"Ministers in Skirts" - Break off Discussion
Ok, so I've been involved in this discussion about this article over at a friends blog. The article is about men in the church slowly but surely abdicating their responsibilities to women, or adopting a feminine posture in their roles as leaders. It's been a very good, and I would say "healthy" conversation as many, including myself, have had a chance to hear and consider other's points and observations. I had a thought that I believed would be better placed as a comment on my own blog, rather than take up an inordinate amount of space in the ongoing conversation over at Jason's. (If it wasn't already obvious, I have no problem taking up inordinate amounts of space on my own blog). That, and I find myself shamefully jealous of the activity on Jason's blog, so this is somewhat of a half hearted attempt to generate some chat over here.
Though some of us may have never physically dealt with female, effiminate male, or homosexual clergy, consider this:
I think the fact that any church, even if it may be the most liberal of denominations, has women and homo-sexual clergy gives us first hand experience. They claim the name of Christ, and in doing so identify themselves with us in our Saviour. It is plain fact that such denominations as the PCUSA, the Episcopal Church, the various Methodist camps, etc., have surrendered their obligation to the word of God for political posturing and correctness. They all participate in a blatant disregard of God's inspired word, divine purpose, and created order. Despite their individual teachings and beliefs, they bear the name of Christ and are part of the visible church along side the numerous denominations that do not practice such things. Does this not, therefore, personally involve every person who claims the name of Christ and give every one of them, every one of us, first hand experience in this issue? It is our God that they are attacking through the perversion of the form and function of the church, not some false idol. I think we see this phenomenon every time a female pastor is seen in the news or on the book stand. Turn the TV on to the "Christian Station" and look at the growing number of women standing in front of mega-congregations. Each one of them, in the paper, on the news, on the best seller list, on the television, bears the name of Jesus Christ, as member of the visible church, and represents us before the world. If we say nothing, if we do nothing to address this perversion, then I would dare say we participate in it. I believe that we deal with this issue daily and that it is truly a very personal problem for all of us.
What do think?
posted by Ian @ 11:37 PM
47 comments
47 Comments:
Ian,
I'll throw a comment up here. Maybe one day you'll get over 40 comments too : )
I Corinthians 14
34 "Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience as also saith the law." 35 "And if they will learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for women to speak in the church."
I don't see how this could get any clearer. There are issues in the Bible that I can see (because of our finite minds) people might find unclear, think is a "grey" area, or misinterpret. But this passage in I Corinthians is perfectly clear. I don't have time to finish this comment...I will be back
You know, that second verse, I Cor 14:35, is often overlooked, even by those defending male-only clergy. In the context of the church, the verse cleary says,"If they are to learn anything, let them ask their husbands at home." Does this forbid women from even teaching other women in the church? True, the scriptures do say that the older women are to teach the younger, but teach them what and where? Is doctrine ever to be taught by women? Also, this verse bears heavily on the men. If their wives are uneducated on scripture and doctrine, then they are the ones to blame.
I have been using a Hebrew-Greek key word study bible lately (as I have never taken any Greek this helps me understand the meaning of verses more clearly), and there is a large section of commentary on those verses. Without typing all of it in, the gist of it is... Those verses follow right after vs. 33 talking about God not being the author of confusion. The Greek word for "keep silence" means not uttering indistinguishable sounds, like speaking in tongues or other "noises". Paul was also not speaking to women in general but he uses the word "gunaikes" which is not women in general, but wives. So the short version is that Paul was telling the "husband" not to let their wives utter "indistinguishable sounds" as it creates more confusion (building on the former verse) in the meeting.
Also, in 1 Timothy 2:11+12, this same commentary says the first word silence is "hesuchia" which usually means "tranquility of spirit" and the "silence" in vers 12 is "hupotage" which means "in subjection". A little different from our English version ha? So the commentary states that the idea is not that women are never supposed to make a sound in church, but that they are always supposed to be learning in such a way as to not be disturbed in spirit, or to cause a disturbance and to learn while in subjection to her husband....
I understand that another commentary on the Greek could possibly say something entirely different. Alas, I cannot verify this not knowing Greek myself (sigh....)
So Ian, another tally mark for comments. :)
You've got me curious about the "keep silent" thing. When the scriptures talk about speaking in and using tongues, the word used (which, off the top of my head, I think is "dialektos", or something like that)refers to known dailects that are foreign to the speaker, not some mysterious language. I wonder which word is used in this passage and how it might guide us in interpretation; Is the scripture instructing women not to make noises, or not to speak, as commonly translated?
Also, consider the context of the 1 Tim 2 passage: qualifications for elders and pastors. Might this be specific instruction for the wives of those who lead a church? After all, if she is not in subjection to him, then 1) his household is not in order, 2) She is not a support to her husband or example to his flock, and 3) there would be an apparent role reversal in the relationship (which is the issue that got this whole conversation started!)
Aren't language/word studies great? I can't tell you how much of a difference even my paltry 2 semesters of Hebrew has made in my studying and understanding. Makes me realize how crude and limited of a language English is. Which Hebrew-Greek Bible are you using?
Oh, yeah.... Thanks for the comment tally!
Seriously though, I'm not looking for hits or comments to add to my count. I really have been enjoying the conversations among the various boards. I think it is great that brothers and sisters of the same precious faith can build each other up and prod each other along, even from across the country. One of the good things about the internet. I believe that it pleases God when His people dig into His word, help others to do them same, and pursue deeper and fuller understanding of His holy scriptures. By doing so, we come to know more about who He is and who we are to be because of it.
