cctr114@csc.canterbury.ac.nz (05/05/91)
>In article <Apr.28.18.37.27.1991.20418@athos.rutgers.edu>, mls@sfsup.att.com (Mike Siemon) writes: [snip] >Now if a woman says that she feels she has been called to the preaching >ministry, I think there are valid reasons to say that she has not. The Lord >does not contradict himself; and God's Word is particularly clear on this >point: a woman should learn in quietness and full submission, and not act >as a man's master-teacher. (1 Timothy 2:11,12). If a woman claims to have >been called to the preaching ministry, then first of all she claims to have >a new revelation that contradicts the revelation we already have. We should >reject her as a false spirit, as would the Bereans. [snip] Well, maybe the Lord doesn't contradict Himself but that doesn't mean the Bible is always totally consistent. Pauls' teaching here is quite different to the teaching of Jesus about women, the Old Testament teaching, and whats more its is also different to other things that Paul says. (assuming, of course, that we take it at face value.) What about the place were Paul says that in Christ there is neither Jew or Greek, slave or free, male or female. There has been enough written about the circumstances of the time that it is not very difficult to find out some of the opinions about the underlying problem which motivated Paul to write this letter. In reading Pauls' letters it is a bit like listening to a person talking on the phone. There is someone on the other end talking who we cann't hear and we can easily get the wrong idea about what was being said. Paul was writting to real people with specific needs in a specific culture at a definite point in time. Without understanding who these people were and what their needs were which motivated Paul to write to them we fall into the trap so well illustrated above where a verse or two are ripped out of context, (both in the literary and cultural sense) taken to be the absolute divine revelation for all mankind for eternity and used to bludgeon people into submission. A friend of mine who teaches at a Bible College told me that a good way to understand the place of women in the church is to start with the teaching of Jesus, study that, then go back into the Old Testament, particularly in Genesis, (the Hebrew makes a few things clearer in Gen 2 about the place of women which I have not seen in any English translation so others may not be in the fortunate position my friend was in) and then finally come to the teaching of Paul. The mistake so many people make is that they start and finish at the teaching of Paul and ignore the rest of the scriptures which they claim they believe. A bad case of ``Paul''-ianity and not ``Christ''-ianity. In the church which I attend, which is very much a fundamentalist Pentecostal church, we practice a glaring double standard with respect to women's ministry. Women are allowed to do just about everything such as lead worship, lead home groups, conduct Bible studies, gives testimonies and so on and so forth. But there are three things which are absolutely prohibited. (1) They are not allowed to preach in the Sunday meetings. (2) They cannot hold the office of elder. (3) They cannot hold the office of pastor. I personally cannot see the difference between teaching from the Bible in a home group (a church in my opinion) and teaching in the Sunday meetings. In fact women are even allowed to be missionaries and go to other cultures and preach the gospel, and teach and train and instruct the believers in other countries because, it is claimed, that this is not specifically forbidden. They are even allowed to teach from the Bible in our Bible Colleges with male students in their classes, because this is not ``in church'' where such speaking would not be tolerated. There was an article in one of the Christian newspapers here which either had as its title or maybe a subtitle ``A Woman is worse than nothing.'' In which the true story of a woman who had been a missionary for some years, and with high theological qualitications offered herself for the office of elder in her home church when there was a vacancy on the eldership. She was refused because she was a woman. The office remained vacant and short time later a second eldership became vacant and she again offered herself but was refused. No man was willing to take the office and so the two elderships remained vacant because a woman was worse than nothing. Do people actually realize what they are saying when they deny women the right to preach? Are women so grossly inferior to men that they can't teach truth from the word of God? To those who think women should be excluded from pulpit ministry I have a question, what is the reason women should be excluded from this ministry? Apart from the old ``Paul says so'' argument I don't understand why they should be excluded. Bill Rea ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- | Bill Rea, University of Canterbury, | E-Mail b.rea@csc.canterbury.ac.nz | | Christchurch, New Zealand | Phone (03)-642-331 Fax (03)-642-999 | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- [The claim, of course, is not that they are "worse" than men, but that each sex has a specific role, and that women's role does not include certain kinds of church office. --clh]
