Alice thought she might also face stereotypes with her pastor, so she summoned up the pluck to speak to him. Alice now knew she had the gift of teaching, so she said, “I think I have the gift to teach and preach, and I’d like to know if it will be safe for me here.” The pastor’s response: “Do you want to find out? How about July 6? No one is scheduled to preach.” She spent six weeks preparing that sermon.
In America’s heartland, Alice was a “lay teacher” for seven years. Her church battled gender stereotypes by using them: they explained that Alice was a “mom” and a “wife” and even a “stay-at-home mom,” and she kept on teaching.
A few years ago, Alice approached the pastor with these evocative words: “I’ve been wearing this JV uniform for seven years now. Don’t you think it’s about time I get a varsity uniform?” Sure enough, Alice can be seen wearing a varsity preacher’s uniform three out of four weeks in a church with multisite campuses, including a little rural church that in 120 years had never had a woman preach. Recently, one of the pastors on staff caught wind of what the good folks in that rural church thought. His report: “Alice, they like you.”
Junia is not alone. She’s accompanied by a host of women who have been gifted by God to teach and preach and lead.
And now it’s time for you to do something about it.
How to Help Junia Gain Her Voice
First, if you’re a pastor, I want you to take to the pulpit someday and get folks to open their Bibles to Romans 16:7, and I want you to ask them to do something that may make them feel sacrilegious if not abominating. I want you to ask them to strike out Junias from their Bibles. The man never existed, the name never existed, and it is an embarrassment to the church to have that name in a Bible.
If you want to do this emphatically, above the place where they strike out “Junias,” have them write “Alice” or some woman who went through the struggle to gain the recognition for what God had gifted her to do. Of course, I’m aware of how this may make some people feel, but with all due respect for the authority of God’s Word, we need people to see that what is not original is not God’s Word.
Second, women’s stories must be told. We must end the silence of Junia and give Junia her voice again. So I am urging you to tell stories of women from the Bible and from the history of the church. If you are a writer, tell stories of women in what you write.
Not long after I wrote The Jesus Creed, a reader and leader wrote me a note. He said something to this effect: “Scot, thanks so much for The Jesus Creed. I’ve gained so much from it. Can I ask a question: Why are there only women’s stories in your chapter on Mary?” I asked him to call me, and as we talked, he uttered words that I need to repeat here. He asked, “We need to strive for balance in our storytelling, don’t we?” I thought (but didn’t say aloud), “Balance. The balance, my brother, is so out of balance we don’t even know what balance looks like. If we want real historical balance, it would mean we would be telling nothing but women’s stories for the next two millennia.”
I opened my book quickly as I was talking to him, and I saw names of three women: Roberta Bondi, Frederica Mathewes-Green, and Dorothy Sayers. His last words were not meant to be deconstruction, but they were: “I don’t identify with women as much as I do with men.” And who gets deconstructed by those words? The man who thinks he doesn’t identify with women needs to see that this is what men have done to women for the better part of two millennia!
Junia was a woman. Junia was an apostle. Junia was an outstanding apostle. And Junia is alive and well today. There are many like her—like Alice—in our churches today. It is our calling to let freedom ring, to let the Spirit use people whom God chooses, to let the gospel’s inclusiveness have its way with us. It is our calling to hold one another accountable to Junia’s noble example.
Junia is not alone.
Do you hear her voice?
APPENDIX 7
GENESIS AND SCIENCE
Readers of the Bible encounter the creation narrative of Genesis 1–3 with a variety of responses: Some think it’s flat-out wrong because of what they have learned in science classes. Some think these chapters are a myth on the order of the ancient Near East’s creation stories like The Gilgamesh Epic. Yet others simply wish they weren’t in the Bible in the way they are because when they read these chapters, their science and their faith clash.
Bible-reading Christians have discussed the opening chapters of Genesis for two thousand years, but it was the rise of evolutionary science that provoked the biggest discussions, though historians of science are quick to point out that Darwin’s famous The Origin of the Species was not nearly the controversy then as it is today in some circles. Christians want their Bible to sustain itself as God’s Word while also respecting science, so they have thought through various models for relating science to the question of origins as we learn about it in Genesis.1 Here in general terms are six models:
Models of Origins
First, naturalistic evolution is a non-Christian, mostly agnostic or atheistic, and purposeless theory of origins that affirms what scientists call “common descent” (gradual descent from a common ancestor through natural selection) and a universe that is 13.5 billion years old. The key term is that this process of evolution is spontaneous and entirely natural. There never was any divine intervention.
Second, nonteleological evolution believes in a non-interventionist Creator who formed through the evolutionary processes a purposeless creation, and this view affirms common descent, a 13.5-billion-year-old universe, but that the Creator formed the conditions that were needed for life to become what it is today. The parameters for evolution then were established by the Creator at creation.
