My view is not going to be a definitive statement on the matter, but a look at the scriptures and extrapolating some of the cultural realities within some of the answers that are forwarded by others.
I stated previously that there is a hierarchy within God-given parameters of this life, and within the Church. The question is not whether there is such a hierarchy, but what form that takes in practical expressions of life. I think this is what Paul expressed in "For Adam was formed first, then Eve." 1 Timothy 2:13, that the hierarchy of God, man, then woman, was still in place. Our freedom and egality of position in Christ does not abrogate the order of the natural position in this life (stated in 1 Corinthians 11, as well). These scriptures do not preclude leadership positions for women, but indicate recognition of the ways in which we are to interact as men and women.
While looking at this section of scripture, 1 Timothy 2, I'd like to examine the context. Paul is a church planter, an apostle, and he is writing to Timothy on the topic of instituting sound doctrine in the church, so this is a foundational type of teaching. These are general admonitions with an overview of what best serves the promulgation of the gospel. If we don't see these things as general, rather than specific, I think we run into several problems. One is that of outward dress. When Paul first is mentioning proper demeanor for women, he addresses the tendency to use appearance as a measure of importance. Thus the admonitions to "tone it down". This is a decisive break with the standards of the culture, and placing the standards of the inward character prominently, instead. It is not a commandment for Christian women. IOW, we are not in defiance of the gospel when we wear pearls, etc. The text that follows is also problematical if taken in this "commandment" type of view. It would then stand against the practice of the early church as recorded in other places, where women do teach, and do have positions of recognized authority,i.e. deaconesses.
So what does this mean?
"11 Let a woman learn in quietness, in entire submissiveness.
12 I allow no woman to teach or to have authority over men; she is to remain in quietness and keep silence " ?
Wycliff 's version says it this way:
"11 A woman learn [she] in silence, with all subjection.
12 But I suffer not a woman to teach, neither to have lordship on the husband [neither for to have lordship on the man], but to be in silence. "
And another place in scripture (1 Corinthians 14, Amplified version) says this,
"33 For He [Who is the source of their prophesying] is not a God of confusion and disorder but of peace and order. As [is the practice] in all the churches of the saints (God's people),
34 The women should keep quiet in the churches, for they are not authorized to speak, but should take a secondary and subordinate place, just as the Law also says.
35 But if there is anything they want to learn, they should ask their own husbands at home, for it is disgraceful for a woman to talk in church [for her to usurp and exercise authority over men in the church].
36 What! Did the word of the Lord originate with you [Corinthians], or has it reached only you?"
In both places there are ideas of women in a learning capacity, and of the inappropriateness of "lordship over" or usurpation of authority over men. This is all in the context of "order in the Church". The commandment is in forbidding the usurpation of authority. This is quite an old issue, and one dealt with continually in the account of Moses in Genesis, as well as earlier. It is a general principle in the Word of God.
In this specific instance, women will not always be unlearned in the scriptures or doctrines, but they will need to operate in an attitude of respect for men. The idea of this respect is mutual (1 Corinthians 11:11-12), but it seems that women need to be reminded of it in these scriptures. Experience says this is the case.
Ok. So what are the practical problems we face?
Woman Pastors
I think there is going to be a difficulty in the application of these scriptures under a woman senior pastor. If there is no male counterpart, the duties of discipline in the Church, of counseling, and implementing authority are going to require a woman to take authority over men in a way that even the most liberal of cultures frowns upon. Maybe because it ends up emasculating men rather than correcting them. We have to face this squarely. Woman may operate in preaching, in teaching, and in giving direction to the Church, but in the other capacities of discipline there is a direct opposition to the hierarchy and in the commands of scripture. This is why Paul underlines the characteristic of submission. There are times when gender does matter, and it will require the ideals of Christs servanthood to adjust oneself to these matters. If the Church is supposed to mirror God's order for family [Ephesians 5:31-33
31"For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh." 32 This is a profound mystery—but I am talking about Christ and the church. 33 However, each one of you also must love his wife as he loves himself, and the wife must respect her husband. ] and if women are not to "lord it over their husbands", then the matter of final authority is going to require that a man lead the ship of faith. "What! Did the word of the Lord originate with you, or has it reached only you?" Are we going to say there are no men to lead, or that we refuse to follow leadership if women aren't equally represented? Or that it won't work if we can't have the final say, as women? I discern a bit of the prioritizing of the cultures standards over the scriptural ones if we are going to bridle and be insistant on these points. And I have to ask, Is the culture so successful in its reordering of these things? That is one thing I want to look at.... is the culture's view one that is successful, and in tune with the realities of men and women, especially in light of whether we should so deride the scriptures guidance? Because that is the insinuation of such protests.
'Parachurch' is a Thorny Hedge
An idea submitted within some comments, to the effect that it's one way to circumvent these difficulties, is a concept of "parachurch" activities for women. A division of Church proper and of Church on the side. Aside from the impossibility of such a situation in my own view, let's look at how it plays out in the application.
First, what's "parachurch"?
"The defining characteristic of a parachurch is that it stands outside of the organizational structure of well-established religious bodies....The parachurch is effectively a new form of religious organization that dates from the early 19th century.... While parachurch organizations are organizationally autonomous, they typically function with a considerable degree of interdependence with established religious organizations. "
That there is already a contention on this basis, as exemplified in this article: "
"parachurch" ministry [...] has no Scriptural authority. By definition, a parachurch ministry is one "raised up" by man supposedly to accomplish something churches are charged to do by the Scriptures. However, one should question raising up an organization outside the church (para-church) to accomplish objectives ordained by God to be produced by the normal, proper functioning of the local church and all its parts, especially for the evangelization of the lost. All too often, what is established to assist local churches ends up competing with them and introducing unscriptural philosophies and practices."
protesting such a beneficial organization as Campus Crusade, outlines some of the criticism.
"parachurch. It is a word comprised of two components, para and church. Para is Greek, and it is commonly translated as meaning beside [parallel], two things side by side. From this we can understand parachurch to mean beside the church, or side by side with the church. One thing that should be immediately apparent from this definition is that the parachurch is not the church. The church cannot be beside itself. In the same way, the parachurch is not the church. This is explicit in the prefix para.