mls@sfsup.att.com (Mike Siemon) (05/07/91)
In article <May.4.23.36.07.1991.22392@athos.rutgers.edu>, cctr114@csc.canterbury.ac.nz writes: > >In article <Apr.28.18.37.27.1991.20418@athos.rutgers.edu>, mls@sfsup.att.com (Mike Siemon) writes: > [snip] > >Now if a woman says that she feels she has been called to the preaching > >ministry, I think there are valid reasons to say that she has not. The Lord Please take some care in editing included material. Those who have been following this thread probably realize that the "Now if a woman says ..." was written by Ake Eldberg, and I was quoting it to take exception, as is the current note from Bill Rea. Note that I am entirely in favor of women's ordination to the priesthood, as well as to the less sacerdotal orders of more Protestant churches than my own, Anglican, one. There is no scriptural "manual for ordination," with rubrics about qualifications. Epistolary mention of deacons and presbyters and episcopes requires some rather "creative" interpretation to come up with any of our current schemes, and reliance on tradition can take one only so far, particularly where traditional exclusion has no base in the gospel. -- Michael L. Siemon I say "You are gods, sons of the m.siemon@ATT.COM Most High, all of you; nevertheless ...!att!attunix!mls you shall die like men, and fall standard disclaimer like any prince." Psalm 82:6-7
math1h3@jetson.uh.edu (05/07/91)
In article <May.4.23.36.07.1991.22392@athos.rutgers.edu>, cctr114@csc.canterbury.ac.nz writes: >>In article <Apr.28.18.37.27.1991.20418@athos.rutgers.edu>, mls@sfsup.att.com (Mike Siemon) writes: > [snip] >>Now if a woman says that she feels she has been called to the preaching >>ministry, I think there are valid reasons to say that she has not. The Lord >>does not contradict himself; and God's Word is particularly clear on this >>point: a woman should learn in quietness and full submission, and not act >>as a man's master-teacher. (1 Timothy 2:11,12). If a woman claims to have >>been called to the preaching ministry, then first of all she claims to have >>a new revelation that contradicts the revelation we already have. We should >>reject her as a false spirit, as would the Bereans. > [snip] First of all, those are my words and not Michael Siemon's. Hang around the net a while and you'll know the difference without our signatures. :-) > Well, maybe the Lord doesn't contradict Himself but that doesn't mean > the Bible is always totally consistent. I can understand how you might believe that, but I believe that the Bible is verbally inspired by God. That means it says what God wants it to say, albeit in the words of a number of different human authors. So Paul's words, for me, are God's Words. Otherwise we have to start picking and choosing what is God's Word, and while some think they can do that, I don't. > Pauls' teaching here is quite > different to the teaching of Jesus about women, the Old Testament teaching, > and whats more its is also different to other things that Paul says. > (assuming, of course, that we take it at face value.) You might explain to us what Jesus taught about women that was incompatible with Paul's teachings. I don't find Jesus setting up women as teachers of men or choosing them as apostles. At the wedding at Cana he quite distinctly put his mother in her place. > What about the place were Paul says that in Christ there is neither > Jew or Greek, slave or free, male or female. Our moderator has already answered this one (which always comes up): men and women have equal status before God, they have equal value, and are equally saved by Christ. This does not mean that their God-pleasing roles cannot be different. Paul also wrote, "We have different gifts, according to the grace given us..." > A friend of mine who teaches at a Bible College told me that a good > way to understand the place of women in the church is to start > with the teaching of Jesus, study that, then go back into the > Old Testament, particularly in Genesis, (the Hebrew makes a few things > clearer in Gen 2 about the place of women which I have not seen in > any English translation so