-------
-------
It bugs me that the name covers some of the words so I thought my lines might help :)
Anyway, the publisher is AMG and the editor is Spiros Zodhiates. He's been to our church before and they just don't get any more Greek than him! Obviously though, even Greek scholars disagree on word meanings and I can only listen in and pray for wisdom.
I was hoping to get away with not typing too much, but in case you don't have the version, and for anybody else reading here goes:
(with a bit of editing- I hate typing!)
When Paul says, "Your women in the churches, let them be silent", it was not an instruction to all the men in general not to permit any women to speak in the church, but to husbands to guide and to teach their own wives lest they produce confusion and disturbance in a meeting. This may have resulted from the exercising of a gift that they thought they had and were anxious to externalize. One cannot take Paul's indirect imperative in 1 cor. 14:34 "Let the women keep silent in the churches," as absolute. It must be taken in conjunction with what follows:"for they are not permitted to speak." The word speak means "uttering sounds that are incoherent and not understood by others." Paul says that instead it is better to have silence. Paul usus the same word "keep silent" to admonish a man who speaks in an unknown tongue without an interpreter (vv 28, 30). What Paul is saying here is that only one man must speak at a time, for if two speak at once there will be confusion. The phrase, "let him keep silent" is then qualified to the woman (v 34). Under no circumstances does the injunction of Paul indicate that women should not utter a word at any time during the church service. The issue is not men/women but confusion/order."
I actually skipped some in the beginning and the end, but if you want to know more I can keep typing!
I hope I did not take up too much space on the comments. I just love to "dig deep"!
Nice Wender.
So what does that mean for single women? I agree with the overall gist of the passage- apparently women in the church were being argumentative during the general service- the purpose is that the service be ordered not chaos. Single women probably shouldn't create a ruckus either.
There is a great book on all this- there are many other passages and some great old testament examples- they even contrast the judge Deborah with the male judges and how her role was a little different since she was female. The book is Rediscovering Biblical Roles of Womanhood and Manhood- edited by John Piper. It is huge and I have only read a few chapters. The chapters are written by many different people and is only edited by Piper.
I would respectfully disagree with Pastor Rick's comments on Jay's page. I think FBC is one of only a handful of biblically solid churches in New England. It is far from the norm. "Seeker" churches are hugely femininized- those are spreading like wild fire across the US and I believe may be the downfall of Christianity in America (i.e. we become more like Europe soon).
We in the double digits for comments now!
Ian,
Thank you for pointing out the fact this affects the entire body of Christ. We seem to take for granted that the "liberal" churches are going to be in error, and that "conservative" churches are in the right, so as long as WE don't get too liberal, THEY can do want they want to.
May I humbly submit that I think we need to expand our understanding of "The Church" to include all who name the name of Christ. I'm not saying that all who claim to be followers of Christ are in fact followers of Christ, but everyone who names the name of Christ- Catholic, Methodist, Presbyterian, Rastafarian, whatever- is a witness, and they are either telling the truth or a lie about Christ, his Word, and His Church (1 John 2:4). We are called to correct errors of doctrine (1 Tim 1,4,6) If such errors are allowed to go unchallenged, then we too are in error and are not pleasing the Lord (Rev.2:12-16 tell me if I'm using this out of context).
Of course, the way we call out and seek to correct such error must be carried out in the same way we are told to preach the truth of the gospel: with love and humilty- afterall, we are called to build up the body of Christ and not tear it down(Eph.4; Col.3:12-16).
------
There is a conspiracy out there to have me type this entire page of commentary isn't there....
One of the parts I edited out Beth, was this:
"The issue is not men/women but confusion/order. In God's sight, it makes no difference who caused the confusion. It is a shame for any woman to bring confusion into the local church (v. 35), even as it is for any man to do so. Furthermore, the word "gunaikes" should not be translated as "women" in its generic sense, but as "wives" (v 34). It is wives who should submit ("hupotassomai", to their own husbands (v 35). The whole argument is not the subjection of women to men in general, but of wives to their own husbands in the family unit that has been ordained by God. Paul states the principle that the duty of the husbands is to restrain their own wives from outbursts during the worship service. Whenever Paul speaks of submissiveness by a woman, it is always on the part of a wife to her own husband."
So, not that single women are footloose and fancy free, but simply that Paul is not addressing them here.
As far as outbursts are concerned, I think it meant tongues- "this may have resulted from the exercising of a gift that they thought they had and were anxious to externalize" and "Paul uses the same word "keep silent"to admonish a man who speaks in an unknown tongue without an interpreter"
These Greek key word bibles are cheap. I like knowing the exact meaning and nuances of the word.
Consider this:
Both single and married women were under subjection to men. The wife to her husband, the maiden to her father. There was no such thing as a "liberated" woman in Paul's time. A husbands, as you pointed out Wendy, was to restrain his wife as he was her head. Surely a father was to do the same with his daughter as he was her head. The point here is that women were always under the subjection of a representative male. Would it not stand to reason that if wives were not to speak out that single women were under the same restriction? Would not this scripture then speak of women in general? Unlike the Timothy passage that I think, considereing the context, can be directed specifically at the wives of elders, I do not believe this Corinthians text can be narrowed down as easily. Also, I'm not sold on the tongues thing. Remember that tongues was not the only gift. Paul said that the greatest gift is love. Does that mean that words spoken out of love, by women, should not be allowed in church? I think the context is too broad to pin it down to the speaking of tongues specifically. When Paul uses the same word "keep silent" to admonish men who speak in tongues without an interpreter, the key reason is the uselessness of the words, not because it had anything to do with a gift. It certainly is a possible interpretation of the words, but considering the context, I think there are others that are far more suitable to the meaning of them. That is part of the problem with translation into English.
