God’s Accommodation
ADDED at 10:00 a.m.: Thanks to someone for mentioning in the comments that the Oprah show with my sister-in-law, Pam Cope, and her work in Ghana is going to be repeated today. It’s a powerful story.
- – - -
Stackhouse argues that gender distrinctions “are a result of sin in fallen human society, not divinely ordered human relations.” Nothing about the creation or redemption threads of scripture would lead you to believe that men have a privileged place with leadership.
“How did I come to that sort of conclusion?” he asks. “Why do I think the Holy Spirit counts patriarchy as a sinful, oppressive structure to which he nonetheless accommodated himself and the church until such time as both church and society could do away with it? Because that is what I think the Holy Spirit has already done in one extremely important case: slavery.”
Christians have a consensus opinion today that the social conservatism in the NT regarding slavery was just such a case.
“Preachers on both sides of the slavery controversy marshaled powerful, Bible-based arguments that convinced millions of believers. Some fair-minded observers have concluded that the proslavery forces had the better of this debate, since a straightforward interpretation of the passages regarding slavery conveys no obvious condemnation of the institution and seems instead to encourage Christians in both roles, master and slave, to stay right where they are and simply to behave properly. Yet there is no important Christian leader anywhere in the modern world today who defends slavery. Not one.”
Again and again, Stackhouse shows that many passages in scripture — about polygamy, slavery, patriarchalism — are “God’s accomodation to something he does not like.” But imbedded in the gospel story is an eschatological vision of justice and equality that is already breaking in all around us.
He notes that not all that very long ago in the West patriarchy resonated with people because women were assumed to be fundamentally inferior in areas of leadership — more emotional, less rational, etc. “Thus, it made sense for men to dominate and women to submit, just as it made the same sort of sense for white people to dominate everyone else if everyone else was understood to be inferior and even subhuman.”
But — thankfully! — such reasoning is, for the most part, behind us.
“The complementarian position has become incoherent. Thanks be to God that many complementarians are not sexists who believe that women are inferior to men. (In regard to those who maintain that women really are inferior in these important respects, I will not pause to say much, except that the Bible, reason, and experience are against you. All you have on your side, from a Christian point of view, are misogynist texts scattered here and there in the tradition from the patristic period to our own.) To the complementarians who do believe that women are equal and yet see the Bible as restricting leadership to men, let me respectfully and fraternally ask, Why would God mandate that pattern forever? May I invite you to consider the Bible in the way I am suggesting, which does, I think, make better sense of the elements of both patriarchy and equality that many egalitarians and complementarians agree are present.
“My fundamental practical question therefore is this: What are Christians supposed to do when society itself shifts to egalitarianism? There is no longer a rationale for the woman to remain in the culturally expected role of dependence and submission, just as there is no rationale for the grown-up child to act as if he requires his parents’ direction as he did when he was young. When, under the providence of God and the ongoing, spreading influence of kingdom values, society opens up to the abolition of slavery or the emancipation of women, then Christians can rejoice and be in the vanguard of such change — as we have been in both causes. The irony remains precisely in Christians lagging behind society and still requiring a submissive role for women, a posture that now is a mirror image of the scandal that egalitarianism would have caused in the patriarchal first century.”
I agree, for the most part, with Stackhouse’s paradigm. It’s not a position I came to easily years ago. I entered kicking and screaming. It was frightening. It seemed to fly in the face of a couple “obvious” passages.
But I could finally no longer hold to patriarchal/complementarian thinking. It didn’t fit the gospel. I finally had to own up to my baptismal vows: that in Christ there is no Hutu or Tutsi, no Easterner or Westerner, no black or white, no male or female, no Jew or Gentile, no slave or free.
(And NOW . . . I’ll move onto other topics . . . for a while.)
Thank you, thank you … no need for applause, really.
I’ve returned post-humously to settle this minor rhubarb of yours. It appears some are taking my teachings to specific churches in unique contexts and applying them to every Christian everywhere. Well, I hate to break it to you, but you’re wrong. Sorry.
I’ll be around the rest of today, and then I’ve got to get back to my coffin. Ten salvation points to anyone who can correctly guess what my “thorn in the flesh” was. Guess away!
David,
Yeah, I had some of the same reservations and troubles with Schreiner. With all things, read prayerfully and openly but also with a critical eye.
I’m not sold on all of Schreiner’s article (should’ve mentioned that before) but thought his discussion contained enough thoughtful critique of Webb’s redemptive historical approach to warrant mention. Also, just because I lean more to some of Schreiner’s critique does not mean I don’t find value in Webb’s book. I appreciate his attitude in his presentation. At the end of the day I think his methodology is a little lacking or needs greater clarification.
