I've never met Randall, nor had I ever read any other book by Mr. Arthur, including the well-reviewed Wisdom Hunter. I assumed the author sent me a copy of Quiet Roar to consider writing something about it on my blog.
I set the book aside. However, on Christmas Day, I picked it up Quiet Roar and began reading it.
I didn't put it down until I finished.
Then I gave it to Rachelle and said, "Here, read this. I want your opinion when you're done. I'm thinking about writing a review on my blog."
I took my wife to Las Vegas to see Celine Dion for her birthday and she read Quiet Roar on the way there and on the return trip.
After Rachelle read it (she too couldn't put it down), my wife looked at me and said, "Wade, the author has done Christianity a service. He has taken what you write about in theological terms and put it in a gripping narrative that makes one understand how silly it is to frame ministry around gender rather than giftings."
My wife is correct. Randall Arthur has hit a home run.
With keen insight into multi-faceted issues this modern world faces, from genitalia mutilation among Muslim tribes in Africa to Islamic terrorism around the world; from southern Baptist traditions of human origin rather than based on biblical principles; to subtle prejudices in Christian churches that need confronting, Randall Arthur has done a huge service for Christianity.
He has the unique ability to heal wounds through a quiet roar.
Especially those wounds in the hearts and minds of gifted women in Christ's Kingdom.
Ladies, don't miss out on reading this book for encouragement.
Men, especially evangelical pastors, you ought to read this book for some biblical, practical, personal correction on your views about women.
You won't put it down.
It's that good.
28 comments:
Wow.
I read the opening portion from a link, this:
"At a Baptist Church in the deep south, male leaders are taking turns filling the pulpit in the absence of a pastor.
Two weeks before Easter, one of the leaders--an eighty-year-old millionaire--looks out over the congregation of sixty people. "I've decided not to teach this morning," he declares. "Rather I'm going to make an announcement. And it's going to upset many of you. But at this point I honestly don't care; I'm angry. The two previous pastors have nearly destroyed our church. So, I've decided to do something about it. Before I make my announcement, I should remind you that my brother, when he was still alive, and I built this church building on our property with our money. The agreement at the time was that when my brother and I are deceased, the deed to the property and all the buildings will transfer to the church. But I'm not dead. And I still hold the deed to the property. Therefore, I've made a unilateral decision. And there's nothing anybody can do about it."
Eyebrows all across the auditorium instantly lifted.
"In two weeks from now, on Easter Sunday, I'm bringing in a lady pastor. I'm going to pay her salary. I'm going to furnish her a home and a car. All I'm going to tell you at the moment is that she's a widow, and she has served as a long-time missionary in Africa." The old man paused and pointed an aged finger toward the foyer. "If you don't like my decision, you know where the doors are.""
Wade, thank you for the review, and I am looking forward to reading this novel. It sounds fascinating. Here's the link I quoted from:
https://books.google.com/books/about/A_Quiet_Roar.html?id=2qBQuwEACAAJ
CHRISTIANE,
Well done, good for you, congratulations, take a bow, bravo. You knocked the ball out of the park!
That was such good reading, I read it three times with a smile on my face.
Once our church needed three more deacons. Congregation was told to write 3 names who they thought would serve the church well. Those names were ‘inspected’ by the deacons (for being ‘qualified’), and the ones with the most votes were asked in private if they’d like to serve. (Not all said they would.) The ones with the most votes became deacons.
If four deacons were needed, a woman was next in line. One deacon thought the women had gotten together to get her selected.
That was squelched real fast when I and another deacon said we had selected her as one of our three to serve the church.
I've ordered a copy. Will be counting the days.
One of my Dad’s college teachers had impressed him to take the ‘long look’ in life. He preached many sermons on the subject, and named several school annuals “The Long Look”. Over 50 years ago, I welded a 20 foot high archway that went over my Dad’s driveway that faces a country road where about 250 vehicles pass every day. It had in large letters, “The Long Look Homestead”.
