Intellectuelle

I read a series of historical mysteries set in ireland in the 7th century, and the sleuth is a woman named Fidelma of Kildare. Her character is a lawyer, and from reading the intro to these books, it seems like Christian Ireland at that time was in many ways a "feminist paradise", in the words of the author. Women held high positions in the State and in the church.

This intrigues me for that reason. I don't know if I'd call it a "feminist paradise" myself, if only because one of the semantical vagaries is just what do we mean when we say "feminist"?

To put out a guess here, we could find the same watershed divide between Christianity and World cultures on those definitions as we do on other points of thinking.

"I cannot emphasize enough that if one tweaks and twists the Christian faith to accomodate the culture's views, or individual's preferences, at some point what results is a set of beliefs that are something, but no longer Christianity."

I se the potential danger of that too Ilona, but I don't think it's entirely possible to remove the cultural context. Even Paul acknowledged it and worked with it in some instances. The truths are the same, but the expression or emphasis can vary. For example, we have much in common with our American sisters here but also some distinct differences. We have much in common, in fact more I think, with our UK sisters as far as how Christian women express themselves.

On the leader who suggested women shouldn't blog - I'mn not sure who you are referring to there. One well-known US leader did say that, but later qualified his statements. Last I heard he was receiving disciplinary action from his church over spiritual abuse.

A woman's place as defined by the Church is no less than this: a key component of the answer of Christ to a searching, broken world. We need to know what this key looks like...we need an expression of women fulfilled in their potential in the world.

Yes! That resonates deeply with me - and I think when other women leave the world to follow Jesus it would be great if they came into a church that understood this.

When I read your post last night (I'm on the opposite side of the world from you), I thought "Yes!"

Getting back to the blogging issue: if a woman's ministry in this, or whatever milieu, is acceptable to the husband or to the leaders of the Church body she attends, is it the place of someone outside to bring into question the virtue of that?

Great question. I certainly think anyone is free to discuss these matters you brought up in a respectful way, whether man or women, but we must remember that a person is only bound to follow legitimate authorities. The first is, of course, God; second is that person's pastor and elders, and third is that person's family. I'm not trying to fully develop how the three interrelate--just saying that strangers on the internet are not legitimate authorities that a woman or man is bound to follow or even listen to.

I remember the story at the end of John when Peter asks Jesus about John's future and Jesus answers, "What is that to you? You follow me." God does not promise to grant us the wisdom to mess in other people's business. Unless he has placed us over that person as a shepherd appointed by a local church body, we have no reason to think that we can judge what God wants for that person's life. I hope you know I am not talking about matters that are clearly condemned in Scripture.

I am in the midst of reexamining the Scriptures on this matter. During my Greek exegesis class two years ago, we looked at Ephesian 5:21-30, and I found it very enlightening. And I hope to learn more about the place of women in the early centuries of the church. Ben Witherington has a book that looks very helpful in that regard.

Catez, I linked in the first part to the offending post (on blogging) that I found in a lookup- I came upon the contention rather late, and it simply symbolized that type of thinking and its problems.

"I don't think it's entirely possible to remove the cultural context"
You may be right, but I haven't studied it out and can't say conclusively. I've tried to keep this idea generalized, but the error of trying to change the basics is found in many doctrinal disputes. It seems very threatening in this issue,perhaps due to the fine balance.

This variation in expression doesn't compromise the underlying foundational truths and principles, however. Glad you pointed that out since cultural preferences are some of those things that get undue focus. As if eternity hinged upon them....

Hannah, I read your comment and it was my turn to say "yyess!" ;)
Before the internet ( at least my introduction to it), I found that there are men in the church who think they may usurp the pastors and husbands role in any woman's life just because they are speaking to a woman.

And though I am all for freedom of speech, do we really have the right to speak our minds at all times about another persons choices? Again, continuing in the same spirit of not refering to "matters that are clearly condemned in Scripture".

This is why I emphasize the qualities of humility and mutual regard in this issue. Because I am opinionated and feel responsible to "help" people ( you know what I'm saying, right?) I have found myself sometimes guilty of this very interference. I want to get a balance on the way this should actually operate.

I’ll try to post something more thoughtful tomorrow, but to deal with a few minor issues:

The Sister Fidelma books are written by Peter Berresford Ellis under the name of Peter Tremayne, and he has also written quite a few non-fiction books on Celtic topics. Ellis is pro-Celtic to a fault. His views of Celtic societies are heavily skewed towards making them look good to modern liberal values – for example, he denies that the druids practiced human sacrifice, he portrays early Celtic Christians as holding views very close to modern liberal heterodox Catholics, and he exaggerates gender equality in early Celtic societies.

The Catholic Church doesn’t “parry” the issue of women priests. As Pope John Paul II put it, “Although the teaching that priestly ordination is to be reserved to men alone has been preserved by the constant and universal Tradition of the Church and firmly taught by the Magisterium in its more recent documents, at the present time in some places it is nonetheless considered still open to debate, or the Church's judgment that women are not to be admitted to ordination is considered to have a merely disciplinary force. Wherefore, in order that all doubt may be removed regarding a matter of great importance, a matter which pertains to the Church's divine constitution itself, in virtue of my ministry of confirming the brethren (cf. Lk 22:32) I declare that the Church has no authority whatsoever to confer priestly ordination on women and that this judgment is to be definitively held by all the Church's faithful.”

St Brigid of Kildare. From the Church’s point of view, she can’t have been an actual bishop, despite the ‘accidental ordination’, and it is worth nothing that she is not recorded as performing the functions of a bishop, but had St Conleth appointed Bishop of Kildare.

