Should Women be Allowed to Pastor Churches?

Paidiske said:

I could type out the exhortation from the ordination service, which is as close to a "job description" as I get. I'm not sure that's going to further the conversation at all, though.

Click to expand...

I think understanding what a "pastor" is or does is crucial to both sides. How can I believe women should not be shepherds if I do not know what a shepherd even is? Or why should I defend women being shepherds if again I don't know what they are to do?

Since I've been ignored, given only synonyms, and told to look somewhere else, I suggest that the terms are meaningless. If the terms are not meaningless, I still think that the comments here reflect a lack of knowledge.

In other words, you can present all the evidence, verses, premises, etc. But if I don't understand the conclusion, how can I agree or disagree?

Paidiske said:

Well, yes. If you believe God dictated every word as it was written, you're left with two impalatable choices:

1) God is sexist, as reflected in the text.
2) Sexism doesn't really exist, and those who recognise it in the text are deluded.

Click to expand...

Or (3) the apparent sexism in the text isn't actually sexism, because God approves of it.

The big problem here is that your weltanschauung stands above both Scripture and Tradition and is used to evaluate both Scripture and Tradition. Where did that weltanschauung come from? What gives it such authority?

Paidiske said:

Either way, the outcome would be that women need to accept damaging and oppressive cultural structures as their God-given lot. I don't find that an acceptable hermeneutic, or one that reflects the truth of the God I know and worship (revealed to me through the bigger picture of Scripture).

Click to expand...

And for people who take a high view of Scriptural inspiration, and who consequently don't ordain women, there's a huge obligation to make sure that their approach is not "damaging to women."

Within Conservatism Protestantism, this is a big debate (and a few small groups could certainly do better regarding women than they do). But that's for them to sort out.

You will, of course, be aware of the long-standing discussion among conservative Anglicans in Sydney. I understand that their view is that women can be Archdeacons, but not priests. Their particular approach does seem to produce a growing number of female church workers.

Radagast said:

Or (3) the apparent sexism in the text isn't actually sexism, because God approves of it.

Click to expand...

That's pretty much a restatement of my option 2.

So if there's sexism in the text, either God put it there (God is sexist), or the human authors put it there (Paul is - subconsciously at least - sexist), or it's in the mind of the readers. Since I can see the sexism in the text, and I don't believe God is sexist, and I have some trust in the clarity of my own analysis (I have to, otherwise the whole exercise becomes pointless), I'm driven logically to the conclusion that the sexism in the text is an artefact from the human authors.

But while I believe Scripture to be inspired, and to contain all things necessary to salvation, I don't believe Scripture to be unaffected by the worldviews, biases, weaknesses and so on of the authors. These are not mutually exclusive things. So I can read the letter which says that women are saved "through" childbearing, roll my eyes at a worldview which defines women in terms of our fertility, and still believe that God is interested in women's salvation and welfare (without believing therefore that God requires us to be baby factories).

Radagast said:

The big problem here is that your weltanschauung stands above both Scripture and Tradition and is used to evaluate both Scripture and Tradition. Where did that weltanschauung come from? What gives it such authority?

Click to expand...

Not exactly true. My hermeneutical lens is one of human flourishing. Christ came that we may have life, and have it in abundance. Whatever detracts from the fullness of human life is, therefore, not from God; and that includes any interpretations and applications of Scripture which are used to demean, oppress, suppress, and so forth.

My commitment to women's equality grows out of my commitment to the gospel.

Radagast said:

And for people who take a high view of Scriptural inspiration, and who consequently don't ordain women, there's a huge obligation to make sure that their approach is not "damaging to women."

Within Conservatism Protestantism, this is a big debate (and a few small groups could certainly do better regarding women than they do). But that's for them to sort out.

Click to expand...

I've been around enough of those groups that I don't believe any of them have an approach that is not damaging to women. Some more so, and some less, but it's there in every single one I've encountered; because denying our vocations is intrinsically damaging.

And it's not just for them to sort out. My sisters who are still waiting look to those of us who are ordained to be beacons of hope. To be witnesses to the truth of God's attitude to women. I have a very strong sense of duty to stand up for them. For all our daughters. For the church of the future. To build something that is just even one step closer to the fullness of the reign of God, for all of us.

