Women In Ministry Part 2

Part 1
Part 3

Im now at Bible College, and am being taught by some excellent and accomplished lecturers. My New Testament lecturer Peter Ensor is a published author  and an expert in New Testament Greek. I have had several conversations with him discussing the scripture in 1 Tim 2 concerning women in ministry, and have found as a result lots of further insight and study on this passage, which for discussion's sake I will go into below.

He recommended as the most accurate and best translation for study, the NRSV (New Revised Standard Version), which from now on I will be using for quotations.

1 Tim 2:12-14
I permit no woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she is to keep silent.
For Adam was formed first, then Eve;
and Adam was not deceived, but the woman was deceived and became a transgressor.

As I detailed in my previous blog on this passage, verse 13 was the one which made it very difficult for me to designate this teaching as only culturally appliccable to Paul's day an age. If it is not meant to be a universal teaching, then why does he reference the very order of creation as the motivation and reason for this command?

The NRSV (considered by scholars to be the most textually accurate) adds footnotes which state that it is ambiguous whether 'woman' and 'man' mean simply woman and man, or wife and husband. Reading the text in this way makes more sense, especially when taking into account the reference to Adam and Eve -

I permit no wife to teach or to have authority over her husband, she is to remain silent, for Adam was formed first, then Eve

Im sure you will notice that this makes much more sense. However there is no definite evidence from the original greek itself as to which meaning is the accurate one, whether woman and man or wife and husband.

Another school of thought focusses specifically on the phrase 'to teach or to have authority', and argues that this could be more accurately translated 'dominate', which again makes alot of sense when read in context.



In addition to this, the Ephesians about whom Paul was writing were most likely strongly influenced by the worship of Artemis, a feminine divinity worshipped in Ephesus (remember the cry 'Artemis of the Ephesians!' chanted for 2 hours in Acts 19:28).

I permit no woman to dominate a man; she is to keep silent. 

In the book 'Discovering Biblical Equality', Linda Belleville writes 'In the cult of Artemis the female was exalted and considered superior to the male', and in chapter 12 'Teaching and Usurping Authority' she goes into great detail and study of that specific phrase, coming to the conclusion that a correct rendering is indeed 'dominate'.

Eugene Peterson also agrees with this rendering, as can be seen from The Message Bible's translation of this passage 'I don't let women take over and tell the men what to do. They should study to be quiet and obedient along with everyone else. Adam was made first, then Eve; woman was deceived first—our pioneer in sin!—with Adam right on her heels.'

But alas, The Message has the inconvenient reputation for being one of the most inaccurate translations out there, and fairly useless for serious academic study. The vast majority of translations do not translate 'teach or have authority over' as dominate, which indicates to me personally that the debate is by no means concluded by this reading of the text.

Next we can focus on the 'I permit', which could possibly be there to point out that it is Paul's personal belief, but not one that he can say is definitely God's will (in 1 Cor 7 Paul clearly makes a distinction between his own opinions and God's clear command). However, again the reference to Adam and Eve raises the question - what is it there for?

I permit no woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she is to keep silent. 

Maybe Paul is saying that according to his reading of the scriptures, he believes the creation story makes it clear that women should not occupy positions of teaching or authority, but we see in various places - Junia, Priscilla, and Phoebe, he greets women in ministry and acknowledges their positions. Perhaps he holds to his interpretation of Genesis lightly, acknowledging that there are other schools of thought out there, and while he himself does not ordain women, perhaps he nevertheless does not discount those women in ministry who have been ordained by others.
We can see Junia mentioned only once, and as paul states that she was in Christ before he was, it seems entirely possible that she was not ordained by him. However, the debate continues as to whether Junia is actually Junias (the male equivalent - as rendered by the NIV, NASB, The Message, Amplified Bible, and CEV), or Junia (the female version as rendered by the NRSV, NLT, KJV, ESV, NKJV, NCV). The NRSV adds the footnote that it could also be Junias, or even Julia. The clear division of almost 50/50 of these highly respected and widely used translations simply leaves me with the feeling that we will never know for sure whether Junia or Junias is the correct version, and certainly that it is irresponsible to base any serious gender doctrine on a name which is not clearly male or female!!


Acts 18 tells the story of the time when Paul met Priscilla and Aquila, and there is no clear evidence of Paul's involvement in comissioning them for ministry. Acts 18:26 shows them explaining the gospel in greater depth to Apollos, Romans 16:3 describes them as fellow-workers in Christ, 1 Corinthians 16:19 says that they allow a church to meet in their house. However, I find it to be again something of a stretch to claim that from these verses either Priscilla or Aquila were anything more than generous and committed members of the faith, not pastors, apostles, or anything else.