However, it is worth noting that she and many other abbesses held a lot of authority, in some ways similar to a bishop. Even today an abbess, like an abbot and a bishop, may bear the crosier, the symbolic shepherd’s crook. An abbess’s power would have been even more pronounced in early Christian Ireland where the Church took root originally with a monastic rather diocesan structure. The 1911 Catholic Encyclopaedia says about abbesses:

“In medieval times the Abbesses of the larger and more important houses were not uncommonly women of great power and distinction, whose authority and influence rivalled, at times, that of the most venerate bishops and abbots. In Saxon England, ‘they had often the retinue and state of princesses, especially when they came of royal blood. They treated with kings, bishops, and the greatest lords on terms of perfect equality;. . . they were present at all great religious and national solemnities, at the dedication of churches, and even, like the queens, took part in the deliberation of the national assemblies, and affixed their signatures to the charters therein granted.’….They appeared also at Church councils in the midst of the bishops and abbots and priests….In Germany the Abbesses of Quedimburg, Gandersheim, Lindau, Buchau, Obermünster, etc., all ranked among the independent princes of the Empire, and as such sat and voted in the Diet as members of the Rhenish bench of bishops. They lived in princely state with a court of their own, ruled their extensive conventual estates like temporal lords, and recognized no ecclesiastic superior except the Pope. After the Reformation, their Protestant successors continued to enjoy the same imperial privileges up to comparatively recent times. In France, Italy, and Spain, the female superiors of the great monastic houses were likewise very powerful.”

I’m new to this blog and this sounds like an ongoing conversation, so please forgive me if my comments are not entirely on point.

“Many of us say, yes, there is obviously a chain of command and the authority structure follows the hierarchy previously stated: God, Man, Woman.”

I agree that the bible establishes a hierarchical approach. But I think there has to be a better way to talk about the subject and, more importantly, a better way to apply the biblical approach. In both dialogue and application, I think the key is to be more open and realistic.

We speak of the husband being the head of the wife and men assuming the roles of pastors and elders, and we insist that the roles occupied by women are equal in position and significance. But are they really?

I recently wrote, “I think it is important also to say that those of us who accept this biblical view of womanhood don’t have to be apologetic about God’s established order. Sometimes we speak of these things and sound like idiots. We try to say that the position of submission is equal to the position of headship. The positions are not equal. No matter how you look at it, one is greater and the other is less. One is higher up in the hierarchy. The positions are not equal, but those occupying the positions are. Men and women are equal in essence. But God has assigned women the lesser role.…Moreover, it may be the lesser role, but this limitation is so small compared to the fullness of what the position entails. We focus on what women cannot do, but there is so much that women can do both in the home and in the church….In the church, women should submit to the authority of the pastors or elders, but I would hope that the church would stop walking on egg-shells in regards to the role of women and be willing to afford women meaningful opportunities to use their spiritual gifts and natural abilities. Particularly, that women would be encouraged to used their intellect as much as any of her other abilities. [¶]Part of the tension surrounding biblical womanhood arises from the fact that churches are not putting into practice the biblical model. And the deficiency is subtle. It may not have anything to do with the structure and organization of the church. But it has everything to do with how we think about and treat each other. Is there truly mutual respect? And a genuine recognition of our equality before God. And a genuine appreciation that the roles we play have very little to do with our worthiness, but more to do with God’s purposes.”

I really don’t think there is anything wrong with saying that women occupy a “lesser” role. I think it’s more honest and realistic in light of our experience.

So how do we occupy “lesser” roles and still maintain an environment of genuine mutual respect? I think it begins with recognizing that God’s delegation of roles has little or nothing to do with man or woman’s inherent attributes or qualities. Both men and women were created in the image of God and, therefore, both have souls capable of independent and rational thought and both have spirits capable of loving and serving God to the fullest measure. But in any social unit, someone has to lead in order to maintain order and unity. So God chose men to occupy that role. Not because they are superior leaders. But because God chose them and equipped them for that role.

The church speaks of “equality” but it still thinks of and treats women as “inferior” (of course, no one would admit this openly). When we occupy “lesser” roles and insist that these roles are equal to the roles occupied by men, we are promulgating a lie. And though we speak of equality, no one is fooled. We’re all thinking “inferior.”

Better to honor God’s established order by saying, we are equal before God, but God has designated to women the “lesser” role. Not because women are incapable of occupying the “greater” role, but because God desires order, unity, and peace. And so everyone stands humbly before God, recognizing that it is not about us, but about living in obedience to His word.

With openness and understanding, maybe the church can live out a more biblical approach. And I think that approach involves robust interaction, the sharing of opinions, and even teaching and learning from one another (to the extent appropriate). Why can’t the church embrace a collegial environment instead of a stifled one? In being so overly cautious (walking on egg-shells), the body of Christ as a whole suffers as men feel uneasy about women and many women feel inhibited from being able to use their gifts and abilities to the fullest measure.

Sorry for the long comment (I posted an even longer explanation on my site).

What are your thoughts?

Atlantic, thanks for the info on Peter Tremayne. I had never done any further research into his statements, but just read his prefaces assuming he was simply a "unbiased expert", hehehe!

Interestingly, his series is the only one I once loved that I no longer read...I began to find Fidelma to be very unlikeable, and the plots stilted and canned.

Thoughts about light-reading novels; such fluff in the midst of deep thinking, I know! Back to the regularly scheduled program of meaty talk.

Chong, anytime is the right time to join in. Thank you for your contribution to the dialogue. I'm known for long comments so I welcome someone elses- some of these ideas aren't easy to reduce to 50 words or less!

"so everyone stands humbly before God, recognizing that it is not about us, but about living in obedience to His word"
This is foremost.
However I agree with this part of your thoughts, I feel that the semantics in some other things are taking two different contexts.