Alan, thanks for correcting the link! I’ll include it again as well: http://www.sbts.edu/docs/tschreiner/6.1_article.pdf
Paul , writing by the inspiration of the Holy Spirit and the authority of Jesus Christ , made it very clear and obvious that what he wrote in I Cor. 14 : 33 and 34 was for all the churches. Not just Corinth. It was to be normative and transcultural.
Some of the arguments Webb wants to refute seem like straw man arguments to me. I’m sure someone holds those positions (ex: women more likely to be deceived? strange thought).
The point of 1 Tim 2:13 about Eve being deceived, is analogous to the point of Rom 5:12ff about death and Adam.
According to the Romans text, death entered the world through Adam’s sin, and even during the time between Adam and Moses, people died although they were not under law. Salvation through Christ saves us from the second death, but we still die physically as a consequence of sin entering the world through Adam.
Similarly, the subordinate role of women entered the world due to the deception of Eve (according to Paul, 1 Tim 2:13). As God said to Eve:
Gen 3:16 To the woman he said, “I will greatly increase your pains in childbearing; with pain you will give birth to children. Your desire will be for your husband, and he will rule over you.”
And in 1 Tim 2:13 Paul confirmed that this consequence still applies.
Now we can say one of three things:
1) Paul was wrong. If that is the case, we may as well drop the subject because his writings are fallible.
2) Paul was right, but it only applied in his day. However, the reason he cited is still true. Nothing in his reasoning connects it to his cultural setting or to his time. Nothing in the text anticipates that it would change in the future.
3) Paul was right, and what he said still applies. Therefore women should not be permitted to teach men in the church. That is not because of relative capabilities, talents, prejudices, or culture. And it has nothing to do with any supposed tendency toward being deceived. Instead, it is because God decreed what he did in Genesis, and Paul reaffirmed it in 1 Tim 2.
I haven’t seen anyone attempt to answer Richard’s question about speaking in tongues … it’s a great question.
If every Pauline instruction is for “all churches” and “normative and transcultural,” why aren’t more people insisting that we speak in tongues?
Ray,
I might have missed your answer to this in one of the other threads, or in the 100 posts on this one but can you give me your explanation as to why we don’t follow many of Paul’s other instructions to the churches? Your statement “It was to be normative and transcultural” sounds nice an easy but if that is true shouldn’t it apply across the board?
For instance in verse 34 he says they should be “silent.” Do women sing at your church? Do you believe in the ability to speak in tongues, because Paul apparently did. At other times he references other things like head coverings or the wearing of jewelry but we do not hold to those as you are holding to the silence of women.
Peace
Thanks Steve,
So, let me ask Ray B and Alan again (both, I note, studiously avoiding the question; why, we may ask?):
Do either of you speak in tongues?
If not, why not?
I’d like for all of us to see your hermeneutic for tongues set alongside your hermeneutic for women’s roles to assess if you are self-consistent.
My guess is that your take on women’s roles might be locally consistent (and hence look effective) but that when we look at your global hermeneutic your argument for being “biblically based” (i.e., sola scriptura) is simply rhetoric (or epistemological myopia).
Kyle ,
I have answered many times but some do not agree. Again , when Paul mentions creation and the fall in I Tim. 2 he is going beyond time and culture. The same in Corinth. Again , this is my view and these are my convictions. Also , Paul is not the one to write about the oppression of women. That is contemporary language. His letters show great respect for women and their value in the kingdom. Paul writes about a divine design that when applied gives true freedom and the full expression of talents and gifts in the various ways of ministry in the church.
Read what Alan had to say in a previous post. Paul was right and what he said still applies.
Richard asked:
> Do either of you speak in tongues?
> If not, why not?
I do not, because God has not given me that gift. I don’t think He will, either, based on my understanding of the scriptures on the subject. Paul taught that tongues would pass away (1 Cor 13:8ff) and I believe that occurred when the last inspired scriptures were written and generally available in the churches. Explaining that in more detail would derail the topic on this thread so I’ll stop there.
Note the difference between the subject of tongues and the subject of the woman’s role. Paul clearly taught that tongues would cease. He did not say anything similar about the woman’s role changing after his time.
Intriguingly, still avoiding the question.
Alan,
Thanks Alan, you did answer the question. I cross-posted and was speaking to Ray B.