Phoebe is mentioned only once, in Romans 16:1, which in the NIV reads
 'I commend to you our sister Phoebe, a servant of the church in Cenchrea.'

The NRSV translates this with a very different slant
'I commend to you our sister Phoebe, a deacon of the church at Cenchreae'
and it also adds a footnote offering 'minister' as an alternative to 'deacon'. This translation is held by the NRSV, Amplified, NLT, CEV ('leader'),
However the 'servant' translation is held by the NIV, NASB, KJV, ESV, NKJV, and NCV ('helper')
The Message describes her as a 'key representative' of the church at Cenchrea.
The interesting thing about Phoebe is that all of the different translations could mean leader, however not all of them could mean helper, making me lean towards accepting that Phoebe was definitely a deacon in the church, who is clearly approved of by Paul, as can be seen by reading Rom 16:1-2 in any translation. However, as the previous two women mentioned, there is no mention at all of comissioning or ordination by Paul.

So it is entirely possible, to my mind at least, that Paul accepted women in leadership, but did not ordain them personally, which would require a reading of 1 tim 2:12 with the emphasis on the word 'I' as opposed to 'God'.

The New Testament Women, and one from the Old Testament

From the 3 examples of Junia, Priscilla and Phoebe, personally the only one I would feel confident in saying was a likely actual leader in the church would be Phoebe, the other two are just too abiguously mentioned, and my conscience doesn't really allow me to use Junia or Priscilla as evidence and motivation for doctrine. Phoebe however, seems to be potentially the one valid case of a woman in Paul-approved leadership in the early church, as mentioned in the New Testament. But it only takes one to make a valid case.

So there are more questions to take into account at this point. Paul seemingly clearly approved of Phoebe, yet wrote 1 Tim 2:12, both of which are God-breathed scripture which as Christians we believe. Perhaps he was speaking specifically about the posts of Elder and upwards being restricted to men only.

Tension

There is a tension between Romans 16:1-2 and 1 Tim 2:12-14. Where is the middle ground where we find Paul's true meaning? Could it be that a woman could be a deacon, yet not be involved in teaching and having authority over men? Interestingly, a possible answer shows itself a few verses later, in 1 Timothy 3. Verses 1-7 detail the qualifications needed for bishops (NRSV) or overseers (NIV), and 3:2 says he must be an apt teacher (NRSV), able to teach (NIV). Verses 8-13 detail the qualifications needed for deacons, and teaching is not mentioned, so perhaps it is possible to be a deacon, yet not to be a teacher.
Verse 11 continues the qualifications for deacons with 'Women likewise must be...'. The NRSV adds in a footnote alternative translations of the word 'women' as 'Their wives' or 'Women deacons'. So this seems a likely possibility. There is no other reference to what deacons do in the New Testament, therefore this is our only biblical source as to their role. The Oxford English Dictionary defines 'deacon' as - 'historical (in the early church) a minister appointed to administer charity'. When we read Acts 6:1-7 we see the scripture which is traditionally viewed as the origins of the ordination of deacons, even though the word deacon is not used, as from these verses we can see that the purpose of the deacon's ministry was indeed to administer charity, not to teach or to be in an authoritative position.

In his commentary on the whole bible, John Wesley discusses these verses, and simply states that women are prohibited from public teaching.

Matthew 19 reads  
"Some Pharisees came to him, and to test him they asked, "Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for any cause?" He answered, "Have you not read that the one who made them at the beginning "made them male and female,' and said, "For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh'? So they are no longer two, but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let no one separate."

Here we see Christ referencing the creation story as the basis and reason for his teaching against divorce for any reason, and the vast overwhelming majority of Christians from all major denominations accept this teaching as universal, and not a limited cultural reference. Why then do we not apply the same, entirely valid interpretation to 1 Tim 2:12-14 when Paul references the creation story as his basis and reason for teaching against women in teaching or authoritative positions in the church?

Lets be brutally honest, its because 'Women should have all the same opportunities as men" is a hugely loaded political issue which evokes very intense emotions and passionate arguments. After studying this so much, and for at least 8 years now, I have to draw a conclusion, and any further pansying about the issue is just me pandering to political correctness.

