wagner@karazm.math.uh.edu (David Wagner) (07/02/90)
One of the difficulties in this subject is that the New Testament
seems to speak much more clearly and specifically than the Old
Testament. But our moderator is correct (IMHO) in saying that the doctrinal
foundation of the Bible's teaching regarding the roles of men and women lies
in the 'Order of Creation', found in the Genesis creation account.
I for one do not believe that Genesis contains two unrelated and different
creation accounts, from different sources. There are two accounts of the
same Creation event(s), both told by Moses. They are not irreconcilable. The
first seems to emphasize God's creation of the world while the second gives
more detail regarding the creation and subsequent fall of man and woman. So
when the first account says:
"So God created man in his own image,
in the image of God he created him,
male and female he created them."
this in no way nullifies the detail given in the second account that God
created the man, Adam, first, and the woman, second. In addition, he
created the woman to be a 'helper suitable for him', and he made her from
his rib, (whatever that means). It is also significant that after they sinned
God addresses the man first, as the one responsible, even though it was the
woman who sinned first.
If we did not have the New Testament scriptures, we in our modern
'enlightenment' might have difficulty in saying that the facts of the
creation account define different roles or attitudes for men or women --
although the Jews did, and many still do. However Paul, by inspiration
of the Holy Spirit, very clearly interprets the creation account for us in
1 Tim 2:15:
"A woman should learn in quietness and full submission. I do not permit
a woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she must be silent. For Adam
was formed first, then Eve. And Adam was not the one deceived; it was the
who was deceived and became a sinner. But women will be kept safe through
childbirth, if they continue in faith, love and holiness with propriety."
The key word here is not so much 'teach' or 'have authority', but
'submission' and 'silent' and 'quietness'. Note that Paul repeats this theme
in 1 Cor 14:33-35:
"As in all the congregations of the saints,women should remain silent in the
churches. They are not allowed to speak, but must remain in submission, as the
Law says. If they want to inquire about something, they should ask their own
husbands at home; for it is a disgrace for a woman to speak in the church."
Regarding this passage, there is a difficulty in that it seems to command
women to remain utterly silent in the church. This is what Luther would call
a 'manifest absurdity', not because it is obviously absurd to us, but because
elsewhere the scriptures speak of women praying and prophesying, and commands
them to teach other women. By examining the larger context of the passage,
1 Cor 14, particularly verse 27 and 30, which says that speakers in church
should speak 'one at a time', and that a speaker should stop when another 'has
a revelation', we see that what Paul intends is that women have a special
duty to contribute to the order of the church by not rising to speak
when that would require another (presumably a man) to sit down.
What I do want to emphasize about this passage, however, is the idea of
submission. Paul says that the Law requires that women should remain in
submission. You can search all you want, but you will find no Old Testament
command that requires women to be in submission. (Please let me know if you
find one :-) ). But 'the Law' often refers to the entire Torah, not just the
commandments. In the Timothy passage above, Paul refers to a part of
the Torah , again in reference to the submission of women. So, I conclude
that 'the Law' that he refers to in Corinthians 14 is, again, the creation
account. (And I think I am not entirely alone in this conclusion).
So we are back to the 'Order of Creation'. When a woman fails to be
'in submission', especially with regard to their husbands, they are not
acting in accord with the purpose for which God created them.
Now I assert that no Christian, man or woman, should be ashamed to be
submissive. Christ himself demonstrated his submission clearly, through
his submission to his Father's will ("Father, if you are willing, take this
cup from me; yet not my will, but yours be done.) and through his submission
to the sinful earthly authorities who executed him. Elsewhere scripture urges
all Christians to submit to one another in love. But, women are singled out
in a special way, to be in submission with regard to the 'headship' of man.
At the same time, no Christian should submit to false doctrine, for neither
did Christ.
The clearest application that Paul makes regarding this submission is that
wives should submit to their husbands 'as to the Lord'. (Eph 5:22-33). Peter
also says that wives should submit, even to unbelieving husbands, so that
'they may be won over without talk by the behavior of their wives, when they
see the purity and reverence of your lives (proof, BTW, that marriage is just
as 'pure' as virginity). Husbands are not free of responsibility in this
relationship: Paul tells husbands to 'love your wives, just as Christ loved the
church and gave himself up for her'. Husbands who love their wives as Christ
loved the church will not be tyrants and abusers.
The application which is under more of a challenge in today's church is that
women should not occupy the pastoral office in the church. But here I believe
that 1 Tim 2:12 is clear; at the very least it says that a woman should not
exercise 'teaching authority' over men, but should learn in quitness and full
submission. This is based, not on the culture of Paul's day, or of a certain
place (as is his injunction regarding women covering their heads in 1 Cor 11),
but on the facts of the creation account, and the fall -- things that apply to
all humanity, and not just the Jews under the Law.