There is the spiritual context in the teachings of Christ, and these turn our usual ideas of power on its head ( so to speak) ... the concepts of greater and lesser are redefined as well... but often in the Church, and it seems in your comment there is the world's common ideas of this. Am I right to say this? Can you see that yourself?
When you say "The church speaks of “equality”", the scriptural comment on that is that there is no gender, racial, or tribal lines in Christ, and all are called to share in the riches of His salvation, and all that means. But I see no promise of the type of equality that our society conceives of and cannot itself produce. We say that those who are 'lords' are in esteem, but that isn't the value system given us in the teachings of Christ; so if our context of speaking of the place of women is in the Church,we don't have that measure.

We do have hierarchy, but I don't think God has assigned women the lesser role. I am not sure there is a concept of lesser in that particular way of thinking about it. So it is incorrect in expression, I believe. There is "weaker", which is different. And the view of the hierarchy is both one of protection and authority. This is not solely along gender lines, though. Men under a pastor have the same position, they are not
peers in authority on the basis of being male.

I do agree with you wholeheartedly on your points:
*everyone stands humbly before God, recognizing that it is not about us, but about living in obedience to His word
*church embrace a collegial environment ( and your whole last paragraph)

When you say,"It may not have anything to do with the structure and organization of the church. But it has everything to do with how we think about and treat each other."

That could well be true as it stands, but I wouldn't be so sure.

I think we need to attend to conforming both to scriptural standards of those qualities we are stressing, genuine recognition and genuine appreciation- outcomes of a humble walk with the Lord. They most likely must work in tandem to see real differences in the pattern we live out in our lives of community.

Before I go to read more of what you think, I wanted to comment on this,"We’re all thinking “inferior.”"
Lots of times we are, but my theory on that is that it reflects a wrong attitude we, especially as women, have adopted in our Christian lives. We promote career women, including 'church' career women above those who choose homelife. We applaud women who work in the church in ways commensurate with the world's view of what entails "work" and accomplishment. We try to 'out-world the world' is how I express it... and then we wonder why we think of women, when they aren't following the cultures definitions of worthwhile lives, as "inferior" doing "inferior" things. If you want to know the truth... I think this very attitude is rife in the Church so that busyness is valued and other things, unseen, such as prayer is devalued.

I think the attitudes we coddle are out of whack and our conflicts over gender roles only the tip of the iceberg on this spiritual imbalance in values. We have to ask ourselves if we really believe the greatest is the servant of all, and the first shall be last....

those are my thoughts- and yours have added insightful things to consider- I appreciate your time in sharing them.

Atlantic, I'm sorry; I will have to tighten up my wording. Catholics do “parry” the issue of women priests, as your quote from the pope indicates, but the Catholic Church does not in its official capacity. I should have said "among Catholics".
"From the Church’s point of view, she can’t have been an actual bishop" The working phrase there is "the Church's point of view" and this in light as it stands today.

The fact remains that she was ordained as bishop as far as can be discerned from the extant hagiographies. "had St Conleth appointed " that is not a point in dispute, but there are two points to consider before haggling over this. First is that the ancient writings are scarce and not complete, the other is that the Celtic tradtiion was not aligned with Rome in all things, especially at first.

Abbess is the proper term used for women in charge of the relgious communities, but it is noted that she was an accidental bishop. I noted her not because the Church today recognizes women in the priesthood or accepts Brigid of Kildare as a bishop, but in her time she is spoken of as holding that post.

I chose her account precisely because she was an exception, in a particularly adamant view of a woman having no place in this type of ministry. I think it all the more remarkable for the time, and for the admirable accomplishment of raising so many women of her society to levels of dignity.

Hannah,
just saying that strangers on the internet are not legitimate authorities that a woman or man is bound to follow or even listen to.

I agree - I thought you explained that really well too.

Ilona,

This variation in expression doesn't compromise the underlying foundational truths and principles, however. Glad you pointed that out since cultural preferences are some of those things that get undue focus.

I think I agree but... some see homeschooling as essential and thus integrally part of a Christian womans role. Yet come here and that's not the case at all. Consequently a lot of Christian women here (and in Aus and I think in the UK) work part time or full time while the kids are at school. So one could view homeschooling as cultural - but another sees it as more. It gets tricky. In some cultures being at home is also inclusive of having from 8-3.30 with the kids not at home. So expression of gifting is expressed elsewhere. Is that cultural or essential? Can we really judge anyway, taking Hannah's comment into account about the authority we submit to?

On the blogger - it was who I was thinking of but I need to qualify what I said as I'm not sure if it;s he or a relative that was being disciplined (I probably didn't need to mention that in the first place actually). I recall he backtracked after getting some heat from Christian women bloggers and said Titus 2 is not a list of the only things a women can do. I appreciate you used it as a general example.

1) Atlantic,
I would like to hear from your standpoint: how would you enunciate the topic "a woman's place" in the Catholic dialogue? Are there particular areas of concern for Catholic women apart from the priesthood issue, IYO?

2) Catez, much of what you are articulating here comes from a reaction to the culture and within it, not a proaction from scripture, necessarily. How can homeschooling be elevated to a foundational matter for Christians? It is rather the solution that arises from applying specific principles to a situation in the culture.

"cultural or essential?" How does it weigh in on eternity? If it is a matter of obedience of conscience, obeying God's directives to you, it holds eternal significance for you. The problem comes when we want to extrapolate that out to other Christians. This is where the fresh look at what the scriptures say will clarify issues. There are issues that are of eternal significance for everyone...those are the essentials.

Our personal investment in a particular way of serving God should not be exalted to salvation status. Or right standing status.

This is where Churches get into trouble with avoidable divisons, imo. There are unavoidable divisions . As women, we are often mistaking the two in lifestyle decisions.

"Can we really judge anyway"
The scriptures can judge it, and we can understand the judgment if we study those carefully and with openness. Dialogue is part of that process.

much of what you are articulating here comes from a reaction to the culture and within it, not a proaction from scripture, necessarily.

That's a good point. I was also looking at differences across cultures - the reaction to the culture can take different forms in different places. I think we would be agreed on that.

How can homeschooling be elevated to a foundational matter for Christians?

