Category: Hermeneutics

Although this was originally a seven parts series, the feedback and critique received encouraged me to add a final article in response to two interlocutors who disagreed with my thesis. I trust that this article will clarify some misunderstandings and provide further clarity and support for the hermeneutical lens proposed.

NOTE: Chatgpt was used for editing, but not generative purposes.

Part 8: Clarifying and Defending the Hermeneutic of Reading the Bible as Revelation

The seven articles I wrote advocating for a non-hierarchical complementarianism that welcomes qualified and called women in ecclesial leadership prompted respectful objections by two pastors who took the time and effort to respond.  In light of their engagement, I believe it is appropriate to honor them by addressing their concerns in one further article. I will attempt to represent their objections as sincere concerns that deserve to be addressed fairly and respectfully.

In his response to my articles, Pastor Paul Dirks was kind enough to mention our friendship over many years and refer to me by my first name.  I would like to do the same, because I have also valued our interactions and appreciate his sincerity and courage in ministry. However, to avoid confusion with references to the apostle Paul, I will refer to him as “Pastor Dirks.” His interaction that I am responding to can be viewed in the comments at the end of Part 1: 127a. Developing a Hermeneutical Lens to Consider the Place of Women in Ministry.

The other pastor who responded was Dr BK Smith. His comments, as well as my responses, can be viewed at the end of both Part 1 and Part 7: 127g. Developing a Hermeneutical Lens to Consider the Place of Women in Ministry.

The discussion centers around the hermeneutic of revelation. By hermeneutic of revelation, I mean reading Scripture with the primary aim of discerning what the text reveals about God—his will, character, and mission—and then conforming our lives to that revelation.

A clarification about “culture”

Before addressing the questions about the hermeneutic of reading the Bible as revelation, I would like to clarify how I am using the term “culture.” Part of the misunderstanding arises from different perspectives on—and reactions to—what is meant by “culture.”

When I asserted in the previous articles (see Part 3: Why we ask “why”: The Limits of Culture and Language) that we see through the lens of culture and that our cultural location enables us to read and understand God’s word, I was not suggesting that the word of God is tainted or distorted by worldly narratives or ideologies that are brought to the text. Rather, it is a recognition that there are at least two understandings of culture that must be navigated as we interpret Scripture.

a. Two different understandings of culture

The first understanding of culture refers to conflicting belief systems and competing plausibility structures[1]—the narratives that are the “spirit of the age” against which scriptural truth often clashes. This understanding of culture is not what I meant by the inevitable cultural lens or cultural embeddedness that shapes the way we read the Bible.

Instead, I am proposing a more anthropological understanding of culture as a means of communication—a shared framework through which people perceive the world, make sense of their surroundings, and define the contours of their relationships. This is analogous to language. Language functions as a means of communication because of an agreed-upon system of meaning assigned to sounds and symbols that refer to objects and experiences familiar to us. However, language is not the message; it is the medium through which the message is communicated.

The paradox is that the only pathway into our conscious engagement with God’s word is through the contextual reality in which we are embedded. The tension in translation and contextualization lies in the fact that the only forms or channels of communication available to us are shaped by the very narratives that the light of Scripture confronts.

A simple illustration is found in Bible translation. When translating the Bible into a language, the translator must identify an appropriate designation for the concept of “God.” In Sindhi, we had the option of using the Persian word “Khuda” or the Arabic word “Allah.”  Both are considered equivalent in the Muslim Sindhi context. The Persian word was deemed less problematic because of the close association of the Arabic language with Islam.

The point is that there is no transcultural channel of communication.  All communication is culturally embedded. Culture is the necessary medium through which we communicate.

b. Culture as medium, not content

At the same time, language and culture as the medium of communication do not function as a “controlling principle” in the way that narratives and worldviews do. There is therefore an essential distinction between culture as the medium of the communication and the content of that communication.

When the Bible is communicated as a message from God, it is inevitably expressed through the language of that context, because God accommodates to people through the communication channels with which they are familiar (see Part 3). While cultural forms and frameworks serve as the necessary medium for communication, biblical teaching is the content that confronts cultural narratives and ideologies.

For example, in Acts 17 Paul refers to an altar dedicated to the “unknown god.” Examining the cultural setting in which this altar existed helps us understand what the people believed. However, Paul’s reference to it does not imply that he endorsed those beliefs. Rather, he drew on a familiar concept to direct his audience toward the gospel without weakening or compromising it. Although Scripture is expressed within culture, it does not surrender kingdom values to contemporary cultural judgments about justice, equality, or human flourishing—and neither should we. Our loyalty must remain firmly anchored in the gospel and the values of God’s kingdom.

When I say that the Bible is “100 percent cultural,” I do not mean that Scripture is merely a cultural product or that the source or authority of that message is other than God. Rather, I mean that cultural concepts, references, assumptions, priorities, values, and language serve as the medium through which the divine message is communicated. Without employing these cultural forms, the message could not be conveyed, and without receiving that message through our own cultural lens we could not truly grasp it. God’s message is not compromised through this process but communicated in a way that is accessible to us as culturally embedded human beings.

Acknowledging the cultural embeddedness of Scripture does not weaken its authority; instead, it enables us to discern more faithfully what God has revealed through the text.

This perspective is analogous to the incarnation. Even as Jesus, the divine Logos, became the ultimate expression of God in human form, so the divine message of Scripture is incarnated into human language and culture, without compromising the divine message or authority (This dynamic is related to the discussion on translation found in Part 3).

The implication, then, is that every apostolic command must be interpreted through the cultural lens of its original author, while we simultaneously access that meaning through our own cultural lens. The authority of Scripture resides in the message that reveals God’s will, character and mission, while that message is communicated through contextually bounded language and concepts. As we discern that meaning through interpretation, we develop a coherent theology rooted in our covenant relationship with God. We then live out that theology through faithful and culturally resonant expressions within our own setting.

A Hermeneutic of Revelation: Knowing God through Scripture

a. Clarifying the objection

Both Pastor Dirks and Dr BK objected to the hermeneutic of reading the Bible as a revelation of God’s will, character and mission as I proposed. Dr BK indicated that the hermeneutic is “an external hermeneutic that Scripture itself does not authorize,” and “a new hermeneutic.” Pastor Dirks referred to it as a “cultural/trajectory/community hermeneutic” and that there is “very little internal biblical support for anything remotely like Naylor’s hermeneutic.” 