The whole issue of the parachurch is an awkward and difficult subject at best." -Credenda.org
Given that the parachurch is not outside the commands of Christ, for us as Christians, I don't think this is the way to approach the issues. Outside of the Church institution does not mean outside of Christ. Or it shouldn't. We will still run into a thorny situation when we seek to integrate Church life and the means of 'parachurch' organizations. All having the assumption of being Christian in nature. And the points of integration of women in the culture and women in the Church are where we will find the issues we need to address.
Points of Contact
One of the toughest points is going to be if one allows that there are women in leadership in the so-called parachurch venues, but as soon as that woman walks through the doors of the Church she is denied access to such a position. There is an inherent inequity there. And so, one cannot have it both ways. There is no weaseling out of making real lines of guidance along doctrinal decisions. To edit out the historical and scriptural examples of such women is even worse. If traditional Churchmen refuse to make a cohesive policy based upon what scripture -God - actually allows, they will find themselves in the ever tightening juggernaut of God building His Church His way against their small traditional views. Because in many ways this issue has already been settled.
Women have been recognized as capable. Women have been recognized as legally equal. These recognitions are in every way harmonious with scripture. What remains unresolved is how men and women should interact, not whether women have a place in the leadership of the Church. It is in the how-to of the leadership, and all contentions that serve only to confuse women unsure of their position and privileges in Christ are irresponsible. The Church of Jesus Christ cannot in this day afford such irresponsibility. And the leadership of the men should hold more gravitas than to stir up foolish contentions on this issue. "No blogging". Indeed.
Because bigger issues are at hand in our culture. We have a feminist wave that belittles men and their roles, to the great detriment of society and individuals. We have men unsure of their roles and place, to the great loss of families. We have a general lack of respect for all authority, and general disrespect of women which piggybacks upon the liberalized versions of womens roles and purpose. We have people generally confused over the basic pillars of society- no longer even sure of definitions of what marriage consists of or why it should consist of anything.
And the Church can speak of nothing with clarity until it makes clear its view of women. Until it can articulate who God says women are, it cannot speak authoritatively. It is not as if we lack examples of godly women. Or definitions, if we will study them. We are simply afraid of making the statements with the humility of Christ's servants. We want our places, and prerogatives, more than we want the truth. And that goes for both sides, as I see it.
Submission is not a dirty word, and we shouldn't make it so. Leadership is not Lordship, it is an attitude of serving and that is never gender related. If the full-blown independence of women from men were the goal, then women such as Maureen Dowd, who complains that she can't find satisfaction in her personal life, wouldn't be so unhappy with their outcomes. This is similar to the situation of women leading in the Church. It isn't satisfactory in either practical or spiritual matters to divorce men from the picture. Men have their position of leadership and responsibility for the oversight of souls, women are an adjunct in this capacity. There is a synergism there, and all the ways of quantifying that with ideas of "lesser" and "greater" have always been at odds with the entire structure of God's Kingdom. The disciples of Jesus argued about this in His hearing and He addressed it. The Greatest is the servant of all. You just don't get to jostle for position. Not whether you are male or female.
If we truly were busy about the honoring of one another in the proper way, concerning oneself with an "other" orientation, the example of such a fellowship would shut alot of mouths on the topic. Something superior and excellent has a way of doing that. So, whether you want to argue about the perceived position of someone such as Brigid or not, no one will deny that such a woman did a lot of good works worthy of note in history and had an undeniable influence in the establishment of the Church. This is an aspect to aspire to.
Along this line another point of contact is going to be whether we employ a double standard. In this case, are we going to allow for a double standard when it comes to giving men their due respect and honor? Will we insist men change whatever cultural ways they do not honor women, but we will not adjust our own cultural filter? That we can demean men and refuse them the place that the scripture outlines because we hold more to our culture-inflected opinions? Let's be honest about this.
My Opinion In A Nutshell:
Women should be given opportunities in all forms of leadership, but with the caveat that it should be shared with men in all the final decisions of discipline and doctrine. Women should exhibit the type of respect that Paul described, to their husbands and to those worthy of it in places of authority. Women have a responsibility to share their insights and abilities, but in the proper venues and ways. These will differ among Church groups, according to convictions. One should obey God rather than man, and that will define the limits of submission and obedience for all Christians.
Yes, there are limits. True freedom has limitations which separates it from license, these are the guidelines of order; true obedience has guidelines of proper authority which denotes it from a system of tyranny and slavery. The gospel strikes this balance within the demands of life.
Our gender does not define us, but it does define functioning in a physical world. There is a difference that I think the gospel makes clear.
Hi Ilona,
This is not what I was saying at all: An idea submitted within some comments, to the effect that it's one way to circumvent these difficulties, is a concept of "parachurch" activities for women.
That's your take on it, not what I meant. I was simply pointing out that some parachurch organisations exist - not as a "way to circumvent" difficulties, but to point out the obvious. There are things which exist outside of the local congregation.
Your post doesn't really address that conflict for me - in terms of who has authority, the leadership of some-one's church or the leadership of the parachurch ministry. That's not a question solely about womens roles, but about whose authopirty do we listen to when there is a conflict? What I also said in my previous comments, was that in terms of teaching from a position of spiritual authority I think that should occur in the local congregation. Not all teaching is about spiritual authority, and can occur elsewhere. That isn't getting around things but trying to make sense of what exists.
I do want to reiterate that I wasn't looking at "circumventing" - I think you have misunderstood my view there.
You've made some interesting points. I am still thinking on some aspects. I am not personally aspiring to be a church leader so I tend to just get on with what I am called to.
This is, of course, a huge issue, as you are well aware, and there is a great diversity of viewpoints.
Two scriptures that fuel some of this diversity:
1) Judges 4:4 indicates that a woman, Deborah was the leader over Israel. It says nothing about her having a co-leader, although she herself became a co-leader in war. I believe Huldah also had such a role as judge or leader.