others may not be in the fortunate > position my friend was in) and then finally come to the teaching of Paul. > The mistake so many people make is that they start and finish at the > teaching of Paul and ignore the rest of the scriptures which they > claim they believe. A bad case of ``Paul''-ianity and not ``Christ''-ianity. But if I treat the canonical scriptures as inspired, then I have to accept Paul's interpretation of Genesis in 1 Timothy 2:11-15! And for Christians the real question is not what can a woman do vs. what can't she do. It is a question of how we interpret scripture. Do we treat it as verbally inspired or just occasionally inspirational? > In the church which I attend, which is very much a fundamentalist > Pentecostal church, we practice a glaring double standard with > respect to women's ministry. Women are allowed to do just about > everything such as lead worship, lead home groups, conduct Bible studies, > gives testimonies and so on and so forth. But there are three > things which are absolutely prohibited. > (1) They are not allowed to preach in the Sunday meetings. > (2) They cannot hold the office of elder. > (3) They cannot hold the office of pastor. [deletions] > They are even allowed to teach > from the Bible in our Bible Colleges with male students in their > classes, because this is not ``in church'' where such speaking would > not be tolerated. But they are trying to submit to God's will revealed in the Scriptures. You are basically complaining that they are not being consistent. My church has some problems in this regard too. We don't allow a woman to be a pastor, hold a congregational office, or vote in the Voter's Assembly of a congregation. Women do serve as teachers in various levels of schools. You would probably find us more consistent than your church in this regard. Would you like it any better? I don't know! Our Council of (District) Presidents has decided that church-related organizations may choose to allow women to vote, so long as the organization upholds the Scriptural principle of male headship and female submission (1 Cor 14:34, 1 Tim 2:11). Frankly, I think they stepped on a pretty slippery banana peel on that one, but the basic idea is this: Scripture teaches various things, just one of which is that women should be 'in submission' and should not 'exercise authority over men'. This is based on the facts of the creation story (as interpreted by Paul). The basic principle, based upon God's creation, is eternal. The application of the principle is made by the church in witness to God's truth at a particular place and time. Such application may change from time to time. But when we concentrate on rules, especially rules made by the church, then we are in danger of legalism. The clearest application one can make of this principle is that a wife should submit to her husband: 'wives, submit to your husbands, as to the Lord,... husbands, love your wives, just as Christ loved the church, etc.' Secondly, it is very clear from 1 Tim 2:12 that a woman should not exercise autority over a man as a man's master-teacher. The best translation of this notion to modern practice is the pastor of a church. How this applies to voting, holding office, etc., is hard to work out, except that the practice we have is compatible with this principle of male headship, and female submission. I can't say there is no reason for our current practice, but I can't say it is compelled by Scripture either. David H. Wagner a confessional Lutheran.
cctr114@csc.canterbury.ac.nz (05/11/91)
>>>In article <Apr.28.18.37.27.1991.20418@athos.rutgers.edu>, mls@sfsup.att.com (Mike Siemon) writes: >> [snip] >>>Now if a woman says that she feels she has been called to the preaching >>>ministry, I think there are valid reasons to say that she has not. The Lord >>>does not contradict himself; and God's Word is particularly clear on this >>>point: a woman should learn in quietness and full submission, and not act >>>as a man's master-teacher. (1 Timothy 2:11,12). If a woman claims to have >>>been called to the preaching ministry, then first of all she claims to have >>>a new revelation that contradicts the revelation we already have. We should >>>reject her as a false spirit, as would the Bereans. >> [snip] > >First of all, those are my words and not Michael Siemon's. Hang around the >net a while and you'll know the difference without our signatures. :-) Ok sorry. >> Well, maybe the Lord doesn't contradict Himself but that doesn't mean >> the Bible is always totally consistent. > >I can understand how you might believe that, but I believe that the Bible >is verbally inspired by God. That means it says what God wants it to say, >albeit in the words of a number