I would like to briefly demonstrate that the hermeneutic of reading the Bible as revelation of God’s will, character and mission is at the heart of the design and purpose of Scripture. It is not “my” hermeneutic (as if it originated with me!), and biblical support for this hermeneutic is intimately woven throughout the pages of the biblical text itself (see also Part 6: Biblical support for the proposed hermeneutic). Indeed, the biblical support appears so self-evident to me that I am puzzled by my brothers’ objection on this point.

Scripture repeatedly presents God making himself known to humanity and in doing so discloses his character, expresses his will, and advances his redemptive mission. Reading the Bible through this hermeneutical lens is therefore not an external framework imposed on Scripture, but an acknowledgement of God’s intention to reveal himself through Scripture.

b. Revelation as God’s self-disclosure

By contrast, in Islam, God is considered unknowable. He is creator, we are the created and there is an unassailable gulf between us. There is no accommodation possible that would allow a relationship between humanity and God. Even in heaven, the blessed attain paradise at the third level, while God remains in unapproachable holiness at the seventh level.

However, Christian theology affirms that this gulf has been overcome—not through human ability or virtue, but through God’s accommodation toward us. In the paradise of Eden, God walks and talks with Adam and Eve; relationship is experienced through human channels (Gen 2:15-16; 3:8). Due to the fall, this relationship is severed, yet the hope of restoration is presented through the covenants with Noah, Abraham, Moses and David. Ultimately, this relationship is restored through Jesus who is the agent, mediator, and sacrifice of the new covenant (Heb 9-10), and the incarnate Word (logos) of God who is the full expression of God in human form (John 1:1,14).

Because of our rebellion and the resulting separation from God, our communication with him is no longer direct, as it was with Adam and Eve in the garden. Instead, we receive his revelation through the written records of prophets and apostles, preserved and translated for us. In these Scriptures, we see that the Bible is filled with the revelation of God’s will, character, and mission.

c. Biblical evidence for the hermeneutic

 The following examples, selected somewhat randomly, are nonetheless sufficient to demonstrate the validity of the hermeneutical process inherent within Scripture itself:

1. Character:
   1. In the creation narrative of Genesis 1, we see that whatever God creates is “good.” Why is it good? Because nature reflects God’s character. Nature is his artwork and through it we perceive the character of the artist.
   2. The psalmist writes, “You are righteous [צַדִּיק ṣaddîq], LORD, and your laws are right [יָשָׁר yāšār]” (Ps 119:137). Why does the psalmist insist that God’s laws are true and reliable? Because they reflect the character of God who is true and holy.
   3. “God is light and in him is no darkness at all” (1 Jn 1:5). What is the significance of this comparison between light and darkness? The analogy communicates the character of God as pure, holy, and without moral flaw.
2. Will:
   1. In the creation narrative of Genesis 1, God blesses vegetation, living creatures and people with the command, “Be fruitful and multiply.” Why does God say this? Because his will is for his creation to reproduce, flourish, and continue from generation to generation.
   2. The psalmist writes, “You have laid down precepts that are to be fully obeyed” (Ps 119:4). Why did God give people precepts? Because it is his will for them to obey.
   3. “We know that we have come to know him if we obey his commands” (1 Jn 2:3). The implication is clear: The commands given by God in Scripture are expressions of his will, to which we are called to conform our lives.
3. Mission: Throughout the Bible we see God progressively working out redemption and restoring humanity’s relationship to himself. This culminates in Jesus.
   1. In the Mosaic covenant, God declares “You shall not have any other gods before me” (Ex 20:3). Why did God command this? Because his desire is to have a people who belong to him. This is a central aspect of his mission.
   2. Isaiah prophesies, “A shoot will come up from the stump of Jesse; from his roots a Branch will bear fruit” (Isa 11:1). Why did God guide Isaiah to make this prophesy? Because God was fulfilling his plan—his mission of redemption for a people he would call his own.
   3. In John’s vision we read, “I saw the Holy City, the new Jerusalem, coming down out of heaven from God, prepared as a bride beautifully dressed for her husband” (Rev 21:2). What is John proclaiming? He foresees the fulfillment of God’s mission to prepare and save people for his own, here imagined as a bride for Jesus, their Savior and Lord.

d. Fulfilling the purpose of Scripture through the hermeneutic

Proper interpretation does not elevate cultural narratives above, or place them in competition with, what God wants, what God is like or what God is doing to redeem the world and establish his kingdom. Final authority is found in Jesus (Mt 28:18), and it is through the words of Scripture that we encounter God’s purposes and desires. Our role is not to question or compromise God’s good plan, but to live in conformity to that which he has revealed. We do not seek a human authority outside of the Bible for guidance; rather, all claims of God’s will, character, and mission must be rooted in the biblical canon. This is the orientation to Scripture that the hermeneutic of reading the Bible as revelation facilitates.

Furthermore, I argue that this hermeneutic is essential to determine the message of the Bible. Mere conformity to commands, promises, and rebukes in God’s word, when detached from doxology, undermines the uncompromising witness to the one true God. It risks loving the gift (the Bible) more than the Giver. It settles for too little rather than looking through the message to embrace the Lord to whom the message points.

This hermeneutic does not promote disobedience; rather it calls us to the fulfillment of God’s communication with us. Even as Jesus is the embodiment of grace and truth, so we are called to read the written word so that we, too, can embody grace and truth through conformity to him. To pursue conformity to Christ is not an excuse for disobedience but participation in his kingdom purposes.

e. Taking the Bible seriously, as both window and mirror

What I hope is clear is that the proposed hermeneutic is a call to take the Bible seriously—not merely as a rulebook to regulate and constrain church behavior. Serious engagement with each passage through the lens of revelation leads readers to orient themselves to God and submit to his authority with fresh expressions of obedience. This approach calls us to attend to Scripture both as a window through which we see God and as a mirror through which we are confronted with God’s view of us and our context. It ensures that we do not merely repeat doctrinal formulations from the past that have been elevated in ways that restrict rather than illuminate the present context.

As we discover God in and through the text, we find new truth. Not “new” in the sense that is has never been discovered before, or that we are seeing something that is not really there, but that we recognize it afresh because we perceive it through our cultural lenses. In this way we submit ourselves to God through the text, rather than filtering the text through a search merely for “commands to obey,” “promises to claim,” or “sins to avoid.”

Reading the Bible to discover God’s will, character and mission—and then sincerely seeking to conform our lives to our heavenly Father as revealed in Jesus Christ—is a spiritual discipline that fulfills Paul’s exhortation to the Romans (Rom 12:1,2 NLT):

And so, dear brothers and sisters, I plead with you to give your bodies to God because of all he has done for you. Let them be a living and holy sacrifice—the kind he will find acceptable. This is truly the way to worship him. ² Don’t copy the behavior and customs of this world, but let God transform you into a new person by changing the way you think. Then you will learn to know God’s will for you, which is good and pleasing and perfect.