Well I don't know Ilona - but I've seen it made so by some. I know of teaching that says it is a foundational matter - no ifs, buts, or maybes. And although it is a choice as I see it, a matter of conscience, there are some who put it forward as the biblical way and the only biblical way (I don't want to name teachers here as that is a whole other controversy).

To be perfectly precise, no Catholic “parries” the issue of women priests: for the Church’s faithful, the case is completely closed, whereas many heterodox Catholics are unabashedly for it. :)

“From the Church’s point of view” is indeed key, since (from the Church’s point of view :) ) the Church is the only body that has been given the authority to determine who may be ordained a bishop at all.

I know that the texts about St Brigid have the usual problems of texts from that time – and the earliest texts about her don’t mention this episode at all – but if we’re going to take her accidental ordination at face value (rather than, say, an invention to bolster Kildare’s political importance, as has been suggested) we can likewise look at the texts for evidence that she acted as a bishop.

St Brigid was not ordained a bishop, because women can’t be bishops. To take another sacramental example, you can’t be married to more than one person, right? Suppose a woman who is married runs away, changes her name and starts a new life. Everybody in her new life thinks she’s unmarried. Then she and a new man fall in love, but she still keeps it a secret from everyone that she’s already married. They can go through every motion of getting married, with every single person there, including her new “husband”, believing that the marriage is valid. They act married. The whole community thinks they’re married and treats them accordingly. But they’re still not married. She wasn’t able to marry, and thus the marriage rite simply could not make them married.

The same with “women bishops”. Just like being married to more than one person, it may appear to happen, but in actuality no ordination has occurred.

The “accidentality” of St Brigid’s “ordination” is itself evidence that women were not to be ordained bishops – in one text, an assistant of St Mel registers his objections on the spot! She may have been given the temporal honours normally due to a bishop and temporal powers similar to a bishop’s but the texts do not portray her as being called a bishop and or acting like a bishop in the sacramental sense. This would strongly imply that her “ordination”, if it occurred, was taken by her and her contemporaries as a ‘honorary but not real’ occurrence.

Also, the practices of the Church in early Celtic societies weren’t aligned in all things with Roman practice, but divergence in disciplines was more usual across large geographical areas in those days (and still exists, with the Eastern Catholic rites).The big issues at the Synod of Whitby were the dating of Easter and clerical tonsures – not what we would call serious doctrinal disputes.

In any case, the problem with looking at exceptional cases is that one is tempted to treat them like norms.

Regarding your last question, any time I run across women “dialoguing” about women’s place in the Catholic Church, they usually turn out to be pro women’s ordination. (I’ll try to post something less snarky later.)

just jumping in here...it's interesting to me that it DOES take so very many words to explain the position of "submission," and it begins to appear that is necessary to somehow mitigate its inference... I understand that Scripture is often difficult to interpret, but frankly on this topic "wives submit to your husbands," most people think that's pretty clear. Why then the lengthy explanations? It begins to appear - and I'm trying to be very careful here - that we're actually uncomfortable with the concept and attempt to bury our misgivings under a mountain of justification. I'm trying to express a differing opinion without being critical, so please give me a little grace...

This is how the rationale appears, put very simply:
the order is God-man-woman, (BUT men and women submit equally to God)
Women submit to their husbands (but it's really a mutual submission)
Women can be leaders (if we express how very important leading Bible studies and teaching Sunday School is)
Women have a key place in the church (not leading, but still very, very, very, very important)

Why all the disclaimers? If it really is a foundation of our faith, then it WILL stand the cultural test on its own merit. I think the problem (my opinion of course) is that it is becoming an ever less acceptable and more difficult position to maintain.

I think most people understand that men and women are not the same. (Feminists tend towards that extreme.) But many do think we are equal. And again, it seems to me, that can be a reasonable, scriptural position. There's neither Jew nor Greek, male nor female - we are all one in Christ. Jesus radically altered the old order. I can "boldly approach the throne of grace." Inserting a husband's leadership in that scenario would actually seem to nullify the work of Christ. Corinthians says we will judge the world and judge angels. It doesn't suggest a heirarchy. These are just some of the issues many of us on the other side of the issue wrestle with. I hope I haven't offended - my only intent was to add another perpective to a great discussion. (hmm...and it did take rather a lot of words!)

Jan (and everyone),

Although I don’t share your egalitarian perspective, I agree with many of your sentiments. That’s why I’m suggesting a new way of looking at the subject.

God established a hierarchy—it’s evident throughout Scripture.

You said: “If it really is a foundation of our faith, then it WILL stand the cultural test on its own merit. I think the problem (my opinion of course) is that it is becoming an ever less acceptable and more difficult position to maintain.”

I would not call biblical teaching on womanhood foundational to our faith (i.e., essential to salvation). And, certainly, the things taught in Scripture do not have to conform to our culture. While it may be an increasingly difficult position to maintain, I do believe that truth will prevail in the end. If it is a work of God, who can stand against it, right?

Equal in essence, different roles. I agree with that. Different roles, but equal in significance and position. That’s nonsense. I can’t agree with that. A woman’s bible study leader and a men’s bible study leader may be equal in position. But a senior pastor and a woman’s bible study coordinator are not equal in position. Male headship and female submission—that’s not equal in position. Saying so doesn’t make it so. And saying so causes us to live with a great deal of tension. We put so much energy in insisting on our sameness and equality of position—when it’s simply not true. It causes us to focus on our differences and why men are suited for one role and women are suited for another—to justify that the roles are different but equally significant. For us complimentarians, wouldn’t it be better to admit that women occupy the lower or lesser role—and then focus on God. That it is not about our worthiness, ability, or inherent qualities. But it is about God’s desire for order and unity. This is the way God works. Think of Israel. God did not choose Israel because it was special, but Israel is special because God chose it. God does not choose us as leaders because we are worthy. Instead, we can do nothing apart from Him. He chooses us and equips us for the role. In the same way, men occupy the higher role, but not because they are inherently better as leaders. But it’s about God and His established order. It’s about obeying His word.