That driveway is where we live now. Last week, I had completed an eight foot 50 pound star. We had a pickup that supported a sheet of plywood on top. The plywood supported a 16 foot ladder that was tied to the arch. That ladder supported a 10 foot ladder that had a double pulley on top. By using pulleys the star’s weight was cut in half and Judy pulled it on top of the arch. As usual, the 30 minute job took two hours as a lot of things went wrong. Then by walking on the lower part of the arch, I covered the star and arch with LED colored lights.
A car stopped and a guy took a picture. Maybe he needed it to prove ‘why women outlive men’. :) Needless to say, a hot bath felt good that night.
Correction:
The star had lights on it before it was put up. (not a complete dummy)
Hey REX RAY,
I found something on the news this morning that gives me hope for our beloved country. THIS IS WHO WE ARE AS A NATION. Not all of us slander our service men and women, no.
You will love this story:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UYxHA-eXC4g
CHRISTIANE,
Thanks for the wonderful link. I quoted some great statements: "Old soldiers never die, they just fade away". Hopefully, he heard, "Today, you will be with me in Paradise."
Haven't read the book and do not intend to do so, not so much for the women preachers part but for the spiritual abuse evident in the opening "teaser."
I have dealt with preacher's who believed they could unilaterally make decisions and there was nothing those in the pew could do about it. (Did not make a whit of difference if they were right or wrong. No ONE person save Jesus rules a church.)
My experience has been there is always something the laity can do. They can leave. They can form another church, or attend elsewhere. They can stay home.
Unless I am given compelling reason (women's "rights" is not a compelling reason for me, as I oppose the paid or career pastorate for all) I believe I will avoid a book extolling abusive practice.
Pastor Wade, feel free to correct me. Just the teaser is 18 degrees opposite everything you have ever stood for save women's ordination.
I've actually seen this situation with regards to Calvinism, with regard to style of music, with regard to age of the earth, etc. How is this different?
Linda
Make that 180 degrees. Chalk it up to frozen fingers lol.
Linda
Linda,
In the fictional account, the person who brings in the female missionary was not the pastor, but he was the owner of the property and the building. Most people don't understand that a church is incorporated, and is a legal institution accountable to the state. So the person bringing in the new pastors was the "sole trustee." It has nothing to do with "spiritual authority." In essence, if you own the land and buildings, you can do as you please. :)
I am originally from a rural area of Northwest LA. There were,still are, some sole-trustee churches in that area (founded by land-owning families/individuals). In retrospect they have proven to be some of the most stable and loving fellowships across the years than virtually every other local church I've encountered. Thanks for that comment Wade.
Thanks, Scott.
“In retrospect they have proven to be some of the most stable and loving fellowships across the years than virtually every other local church I’ve encountered.”
I’ve got some ideas on why that’s so, but one day I’d love to hear your perspective on why that is the case.
Smaller size, stronger ties, and sometimes a benevolent dictatorship operates much smoother than a fractured democracy.
I would suspect the reason why is that they act more like a family of believers than a crowd of believers
Excellent point A
Hello
I am attending a church where the reverend will not allow the bible translations to be questioned because he does not want his flock to become distracted by the fallibility of the translation favoured within his church’s walls. He has built a theological construct around the existing translation that does not stand up to any scrutiny of the source texts from which the translation has come.
Within the protestant denominations, every member can interpret their scriptural source as they see fit. However, if the interpretation is based on the fallible traditions of the past, then conflict occurs when people begin to question the bases of the cultic practices within that church.
When the members of a church have difficulty with the pastoral leadership theology, they tend to initially register their misgivings by the reducing in their giving to the church. When that silent message is missed, their only other form of protest is to withdraw from the fellowship all together. Some pastors openly encourage their members to leave if they do not see eye to eye with them on their respective doctrinal understanding so that "harmony" can remain within the pastor's "church."
It is my view that we need another reformation now to correct the accepted tradition of errors in our understanding of God and His Grace towards us and in His renewing of our minds to become renewed/refreshed into being a reflection of His personhood within our lives by cloaking ourselves with Him.
If we can do this, then issues of gender leadership become immaterial as we come together in community to be a blessing to all of those with whom we rub shoulders with daily.
I wonder sometimes that our focus is spent too much on the wrong things in life.