Radagast said:

You will, of course, be aware of the long-standing discussion among conservative Anglicans in Sydney. I understand that their view is that women can be Archdeacons, but not priests. Their particular approach does seem to produce a growing number of female church workers.

Click to expand...

Sydney Anglicans are weird in a number of ways. They won't ordain anyone who isn't a priest in charge to the priesthood. So where, in every other diocese, you might have a large parish with a number of priests, in Sydney it'll be one priest and a bunch of deacons. Which then leads to other irregularities like deacons presiding at the Eucharist, but I digress...

Of course their approach is "producing" female church workers. When we're denied our vocations we'll take what opportunities we're given. It's why Rome has so many nuns, for example.

But it doesn't make it right.

Paidiske said:

That's pretty much a restatement of my option 2.

So if there's sexism in the text, either God put it there (God is sexist), or the human authors put it there (Paul is - subconsciously at least - sexist), or it's in the mind of the readers. Since I can see the sexism in the text

Click to expand...

You miss my point. Your stance presupposes a view of "sexism" that stands above the text, and is used to judge the text.

That's a fairly standard feminist hermeneutic, I would think, but nobody who believes in Sola Scriptura is going to accept it.

Paidiske said:

So I can read the letter which says that women are saved "through" childbearing, roll my eyes at a worldview which defines women in terms of our fertility, and still believe that God is interested in women's salvation and welfare (without believing therefore that God requires us to be baby factories).

Click to expand...

That's an interesting example, because in Sola Scriptura communities there are many who interpret the Greek text as meaning either (i) she will be saved through THE BIRTH (i.e. the birth of Jesus) if she has faith in Him, or (ii) she will survive her own childbirth experience if she has faith in Jesus (cf Genesis 3:16).

The NIV/Zondervan commentary takes view (i), for example.

Paidiske said:

Not exactly true. My hermeneutical lens is one of human flourishing. Christ came that we may have life, and have it in abundance. Whatever detracts from the fullness of human life is, therefore, not from God

Click to expand...

I see that; but it's still a hermeneutical lens that stands above Scripture, and allows you to devalue certain verses.

Paidiske said:

I've been around enough of those groups that I don't believe any of them have an approach that is not damaging to women.

Click to expand...

Since no Christian group is 100% perfect, I'm not going to defend anyone's track record here.

Paidiske said:

Sydney Anglicans are weird in a number of ways.

Click to expand...

I frequently worship with Sydney Anglicans. I think they're still building their theology on-the-fly. It's kind of like watching the Reformation happen all over again.

Paidiske said:

They won't ordain anyone who isn't a priest in charge to the priesthood. So where, in every other diocese, you might have a large parish with a number of priests, in Sydney it'll be one priest and a bunch of deacons.

Click to expand...

That comes, presumably, from the common Reformed Scriptural view that, in the Greek text, there is no inherent difference between presbyteroi and episcopoi. Effectively, they don't really have "priests," only two flavours of bishop (plus deacons). That is, when the say "priest," you should interpret the word as meaning "bishop."

And the Episcopal system doesn't really allow for two bishops in one parish.

Paidiske said:

Of course their approach is "producing" female church workers.

Click to expand...

And I think it's fair to say that those female church workers are valued, and have plenty of important work to do. There are, after all, very good reasons for having a full-time women's-issues person in every parish.

Radagast said:

You miss my point. Your stance presupposes a view of "sexism" that stands above the text, and is used to judge the text.

Click to expand...

Well, if we don't have a definition of sexism, the question "Is X sexist?" becomes meaningless.

You might even decide that a text is sexist, but since it is God-breathed, clearly sexism is good, and thus embrace it; but if we're going to talk about the possibility of sexism we have to mean something by the term.

Radagast said:

That's an interesting example, because in Sola Scriptura communities there are many who interpret the Greek text as meaning either (i) she will be saved through the birth of Jesus if she has faith in Him, or (ii) she will survive her own childbirth experience if she has faith in Jesus (cf Genesis 3:16).

Click to expand...

Both being problematic. The second not least because, if she does die - or suffer significant damage - due to childbirth, it then calls into question the sufficiency of her faith. We tend to see shaming other sorts of medical issues as being evidence of "insufficient faith" as very poor pastoral practice, indeed abusive; I'd argue it's no less so if we adopt that reading of this text here.

