle.

Below is my friend Don's column from the Champaign-Urbana News-Gazette, a fine paper I used to write for as well.  I post without permission, in hopes that an ensuing lawsuit will allow me to spend more time with Don.

Don Follis 7/7/06 "Conservative scholar changes mind about women in church leadership"

When I 20 years old, I encountered a young scholar named Knofel Staton.   Staton came to speak at the little Christian college where I was studying.   Staton was raised in the Independent Christian church/Church of Christ denomination just like I was.   The Bible was highly respected in my denomination, and Staton could make the Bible come alive as no one I had ever heard. I once drove 200 hundred miles to hear him speak at a conference.

A few years later I came to Illinois and Staton moved from where he was teaching in Missouri to California , where he has been a New Testament professor for 25 years.   I have read many of Staton's 35 books, but I encountered his name a couple of years ago in a different vein.  

Reading Sarah Sumner's "Men and Women in the Church," (InterVarsity Press, 2003), I discovered that she thanks Staton in the acknowledgments for reading her manuscript in its early versions.

Sumner, a Ph.D. in systematic theology from Trinity Evangelical Divinity School near Chicago, argues that women should be released to use whatever gift God gives them, including preaching, teaching and leading in churches.   Properly understood, Sumner believes the Bible allows this.

Like Sumner and like Staton, I grew up in a church where women did not take leading roles.   They did not preach, serve as key church leaders, or usher guests to their seats.   However, women did serve as my Sunday School teachers and Virginia Beamer was the best teacher I ever had.   She brought life to the Bible stories.

A few weeks ago I discovered that Knofel Staton, now in his mid-70s, has written a book on women in leadership in the church.   In 2003 Wipf and Stock Publishers published Staton's "The Biblical Liberation of Women for Leadership in the church."

Turns out, Staton's book is a revised edition of his doctoral dissertation from Haggard School of Theology at Azusa Pacific University, which is just down the road from Hope International University where Staton teaches.

At about 70 years old, Staton went back to school.  That's impressive.  But then he decided to write his dissertation on women leadership in the church.   That's noteworthy, given Staton's high respect and influential voice within the Christian Church/Church of Christ denomination.   In the acknowledgements of his book, Staton thanks Dr. Sarah Sumner, 30 years his junior but now his doctoral mentor.   He praises her for her holistic understanding of the women in leadership, saying that she has been consistently and significantly helpful.  

Staton held a traditional view on women in church leadership for more than 40 years.   Based on his views of Scripture, he did not believe that women could be principal preachers, teachers or leaders in the church.   But after seriously studying the matter, Staton changed his mind.   The thesis of his book is that although women are restricted from leadership roles in many churches, it is God's intention for them to be included along with men.

While his careful study of Scripture is the main reason he changed his mind, Staton says there were other contributing factors.   For one, he saw an increasing number of inconsistencies that prohibited women leaders in congregations while allowing them other significant leadership roles, such as writing Biblical commentaries used by men.

Moreover, Staton regularly had occasion to see gifted women in teaching and preaching roles, and he began developing a "growing perspective that the Bible does not prohibit women from teaching/preaching or holding other leadership roles."

The liberation of women is demonstrated by God's intention in creation, Staton writes.   He argues that God put His Spirit in the first created persons.   The first male and female were given the same initial service responsibilities on earth without gender differentiation.

Throughout Jesus' life, Staton believes He modeled how it was God's intention for women to be liberated from what was often a second-class citizenship.   Furthermore, the early church includes both male and female leaders.  Most impressive, perhaps, is Staton's challenge to the reader to understand in proper context the meaning of headship and the two biblical passages (I Corinthians 14:34-35 and I Timothy 2:9-15) most often used to prohibit women from leading in the church.

When you look at the whole of Scripture, Staton says you find the Bible siding equally with men and women as leaders in the church.   Staton's church, Crossroads Christian Church in Covina, California, is a leading church in the Christian Church/Church of Christ association.  Crossroads includes women pastors and women elders in their leadership structure.

When a denomination's respected scholar and prolific writer changes his mind on an issue, it is worthy of note.   When a man of 70 continues to study and change his mind, it is an example to follow.

Don Follis is a pastor at the Vineyard Church in Urbana.  His column appears on Fridays.  Copyright 2006 by the Champaign-Urbana News-Gazette, Champaign, Ill.