of different human authors. So Paul's >words, for me, are God's Words. Otherwise we have to start picking and >choosing what is God's Word, and while some think they can do that, I >don't. A little story to illustrate what I mean. About 15 years ago I was in a church which did not have a church consititution, the Pastor decided it would be a good idea to have one so he drafted one and placed it before the elders for initial comment. One of the statements was something like ``The Bible is the inspired, inerrant, infallible Word of God and the only rule of faith and practice in the Church today.'' One of the elders suggested that the statement be simplified to ``The Bible is the inspired Word of God.'' He pointed out that the statement went beyond what the Bible claims about itself and hence should be simplified. The people, the Pastor included, basically blew a fuse. An argument about that raged in the church for more than two years until the Pastor moved on and the idea of a constitution was dropped. I beleive the Bible is the inspired Word of God, but when I attempt to get more precise than that I run into all sorts of problems for none of the theories of inspiration is totally consistent. The theory you subscribe to, of verbal inspiration, has its problems. One of them is that we do not know what the original text was. There are some very clear contradictions in the Bible and it doesn't take much effort to find some. >> Pauls' teaching here is quite >> different to the teaching of Jesus about women, the Old Testament teaching, >> and whats more its is also different to other things that Paul says. >> (assuming, of course, that we take it at face value.) > >You might explain to us what Jesus taught about women that was incompatible >with Paul's teachings. I don't find Jesus setting up women as teachers of men >or choosing them as apostles. At the wedding at Cana he quite distinctly >put his mother in her place. I use ``teaching'' is rather a loose sense here as we learn from peoples' attitudes and actions as well as their words. Paul was a very highly trained Jew. In that age most (not all) Rabbis refused to teach women because it was believed that their minds were incapable of grasping Gods' truth. Paul seems to have carried over this idea into Christianity. Jesus clearly acted differently than the other Rabbis of his time for Jesus commended Mary for listening to his teaching (Luke 10.38-42). Jesus revealed that he was the Messiah to a woman (John 4:25-26). Jesus appeared first to women after his resurection and instructed them to tell his (male) disciples (Mark 16:1-8, Luke 23:55-24:11). There are many other passages where Jesus meets and talks with women and he never, with one exception, treats them in any other way than with dignity and respect. There is no implication that they are in any way inferior or incapable. Paul does not appear to give women the same place that Jesus did, the Timothy passage quoted being a good example. [snip] >> The mistake so many people make is that they start and finish at the >> teaching of Paul and ignore the rest of the scriptures which they >> claim they believe. A bad case of ``Paul''-ianity and not ``Christ''-ianity. > >But if I treat the canonical scriptures as inspired, then I have to >accept Paul's interpretation of Genesis in 1 Timothy 2:11-15! I take any commentary on scripture as a commentary. I prefer to study the scripture being commented on myself and see if I agree with the commentator or not. I do not take any New Testament commentary or interpretation of the Hebrew Scriptures as being the definitive commentary, after which no other understanding is possible. I think that it is unwise to claim that we have the final interpretation of a scripture even if that interpretation comes from another part of scripture. We must in every generation be prepared to admit that we may be wrong about our understanding of the scripture and let it speak to us afresh. Tradition is very valuable in preventing us from going off into error but we must not let it become like a set of blinkers which prevents us seeing the scriptures afresh again. Most Christians take the New Testament as their primary set of scriptures and the Hebrew Scriptures as a secondary set of scriptures. I realize that I am in a minority on this point but I look at what is in the New Testament (except the Gospels) in light of what is in the Hebrew Scriptures and in the Gospels. If there are differences in teaching I will usually accept the Old Testament or Gospel point of view. The vast majority of Christians I know take Pauls' teaching as the final word on the matter, hence my ``Paulianity'' statement above. So what about Paul's interpretation of Genesis