I don’t think the question of tongues is off-topic. The issue has become hermeneutics, the interpretation of Scripture. The particular case study is women’s roles. The issue of tongues goes to if the “clear and obvious” hermeneutic you’ve been using is being used in a self-consistent manner. A comparison case, like speaking in tongues, would help us clarify the situation. It helps us cut at this topic in a different way rather than beating the women’s roles passages over and over. This was my hope in bringing up a comparison case.
Getting to your comments, you state that A.) Paul “clearly taught that tongues would cease.” And you state that B.) “I believe that occurred when the last inspired scriptures were written and generally available in the churches.”
My question is this: Is point B a “clear and obvious” teaching of Scripture?
My take is that secessionist arguments are not very clear or obvious. They involve a lot of “picking and choosing” and interpretation. That is fine, btw. Again, I’ve resigned myself to that hermeneutical situation. I just want us all to play fair. To note that we are all picking and choosing. And that none of us, not you, Ray, me or Mike Cope, work with the “clear and obvious” reading of Scripture. Currently, in this case study, you can play the “clear and obvious” card and look like you are in a strong position. You can appear reasonable, clearheaded, and obedient to Scritpure. But in other cases you are not in the “clear and obvious” position and still, I bet, you’d stick to your cards (i.e., I doubt a Pentecostal could change your mind on tongues).
The point? Few of us are really open to the Word of God. And that might be the big lesson here.
Thanks for answering.
I sit and reflect that the do unto others as you would have others do unto you doesn’t get enough press.
I also think Romans 12: 3-5 Just what is that measure of faith?
As going with Rachels thought about the Pharisees. When we don’t humbly do what each reads and feels the Spirit is telling them. And then take the position of power over someone else, then Christ is not in us. Can you imagine they were chatising their Lord? Why do we so easily see that women in other countries that are denied schooling and must wear a specific dress is wrong.
I’ve grown up and old feeling it wasn’t right but did nothing. I have a granddaughter filled with the Spirit and much smarter than I.
She can teach Christ by example, but she also has the gift of teaching. As she learns in college must she be silent at a place that is like home to her? Her brilliant observations never to be heard.
Paul taught that tongues would pass away (1 Cor 13:8ff)
Did knowledge pass away with tongues and prophecy? That’s what the verse says. Paul is listing off several giftings that are what he calls “reflections” of the kingdom of God. When we see God face-to-face, we will no longer need the reflections. Until then, however, we have the reflections as gifts. I do not see where you are reading that those reflections (gifts) suddenly end.
“For now we see only a reflection as in a mirror; then we shall see face to face. Now I know in part; then I shall know fully, even as I am fully known.”
I certainly do not “know fully” … do you?
(just continuing the healthy dialogue here … nothing personal!)
What is the question that Alan did not just answer?
Richard,
“Clear and obvious” is in the eye of the beholder. I think we would both agree on that. I acknowledge that many people do not agree with my reading of 1 Cor 13. But my convictions are based on my understanding, not someone else’s. These things seem clear (if not always 100% obvious) to me.
Steve,
I do think that the spiritual gift of knowledge (ie, miraculous knowledge) passed away at the same time. I also believe that, compared with a non-inspired first century Christian, we have vastly more knowledge at our disposal. Whether or not we use it is another question… Anyway I also recognize that there may be a second fulfillment of parts of 1 Cor 13 in the future. But I think, regarding cessation of tongues, the initial fulfillment that I described has already occurred. For a more complete description of my view on this passage, see my comment on preacherman’s blog at this link:
http://kinneymabry.blogspot.com/2007/05/what-is-your-take-on-paul-meaning-in-1.html
Keep in mind, as I said earlier, what is clear and obvious is in the eye of the beholder. Your mileage may vary
One day God will make it all clear and obvious, I hope!
btw, just to complete the circle, the reason for the side track on tongues was to see if my views on the woman’s role and on tongues reflect consistent use of Paul’s teaching. I believe I am being consistent because Paul (I strongly believe) taught that tongues would pass away, but he never said anything of the sort about the subordinate role of women passing away.
Alan ,
Great answer. Exactly what I am trying to say. The text is clear to me. May not be to others.
Alan & Ray:
What is Paul actually teaching about in 1 Corinthians 13? Whether or not churches should practice speaking in tongues, or the enduring importance of radical, sacrificial love in Christian life and worship?
I think that makes a difference in how we read that passage.