Third, planned evolution believes in a non-interventionist Creator who formed through the evolutionary process a creation with purpose, and this view too affirms common descent, a 13.5-billion-year-old universe, and that the Creator’s creation was perfectly formed to become what the world now is as it fulfills the Creator’s purposes.
Fourth, directed evolution believes in an interventionist Creator who created the world with purpose some 13.5 billion years ago and who established the realities of common descent but who directs evolution itself. The operative words here are “directed” and “interventionist.”
Fifth, old-earth creationism substantively shifts the conversation from directed evolution to a more direct form of intervention. While those affirming old-earth creationism differ on the age of the universe, some do not affirm the universe as old as 13.5 billion years, while others do. Once again, this view affirms an interventionist Creator of a purposeful creation but also affirms de novo creation, that is, a creating mechanism that is sometimes sudden rather than pervasively gradual (as in evolutionist approaches). Old-earth creationists affirm that creation itself is a witness to the Creator God. This approach is “concordist” (see our next section) in that it finds scientific information in Genesis and challenges science with the Bible’s (prescient) scientific information. For example, the order of the days in Genesis 1 will correspond with the scientific theories of their ordering, even if the Bible’s order corrects what nearly all science concludes.
Sixth, young-earth creationism’s distinct belief is that the earth is 10,000 years old or less. Again, it affirms the classic Christian conviction that God is the Creator of all, that God created this universe with purpose and that this purpose is made manifest in creation itself. This God, again, is interventionist, an emphasis is given to divine de novo creation and that the earth is not as old as science thinks. Each “day” combines to witness to God’s creating the earth and its inhabitants in one seven-day week (as we know seven days).
Concordism
While two of the models above are unafraid to challenge some of science’s most important conclusions, a specific idea emerges in the conversation of faith and science that is now called “concordism.” The basic idea at work in concordism, though this is sometimes misunderstood, is that concordist
s think the Bible teaches some science, and the Bible’s science is therefore infallible and at times teaches that scientific theories (which is not the same as a mere “theory” or simply a “hypothesis” but instead a proven and as yet non-contradicted conclusion) are false. The noticeable element here is that concordists find science in the Bible. In the recent Dictionary of Christianity and Science, concordism is defined and it is worth recording the substance of the entry because it matters for Bible readers who are conversant with science:
CONCORDISM. Concordism refers to the position that the teaching of the Bible on the natural world, properly interpreted, will agree with the teaching of science (when it properly understands the data), and may in fact supplement science. The concordist not only believes that nature and Scripture will harmonize, but sees specific references in the Bible to current scientific understanding of the universe. The concordist, then, looks for those close parallels in order to show that Scripture concords or agrees with scientific conclusions.
Because the concordist holds Scripture as entirely truthful, there cannot be any ultimate contradiction between Scripture rightly interpreted and nature rightly interpreted. In both Scripture and nature, of course, there is the potential for error in the interpretation. Concordism, however, assumes that correlations can be made, believing in a degree of accuracy of interpretation (though not infallibility) in current science and in showing the Scripture supports clear scientific conclusions. . . .
An alternative view in the origins debate agrees that in the end science and Scripture will accord in what they affirm. However, this position believes that we are missing the point when we try to read Genesis in light of modern science or to interpret scientific data in light of Genesis. Instead, we need to read the text in light of its ancient context for its original intent. In this view, the Genesis creation account does not affirm a position on modern scientific questions and so does not speak to the expected scientific issues directly (Miller and Soden 2012). Since Genesis 1 does not present scientific claims, such things as the age of the earth can be left to scientific investigation without needing to demonstrate specific correlation.2
This entry in The Dictionary of Christianity and Science was written by John Soden, a Bible professor at Lancaster Bible College who earned his PhD at Dallas Theological Seminary. I bring in his credentials because it needs to be clear that we are not reading the words of a progressive politician or a liberal theologian. His definition is the one I have heard over and over at science and faith discussion conferences and in conversations in which I have participated.
The most important observations here are these: (1) concordism refers to the belief that the Bible has scientific elements well before anyone else knew that science; (2) concordism thinks the Bible and science are therefore compatible when the Bible is speaking scientifically; (3) direction matters: some begin with the Bible and interpret science accordingly, while others begin with science and interpret the Bible accordingly.
That last point is vital, and I agree with it. Here’s why: the history of the Christian engagement with science is a history of shifting conclusions of a concordist nature. There has been so much shifting in this discussion that we are learning we ought to let the Bible say what it says in its ancient Near East context and let science say what it says and not pretend that an ancient Near East text—Genesis 1–11—is speaking scientifically. Many scholars today, including John Walton at Wheaton College, argue that the Bible shows no signs of prescient science! When concordists interpret the Bible in light of science, their interpretations become outdated, outmoded, and wrong when newer discoveries in science emerge. Time and time again Christian Bible readers have to eat crow for their former concordist interpretations of the Bible.