As I mentioned elsewhere, this issue often brings to mind the legal concept of “separate but equal.” In Plessy v. Ferguson (1896) 163 U.S. 537, the United States Supreme Court established the principle of that separate facilities for blacks were equal. About fifty years later, in Brown v. Board of Education (1954) 347 U.S. 483, the Court held that separate was inherently unequal. So I wonder, is the concept of “different, but equal” similar? If not, how?

I’m an attorney and I work primarily with women who are feminists. A while back, a few of us were having lunch with one of our externs, who happened to be from Switzerland. I don’t know how this came up, but I started talking about how some seminaries don’t allow women to teach theology courses and how women should, if they can, stay home and raise their children. Of course, laughing and mocking ensued. Even the extern commented how my views sounded "backwards." And then one of my colleagues explained to our extern, “see, we represent a wide range of different views.” I interjected, “no we don’t, I’m just the odd one out.” I mention this because I spend much of my day with materialists/atheists/skeptics. But I still stand on the truth of God’s word. Because as I said, if it is of God (as I believe it is), it will prevail in the end.

Shalom,
Chong

Chong, I am neither a feminist nor an egalitarian, but I don't think it is true that women necessarily occupy the lower or lesser role. I would say, in relation to who? Nothing in the Scriptures states that women in general are somehow subject to men in general, so a woman's position of submission is in relation to her husband specifically, and any other relationships that she has where she is in a lesser position are not so only because she is a woman...for example, all male non-elders in the church are subject to the elders, just as the women are. I understand that a man can aspire to be an elder and a woman cannot, but aspirations to elderhood do not legitimate authority over women make ;-)

A man who works and a woman who works are both subject to the authority of their superiors, both sexes are subject to the governing authorities, etc. Both male and female children are under the authority of both their male father and their female mother.

The traditional role of woman, caring for the home and family, is not designated in Scripture as being a lower or lesser role. It may be a role that is less likely to lead to earthly praise and glory, but many, if not not most, legitimate male careers or livelihoods do not lend themselves to much earthly glory, either.

Just because Hebrew men did not respect the positions of their women, and indeed prayed prayers of thanksgiving that God did not make them women, does not mean that such an attitude is the Christian position, or the mind of God on the matter.
I understand that in the last hundred or so years we have come so far from understanding and accepting the concept of legitimate authority in general, that there seems to be a renaissance in authority-structure based thinking, which is certainly necessary, but I think there is now an unbiblical assumption flying around that our role in life is somehow Who We Are. A role is only an external reality, created to provide order in what would otherwise be chaos, but it cannot contain or truly manifest a person's whole being, and all the ways they may be gifted or talented (which is one of the ways they reflect the Imago Dei)

I participate in a lot of discussions on the issue of wifely submission on a message board, and I am often the odd one out. Many women believe it is Scriptural to submit to their husband if he tells them to sin, and that he will somehow be held responsible for the sin. The most recent debate was whether a woman should not worship God in the assembly of the saints if her husband tells her not to. I was one of perhaps 3 women (and there were a LOT of woman participating) who held that the call to worship God was not something you put aside because of persecution, which is what such behaviour on the part of a husband is, and we are told in the Scriptures that houses will be divided by the gospel.

Also, the women did not think that the comparison between limited State authority and husbandly authority was a good one. They said that we are called to obey our husbands as unto the Lord, and the the State authority admonitions do not have the weight of that mystical one-flesh union. No one wondered at the incongruity of the idea that the Lord, who commands us throughout the Scriptures to worship Him in communion with the saints, would somehow negate that first and most important commandment as being of lesser magnitude than a husband's sinful desires.

So, my long-winded point here is that while authority structures are real in God's hierarchy, they do not have unlimited authority, and not being in a position of authority does not mean that a person's position is a lesser one in God's economy. Certainly, many a lowly Christian housewife, who spent her life wiping noses and washing dirty dishes in obscurity will receive rewards far exceeding, say, a Christian President (and I am not necessarily spekaing of our current Pres, or even an American, for the record).

I now you all know this. But we are told in the Scriptures that Christians are not to lord their authority over those they lead, and to think in the wordly terminology of inherent prestige in roles comes perilously close to doing that.

Atlantic,
As soon as you say this:"for the Church’s faithful" you have negated a large number of Catholics who consider themselves true to their faith. You are reducing the number to those who unfailingly follow the rulings valid as of this day.... rulings which Vaticans over time have reviewed and sometimes changed.

I don't mind pursuing this conversation to a point, and I will go on to a few other things you've said, but I would like my Catholic/ Protestant view to be clear:
Some of these issues are Catholic to Catholic, the Protestant with sola fide and sola scriptura convictions argues on a different basis. I respect this... in that I do not argue with Catholics about whether their doctrine is right or wrong- I try to stay within the framework of what God reveals about Himself and His scriptural truth. That is where I dialogue, and other points that are not pivotal or are unresolvable through discussion I agree to disagee.

"not ordained a bishop, because women can’t be bishops" Circular reasoning that works for you and not for me. If you want to go further in this discussion with me you will have to revert to scriptural reasons why a woman cannot. I am interested in pursuing that track.

"In any case, the problem with looking at exceptional cases is that one is tempted to treat them like norms."

OK. I agree on this point.

I am not trying to make a normative case from the exceptions, and not trying to argue that women must have full access to these positions of authority. I am questioning whether there is any case where they might, and whether this is supportable scripturally ...but more I am interested in understanding the fullest revelation possible on submission and how that plays out in the modern Christian life. Some of this is addressed in the Catholic church in a more cohesive way than for Protestants. There is the role of the religious orders and in your acceptance of Brigid as abbess she had authority over male monks.

