Recognizing the many influences that shape how we read and obey the Bible can make us more aware of our limitations, lead us to interpret with greater care and skill, foster a humble posture of ongoing dialogue, and help preserve our unity.
I know I have blindspots; the trouble is I can’t see where they are. My desire is not to be right, but to pursue truth and so I am open to correction. All readers are invited to respond and challenge what I have written. I will be grateful for your insights and for continuing the conversation.
NOTE: Chatgpt was used for editing, but not generative purposes
Part 2: True Obedience: Embracing the Heart of God
As an evangelical Christian committed to the authority of Scripture, I hold a non-hierarchical[1] view of male-female relationships in the church and family. A hierarchical complementarian friend once asked me: “How can you believe that a woman can serve as a pastor or leader in the church when the Bible clearly commands that a woman is not to teach or have authority over a man (1 Tim 2:12)?” In his reading, it seems obvious that God’s created order excludes women from leadership or decision making over men.
The challenge is to demonstrate that I am legitimately and faithfully submitting to God’s will—something both I and my friend are committed to—while ensuring that I am not being swayed by cultural narratives that distort God’s design for his church. This concern is legitimate, since the values of any time and culture inevitably shape our perspectives and decision-making (for both my views and the views of my friend).
The Path of “Why?”
The path to answering my friend’s question is neither to reject this command of the apostle Paul nor to accept it in the rigid manner my friend insists is the only faithful option. Rather, the call is to ask “Why?” This is not the rebellious question of disobedience—“Why should I obey?”—nor a skeptical question shaped by worldly values—“Why should this command overrule our superior understanding?” It is, instead, the sincere question of a child seeking to fulfill the Father’s will: “Why was this command given?”
True obedience follows a path of discerning the gospel meaning and purpose behind any and every command in order to live it out contextually and faithfully. In so doing, we aim to embody light and life, so that God’s will, character, and purposes are demonstrated in our lives.
The Complexity of Obedience
While my friend’s question could be examined on exegetical grounds, I believe it is more important to challenge the hermeneutical assumption behind it, namely, that understanding and application are straightforward. I suggest that moving from a command in Scripture to obedient action requires a reliable and consistent hermeneutical process in order to answer the question, “What does it mean to fulfill this Scripture in my life as a sincere follower of Jesus?”
At first glance, obedience may seem straightforward: “God said it, I believe it, that settles it.” God commands and we obey. While such trust is admirable—and genuine faith does require obedience—I believe this formula oversimplifies what it means to be faithful children of God in at least three ways:
- It overlooks the essential step of interpretation that lies between “God said it” and “I believe it.” We must ask to whom God was speaking, why the command was given, and what response was intended—contextual questions necessary for understanding what we claim to believe. Because our reason is limited and fallible, humility and faith are required so we do not assume too quickly that we have understood.
- It fails to account for the cultural distance between the original setting and our own. Meaning is embedded in culture, and without sensitivity to the differences, misunderstanding and misapplication are inevitable. Because culture shapes all communication and perception, our understanding is always perspectival rather than absolute.
- It emphasizes conformity to a specific command without discerning its purpose in light of the deeper realities of God’s will, character, and mission. Grounding obedience in theology (faith) is powerful because it keeps the divine Author central and aligns us with our created purpose—to know God. Yet theology remains a human construct, shaped by our interpretation and cultural context.
These three dimensions of what obedience requires are what I hope to draw out through this hermeneutic in order to provide a consistent and transformative way of conforming our lives to the gospel.
Embracing the Heart of God
Scripture calls us not to live merely as rule-followers—an inadequate approach that overlooks the interpretive lenses we inevitably bring—but to use Scripture to discern the heart, character, and mission of the One who gives the commands. Following Jesus means moving beyond conformity to rules in order to embrace a relational, Spirit-led participation in God’s purposes. It is not enough to know the content of God’s commands and then conform our lives to those commands. That approach will likely lead to misapplication, and even to a prideful spirit that criticizes those who interpret the commands differently. True obedience is rooted in theology: embracing and embodying the heart of God. Such an approach fosters humility and grace as we recognize that fellow believers may obey differently, yet with the same desire to please God.
This hermeneutic is based on the claim that reading Scripture begins by asking, “Why does God command this?” Our aim is to know the heart of God—his purposes and intentions behind the command. We are building a theology that moves us beyond the status of servants toward being children of God (Rom 8:14–17; Gal 4:4–7) and friends of Jesus (Jn 15:14–15). We share his heart, are guided by his Spirit, and live under the new covenant in which God has written his law on our hearts (Heb 8:10).