2) I Corinthians 11:5 gives provision for women to speak in church (They were supposed to keep their heads covered, but let's not go there . . .), so I Cor. 14:34 can't be the whole story.
I'm sorry you feel misunderstood- likely I do not know your full thinking on the matter. I tried to word my post to show that the idea was brought up for me. I do think that using the idea of parachurch is skirting the issue. I don't find that the issue of authoriity is any different with a "parachurch" label on it. Or for that matter "secular". I believe the Christian life is a holistic one, unified.
Teaching is teaching in my book- particularly since I don't know that the scripture is addressing a categorized "spiritual authority" versus "temporal", but gender, man/woman. It talks about "lordship" which can be recognized in any area of life. If there were a reason within the scripture that you could cite, that would clarify the matter of dividing ministry into the Church and parachurch, or into the holy and secular, in matters of authority,that would help; but as I said, I see that as impossible. Christ is Lord over all our life, we have no real categories outside of that.... so matters of spiritual authority would rule in temporal matters for us. That is what I am trying to address: how do women function within the parameters of Paul's admonitions.
Teaching that is allowed for specific topics, but constrained for others seems very awkward to me, the lines would be an artificial construct, and I don't think that is in harmony with how God's Word divides matters. And I don't think teaching is the proper issue, but exercising authority.
So. How would you address this matter of a woman holding position and authority outside the Church institution, but being unqualified for anything that pertained to males, within the Church? We say "submission" , but we aren't defining how that works. If you have ideas on that, I would like to hear it, because I could benefit from your perspective.
-I'm of the thought that we communicate differently, I'm INTP, what's your category?
Also, Catez, I am in the same place as you in not aspiring personally to leadership within my Church, but as bloggers on this forum ( or any) we are suddenly catapaulted into the arena on this one, I think. We qualify as weighing in on spiritual matters and speaking to men, so maybe it is closer to home than first perceived.
Martin, Thank you for those additional thoughts. Yes, Deborah was without a co-leader as judge, but it is often brought up that she deferred to Barak and until he declined she would have put authority matters of leading Israel into his hands. This deference seems to me the type of attitude that is given the term "submission" in the NT, but I don't have strong reasons for feeling that.
Head covering, um, yes...let's not go there quite yet. It isn't too difficult to see that as another reference to recognizing authority, though.
I appreciate that further citation of women speaking in Church, and that is why ( these scriptural indications) it is too simplistic to simply say women can't speak, but to look further into the whole message of scripture defining how women are to function within the hierarchy.
I was reading your page on submission in Ephsians 5 and was curious where you got your research from and who you are. I really resonate with what you had to share and I am in the process of doing research myself. I just need a little background info before I can present your ideas. Any info would be great. thanks.
Posted by: renee at April 21, 2006 12:55 PM
Hi Renee,
That post was written by Hannah Im. It is excellent.
"Teaching that is allowed for specific topics, but constrained for others seems very awkward to me, the lines would be an artificial construct, and I don't think that is in harmony with how God's Word divides matters. And I don't think teaching is the proper issue, but exercising authority."
I'm not going to comment too much here, but I thought I'd mention the Catholic position for comparison's sake, as the distinction drawn here doesn't exist in the same way in Protestantism.
As I understand it, the Catholic intepretation of this is that the teaching referred to is in fact bound up with authority – i.e. teaching authority. So you can find women teachers at Catholic seminaries, and three women have been named Doctors (i.e. teachers) of the Church. But you will never find a woman able to teach with binding authority, as a bishop in an ecumenical council or as pope, or even preaching a homily within the Mass.
Posted by: Atlantic at April 23, 2006 5:38 PM
hmmm. If the issue isn't whether a Catholic woman may teach in a seminary ( I have no idea what the Catholic position is on this ) , but a matter of what the functions of priests and bishops are, in terms of who qualified to make the sacrificial offering of the Eucharist, then is it in terms of who can represent Christ in the Mass? I am very cloudy on this.
This matter of priests and what takes place in the service and distribution of the Eucharist are where deep divisions between Catholic and Protestant traditions reside. It would explain some of the difference in the issue for the two streams of Christendom.
Would you say that for a devoted orthodox Catholic the questions for women are different, as far as their roles in the Church? Or do you think their questions would be more in the secular culture and living out the Christian life in Catholic terms practically?
I tried to word my post to show that the idea was brought up for me.
Then perhaps it would be better to say so in the post, rather than attributing it to me when it is not at all what I said.
I do think that using the idea of parachurch is skirting the issue. I don't find that the issue of authoriity is any different with a "parachurch" label on it. Or for that matter "secular". I believe the Christian life is a holistic one, unified.
This is vague at best. I'm not "using" the idea of parachurch - so you are not engaging with my view here. The problem I'm having with your view is the lack of contextual exegesis. For example:
Teaching is teaching in my book- particularly since I don't know that the scripture is addressing a categorized "spiritual authority" versus "temporal", but gender, man/woman.
Read the texts in question. Context is crucial. Paul is referring to teaching within the church. He is not talking about teaching science, or geography, or motor mechanics or some other subject outside the church - he is talking about teaching Christian doctrine and principles within the church.
You keep missing what I am saying - I am saying quite simply that we look at what scripture says. You are adding to scripture here. Scripture refers to teaching and authority within the church - it is spiritual. The fact that you want to somehow make this overarching onto other areas doesn't change the context. I'm not finding any biblical basis for what you propose.
The reason I raise the issue of parachurch is not to skirt - that's your view, in which you seem to want some universal law, so to you it will seem like skirting. In my view it is an issue of scriptural basis for spiritual authority. e.g. YWAM, which has had it's serious issues regarding leadership and accountability. People in YWAM are supposedly members of local congregations which are their authority. In practice this is often not the case. In terms of 6 month DTS courses, Christians put themselves under the authority of YWAM leaders who are not elders, not pastors, and not necessarily even in agreement with their own church doctrinally. Is this scriptural? If not, how should a parachurch organisation such as YWAM attend to this issue?