My motivation in talking about women in the church is to coalesce a view that can be uniform enough to then enter into a cogent dialogue in the culture with unbelievers or those struggling to remain steadfast in the Christian faith. If the question is lodged "what about women?" I want to be able to answer on that.

In a world situation where this is an important point of difference between the various religions, I consider the topic of importance. maybe I am wrong. Maybe being a woman myself has caused me to give undue weight to the question. Even so, it becomes an important question to me personally.

" any time I run across women “dialoguing” about women’s place in the Catholic Church, they usually turn out to be pro women’s ordination."

LOL! I bet:) This makes sense because they would be the ones who have disputes over the status quo. Status quo not being bad, but needing explanation in the culture. Especially this culture.

I don't think you are snarky, but I have lots of leeway in what I call snarky and have been called on the carpet for being guilty of same.

first off... I just have to say I love Samantha's heart and mind. I appreciate the deep insight she brings to this controversy. But all the commentary is opening new doors for me and I appreciate each one. That has to be said right off because I just have to insert my heart's feeling here.

But on to the points of discussion:)

Jan,you said:""wives submit to your husbands," most people think that's pretty clear. Why then the lengthy explanations? "
I feel Samantha answered this well. It becomes very complicated when trying to apply it without exegesis. There is a call here for fuller exegesis, I think.

"Jesus radically altered the old order"
Actually He instituted a new creation, but we are still living in the arena of the old and the "new man" is still in the old body. So. Paul teaches alot on how this works and that is why we need to understand what he meant when he stated that there is neither Jew nor Greek, male nor female in Christ, but talked about authority in the Church body,also.

The mutual submission idea is the methodology of all authority and submission in the Church, and I think we need to see that as process and not as instituted role. Otherwise the idea of hierarchy gets negated, I think. I don't believe that hierarchy is done away with ( although I could be wrong on that) in the new earth, new heaven... but in this earth we still have to deal with it....

Chong, again ::wow:: making us think :)

"Different roles, but equal in significance and position."

I think the case can be made on the basis of Paul's teaching about the callings and gifts in the body. The equality and significance being given by God and His recognition, not by the world's standards. The world's yardstick is different in the measure of those things and then I would give you the point. But you are arguing in the Kingdom courtroom in this, and that is why I would say that the equality concept stands as a reality.

"So I wonder, is the concept of “different, but equal” similar? If not, how?"

Ok. In the case of black-white[or whatever] race issues.... is the black race separate from the white in their full expression of humanity? no. Fully human, full components of female and male, etc.... the separation that was made was artificial, and based upon a false premise that may be disproved, and thus the outcome of saying separate was inherently unequal, in this case, is true. In the Church doctrine there is special care made to show that boundaries based on race ( Jew vs. Greek) do not apply at all in the access and roles. That we are discussing some of these scriptures shows that the male-female divide works differently.

We might ask if women being the only ones to bear children is inherently unfair because of the different roles.... all women of all races are the ones with that part of the reproductive role. Then I think we are approaching the root of some of the gender problems. Are we saying "God, why have you made me thus?" and trying to cancel out the differences? Is this true equality...homogenuity, sameness?

Division recognized in race can be seen as inherently wrong, and has no supportable basis, but division in gender has actual basis in the biology. If this would be so, how do we treat it?

We don't separate people based on hair color or eye color, why should we on skin color? But our gender based reproductive roles have repercussions outside of abstract matters. Raising children is one. Because of this that is another hot topic- not surprisingly spiraled off changes in views of gender roles.

We have scripture based equality of the genders, but we have scriptural differences in how that is interpreted through their respective roles. Now we are getting closer to starting to view the prevailing cultural philosophy questions. "Is there really no difference between men and women? Is society as stable and humane when those differences are ignored?"

HA! ...I end up with more questions than answers at this point.

Am I saying all women must be homebodies and that there is no place for single women or women who have passed into their later phases of wisdom and no longer are raising children? I would never acquiesce to that ... and that is what the more restrictive interpreters do. I am starting to think this division based on gender is itself restricted and balanced by other scriptures. And Samantha made points that illustrate that... but I cannot yet summarize the thinking on it.

[edited typos, my bad]

One question I see coming up:

in combining the view of secular government and the open opportunities for women and the view in the church of hierarchy... how does this play out?

...just a quick thought:
Christianity is basically ruled by obedience of conscience before God.... freedom given in the culture is to be used, and not abused, in the case of rights, etc.

The role of the Christian is one of persuasion, not coercion.
Ok..sitting back and waiting to see what comes up.

Thank you for your gracious replies. I do understand and respect the complimentarian position. I have one additional response, if I may. Re: "Equal in essence, different roles." I wonder in what "essence" are we equal? Our human essence? Because I am a female human. Yet my femaleness is what defines my submissive role. So my femaleness is what seems to make me "unequal." Yet I am female in every part of my essence. It seems circular to me...again, an attempt to prove value or equality that I already inherently have as the female side of God's image. Sorry...don't mean to continue this thread into eternity! This has really been a great discussion, and I've enjoyed it very much.

Wow, this is a great discussion. I run the risk of belaboring it, probably, but can't resist throwing in my own thoughts. (I haven't read all comments thoroughly so forgive me any redundancy.)

From Scriptural exegesis I don’t believe the case can be made that women are to be considered lesser in any particular role they are in. Headship does not connote superiority. Nor do I believe that women are always to be “under” a man. For example, I am a woman and also a professional trumpet player and private-lesson teacher. Compared to a male peer of similar abilities and experience in performing and teaching, am I the lesser, or under male headship, professionally? I don't believe so. [bolt of lightning zinging down] My strengths and abilities are measured in and of themselves, as originating with God Who gave them to me as he gave them to men who do the same thing (my husband, for example). Actually, as teachers and performers, my husband and I both have our strengths and weaknesses, which differ in many respects. But the standard by which these are measured lies with an authority that has nothing to do with gender. In matters of difference in this case, there is parity between a man’s and a woman’s views as there would be between views of two men or two women. Differences are resolved the same way in all three cases. If we are playing a duet, must I submit to my husband as a wife to a husband? No; we are musical peers. I must submit as a musical colleague only if I’m playing the second part :-).

