crf@mace.princeton.edu (Charles Ferenbaugh) (03/09/91)
In yet another article which has expired from my system, the Moderator was discussing the applicability of Scripture to such modern issues as ordination of women. His point (or perhaps his presentation of the PC(USA)'s point) was that Paul was giving situation-dependent advice which is not directly applicable to us today. First let me say, I agree that sometimes the Biblical writers were addressing specific situations, and we do have to consider this possibility before blindly applying Scripture to a situation where it doesn't fit. So no disagreement there. However I don't think this is the case regarding ordination of women, because in fact we have some record of what Paul's considerations were. In one of the letters to Timothy (sorry I can't be more precise, I'm working from memory), Paul writes that he does not allow women to teach or have authority over men, _because_ in the beginning the woman was deceived, but not the man (he chose freely). Let me comment specifically on what Paul _doesn't_ say. He doesn't say, don't ordain women because I hate women; if he did then we'd probably be right in questioning that statement (along with a lot of others). He doesn't say, don't ordain women because women are uneducated, or because women can't work outside the home; in this case we could definitively say that Paul was basing his argument on a cultural factor which has since changed. But Paul _does_ base his argument on the Fall, something which is as much of an influence on us today as it was in his own time. (Note that this holds true whether you regard Genesis 3 as a literal historical event or as a metaphor for what's wrong with the human race.) So in this particular case, I don't see how we can let Paul's statement slip by as being addressed only to his own time and place. Grace and peace, Charles Ferenbaugh
David.Anderson@cs.cmu.edu (03/11/91)
Lynn, here, briefly, re: what Paul says about ordaining women (slightly jumbled, but I'm in a tearing hurry): Apart from the epistles to Timothy falling into the "deutero-" or "pseudo-Pauline" category (that is, Paul may not be the actual author of those epistles), there is also the consideration of how Paul referred to and treated his co-workers in the missionary effort, several of whom were women. He does not seem to have a problem with the idea that women were tacitly (if not explicitly) in charge of the congregations which met in their homes, nor with the fact that Phoebe was a deacon (*not* "deaconess," a mistranslation), and so on. As with the counsel given to the Corinthians, there may well have been *local conditions* which may have given rise to this counsel. It is clear from other passages (most notably in Corinthians, where the counsel to "let the women keep silent" first appears) that Paul was likely responding to *questions*, not making statements of policy re: gender roles in the church. He is clear that one is not to squelch the spirit of prophecy (in both men and women)--pretty hard to do if the woman is to keep silent. If necessary, I will post all sorts of lovely references and documentation to flesh out this argument as time permits (which lately it hasn't). It is pretty hard to reconcile the notion of "there is no male or female in Christ Jesus" with blatant sexual discrimination. Secondly, re: Eve: The deception argument is a product more of Jewish thought prevalant among the Pharisees in Paul's day. Some readings of Genesis make it clear that both A& E were involved *from the very first*. While I personally do not believe Eve was deceived, but made a conscious choice (which resulted in humankind "moving forward" out of innocence, among other things), it seems unreasonable to me that Christ's work would not have atoned for her "sin" as well as Adam's. Obviously women are still suffering the *effects* of Eve's curse, just as all humankind is suffering from the effects of the fall itself, but the "legality" of the continuance of Eve's curse is totally unjustified, IMHO. (More on this as time permits as well.) Finally, God calls us to his work and will judge us on the basis of who we are as individuals, not with any gender-based prejudices attached. To deny women the opportunity to answer *his* call to become ordained servants (in any religious tradition) is to deny the reality and validity of women's interaction with God. Those men who persist in placing stumbling-blocks in front of others (insisting on following sexist traditional interpretations of scripture) will surely be held accountable by that God who is indeed "no respecter of persons." Lynn