My conculsion on 1 Tim 2:12-14 is that this verse is absolutely NOT limited to the time and place of it's writing. Verses 13 and 14 make it abundantly clear that this is a universal principle, appliccable to the Christian church throughout all time, just as Christ's teaching on divorce is universally appliccable.
For me, the discussion now must centre in on where the true emphasis lies in verse 12. Does it mean Husbands and Wives? Does it mean women should not dominate men? Does it mean women are prohibited from all positions of authority, or anything above Deacon?

The (politically incorrect, controversial) truth is that those verses mean something. For our consciences sakes, and to seek God's blessing on us as individuals and as the church we must seek to find out the true meaning of these verses, simply because they do mean something, and whatever it is, it applies to us, now.

More thoughts to follow...

I remember...

I remember

being four years old, standing in the doorway between the dining room and the kitchen in Richmond, with the dark blue square-floral wallpaper, pleading with my mum that it would be my birthday again soon, and asking in mournful desperation 'WHEN will it be my birthday again?'
That feeling that time would just never move on that you lose when you become an adult. I dont miss it.

I remember

going out into the back garden as a kid in the freezing cold morning, and swinging on the dark-green-painted metal swing for so long that I couldnt move my fingers out of the grip position when I wanted to go in. I remember the stiffness of my freezing fingers and how it felt like they would snap if I tried to open my hands.

I remember

intentionally provoking my brother. He had set our pet guinea pigs up in a small pen out on the patio, and had ordered me in no uncertain terms to not let them out. While secretly recording him on a small portable tape dictaphone behind my back I told him I had let them out, and then replayed his explosion of rage at full volume on the family stereo, laughing my head off. I then messed around with a couple of tape recorders to make the screaming repeat over and over. I think it went something like 'i-told-you-not-To-Let-THEM-OUT-THE-PEN!!!!' repeated 10 times.  He was not nearly so amused as me.

I remember

being 13 years old, completely crushed with infatuation on a Christmas day that I didn't enjoy at all. I remember looking back and wondering what happened, and when Christmas Day stopped being the pure thrill it was when I was younger. I remember being in my bedroom, having seen the girl I was utterly in love with that day, knowing that she didn't know I liked her, and that I would probably never be with her. I remember the emotional anguish in my chest, and a few words of the secret poem I wrote that day, and threw away some years later - 'Am I supposed to be happy?' was the opening line, and 'All I can think of is you' was the close

God in the rain

It's raining hard
The sky is grey
Lights are in windows
and the puddles flicker and flow
with a hundred perfect circles
Deep red leaves are flying from the woods
Wind rushes through with a crashing hiss
I stand beneath the stone arch
Underneath the lantern light
Warm and calm
Mesmerised peace
Because somehow I can always find
God in the rain

The Approach Of Christmas

Wood panelled Methodist rooms
The sky is getting darker
There is a bite and a chill in the air
Sparkling sweet wrappers in rich colours
The strange cosiness that dazed tiredness brings
Planning and playing in services
Rooms with red carpets, red chairs, red drapes
Overcast grey clouds outside
Ticking warm radiators inside
We snuggle up on the sofa with a duvet
With low lights and a movie
And absorb the unspoken joy
Of the approach of Christmas

Day 1

Day one is done, and all in all it was good. The college in incredible. It is small, there are less than 50 full-time students on the undergraduate and postgraduate courses combined. The first meeting was today at 630, where we worshipped for a short while, then all introduced ourselves. It was really nice to be able to introduce myself as married, because the colliding atmosphere of testosterone and estrogen at the first meeting combining was palpable. I remember attending Christian events in the past in England where there were lots of singles present, and it felt like a meat market back then too. The Christian singles meat market is so much more intense in the UK than the USA, because there aren't as many Christians here by a long shot, so the choice is considerably less and the chances of getting a good-looker into the bargain are even lower!
I've hardly been here a day and the desperation for a significant other looks like it is constantly bubbling barely below the surface for quite a few of the un-attached here. Maybe it's not, maybe I'm just being horrible. That is certainly possible.

The tutors Ive met are great though, and everyone is very approachable. The college is set in unbelievably idyllic surroundings, in the derbyshire peak district. The whole campus is built on a steep hillside looking out over tree filled valleys and hills, and it seems to rain at least once every day, sometimes all day (which is perfect for me). The college itself feels wonderfully old, with carved wooden staircases, a wood-panelled common room decorated in rich red with comfy chairs, a pool table, a piano and 15 foot tall windows looking out onto the college rose gardens and grounds. Our flat is amazing, set on the 2nd floor (3rd floor to all you americans), and with those same 15 foot high windows, me and Sydney both agree it is far and away the best place either of us have ever lived in.