 Posted 7/6/2006 4:42 PM - 187 Views - 13 eProps - 9 comments

Give eProps or Post a Comment

9 Comments

Visit Steve_11's Xanga Site!

Maybe Sarah Sumner should have just followed the advice (or is it a command of the Lord?) given by Paul in 1 Cor. 14 34-35.

Signed, an apparantly chauvinistic non-scholar

Posted 7/7/2006 10:42 AM by Steve_11 - reply

Visit freemanlaw's Xanga Site!
Just my two cents:

1) I don't know about the old guy, but those Vineyard people are wacky, like most musicians. :)

2) In fairness to Steve 11 (and "Knofel"), the 1 Cor. 14 34-35 passage isn't the only relevant passage on point, and, after looking at all the passages that are, it couldn't be as broad (no pun intended) as is frequently argued. Or, another way of putting it, I'm fine with saying, "Yeah, all women should keep quiet in church all the time" if we can simultaneously give equal weight and consideration to the biblical fact that women were prophets (new and old testaments), apostles (Junia, a woman's name, Romans 16:7), and deacons (Pheobe, Romans 16:1-2), not to mention judges in the OT. Paul even specifically talks about women "praying and prophesying" in 1 Corinthians 11:5. Hard to prophesy without speaking. Again, I don't care what conclusion someone comes to on this point as much as I hope they give all biblical facts equal billing in arriving at it.

2.5) On a related note, I think our current practice of leadership in the church (aside from the female issue) could use a pretty serious overhaul, but that's an entirely different inflamatory post for Brant to make.

2.75) Chicks, man. Chicks.

2.875) Nice pic, Brant.
Posted 7/7/2006 12:08 PM by freemanlaw - reply

Visit Jackie0720's Xanga Site!
Two huzzahs!

1. For re-enabling comments.

2. For posting something else I plan to steal for my blog. Hey, I'm really pressed for time and I'm trying to keep it fresh--give me a break, will ya? ;)

Add Don Follis to our list of mutual acquaintances. Great guy.
Posted 7/7/2006 12:16 PM by Jackie0720 - reply

Visit DougHannah's Xanga Site!
I'll say up front: I'm an officer in a denomination that believes scripture teaches men only should hold the office of elder/overseer. (Presbyterian Church in America for those with a scorecard). The passages mentioned above, as well as some others, are the basis for this belief.

This is obviously a hot topic and one that just gets hotter as we go along. The baseline question in this whole matter is “What is our view of Scripture? What is the authority of Scripture? What do we ‘leave in’ and what do we ignore?”

I think that the key phrases in Don Follis' essay are these... “PROPERLY UNDERSTOOD, Sumner believes the Bible allows this” and “BASED ON HIS VIEWS OF SCRIPTURE, he did not believe that women could be principal preachers, teachers or leaders in the church. But after seriously studying the matter, STATON CHANGED HIS MIND.” These phrases highlight the core of the problem, in my view.

The problem here is what Scripture actually says and why it says it versus the idea of “cultural conditioning.” A “culturally conditioned” part of Scripture is one that we see as being purely a product of the age in which they were written, as in the case of the book of Jude, whose “back story” was a defense of the concept of slavery, among other things. Does this rule out the teaching in Jude? Of course not, but we realize that Paul was speaking into the culture he was asked to address as he taught.

In Galatians Paul made this statement, “27 For as many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ. 28 There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is neither male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus.” Many people use this to say that women are to be leaders in the church, but as I have checked this out with those a lot more familiar with the Greek than me, their view is that the language used in this passage simply will not bear that weight, and that Paul is clarifying our standing in Christ, while not doing away with the differences we see here on earth. Paul is, after all, the one that was so specific in the 1 Cor 11:3 that Christ is the head of the man, man is the head of the woman, etc.

Personally, I find this entire issue one that causes me the most personal heartburn. I believe our doctrine in this area is Biblical and correct, but I just see so many women who are so incredibly gifted that I just...wonder. The older I get, the more I...wonder. I don’t believe I will ever change, but I am sure Dr. Staton never believed he would change either.

Again, I will stick with the doctrine of my denomination, and I believe it. I have sworn an oath to adhere to it and teach it, so for me, it is a matter of being obedient to authority. My wife is in agreement with it, too, so there is no discord there.

But no doubt, it is a penetrating question and one that I do think about a lot.