Concordism then teaches us that we ought to avoid thinking of the Bible in scientific terms and instead read it in its context according to the purposes an author of that era would have. If it so happens that something in the Bible accords with science, we ought first to calm ourselves down and realize that it happens at the most general of levels: creation, order, and design and not in details like genomes, quarks, and photosynthesis. What I have learned as a Christian Bible reader is that learning about science affords me the opportunity to expand what the Bible says (God creates; Psalm 19) with the immensity of space and detail and design that the Bible’s authors only glimpsed from afar.
Evolutionary Creationism
Let me briefly mention a significant development among evangelical scientists teaching mostly in Christian schools. An increasing number of well-known scholars have their credentials in science, affirm the authority, infallibility, and at times inerrancy of Scripture, and at the same time affirm a theory of evolution that also affirms God as Creator. They are then creationists who believe God, the God of the Bible revealed definitively in Jesus Christ and whose King and His Kingdom Story is their story, created through evolution. Hence, they are evolutionary creationists. It is inaccurate to call them baldly evolutionists because they believe the one true Creator God created evolutionarily. To return to the mapping of models above, evolutionary creationists fit into the third or fourth model above. The prominent names include Francis Collins, Denis Alexander, Karl Giberson, and John Polkinghorne.
I cowrote a book with one such scientist, Dennis Venema, who did his work in genetics at the University of British Columbia in Vancouver. Next to the University is Regent College, a highly regarded evangelical seminary, and Dennis himself attended or listened to many lectures while studying genetics (and fruit flies!). He now teaches biology at the Christian college down the road from Vancouver called Trinity Western University. A few years back Dennis, having heard me say how much I appreciated his academic article on genome theory, approached me to see if I would be willing to apply with him for a grant from BioLogos to write a book now called Adam and the Genome: Reading Scripture after Genetic Science.3 The pleasure has been all mine because I have been able to learn about genome theory—the mapping of our DNA so it can be compared with the DNA in chimpanzees, gorillas, et al.—and Dennis has answered so many of my festering questions about science. His theological learning has made him a good partner in proposing theories that advance our understanding of what the Bible says about Adam and Eve.
Adam and Eve in the Story
There is a stubborn conviction among many Christians—from conservative evangelicals to Roman Catholics—that messing with the historical Adam jeopardizes the whole of Christian thinking. This is not only a conviction but quite true for many because their system of thought requires a very specific understanding of Adam, and I want now to map that understanding of Adam. Then we will analyze it a bit and ask, true to form in The Blue Parakeet, whether this is a tradition that needs to be challenged or one that must be retained.4
First, recent studies of Genesis 1–2 conclude that this text in its context presents all of creation as God’s temple and summons Adam and Eve, who are sub-rulers under God, to worship this one true God alone. Adam and Eve are also summoned to guard and protect and flourish in God’s creation.5 These scholars conclude that “image of God” is a term used by God for humans in their vocation of worship as well as sub-governing, sub-ruling, and flourishing. This makes the best sense when reading Genesis 1–2 in the context of other ancient Near East creation stories. The so-called “Fall,” which is not the Bible’s own language, occurs because Adam and Eve choose not to worship God by obeying but instead worship themselves by making themselves like God! The result: banished from Eden. The Story of the Bible takes on a completely different set of chapters because Adam and Eve, as is the case with all humans, choose not to worship God but to do their own thing. The Theocracy of God then is divine rule of humans who sometimes do and sometimes do not worship the one true God.
Second, Adam and Eve are called to procreate in order to multiply many other sub-rulers under God who are just like Adam and Eve in equality. They are also called to work the land for provisions as part of their h
uman calling. Inherent to the King and His Kingdom Story then is work or labor or vocation: Eikons are co-laborers with one another under God. As co-rulers together under God, they are not to rule over other humans, as we see in the chapter on slavery (chapter 11). Adam and Eve are also called to diminish the curse of Genesis 3 by co-creating, co-nurturing, and co-governing creation. Medicine and healing and systemic justice and peace and reconciliation are also inherent to the King and His Kingdom Story from the very beginning.
Third, perhaps most importantly, Adam and Eve have a relationship with every other human being because each human being is made as an Eikon of God. That relationship can be described as archetypal, paradigmatic, representative, literary, physical, genetic, and other such terms. This leads us to the stubborn conviction I mentioned at the beginning of this section. Often any conversation about science and faith, more particularly about Adam-Eve and science, becomes a conversation or a debate (often the latter) about the so-called “historical Adam.” I want to map what people tend to mean when they ask, “Do you believe in the historical Adam?” (That they never ask, “What do you believe about the historical Adam and Eve?” speaks volumes.) Here’s what most tend to mean when they say “historical Adam”:
1. Two actual (and sometimes only two) persons named Adam and Eve existed suddenly as a result of God’s “creation” (actual or real Adam and Eve).
2. Those two persons have a biological relationship to all human beings that are alive today (biological Adam and Eve).
3. Their DNA is our DNA (genetic Adam and Eve).
The Blue Parakeet, 2nd Page 29