The World Needs Women Priests

Bruce Leiter said:

Firstness meant a lot in the culture of the day, and Adam was called to name the animals before Eve arrived on the scene. Furthermore, the Apostle Paul interprets this passage that Adam's firstness meant that he had a measure of authority as God's servant and that of his wife in the role of servant/leader of her. The equal status that you refer to is founded on Genesis 1 and Galatians 3, but the different roles are clear in Genesis 2 and the other passages I mentioned, especially 1 Corinthians 11:3.

Click to expand...

I think there may need to be some work done here.

Cain was the first born son, and Seth was third, and so also Jacob came out for the womb after Esau. I don't think that firstness is such a big thing with God.

Bruce Leiter said:

Firstness meant a lot in the culture of the day, and Adam was called to name the animals before Eve arrived on the scene. Furthermore, the Apostle Paul interprets this passage that Adam's firstness meant that he had a measure of authority as God's servant and that of his wife in the role of servant/leader of her. The equal status that you refer to is founded on Genesis 1 and Galatians 3, but the different roles are clear in Genesis 2 and the other passages I mentioned, especially 1 Corinthians 11:3.

Click to expand...

And yet just a bit further, (1 Corinthians 11:12) Paul could write: For just as woman came from man, so man comes through woman; but all things come from God. Which undercuts any sense of primacy or hierarchy among humans. At the very most, one could say that Scripture sometimes suggests hierarchy among men and women (not surprising given it was written in patriarchal cultures) but always relativises that hierarchy in light of the relationship of both to God.

context, context, context !!!

Hebrews 7:12, 1 PETER 2:9

Paidiske said:

And yet just a bit further, (1 Corinthians 11:12) Paul could write: For just as woman came from man, so man comes through woman; but all things come from God. Which undercuts any sense of primacy or hierarchy among humans. At the very most, one could say that Scripture sometimes suggests hierarchy among men and women (not surprising given it was written in patriarchal cultures) but always relativises that hierarchy in light of the relationship of both to God.

Click to expand...

So, you're saying that God inspired some of Scripture that agrees with your ideas but not other passages that don't? God made males and females equal in status before him as fully in his image and likeness but different in functions or roles. All of the passages together reflect the teaching of that distinction.

Bruce Leiter said:

So, you're saying that God inspired some of Scripture that agrees with your ideas but not other passages that don't?

Click to expand...

No. All Scripture is God-breathed, but the application of it needs to be carefully discerned.

Bruce Leiter said:

God made males and females equal in status before him as fully in his image and likeness but different in functions or roles. All of the passages together reflect the teaching of that distinction.

Click to expand...

Except they really don't. The passages used to argue for different functions or roles (which mostly seem to be about keeping women out of particular functions or roles; nobody seems to use them to limit men, strangely) can be shown not to be the whole picture. For example, Paul commends women who lead, teach and prophecy in some places, and in others commands quietness; therefore the command cannot be taken as an absolute.

Paidiske said:

No. All Scripture is God-breathed, but the application of it needs to be carefully discerned.



Except they really don't. The passages used to argue for different functions or roles (which mostly seem to be about keeping women out of particular functions or roles; nobody seems to use them to limit men, strangely) can be shown not to be the whole picture. For example, Paul commends women who lead, teach and prophecy in some places, and in others commands quietness; therefore the command cannot be taken as an absolute.

Click to expand...

I think that we have the choice between allowing our egalitarian cultures to dictate our interpretation of Scripture or letting the Bible speak on its own terms and with its own assumptions. The examples you give are somewhat vague as to what Paul is commending in women's roles in contrast to his clear teachings. One very good interpretation rule is to choose the unclear passages to explain the unclear.

Bruce Leiter said:

I think that we have the choice between allowing our egalitarian cultures to dictate our interpretation of Scripture

Click to expand...

This is often the accusation made, but I do not believe it is what is happening.

Bruce Leiter said:

The examples you give are somewhat vague as to what Paul is commending in women's roles in contrast to his clear teachings. One very good interpretation rule is to choose the unclear passages to explain the unclear.

Click to expand...

Yes, the NT picture of ministry and the worship life of the church overall is somewhat vague. We would need better justification than that to quench the Spirit within the life of women.

Paidiske said:

This is often the accusation made, but I do not believe it is what is happening.



Yes, the NT picture of ministry and the worship life of the church overall is somewhat vague. We would need better justification than that to quench the Spirit within the life of women.

Click to expand...

What makes 1 Corinthians 11:3 and 1 Timothy 2:11-14 vague? In the latter text, Paul grounds his teaching not in culture but in Adam's being created first.

Bruce Leiter said:

What makes 1 Corinthians 11:3 and 1 Timothy 2:11-14 vague? In the latter text, Paul grounds his teaching not in culture but in Adam's being created first.

Click to expand...