It sounds to me like, in an effort to restore order to public worship, Paul was encouraging believers to allow one another to speak, to simmer down so that others could have a voice and, whatever they said or did, he encouraged them to do it all in a spirit of love and listening – both to each other and to the Spirit. He encouraged them all to exercise their authentic gifts (see Chapter 12 – if you’re a hand, be a hand! if you’re a foot, be a foot! if you’re a teacher, teach!) based on who they really were, and he exhorted them not to try and “put on” what seemed like the most honorable gifts in order to gain attention. Doesn’t sound like he was trying to shut them all (or even half of them) up. Sounds like he was telling them to be still, listen to God, and BE THEMSELVES for the good of the body.
Here’s a comment for all those readers who find these conversations frustrating in the extreme.
As a psychologist, I’ve been watching this conversation during the week and I like to insert a little scientific meta-observation.
There is strong scientific evidence to suggest that our moral/ethical judgments tend to come rapidly and unconsciously. That is, a feeling of “rightness” or “wrongness” is primary. Then, after the fact, we add post hoc cognitive rationalizations to justify our rapid emotional appraisal.
This sequence is the reverse of what we think is going on. We tend to think that “First, I think/deliberate” and “Then, based on my deliberations, I make a decisions about right vs. wrong.”
But it is exactly the reverse. First, we emotionally “feel” the rightness of wrongness. And then we justify those emotions to ourselves or our moral audience. (For philosophical affectionados, yes, the science is supporting Hume over Kant.)
Here’s the take-home point: Experience (”feeling”) is primary. Talk (i.e., argument) is secondary.
If we look at Mike’s blog through this science a few things become clear:
1. We will always be talking past each other as our “words” are secondary to our deeply held assessments of what is right and proper.
2. These conversations will always remain emotionally volatile in that argument is not connecting with argument. It is experience up against experience. Feelings are clashing, not ideas.
3. It stands to reason, therefore, that change will not be the result of debate. Debate is just the verbal gloss we paint atop our convictions. Only NEW EXPERIENCES will change us. And note that the people who have been changed on this topic tend to cite an experience and not an argument. They speak of a daughter or a women in their life or church. After those experiences will they pick up Stackhouse’s book. The book helps justify the change. It doesn’t cause the change.
This, then, is the psychology of the blog (all blogs). It is our cyber-burden.
If you are interested in exploring the science behind this comment start with Blink as a popular introduction to the subject. If you want a more scientific treatment, start with Strangers to Ourselves.
Blessing to all. And prayers for transformative experiences.
Rachel ,
Yes Paul was trying to restore oder. The descriptions of love are actually in the context of the issues of selfishness and rudeness in their assemblies. However , when Paul writes in I Cor 14 about the issue of silence he is writing within the harmony of God designed male leadership. No not to shut down women but to keep the order of male leadership in the assemblies in all the churches. It is how I see it.
Rachel,
The link I provided earlier (11:59 post) will take you to a fairly complete explanation of what I think Paul was addressing in 1 Cor 12-13. In chapter 14 he’s giving practicals based on the principles in chapters 12-13.
Here is a question for you: Do you think Paul was trying to get women to be silent in the assembly in Corinth? What would those women have understood him to be saying in 1 Cor 14:34?
And, why does he say “churches” instead of “church” in that verse?
Alan – Thank you for your answer. Though I disagree with your exegesis of the passage, your response was concise yet understandable.
clear and obvious is in the eye of the beholder
By saying this, aren’t you conceding that Scripture is indeed interpreted — through the lens of culture, experience, and a host of other factors — instead of just “read”? Because if we could agree that we come to Scripture not as blank slates but as ________ (fill in the blank about yourself) — basically people with a story — then we might be getting somewhere.
I also think one’s opinion in this discussion depends a great deal on how they view the Bible. A book of propositions? A narrative about God and his people? Descriptive? Prescriptive? (obviously there’s some of all of these things, but problems arise when we paint the whole thing with one brush)
Peace.
Since both Ray and Alan have admitted that their reading of Paul is based on a personal hermeneutic—”that’s just how I see it”—I don’t think it’s necessary to keep arguing. This is their reading, it informs their consciences, and they should stick to it (though one would hope that they would be more open to considering the opposing readings of their Christian brothers and sisters, and that their Christian brothers and sisters would be equally open to their reading).
However, the one thing they’ve also tacitly admitted, therefore, is that their reading in no way can trump the others that have been forwarded here. To say “this is my conviction” is to acknowledge that their readings are individual and not universal—to know that their readings have no particular purchase or primacy over others. Thus, we’re where we always are in the church: we may disagree with one another, but we continue to hope for the Spirit to enlighten all of us, we acknowledge that we all “see in a glass darkly” and are thus called to hermeneutical humility, and we continue to abide with one another in fellowship.