which he makes in 1 Timothy. He claims: 1. Adam was formed first then Eve. 2. Eve was deceived and became a sinner. In the Genesis 1 passage God created mankind male and female at the same time in Their (Gods') own image. In this picture of creation there was no distiniction between them by order of creation. In the Genesis 2 passage it is clear that Adam was created first. But that Paul is claiming some sort of headship to the man ignores the equal place accorded to the women when the Lord did make her. Usually the English renders the passage something like ``a helper suitable for him''. The word rendered suitable contains the idea of equal, if you don't beleive me then go look the word up in Brown, Driver, and Briggs Lexicon, in the edition I have it is on page 617 in the right hand column. It was not until Adam and Eve sinned that the Lord said the man would rule over the woman. It would seem from that that the order of man being the head of the woman should be argued as a defective state caused by man's sin and not part of the order of creation as Paul argues. The deception of Eve point that Paul makes is a little bit hazy because he doesn't say what he thinks of Adams' sin in relation to Eve's. When I lived in another part of the country I was in the Anglican church and we had a confession which went something like ``we have sinned in ignorance, we have sinned in weakness, we have sinned through our own deliberate fault.'' Paul is saying that Eve's sin fell into one of the first two catagories (I am not sure which one) while it seems Adam's sin was his own deliberate fault. It would seem to me that Adam's sin was the more serious. It seems unusual to me that the person who sins through weakness or ignorance should be denied a particular ministry while another person who commits the same act in willful defiance of Gods' clear cut command should be allowed to exercise that ministry. Pauls statement seems to reflect the then prevailing Jewish veiw that womens minds were incapable of grasping Gods' truth. As a practical point in the very early church only those trained in Jewish schools would have had any detailed knowledge of the scriptures, these were almost exclusively males. Today theological education is just as available to a women as it is to a man. >And >for Christians the real question is not what can a woman do vs. what >can't she do. It is a question of how we interpret scripture. Do we >treat it as verbally inspired or just occasionally inspirational? Why not just treat it as inspired. [deatiled example on church practice deleted] >David H. Wagner >a confessional Lutheran. -- Bill Rea ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- | Bill Rea, University of Canterbury, | E-Mail b.rea@csc.canterbury.ac.nz | | Christchurch, New Zealand | Phone (03)-642-331 Fax (03)-642-999 | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
tblake@bingvaxu.cc.binghamton.edu (Thomas Blake) (05/11/91)
In article <May.7.00.37.02.1991.14808@athos.rutgers.edu> math1h3@jetson.uh.edu writes: >In article <May.4.23.36.07.1991.22392@athos.rutgers.edu>, cctr114@csc.canterbury.ac.nz writes: >I can understand how you might believe that, but I believe that the Bible >is verbally inspired by God. That means it says what God wants it to say, >albeit in the words of a number of different human authors. So Paul's >words, for me, are God's Words. Otherwise we have to start picking and >choosing what is God's Word, and while some think they can do that, I >don't. Sometimes Paul makes it quite clear that he is speaking for himself and not for God. Sometimes he makes it quite clear that he is speaking for God. I Corinthians 7:10-12 10 For married people I have a command which is not my own but the Lord's: a wife must not leave her husband; 11 but if she does, she must remain single or else be reconciled to her husband; and a husband must not divorce his wife. 12 To the others I say (I, myself, not the Lord): if a Christian man has a wife who is an unbeliever and she agrees to go on living with him, he must not divorce her. 13... (TEV) Now, in those places where he does not explicitly state for whom he is speaking (himself, or God) who are we to assume he is speaking for. Since he explicitly states that the command given in verses 10 and 11 is from the Lord, I would tend to think that the preceding verses were his own opinion. (And if you read them over, I think you will agree. For instance, check out verses 6 and 7). I Corinthians 7:6-7 6 I tell you this not as an order, but simply as a permission. 