Over the course of getting my degree and living here I intend to blog and document my thoughts here,

My biggest concern is becoming very isolated in this rural setting, and losing sight and focus of Christianity and Theology in the real world. However I am very excited about becoming a pastor and having a church. Woop!

Women In Ministry (Peer Pressure, Political Correctness, and The Bible)

Part 2
Part 3

As I approach the start of bible college I want to be able to look at scriptures and doctrines I have always accepted one way in a new light, with fresh eyes, and to always seek the true interpretation, no matter what Peer Pressure within the Christian world or Political Correctness in the culture at large may dictate.

The first scripture I want to raise questions about is that old favourite, 1 Timothy 2.
¹¹A woman should learn in quietness and full submission. ¹²I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she must be silent. ¹³For Adam was formed first, then Eve. ¹⁴And Adam was not the one deceived; it was the woman who was deceived and became a sinner. ¹⁵But women will be saved through childbearing—if they continue in faith, love and holiness with propriety.

Oh, it's a controversial one, which brings very strong feelings to the surface for many people.
I grew up around alot of female Christian leaders, who were good role models and good leaders, and without whom I would not have been able to lead worship. When it came to this section of 1 Timothy, I always said that this scripture had to be taken in context with the broader spectrum of scripture, where it is clear that Paul had women in positions of authority. However, I never took the time to really research where these references to women leaders were. I have recently done this research, and found the following.

There are 3 main female authority figures in the OT, and 3 in the NT.
OT ones are Deborah, Miriam and Huldah.
NT ones are Junias, Priscilla and Phoebe.

'The Old Testament ones involve some significant factors. First, Deborah was the only female judge among 13 male judges. Huldah was the only female prophet among dozens of male prophets mentioned in the Bible. Miriam's only connection to leadership was being the sister of Moses and Aaron.' [source - http://www.gotquestions.org/women-pastors.html]

I am not going to go into any depth in study of the OT women, because that was a different era with different standards. In the New Testament, we are in a new fulfulment of God's purpose and plan. The same God who commanded His people in the OT to not eat unclean foods, now declares all food clean. The same God who allowed King David to have a whole catalogue of wives, now states a man should have only one wife. Is it therefore too much of a stretch to think that whereas God allowed Deborah to lead Israel in the OT, now he has stated that men only should be in leadership positions? It is very very difficult to resist the feelings of anger or the projecting of sexism when it comes to this viewpoint, but we must must must be willing to place God's will higher than our own, and at least be willing to approach this scripture with the openness to say 'whatever God is actually saying here, I want to submit to.'

We must all resist the media-encouraged attitude which sub-consciously suggests it is ok to on some level despise a percieved sexist in a very similar way as you would a racist. Someone who is genuinely seeking after God's truth on this matter, and is willing to accept whatever seems the accurate translation should not be shot at by brothers and sisters, but rather encouraged to pursue, find and share God's accurate truth. We must make a conscious decision to accept and value those who interpret these scriptures in either direction, in the same way that we should value both those who for interpretational reasons are catholic rather than protestant. The ability to agree to disagree on a subject is essential to Christians co-existing peacefully and in the bigger picture of harmonious Christian community.

1 Timothy 2, as pasted above is a very explicit passage, which not only sets out some black-and-white, clearly stated guidelines, it also references the order of creation as its justification and reason. The question I have wrestled with so many times when it comes to this scripture is,
'if this does not apply to everyone, why is the order of creation referenced as its reasoning'? 

The verses that follow directly after the above, state that 'anyone who sets his heart on being an elder desires a noble task', an elder must 'be above reproach, the husband of but one wife, temperate, self-controlled, respectable, hospitable, able to teach, not given to drunkenness, not violent but gentle, not quarrelsome, not a lover of money.'
The vast majority of Christians accept these verses as they are written, in those simple straightforward terms, so why do we change the context of the verses which immediately precede them? I ask not because I think I have the definitive answer, but because I want to know the truth. 

The verses directly preceding the 'women-verses' in 1 tim 2 state that Paul desires that we should all 'lift up holy hands in prayer without anger or disputing'. Also that 'God our Savior wants all men to be saved and to come to a knowledge of the truth', and 'there is one God and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus, who gave himself as a ransom for all men'. We all accept these truths as timeless, and appliccable to all men, so why do we contextualise verses 9-15 to the point that they no longer apply, even though they directly and explicitly reference creation itself as their reason and anchor?