I have not spent much space here arguing for the equal status of men and
women before God, because I do not think that is in dispute among Christians.
We need only read Galatians 3:26-28:
"You are all sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus, for all of you
who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ. There is
neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, for you are all one
in Christ Jesus."
However we should not use this passage to nullify the clear teaching of
Scripture regarding the submission of woman, the headship of man, or their
different roles. Mostly it says that we are all equally valuable and righteous
before God. That is the significance of being clothed with Christ; when God
sees us and judges us, he sees Christ and his righteousness. But even before
the fall of Adam and Eve, God intended men and women, whom he created in his
perfect, holy, and sinless image, for different purposes.
Michael Siemon makes a good point, however. We may say that in theory or
intention, women and men are equally valuable, equally important, or whatever,
but our practice does not show this very well. I don't know if I have a good
answer for him, but I know that I do not regard my role as current president
(and sometime treasurer, elder, substitute preacher and perhaps, chief
bottle-washer) of our mission congregation of about 22 souls, as being more
important than my wife's role as organist and sunday school teacher. Anybody
who takes a good look at what women do in the church (aside from bearing and
raising children, which seems to be strangely devalued in today's society) is
utterly essential. As Paul said in Romans 12:4.5:
"Just as each of us has one body with many members, and these members do not
all have the same function, so in Christ we who are many form one body, and each
member belongs to all the others."
We can have different roles and functions, even while we are equal in God's
sight. That is a scriptural fact. We need, not to make our roles all equal,
but to strengthen our faith through word and sacrament, so that as a result
we deal with one another in Christian love.
David H. Wagner "The Church's one foundation
A confessional Lutheran. is Jesus Christ, her Lord;
She is His new creation
by water and the Word.
From heav'n He came and sought her
To be His holy bride;
With His own blood He bought her,
And for her life He died."
My opinions and beliefs are not likely to coincide with any held by
The University of Houston.ssimmons@unix.cie.rpi.edu (Stephen Simmons) (07/05/90)
In article <Jun.24.02.25.34.1990.4203@athos.rutgers.edu> jmoon@lehi3b15.csee.lehigh.edu (Jonggu Moon [890911]) writes: >He said that women are treated as second class citizens by the Bible >even though the facts are "obvious" that men and women are equal. Does the Bible treat men and women differently? I discovered an interesting fact this spring about the husband-wife team Aquila and Pricilla of the Bible. They seemed to be equally mentioned as "Aquila and Priscilla" as they are mentioned "Priscilla and Aquila" (They occur in several places in the New Testament). I seemed to remember counting four references each way. --Steve Simmons
jmoon@lehi3b15.csee.lehigh.edu (Jonggu Moon [890911]) (08/27/90)
I'm reading the book "Go:del Escher Bach" by Hofstaeder
and reached the part about artificial intelligence and sentient beings.
According to him, there are two schools of thought about AI.
Against: AI will never reach true sentience because true sentience
requires a "soul" that imparts purpose and awareness of self
into the brain.
For : AI will someday be able to create sentient beings because
purpose and awareness of self are just complex algorithmic
processes that happen to be out of reach of programmers for now.
Against: Sentience requires a soul and only God can create a soul.
For : A person does not have and does not need a soul. And if he did
utilize something that seemed to be a soul, AI R&D will eventually
be able to isolate it and dupliated it.
Against: One example that machines will never be sentient is that now,
a computer would be happy to do a calculation over and over again
without complaining. But a person would eventually be able to
step back and realize the futility of an infinite loop and stop.
For : That is not a good example because computers are too primitive now.
But when memory size becomes sufficiently large enough and the CPU
becomes sufficiently fast enough the computer would become
sufficiently sophisticated enough to be sentient.
Also, who is to say that we humans are so sophisticated ?
What if God exists in an environment as far removed from our reality
as our reality is removed from the computer program's environment
( the operating system ). If that is the case, then we ourselves
could be caught in the occasional infinite loops of life and
not realize it. Without God's intervention, we would continue to
execute a function over and over again without complaining because
we do not have the ability to realise it is a repetative loop.
^>*<^jon
[As I'm sure you know, there is no agreement among Christians about
what the soul is and where it comes from. There is a movement in 20th
Cent. theology (which seems to have been at least popularized, if not
created, by Nygren's book "Agape and Eros") that believes the soul is
not something separate from the body. There is some evidence that
this is consistent with the use of "soul" at least in the OT. If this
is true, then conceivably an artificial entity might have a soul.
Second, some traditional theories of soul have said that while the
body is created by biological processes, at some crucial point God
creates a soul for the new person. There is nothing to prevent him
from doing so for artificial entities. --clh]