In a previous post, I discussed the question, “Do Jews Need to Be Perfected?” An international task force of the Theological Commission of the World Evangelical Alliance (WEA) met on the issue of the uniqueness of Christ and Jewish evangelism in Berlin, Germany, from August 18-22, 2008 to consider how the Christian community might express genuine love for the Jewish people, especially in Europe. Participants included Christians from Germany and Messianic Jews. The result was the following “Berlin Declaration.”

1. Love is not Silent: The Need for Repentance

We deeply regret the all too frequent persecution of Jewish people in Jesus’ name. We do not for a second deny the evil it represents. During the genocide of the Holocaust, when the Jewish people were in their greatest peril, most Christian believers were silent. Many, such as The Stuttgart Confession of Guilt right after World War II, have apologized for the failure to speak out and for not doing more to demonstrate genuine Christian love to the Jewish people. Some of our brothers and sisters in the European Christian community suffered as well for resisting the anti-Semites and perpetrators of the atrocities. Many more today feel embarrassment and shame for the general failure to protest. As a result, there is an evident insecurity about relations with Jewish people. Also, there is a tendency to replace direct gospel outreach with Jewish-Christian dialogue.We believe that genuine love cannot be passive. Jesus taught that authentic love could not be unfeeling when other human beings are in misery and need. Honest love must include an expression of Christ’s good news in word and deed. Therefore, Christians everywhere must not look away when Jewish people have the same deep need for forgiveness of sin and true shalom, as do people of all nations. Love in action compels all Christians to share the gospel with people everywhere, including the Jewish people of Europe.

2. Beyond Genocide: The Problem of Sin

We acknowledge within the sad record of European Christian history the “teaching of contempt,” intolerance toward Jewish people and Judaism, abhorrent acts of coercion, anti-Semitism in attitude, word and deed. The historical events of the Holocaust developed within a climate of anti-Semitism. The German Evangelical Alliance out of concern for that history has expressed shame and responsibility for Christian silence and too few attempts to stop the horror.

Jewish people interpret Christian failure to speak out as complicity in their genocide during World War II. However, there were some valiant Christians who did speak up, risking and sometimes losing their own lives to save Jews.

In light of rising European anti-Semitism and anti-Israelism vigilance is necessary now. Jewish people are not the only victims of genocide as evidenced today. The Holocaust survivor, Primo Levi, warned, “It has happened. Therefore, it can happen again.” The source of all genocide is sin. This sin affects all humanity, both the persecutor and the sufferer. God’s response to sin is the gospel. Therefore, this grace must be proclaimed to every human being.

3. The Solution for Sin: The Uniqueness of Christ

We recognize that genocide illustrates the enormity of sin. God is not responsible for genocide; we humans are. God has provided the solution.

It is often seen as unacceptable to challenge another’s religious views. Nevertheless, we regard failure to share the gospel as ignoring the problem of sin. No one should ignore Jesus’ assessment of human sin. Everyone needs what God offers by his grace: forgiveness of sin and a transforming divine presence in those who respond. Jesus did not seek to dominate, but gave himself on the cross as sacrifice for sin. His death cleanses from the guilt of sin and provides a new relationship with God. This benefit is neither earned nor entered into by birth. It is received through acknowledging our deep need for God to supply what we lack.

Confessing Jesus as Messiah affirms Jesus’ uniqueness as a person, especially to Jews, because Messiah (or Christ) is a Jewish concept. He is sent as the Word, anointed as Messiah and vindicated by God to sit at his right hand. Through resurrection Jesus shares in the divine glory, task, and authority. Jesus of Nazareth is more than a prophet or a religious teacher. Rather, he is the unique Son of God, mediating and administering God’s promise. By his divine authority, Jesus extends his offer to all. He exercises the divine prerogatives of forgiving sin and receiving worship. This is why we confess Jesus as both human and divine.

God calls believers to take the gospel to the world. Everyone needs to hear this message including the Jewish people. Proclamation to Israel was Jesus’ priority. It also reflects the apostles’ practice of going to the Jew first. Nothing has occurred since Jesus came that changes the need for Israel and the nations.

4. The Call to Action: Jewish Evangelism

Christians are called to share this good news, with sensitivity and humility. Witness to the gospel should be motivated by heart-felt love and expressed in practical ways. So, we stand in solidarity with the Jewish people, opposing anti-Semitism, prejudice and discrimination.  This sinful behavior is irreconcilable with the calling of Christ’s disciples.

