Women in Leadership Positions in the Church

public hermit said:

You point on this is well taken, on my part. And, I am definitely mulling it over. So, I don't want you to think I'm just ignoring it.

When I hear people use infallibility regarding scripture, generally they mean inerrant, or that had been my experience. So, this mitigated version, which concerns only those passages that explicitly state divine revelation, is interesting and new to me. So, I'm still thinking about it and mostly trying to think of exceptions, i.e. passages Christians generally reject but explicitly state divine revelation. To be honest, the OT is full of them, but I imagine the response would be that Christians are no longer under certain kinds of OT law, e.g. not required to stone rebellious children to death.

Click to expand...

Again, it is just a minimum necessary condition. I can't think of a more minimum condition. And it is not unrelated to inerrancy.

The only other passage by Paul that concerns this issue is 1 Timothy 2:11-13. Putting questions about authorship aside, his supporting argument is horrible. I stated this at the beginning of this thread. The idea that women should be silent because only Eve was deceived and became a transgressor, as if Adam wasn't a worse transgressor, is weak stuff.

Click to expand...

Yes, but I find your counter-argument "horrible." Is it even possible to claim that Eve was not deceived more than Adam was? Is it possible to say that someone who trusts his wife is more deceived than someone who trusts the claim of a stranger, a claim that is directly contrary to the command of God?! How do you reckon that Adam was a worse transgressor than Eve?

Add to that the notion that women are saved by having children! What? Would the real Paul please step forward! That is some of the lamest stuff Paul has ever argued in the writings we have. So much for grace ladies, you need to pop one out to be saved. How would you explain the veracity of that argument?

Click to expand...

Honestly, you will find that argument in Jewish, Hindu, and Native American religions just to name a few. I think it is also empirically verifiable, given the effect that children tend to have on women. It is also directly in line with the command from Genesis 1:28. I'm not sure why fecundity and procreation wouldn't be intimately connected to spirituality and salvation.

So yeah, lots of reasons for it, and you haven't given any actual arguments against it. All you have really done is ridicule and dismiss a sacred writing for no apparent reason.

zippy2006 said:

I should think it applies to the previous theme in the letter, which could arguably extend back to 12:1 or 11:2. That theme is basically assembly/worship/spiritual gifts, and relations between members of the Body.

Click to expand...

One of the major themes of the letter is unity - which goes back to chapter 3.
The Corinthians were following different apostles (and possibly claiming that some were better than others.) In chapter 11 they were divided over the Lord's Supper - with some getting there early to eat and get drunk so that there was no food for late arrivals. In chapter 12 Paul addresses the subject of gifts - apparently, some were claiming that the "outward" gifts, like tongues and prophecy, were more spiritual, or better than others. Paul uses the image of the human body. Not everyone is an ear or a hand, and the body wouldn't be able to operate if it was; the body needs all its parts, particularly those that might be considered weaker. In the same way they are the body of Christ. If they want to strive towards the best, Paul says, they that best way is love; without love all the best gifts in the world mean nothing. He lists all the qualities of love, and what it isn't - like proud, self-seeking or rude. Love always hopes and protects, and is eternal - unlike tongues, knowledge and prophesy which will, one day, cease.
In chapter 14 Paul then returns to the topic of tongues; yes, they're important, but prophecy is to be sought after more. Those who prophesy edify the church and can benefit non believers. He says that of course the Corinthians can speak in tongues and prophesy when they worship God, as long as they do so in an orderly fashion; one at a time.

Paul includes women in this; a) because in chapter 11 he specifically teaches how they should pray and prophesy (i.e with their heads covered) and b) because he does not say that any of the gifts of the Spirit, like teaching, evangelism, prophesy, are only for men.
Women need to observe order in worship too though, and if they are asking questions while the preacher/teacher is speaking, that is wrong and undermines the speakers' authority. It seems clear that they were, in fact, doing this because Paul specifically says that if they want to ask about anything they should ask their OWN husbands at home. I can't see why he would need to say this if it wasn't happening.

Strong in Him said:

One of the major themes of the letter is unity...

Click to expand...

Yes, those are good points. I suppose 14:34-36 could even form a kind of inclusio with 11:2-16.

zippy2006 said:

Again, it is just a minimum necessary condition. I can't think of a more minimum condition. And it is not unrelated to inerrancy.