I certainly do not believe that a church that teaches differently is somehow "unscriptural". I guess I'd have to label it as a "disputable matter" and one of those things in which we'd have to graciously agree to disagree. I'm OK with that, and would hope other reasonable believers would be, too.

I suppose if there is any upside here, it is that there are plenty of very good churches faithfully serving Christ that do not see these passages the way ours does, at which women can hold the office and authority of overseer and elder.
Posted 7/7/2006 12:46 PM by DougHannah - reply

Visit branthansen's Xanga Site!

Doug, nicely and graciously put. 

A side note about about "properly understood":  I think that's a wonderful phrase.

It connotes not only fidelity to scripture, but humility. 

The "picking and choosing" argument is often invoked by those who would, themselves, pick and choose.  They insist on interpreting scripture through a certain lens that scripture ITSELF does not recommend.  They will not allow larger themes and contexts to inform their views.  They will not consider how a first-century Jew, for example, might mean or interpret what is written, instead just saying, "Here's what is says, end of argument."

To say, "properly understood" then is likely meant as "viewing scripture -- all scripture -- authoritatively, and in context."  It doesn't mean a modernist read, it means quite the opposite:  "Taken out of our evangelical current understandings, how is this actually to be understood in its original, and entire, context?"

Many fundamentalists/evangelicals think the Bible doesn't need to be interpreted, unaware that they, themselves, are interpreting it through a  cultural-evangelical lens that happens to be very modern, itself.

Agree or disagree on this issue, I think "properly understood" is a refreshing phrase.  Not to put to fine a point on it.

Posted 7/7/2006 8:17 PM by branthansen - reply

Visit DougHannah's Xanga Site!
If I disagreed in totality with what you were saying about the phrase "properly understood", then there wouldn't be much room for me to have the heartburn I sometimes have over this issue. Most fundamentalists I know would tell me to spare the pepto and not mince words.

Without a doubt, the "cultural conditioning" I speak of is often dismissed incorrectly by fundies in the way you describe as merely an attempt to weasel out of "what the bible really teaches".

It is also used by others to explain parts of scripture as irrelevant or merely historical, not to be regarded for modern day obedience.

Lets face it: We ALL have certain parts of the bible we just love to quote, and other parts that we just don't emphasize much.

I'm deliberately NOT including our buddy Knofel in that assessment here, though. He seems to have done this the right way, and through his own study of the scripture rather than simply allegiance to a camp. One does not have to agree with his conclusions to see that.
Posted 7/8/2006 11:58 AM by DougHannah - reply


Visit RevJeffreyNE's Xanga Site!

Hey brant -

Thanks for the thoughts... The real question seems to me to be... "do these women's shortts have pockerts in them or not?"  Sorry, I couldn't resist combining your posts on two equally passsionate issues!  Different theological implications...yes.  Different levels of insane adherence, no.

Posted 7/8/2006 3:06 PM by RevJeffreyNE Xanga True Member - reply

Visit djohnson123's Xanga Site!
A close acquaintance of mine, who is an atheist, believes that that church is an invention of man and exists for the purpose of power and control over other people (both men and women.)

To me the image of women in voluntary submission is a wonderful living analogy of the Bride of Christ. (I admit it has taken me awhile to come to this conclusion.) While the image of men quoting I Cor 14:34-35 as their entire argument in this matter and in the face of obvious scriptural teachings which embrace both points-of-view is as disappointing as a Christian husband subjugating his wife.

If scripture provides evidence of both arguments, why does the interpretation need to be one or the other? If you're not able to understand the seeming contradiction, why limit God to what you can understand? My guess is, you probably believe, like me, that God's not limited by our understanding and certainly not any individual church doctrines. From my perspective, when God is not bigger than our own imagination and understanding we give credibility to the argument of an atheist. Especially on issues like this.

I am thankful that it is not all easy to understand. Sometimes it takes a lifetime, humility, and faith. Imagine that!
Posted 7/8/2006 5:16 PM by djohnson123 - reply


Choose Identity
(?)
 
Give eProps (?)
Post a Comment
Add Link | Preview HTML comment help 
  • Say it with Minis! (?)

Profile Pic:
Default  |  Choose »  (?)



Back to branthansen's Xanga Site!
Note: your comment will appear in branthansen's local time zone:
GMT -05:00 (Eastern Standard - US, Canada)