Matt,
Yah, that's exactly what I was trying to say.
Hey Ian,
As you said "I think it is great that brothers and sisters of the same precious faith can build each other up and prod each other along, even from across the country."
I guess, but only as long as it's done on someone else's blog. :-)
One more for the count.
Wendy,
Though he seems to be out of favor with some, I still love Doug Wilson's book "Reforming Marriage". In it he emphasizes the same principal- a woman is subject to ONE man (either her father or husband), not ALL men, and likewise a man is the head of ONE woman (his wife), not all woman. Outside of the marriage realtionship and the leadership roles in church, all normal rules of authority/submission apply: little boys obey their mums; male employees are subject to female managers, etc.
-----
Of course all women are subject to somebody, it is just that Paul happened to be speaking to the wives. We could say that, yes, then in general he would mean it to be all women, but going back to the Greek I was simply pointing out the exact meaning. But does that mean that we can say the single women can make a disturbance? No, just that that wasn't who he happened to be addressing.
I think you misunderstand me and the author about the tongues/gift thing. My interpretation of what the author is saying is that Paul was speaking against the women making noises (which may include tongues) and creating a disturbance. He was speaking against confusion and speaking out of turn, not gifts! You are right, that would be absurd!
I can't do this anymore tonight! My husband of 14 years today is taking me out on a date. I can't believe it has been 14 years, we were so young!!!
So is Matty boombatty Matt G.?
Wendy,
Yes- this is Matt G. I'm sorry, I thought I was agreeing with your quote of Zodiates' commentary:
"The whole argument is not the subjection of women to men in general, but of wives to their own husbands in the family unit that has been ordained by God. Paul states the principle that the duty of the husbands is to restrain their own wives from outbursts during the worship service. Whenever Paul speaks of submissiveness by a woman, it is always on the part of a wife to her own husband."
Have fun on your "date"!
OK, yeah, I'm sorry if I misunderstood you on the tongues thing!
Ian
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
-------
OK reeeally this is it.... I was actually addressing Ian, Matt. Matt and I must have been commenting at the same time, and Matt's came up first.
So we all agree, I think...... :)
Anyway, my matty is dropping off the kids at Grammy's as we speak, so I really have to go. This is too addictive!
OK, I've come to realize that we have strayed off topic. Ironically enough, we have gone from talking about the actions of men (the original topic from the article) to the roles of women. I guess you end up talking about what concerns you, but I just wanted to restate that the problem discussed in the article was with the men, not the women. Regardless of what kind of utterances, or the marital status of the women Paul was speaking of, the problem remains that it is the husbands, the men, that are not fufilling their responsibilities. It is the men that are not fufilling their roles. Remember that the instruction concerning women in 1 Cor. was contained in a letter that was received and read by the men in the church at Corinth. Read the passage again and think what it dictates to the men. I will do the same, and hopefully the conversation will continue.
Haven't read all the posts yet, but want to make a "quick" comment on the first few.
Wendy,
gunaikos can mean either woman or wife; just as andar/andros (wish I had a Greek font to use here!) can mean either man or husband (or human being).
Robb,
I think one needs to be particularly careful before using I or II Corinthians to develop a theology. Paul's epistle was addressing particular problems in the Corinthian church and answering specific questions that had been asked (which we don't have a copy of, btw, so can only surmise what the questions were). They are not "well rounded" thoughts. He's not developing an argument here, but jumping from issue to issue. I'd prefer to use those epistles for back up verses, not primary verses. He's certainly clear about the problems women were causing within the Corinthian congregation during the worship services, but estending & generalizing the meaning to women ONLY being taught by their husbands ALWAYS is a little "iffy".
More later when I've had a chance to read the rest. ;) Wendy, btw, glad to see you using Dr. Zodiates study Bible, but he only repeats the short, pithy definition from Strong's Concordance. Try using Vine's or Kittel's to get a more expanded understanding. They are great resources, even when you know a little Greek.
beths'smomtoo,
"I'd prefer to use those epistles for back up verses, not primary verses."
What would you use for primary verses?
-----
Thanks Deb for the suggestion, haven't gotten the Vine's yet even after taking your class; I'm the worst student ever.
There really is a conspiracy to make me type. Deb, Zodhiates gives this long explanation why in the context of that verse it does mean wife. I keep trying to get away with not typing but the very questions people have are the ones I edited. But, since I think you have a Zodhiades and I have a busy day, hopefully you can look it up and see what you think... Basically he says- (v 35) THEY (referring back to "gunaikes") will learn anything let them ask their "andras"- "husbands". That's the short version.
Ian, I know you want to get back to the point of the article, so my take on it is this: as I stated on Jason's blog, I don't like the author's poor, unsubstantiated writing, but in general in some of the churches outside our circle this happens. We should be in prayer about that very thing and if the article can be given any merit by me it would be just as a reminder to pray for the state of our Christian faith we are defending.
Debi,
Do you remember the other article that Jason linked to about the church and plays? All of Paul's letters were wriiten to specific churches or individuals and addressed issues particular to them. The fact is that the same problems exist in almost every church, which is at least one of the reasons God has seen fit to preserve His scriptures throughout generations and across nations.
2 Tim 3:16-17 "All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work."
Ian- Thanks for getting us back on track. From Genesis, God has made it pretty clear that the man is always responsible for any fault in the home, the church, or the world, for that matter.