7 Actually I would prefer that all of you were as I am; but each one has a special gift from God, one person this gift, another one that gift. (TEV) Paul is doing his best to answer the Corinthians' questions. In some cases he answers from his own way of thinking, and in other cases, (such as verses 10 & 11) he gives the ruling from God (Jesus in this case). To say that all Paul's words are the words of God I feel is to contradict Paul's very words. >You might explain to us what Jesus taught about women that was incompatible >with Paul's teachings. I don't find Jesus setting up women as teachers of men >or choosing them as apostles. At the wedding at Cana he quite distinctly >put his mother in her place. Well, yes, and at other points he quite clearly puts his (male) disciples in their places. Are we to conclude that men aren't to lead either? >But if I treat the canonical scriptures as inspired, then I have to >accept Paul's interpretation of Genesis in 1 Timothy 2:11-15! And >for Christians the real question is not what can a woman do vs. what >can't she do. It is a question of how we interpret scripture. Do we >treat it as verbally inspired or just occasionally inspirational? In the 16th chapter of Romans, Paul sends personal greetings to a number of fellow workers in the church. The first he mentions is Phoebe Romans 16:1-2 I recommend to you our sister Phoebe, who serves the church at Cenchrae. 2 Receive her in the Lord's name as God's people should, and give her any help she may need from you; for she herself has been a good friend to many people and also to me. (TEV) The second he mentions is Priscilla. she and Aquila have a church meeting in their house. Unusually, he lists Priscilla first. I'd assume she was considered highly to be mentioned first. She apparantly has risked her life for Paul, but so has Aquila, so I don't think that's the reason she's mentioned first. Romans 16:3-7 I send greetings to Priscilla and Aquila, my fellow workers in the service of Christ Jesus; 4 they risked their lives for me. I am grateful to them-not only I, but all the Gentile churches as well. 5 Greetings also to the church that meets in their house. Greetings to my dear friend Epaenetus, who was the first man in the province of Asia to believe in Christ. 6 Greetings to Mary, who has worked so hard for you. 7 Greetings also to Andronicus and Junias*, fellow Jews who were in prison with me; they are well known among the apostles, and they became Christians before I did. (TEV) * Junias; or June; some manuscripts have Julia. Now he mentions Mary. (Who has worked so hard for you.) Then he mentions Junias who was thrown into prison! She must have been doing something to get thrown into prison! (I'd bet preaching the good news, that's how a lot of the Christians got thrown into prison.) Okay, I admit it. Paul does not *explicitly* state that any one of these women was preaching. However, he also does not *explicitly* state that any of the men were either. It's certain he thought quite highly of these women. And I'd conclude they were leaders in the church. And I'm willing to bet that their leadership included teaching men. Tom Blake SUNY-Binghamton
hudson@athena.cs.uga.edu (Paul Hudson Jr) (05/13/91)
I think you are rather critical of Paul. Most of Paul's writings about women are probably mosty in his salutations. I especially recommend Romans 16:1. The declintion of the names should tell the gender, so women can be identified. Do you think that maybe Paul's discussion of Adam might be an allusion to Adam's excuse for sinning? He said that God had given him this woman who had decieved him. Then God said that the woman would serve the man, and that the woman would have pain in child birth. It seems to be a very brief summary. If all Scripture is inspired of God, then does it not make sense that it should all agree in doctrine and that there should be no such thing as "Paulanity" or Cephasanity or Apollosanity, but that we can follow all of the commands of God and be in unity? Why would Paul's writings contradict the Gospels? The Gospels do not deal in detail with the role of women in the church in any place that I know of. Paul's writings do. How can we follow the Gospels advice on something that they do not discuss? I think that we can look at Acts and see to some extent what the proper role of women in the early church was. Women occupied the position of deaconess (servant.) Maybe an example of a deacon might be found in Acts 6. i don't know that they are called deacons, but they had positions of administrative responsibility, and I do not think that this necesarily involved any authority that would contradict Paul's instructions. Paul recognized women as deconesses. Peobe was a deaconess, and Paul told the Romans to help her in whatever she needed. There may were certain roles that Paul did not consider having authority over a man. Link Hudson