Most of all, we invite Jewish people and all others to consider the claims of Jesus. We share this gospel with Israel and all nations, not as an attack on the integrity of others. We uphold everyone’s right to freedom of speech, freedom of religion and an open forum for all.  While respecting the views of others, we still challenge them to consider the message of the Messiah.

Christians have much to learn from the Jewish people. We recognize our need to hear Jewish concerns. We affirm the importance of dialogue in promoting mutual understanding and sympathy. Dialogue provides an opportunity to share deeply held beliefs in a context of mutual respect.  Dialogue and evangelism are not mutually exclusive. We reject the notion that evangelism is deceptive in claiming that Jews can believe in Jesus. We also reject the accusation that evangelism is the equivalent of spiritual genocide. We affirm the right of Jewish believers in Jesus to practice those traditions that affirm their identity, reflect God’s faithfulness to his people and uphold the Messiahship of Jesus.

We recognize the important role of Messianic Jews in the work and witness of the Church. Their special contribution gives testimony to the Jewish origins of Christianity and brings understanding of our Jewish roots. They remind us of the Jewishness of Jesus and of the first Christians. They also point to the fulfillment of God’s promises to save his people. We encourage them to stand firm in their identification with and faithful witness to their people. The Lord is also glorified in the visible demonstration of reconciliation of Jew and German in the body of Christ.

The Next Step

Therefore, as Christians concerned for the well being and salvation of the Jewish people, we call for:

• Respect for religious conviction and liberty that allows frank discussion of religious claims
• Repentance from all expressions of anti-Semitism and all other forms of genocide, prejudice and discrimination
• Recognition of the uniqueness of Christ as the crucified, resurrected and divine Messiah who alone can save from death and bring eternal life
• Reconciliation and unity amongst believers in Jesus

• Renewed commitment to the task of Jewish evangelism

This statement was developed by a World Evangelical Alliance Task Force meeting on the Uniqueness of Christ and Jewish Evangelism in Berlin, Germany. It was adopted August 22, 2008. Participants included Henri Blocher (France), Michael L. Brown (USA), Darrell Bock (USA), David Dowdey (USA), Richard Harvey (UK), Rolf Hille (Germany), Kai Kjær-Hansen (Denmark), Michael McDuffee (USA), David Parker (Chair, Australia), Eckhard Schnabel (Germany/USA), Berthold Schwarz (Germany), Bodil Skjøtt (Denmark), and Tuvya Zaretsky (USA). For further information, see http://www.worldevangelicals.org/news/view.htm?id=2025 and http://www.baptisttimes.co.uk/news3.htm. See also the translations of the “Berlin Declaration” into German and Russian.

In a recent Op-Ed piece in USA Today, David Gushee, professor of Christian ethics at Mercer University, writes about what he calls the “Palin predicament.” What is this predicament? As the readers of Gushee’s piece discover, the predicament is not actually Palin’s, but a dilemma with which conservative evangelical Christians are faced: should they support the nomination of a woman to a prominent position of leadership whose values they largely share, or should they reject her candidacy because they have traditionally opposed women in high places? Gushee finds this to be a delicious irony, an irony which he spends the entire article exploiting to the fullest, asking a series of probing questions of conservative evangelical Christians.

Identifying himself as a “moderate evangelical Christian,” Gushee, who moved from Union University to Mercer in recent years, wastes no time identifying his major opponent: the conservative group CBMW, the Council of Biblical Manhood and Womanhood, which in their Danvers Statement propagates a “complementarian” view of gender roles (he also mentions “the Southern Baptist Convention” as barring women from service as pastors). This “complementarian” approach finds in Scripture the teaching that men, as fathers and husbands, are to be heads of their households, with their wife called to submit to their leadership. Complementarians also believe that the role of pastor or elder is in Scripture reserved for men, on the basis of the teaching of passages such as 1 Timothy 2:11-13, which roots such a notion in the divinely created order.

Gushee acknowledges that 1 Timothy 2 “appears to forbid women from teaching or having authority over men in church” and that Ephesians 5:22-33 “calls on women to be subject to their husbands,” but he rejects this as “an archaic theological vision that wounds millions of devout Christian women and restricts the full exercise of their gifts.” He challenges theological conservatives who support Sarah Palin to acknowledge that they have become “full-fledged egalitarians” in the political sphere and points out that, if elected vice president, and if John McCain were to die in office, Palin “would be in authority over every male in the USA as president.” He also asks if, since Todd Palin, Sarah’s husband, is the head of their home, this means that Governor Palin, once vice president or president, will need to submit to her husband in the exercise of her political office.