The New Testament women in ministry who Paul references elsewhere.
Phoebe is referenced only once, in Romans 16
I commend to you our sister Phoebe, a servant of the church in Cenchrea.

To me it seems a huge stretch to suggest that this verse indicates that Phoebe was an authority figure or teacher in her church.

Priscilla is always referenced alongside her husband Aquila, both of whom were tentmakers in Corinth [acts18:3] who travelled with him to Ephesus [acts 18:18].
There is an example of a time when they invited him to their home and shared scripture with him, telling him more about the Christian Way

Acts 18:26 - He began to speak boldly in the synagogue. When Priscilla and Aquila heard him, they invited him to their home and explained to him the way of God more adequately.

This does show a woman teaching, but not with the position of teacher. It is simply normal sharing, which clearly is not prohibited by 1 tim 2 because that would mean that women could never pass on any information to a man in normal conversation or day to day life!!!

Romans 6 ²I ask you to receive her in the Lord in a way worthy of the saints and to give her any help she may need from you, for she has been a great help to many people, including me. ³Greet Priscilla^[a] and Aquila, my fellow workers in Christ Jesus. ⁴They risked their lives for me. Not only I but all the churches of the Gentiles are grateful to them.

This passage clearly shows Priscilla as a saint, a helper, and a fellow worker in Christ, but nothing sufficiently obvious to offset the raw and blatant nature of 1 tim 2. It doesnt clearly show her as an authority figure, or a teacher.

1 Cor 16 ¹⁹The churches in the province of Asia send you greetings. Aquila and Priscilla greet you warmly in the Lord, and so does the church that meets at their house.

This passage shows Priscilla again as a servant and also as a host - she and Aquila allow their church to meet in their house, but once again this scripture doesnt clearly show her as leader or teacher, or present anything adequately straightforward to offset 1 tim 2. The only other reference to Priscilla is a greeting from Paul at the end of 2 Timothy.

Junias remains the most controversial female mentioned in the New Testament when it comes to this debate. She is mentioned one time only, as follows

Romans 16:7 Greet Andronicus and Junias, my relatives who have been in prison with me. They are outstanding among the apostles, and they were in Christ before I was.

The big debate centres on 2 questions - is Junias male or female, and what does 'among' mean? Does it mean they are working with the apostles, or that they are apostles?
On this one, the truth for me is I just dont know, Junias could have been female, and they could both have been apostles, but I have to seek the most likely truth, and once again this reference is not sufficient to offset the clear and explicit terms of 1 tim 2.

It is worth discussing the word 'over' which Paul uses in the passage. By 'I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man', does he mean 'women should not have any authority in the church', or 'women should not have ultimate authority in a church - they can occupy positions of authority as long as they themselves are under a man'. Based on my mostly positive experience with women in ministry, I am strongly inclined toward the latter interpretation.

Paul also uses the word 'I' as in 'I do not permit a woman...' as opposed to 'God does not permit a woman...', but also directly before the women section in verse 7 he says 'And for this purpose I was appointed a herald and an apostle—I am telling the truth, I am not lying—and a teacher of the true faith to the Gentiles', thus establishing that he does actually have the authority to say those things.

Paul refers to the order of creation and the fall of man. Here is an except from the passage in Genesis 3.
¹⁶ To the woman he said,
       "I will greatly increase your pains in childbearing;
       with pain you will give birth to children.
       Your desire will be for your husband,
       and he will rule over you."
 ¹⁷ To Adam he said, "Because you listened to your wife and ate from the tree about which I commanded you, 'You must not eat of it,'
       "Cursed is the ground because of you;
       through painful toil you will eat of it
       all the days of your life.

Perhaps it is the curse of Eve that Paul has in mind specifically here - 'your desire will be for your husband but he will lord it over you'. I have heard people argue against this school of thought, by saying that Christ abolished the curses of Adam and Eve when He went to the cross, but that doesnt entirely ring true, because men still have to do painful toil, unfulfilling work just to survive, and women still experience excruciating pain in childbirth. All in all, Eve really really screwed over women, and Adam did the same to men.