Russ- Thanks for putting the "Historical" back into Grammatical- Historical Exegesis. So often the arguments of the present get forced into the text because we don't consider the time, place, and people God chose to reveal His Word to; our current tangent on women's roles is a prime example of that.
What I was talking about was establishing a particular doctrine. Of course "All Scripture is given by inspirationof God...", I didn't mean to intimate otherwise. My point was that, just as it would be unwise to establish doctrine from the Book of Acts, because it is a transitional book, some epistles lend themselves better to developing specific doctrine than others. [And as Loren always taught us...never build a doctrine on one verse. ;)] You need to look at the whole counsel of God, AND look at each passage in its context. It's basic hermeneutics. The CONTEXT of I & II Cor. is as I wrote earlier. Paul's writing style is more disjointed in these epistles because he was often answering specific questions, NOT building a doctrinal basis as he does in his other epistles. Do I think the women were disturbing the worship services in Corinth? Yes. Do I believe Paul was giving directions for them to follow concerning this problem? Yes. Does the context say that what they were NOT keeping silent about was tongues & prophecy? Yes...read the context. Do I think the same would hold true for today? Yes. Do I think Paul was saying that ONLY husbands can teach their wives ANYTHING about Scripture at ALL times? That women can't teach other women or children? No...I think that would be poor hermeneutics, it would be adding to the text and it wouldn't fit in with the rest of Scripture, nor with the particular passage it's found in. That wasn't Paul's main point in this passage. Look at examples of women involved in ministry...though we do not always know precisely what was entailed (vis-a-vis "teaching"). Timothy's mother & grandmother taught him the Scriptures... Priscilla worked closely alongside her husband in the ministry (Acts 18:26)... Lydia...etc. Col. 3:16, "Let the word of Christ dwell in you richly in all wisdom, teaching and admonishing one another..." and Titus 2:3-4
Wendy,
You would interpret which meaning of that word is meant by its context, and in that particular passage it is talking about "husbands", which would lead you to believe it means the corresponding "wives"...to the best of my ability to interpret anyway.
Russ,
A good primary verse about women not teaching men in the worship service would be I Tim.2:11-12 concerning women not filling the role of pastor-teacher.
Ian,
The word for "keep silent" is from "sigaw" which means "keep silent, become silent, stop talking". That's pretty clear!
The word for "tongues" in vv.26, 27 is "glossa". I think you're thinking of Acts 2, the Day of Pentecost. The word translated "language" is "dialektos", which you are right about.
Another thing to consider...Paul's letters to the Corinthian church were amongst his earliest writings (c.55 AD). Many of the things going on in that particular church are not evident elsewhere in later writings.
Sorry to go on and on...BUT I was thinking about a couple of the comments made earlier:
Ian: "Is doctrine ever to be taught to women?"
Ian...everything biblical is doctrinal...doctrine permeates the Word. Biblical doctrine is what we base our life upon! Are you suggesting women are not to know the Word? Be careful your definitions aren't too narrow.
And Matt(aka Connor's Dad ;), you wrote:
"... book "Reforming Marriage". In it he emphasizes the same principal- a woman is subject to ONE man (either her father or husband)"
What is the Biblical basis for this statement? Where in the Bible does it say that a single 29 year old woman who supports herself and has not been under her father's roof for over 10 years is subject to her father? Are we to base our Christian doctrines and subsequent practices on the Word or on books?
The Bible does make clear that we are all subject to God, to our local church authority, to our government and, in a general sense, believers are to have an attitude of submissiveness to one another. But I don't see what your author is suggesting.
And...Russ,
Two thumbs up for the Greek history!! ;) [Although I think the gas thing was only suspected at Delphi, not all of the sites. (There were a lot of them!]
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Deb,
Really quick (I'm at work). I think you misunderstood me. The question I posed was, "Is doctrine ever to be taught BY women?", not "to" women. Of coure I would never question the need and responsibility of anyone to know their Creator and Redeemer intimately. That, and it really was intended to be more of a rhetorical question thrown out there to spark some conversation. :)
Ian
Well, here's a thought then - don't you teach doctrine when you teach SS? And isn't it better to have studied and have a good handle on what you're teaching, than to just read to them out of the SS manual what someone else wrote? I maintain that Biblcal teaching IS doctrinal teaching, or at least it should be or you're not teaching well. [You can wait till tomorrow to answer...don't want to be less than a good witness at work. ;)]
Deb,
As Ian quoted earlier 2 Tim 3:16-17 ALL scripture...
"A good primary verse about women not teaching men in the worship service would be I Tim.2:11-12 concerning women not filling the role of pastor-teacher."
That's a good one but one must take ALL scripture which speaks to a particular issue and draw conclusions. As you said earlier not to take verses in isolation. Since Paul addressed issues as they came up in the churches he visited, he taught topically. We should compare scripture with scripture to get a full and clear understanding. One should ask, when reading about particular issues in scripture i.e. women keeping silence, not usurping authority over men, etc., Is there a principle behind the particular, and if so, what is it? Do that with 1 Cor 11:3 and see what you come up with? Does that teach a particular doctrine?
I think Timothy (don't usurp authority 1 Tim. 2:11-14)and Corinthians (have a symbol of authority on their head 1 Cor 11:10) both teach women not to usurp authority over men and both texts point back to Genesis and the creation account very clearly.