Shalom
Hello TOM ROSS,
this was well-said: "It is my view that we need another reformation now to correct the accepted tradition of errors in our understanding of God and His Grace towards us and in His renewing of our minds to become renewed/refreshed into being a reflection of His personhood within our lives by cloaking ourselves with Him."
I had thought that it was the 'interpretations' of translations of sacred Scripture that were so often confusing for people, but I had not considered that the translations themselves were in error, although I have seen the various translations reported for a text in 'biblehub' which is a bit startling at times, the translations seem 'slanted' towards a certain interpretation to give it gravitas. (my opinion only)
There is an expression in my Church that I like a lot to do with the oral reading aloud of the Holy Gospels at mass, this:
"uninterpreted stories of Jesus"
so the Gospel is read from aloud, and at the end of the reading the congregation hears only: 'This is the Word of the Lord' to which they respond "Amen"
I expect that in this way, the goal is to give emphasis on the four Holy Gospels of sacred Scripture in the sense that they are emphasized primarily as a witness to a person, Jesus of Nazareth, the Son of God, and the Word made flesh. So the Bible used in this way, continues the oral tradition of 'Proclamation' . . . Christ is proclaimed orally, unfiltered, in the Word that was passed down from the Apostles themselves.
I am interested in your concern that 'translations' are in error, and may be part of the reason why Christian people struggle so much with understanding one another in the light of God's Word. I do know that there is a great history of how the Church tried to pass down the written Word so that future Christian people would have access to it, as it had been received from the Apostolic Church, in this way:
if you trace the history of sacred Scripture in Britain from the King James Bible back into previous centuries, you will come to Tyndale, Wyclif, and before them, Alcuin.
And before Alcuin, to Ceolfrith and to the ‘Lindisfarne Gospels’ which were copied and illuminated beautifully (in the tradition of the Book of Kells) in the ‘scriptorium’ room at Lindisfarne Abbey (founded by Aiden).
You see, the tradition of the ‘scriptoriums’ (rooms where Scripture was copied by hand) goes back even further to the time of the Septuagint scholars who were set to work on the island in the harbor of Alexandria and produced a Greek translation of the Old Testament, through Saint Jerome and his Vulgate tradition, through Cassiodorus and his reworking of Jerome’s Vulgate of the old Latin texts.
The Lindisfarne Gospels represent the ancient tradition of ‘recieving what was handed down and preserving it to pass on intact’,
and in the scriptorium on Lindisfarne, the hand-written sacred texts were copied with great care according to that tradition.
The printing-press would not be invented for another eight centuries into the future, so these monastic scriptoriums were an important connection for the sacred writings to be preserved and passed on.
It’s good to know something of the history of how sacred Scripture ended up in our hands . . . there was a long line of people who cared greatly that this should happen, and they too were members of the Body of Christ and a part of the heritage of all Christian people.
I appreciated your comment, Tom. It added some concerns I had not considered fully.
Hello Christiane,
There are errors in our understanding of God and His timeline for this world where we cannot get our minds around the time being presented within a prophecy.
A classic example is that Abraham was promised the earth that God would show him, not land as it is presented in our translations. The same Hebrew word used for "the earth" in Gen 1:1 is also found in Gen 12:1, 15:7. In Gen 15 Abraham asks God, "How will I know that I will receive the earth?" God responses with a solemn covenant where He promises to provide a sign to Israel by giving some land as described in that chapter so that they will know that they will receive the whole earth in the future when the earth is renewed when they remember that the solemn covenant God entered into with Abraham had actually been fulfilled.
In Ezekiel 34:11-16, it is assumed that God is saying that He will gather all of Israel back to the Land of Canaan, but the reality is that God promised that He would plant Israel in {good} soil and teach them about the Mountains, i.e. the religion of Israel, where they are living still scattered throughout all the earth. God's future promise is that He would gather them to Himself where they are living scattered throughout the earth so that they can fulfil the Kingdom of Priest, a Holy Nation and God Possession among the nations Covenant, which they will enter into in our near future when the full-time span of the Heathen Gentile Trampling the Sanctuary has been completed.
Looking at these scriptures with refreshed eyes certainly brings a very different picture of who God is and His Promises. What we need to do is to come to understand how we, the church, will be fitted into God's purposes for the Great Harvest.