A contrast of hermeneutical method

Pastor Dirks and Dr BK have concluded that a call to read the Bible as revelation leads to a compromise with culture and a disobedience to God’s commands. As should be evident from the description above, such an allegation should not be directed towards the hermeneutic itself, but towards a possible abuse or improper use of it. The issue, therefore, is one of perceived compromise and disobedience, not a critique of the hermeneutic that enables us to read the Bible in order to know God.

I suspect that their criticism stems from the assumption that the normative interpretation and application of God’s word can occur without reading Scripture through a theological and cultural grid. Even if the Bible is culturally embedded, and even if they themselves read Scripture from within a cultural context, they appear to assume that, at least for some verses, the meaning is self-evident and its application universally obvious—without the need to consider the influence of a theological or cultural framework.

The primary contrast of our positions is that their hermeneutic treats obedience as conformity to the text, whereas the hermeneutic of revelation understands the text as informing our theology—our knowledge of God—through the revelation of his will, character, and mission. From this latter perspective, obedience consists in conforming our lives to that revelation.

What I am arguing is that an awareness of the cultural embeddedness of both the text and the reader calls us to use Scripture primarily to grow in our knowledge of God. From that orientation we can then move toward applying God’s commands in ways that are contextually and faithfully expressed, reflecting his will, character, and mission. This perspective reflects the biblical emphasis in Jeremiah 9:23-24 (NLT):

This is what the Lord says:
“Don’t let the wise boast in their wisdom…
But those who wish to boast
should boast in this alone:
that they truly know me and understand that I am the Lord
who demonstrates unfailing love
and who brings justice and righteousness to the earth,
and that I delight in these things.
I, the Lord, have spoken!”

Our human posture and limitations in reading Scripture

a. The inevitability of interpretive filters

As I have argued in the previous articles, the assumption of a direct, unfiltered reading of the biblical text—as suggested by Pastor Dirks and Dr. BK—lacks credibility. All of us have been shaped by our cultural and theological contexts; we all read the Bible through interpretive filters. These filters cannot be avoided. They are necessary for understanding, yet their very nature both focuses and limits our comprehension.

The observation of French essayist Joseph Joubert (1754–1824) is applicable here, “Words, like eyeglasses, blur everything that they do not make clear.”[2] This is also true for the interpretive filters we have developed to navigate our context. Like eyeglasses, they clarify certain things while inevitably blurring others. This reality points us towards a goal of interdependence, humility and graciousness as others point out our inevitable blind spots.

The point is that all humanity shares the same condition of being limited by cultural and historical situatedness. All of us read the Bible through cultural and linguistic lenses. All of us attempt to bridge the gap of comprehension and application through interpretation. No one reads the Bible except through the lenses made available by their cultural embeddedness. All reading of the Bible involves interpretation; all interpretation generates theology; and all theology is perspectival—a human construct that is inevitably impacted by our cultural location.

b. Interpretation is the bridge between text and obedience

None of us—not Pastor Dirks, Dr. BK, or me—occupies a privileged position alongside the apostle Paul, as if others with differing conclusions stand at a distance reading Paul through their own assumptions and cultural biases. Rather, we all stand at a cultural, linguistic and historical distance from Paul, constrained by our own assumptions and interpretive frameworks.  None of us is merely “obeying Paul’s command.” We are all interpreting Paul’s argument and, within our own contexts, seeking to conform our lives to the theological conclusions we draw from that understanding.

Because this is the reality we all share, the necessity of reading the Bible in order to develop a theology of God as the basis for obedience cannot be avoided. Attempting direct conformity to the text without grappling with cultural realities and without orienting interpretation toward a coherent theology of God risks misapplication.

The question, therefore, is not whether interpretation occurs, but whether we acknowledge it and seek to interpret responsibly; it is not if we should interpret, but how we interpret so that we may understand and apply God’s message in a way that faithfully communicates his truth within our context. We cannot escape this necessity. The problem is not that the hermeneutic is affected by “cultural/trajectory/community” dynamics, but that we as interpreters are limited in our ability to interpret well. What we require is a hermeneutic that does justice to the biblical message while acknowledging our cultural embeddedness.

c. Interpretation clarifies that Scripture mediates the authority of God

Dr BK commented that “Scripture governs the church, but Scripture is also preserved, proclaimed, and protected through the church. Any hermeneutic that effectively relocates that authority elsewhere, however sophisticated or well-intentioned, represents not reform, but displacement.” This is an important perspective, and one that the three of us affirm. It is not undermined by the reality described above. At the same time, two clarifications are necessary.

1. We only engage the Bible through theological and cultural grids. Recognizing this does not “relocate” the authority of Scripture. Good theology clarifies and directs us back to Scripture, affirming that our appeal is not to human wisdom or to another source of authority, but to Scripture itself.
2. When we say, “authority of Scripture” we are ultimately referring to the authority of God who reveals his will, character, and mission through Scripture. Scripture has no authority apart from its relationship to God; rather, its authority lies precisely in its claim to divine revelation[3]. A hermeneutic that reads the Bible as revelation therefore acknowledges authority where it properly belongs—with God as the source, whose revelation is mediated through Scripture.

This should put to rest Dr. BK’s concern that “the real question … is about authority, specifically whether Scripture determines our ethics, or whether our ethics determine how we interpret Scripture.” The issue under discussion is not whether authority is being undermined or whether an external ethic is being imposed upon Scripture. Rather, the question is how Scripture should be interpreted so that it leads to ethical expressions that are both faithful to God (and Scripture) and meaningful within particular cultural contexts.

What I have been arguing throughout this series of articles is that final authority lies with God himself, and that all authority in heaven and on earth has been given to Jesus (Mt 28:18). That authority is mediated through Scripture. The source and final authority of Christian ethics is therefore God himself, revealed through the Son and guiding his people through the Spirit. The role of Scripture is to communicate that revelation of God’s will, character, and mission so that we may conform ourselves to our heavenly Father.

In raising the question of authority to affirm that Scripture should determine our ethics (the assumption all three of us hold to and not an issue of conflict with the position presented in the articles), Dr. BK is ignoring how our own presuppositions and contextual lenses inevitably shape the way we interpret that Scripture (the real focus of these articles), and therefore how we discern its ethical implications.

None of us want to impose our ethical assumptions on Scripture, we want to use Scripture as the authoritative communication through which God’s desire is encountered. Let us hold fast to the conviction that God’s word is a true communication of God’s authority (our undisputed assumption) along with a humbleness concerning our ability to interpret because of our cultural embeddedness (the discussion at hand).