If there were a reason within the scripture that you could cite, that would clarify the matter of dividing ministry into the Church and parachurch, or into the holy and secular, in matters of authority,that would help;
Ilona you simply read the very scriptures that you are discussing - Paul is not talking about teaching on matters that are not within the church and are not spiritual matters. Of course our spiritual life has a practical outworking - but you are adding something to Paul which is not at all what he has said. You also seem to be thinking that I'm creating some sort of dichotomy when nothing is further from the truth.
Read the context of Paul's statements - he is specifically, in Corinthians, referring to praying and prophesying in church. That is your context. Church has a blueprint regarding authority - elders, deacons etc. Parachurch exists outside of this - and it raises practical questions. Likewise your "holisitic" Christian life does not mean the removal of certain specifics and context.
None of what I have said even begins addressing the issue of women and leadership. Before that can be done we need to take care that we are taking scripture in context and not extrapolating it out because we want an egalitarian argument.
Hi Atlantic,
Although my view will differ on this: . But you will never find a woman able to teach with binding authority,
in the sense of "binding authority and what it means (I'm not starting a debate though) - you have come close to what I've been trying to say from my own perspective in a way. There is an authority structure- and the NT lays it out for the church. The local assembly is the context of the Pauline instruction. And what I'm picking up on in what you said, is the principle of there being spiritual authority - not above or equal to God from my perspective but that we are discussing spiritual leadership.
Ilona, as bloggers on this forum ( or any) we are suddenly catapaulted into the arena on this one, I think. We qualify as weighing in on spiritual matters and speaking to men, so maybe it is closer to home than first perceived.
My sense when you first began discussing this topic was that this was an issue for you. However I think you can only speak for yourself here. I don't see my contribution to Intellectuelle as some sort of "teaching ministry" in the sense of having spiritual authority over others. In fact for me Intellectuelle is about engaging the culture, which also means engaging people. Your view may differ, but I have never written on my own blog or on this one just for Christians, and see what I do as different to "teaching" in the sense Paul refers to it. As I said, your view may differ, but it is important to allow me to define my boundaries and purpose here.
Dear Catez,
I'm willing to explain.
"Then perhaps it would be better to say so in the post," This is a matter of protocol, which I am willing to abide by in future posts, rather than quibble with what my own ideas are or were, here.
=====
"This is vague at best. I'm not "using" the idea of parachurch... "
forgive me... I do not see why else it was brought to attention, then. You could explain your context as far as how you believe an idea of parachurch is topical, but I think that is encased in the following contention.
First,though, I want to answer this, "you seem to want some universal law".
If you knew my viewpoint better- which I'm sure we all will:) - you would know that I eschew ideas of "law" as is commonly spoken of... and deal more in "principles" in my thinking. You are more schooled in science than I am and so you may be including the idea of law as in that of gravity: how things tend to work. In religious discussion I think we need to be careful in using the word law... in the religious context, no... I'm not looking for a universal law.
But on to the gist....
" Paul is referring to teaching within the church. He is not talking about teaching science, or geography, or motor mechanics or some other subject outside the church - he is talking about teaching Christian doctrine and principles within the church.
You keep missing what I am saying - I am saying quite simply that we look at what scripture says. You are adding to scripture here. Scripture refers to teaching and authority within the church - it is spiritual. The fact that you want to somehow make this overarching onto other areas doesn't change the context. I'm not finding any biblical basis for what you propose."
I think your statement above is the basis for your problem here,"Is this scriptural? If not, how should a parachurch organisation such as YWAM attend to this issue?"
Scripture refers to things as they are from God's viewpoint. It includes the many mistakes we humans make in parsing that out.
But I think the biggest problem in what you are saying to me is the view that there is a dichotomy in the secular and religious life, for Christians. I insist there is not. The rule of Christ, for us, is a rule in every sector. Therefore the principles of the Faith are true for every member of YWAM. The practical working out of this is accountability to ones own Church, but on the larger scale we have to make a difference between what is truly Christian and what is not... and every denomination, sect, and church possible will come under that determination. These matters of authority are on the highest level of doctrinal orthodoxy, the parachurch organizations will have to make their protocols on what they will accept as their foundational basis of doctrines and what they will be flexible ( tolerant) upon. In that way they are operating as a separate sect, in a way. As an individual you would have to choose whether this is harmonious with your own convictions. But in no way is the parachurch organization autonomous from the rest of Christianity.
on teaching
In the same way, when I say "teaching is teaching" I mean the issue of whether a woman may teach a man is the same in all matters touching spiritual authority. That means church ministries, seminaries, etc. Wherever there is the something that might involve a woman giving spiritual instruction, bible teaching, doctrinal views, ethics, policies that are deemed important and rooted in Christian mandate. It spreads out pretty far, which is exactly why I think it reached the shores of the blogosphere . It didn't arise ex nihilo - which is my view of all our cultural environment: the thinking gives rise to the actualization.
when you say,"Scripture refers to teaching and authority within the church - it is spiritual. "
what is the distinction you wish to make? that we have a category of relevance for what the Bible says? That religious significance is that 'leap' away from the physical realities in which we live? I don't think that you want to say that. So perhaps you could explain how this view is not a dualism of things pertinent to us spiritually removed from those things in our real life living?
I will still maintain that we are in big trouble if women who are competant, learned, and capable in positions of authority in the world walk through the Church doors and are told they are eternally of no effect. That is how I view this idea of no "binding authority" as it is expressed in these comments... they can teach, say what they want, act with responsibilities in the secular world, but in the things of eternal value? They have no voice or impact.
I am going to argue with that, but I am not going to throw away order and decency within the Church. I believe that these ideas have a reconciliation. Schaeffer, when speaking of our type of government , called this "form and freedom". I believe there is a balance. You say I add to scripture, but truthfully I have not fully laid out the theology, but only vollied ideas. I intend to do yet another post, which deals with theology, but no, I'm not going to bandy back and forth scriptures (although I am very interested in what you think on these scriptures brought up in the topic) ... but build the case based upon what the scripture is saying to us. As a whole, scripture gives clear direction... as Rusty likes to point out it is the singular scriptures taken alone that seem to cause so much trouble.
Because the issue is not the specifics of teaching so much as the issue of authority, we will have to look at what the scriptures teach on that- that has not yet been truly addressed in this discussion, yet.