For what it's worth, I think the author probably did mean something like "she will be kept safe during childbirth;" but I think it was a demonstrably shoddy thing to say. Which brings me back around to, I take on board the general principle of God's concern for our welfare (in childbirth as in everything else) but I refuse to see a bad childbirth as some sort of evidence of her spiritual or moral deficiency.

Radagast said:

That comes, presumably, from a Scriptural view that there is no inherent difference between presbyteroi and episcopoi.

Click to expand...

Not really, because they still have bishops functioning differently from priests. It's more a very weird (in Anglican terms) view of what priesthood is (being "in charge" of a parish).

Radagast said:

And I think it's fair to say that those female church workers are valued, and have plenty of important work to do. There are, after all, very good reasons for having a full-time women's-issues person in every parish.

Click to expand...

I can't tell you how much this makes me want to tear my hair out, scream and pound the keyboard! Yes, they're valued, yes they do fabulous work.

There is absolutely no good reason on God's green earth to relegate them to "women's issues!" As if they couldn't possibly have anything to contribute to any other setting. This is just so infuriating, belittling and demeaning. It's fine to be in ministry as long as you do the play group and the Sunday school and the women's Bible study, a bit of pastoral visiting and probably most of the office admin, as long as you leave the real and serious stuff to the men.

And let's be blunt; most parishes can't afford multiple staff. They certainly can't afford multiple full time staff. So what does this mean? It means those women scrabble around for relatively few, insecure, very part-time or casual jobs; that their ministry is confined to the wealthy parishes which can afford to pay for multiple staff. Meanwhile most parishes have one full-time person trying to be everything to everyone, and "women's issues" don't get much of a look in if all of those people are men!

Women's issues! The biggest women's issue in that diocese is their consistent and systematic refusal to treat women as fully the equal of our brothers.

Radagast said:

You miss my point. Your stance presupposes a view of "sexism" that stands above the text, and is used to judge the text.

Click to expand...

Well, if we don't have a definition of sexism, the question "Is X sexist?" becomes meaningless.

You might even decide that a text is sexist, but since it is God-breathed, clearly sexism is good, and thus embrace it; but if we're going to talk about the possibility of sexism we have to mean something by the term.

Radagast said:

That's an interesting example, because in Sola Scriptura communities there are many who interpret the Greek text as meaning either (i) she will be saved through the birth of Jesus if she has faith in Him, or (ii) she will survive her own childbirth experience if she has faith in Jesus (cf Genesis 3:16).

Click to expand...

Both being problematic. The second not least because, if she does die - or suffer significant damage - due to childbirth, it then calls into question the sufficiency of her faith. We tend to see shaming other sorts of medical issues as being evidence of "insufficient faith" as very poor pastoral practice, indeed abusive; I'd argue it's no less so if we adopt that reading of this text here.

For what it's worth, I think the author probably did mean something like "she will be kept safe during childbirth;" but I think it was a demonstrably shoddy thing to say. Which brings me back around to, I take on board the general principle of God's concern for our welfare (in childbirth as in everything else) but I refuse to see a bad childbirth as some sort of evidence of her spiritual or moral deficiency.

Radagast said:

That comes, presumably, from a Scriptural view that there is no inherent difference between presbyteroi and episcopoi.

Click to expand...

Not really, because they still have bishops functioning differently from priests. It's more a very weird (in Anglican terms) view of what priesthood is (being "in charge" of a parish).

Radagast said:

And I think it's fair to say that those female church workers are valued, and have plenty of important work to do. There are, after all, very good reasons for having a full-time women's-issues person in every parish.

Click to expand...

I can't tell you how much this makes me want to tear my hair out, scream and pound the keyboard! Yes, they're valued, yes they do fabulous work.

There is absolutely no good reason on God's green earth to relegate them to "women's issues!" As if they couldn't possibly have anything to contribute to any other setting. This is just so infuriating, belittling and demeaning. It's fine to be in ministry as long as you do the play group and the Sunday school and the women's Bible study, a bit of pastoral visiting and probably most of the office admin, as long as you leave the real and serious stuff to the men.

And let's be blunt; most parishes can't afford multiple staff. They certainly can't afford multiple full time staff. So what does this mean? It means those women scrabble around for relatively few, insecure, very part-time or casual jobs; that their ministry is confined to the wealthy parishes which can afford to pay for multiple staff. Meanwhile most parishes have one full-time person trying to be everything to everyone, and "women's issues" don't get much of a look in if all of those people are men!

