hedrick@geneva.rutgers.edu (02/05/90)
Dave Davis asks how to deal with Paul's ethics, specifically his comments on women. The conclusion I've come to after going around this issue many times in the past is that Paul didn't necessarily tell us (and may not have seen himself) all the implications of his principles. Let explain the sense in which I mean that. I am not an inerrantist, but I am committed to Biblical authority. The model I've come to is that Paul was inspired, both directly and because he had good sources for what Jesus said; but that when he gives advice in particular situations it doesn't come with a guarantee that it's appropriate to use for our time without careful consideration. In this case, it seems to me that his "neither Jew nor Greek, male nor female" is the basic principle. In fact he seems to have carried this out most of the time. If you look at his salutations, it seems that he had warm relations with females who certainly look like Christian leaders. I Cor 11 seems to imply that women are speaking publically in worship. Yet we see passages like I Cor 14:33ff, which says that a woman should not speak in church. My conclusion is that his motivation here is avoiding scandal by sticking with current social standards, rather that anything intrinsic to the faith. Note that he doesn't give any reason that involves the Christian faith. He simply says "that's the way it's done in all churches, and even in Jewish practice." We know already that Paul (and for that matter Jesus) does not tend to suggest changes in social institutions. He's far more concerned with guiding people to live appropriately within them. This makes sense, because at that time Christians had no chance of changing them. Paul advises slaves to obey their masters, and gives every appearance of endorsing slavery. Yet if you try to follow his principle of considering your slave to be your brother in Christ, ultimately slavery becomes impossible for you. At least that's been the experience of the Church in the last 100 years or so. Similarly, he instructs people to obey the current rules on the status of women, but he establishes the principle that in Christ there is no male or female. (Note how in I Cor 11:11 he ends his discussion of women covering their heads by reminding us that in Christ women and men are equally dependent upon each other.) My interpretation is that Paul is telling people to follow the current standards, so as to avoid the sort of scandal that would detract from the Christian message. The true scandal of the Church should be the scandal of the cross. But now our society is beginning to treat women as equal to men. Now we create a scandal if we deny women leadership roles. That's an even worse scandal than the one that would have happened in the 1st Cent. It's worse because it denies the underlying principle that there is no male nor female in Christ.
ian@essex.ac.uk (Crookston I) (02/09/90)
If I read one more time that Paul didn't allow women to speak in Church, I'll scream. What about I Cor 11 5? Either Paul was a rank charlatan or I Cor 14 34 has to be interpreted so as to be consistent with I Cor 11 5. One possible such interpretation is suggested by I Cor 14 35 - it's wrong for women to slow a meeting down with questions that can easily be answered at home. This puts women under the same responsibility as men - if you've some thing to say worth saying, such as a prophecy as mentioned in I Cor 11 5, say it, otherwise, keep quiet. But whatever the eventual interpretation, I Cor 14 34 does not encapsulate Paul's, let alone the Bible's teaching on women in meetings any more than I Cor 7 32 encapsulates the Bible's teaching on marriage.