I wasn't suggesting ignoring the I Cor. passage, but was saying it is better to use passages directly addressing the issue of church authority to clearly develop a doctrine from. I Tim. 3 is pointedly teaching about church authority, as is Titus. Those passages are well developed. The 1 Cor. passage would agree with it, but it's a passage dealing with a specific situation that is unique to the rest of Scripture. You know as well as I that church practices were in a state of transition during that time. The issue wasn't ONLY that women should not be disruptive to the worship service by interrupting with prophesying and speaking in tongues. It's a much broader issue of authority, as I Tim. 3 and Titus makes clear. That's why I believe they would make better primary passages for developing a doctrine from.
My objection was interpreting I Cor.13:35 as saying ONLY husbands could teach their wives in all circumstances. Such an interpretation would be poor exegesis. I don't have any problem with women teaching children and other women. (That would disagree with other parts of Scripture.) Nor do I think ONLY women can teach women (as is popular with some). Women are clearly not to be Pastor-Teachers, however.
And Bible teaching IS doctrine! Whoever teaches is accountable to God for what they teach...so they better take it seriously. To me if you're teaching by reading a book (current Christian bestseller) to someone, blithely swallowing ideas someone else wrote and often encouraging bad exegesis...you would do much better to study the Word and teach from it.
Russ,
By the way, if you believe women shouldn't be teaching at all, why have you let me teach your sons? And how do you reconcile Timothy's mom and grandmother teaching Scripture, as well as Priscilla? Basically, I don't think we are saying different things, we're just discussing hermeneutical principles.
This is great:)
I apologize for use the I Cor. text slightly out of context and without much explanation.
As I read though all of the comments on Jason's blog and the comments on this blog I noticed a rarity of opposing views. With that in mind I posted a vague argument with a verse pulled a bit out of context to see if I could generate any good comments. I think a did that, but I also see that I caused the direction and intent of this Ian's blog to get a bit skewed. Sorry Ian.
I have to say that I totally agree that one should not build thier doctrine on one verse, especially a verse written as a direct answer to a specific issue with a specific church.
I love to see that those who contribute to this blog will quickly correct other's mistakes. Thank you.
Again sorry for causing this blog to drift away from it's original intent. I am at work until tomorrow morning, but I'll be back.
Look Ian, almost to 40 :)
Good stuff mom (although I'm not 29 yet!). The way the conversation was going I was begining to feel like a sinner for being a single christain women and not living in my father's house(and apparently it is the role God has for me now), but Paul in I Corinthians encourages women to be single so they can focus on pleasing God instead of their husbands.
As a single christian woman, I put myself under the authority of the men who lead the Bible study I attend, and the male leaders of the church. There have been a few occasions where I chose to actively submit. Of course, as believers we should all be submitting to eachother all the time, but I guess I try to give these men more authority than I would if I were married. If I were married, I think the male leaders may operate through my husband.
Another passage I love- it is in Acts- I can't remember where- but Paul is visiting a church and he meets with the "women who study by the river"- maybe I'm reading too much into it, but it sounds like the women regularly study together and share with Paul what they are learning. The other instance is where Pricilla and Aquilla hear Apollos preach and Pricilla takes him aside afterwards and corrects him. Pricilla was more prominent in her church than her husband (or at least this is theory why she is named first, or named w/o her husband), but she took Apollos aside privately. I think women can teach men through discussions, just not pastor a church or teach a formal class.
A grey area is leading Bible study. At the Bible study I attend now, various people take turns "leading the discussion". I choose to not do this- I love to teach and would love to prepare a lesson- but I don't think it is appropriate. I don't mind that other women do- it is a grey area- I just feel uncomfortable with leading it- although I contribute plenty to the discussion- which I think is similar to the women at the river with Paul.
Wow- what a difference a day makes.
Deb- I apologize for throwing out that comment without much commentary. I went back to find out the quote in "Reforming Marriage" to provide the context and scriptural basis given, but I can't find it.
I would proabably characterize it as a general statement, not an absolute, and honestly deals more with the duties of those particular men to protect the particular women that God has placed under their headship.
"What is the Biblical basis for this statement? Where in the Bible does it say that a single 29 year old woman who supports herself and has not been under her father's roof for over 10 years is subject to her father? Are we to base our Christian doctrines and subsequent practices on the Word or on books?"
Really not enough time to address all of these, but a few observations:
1) Doctrine is often more than the sum of it's parts- there may not be a specific verse or example that address our specific situation, but there are plenty of other verses and examples that tell us of God, Man, and the relationships between them, for us to understand general principals and apply them to our specific situation.
2) I know that I am guilty of tossing out comments without chapter and verse, but remember: this isn't my docrinal thesis- this is a BLOG that I contribute to when I get an extra 5 minutes here and there, so I don't often have the time to right out a complete argument. I will, however, take more care inthe future to lay things out more thoroughly.
3) As for basing theology on books and not the Word- I don't really have to state the obvious, do I? Any commentary on doctrine is only as good as it's adherence to the Word. I think that Wilson does a better job on this than most, frankly, though I will admit that I'm not all that well read.
My best advice is to read the book yourself and see if you think he's making this stuff up as he goes along.
Lastly, in reading this, please don't misenterpret anything as hurt feelings or "getting snippy", etc- BLOGs, email and the like are great, but they do lack nuance and can create bad feelings that aren't there. I love you as a sister in the Lord and I admire your intellect, your passion, and your desire to rightly divde the word of God. Thanks for raising the bar of what passes for conversation :)
You know I love to read, but we need to remind ourselves that every author has a point of view he is going to try his darndest to convince us of. In all probability, even if he is doing his utmost to avoid such a pitfall, he is going to pick and choose verses that back up his point, maybe (often) taking them out of their context, and may make some assertions that just aren't in the Bible. The result is that we may be convinced of something that really doesn't have a biblical leg to stand on. I always urge kids (and adults) to be good Bereans...go home and look it up in the Bible to see if it's true. We all can be easily influenced by a good writer and need to be on guard against that.