Women's issues! The biggest women's issue in that diocese is their consistent and systematic refusal to treat women as fully the equal of our brothers.

ChristIsSovereign said:

My opinion is no, according to Scriptures. In any other position, I would think otherwise.

e.g. A woman can teach children and other women. A woman can be an assistant.

Click to expand...

There are female pastors and leaders in all walks of life. So I guess they can, (have the ability). So I assume your answer is in the context is it "lawful".
It doesn't offend me. I just can't imagine Jesus commanding a person to stop leading a church and preaching in His name for the sole cause of gender. I think Paul wouldn't tear down female leaders He happened to come upon in his travels his role was to build up and help not tear down.

All of Israel came to hear the word of the Lord through Deborah. And just as there is neither Jew and Gentile in the Lord their is neither male and female as all are ONE in Jesus. And the same Spirit is poured out on Gods Sons and Daughters.

Nevertheless I think Paul made the right judgment in His generation as causing riots among believers wouldn't be a ideal start of spreading the gospel message. The apostles came out of 1st century Judaism and the synagogue setting. I don't claim to have a full knowledge of that setup but I do believe it was a all male lead congregations. So Paul wasn't changing anything in that respect. But He did consider the law in judgments He made.

So I say this females who want to pursue such a honorable walk of like should ask the head of the body of Christ is it lawful. Let Him who judges and is the wonderful counselor give you counsel.

Paidiske said:

Well, if we don't have a definition of sexism, the question "Is X sexist?" becomes meaningless.

Click to expand...

Probably.

Paidiske said:

Both being problematic.

Click to expand...

Personally, I tend to go for option (i): "she will be saved through THE BIRTH (i.e. of Jesus)." Whatever that brief Greek phrase means, there is certainly an implied reference to Genesis 3:15-16 in there somewhere.

Paidiske said:

It's more a very weird (in Anglican terms) view of what priesthood is (being "in charge" of a parish).

Click to expand...

It's the result, I think, of mixing Continental Reformed theology with Anglican practice, and stirring thoroughly.

Paidiske said:

There is absolutely no good reason on God's green earth to relegate them to "women's issues!"

Click to expand...

The word "relegate" there seems to imply that the spiritual care of women is somehow less important than the spiritual care of men. You can't mean that, surely.

Paidiske said:

It's fine to be in ministry as long as you do the play group and the Sunday school

Click to expand...

I wasn't thinking "Sunday school," I was thinking more "counselling after, and detection of, domestic violence." Integration of female refugees. Stuff like that.

Paidiske said:

And let's be blunt; most parishes can't afford multiple staff.

Click to expand...

Shrinking parishes, no. Growing ones, they have more staff than you can shake a stick at. The Anglican parish I visit most frequently has 11 staff (and no, it's not a Cathedral).

1) There is nothing wrong with a Woman pastor---because there is nothing evil in itself...

2) If nobody is "caused to stumble" by a woman pastor, then BY ALL MEANS ALLOW IT.

3) If somebody is convinced that it's a sin, and is offended, or is tempted to sin in some way because they have weak and childlike faith, and they somehow have the courage to bring it up to leadership in the first place----then it would be better for you to have cinderblocks tied to your feet and cast into the ocean...

aiki said:

Because Paul was an apostle of Jesus Christ

Click to expand...

And Paul was just a man living within a particular culture and his comments were in the context of that culture and time.

aiki said:

It isn't, I think, a question of capacities

Click to expand...

Thats where I disagree. Leadership and the qualities of a good pastor are very much about appropriate capacities and nothing at all about what genitals hide in their underpants.

aiki said:

It is...interesting how your list of qualifications for a pastor/elder/bishop differs from the apostle Paul's.

Click to expand...

The qualities of intelligence, wisdom, compassion, forbearance, honesty and ethical integrity....these are very much what is required in clergy.... the fact that many such as you do not hold these qualities as being of greatest value is perhaps why we have seen such prevalence of sexual misconduct in the male clergy.

aiki said:

"Being relevant" has become an excuse for many in the Church to increasingly capitulate to, and compromise with, the World.

Click to expand...

