The logic of generosity

Away from the resurrection debate, a bit of Scripture that pulled me up short today....

'Command [the rich] to do, to be rich in good deeds, and to be generous and willing to share. In this way they will lay up for themselves treasure for themselves as a firm foundation for th coming age, so that they may take hold of the life that is truly life.' [1 Timothy 5:18-19]

These verses shocked me because they differ so much from how Christians often think about giving. Because they are saying that being generous and doing good with our material resources is the very way we guard our hearts from the idols of materialism and greediness.

Often we think that the main reason for giving is because the church needs money, that we are fulfilling a need. This is true - and in 2 Corinthians 8-9, Paul appeals for Christians to be generous upon that logic: there's no better thing in which to invest the money that God has given you to steward than things that will last.

But here Paul takes a different line. The most important reason for a rich person to give (and, let's face it, most of us are relatively rich by world standards) is because we need to be givers. Giving generously is God's way of guarding a person against greed and trust in the uncertain riches of materialism. In other words, God may well provide for a need if a person doesn't give by some other means - but what will happen to that person's heart? If a person does not give generously, how will they store up a good foundation for the time to come? How will they remember that our true citizenship is in heaven if they are living for the hear and now?

I guess that's why in 2 Corinthians Paul calls generosity a 'grace'. Opportunities to be generous are a reminder of the truth of the gospel each time I write a cheque. A chilling reminder and an encouragement to be generous-hearted with my money: Lord, don't let become really far more comfortable here on earth with its material rewards. Keep my eyes on heaven.

The controversy

In less than an hour I'll be teaching 1 Timothy 2 at Lancaster University with small group leaders.

I'm keen that this study doesn't get hi-jacked by one particular issue when I think that the rest of the chapter has a lot of good things to say to a CU. But, of course, the interest is likely to fall upon what Paul says about women teachers in the church.

I guess what's particularly struck me as I've prepared this study is the way in which all too easily the proponents of the two viewpoints caricature each other. I remember meeting a church leader about three years ago who labelled those that allowed women to speak in church as 'so-called evangelicals.' It appears to me that both egalitarianism (the position which stresses the equality of men and women in holding roles in church life) and complementarianism (which stresses diversity between men and women, and which precludes women from holding certain roles in church life) can be argued scripturally. I have no reason to believe that those scholars holding these views hold them for anything else other than exegetical reasons, and certainly wouldn't want to tarnish them with the brush of just giving into culture in some respect. What's sad is when a dialogue sinks to the level of jabbing out dogmatic statements without ever giving time or thought to passages that seem to point in other directions.

The other thing that has struck me is that God's goodness very often gets lost in these discussions. 1 John 5:3 has become very precious to me: that God's commands are not burdensome. All too often, particularly from complementarians, their position is taught in a harsh manner. But if the complementarian position is closest to the Biblical model, then we must say that the lack of women teaching in church is for our benefit.

I don't think that this is a comment on the ability of women speakers. Rather, could it be that, just as God invented marriage roles as equal but different (so that the gospel might be modelled in an Ephesians 5:22-33 manner), so God has designed church leadership that men and women might play roles that are equal and different? Could it be that, by male headship in the church and female submission, we are modelling elements of the gospel to each other?

I don't want to trivialise, but could God's design be so that conversations like this happen:

Visitor into church: (to woman) Why aren't women in leadership here? Are women treated as second class?
Woman: No - we are all truly equal. It's more of a case that in our gender roles, we are modelling something of the very nature of God. Just as the Son submits to the leadership of the Father, so as women we submit to the male leadership here. It's not always easy - but points to the Trinitarian nature of God. And the men are called to make decisions that don't just benefit the men of the church, but the women too. As we love and serve each other in different ways, we model the Truine God, whose persons are equal but different, and serve each other in love.

How not to shipwreck your faith

Some more thinking from 1 Timothy 1...

Interesting to note the verses below that draw the chapter to a conclusion:

18Timothy, my son, I give you this instruction in keeping with the prophecies once made about you, so that by following them you may fight the good fight, 19holding on to faith and a good conscience. Some have rejected these and so have shipwrecked their faith. 20Among them are Hymenaeus and Alexander, whom I have handed over to Satan to be taught not to blaspheme.

Paul seems to be saying to Timothy that the way in which he's to 'fight the good fight' is - as verse 19 puts it - to hold onto both faith and a good conscience. Note the flow onto the following sentence, which I've put in emphasis above. If we don't hold onto both faith and a good conscience, we're likely to find that our faith is on the rocks.

It's interesting to reflect exactly what it means to hold onto faith and to a good conscience. The word 'faith' is common in 1 Timothy (see 1:2, 1:4, 1:5, 1:14; 2:7, 2:15; 3:9, 3:13; 4:1, 4:6, 4:12; 5:8, 5:9; 6:10, 6:11, 6:12, 6:20). Here, Paul seems to be referring to the gospel message. To hold onto the faith is to watch one's doctrine carefully. To become theologically lax is to endanger one's spiritual health.

It's also important to hold onto a good conscience. This phrase is also found in 1:5 and 3:9 (contrast with 4:2). The reference in chapter 1 shows that a good conscience can come only through the genuine work of the gospel in one's own life - and therefore is an important criterion for spiritual leadership. It seems to refer to having a short account with God and having 'nothing to hide'. Perhaps having a good conscience is tantamount to having no unrepentant sin in one's life and having one's conscience clear in that respect.

Apparently Hymanaeus and Alexander had failed to hold onto these things. We don't know whether their failure was doctrinal or in lifestyle or both. But, nevertheless, their faith was ruined and Paul had instilled some form of apostolic discipline.

I'm personally very grateful for those who help me to watch my doctrine - church leaders, friends and readers of my thoughts here. I'd hope that if I did begin to slip doctrinally that these brothers and sisters would pick me up. The challenge I take from this passage is to make sure that I'm being equally vigorous in my lifestyle and in my godliness. As a leader it's very easy to foster private and public personae. But there's no kidding God - and so one of my prayers for the year ahead is to be able to say that I genuinely am 'holding onto a good conscience.'

Calvin on 1 Timothy 1:15

I'm preparing a series of small group Bible studies on 1 Timothy for next term. Found this gem of a quote from Calvin on 1 Timothy 1:15, which is perhaps particularly appropriate to reflect on at Christmastime:

"Even those who recognize that Christ's work is to save admit that it is more difficult to believe that this salvation belongs to sinners. Our mind is always prone to dwell on our own worthiness and, as soon as our unworthiness becomes apparent, our confidence fails. Thus the more a man feels the burden of his sins, he ought with greater courage to betake himself to Christ, relying on what is here taught, that he came to bring salvation not to the righteous but to sinners."