And we should be careful not to go beyond what the Bible teaches and say what God WOULD have said. We all have been in Bible studies (based on books ABOUT the Bible) where people have gone on and on way beyond what a verse says. That's how you end up with "Prayer of Jabez"! I think we need to be really cautious about doing that. I think that author is on shaky ground in this particular instance. He is going beyond what the Word says, and we ought to be pretty cautious about doing that. And we ought to say, "Wait a minute..." when we read it.
I wasn't upset when I wrote previously (again...tone of voice doesn't translate well on these things)...I was having a good discussion! (And Beth was the first example that came to my mind.) But whenever I discuss what the Bible teaches or doesn't teach, I take it very seriously. We all should. People can read things, believe it and may come to false conclusions. Let God's Word stand!...(breaks into rallying cheer..huzzaah...huzzaah...)
Deb,
Good clarification on your meaning.
Don't really have a problem with women teaching.
As far as tone of posting goes, it is hard to put that into any print form. So, let's just all agree that we are all relaxed sitting in a comfy recliner sipping our favorite beverage having a friendly (passionate at times) discussion.
Deb-
Every author has a point of view, and they are trying to persuade you that they are right- it doesn't matter whether they are covenantal or dispensational. Only the worst of authors and shallowest of thinkers will "cherry-pick" the verses they like and ignore the ones that don't fit into there scheme. A only slightly less worse author thinker will list proof text after proof text. A complete thinker will use both old and new testament, the history of Israel and the early church, etc, to build a case for their understanding of God's Word.
I also realize that people will tend to read authors they already agree with. Being convinced that a convenental understading of scripture is the most complete way of understanding God's redemptive plan, I tend to read things by covenantal writers. I've read dispensational writers before, but their arguments seemed pretty superficial and often heretical (different objects of faith/requirements for salvation in each dispensation? I don't think so John 14:6, Acts 4:12)
Deb: Shaky ground- which ground is shaky- the "Minister's in SKirts" ground or the fathers/daughters ground?
The Ministers in skirts can speak for itself, but as to the fathers/daughters thing, unless one reads the book (whichever one it actually was), I don't think we can make that judgement. So far all we have is my throw-away quote of a passage I can't even find without reference and without commentary. If I find the work it came from, I will let everyone know so they can read the case the author makes, check out the scriptures and through study and prayer decide themselves.
I agree- saying "Gould would have said that" is dangerous, if not blasphemous. Any author that proposes a doctrine based on such should be avoided, if not stoned ;) If I evercome across anything like that in anythin I read, I'll be sure to let everyone know.
With that said, let try to refocus us- the article was criticizing "effeminate men", not pushy women. Lets discuss what could he have meant by effeminate, I have my own ideas, but no time to lay them ut. Maybe later.
I wasn't really talking about "Covenant" vs "Dispensational" at all!...I was talking about our being influenced by ANY book, other than the Bible. Goodness, I don't agree with everything ANY writer may say. I'm a quite skeptical sort. I see holes all the time, and I'm not even a Bible scholar! Sometimes it's just an idea of "I'm not sure I agree the Bible says that" and I put it "on reserve".
I just encourage all believers to approach the Bible and see what it says, following good practices of interpretation. I suspect we all spend more time reading about the Bible than reading the Bible itself. I'd like to see the trend reversed, and get after myself all the time.
Where I disagreed with the author you mentioned was your assertion he wrote that women are either under the authority of their fathers or their husbands. I was responding to what you said the book stated. If it does in fact say that, then I seriously doubt he has Scripture to back such a principle up. I can't think of any, can you? If he didn't say it, then my apologies to him. I was responding to what you had reported.
As for staying on topic (oh yeah...) I was specifically responding to blog comments made. That's OK to do, right? I wasn't the one who brought up "should women ever teach doctrine?" or the idea that women are under the authority of either a father or husband. I was just questioning the validity of such statements and trying to see if they were really ideas the Bible teaches.
Sorry, Ian, I didn't mean to get us sidetracked (although sidetracks can be edifying, too.)
What I am about to write is the result of what I believe to be a responsible hermeneutic and exegesis. Some of what I will say will sit well with some and not with others, but please know that I am sharing what I have seen demonstrated to me through the scriptures, and that I am doing it out of love and the desire to find unity in God with my brothers and sisters in Christ. With that said, TO THE SCRIPTURES!
I will start in the beginning (a very good place to start). I do this to show that all that follows finds its foundation in the created order established by God in Eden upon the event of creation. It is not cultural, it cannot be argued away through the way we find things in the world today, for, as the created order, it is surely the way God has ordered His creation to be for all time. Genesis 2:18, the second of the two creation accounts found in Genesis, tells us this about God's act of creating woman. All scripture quoted from the NAS.
18 ¶ Then the LORD God said, “It is not good for the man to be alone; I will make him a helper suitable for him.”
19 And out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field and every bird of the sky, and brought them to the man to see what he would call them; and whatever the man called a living creature, that was its name.
20 And the man gave names to all the cattle, and to the birds of the sky, and to every beast of the field, but for Adam there was not found a helper suitable for him.
21 ¶ So the LORD God caused a deep sleep to fall upon the man, and he slept; then He took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh at that place.
22 And the LORD God fashioned into a woman the rib which He had taken from the man, and brought her to the man.
23 And the man said, “This is now bone of my bones, And flesh of my flesh; She shall be called Woman, Because she was taken out of Man.”