Yes, but I find your counter-argument "horrible." Is it even possible to claim that Eve was not deceived more than Adam was? Is it possible to say that someone who trusts his wife is more deceived than someone who trusts the claim of a stranger, a claim that is directly contrary to the command of God?! How do you reckon that Adam was a worse transgressor than Eve?



Honestly, you will find that argument in Jewish, Hindu, and Native American religions just to name a few. I think it is also empirically verifiable, given the effect that children tend to have on women. It is also directly in line with the command from Genesis 1:28. I'm not sure why fecundity and procreation wouldn't be intimately connected to spirituality and salvation.

So yeah, lots of reasons for it, and you haven't given any actual arguments against it. All you have really done is ridicule and dismiss a sacred writing for no apparent reason.

Click to expand...

@zippy & @public hermit

Personally, I think both the passage in 1 Timothy & 1 Corinthians pertaining to women's silence as recommened by Paul had a lot to do with Greek influences brought in by a few women who were still under the influence of Greek myths and cultural infuences respective to cities in which they lived (Ephesus and Corinth in this case).

All too often, I see arguments going back and forth on this issue of interpretation which completely leave out any accounting for the cultural and social ideologies that were being addressed by Paul within each letter. However, I think we'd do better by realizing that we can't read either of these letters and assume they can be fully understood by only reading them as independent pieces of literature.

public hermit said: ↑
The NRSV, which is the English translation I use, puts vss. 34-36 in parentheses to indicate they are a parenthetical comment, along with a footnote stating that other ancient authorities place vss. 34-35 after vs. 40.

Click to expand...

zippy2006 said:

Okay, interesting.

Click to expand...

Yeah, I have this noted, quite extensively actually, in my NASB Hebrew-Greek Key Study Bible. So, it is a consideration we need to take when reading this text, among several.

Correction: The extensive notes I have in the NASB apply to interpreting the language and cultural connotations implied in verses 34-36 rather than a direct explanation about their "placement" by scribes. However, I'll have to find the source from which I've also read about this textual "placement." I know I've come across it somewhere.

Correction 2: After a little looking, I think my source for realizing that vs. 34-36 might be scribal emendation is from the book, Paul and the Competing Mission in Corinth - by Michael D. Goulder (2001), pp. 125-140.

zippy2006 said:

All you have really done is ridicule and dismiss a sacred writing for no apparent reason.

Click to expand...

But I don't see it as ridicule. I see it as an appropriate use of the written witness to Christ. We don't agree, which is perfectly fine with me.

public hermit said:

But I don't see it as ridicule. I see it as an appropriate use of the written witness to Christ.

Click to expand...

Yeah? How do you define "ridicule"?

public hermit said:

...his supporting argument is horrible.

Click to expand...

The idea that women should be silent [...] is weak stuff.

Click to expand...

Add to that the notion that women are saved by having children! What? Would the real Paul please step forward!

Click to expand...

That is some of the lamest stuff Paul has ever argued in the writings we have.

Click to expand...

So much for grace ladies, you need to pop one out to be saved.

Click to expand...

(and note that there are no arguments supporting this ridicule)

myst33 said:

Because its not about specific gene. There is also no gene for female pastors.

Click to expand...

No indeed. Because our life roles are not determined by our biology. That's my precise argument.

myst33 said:

But there are plenty of genes saying that you are to be a mother, nurse a child and will need a protection while doing that.

Click to expand...

And the large numbers of women who never have children? They should be consigned to domestic servitude on the basis that pregnant women need protection?

Here's the thing. In our modern societies, we don't need "protection" in that sense. Never once in my life have I needed a man's physical strength to defend me. This protection argument is blown way out of context to justify reducing women's potential, with no reference to the actual social reality in which we live, where that protection is extremely rarely needed.

And besides, I note again that for a woman who lives to, say, eighty, the proportion of her life she spends in the very vulnerable states of pregnancy and immediately post-birth are a blink of an eye. To diminish her over her entire life span for events which might total less than a year or two is ridiculous.

myst33 said:

All this has lead to "stereotypes" of women being at safe home and men being providers. How is that an oppression?

Click to expand...