Well, we know, for a start, that Paul allowed women to teach, and to lead, and to speak in worship gatherings. So 1 Timothy 2:11-14 can't be taken as forbidding those things if we are to be honest about the whole witness of Scripture. But then we are not given a clear picture of exactly what the situation was that he was addressing.

My point is that we have very little detail about much of the life of the church in its earliest years. But we have enough to make it clear that women were not expected to be mute, passive doormats.

Paidiske said:

Well, we know, for a start, that Paul allowed women to teach, and to lead, and to speak in worship gatherings. So 1 Timothy 2:11-14 can't be taken as forbidding those things if we are to be honest about the whole witness of Scripture. But then we are not given a clear picture of exactly what the situation was that he was addressing.

My point is that we have very little detail about much of the life of the church in its earliest years. But we have enough to make it clear that women were not expected to be mute, passive doormats.

Click to expand...

No, you're right that women are not to be "doormats" in the church and at home. But the principle of "headship" for males is that they are called to provide leadership on the direction of the church and marriage "where the denarius stops." They are servant-leaders, not dominant males, as they were in Paul's day. In that way, Paul broke with his culture. However, for some reason we don't know, God assigned males with the final decisions on matters that would tear the church and marriage apart. Two leaders in the church and marriage are always trouble.

On the other hand, in what passages did Paul allow "women to teach, and to lead, and to speak in worship gatherings"?

Bruce Leiter said:

But the principle of "headship" for males is that they are called to provide leadership on the direction of the church and marriage "where the denarius stops."

Click to expand...

Problem is, literally nowhere in Scripture does it say this.

Bruce Leiter said:

On the other hand, in what passages did Paul allow "women to teach, and to lead, and to speak in worship gatherings"?

Click to expand...

Paul commends Prisca, a teacher. He commends Junia and Phoebe and other women leaders. He allows for women to prophesy in church (which necessitates speaking). In practice, he welcomed and valued the gifts and service of these women, without seeing a problem with them doing those things because they were women.

Paidiske said:

Problem is, literally nowhere in Scripture does it say this.



Paul commends Prisca, a teacher. He commends Junia and Phoebe and other women leaders. He allows for women to prophesy in church (which necessitates speaking). In practice, he welcomed and valued the gifts and service of these women, without seeing a problem with them doing those things because they were women.

Click to expand...

But he nowhere says that they should be part of the ultimate direction of the church, as he does about men in Ephesians 5:21-33 (marriage) and 1 Corinthians 11:3; 1 Timothy 2:11-14; and 1 Corinthians 14:34-35.

Bruce Leiter said:

But he nowhere says that they should be part of the ultimate direction of the church, as he does about men in Ephesians 5:21-33 (marriage) and 1 Corinthians 11:3; 1 Timothy 2:11-14; and 1 Corinthians 14:34-35.

Click to expand...

Christ alone is the ultimate direction of the Church.

As to the rest, if Paul in some places allows women to lead, speak and teach, and in other places seems to forbid it, then the prohibition cannot be absolute, but limited to particular circumstances. That's the argument I'm making.

Paidiske said:

Christ alone is the ultimate direction of the Church.

As to the rest, if Paul in some places allows women to lead, speak and teach, and in other places seems to forbid it, then the prohibition cannot be absolute, but limited to particular circumstances. That's the argument I'm making.

Click to expand...

And I'm saying that the Word of God has principles that carry over to all eras, including those of Paul that he grounds in Adam's creation first before Eve. Good interpretation means using those teachings even and especially when they contradict our culture's egalitarianism when they bear on the servant-leadership of the church. But I guess we might have to agree to disagree.

Bruce Leiter said:

And I'm saying that the Word of God has principles that carry over to all eras...

Click to expand...

But what you haven't demonstrated is that the subordination of women was even a universal principle in Paul's era. In fact Scripture abundantly demonstrates that this was not so.

Paidiske said:

But what you haven't demonstrated is that the subordination of women was even a universal principle in Paul's era. In fact Scripture abundantly demonstrates that this was not so.

Click to expand...

Who said anything about subordination of women?

prodromos said:

Who said anything about subordination of women?

Click to expand...

Bruce Leiter's position's on women's roles in marriage and church seem to be fairly described as subordination of women.

That is a mischaracterisation of his views. The roles of men and women in the Church are different. Men are called on to take on greater responsibility than women. I don't recall women being called on to be willing to die for their husbands.

prodromos said:

That is a mischaracterisation of his views.

Click to expand...

Denying women positions of leadership and authority is subordination. You might think it is good, valid or necessary subordination, but it is dishonest to deny that that is what it is.

prodromos said:

The roles of men and women in the Church are different.

Click to expand...

That's the claim, but it is problematic Scripturally.

prodromos said:

Men are called on to take on greater responsibility than women. I don't recall women being called on to be willing to die for their husbands.

Click to expand...

Ultimately, all of us are Christians face that possibility (of needing to be willing to die for one another).

But in the meantime, the problem is that all this stuff about male headship actually leads to more dead women, as it fosters attitudes which undergird our high rates of domestic violence.