How a hermeneutic of reading the Bible as revelation provides proper interpretation

I propose that cultural and interpretive blind spots can be mitigated through the application of this hermeneutic. It is not a method designed to evade obedience, but rather to ensure obedience by helping us avoid imposing our cultural and theological biases onto the text.

The hermeneutic of reading the Bible as revelation offers several benefits.

First, it helps us navigate cultural influences that can mislead us when we focus narrowly on a single passage. By considering the broader and coherent theology of God revealed throughout Scripture, we are better equipped to interpret individual texts faithfully.

Second, it enables us to understand and articulate why a particular command is good. Commands are not arbitrary rules but expressions of God’s character, will, and mission. This approach moves us beyond insisting on obedience based merely on a supposed “plain meaning,” which can sometimes lead to misapplication and hinder ministry and spiritual formation.

Third, it guards against the tendency to selectively emphasize certain commands while neglecting others. All Scripture is both “God-breathed” (2 Tim 3:16-17) and contextually located. By focusing on the divine author speaking through culturally situated texts, we can discern his will, character, and mission and conform our lives to that revelation.

Fourth, this hermeneutic affirms the authority, sufficiency, and perspicuity of Scripture.

Fifth, it provides interpretive tools for addressing the problem of continuity and discontinuity between the Old Testament and the New Testament—a challenge the apostles themselves faced as they applied the gospel in their context, particularly among the Gentiles. Some of the more obvious discontinuities include circumcision, unclean foods and Sabbath observance, practices that functioned as markers of Israel’s identity as the people of God. With the inclusion of the Gentiles in the new covenant community, such identity markers were no longer necessary, since the law had been fulfilled in Jesus Christ[4]. By discovering God’s will, character, and mission within the situational issues addressed in Scripture—through God’s contextual accommodation to particular audiences, whether in the Old or New Testament—we are able to obey by conforming our lives as children of our heavenly Father.

We all use filters

Our different hermeneutical approaches provide an opportunity to explore the way Pastor Dirks’, Dr BK’s and my different theological conclusions reflect the concerns of the apostle Paul. Our dispute is not with the apostle Paul—each of us wants to conform our lives according to God’s authoritative word—but with one another’s particular interpretation of Paul’s writings. The question before us is which understanding, and which hermeneutic, offers the most consistent and faithful interpretation of the text and leads to an application that reflects the will, character, and mission of God in our churches today.

The following graphic illustrates the reality within which we are all working:

(generated by chatgpt, 2026, based on my diagram)

The diagram illustrates the interpretive reality we all share: Scripture is read within particular theological, hermeneutical, linguistic, cultural and historical contexts that inevitably shape the reader’s understanding.

In their responses, both Dr BK and Pastor Dirks illustrate the interpretive assumptions that shape their approach to the text. Dr BK proposes that Scripture itself describes and authorizes a hermeneutic that governs interpretation. Faithful interpretation consists of identifying and applying that framework.

Pastor Dirks claims that the New Testament presents a tradition or pattern of apostolic practice that is transcultural and universal. These practices are normative and therefore must not be adapted or contextualized.

Both maintain that their approach provides the proper framework for arriving at the authoritative interpretation of the text for the church today. Even though they each have their own approach, there is considerable overlap in their conclusions, and their hermeneutical approaches are not necessarily in conflict. Nonetheless, I would like to address them separately to avoid any misrepresentation.

In what follows, I will clarify the hermeneutical assumptions behind these differing approaches and explain why reading Scripture as the revelation of God’s will, character, and mission provides a more coherent framework for interpretation.

Contrasting Pastor Dirks’ reading of Paul with the proposed hermeneutic

a. The Apostolic Pattern and the Question of Canon

Pastor Dirks states that the proposed approach to interpreting the Scriptures, “fails to account for the finality of the apostolic teaching and subtly undermines the idea of a closed canon.” What he is arguing is that “the faith that was once for all delivered to the saints” (Jud 3), “the good deposit” entrusted to Timothy (1 Tim 6:20; 2 Tim 1:13–14), and the “tradition” received from Paul (2 Th 3:6–12) refer to a “received and codified apostolic teaching and tradition that is the basis for the canon” (quoting Ridderbos).

Rather than approaching the New Testament as culturally shaped revelation from God addressing local concerns, Pastor Dirks proposes that we must discern in it “a finalized body of instruction for all cultures and all times.” This apostolic “pattern,” given as part of the New Testament, is therefore not to be read as culturally embedded teaching addressing local situations with God’s truth, but as universal teaching that does not require contextualization or adaptation. It is teaching applicable to the situation of the epistles precisely because it is universal for the church in all settings and for all time.

According to this view, apostolic instruction represents a fixed pattern of behavior to be reproduced in all cultures without exception and without change. There is to be no improvisation, only obedience. Using Sanneh’s terms[5], such teaching is not “translated” into other cultural settings but “diffused” throughout the world (for a further explanation of these terms, see Part 3: Why we ask “why”: The Limits of Culture and Language).

b. The Limits of a “Direct Reading”

In the previous articles, I have attempted to show that there cannot be a straightforward “clear reading” that leads to direct application. Such an orientation is:

• Unrealistic: It is unrealistic because commands represent God’s accommodation to people living in specific contexts. A command makes sense because of the situation which it addresses. Ignoring the significance of the command given “to others” and for that context is a refusal to attend carefully to the text and neglects the influence of the interpreter’s own cultural perspective.
• Undesirable: It risks missing the profound revelation of God’s will, character and mission reducing obedience to mere conformity to a prescribed practice—a rote response without the attempt to understand the “why.” This approach may prevent the development of culturally appropriate expressions that reveal God’s heart.
• Self-deceptive: It claims a unique authority for one interpretation of the Bible while denying the presence of presuppositions or interpretation. In reality, it represents a human derived theological position, as are all readings of Scripture.

c. Canon and Interpretation

To respond more directly to Pastor Dirks’ critique, consider one statement:

“if you treat the apostolic commands as non-binding or propose that there may be some contextual factor that would cause a church in some part of the world to do the opposite of what the apostles commanded it undermines the close (sic) and completion of the canon.”

Here Pastor Dirks conflates two distinct issues:

1. The authority of the canon—the recognition of the New Testament Scriptures as the inspired, apostolic, and authentic written revelation of how God’s will, character, and mission are fulfilled through Jesus Christ and the coming of the Holy Spirit.
2. The process of interpretation and application—how communities living in different times and cultures act faithfully in response to that written revelation.