Yes relevance is critical...the obvious being that insular views closed off from society ...that simply makes a demonination irrelavant.... and its my generation that it has to be relavant for because its mine that will continue christianity - or not. The day it becomes irrelavant to us then it all stops. Come into todays world or die. And todays world women lead in every single facet of life - and that includes religion. Pointing to obtuse verses that are interpreted a hundred different ways wont change all that.

aiki said:

I guess God wasn't able to look down the corridor of time and see how the World would transform and take that into account when He inspired the writing of His word, the Bible. Who knew God was actually so limited and shortsighted, eh?

Click to expand...

This level of sarcasm was very unbecoming. If your espousing male leadership this sarcasm wasnt a good example.

Radagast said:

The word "relegate" there seems to imply that the spiritual care of women is somehow less important than the spiritual care of men. You can't mean that, surely.

Click to expand...

I used relegate because "women's issues" excludes women from leadership, from preaching, and from wholistic ministry in any sense. It restricts our ministry to one sphere only, where our brothers are allowed a much broader ministry.

Radagast said:

I wasn't thinking "Sunday school," I was thinking more "counselling after, and detection of, domestic violence." Stuff like that.

Click to expand...

I do some of that. It's helpful to have a woman around to do some of that. It's probably not even 1/100th of what's involved in being in parish ministry, though.

Radagast said:

Shrinking ones, no. Growing ones, they have more staff than you can shake a stick at. The Anglican parish I visit most frequently has 11 staff (and no, it's not the Cathedral).

Click to expand...

Radagast, most parishes in Australia sit at a congregation of between 50 and 200 people. Yes, there are exceptions, but most can't support a staff half that size. You can't look at one parish like that, and assume that model works for everywhere.

Look, I really have to leave this for now. I'm genuinely extremely distressed at you - a man, and not an Anglican even - telling me, a woman, what would be best for women in my church. And doing so in a way which I know, personally, to be deeply harmful to so many women I know. I listen to their grief, I carry their hurt in my heart, I know the burden of the way our churches treat them.

This isn't academic. It's real, flesh and blood women; real people putting their entire hearts on the line for Christ and being treated worse than dirt; being shamed and labelled prideful and rebellious Jezebels and Pagan and practitioners of witchcraft. And men on this forum engaging in talking about it as if it's an academic exercise, or as if there can ever be any excuse for what is being done to those women.

I was lucky. I'm young enough that I didn't have to fight for ordination. I happened to live in a diocese where it was a done deal by the time I recognised my vocation. I've had some unpleasant encounters along the way, but with not much more than the average share of pig-headedness God's seen me through to what He called me to.

Other women are not so fortunate. Other women have to get on their knees every day and pray that God will give them the grace to love the people who are denying them the fullness of who they are created, gifted and called to be. Other women have to swallow their hopes and dreams and be faithful with the little they're given in the hopes that one day they might be trusted with more.

Enough! I plead with you and all these other men on these forums with shaking hands and tears in my eyes because our sisters, our daughters deserve better than this. Even if they're wrong, you do them more harm by denying them than you would do by allowing them to do their utmost to be obedient and faithful.

But that's probably the limit of my useful contribution at this point.

Paidiske said:

Well, if we don't have a definition of sexism, the question "Is X sexist?" becomes meaningless.

Click to expand...

What an interesting statement.

.

Paidiske said:

Look, I really have to leave this for now. I'm genuinely extremely distressed at you - a man, and not an Anglican even - telling me, a woman, what would be best for women in my church.

Click to expand...

I'm sorry. I was trying really hard not to express myself in a way that sounded like I was giving an opinion on what the Anglican church should or should not do (indeed, I have no such opinion).

I was thinking more of the ongoing discussion happening on the "other side of the fence."

Paidiske said:

Enough! I plead with you and all these other men on these forums with shaking hands and tears in my eyes because our sisters, our daughters deserve better than this. Even if they're wrong, you do them more harm by denying them than you would do by allowing them to do their utmost to be obedient and faithful.

Click to expand...

Assuming for the moment that you guys in the Anglican Church of Victoria have it 100% right, the Berean Baptist Church of Bethel (to pick a hopefully imaginary example) isn't going to instantly turn into the Anglican Church of Victoria overnight.

Anything it does is going to be done on its own terms, using its own theology and led by Scripture, in obedience to what it understands the will of God to be.

Radagast said:

I believe that the word actually used about Paul was "misogynist."