Obedience, then, is not a matter of choosing between compliance and rebellion; it is about cultivating a relationship with God that goes beyond mere conformity to commands. We long not simply to do what he says, but to be like him. This practice of asking “why” allows us to draw appropriate boundaries for life because we prioritize understanding God’s desires and, like the apostles, we work out fresh expressions of God’s purposes in our own contexts.
In the next article, we will explore the limits of culture and language that make it necessary for us to ask “why?”.
Footnotes:
[1] When the article was first published, the word “egalitarian” was used. Unfortunately, this was misread as “non-complementarian,” thus it has been replaced with the more accurate “non-hierarchal.” See Part 7: Addressing disputed verses on women in leadership through the hermeneutical lens for a more detailed description of a “non-hierarchical complementarian” position. The hierarchical complementarian position maintains that the distinct roles of men and women as established in creation point to a universal pattern of male headship, particularly significant for church leadership and family decision making. By contrast, the non-hierarchical complementarian position affirms the complementary nature of male and female and their roles but denies that these distinctions necessitate male authority or primacy in decision making in the church or family.
The implication is that local congregations,
In his book, Revolution,
This trend is both unsettling and liberating. It is liberating because many believers are looking for significant expressions of their faith beyond those commonly available through the local church. An assumption among many loyal church goers is that true believers should belong to a traditional expression of church. But if Shaukat and Barna are correct, that is not the only option. While many still gravitate to the traditional local church (our oldest son is an example), there are still others who find connections with believers in a variety of contexts that provide them with significance, discipleship and Christian service in God’s kingdom. Even if someone does identify with a local congregation, they may be more committed to other ministries and organizations because of the perceived significance of what is being accomplished, and this limits their participation in their local church.
I would suggest that a solution to the question of what determines a legitimate church is not to argue for one exclusive expression as the true church, nor to claim that the local congregation as commonly experienced has a privileged position, but to accept all expressions of church as part of what Jesus is doing to build up his followers. That is, rather than promote one paradigm as supreme or primary, it would be better to recognize that no expression can be complete in itself. We need each other. This perspective would lead to a level playing field in which membership in a local congregation is considered a second order concern in order for a person to be fulfilled as a follower of Christ. Rather than promoted as an obligatory step in one’s faith journey, the step is taken because of the significance that particular connection can have for the believer. This is not self-serving but, as Myers notes, a self-identifying quest that “comes from a deep desire to live beyond one’s self.”
Furthermore, such an attitude can lead to partnerships by acknowledging how each expression of church complements rather than competes with the other. For local churches, this would mean recognizing that they are not a complete expression of church in and of themselves, but that they play one role in building up the people of God. Dialogue with other ministries that leads to a refocus of priorities and a reallocation of resources may be required. By partnering with such ministries and celebrating church members’ participation in these ministries, local congregations can develop a synergy through which their purpose and vision is strengthened. The local congregation need not become redundant or marginalized if it defines itself in a way that provides complementary spiritual support, identity and continuity for those who participate in other ministries.
Tim Lewis speaks of missions as the energy of the church “beyond the edges of the kingdom.”
In my responsibility of providing outreach and missions resources to churches, I have come across a curious phenomenon. My experience is that there are a number of people in church leadership who do not have a positive view of the spiritual maturity and commitment of their congregation. Comments such as “a mile wide and an inch deep,” “20% do 80% of the work,” “half an hour after the sermon is over they don’t remember it, let alone apply it,” “they don’t take advantage of opportunities to go deeper,” and “they don’t know their Bibles” have been expressed in my hearing. Why this is curious is that my experience with the people of God in our churches has given me quite the opposite opinion. I have been constantly impressed, motivated and encouraged by the level of spiritual maturity and commitment to Christ in the people I meet.
I have an uncomfortable suspicion that a significant part of this negative view of congregations stems from an inadequate approach to ministry by the leadership. The average church organization, whether labeled traditional, seeker sensitive or missional, has a leadership-driven program which members of the church are encouraged to support. The response by the congregation tends to be less than expected, especially if support has been indicated by a congregational vote.
A couple of months ago, Karen and I proposed to our church 
I do not see that people are asking, “What’s in it for me?” Instead, they want to know, “Why me?” This is not a self-serving question. It is a self-identifying, individual question.
He plays the essential part of empowering leaders to pursue their callings and passions. He strengthens others’ obedience by creating a culture where they can say yes to the Spirit…. [All] the ministries he told me about happened away from the church. This same pastor went on to say, “I wouldn’t have a clue how to do what they do.” The very thought that clergy could preside over these kingdom expressions is ludicrous. Yet many congregational leaders do not trust people to minister out of their sight. (140)
“Coaches help people.” Coaching is a relationship…, not a program. It is focused on the [believer], not the program. You coach a [believer], not his or her ministry….