Recognizing the need for interpretation does not undermine the authority of the canon. Interpretation acknowledges the historical and cultural distance between the original text and contemporary readers. It seeks to understand, not add to, the New Testament.

d. Example: 1 Corinthians 14 and the Pattern of Worship

Pastor Dirks refers to 1 Co 14:33–34:

“For God is not a God of confusion but of peace. As in all the churches of the saints, the women should keep silent in the churches.”

His reading assumes that the pattern described here represents a universal norm for all churches in all times and places. Any departure from that pattern by saying the “opposite”—such as allowing women to speak in church because of contextual factors—would therefore constitute disobedience.

As with my previous articles, I do not intend to exegete the passage, but to focus on the hermeneutical framework used when reading Scripture.

From Pastor Dirks’ perspective, the logic of the passage unfolds as follows (note particularly the levels of argumentation (bolded) that the apostle Paul uses to insist on women keeping silent in worship services):

1. There is a problem of disorder in the Corinthians’ worship that Paul addresses with practical instructions from verse 26ff.
2. Within that expressed desire for worship to be done peacefully and in order, Paul commands that women must not be allowed to speak (v 34).
3. They must remain in submission (v34). Their disruptions were not adequately respecting the role of those leading.
4. This silence of women within the worship of the church is affirmed by the Law of Moses (v 34).
5. It is also declared to be “disgraceful for women to speak in church” (v 35).
6. This restriction is to be understood as a law that cannot be adjusted contextually because Paul provides a rebuke to the congregation about bringing in their own ideas about the place of women when the “message did not begin” with them, nor are they the only ones it reached (v 36).
7. Furthermore, all that Paul commands is what the Lord commands (v 37) and therefore this command cannot be ignored (v 38). These commands are binding without alteration. This is what it means to “do everything properly and in order” (v 40).

According to this hermeneutic, Paul establishes a transcultural, permanent, and unalterable pattern of worship for all churches in every culture and era. This theological conclusion is intended to reflect and fulfill the apostle Paul’s instructions in this passage.

e. A Contemporary Illustration

This morning in church where I was worshiping, a woman opened God’s word to us and explained its meaning clearly and competently with appropriate application to our lives. The service was orderly and peaceful.

If the apostle Paul walked in, what would he say? Would he be encouraged by believers learning to live the gospel based on God’s word? Or would he be appalled because of the “disgrace” of a woman speaking?

According to Pastor Dirks’ hermeneutic, Paul would deliver the same rebuke he gave to the Corinthians.  That is, the pattern described in 1 Co 14 goes beyond the concern for “orderly and peaceful worship” to establish a permanent rule governing the role of women in every church gathering.

f. Interpretation is inevitable

What must first be recognized is that Pastor Dirks’ hermeneutic is not simply a matter of direct obedience to Paul’s command. Pastor Dirks is not part of the Corinthian church; he lives in another culture and historical era. He is therefore interpreting this passage and constructing a theology of gender based on that interpretation. He is not reproducing a pattern or tradition unaltered from Paul’s instructions but deriving a theological conclusion that he believes should govern churches today.

Despite order and peacefulness, despite correct teaching and exposition, despite moving God’s people toward greater obedience and commitment, Pastor Dirks has constructed a theology of gender that requires churches in our time and context to hold to an expression of worship that does not have women proclaiming God’s word at the front of the congregation.

Even if he claims to be “simply obeying” a clear command, that claim itself reflects a hermeneutical approach.

g. The assumptions behind Pastor Dirks’ hermeneutic

Pastor Dirks’ assumptions are three-fold:

1. The New Testament establishes a transcultural and universal pattern of theology and practice that requires no contextualization. This is the “received and codified apostolic teaching and tradition” that he refers to.
2. This pattern is expressed in Scripture in a way that can be clearly and transparently understood across all cultural contexts.
3. His own interpretation accurately reproduces that universal apostolic pattern without cultural influence.

As a result, because obedience requires only compliance, application need not take the original context into account, nor consider the reason for the command, nor determine what current form would best express that command.

h. An alternative hermeneutical approach

However, if both text and reader are culturally embedded—as I believe accurately reflects our situation—then an approach that ignores contextual factors is unlikely to produce the most faithful interpretation. It is therefore legitimate to embrace a different hermeneutic that also affirms the authority of Scripture and holds to the Fellowship’s statement of faith, while not requiring adherence to the pattern proposed by Pastor Dirks.

In this framework, commands addressed to the Corinthians are authoritative but not necessarily binding in identical form for believers today. It is not because we are disobedient that they are “non-binding,” but because faithful obedience requires understanding (1) the reasons behind the command so that we can discern God’s will, (2) the purpose of the command so that we can embrace his mission, and (3) his love and care revealed in the command so that we can conform to his character.

i. Why ask “why?”

When we pay attention to both the contextual dynamics and to the occasion for the instruction, we discover that we cannot understand unless we ask “why.” We cannot avoid interpretation and theology, and only by acknowledging the cultural embeddedness of both text and reader can we interpret, theologize and apply the meaning in a careful and consistent manner.

It reflects too shallow an understanding of the gospel, our redemption, and Jesus’ new covenant to treat the commands, instructions, and patterns of the New Testament as fixed law without asking “why.” We should not be satisfied with rote conformity of any command without considering the heart of God, his desire for his people, and the goal of his mission.

If our cultural, historical, and social context were equivalent to that of the Corinthians and the other churches addressed by Paul, his reasons—the “why”—would likely be clear to us. But because our context is different, we must (1) seek to understand Paul’s purposes in these instructions and (2) discern contextually meaningful expressions of those purposes in our own setting. These expressions may differ from those of the early churches because our context differs, yet they constitute genuine obedience, because we are conforming ourselves to God’s revealed will, character, and mission.

j. Asking “why” in 1 Co 14

So, what could it look like to ask “why” at each stage of Paul’s argument about women keeping silent in 1 Co 14?