This will be revealed soon when God establish His everlasting Kingdom here on the Earth during the time of the Kings of the fifth segment.
I have provided the above two examples of where our understanding is suspect. However, with respect to the first example, I was informed by the reverent of the church that I should consider the context of the promise being given and that was that God was only promising land to Abraham. His concerned was that my interpretation was bringing doubt on the reliability of the English translations for the other church members and he did not want that.
The way the translations of the source texts is presented should not be questioned as it may sow doubt in the other church members.
In the Parable of the Judgement of the nations in Matt 25:31-46, the righteous Saints receive, according to Jesus the Kingdom/Realm prepared for them from the foundation of the world. Since there were no people on the earth until Adam was created, the only realm was the whole earth that existed at that time that the saints were to receive. The realm at that time consisted of both land and oceans. In this parable, Jesus’ reference was not just to land, but to the whole earth, just as Daniel 7:27 also tells us.
Here in lies my dilemma? The Genesis 12:1 translation was done from a short-term perspective, i.e. Abraham’s journey down to the Land of Canaan, whereas God’s covenant promise was to all of Abraham’s seed and it was a renewed earth made righteous through the fulfilment of covenantal promises to Abraham where the righteous saint would inherit the whole earth.
The reverend pastor, of the church I attend, has, I believe, a very different understanding of God’s intent in His Promises to Abraham than what is recorded in the Hebrew source texts. In other words, not all the biblical promises have yet been fulfilled or completed.
Shalom
Hello Tom Ross,
I hope what follows may be something that helps your situation, but I come from a very different faith tradition, so I may have misunderstood your 'dilemma', but in any case, I looked up that verse and found something that might offer help (I hope). If it doesn't help, well then, no harm done.
I have difficulty understanding interpretations of sacred Scripture that coalesce around traditions other than my own, so what I have to offer may not be what you can relate to; but here it is, this:
"* [12:1–3] Go forth…find blessing in you: the syntax of the Hebrew suggests that the blessings promised to Abraham are contingent on his going to Canaan.
* [12:2] The call of Abraham begins a new history of blessing (18:18; 22:15–18), which is passed on in each instance to the chosen successor (26:2–4; 28:14). This call evokes the last story in the primeval history (11:1–9) by reversing its themes: Abraham goes forth rather than settle down; it is God rather than Abraham who will make a name for him; the families of the earth will find blessing in him.
* [12:3] Will find blessing in you: the Hebrew conjugation of the verb here and in 18:18 and 28:14 can be either reflexive (“shall bless themselves by you” = people will invoke Abraham as an example of someone blessed by God) or passive (“by you all the families of earth will be blessed” = the religious privileges of Abraham and his descendants ultimately will be extended to the nations). In 22:18 and 26:4, another conjugation of the same verb is used in a similar context that is undoubtedly reflexive (“bless themselves”). Many scholars suggest that the two passages in which the sense is clear should determine the interpretation of the three ambiguous passages: the privileged blessing enjoyed by Abraham and his descendants will awaken in all peoples the desire to enjoy those same blessings. Since the term is understood in a passive sense in the New Testament (Acts 3:25; Gal 3:8), it is rendered here by a neutral expression that admits of both meanings."
As to theologies of prophecies and 'end times', I am unable to understand much, so I may be of little help.
God Bless.
Hello Christiane
You are giving the same understanding of Gen 12:1 AS MY REVERAND FRIEND.
If you consider the covenant promises, it was pertinent to a distant future time, not the short time period that it would take Abraham to move with his large household down to the land of Canaan.
But this is not the place to discuss this narrow issue, but it does highlight the need for reformation in our understanding of God's intended purposed for us all.
Wade in is practices within his church is inclusive of all people, whether white or black, male or female, and that is because he has come to that understanding from the scriptures with respect to women in leadership roles.
The Abrahamic Covenant is inclusive of all people to bring them into a lasting relationship with God. The Promises are not just to Abraham direct descendants, the promises are for all people.
Wade and I probably do not agree on our respective understandings of the End Times but that should not divide us in our love for Christ.
Having women in leadership is an issue that should not divide us in our love for Christ.
Having people in leadership from different heritage backgrounds is an issue that should not divide us in our love for Christ.