"not extrapolating it out because we want an egalitarian argument"
We have to extrapolate out the message of the scripture in outcomes in the real world. Where the argument ends up will have components of the egalitarian argument. Otherwise you have to rethink slavery, and I think scripture, doctrine, and history have settled that issue. The question will be what form does the egalitarian side take? It is not one static form that is presented to us.
It isn't a matter of 'what we want' when seeking the truth, but finding what is there. That is the challenge before us, and not in this issue only. My favored way is following the different paths of the reasoning and see where that leads us, judging it on its harmony with known given principles of scripture and trashing it or following further and refining the thought.
but I realize that you are saying there needs to be better explanation, or the accusation of subjective thinking is due. Point taken.
====
"Parachurch exists outside of this - and it raises practical questions."
Ok. Where does Paul address this issue? we can include those scriptures in the larger context.
"I'm creating some sort of dichotomy "
No. I'm saying some sort of dichotomy is inherent in the idea that the spiritual teaching on how the genders relate is removed from the secular. As Christians our life is holistic, our teaching needs to be cohesive and consistant in its general message of the freedom that is in Christ. If it is not lived out in this way, then what usefulness does it have as witness of the heavenly?
What is its significance to others, in other words?
"The fact that you want to somehow make this overarching onto other areas doesn't change the context. I'm not finding any biblical basis for what you propose."
Let's reverse engineer this. What was Paul's reason for addressing this, if not the matters of the culture ( "overarching") brought up questions and actions in the Church? To which he applied principles of scripture.
Now I will be blunt in my take on what you are saying:
it seems to me you are advocating a relativistic "cultural" view of things that Paul says, that these matters were more relevant to the time, and now are not so relevant. Specific to time and place. This is valid in some reading of scripture, but not in all points. e.g. Revelation message to the Churches.
Are you saying this?
The trouble with that view is that it doesn't at all address why some should not use these as an example to follow today. It doesn't resolve the issue for women because it is awfully close to the argument that the ancient truths of the scriptures are simply outmoded, and were truth for those people in their context, but not for a modern world. I'm not saying you are saying this, ok? I am saying it is too close for comfort.
Or are you advocating that the Church is something of a spiritual island, and that women live different lives depending upon which venue they are involved it, Church venue or secular?
I would appreciate your working this out in a way I could look at, as an expression of what you do think. Email, group post or post here, whatever suits you.
I think you are right when you say I am missing what you are saying, I don't get an idea of what you believe about the topic or about the specific scriptures- that makes it hard to disagree or dovetail
with your view.
Also, I think our questions lay upon different lines.
Mine are along: can we speak to our culture? And what do we advocate as the role of women?
=====
"My sense when you first began discussing this topic was that this was an issue for you. However I think you can only speak for yourself here. I don't see my contribution to Intellectuelle as some sort of "teaching ministry" in the sense of having spiritual authority over others."
No, this was brought up for me when finding the debate on other women's blogs in reference to the comments of RC Spoul Jr ( I believe). That the role of blogging was interpreted as a teaching ministry.
I blog for fun, mainly, and my intentions @ Intellectuelle are similar to yours. But I have my debate side... and this engages it.
I am purposeful when I talk of spiritual things... my mind is aware of my interactions with unbelievers and the many assumptions out there about Christians, Christianity, and Christ. I do consciously engage that in all my online writing of this sort.
I'm sort of a "bring it to the people" type of apologist.
just a thought - but are you going to talk about leadership in the church (I've had the impression that usually the word used is in the plural form - in which case the idea that the pastor (male or female) is THE leader is a sign of how small (er) churches are run - but is not actually necessarily biblical.
Ther are some VERY intereesting thoughts here. (on many sides) I haven't been here for a LONG time - glad I came here today
Lorna, so glad you are here. { hug }
I was wondering how this issue might appear to you, as you are in seminary, aren't you?
This topic -as articulated here- is growing far beyond what I first pictured. I do think it is moving toward discussion of authority and submission in the larger context, but before I would jump there I have to figure out how to reduce the scope to something managable.
“If the issue isn't whether a Catholic woman may teach in a seminary (I have no idea what the Catholic position is on this), but a matter of what the functions of priests and bishops are, in terms of who qualified to make the sacrificial offering of the Eucharist, then is it in terms of who can represent Christ in the Mass? I am very cloudy on this.”
Ilona, I’m not quite sure what question you’re asking. The Catholic doctrine that only men may be priests and bishops is based on the scriptural example of Christ’s choosing only male Apostles, and the constant tradition and teaching of the Church. Priests do act in persona Christi in the Mass, but the idea that only men are able to do so is an argument from fittingness, not what the doctrine is based on in practice.
“Would you say that for a devoted orthodox Catholic the questions for women are different, as far as their roles in the Church? Or do you think their questions would be more in the secular culture and living out the Christian life in Catholic terms practically?”
Some of the questions are different, simply because certain questions have been definitively answered, such as women’s ordination. Practically everything else is a prudential judgment, or something that the Church can legislate one way or another as the situation demands. So in a wholly Catholic context, I might get into a discussion about whether or not altar girls are a good idea or not (awful, IMO) or about women’s religious orders as well as considerations of how women live out the Christian life in the widest terms.
As far as binding teaching authority goes, I was under the impression that Protestants don’t believe that anyone has such authority, so I don’t understand quite how you get from “lacking binding teaching authority” to “eternally of no effect”.
Posted by: Atlantic at April 24, 2006 4:49 PM
Atlantic, I asked because I didn't know the basis for the Catholic decisions.
I surmised "binding authority" meant that decisions made by elders were binding in the way we esteem Paul's writings, the decisions of such councils as the Nicene upon doctrinal matters, etc. Opinions that settle a matter for future practice and judgment.
I keep getting the idea that you don't think Protestants revere the Church fathers decisions and writings, They do add them into the process of determining orthodoxy. Sola Scriptura is giving highest place to canon scripture as the God-breathed word. That doesn't make other writings of no account.