It bears absolutely no relation to the contemporary working world. We aren't cave men fighting another cave man tribe, any more. It's perfectly safe even for pregnant women to work in most work environments.

zippy2006 said:

I think it is also empirically verifiable, given the effect that children tend to have on women. It is also directly in line with the command from Genesis 1:28. I'm not sure why fecundity and procreation wouldn't be intimately connected to spirituality and salvation.

Click to expand...

This seems a very strange claim to me. Having children is often a profoundly spiritual thing, but the idea that our having children or not is related to our salvation seems foreign to the Christian gospel.

2PhiloVoid said:

All too often, I see arguments going back and forth on this issue of interpretation which completely leave out any accounting for the cultural and social ideologies that were being addressed by Paul within each letter. However, I think we'd do better by realizing that we can't read either of these letters and assume they can be fully understood by only reading them as independent pieces of literature.

Click to expand...

I agree with that in a way, but there is a balance to be had.

The historico-critical approach to textual interpretation nearly always entombs a text in the distant past, and in the process blunts, relativizes, or entirely eschews any normative prohibitions that could reach us in the present. This is a significant danger when it comes to sacred texts and countercultural texts.

One of the foundational issues of a thread like this is interpretive consistency and the nature of revelation. For example:

public hermit said:

Which one sounds reflective of the divine and the love of Christ: 1) in Christ there is neither male nor female or 2) women should be quiet and not lead because Eve was deceived? Obviously, the former reflects who we are as the body of Christ.

Click to expand...

The interpretive rule that PH has utilized here is, "What sounds reflective of the divine and the love of Christ?"

The problem is that when we have wishy-washy interpretive rules, and when we have the availability of various scholarly approaches which provide enormous flexibility of interpretation, we end up bending the text to our will rather than bending ourselves to the divine will. Our Rule ends up being ourselves rather than Scripture, for what is "reflective of the divine" is always going to have a great deal to do with my personal opinions and biases--the very same biases the the Lord may well be trying to overcome. Revelation as something we receive from the outside, and which changes and forms us, is abolished.

A more proximate question on issues such as this is whether a particular text transcends its cultural context. Actually Paul is clear that a cultural or conditioned context has been transcended in 1 Cor 14:37, but usually it isn't so easy to tell. I don't trust myself to make those calls. My answer would be to look to the Church as authoritative interpreter of Scripture and Tradition, especially the historical Church as it traveled through different culture and epochs. Was something like 1 Cor 14:34-35 retained as supra-cultural by the Church, or was it abrogated on the basis of cultural relativity?

(This post ended up being longer than I wanted, and I don't want to start a long discussion or derail the thread. I am just pointing to an underlying issue.)

zippy2006 said:

I don't trust myself to make those calls.

Click to expand...

The Spirit of the Christ, the living God, lives in you. You know what is good. You don't need the book to tell you. The book did its work.

zippy2006 said:

I agree with that in a way, but there is a balance to be had.

The historico-critical approach to textual interpretation nearly always entombs a text in the distant past, and in the process blunts, relativizes, or entirely eschews any normative prohibitions that could reach us in the present. This is a significant danger when it comes to sacred texts and countercultural texts.

One of the foundational issues of a thread like this is interpretive consistency and the nature of revelation. For example:



The interpretive rule that PH has utilized here is, "What sounds reflective of the divine and the love of Christ?"

The problem is that when we have wishy-washy interpretive rules, and when we have the availability of various scholarly approaches which provide enormous flexibility of interpretation, we end up bending the text to our will rather than bending ourselves to the divine will. Our Rule ends up being ourselves rather than Scripture, for what is "reflective of the divine" is always going to have a great deal to do with my personal opinions and biases--the very same biases the the Lord may well be trying to overcome. Revelation as something we receive from the outside, and which changes and forms us, is abolished.

A more proximate question on issues such as this is whether a particular text transcends its cultural context. Actually Paul is clear that a cultural or conditioned context has been transcended in 1 Cor 14:37, but usually it isn't so easy to tell. I don't trust myself to make those calls. My answer would be to look to the Church as authoritative interpreter of Scripture and Tradition, especially the historical Church as it traveled through different culture and epochs. Was something like 1 Cor 14:34-35 retained as supra-cultural by the Church, or was it abrogated on the basis of cultural relativity?

(This post ended up being longer than I wanted, and I don't want to start a long discussion or derail the thread. I am just pointing to an underlying issue.)

Click to expand...