However, having our understanding of God and His Promises based on our past traditions and understanding of God's word and not on what the scriptures actually state will drive us away from God because our focuses will not be fully on God and His Promises, but it will be on something else which is not worthy of those who claim to be in a loving relationship with God.
Unless we are prepared to renew our mind, Ep 4:17-32, and to put on our renewed personhood that God intended for all of mankind to be since the beginning of time, then we will not become God's Holy People and the Apple of His eye.
Now that does not mean that we have to get every single thing right in our understanding of and relationship with God to receive salvation, but as long as we remain mouldable and pliable then God will continue to draw us into His Loving Embrace and will call us His Children of Promise as He changes us from the inside out.
God's promise to Abraham was that He will lead Abraham and his descendants whether natural or through adoption to a place in time after the GWTJ when the saints will inherit a renewed earth where righteous abounds for all time and God will dwell amongst the Saints.
Shalom
Hello Tom Ross,
I'm missing something. Is what your talking about more to do with what transcends time and space rather than a linear time line in thinking about the things of God?
I suspect that might be true, but I can't quite get the big picture of what you are presenting. I'm trying. :)
CHRISTIANE,
Your said, “I can’t quite get the big picture of what you are presenting.”
Maybe, (Titus 3:9 NLT) is the answer: “Do not get involved in foolish discussions about spiritual pedigrees or spiritual genealogies…These things are useless and a waste of time.”
Thanks REX RAY,
I really do want to TRY to comprehend what Tom's concern is, but I am not familiar with all of the 'end times' theology out there, so I am limited in that way, I know. 'End times' is not something in my Christian DNA, so much as is 'trusting' in the mercy of Our Lord that He will find ways to care for all of His wounded humankind . . .
". . . they were unschooled, ordinary men . . . . they had been with Jesus . . . . the crippled man healed standing with them "
(excerpts from Acts 4:13-14)
REX RAY,
I still wish I understood Tom's concern, even though I am struggling to do it; but maybe it must be enough that I cared to try to help him in the only way I knew . . . maybe in time, in the Good Lord's time, we will all understand better, like the way the crippled man in Acts 4 'understood' because HE WAS HEALED . . .
I had this thought:
being concerned about another's trouble is never a waste of time . . . even though we may not be wise enough or strong enough to understand everything, we can still stand with those who are troubled . . . our hopes are not anchored in 'our own understanding', no . . . hope works another way in the Body of Christ
Guess the answer for all online Christian commentators is to sht up and default their views to the passive-aggressive family stories and biblical cherry picking of two friends who HAVE ARRIVED at either perfection or the art of filibustering?
"Everything’s wrong,
Days are too long,
Sunshine’s too hot,
Wind is too strong.
Clouds are too fluffy,
Grass is too green,
Ground is too dusty,
Sheets are too clean.
Stars are too twinkly,
Moon is too high,
Water’s too drippy,
Sand is too dry.
Rocks are too heavy,
Feathers too light,
Kids are too noisy,
Shoes are too tight.
Folks are too happy,
Singin’ their songs.
Why can’t they see it?
Everything’s wrong!"
CHORUS:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XrFViBSYPtQ
Hello Christiane
You are right in considering Acts 4:13-22: -
Acts 4:13-22: - Now when they saw the boldness of Peter and John, and perceived that they were uneducated and untrained men, they marveled. And they realized that they had been with Jesus. And seeing the man who had been healed standing with them, they could say nothing against it. But when they had commanded them to go aside out of the council, they conferred among themselves, saying, "What shall we do to these men? For, indeed, that a notable miracle has been done through them is evident to all who dwell in Jerusalem, and we cannot deny it. But so that it spreads no further among the people, let us severely threaten them, that from now on they speak to no man in this name."
So, they called them and commanded them not to speak at all nor teach in the name of Jesus. But Peter and John answered and said to them, "Whether it is right in the sight of God to listen to you more than to God, you judge. For we cannot but speak the things which we have seen and heard." So, when they had further threatened them, they let them go, finding no way of punishing them, because of the people, since they all glorified God for what had been done. For the man was over forty years old on whom this miracle of healing had been performed.