I found this:
"Evangelical doctrine teaches that the Bible is the only binding authority for all matters of life and godliness.
Catholic doctrine teaches that church tradition and papal authority are just as binding as the Bible"
The way this would work for Evangelicals ( in this case) is that those who teach what the Bible says are invoking this binding authority. The accepted conclusions of the councils would be binding based upon their faithfulness to the Bible.
I suppose this would be the point I attempted to make in the discussion with Catez, that the direction of the Bible would be binding upon all matters of the Church, whether in a parachurch organization or in the Church services proper.
Legally, the idea of "binding authority" is "precedent" from what I looked up. That prevents the issues from being continually reiterated after the Biblical meaning is established. Protestants find need of that, it just takes a different set of terms and methods.
In that sense I believe we have our type of binding authority... anyone could correct me if they have something more.... authoritative... on it.
Ilona, it seems to me you are advocating a relativistic "cultural" view of things that Paul says, that these matters were more relevant to the time, and now are not so relevant. Specific to time and place. This is valid in some reading of scripture, but not in all points. e.g. Revelation message to the Churches.
Are you saying this?
No - not at all. I don't know how on earth you came up with that from what I said.
Or are you advocating that the Church is something of a spiritual island, and that women live different lives depending upon which venue they are involved it, Church venue or secular?
Spiritually - no, not at all. Again you seem to have added something to what I've said that isn't there at all.
I think the biggest problem in what you are saying to me is the view that there is a dichotomy in the secular and religious life, for Christians.
This is not at all what I am saying.
In the same way, when I say "teaching is teaching" I mean the issue of whether a woman may teach a man is the same in all matters touching spiritual authority.
That is some sense of what I was saying. I'd add that in Cor and Tim (the two passages specifically pertinent) it is teaching to Christians - the church, and it is referred to quite obviously as in the context of the church. I don't see how you can change the meaning regarding the Cor. and Tim. references - that would be abusing the scriptue in those places. It wasn't clear from the way you worded your previous comment that you meant that what you've said (quoted just above).
And no, I haven't laid out a position for you - I've been looking at the groundwork - some simple and basic things. My impression is that you seem to want a position from me and will read one in where it isn't. Essentially I was getting at something quite simple - what is the context. "Teaching" as Paul uses it in the passages under discussion is referring to spiritual matters in the church - to which you give me a long reply accusing me of dualism and then come back round to agree with what I was saying anyway regarding teaching and spiritual authority.
It's not dualism (I take exception to that being read into my comments) - I am simply describing what kind of teaching Paul was referring to and who that teaching was for. I didn't make any conclusions from it - and I think you assumed or speculated about my position.
I have actually being saying something quite simple. Regardless of what overarching view you present it will come back to two specific passages - and their context. So what are those passages saying, and what is the exegesis?
On the "law" issue. Semantics anyway - the point is that we cannot discard specifics - do they fit into your law/principle/ (egalitarian choice of terms) or not? Do they fit without abusing their meaning and context? (Don't read into that anymore than a simple question - I am not saying the meaning is or isn't abused by the law/principle/ you propose, I'm asking).
You quoted a large piece from my previous comment on one point, and then suddenly went on to a sentence from the end of a paragraph on a different point: Is this scriptural? If not, how should a parachurch organisation such as YWAM attend to this issue?
I've no idea why you did that. To pick up on this:
"This is vague at best. I'm not "using" the idea of parachurch... "
forgive me... I do not see why else it was brought to attention, then.
I didn't word that too well. I meant I'm not "using the idea of parachurch to skirt the issue". I brought it up because it poses problems - but it has become so confused in this discussion I'd rather drop it.
I'll be upfront - I am not sure I want to continue on this one right now. Maybe at a later time.
Perhaps one interesting or helpful approach to this subject might be to look at the church as the Family of God. I see a relationship. When Paul discusses the relationship between husbands and wives (and his gets into a whole 'nuther issue! ;-) ), he mentions created order and makes analogies to the church. In discussing worship and the role of women in the church, he mentions created order, and calls fellow believers brothers and sisters. In the 1 Timothy passage he mentions the creation order and the Fall. I think all these connections may give us a clue as to Paul's line of thinking.
My thoughts are that the basis for Paul's instructions for exercising authority within families and churches are related to a recognition of the fundamental nature of men and women and their interactions. This nature stems from the created order and the results of the Fall. A family structure is different from other types of institutions. The nature of the sexes and the way they interact is the same in all institutions, but a seminary, club (religious or not), government or company do not (or should not) share the common function that I see for the family and 'church' family.
In drawing these comparisons and pointing to similarities between church function and family function, I am not saying that all the scriptures directed at one apply to the other. This is a mistake (IMO) I have seen in the operation of some churches--extending the scriptural authority of the husband within the family, to all men, in general, in the church, over all female believers. What I am saying is that the Paul is appealing to the same set of facts--that of the nature of things--as his basis for instructions for both family and church organization. And I am saying that the purpose and function of these two God ordained institutions is unique and distinct from other organizations. And lastly, I am saying that the same reality, the same general nature of men and women, as a result of our created and fallen nature, will effect their interactions in other institutions and organizations. However in discussing other institutions, such as the Christian's relationship with governing authorities and masters/employers, Paul does not address the issue of created order or the role of men and women and nature of the sexes, etc, but simply continues with the theme of following Christ in willing submission to God ordained authority.
Thanks for all the stimulating thoughts and posts, here. I am looking forward to continued exchanges on the passages you all have mentioned (and I think there are others that could be brought in to the discussion) and on the role of women in the church.
Posted by: Debra at April 25, 2006 10:06 AM
Well, Catez, I guess I'm done guessing what you do mean, it seems I don't have enough parts of the puzzle to piece together what it is you *are* saying to me.
"My impression is that you seem to want a position from me and will read one in where it isn't."
What I want is a conversation. I'm trying to figure out what your dispute is with some of the stated positions and ideas I have submitted. I chalk up the difficulty to something of what I would call a difference in style, INTP vs. ? view or as Joe Carter so interestingly wrote about, different types of reasoning.