Well, fortunately for us, my approach to Hermeneutics transcends (and doesn't get stuck on) the merely historico-critical approach of textual analysis or any other singular theory or particular angle of theology.


And of course, I say this in connection to our overall understanding about the issue of women's ordination, activity and speaking within The Church.

public hermit said:

The Spirit of the Christ, the living God, lives in you. You know what is good. You don't need the book to tell you. The book did its work.

Click to expand...

Nah, I am fallible and the irrationality and blindness of human beings is one of the most interesting and well-attested realities in the world. Christians have been arguing, breaking communion, and even killing each other for hundreds and hundreds of years. Christ's Body is severely divided.

This is a great line from Flannery O'Connor that sums up the contrast between the way of the world and the way of Christianity:

2PhiloVoid said:

@zippy & @public hermit

Personally, I think both the passage in 1 Timothy & 1 Corinthians pertaining to women's silence as recommened by Paul had a lot to do with Greek influences brought in by a few women who were still under the influence of Greek myths and cultural infuences respective to cities in which they lived (Ephesus and Corinth in this case).

All too often, I see arguments going back and forth on this issue of interpretation which completely leave out any accounting for the cultural and social ideologies that were being addressed by Paul within each letter. However, I think we'd do better by realizing that we can't read either of these letters and assume they can be fully understood by only reading them as independent pieces of literature.

Click to expand...

I for a long time, to appease my family, sided with this argument. If we are honest with ourselves, we realize that the "culture" excuse is debunked when we continue reading Paul, as he goes back to Adam and Eve, escaping any claims toward cultural norms of the time:

1 Timothy 2:
13 For Adam was formed first, then Eve. 14 And Adam was not the one deceived; it was the woman who was deceived and became a sinner.

98cwitr said:

I for a long time, to appease my family, sided with this argument. If we are honest with ourselves, we realize that the "culture" excuse is debunked when we continue reading Paul, as he goes back to Adam and Eve, escaping any claims toward cultural norms of the time:

1 Timothy 2:
13 For Adam was formed first, then Eve. 14 And Adam was not the one deceived; it was the woman who was deceived and became a sinner.

Click to expand...

Actually, the "culture excuse" is not my argument. And if you haven't read Kroeger & Kroeger's book, then you probably aren't familiar with my position which isn't exactly what you're referring to. My argument affirms Paul's position, but insists there are additional, unmentioned details (very likely) pertaining to Paul's writing to Timothy that we need to also take into account.

Just so you know, Sis!

Thanks!

Reference
Kroeger, R. C., & Kroeger, C. C. (1998). I suffer not a woman: Rethinking I Timothy 2: 11-15 in light of ancient evidence. Baker Academic.

98cwitr said:

1 Timothy 2:
13 For Adam was formed first, then Eve. 14 And Adam was not the one deceived; it was the woman who was deceived and became a sinner.

Click to expand...

So Eve was deceived; so?
Adam KNEW what God wanted and deliberately disobeyed. If you claim the women shouldn't be preachers because of Eve's deception; neither should men because of Adam's disobedience.
Who wants a preacher/minister who knows God's will, deliberately ignores it and leads his congregation astray?

Eve was deceived because she hadn't heard God's word, and either Adam didn't explain properly or she wasn't paying attention. Probably the latter, because Paul says "Let the women learn" and says that they should do so in silence.
If Eve had KNOWN God's word, she couldn't have been deceived.

Strong in Him said:

So Eve was deceived; so?
Adam KNEW what God wanted and deliberately disobeyed. If you claim the women shouldn't be preachers because of Eve's deception; neither should men because of Adam's disobedience.
Who wants a preacher/minister who knows God's will, deliberately ignores it and leads his congregation astray?

Eve was deceived because she hadn't heard God's word, and either Adam didn't explain properly or she wasn't paying attention. Probably the latter, because Paul says "Let the women learn" and says that they should do so in silence.
If Eve had KNOWN God's word, she couldn't have been deceived.

Click to expand...

You're not arguing with me, but Paul. I'll let Scripture speak for itself, and Paul for himself.

Genesis 3

2 The woman said to the serpent, “We may eat fruit from the trees in the garden, 3 but God did say, ‘You must not eat fruit from the tree that is in the middle of the garden, and you must not touch it, or you will die.’”