1. Paul is advocating for orderly and peaceful worship. Why? Because worship is for the good of everyone present (v 26) and for the communication of God’s message (v 26). If anyone cannot contribute to that explanation of God’s messages, they should keep silent (vs 28). The environment should facilitate listening (v 29) and give opportunity for others to speak in turn if they are contributing to God’s message (v 30), one at a time (v 31).
2. Women talking is disrupting that worship (implied from vv 34-35). Why? Apparently, they were not fulfilling the requirement of the previous verses. Because they were not capable of contributing, they needed to submit to the insights of those who were.
3. Part of the reason for this disruption is that they are looking for clarification (vs 35). Why? It seems that they were not only incapable of contributing but also struggled to comprehend the messages. They did not have the understanding and training expected of those participating in worship. Rather than assuming an absolute, universal hierarchy of gender roles that excludes women from ecclesial leadership regardless of their capabilities, a simpler explanation present in the passage itself is the need for orderly, peaceful, and edifying worship—something the women in that situation were not contributing to appropriately.
4. Paul’s solution is for women to save their questions until afterwards when they can ask their husbands (v 35). Why? Apparently, men were expected to understand God’s word better than their wives—a cultural reality shaped by expectations and opportunities—and could therefore instruct them later. The issue here is not women exercising leadership but women being disruptive.
5. It is “disgraceful” for women to speak (v 35). Why? In that cultural setting, women speaking publicly in an assembly may have been considered inappropriate and damaging to their reputation or the reputation of their husband. While this is not an issue in our culture, it has been in many societies historically. Another likely possibility is that they were unable to participate appropriately because of their limited education and understanding. Given these possibilities and the focus of the passage, it is unlikely that Paul is establishing a universal command grounded in a fixed male–female hierarchy.
6. Paul rebukes the congregation for allowing women to participate, saying that the “message did not begin” with them, nor are they the only ones it reached. Why would he say this? Most likely because, out of concern for disruption in worship services, women in other churches were also restricted in their participation. Thus, as in those churches, women speaking up was considered inappropriate in the Corinthian congregation.
7. Paul insists that his command reflects what the Lord requires (v 37) and therefore cannot be ignored (v 38). But how is this instruction “binding?”  What is binding—and therefore fulfills the command—is worship that reflects God’s will, character, and mission. This is what it means to “do everything properly and in order” (v. 40), in a manner that pleases God.

From this passage we see that God is not a God of disorder but of peace (character) (v. 33). He desires his people to know his will and for the church to be built up (will). This includes hymns, instruction, revelation, tongues, and interpretation (v. 26), so that everyone may be “instructed and encouraged” (v. 31). The orientation is toward centering their lives on God, and the indicator of that aim is people living together in a “fitting and orderly way” (v. 40) and growing in their faith (an expression of the kingdom, which reflects God’s mission).

Asking deeper questions about how a specific, contextually constrained command—such as women being silent—reveals God’s will, character, and mission enables us to develop a biblically robust theology that guides us in forming contextually appropriate expressions of worship.

k. How doing the “opposite” can be obedience

But what if a woman—say a Priscilla (Acts 18:26; Rom 16:3–5) or a Junia (Rom 16:7)—in that context was capable and able to contribute? This hermeneutic of reading the Bible as revelation leads to a theology that would encourage capable women to participate. Even in Paul’s time, the New Testament provides examples that appear to function as exceptions to the restriction mentioned in this passage, and their participation was evidently considered appropriate. These examples suggest that the restriction was not intended as a universal and incontrovertible rule (Acts 21:8–9; 1 Cor 11:5; Rom 16:1–2; Phil 4:2–3).

If Paul had joined our congregation this morning, I do not believe he would have been offended but rather deeply impressed and pleased. He might have said, “How did this woman gain such ability to read and expound the Scriptures? This is so helpful to the believers!” rather than, “Why has no one asked this woman to be quiet as I commanded?” The issue is not that Paul has changed his mind, but that understanding how his concerns relate to our situation today requires an appropriate hermeneutic.

Does this claim accuse Paul of being fickle—giving a clear command in one place and then appearing to say the opposite in another?

The importance of context in interpretation becomes clearer when we consider a similar dynamic elsewhere in Paul’s ministry: his treatment of circumcision.

1. Paul condemns circumcision in Gal 5:2-4, “If you let yourselves be circumcised, Christ will be of no benefit to you.”
2. He relativizes circumcision in 1 Co 7:18-19, “Circumcision is nothing and uncircumcision is nothing.”
3. He promotes circumcision in Acts 16:3, “Paul wanted Timothy to accompany him, and he took him and circumcised him.”

Was Paul being inconsistent? No. The context of each passage needs to be taken into account.

1. The first rejects any suggestion that circumcision is necessary to enter God’s kingdom.
2. The second addresses the status of Jewish and Gentile believers in the kingdom.
3. The third reflects missional accommodation for ministry among the Jews.

Paul did not establish one universal pattern for circumcision in all situations. Rather, his actions reveal a theological framework that guided how the practice was applied within different contexts so that God’s will, character, and mission could be expressed in kingdom ministry. Instead of enforcing a fixed practice, Paul’s teaching and actions demonstrate conformity to God’s purposes.

Faithful obedience, therefore, is not the reproduction of practices from another cultural and historical context, but the shaping of our lives and practices in conformity with the God who speaks through Scripture, expressed through local forms that reveal his will, character, and mission.

Contrasting Dr BK’s reading of Paul with the proposed hermeneutic

With regards to Dr BK’s hermeneutical concern, he suggests that

Scripture itself provides internal signals, textual, theological, and canonical indicators, that some commands are grounded more deeply than others, and therefore should not be relativized by appeals to culture, historical trajectory, or contemporary moral intuition.

He contrasts slavery, which “Scripture never grounds … in creation…. [and whose] trajectory within Scripture is destabilizing rather than reinforcing” with the New Testament’s teaching on church leadership and teaching authority, which  “is explicitly grounded in creation and theology.”

At the heart of Dr BK’s hermeneutic is that there are situational commands, that no longer function as binding directives today and may be “relativized by appeals to culture, historical trajectory, or contemporary moral intuition,” while others are rooted in universal truths and therefore cannot be altered by contextual or cultural considerations.

He provides indicators for determining which commands remain binding in the same manner today:

1. Appeal to creation order

Paul grounds his instruction not in local conditions but in the order of creation itself: ‘For Adam was formed first, then Eve’ (1 Tim. 2:13), and he links this argument back to Genesis 2 rather than to first-century cultural norms. Similarly, in 1 Corinthians 11:8–9, Paul again appeals to creation order as the basis for his instruction, not to social convention. Importantly, these appeals occur in diverse contexts, Corinth and Ephesus, suggesting that Paul understands them as transcultural, not situational.

2. Apostolic authority

As authorized spokesmen of Christ, [the apostles gave some instructions] that the New Testament itself repeatedly treats as binding beyond the immediate audience (cf. 1 Cor. 14:37; 2 Thess. 2:15; 2 Tim. 3:16–17).

2 Thess 2:15 is an exhortation to “hold fast to the teachings we passed on to you whether by word of mouth or by letter.”

3. Explicit claims of divine command

Some instruction, such as in I Co 14:37, Paul claims that “his instruction about women’s silence in worship is a command from the Lord.”