The council wanted to protect their traditions and did not want any reformation of the people’s understanding of God to occur.
Just like the council did, the protectors of the religious traditions today also want to squash any new understanding of God that would call into question the “acceptable” traditions of men.
A reformation is needed of our understanding of God, but unless our source documents, i.e. our English Translations etc., are rewritten to reflect the original context of the source texts from which they have been translated, then the necessary changes to be more in tune with God and His purposes for our lives will be difficult to implement or achieve.
A classical NT example of this adopted tradition is, “Who is the lead character in the Parables of the Minas and the Talents?” Is it Jesus? Or is it all about Satan and his servants during the 1,000 years that Satan is locked up in the Bottomless pit and what follows when he is released? The parables themselves provide the clues and the clues only point to Satan as being the lead character in the two parables.
Sadly, these parables have been used by Preachers to cajole their seat warmers into action to forcibly bringing in the kingdom of God without taking account of Jesus’ words that to help bring in the Kingdom of God, only requires us to, “Believe in Him, Whom He has sent.”
But in complying with Christ’s words, to “Believe in Him, Whom He has sent.”, also requires actions on our part that truly does demonstrate that we do believe in Him, whom He has sent.
From reading your previous posts, I understand that you do demonstrate your belief in Him with the acts of kindness that you dispense to others around you with who you rub shoulders with daily.
Shalom
Rex
Yes, we should not fight to protect our traditions of Christian Doctrines which are not contextually the same as the originally recorded Word of God, but since tradition has modified the word of God to fit the ability of our minds to comprehend, within our terms, the span of God’s purposes and acceptable timelines.
Was the Abrahamic Covenant a short-term solution or was the purpose of the Abrahamic covenant intended to provide a means of reconciliation with God over a much longer time period that extended up and until the GWTJ at the end of our labelled Millennium Age.
Was God’s purposes for Israel to be established within a land or within a right understanding of who God is and coming into a right relationship with Him?
It is my view that God wants Israel and us gentiles to come into a right relationship with Him and in doing so we will see the earth that God wants us to inherit and live in.
To be able to come to this point we need a reformation of our theological constructs such that they contextually stand in agreement with God’s Word. I have read that there are people attempting to construct a word for word translation of the source language texts on which our English translations have been generated. However, the embedded meaning of the source text words, often do not simply translate into a single English word but rather may need that source text word to be expressed with many words so that the context of the passage is not lost.
We often see the English word “forever” in our English translation, but the meaning of the source text word is understood to represent a point in the distance future such that it is on the observable horizon of time which is beyond our ability, time wise, to comprehend. In other words, the source text word has a finite context surround it in that there is usually a long-time span, i.e. often of thousands of years, associated within the context of the sentence of the source text. However, when we use the word “forever” it has an infinite time-span and so the words used to suggest what the time-span is, are also infinite in their expression.
Everybody’s understanding of the word of God can be improved upon, but where our traditions block our movement towards a better understanding of God and His desires for us all, then it is time for us all to be prepared to change our understanding of who God is and what our relationship with Him should be.
This is not arguing or discussing the Law as you have suggested with your biblical quote, but it does highlight the need for a reformation of our understanding of God and our relationship with Him.
That in effect is what I am saying.
In the context of Wade’s blog, a reformation is needed in our understanding and the Book he has read is one way in which the change required is being expressed. Because of that, Wade is recommending others to read the book in the hope that change will come about in their understanding. Whether or not those that need to change will read the book is another question.
Shalom
Tom Ross,
In another month, Jesus came into my heart 77 years ago. That doesn’t mean I know any more than you just as you don’t know any more than me.
I think Paul said it best: “…we can see and understand only a little about God now, as if we were peering at his reflection in a poor mirror; but someday we are going to see him in his completeness, face to face. Now all that I know is hazy and blurred, but then I will see everything clearly…” (1 Corinthians 13:12 Living)
If we’re not careful this Scripture may apply to us: “…I hear there are divisions among you…But, of course, there must be divisions among you so that you who have God’s approval will be recognized.” (1 Corinthians 11:18-19 NLT)
I believe if anyone knows and trust in a certain verse in the Bible they will be in Heaven. That verse is John 3:16.
Post a Comment