We see, in vs 18, that the intention of God was not specifically to set out to make woman, but to make a helper for man. So, He starts by creating the animals (vs. 19), yet finds no suitable helper for man among them (vs. 20). Also of note here is that even these animals, these potential helpers, were under the subjection of the man (vs. 19b-20a). Finding no helper, God then, in vs. 21-22, caused Adam to sleep and formed a new helper from his rib. He brought her to Adam and he is the one who called her "woman" (vs. 23), just as God had brought the animals to him to be named. Don't misunderstand me here! The point is that as a potential helper, woman was guided, by God, to man to be named. So we see that the created purpose of woman was to be subject to man. Now, the miraculous and amazing thing about this is that, of course it was always God's intention for man to be paired with woman, and in creating this acceptable helper He created an equal being for Adam that could support him, and love and be loved, and laugh, and share, and cry, and mourn, etc. As a man, I thank God that He has placed in my care a helper that I cannot live without and that He has caused me to love with all I am able. However, the created order of subjection still stands. Yes, eve was created as a wife, but she was the first woman, an example to all that follow, created, even before being found acceptable for man, to be under his subjection. This section of scripture is divinely concluded with this verse:
24 For this cause a man shall leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave to his wife; and they shall become one flesh.
Man shall leave his father and mother. The divine order of creation says nothing about the woman leaving her household, for the scriptures have demonstrated that she has no authority to do so. Surely, this was demonstrated in how God lead woman to man to be found acceptable and be "called 'Woman' because she was taken out of Man" (vs. 23). This created order was restated in Ephesians 5:3.
By God's sovereignty, we only have to venture one chapter further in the book of Genesis to see this order begin to break down. Eve was tempted by the serpent. The scriptures indicate that Adam was present at this event (Gen 3:6). Surely he had heard the temptation of the serpent directed at his wife, and did not defend her or exercise his authority over her to stop her from eating the fruit. He was silent. His sin, through which all other sin entered the world, was the abdicating of his authority over his wife, and submitting to her (cf 3:17). This was the beginning of the effeminization of man. And so God, knowing what his creation had done, placed a curse upon them.
16 ¶ To the woman He said, “I will greatly multiply Your pain in childbirth, In pain you shall bring forth children; Yet your desire shall be for your husband, And he shall rule over you.”
The word "desire" here in the Hebrew is one of those words with multiple meanigs, depending on the surrounding context. To find some of th context, we look yet one chapter further in Genesis to 4:7 which says, “If you do well, will not your countenance be lifted up? And if you do not do well, sin is crouching at the door; and its desire is for you, but you must master it.” Notice how both uses, in 3:16 and 4:7, the word is paired with a "but" statement that speaks of power over the thing doing the desiring. It is, therefore, appropriate and prudent to attribute the word "desire" to the desire of mastery or authority over the object. So we see that Gen 3:16 can be translated to say that "Yet your [Eve] desire shall be to rule over your husband, but he shall rule over you." The and/but switch is completely acceptable with the Hebrew. "And" is not a word in and of itself, but rather a prefix attached to a word that is correctly translated as "but" when joining two contrasting concepts or phrases. So, again, with Eve as the first woman and example to all that follow as the representative of God's created order, we see that the desire and/or pursuit of women to either have authority over, or be out from under the authority of the man, is a result of the fall. It is the playing out of the curse. It is that which we are to repent from.
This model is seen throughout the scriptures, largely in the marriage arraingements demonstated in the Old Testament. Lot's daughters laid with him as they were fearful of not having men to be under when he died (Gen 19). Rebekah was numbered among the "daughters of the men of the city" (Gen 24:13), and was released to Abraham's servant to be Isaac's wife by her father (24:51). Laban deceived Jacob by exploiting his authority over his daughters in the marriage transaction (Gen 29).
Naomi was under the care of her sons when Elimelech died (Ruth 1:3), and, when they died, set out for Judah, the land of her husband (cf 1:1+1:7). Look at the discourse betwen Naomi and her daughters-in-law in vss. 8-13. She sent them home to find husbands. The thought of not remarrying was out of the question. It was a givent that they would find new husbands, and Naomi would go and be cared for by her husband's fmaily in Judah. Even Ruth, who stayed with Naomi, had the ultimate goal of finding a husband (2:1).
To the New Testament, and more specifically 1 Corinthians. Here, in chapter 7, verse 8, it does seem that paul encourages women to remain single to place all their efforts on pleasing God. But, as has been said throught this conversation, look at the context. Single women able to focus their attentions on God because their needs were being met for them, either by their father's household (the single women), or the church (the widows). Remember, Paul said it was good for them to remain "even as I". Paul was supported by families and churches. "even as I" - Single, or supported?
I see that the scriptures leve us with a model that shows that women are never out from under the subjection of man, be it their father or husband, our husband's family, etc. I think the challenge lies in showing, from scripture, any example of a model that allows for women to be out from under man's subjection at any time.
This is one man's study. I am not claiming to be the end all authority on this matter, and desire constructive criticism and further discussion. Learning and knowing is reciprocal, and I value all of your opinions and to taste from the fruits of your labors as well.
SDG
Wow, Ian. I think we're going to have to agree to disagree on this one! I'm with you on the Bible teaching different roles for men & women, and that man has been placed in a unique leadership role by God and even that it's all based on Creation. But you lost me on the jump from Eve being created as a wife for Adam, therefore all women must be wives. [And Gen. 2:23 (leave/cleave is directed at Adam) I guess I don't believe the primary point of that passage is that all women should marry and live at home until they do.]