After research I have found myself in the 'Complimentarian' camp (a ridiculously long name for a literal interpretation of 1tim2). Everyone who is a seriously committed Christian expects a certain amount of unpopularity from those outside the church for their earnest beliefs, however receiving hostility from brothers and sisters for a belief you hold with good reason is a bitter pill indeed. I would love to be proved otherwise in my belief, I have been blessed more times than I can count by women in Christian leadership, but I have to make the scriptures my ultimate and final authority, and having researched to the best of my ability on this matter I have to come to the conclusion that any claim that there are contradictorary scriptures in reference to 1tim2 is tenuous at best, and I have to accept what seems apparent from the surface text as straightforward (although very unpopular) doctrine. I accept the text to mean what it says, and in relation to the question of 'over', I believe that women can lead and teach, just so long as they are accountable to a male authority figure.

I would value any comments you have, or further information which I have left out on this subject [unless you decide to vomit hate onto my blog anonymously. I have a special button set aside for all such posts :) ]

Sudden Change of Uni Plans... and why

This coming Friday, a bloke will come to our house and take our washer machine, fridge and freezer for some sweet moolah. Saturday we will move half of our things from our house to my parent's place in Richmond. Sunday, me and the other half of our stuff will relocate 90 minutes south, to Cliff College, with wifey and Joelly to follow soon after.

When I was 17, I committed my life to Christ properly, and I count myself as genuinely having my own personal faith from that point (previously it was much more under the shelter of my parent's faith, not having wrestled the issues through myself). One of the first things I felt when I became a Christian was that God told me I was going to be a pastor one day. I laid out a fleece (as in the story of Gideon - judges 6 I think) to confirm whether this was true or not, and the answer came back as yes. Now I personally don't put much stock in laying out a fleece to hear from God any more, it's too much like testing God, treating Him like a slot machine, and is kinda presumptuous. However, in that absolute infancy of faith, perhaps God honoured what was a genuine attempt to hear from Him on a matter concerning my calling and destiny.

This took place at Grapevine, a week long Christian festival in Lincolnshire, and I talked to a South African pastor there, Francois Van Niekirk about my experience, the fleece and all that. He seemed very enthusiastic that this was God, and prayed for me in this calling.

Ever since then I have thought back to this time every now and again, wondering if I really did hear God then. When I started working for Greggton UMC in Longview TX I felt I had found my denominational church home in United Methodism. I began giving some thought to getting ordained, but nothing came of it. After 3 years at Greggton I moved to another United Methodist Church, Grace Crossing, and once again began pondering becoming a pastor, and getting ordained. My then pastor, John, seemed surprised when I told him I had decided not to pursue ordination, but at that time I remember praying a 'big hairy prayer', which went something along the lines of 'God if you want me to be a pastor, please cut off every other way forward, and let only that door open.'

This month I was due to start my BA hons course at Teesside University in musical composition with a view to becoming a lecturer. However, the way forward has been very very awkard and difficult. Student Finance England have been profoundly useless, and even though I applied for the Student Loans in April of this year, they still had no answer for me 3 weeks before the start date.
It reached the point where it had become too late, and we would not have been able to have made enough money to get by if I continued with my intention to go there, due to SFA's never ending piles of bureaucracy. I called them and canceled my loan application, and emailed Teesside Uni to cancel my place on the course. After a few days of 'what now', and talking our next steps through with Sydney, the thought of pastoring crept back in, and we began discussing it, remembering the big hairy prayer. We decided that, as this was the 5th failed attempt to get a music degree, perhaps this door was being closed by God, and maybe we should at least try pushing the theology/ordination door to see if it opens.

I don't believe in hearing the voice of God in my head or audibly, and I don't really put much stock into 'prophetic words', having received so many bogus ones in the past. I believe God guides us through circumstance, and kinda view the difficulty in getting everything in place for Teesside uni as Him doing that. I felt that if I pushed this door and everything immediately fell into place like it hadn't for music, then that would be enough for me to accept it as God's way forwards.

I googled bible colleges, and looked for the nearest one. It was just outside of Sheffield, in Derbyshire, and historically Methodist (although now it is focused on the wider base of the Evangelical Alliance), Cliff College. I made a phone call to inquire, and less than 24 hours later I had a place on the course,  accommodation sorted, and the support of my wife, family, pastor and friends. Craziness.

I am very excited to walk down this path and to see where me Syd and Joel end up...
I have now and in the past always thought it is a shame that there is no vibrant seeker-friendly contemporary church in Catterick Garrison, but who knows, that may or may not be something in my future, its in Gods hands now apparently, and thats ok with me :)