That kind of language about the Apostles makes me sad.

Click to expand...

I guess we have to care about the Apostles and listen to what they say, until it upsets our "modern sensibilities". Then it's fair game to accuse them of all manner of things.

There are at least two threads on this topic area active at the moment, which makes it a little confusing to keep the debates separate. The topic seems to generate a level of heat, pretty much every time it is discussed.

I don't take Paul to be essentially either sexist or misogynist, however it is possible for some of his words to be presented in that way. Often those who do so argue that they have a high view of scripture, as if those who do not read and use the text as they do do not have a high view of scripture. I have a high view of scripture, you I am open to the various schools of biblical criticism that will help me understand the text and what it was saying to the community for who it was written. My view is that I do not need to defend scripture, as if scripture needed defending because it is incapable of defending itself. Scripture sheds light for the way, however sometimes I see it used as a club.

One of the things I have been trying to suggest is that the 'Sitz im Leben' (setting in life, though I think I may use the phrase social and cultural context) needs to be understood in dealing with the text.

For instance, Psalm 137:9 says 'Happy shall they be who take your little ones and dash them against the rock!' which I will trust no one would see as a call to run around engaging in infanticide. We examine the text and we look at the situation that gave rise to the text, and we understand that this is the lament of a people in captivity crying for help as they reflect on a homeland they can barely remember.

Paul interestingly does not say a lot about women's ministry outside of the associations with the Corinthian Church. We know that Corinth was a bustling sea port. We know that it was a centre of the worship of the God Poseidon, which was associated with all sorts of temple prostitution and sexually loose practices, and given that at any time there was a high volume of transitory maritime workers (sailors!) passing through it was also a bit of a party town. Paul's call for women leading prayers in Corinth to adopt the ancient practice of covering their hair as they did so helped distance the fledgling Church from the surrounding culture without demeaning women. My point is that the text is about the meaning of the text in context, not just dropping the words into a new context where we might not understand the text as it was intended.

And I don't want to start a whole new outburst of rage however my point is, and has been, that this is not abandoning scripture, but rather endeavouring to understand and embrace the radical truth of the scriptures more fully. This is why I think that the text from Genesis 1:27 'So God created humankind in his image, in the image of God he created them; male and female he created them', is relevant and part of the radical truth of the Gospel.

Furthermore the examination of the Gospels and Jesus dealing with women is in a widespread way is radically different. The encounter with the Samaritan Woman at the Well in John 4 is rich and deeply poignant in understanding Jesus approach, and the passage ends with the affirmation that Jesus is the saviour of the Cosmos, not just David's Son but also the Samaritan Redeemer.

The first person in the Gospels commissioned by Jesus to tell someone about the Resurrection was a woman.

TuxAme said:

I guess we have to care about the Apostles and listen to what they say, until it upsets our "modern sensibilities". Then it's fair game to accuse them of all manner of things.

Click to expand...

I don't think that is the point at all. Rather it is about the way we use the text in order to subject others. The message of Christianity is freedom, not submission.

Philip_B said:

The topic seems to generate a level of heat, pretty much every time it is discussed.

Click to expand...

Maybe we, as a community, should think about restricting the topic to certain subforums, because I'm not seeing any benefit coming out of all that heat.

Philip_B said:

Often those who do so argue that they have a high view of scripture, as if those who do not read and use the text as they do do not have a high view of scripture.

Click to expand...

"High view of scripture" generally refers to those who see Scripture as 100% inspired and infallible.

Philip_B said:

The first person in the Gospels commissioned by Jesus to tell someone about the Resurrection was a woman.

Click to expand...

I've heard this mentioned several times on this thread. I don't see how it relates to women pastors, though.

Radagast said:

Maybe we, as a community, should think about restricting the topic to certain subforums, because I'm not seeing any benefit coming out of all that heat.

Click to expand...

Agreed. Amen, amen, amen.

Radagast said:

"High view of scripture" generally refers to those who see Scripture as 100% inspired and infallible.

Click to expand...

Certainly not how I understand it, in fact I suspect that it may show a little insecurity about scripture that it needs a doctrine to prop it up.

Radagast said:

I've heard this mentioned several times on this thread. I don't see how it relates to women pastors, though.

Click to expand...

If Pastors are not first and foremost witnesses to the resurrection, then maybe we have lost our way.

.