2 Tim 3:16-17 declares that “all Scripture is God-breathed and useful for teaching…”

Response to Dr BK

a. Shared Commitment to the Authority of Scripture

Before addressing Dr. BK’s specific criteria, it is important to note that all of the hermeneutical approaches under discussion affirm the authority of Scripture. The verses “Hold fast to the teachings we passed on to you whether by word of mouth or by letter” (2 Thess 2:15) and “all Scripture is God-breathed and useful for teaching…” (2 Tim 3:16-17) equally apply to all of our positions, since the question is one of interpretation and not about the intent we all have to “hold fast” to the apostles’ teaching and treat it as “binding.”

The question, therefore, is not whether believers intend to submit to the inspired Scripture, but how Scripture should be interpreted and applied. Mere affirmation of Scriptural authority does not resolve how to interpret within our cultural embeddedness. Several observations help clarify why Dr BK’s framework may not adequately account for the contextual nature of biblical commands.

b. The Nature of biblical commands

1. All biblical commands are situational.

Commands were given because they addressed real circumstances in the lives of the original audience. If they had not been relevant to those situations, they would not have been given.

2. All biblical commands are contextual and cultural.

They are communicated through the language, assumptions, and social realities of the people to whom they were addressed. Without this cultural framework they could neither be understood nor obeyed.

3. All biblical commands are transcultural in their source,

All commands are transcultural in the sense that they originate from the eternal God, whose will, character, and mission do not change. In Scripture God accommodates himself to human situations by communicating his purposes through culturally meaningful directives. It is God and his purposes that are transcultural which find their form and expression contextually.

This reality addresses a concern raised by Dr BK, when he frames the issue with the following question:

Is there any apostolic command that would remain binding on the church even if it conflicted with modern cultural judgments about fairness or equality?

If the answer is yes, then passages like 1 Timothy 2 must be allowed to speak for themselves. 

If the answer is no, then Scripture is no longer functioning as the church’s final authority.

Responding directly to this question clarifies the concern addressed in these articles and demonstrates why framing the issue in this way misses the hermeneutical point.

Not only apostolic, but all biblical commands remain binding on the church when they are interpreted appropriately with sensitivity to context—both the context of the text and that of the reader—so that God’s will, character and mission are rightly discerned. That revelation is authoritative and normative for the believer, and all cultural judgments about fairness or equality, whether modern or historical, must ultimately be evaluated in light of it.

At the same time, passages like 1 Timothy 2 cannot simply “speak for themselves.” Interpretation is unavoidable (What would it mean to let 1 Tim 2:15 “speak for itself” without reference to a broader biblical theology?). This is not a deficiency of Scripture, evidence of compromise on the part of the believer, or the imposition of a different authority on the text. Language always functions within the historical and cultural contexts, and readers must interpret in order to understand.

When difficult passages are considered within “the whole counsel of God” (Acts 20:27), the broader witness of Scripture provides the framework for developing a coherent, kingdom centered theology that guides their interpretation.

For the Christian, therefore, the answer to Dr. BK’s question cannot ultimately be “no,” since no cultural setting or human philosophy stands above the authority of Scripture. Interpretation is the means by which the authority of God’s Word is applied within our culturally embedded lives. We rely on this process\ not because of confidence in human wisdom or in the illusion that Scripture can be read without interpretation, but because of God’s promise to guide his people through the Holy Spirit (Jn 14:26, 16:3; Rom 8:14).

c. Evaluating the Criteria Proposed by Dr. BK

1. The problem with “relativized commands”

In proposing a category of biblical commands that can be relativized, Dr BK addresses the example of slavery. Because slavery is not based in creation order, it may be relativized and expressed differently in different contexts.

Yet as a hermeneutical guide, this approach lacks clear parameters. Determining which factors are “destabilizing” and which are “reinforcing” depends heavily on the interpreter. Distinguishing between binding and non-binding commands is highly subjective when determining how God wants us to live our lives and treat others.

by contrast, reading the Bible as revelation treats everything discovered about God’s will, character and mission in Scripture as binding. The church’s task is to express that theology in culturally meaningful ways.

When slavery is considered through this lens, Scripture reveals a robust theology of human dignity and worth. Humanity is created in the image of God (Gen 1:27), and “in Christ” there is “neither Jew nor Gentile, neither slave nor free, neither male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus” (Gal 3:28). It is this theological vision that leads believers to reject practices that dehumanize others.

2. The argument from diverse contexts

Dr BK also appeals to “diverse contexts, Corinth and Ephesus, suggesting that Paul understands them as transcultural, not situational.” The churches are located in different cities, yet the teaching given to them is similar and so Dr BK considers it “transcultural.”

Yet these cities were geographically close and deeply connected through commerce within the Roman world. It is not convincing that they could be considered culturally diverse. Moreover, even if some cultural distinctions existed, it does not follow that the instruction should be applied unchanged in all contexts.

No command functions apart from culture. Commands must be understood and applied within the cultural realities of those who receive them. Their authority lies not in their detachment from culture but in their origin as God’s word addressing specific circumstances. It is that authoritative source that commands our obedience—provided that we interpret and apply the command in a contextually appropriate manner, recognizing that it is “for us,” even though it was not originally “to us.”

To illustrate the necessity of considering contextual dynamics in interpretation and application, consider the complex assumptions that must be brought to the statement, “I do not permit a woman to teach or assume authority over a man” (1 Tim 2:12), when it is applied to our Canadian context. What does “teach” mean in a male-dominated first-century context as opposed to a twenty-first-century context in which both men and women receive similar education and are encouraged to act on that knowledge?

As my wife, Karen[6], notes in her sincere desire to obey such a text,

What exactly counts as teaching? Does this include writing a book that men might read, or is Paul referring specifically to spoken instruction within a gathered church context? Is the concern limited to theological or spiritual instruction, or would it also apply to subjects such as biblical history or church history that are more descriptive than doctrinal? If there are boundaries to the prohibition, how are those boundaries determined?

If a woman speaks the truth of Scripture to a man—perhaps correcting a husband or challenging an ungodly opinion—where does authority lie in that situation? Is the authority located in the person speaking, or in the Word of God itself?

In everyday life today, women often hold positions of authority in political, educational, medical, and business settings. Should Christians regard that authority as legitimate and trustworthy, or does Paul’s statement imply that competence is irrelevant and that gender alone—automatically and permanently—disqualifies women from exercising authority over men? If the passage applies only to church life, then how does Paul’s appeal to the creation order function—does it apply only within congregational gatherings, or does it have implications for how Christian women should function within society more broadly?