However...I will defer to a man, no matter in what situation, in ways that I will not defer to a woman, and vice-versa, because of the respect that I have for who men are, and for who women are. (Don’t ask me to explain that just now!)

In an orchestra with a female conductor, the conductor commands the same authority as would a male conductor. A female sitting in the principal chair commands her section even if those under her are male players. The protocol is the same regardless of the sex of the persons holding the various chairs.

The protocol differs in different situations, however. In a marriage, which is an entirely different situational entity than musical duet partners, I do lean toward a complementarian view characterized by equity rather than equality. However, I recognize that someone must be ultimately responsible in a marriage or family, and that role goes to the husband. In church matters, though, I think there are both male-female authority issues and educational/cultural issues. What about women pastors? What about women covering their heads or wearing long hair? What about education? Is a male seminary grad more authoritative than a female seminary grad?

Paul says that the women exists for the man and not vice-versa, because Eve came from Adam. I think that this is true in marriage and in other areas in society, but I don’t think it holds true in the same ways as it did in his time because of the educational level of women. Paul also says that both need the other; it is woman who gives birth to the man.*

Which leads me to one more comment – that of devaluing stay-at-home motherhood. If anyone really stops and thinks about it for a minute, one can see how absurd it is to think that the raising of one’s progeny, the future of the human race, the human beings one has brought into the world, is a job inferior to anything else. Such an idea, I’m convinced, is rooted in the insecurity of women who feel they have to “compete” in the working world to be considered worthy, and to wimpiness/squeamishness about staying at home. (strong statement, I know, and perhaps not entirely fair.) Being a stay-at-home mom, especially with infants with temperament and medical issues and having a difficult pregnancy, is BY FAR the hardest thing I have ever done. By a light-year. I had very little help. The world didn't come to me to help me out; I was completely out-of-the-loop as “the world” went on around me. I suffered and struggled on my own outside of the social milieu. Yet I was more or less expected to keep honoring typical social involvements even though I really wasn't capable.

You can’t go home from motherhood at 5:00pm. Your life turns topsy-turvy. You wonder who on earth you are because you are so sleep-deprived and out-of-touch and consumed with tending children and home. I’ve been-there-done-that. But – what is, or will be, my most crowning achievement in life? My children, of course. I love trumpet playing and writing and other things I do, but as much as they mean to me, they don’t matter nearly as much as my children do, by a light-year. Yet at the same time, God has gifted me in ways that aren’t directly related to motherhood. Those gifts must take second-place to motherhood, and yes, temptation can be strong to let priorities get rearranged.

*note – this is just my opinion; it is not authoritative :-)

(sorry for the loooooong comment!)

Iliona,

I agree that women and men are different and in more ways that just biology. There are many ways to describe their differences, but I think we can look at it as fundamentally true (God exist, I exist,…men and women are different…). They are inherently different by design.

But I don’t think their inherent differences qualify them or disqualify them for positions of authority. I’m not married, so when I speak of biblical womanhood, I’m thinking of a woman’s role in ministry.

Samantha,

Thanks for your thoughtful explanation. (I probably should have started by quoting my entire four-page post, because I’m reading from others what I included in that post, particularly the contrast between God’s and the world’s view of authority.)

You wrote, “A role is only an external reality, created to provide order in what would otherwise be chaos, but it cannot contain or truly manifest a person's whole being….”

When we talk about roles, we indeed are talking about external realities. We are agreed that women are not lesser in essence, both before God and before men. In an ideal environment where everyone is living out God’s value system, that would be the end of the discussion. But in this world, God’s value system is not manifested at all in society and only to a small measure within the body of Christ.

Yesterday night my Hebrew professor mentioned how lawyers are the type of people who could write great Hebrew grammars. His comment was directed at me. But I’m thinking, no respectable seminary would let me teach Hebrew, let alone write a Hebrew grammar. Or, in other ares, what if God puts in on my heart a desire to write a theology, what conservative seminary would use a theology written by a woman?

These may not be real limitations for other women, but they are very real for me. In my job, I don't face the same limitations. The things I write may have great impact on the law and on individual lives, both men and women. But, in the church, I’m constantly confronted with the unwritten rule, “you can go here, but no farther.”

So I need a way of understanding this that is coherent and meaningful. A way that honors God’s word and His established order, but recognizes the external realities that some of us deal with everyday.

{{Bonnie}}

You touched on something that our culture, even in the Church, wishes to overlook, oftentimes.

The fact that having and raising children takes alot out of a person. This carrying on of the human race is vitally important, yet our culture devalues it. Women try to make up the difference by becoming "SuperMom" or some sort of super woman hero.

I am a strong woman, I have a very dominant type of personality, but one day I sort of woke up and realized that I fully understood what the Bible meant by "weaker vessel". I had given birth a number of times, gone through a number of challenges, etc etc.... and one day I found I just couldn't "do it all" and be there for everyone. I found out that I could be weak.

This is important to face and admit to in our society. We skirt around it with the "it takes a village" blabber, without looking at why we need community and what is happening in the expectations surrounding women today. Weaker is not lesser, but sometimes it is because "more" is being given in certain seasons of life, or that the demands are taxing, even though meeting them is vital.

"These may not be real limitations for other women, but they are very real for me. In my job, I don't face the same limitations. The things I write may have great impact on the law and on individual lives, both men and women. "

You have to ask yourself the reasons why the difference without layering other things on, at least not yet.