Clearly Eve knew God's Word, was the first to fall, and in a fallen state convinced Adam to also sin, and this seems to hold some significant weigh in Paul's mind, for what other reason would he point that out?

98cwitr said:

You're not arguing with me, but Paul. I'll let Scripture speak for itself, and Paul for himself.

Genesis 3

2 The woman said to the serpent, “We may eat fruit from the trees in the garden, 3 but God did say, ‘You must not eat fruit from the tree that is in the middle of the garden, and you must not touch it, or you will die.’”

Clearly Eve knew God's Word,

Click to expand...

Genesis 2:17

And the Lord God commanded the man, “You are free to eat from any tree in the garden; 17 but you must not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, for when you eat from it you will certainly die.”

Click to expand...

Genesis 3:3

but God did say, ‘You must not eat fruit from the tree that is in the middle of the garden, and you must not touch it, or you will die.’”

Click to expand...

BIB added by Eve.

If someone KNOWS something, it is impossible to deceive them.
That's why the serpent approached Eve and said "DID God say ......?" It didn't approach Adam - there would have been no point.

No argument; it's there in Scripture.
The conclusion that women can't preach because of Eve, however, is not.

public hermit said:

The NRSV, which is the English translation I use, puts vss. 34-36 in parentheses to indicate they are a parenthetical comment, along with a footnote stating that other ancient authorities place vss. 34-35 after vs. 40.

Click to expand...

Manfred Hauke wrote a well-known dissertation on this topic that was published as Women in the Priesthood? In that book he finds 1 Cor 14 to be a central and standing piece of evidence. He notes that the Biblical scholarship of the time (1988) was willing to disregard vv. 34-35, even if the prohibition truly was a command of the Lord:




Hauke goes on to point out that things like "love" would not undo particular commands, and the early community was well aware of this ("I came not to abolish the law, but to fulfill it." (Mt 5:17)).

It seems to me that, like was the case in 1988, many of the same people who do not consider vv. 34-35 to be a command of the Lord would reject it even if it were. Thus by their own admission they fail to fulfill IMIN, the minimum necessary condition for believing in an infallible Bible.

Strong in Him said:

Genesis 2:17
Genesis 3:3

BIB added by Eve.

If someone KNOWS something, it is impossible to deceive them.
That's why the serpent approached Eve and said "DID God say ......?" It didn't approach Adam - there would have been no point.

No argument; it's there in Scripture.
The conclusion that women can't preach because of Eve, however, is not.

Click to expand...

Both OT and NT uphold patriarchy in my view; however I would not say it is claimed women are unable (gift/skill-wise) to preach or teach, rather that Paul states a woman should not teach to, or hold authority over a man.

Paul emphasises the inherent asymmetry between men and women; abhorrent to modern 21st century society and seemingly completely unfair to educated, skilled women, yet he did that nevertheless.

I have more sympathy for the position that although in those days patriarchy was the norm, it is now not needed anymore, than for the position who tries to deny that patriarchy didn't even exist or was promoted in both the OT and the NT; to me that is just an effort to rewrite history to make it say what we now like to hear.

Jesus only chose 12 men because he wanted to be compatible with societal norms of the day? Highly unlikely ..

Peter praises Sarah as 'model holy woman' for obeying Abraham and calling him 'Master' (1 Peter 3:6). It doesn't make sense to think Peter uses 'holy' with the interpretation 'culturally compliant'.

The patriarchy is just everywhere - the discussion becomes easier if we first dare to acknowledge that. How uncomfortable as it may feel for us in this day and age.

ReluctantTheologian said:

I have more sympathy for the position that although in those days patriarchy was the norm, it is now not needed anymore, than for the position who tries to deny that patriarchy didn't even exist or was promoted in both the OT and the NT; to me that is just an effort to rewrite history to make it say what we now like to hear.

Click to expand...

I absolutely agree that the cultures in which the Scriptures were written were profoundly patriarchal, and that patriarchal norms shaped various aspects of Scripture (and how those Scriptures have been received since they were written). But I also find in Scripture elements which subvert patriarchal norms, and it is my position that patriarchy was never God's will; it is an aspect of human culture which is sinful, a result of the fall, and that the reign of God (of which the Church is a sign, instrument and foretaste) is not patriarchal and should not conform itself to patriarchal norms.