Thus, while the truth revealed in Scripture is universal, it is never communicated apart from culture. We do not have access to “transcultural” messages that operate independently of context. God’s word is always expressed, understood, and applied within the cultural context of those who receive it. This is why the apostles called for teachers who could “correctly handle the word of truth” (2 Tim 2:15). If the “plain sense” of every passage was immediately obvious to all readers in every context, the careful interpretation and guidance of teachers would scarcely be necessary. But because meaning is embedded within historical and cultural contexts, interpretation is required, and faithful obedience requires interpretation that attends both to the original setting of the text and to the setting in which it is now received.

3. The appeal to “creation order.”

The appeal to creation order is a powerful argument because it parallels the hermeneutic I am advocating. The “deeper grounding” advocated by Dr BK is itself a theology pointing to God’s universal purposes. In this case, Dr BK argues that Paul is bases a hierarchy of gender roles on God’s will, character and mission as revealed in the creation narrative.

However significant, appeals to creation do not automatically establish a universal rule; they also must be interpreted within the rhetorical and pastoral purpose of the passage in which they occur. This raises an important question: is Paul grounding his command in a universal theology of gender that eternally places women in a subordinate position to men, or might there be another reason for this reference to creation? Dr. BK appropriately notes that he does “not assume interpretative infallibility,” and this humble posture is appropriate for us all.

Such humility opens the door to considering alternative explanations for Paul’s appeal to creation. This is especially appropriate when we remember the variety of ways—sometimes even allegorical—in which Paul uses the Old Testament. What, then, might be another plausible explanation?

As I suggest in Part 7: 127g. Developing a Hermeneutical Lens to Consider the Place of Women in Ministry, the reference to Adam and Eve in 1 Tim 2:11-15, could legitimately be understood not as the foundation for a universal theology of gender hierarchy, but as a rhetorical example illustrating why women should not be considered superior to men. In essence, Paul may be saying, “Why are you allowing women to assume authority over men? Do you not remember the disaster in the garden?”

On this reading, the passage is not establishing permanent gender superiority or inferiority in positions of authority, but reminding the audience that neither gender is inherently superior to the other. This raises an interpretive question: has a local issue become the occasion for Paul to develop a theology of gender, or is Paul primarily addressing a local problem and using the creation narrative illustratively rather than as the basis for a universal doctrine of gender hierarchy? Either way, the appeal to creation functions as a theological reference beyond the immediate situation that helps guide interpretation of the specific passage.

The difficulty of appealing to creation order as the basis for a particular practice without considering contextual influences can be illustrated by an example from a missionary in Indonesia[7]. A young couple eloped and married against their parents’ wishes. They relocated, joined a church, and after several years requested membership. The elders asked whether they should be admitted. The missionary was puzzled and asked, “What is the problem?  They are married and they are professing believers.”  The elders responded with surprise: “They have dishonored their parents! The Bible says, ‘Honor your father and mother’ (Eph 6:1). This is the first command with a promise. It goes back to creation and is foundational for the family. If we overlook this, we undermine family relationships and encourage others to marry against their parents’ wishes.”

When we insist on a single interpretation and equate that interpretation with Paul’s intent, we risk imposing our theology onto the text. Where credible alternative interpretations exist, it may be wiser to acknowledge them and allow space for differing conclusions. Such humility recognizes that submission to God’s authority is the true basis of obedience and unity, even when interpretations differ.

Not a slippery slope but a firm foundation

As a final note, Pastor Dirks raised the specter that the hermeneutic of reading the Bible as a revelation of God’s will, character and mission can potentially lead to an affirmation of LGBTQ+ ideology. I understand the basis for this concern. Without appealing to certain “clear” verses as boundaries, it may appear that we lack the safeguards necessary to resist theological error. From this perspective, a hermeneutic that emphasizes knowing God rather than patterning theology and practice on specific New Testament directives may seem like a slippery slope toward compromise with destructive cultural narratives.

However, I would suggest the opposite. Rather than grounding our faith primarily in a small set of verses used to establish boundaries against perceived heresies, we are called to know the God of Scripture and the Spirit of Christ through the whole of Scripture. This includes, rather than avoids, passages that confront the prevailing plausibility structures of our time. The goal is not to modify or mute God’s revelation, but to ensure that his revelation finds faithful expression within our present context. The hermeneutic proposed here therefore does not weaken obedience to Scripture; it strengthens it by directing interpretation toward the God who reveals himself through the text.

Such fresh expressions are not in conflict with the authority of the Bible. On the contrary, they are the means by which the truth of Scripture is lived out within real communities and historical settings. Only by engaging the text to discern anew God’s will, character, and mission can believers know how to live faithfully in their own context. The hermeneutic proposed here does not diminish obedience to Scripture nor filter out “difficult” passages. Instead, obedience is deepened by orienting interpretation toward the God who speaks through Scripture and to whom we conform our lives.

While this hermeneutic leads me to recognize women as fellow and equal citizens, kings, and priests in the new kingdom—and therefore as potential participants in ecclesial leadership—it also provides a robust theological foundation for affirming the goodness of the male–female order described in creation. Scripture presents humanity as created male and female, an order that God declared good, established for his purposes, and blessed as bearing his image.

When the devil tempted Jesus to turn stones into bread in order to satisfy his physical need, Jesus refused. To paraphrase Matthew 4:4, his response might be expressed as: “What God has called ‘stone,’ I will not call ‘bread.’” That is a powerful revelation of God’s will, character and mission that speaks against such ideologies. We can trust in God’s self-revelation in the Bible as a sure guide into all truth.

Footnotes:

[1] Terminology from Berger, Peter L. The Sacred Canopy: Elements of a Sociological Theory of Religion, (New York: Anchor Books, 1967), 45.

[2] Joseph Joubert, The Notebooks of Joseph Joubert, trans. Paul Auster (New York: North Point Press, 1983).

[3] I am grateful for this point from NT Wright’s 2018 article, N.T. Wright on Scripture and the Authority of God, published in BioLogos, which is further developed in his book, Scripture and the Authority of God: How to Read the Bible Today, (HarperCollins, 2013).

[4] I am grateful for this point from Wright, NT Scripture and the Authority of God: How to Read the Bible Today, (HarperCollins, 2013), Chapter 4: ‘The “Word of God” in the Apostolic Church.’

[5] Lamin Sanneh, Translating the Message (Maryknoll: Orbis, 1989), 7,8.

[6] Naylor, Karen. Private correspondence, 2026.

[7] E. Randolph Richards and Brandon J. O’Brien, Misreading Scripture with Western Eyes: Removing Cultural Blinders to Better Understand the Bible (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2012),18, 97.