You are a lawyer with impact because you have applied yourself to the study, you have met the qualifications, and you have proven your ability -through casework ( I imagine) to handle the law properly and effectually.
You have come to a place where you have gained jurisdiction.

"But, in the church, I’m constantly confronted with the unwritten rule, “you can go here, but no farther.” "

As you work out your faith you will discern between the voice of God's Spirit saying that to you and the voice of others. This comes through relationship experience and time... you will find your place of jurisdiction spiritually. Paul worked in the Roman Empire presenting the gospel through the proper channels when he could and suffering when he was told "you can go here, but no farther.” He knew he had to obey God. This is what Samantha voiced. You have to know where the real boundaries are, and there aren't any shortcuts to that.

"So I need a way of understanding this that is coherent and meaningful. A way that honors God’s word and His established order, but recognizes the external realities that some of us deal with everyday."

Recognizing the hierarchy is a start. The Bible has examples of how people under authority, sometimes oppressive authority, dealt with it. David in his dealings with Saul, Esther in her dealings in her situation, Jeremiah under an ungodly King. There is appeal, distancing, saying the God-given message even when it leads to suffering. The situations are different, the spirit of humility and love of God is the constant.

"a way of understanding this that is coherent and meaningful"

We are all seeking that here, I think. I'm thinking that it will end up with general principle that has to be individually applied in the situation and according to the person. IOW, it won't be a cookie cutter teaching solution. Maybe one of the others posting, or as we look at the culture and what isn't working will shed light.
=====
What I don't think will work is the feminist method of making demands and forcing issues. This has just exchanged types of oppression and created other problems. I think we all agreed upon that.

Ilona,

From the responses, it looks like I'm not conveying my thoughts well. I've actually served in ministry about three times longer than I've practiced law--not that time translates into gaining wisdom concerning spiritual things. I started to write more of an explanation and found it was too personal to share here.

But I will leave you with this thought, I love engaging in dialogue, particularly debates (go figure). I don't always express my fixed opinion on a matter--I often just throw things out there to cause people to think. A couple weeks ago, I was arguing the materialist's position for the origins of the universe--so that other Christians would be challenged to come up with thoughtful answers. We often accept a settled (often shallow) view of things that usually is inadequate to withstand scrutiny by any intelligent skeptic--this applies to everything, from our apologetics to our understanding of biblical womanhood.

Shalom,
Chong

"I don't always express my fixed opinion on a matter--I often just throw things out there to cause people to think."

Chong, I do that, too! I enjoy playing Devil's advocate.

I really do think, though, that one reason God places limitations on us to keep us humble. These limitations could be physical (as in a disablity) or they could be theological (as in woman not being able to be pastors). Accepting these limitations is difficult, but in my life, I have seen that when I chafe against them, the reason is almost always pride.

Not being able to do something we know we *could* do well allows God to be God, and to use us in ways *He* wishes (and which we know, intellectually, are for our good - although we don't always take that to heart) , while allowing us to learn to truly appreciate the ministries of others without rancor or jealousy.

You are being kind, Chong. You could say "I don't think you're getting it when I say..." :)

Perhaps it is the medium, perhaps because we are approaching the topic carefully. How about this:

Do you apply the same thinking process and questions to ministry that you do in the secular ?

Samantha gets more into adjusting to the limitations with a look to dealing with what God's view and lessons are.

got to cut this short but just a thought. want to pursue in email?

“As soon as you say this:’for the Church’s faithful’ you have negated a large number of Catholics who consider themselves true to their faith.”

I wouldn’t be a proper Papist if I didn’t think the Pope and the Magisterium were there for a reason. :)

You are reducing the number to those who unfailingly follow the rulings valid as of this day.... rulings which Vaticans over time have reviewed and sometimes changed.”

Catholics also believe that when it comes to doctrine (not disciplines), the Church does not fundamentally change any of the teachings she has received (2 Thess. 2:15), although there may be considerable development in understanding. Now I’m really getting off-topic.

“"not ordained a bishop, because women can’t be bishops" Circular reasoning that works for you and not for me. If you want to go further in this discussion with me you will have to revert to scriptural reasons why a woman cannot. I am interested in pursuing that track.”

Definitions like that are circular, you’re right, though I was trying to underline the distinction between “being ordained” and “having the rite of ordination performed over one”. If Scripture is the only valid guide, though, then whether St Brigid was ever “ordained” in any sense is completely irrelevant.

Atlantic, as I said I dislike getting into dispute over Catholic/Protestant doctrinal differences.

You misunderstand the sola scriptura doctrinal guidance, though.

It never means that we discount history or godly writings, it only means we give scripture primacy in debate over matters... much as you use papal decree,etc. It is the one deciding factor on a matter.

Scripture is where you and I could converse on the final understanding of a matter, since we both would revere the wisdom of the scriptures.

I am not Catholic because there are many things I disagree with doctrinally, I studied it with the idea of conversion earlier in my life... so I have an idea of the things you talk about, but not always accepting the same premises that you do.

I thought the example of Brigid was pertinant to the conversation. I feel you are looking back with an anachronistic filter, and judge the circumstance through your view of the authority of the papal ruling on it. I feel the account has some merit and illustrates that there are times when women have been called into places of authority. I could have just stayed with Deborah... and truly that is the more important example. Just thought Brigid was interesting from a historical point of view.

I understand your point, I don't agree with it, and I believe that the whole idea of haggling over this point is more of a digression than anything else. Mostly useful for looking at the differences in Protestant vs. Catholic view of how matters are decided.

I am glad you provided your insights. There are many things in the Roman Catholic stream that I appreciate, and your understanding is a welcome addition.

I love engaging in dialogue, particularly debates (go figure). I don't always express my fixed opinion on a matter--I often just throw things out there to cause people to think.

Me too!! (Me three? Four...?) Often I don’t even have a “fixed opinion” on a matter...I like to get the responses of others as grist for my own mill.