These are clever questions indeed, questions that Gushee seems to think are virtually irrefutable and that conservative evangelical Christians are unable to answer. My purpose in this brief response is not to address the questions Gushee raises (though I do not think they are quite as irrefutable as Gushee seems to believe). Indeed, Palin’s nomination raises all kinds of interesting issues that require further discussion. My concern here is rather with the forum Gushee chose for his frontal assault on his fellow evangelical Christians (albeit less “moderate” than he). Here is my question: Is it appropriate for Gushee to seek to ridicule, or at least embarrass, his brothers and sisters in Christ on the pages of a national newspaper for their “archaic” beliefs? Or is this the equivalent of believers bringing lawsuits against fellow believers in worldly courts, a practice Paul condemns in 1 Corinthians 6?

The world needs the gospel; it does not need to watch conservative and “moderate” evangelical Christians be at each other’s throats in contentious public debate. How does the spirit and tone of Gushee’s contribution to “The Forum” in the pages of USA Today serve the gospel? How does it serve to bring the lost closer to Christ and help them come to terms with the salvation he offers and the judgment incurred by those who reject what God has done for them in Christ? How is the piece charitable and constructive? The way I see it, maybe conservative evangelical Christians are facing “The Palin predicament,” but by targeting CBMW and complementarians in his Op-Ed piece in USA Today the way he chose to do, Gushee has created a predicament of his own.

My findings regarding the syntax of 1 Timothy 2:12 in the first edition of Women in the Church were widely accepted even among feminist scholars (though, of course, they still don’t agree with the book’s overall thrust on other grounds). There has been a recent exception, though, in the case of Philip Payne, who recently published an article in the journal New Testament Studies. In my 1995 essay in the first edition, I provided a thorough critique of Payne’s earlier unpublished 1988 paper on the subject. Now Payne, in turn, has responded to my study, claiming that 9 of the 100 syntactical parallels to 1 Timothy 2:12 that I presented do not match the pattern.

First of all, even if Payne were right and 9 of the 100 instances don’t fit the overall pattern, this would still be an over 90% success rate, which would be rather impressive. What is more, however, I carefully looked at Payne’s article and each of the 9 instances he discusses, and found that Payne’s analysis does not hold true. Essentially, he seems to be operating on the basis of the notion that verbs are “positive” or “negative” largely in and of themselves. More properly, however, verbs convey a positive or negative connotation in context. For this reason I would argue that Payne’s rebuttal is itself invalid and that my original conclusion stands.

That conclusion, in short, is that the expression “or” (oude) in 1 Tim 2:12 joins two expressions that are positive, “teaching” and “having or exercising authority.” This means that Paul, when saying, “I do not permit a woman to teach or to assume authority over a man” (TNIV), did not merely speak out against women teaching false doctrine or women lording it over men (while saying it was OK for men to do so?!?). No, Paul did not want women even to engage in the kind of teaching or exercise of authority that was appropriate if exercised by qualified men in the church (see, e.g., 1 Tim 3:2; 5:17).

Naturally, this is not a welcome conclusion for those who contend that women ought to be allowed to serve as pastors and elders in the local church, though, it should be noted, this particular reading of 1 Tim 2:12 does not by itself settle the issue. Yet for those willing to meet on the common ground of the available evidence, the syntax of 1 Tim 2:12, particularly the kind of construction entailed by the use of “or” (oude) in this passage, sets important parameters for the proper understanding of Paul’s injunction. As interpreters arrive at a consensus on the most likely rendering of 1 Tim 2:12, this will put the discussion on a more solid biblical foundation.

NOTE: My original essay appeared in Women in the Church (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1995); the second edition, Women in the Church (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2005), included an extensive interaction with the decade of scholarship subsequent to the first edition. The article mentioned above is Philip B. Payne, “1 Tim 2.12 and the Use of oude, to Combine Two Elements to Express a Single Idea,” NTS 54 (2008): 235–53. I will respond to Payne’s article in greater detail in a forthcoming publication, Entrusted with the Gospel: Paul’s Theology in the Pastoral Epistles (Broadman & Holman). An initial response will appear in the upcoming issue of the Journal of Biblical Manhood and Womanhood.