You don't think we should ever take into account ancient Near Eastern cultural practices? It wasn't just the status of women that was different in their culture. If we are to follow all their practices, then shouldn't Christian men institute "holy kissing"?
Personally, I think it's too far a leap. You really think Gladys Alward, Lottie Moon and Mary Slessor should all have stayed home with their Dads?
The main point of all that wasn't an issue about women being wives. What I was stressing was that woman was created as under subjection to man. In fact, Eve's created role was not wife, but helper first. As the first woman, she served as an example not of being a wife, but of God's created order: subjection under the man. I don't believe I ever said that all women must follow Eve in being a wife. What I did say was that all women must follow her in subjectivity. I don't see how Gen 2:24 and the leave/cleave could be directed at Adam as he had no mother or father to leave. Also, as it is reinstituted in Eph., I think it's pretty clear that it is a creative mandate. (Did I misunderstand what you were saying there?)
I did take into consideration ANE culture. All the examples of women being identified and betrothed by their fathers or cared for by their husband's households were ANE examples. Also, their is a rather large difference between this model of subjection and the practice of "holy kissing". The latter does not find its foundation in the created order. It is truly a cultural practice that I believe has translated to hearty handshakes and firm hugs in our day. Again, the difference is that Eden and the created order are not subject to cultural translation.
Lastly, maybe I was not clear on this point, but let me clarify now. This is not an issue about where a woman resides. It is an issue of staying accountable to, and cared for by, her father's household. I don't mean to say that a women needs to live in her parent's house so much as I'm saying that she needs to stay under their authority until their is a transfer of that authority to a husband.
That clears things up considerably. But Gen. 2:24 really does say "For this cause a MAN shall leave HIS father and HIS mother, and shall cleave to HIS wife" And it comes directly after Adam speaks. I think the point there is lifetime monogamy and the "one" concept of marriage. I don't think it has anything to do with being under subjection. [There is no argument from me that the wife is to submit to her husband, (and the husband is to cherish his wife - all a model of Christ and the church, as we heard here in Worship Service this AM) but it's just not in that particular verse.]
I would have to say that I'm still not convinced the Bible says a woman is under the direct authority of her father until her husband takes over. The leave/cleave passage is directed to Adam (see above) and I think the primary point of that verse is the sanctity of marriage and the bonding of two into one, not that women are to be under subjection to their fathers until marriage. It's certainly may be something to consider and discuss, but I don't think the primary meaning of this verse is teaching that.
Great blog discussion! I really should be sleeping, but I couldn't stop reading. The focus has definitely left the article but has certainly been profitable. And having known some of these bloggers since they were either small, scowling children or slightly sullen teenagers, I praise God for the work He had done, for the maturity He has generated and for the Word He has given us to delve into. May we all be conformed to His image, for His glory.
Michelle and I are launching into a study on what the Bible has to say about women, and this discussion makes me eager to see what the study yields. I'd also like to see Michelle comment, as she is Ian's helper/supporter/biggest fan! :)
As Matt G said "With that said, let try to refocus us- the article was criticizing "effeminate men", not pushy women. Lets discuss what could he have meant by effeminate, I have my own ideas, but no time to lay them ut. Maybe later."
I interpreted the phrase "effeminate men" as men/leaders who allow women to usurp authority over men and "weepy and sentimental" as simply more emotional. Maybe these clarifications (not that my interpretations are what everyone else saw) should have been brought out earlier huh?
Allright, I just want to make some clarifications then move on.
First, and I suppose I should have prefaced my recent posts with this to begin with, I just want to be clear in that I am not saying that women is lesser than man. Not that anyone has said that I am, but in going back and looking over my posts I can see how that may have been construed. Man and woman both were made in the image of God; all that man is intended for reflects the image of God, all that woman is intended for reflects the image of God. I wrote a little about this in the last book response that I posted. That being said, femininity is present in God, and in as much as woman reflects His image, she is equal with man in his imaging of the same God. That is why woman was created as co-laborer, or "help-meet" as some translations put it.
Second, in going to the creation account I set out to show an established pattern within the text that supported the headship of man over the woman. I was not reinterpreting the scriptures to say that they only spoke of this, just pointing out the patterns that existed along side familiar themes such as the sanctitiy of marriage. Of course Gen 2:24 speaks largely and loudly about the sanctity and permenancy of marriage, however I think it is important to consider all the scripture leading up to verse, which is an inserted commentary by the original, inspired author. Obviously, the verse reflects Adam's poem of "flesh of my flesh....", but as Adam had no parents, it is surely meant to be applied to all future unions. It is also imperative to go back and see the impact that Adam's words carried in light of the entire account of the creation of woman, which clearly begins with the scriptural introduction of verse 18. The whole context must be taken into account.
Lastly, I am not trying to convince anyone of anything. That is not my job. I was responding to the right and proper encouragement of relying on the scriptures for support of asserted concepts. I believe that I have shown a pattern present in scripture that I rest my beliefs on. I would urge others to do the same. If you disagree with me, show me why through the scriptures [only if you want to. That was not meant to be a challenge :) ]. I'm glad that others have different ideas and interpretations and are willing to share them. That is how we grow together.
Also, and more on topic (thanks Russ!),I did not intend to reduce the fall in Eden to the effeminization of man. That certaintly was a part of Adam's sin in that he did not speak up to either correct OR protect Eve from the serpent's deception, but I do realize that it went much deeper than that.
So, my luch is over, and I must return to work. Let's get back on track and keep going! I truly am very thankful for this discourse!
Post a Comment
<< Home