Perhaps we can continue once the views of Kevin Giles are included. Then I will discuss some of the Athanasian method of dealing with Church disputes on the larger scale of principle and overview. While I appreciate your reminder to keep an eye to specifics, I think that this is troublesome and a source of the division in subjects such as this. It is then that extrapolation gets us into some of the imbalance which I think is so rife in Church teachings as we now practice it. Maybe it is the speed of modern day media or the unbaked manner of presentation that encourages. I don't know.
In specifics a case could be made either way on women's roles in the Church. I would like to see where the major weight of the evidence would take me, personally, in deciding where I fit, and what I accept and expect from other women. I want to be able to wholeheartedly support others ministries and callings. I'm not sure that is possible when vague questions as to the appropriateness of their position are unresolved. As Debra said, and I submitted early on, perhaps we won't get to the resolution, perhaps we can't find the final position. But I don't know that yet.
the fundamental nature of men and women and their interactions. This nature stems from the created order and the results of the Fall.
A lot of people hold that view. Here's a couple of questions:
Did God originally create "the same general nature of men and women, as a result of our created and fallen nature"?
If not, then what is in fact our fundamental relational nature as those who are redeemed? Are we restored to something different than the fallen state?
Tricky questions these, because they go to an understanding of sin and redemtion/restoration, and whether or not we are misapplying the consequences of the fall on sinful man (and woman) by putting them onto Christians.
And I still haven't given a position - I know different perspectives on this. So I'm saying, before rushing to say that we follow the created order, let's be clear about what that is. Or what it isn't.
Ilona, I'm trying to figure out what your dispute is with some of the stated positions and ideas I have submitted. I chalk up the difficulty to something of what I would call a difference in style, INTP vs. ?
To put it plainly - stop trying to "figure out" things that haven't been said. It doesn't matter what the position is - the point is that there are passages of scripture that cannot be left out of the discussion. When you say this:
While I appreciate your reminder to keep an eye to specifics, I think that this is troublesome and a source of the division in subjects such as this. It is then that extrapolation gets us into some of the imbalance which I think is so rife in Church teachings as we now practice it.
This is purely subjective Ilona - and instead of engaging you now throw "division" at me. Yet I've read exegesis on those passages (Cor and Tim) that is very well done and thought provoking. Your approach is no less "divisive" quite frankly. You are wanting a principle - but it hinges on your interpretation and exegesis of certain scripture. I am simply saying that there are some specific passages that will have to be looked at. That is not divisive - it's a statement of fact. And as I asked before, what will you do if you honestly exegete those passages and find they don't fit your principle?
If you want to try a big picture start to the question then fine. I'm just pointing out that you will still have to deal with specifics - you can't just ignore those passages. So explain them. BTW - I have read an article by Giles that partly refers to this issue.
One thing - sorry, I am not into defining myself by Myers-Briggs type. I did it for Type blogs but actually got several different results. I know some people are quite into it but for myself I don't find it helpful. I prefer that what I say be taken for what it is.
My thoughts are that the basis for Paul's instructions for exercising authority within families and churches are related to a recognition of the fundamental nature of men and women and their interactions. This nature stems from the created order and the results of the Fall. A family structure is different from other types of institutions. The nature of the sexes and the way they interact is the same in all institutions, but a seminary, club (religious or not), government or company do not (or should not) share the common function that I see for the family and 'church' family.
Debra, I intuit something similar, although not exactly. If we see the family as the foundational component of society, perhaps it is influential in more of the rest of society's institutions. I'm not ready to say that, but it is something I would investigate.
The questions I have on this topic are how much of the created order ( hierarchy) is still in effect in the new freedom and order ( egalitarianism) in Christ? I think the passages from Pauls writings hold the key, and I am trying it within numerous doors to see how this fits and works.
Like many here, I do not have a final position of my own, yet. I have some suppositions that I am willing to explore in this public venue. It's a messy process.
I think what you are saying makes a lot of sense, and one of the avenues of thought I am now following is that the New Testament's manner of relationship keeps butting heads with man's natural inclination to ideas of domination as evidence of authority.
That is the pivotal point my own thinking is following, and the one I put forward in the first post:
"The solution is to strengthen the Churches structure to function properly. And just as there are times a husband should listen to his wife, there are times when men in the church should give ear to women. Not in exchanging authority roles but in the mutual respect and honor that Christ teaches and Paul explained."
clarification: the "division" is not an accusation thrown, but a statement of where we are, generally, in the Church as a whole. We in the Church are divided because we major in the specifics and minor in the principles of Christ.
God created men and women with a variety of differences in mind and body. (I am speaking of men and women, in general--there are individual variations that will be exceptions to generalized rules.)There is great disagreement, among believers and unbelievers, both, as to what these differences are and as to how great are these differences--but pretty much the overall majority in all fields recognize these differences. After the fall, these differences remained--but they did not remain uneffected. We now have all sorts of complications between the sexes as a result of the introduction of sin. Through our redemption in Jesus Christ, Believers now have power over sin and the ability to start dealing with the consequences of the Fall. But our sanctification doesn't happen overnight and so we still deal with problems that stem from the flesh--and that of our fellow, as of yet, unperfected brothers and sisters. And, as result of the fall, there are complicating things in the world, at large, that we must recognize and use our understanding and wisdom to adjust our behavior accordingly. Paul indicates that understanding how the world operates, and perceives people in the church, must be taken into consideration, to a certain extent, in some of the ways the church operates, as well.
When I refer to created order--that of Eve being taken from, and created for, Adam--I am just saying that Paul indicates that that has some bearing on how men and women interact and their relation to one another. So I consider that part of the created nature of things, as well.
I, too, haven't yet stated my opinion on the role of women in the church. I'm sure it will come out as this conversation unfolds and we discuss various passages and aspects of this. (Actually, some of my opinion and understanding is evolving as a result of reading these posts and the thoughts and study it is stimulating.)
Posted by: Debra at April 25, 2006 11:52 AM
Perhaps this is a good place to ask for listing of important passages in scripture. what are the views out there of what scripture references are important to building a view on women's roles?
I'm going to make this into a new post...now it's your turn :)
Ilona,
Ok - noted. It came across as a veto on even raising those passages to me, as it would be "divisive". I agree there has been division in the church on those pasages - or in some cases disagreement but not real division. Nevertheless the passages are there.
Debra, Paul indicates that understanding how the world operates, and perceives people in the church, must be taken into consideration, to a certain extent, in some of the ways the church operates, as well.
Generally speaking yes - you could say that of many things Paul wrote in his epistles. It doesn't really address the issue of women in leadership/teaching specifically though.
When I refer to created order--that of Eve being taken from, and created for, Adam--I am just saying that Paul indicates that that has some bearing on how men and women interact and their relation to one another.
The thing is that scholars have some quite different views on exactly what is referred to in the created order - and so while you give a generalised view here it can mean quite different things. e.g. some will say it automatically means male headship. Others will say it means complementarity and not headship. And I'm referring to scholars who know and studied the original languages as part of their work.
We in the Church are divided because we major in the specifics and minor in the principles of Christ.
Ilona - there are essentials and what some call non-essentials. However even then it can be hard to say what is non-essential. Exegeting a passage in context is not "majoring in specifics" - it is trying to be as sound as possible.
Let me put it quite simply. What does this mean:
"Let your women keep silent in the churches, for they are not permitted to speak; but they are to be submissive, as the law also says. And if they want to learn something, let them ask their husbands at home' for it is shameful for women to speak in church." 1 Cor:14:34-35
And what does this mean:
"Let a woman learn in silence in all submission. And I do not permit a woman to have authority over a man, but to be in silence." 1 Tim. 2:11-12
Revised Authorised Version
Are these correctly translated? Who was Paul talking to? What is the contxt of each passage?
What do these mean?
Hi, Catez,
I am looking forward to discussing the passages you mentioned--should make for some interesting and enlightening exchanges. But I'm out of time for today.
But I can address your other comments:
I mentioned Paul's comments on the world's perception of the church and it's effect on how we conduct ourselves, not in direct relation to our discussion on the role of women--but in discussing how Paul took in to consideration the basic nature of things (including the world) both as a result of creation and the fall, in his explanation of his instructions.
And I agree with you, entirely, that how the order of creation effects the relationship between men and women is the subject of much debate between scholars. And it is, largely, the issue at the root of much of this discussion. More on that later...
Great stuff, Sisters!
Posted by: Debra at April 25, 2006 1:05 PM
Sounds like you could have an exegesis post in the making, Catez.
You are missing my point on how emphasizing the specifics leads to divisions. Perhaps I take my experience for granted and presume it should be obvious what I am referring to....
There are the specifics of head coverings, of dress in general, of instrumental music, of whether we call our leaders Brother or something else. These are when groups take specific verses and emphasize them to what they consider essentials. while you say it is hard to make a declaration on what is non-essential, I am submitting that a habit of reviewing the specifics in light of principles would highlight the essential nature of a teaching, and give the spiritual meaning for us.
I think this is how Paul could take an obscure part of the law such as allowing the ox to feed while milling to be a teaching on how God intends the worker to benefit from his work. I think this is a valid form of exegesis.
To be fair, I re-read the post and you did discuss those passages a bit from one point of view. But too many things have been overlaid onto that context in this thread - the passages are about teaching in the church. As I've mentioned before, my own view is that spiritual authority is in the local congregation. I don't see any other setting in these passages. Nothing dualistic about what I'm saying - and I think the confusion in our discussion has arisen because of the idea that these passages somehow apply to a secular setting. The context clearly shows that they don't. I'm wondering why we even went down that rabbit trail.
Ilona I will not necessarily post on this. I need to leave it - and meant to some comments previously.
I see your point but no, I don't agree that it's a valid form of exegesis by itself. In your example of the ox Paul was being analagous. He was also creating something new regarding ministers. What he says in the NT about not muzzling the ox is clear in regard to what he means about ministers there. We don't need to re-interpret the NT passage by some other analogy yet again.
However the passages we are talking about in Cor and Tim are themselves analagous to each other, are not the like the passages from the law being applied in a new context, and can be looked at as they are. This doesn't mean no principle(s) can be involved - but it does mean we need to look at them and what they actually say.
Ilona, I think I’m beginning to understand the question you’re asking, and it may or may not be of use in the context of this general discussion.
Since all Christian truth is morally binding, anyone who teaches any part of it in the context of some form of authority (e.g. as a mother or a schoolteacher) could be said to be teaching binding truth with authority. However, Catholics see “binding teaching authority” as above and beyond that – the bishops have special, official authority. The Catechism, quoting from Lumen Gentium, describes them as “authentic teachers, that is, teachers endowed with the authority of Christ, who preach to the people committed to them the faith they must believe and put into practice” (CCC 2034). They’re not just invoking binding authority, they’re part of the binding authority. It is this latter sort of authority that a woman cannot have.
It’s a very imperfect analogy, but you could see it as similar to the body of laws of a nation. I can teach someone a “binding truth” about US law (say, the law that US citizens resident abroad and paying taxes abroad need to file a US tax return anyway). But my personal word on this matter is not on the same level of authority as when, say, an actual US tax official or a judge is stating the law to a taxpayer. Also, there are cases when the application of the law, including the interpretation of the words of the official tax code, is an issue, in which case the authority of tax officials (or judges etc.) is paramount.
Posted by: Atlantic at April 28, 2006 7:57 PM
Very interesting and helpful analogy, Atlantic.
Posted by: Debra at April 28, 2006 10:37 PM
Thank you for that insight, Atlantic. It brings to my mind the scripture,"I tell you the truth, whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven."
The spiritual authority to legislate... in a way that God acknowledges.
I don't know about anyone else, but I was thinking today that this topic has been one of the most enlightening , for me, that I have dealt with for a long time. It is stretching me beyond my cubicle of complacency on a subject that I didn't even realize I had struggled with... given that I have lived a very traditionally acceptable sort of life.
Really- my conservative credentials are impeccable;)
If you haven't left a comment here before, you may need to be approved before your comment will appear. Until then, it won't appear on the entry. Thanks for waiting.