Both Ray and Alan have acknowledged what I think many of us wanted them to acknowledge: all the ideas forwarded here about the role of women are derived by individual hermeneutical processes and are thus equally valid (even if contradictory). We live in anticipation of clarity, but know such clarity will elude us (at least that’s what Paul says) until the end when Christ will make all things clear. Thus by acknowledging the mechanics of their own hermeneutics, they’ve confessed there’s space for all of our interpretations. We can ask nothing more.
Here’s another reason I don’t believe Paul’s instruction regarding women is applicable across all times and cultures: it is grounded in specific things said in Genesis about Adam and Eve, whose story, I believe, is not a relation of factual historical reality, but a sort of parable that serves to tell us who God is, who we are in relation to Him, and where sin and evil come from (the choices of human beings). Thus, the curse, “…and he [your husband] shall rule over you” is not to be taken as something that we must necessarily “adhere to” (although human history has, in general, reflected those words surprisingly consistently).
I’m sorry, but this is total nonsense. And, according to Bill’s logic, my opinion must be as valid as any other in this matter. Wouldn’t you agree, Bill?
Bill said “all the ideas forwarded here about the role of women are derived by individual hermeneutical processes and are thus equally valid (even if contradictory).”
Here’s a comment for all those readers who find these conversations frustrating in the extreme.
As a psychologist, I’ve been watching this conversation during the week and I like to insert a little scientific meta-observation.
There is strong scientific evidence to suggest that our moral/ethical judgments tend to come rapidly and unconsciously. That is, a feeling of “rightness†or “wrongness†is primary. Then, after the fact, we add post hoc cognitive rationalizations to justify our rapid emotional appraisal.
This sequence is the reverse of what we think is going on. We tend to think that “First, I think/deliberate†and “Then, based on my deliberations, I make a decisions about right vs. wrong.â€
But it is exactly the reverse. First, we emotionally “feel†the rightness of wrongness. And then we justify those emotions to ourselves or our moral audience. (For philosophical affectionados, yes, the science is supporting Hume over Kant.)
Here’s the take-home point: Experience (â€feelingâ€) is primary. Talk (i.e., argument) is secondary.
If we look at Mike’s blog through this science a few things become clear:
1. We will always be talking past each other as our “words†are secondary to our deeply held assessments of what is right and proper.
2. These conversations will always remain emotionally volatile in that argument is not connecting with argument. It is experience up against experience. Feelings are clashing, not ideas.
3. It stands to reason, therefore, that change will not be the result of debate. Debate is just the verbal gloss we paint atop our convictions. Only NEW EXPERIENCES will change us. And note that the people who have been changed on this topic tend to cite an experience and not an argument. They speak of a daughter or a women in their life or church. After those experiences will they pick up Stackhouse’s book. The book helps justify the change. It doesn’t cause the change.
This, then, is the psychology of the blog (all blogs). It is our cyber-burden.
If you are interested in exploring the science behind this comment start with Blink (Gladwell) as a popular introduction to the subject. If you want a more scientific treatment, start with Strangers to Ourselves (Wilson).
Blessings to all. And prayers for transformative experiences.
Spices and camels and gnats! Oh my!
We continue to sit here tithing and parsing and speculating about our own theological precision. Meanwhile, the world waits for a people committed to justice, mercy, and faithfulness.
I know that faithfulness for some includes a doctrinal precision about everything in scripture. I understand; I’ve lived that life too. And if there is a required essay on the ‘role of women’ at judgment, I might very likely fail the assignment.
Maybe I’d fail because I think justice includes full inclusion of female voices. Or maybe I’d fail because I misunderstood what Paul meant when he spoke to a very different group of people living in a very different place nearly 2000 years before I was born. Or perhaps I’d fail because I understood Paul precisely and then failed to hear what God was saying to me in my time and place today.
Then again, I might recognize my failure by admitting that Mother Teresa was a better church leader than This Man has ever been.
Either way, if we keep this up … failure is definitely an option.
Steve wrote:
> Because if we could agree that we come to
> Scripture not as blank slates
We do agree on that. I absolutely admit that.
I don’t think God intended us to apply a sterile, logical algorithm to extract rules from the story line of the Bible. But I do think God expects us to discern his will from the scriptures, and to obey.
God is not a poor communicator. He made us and he knows our limitations. He knows what he expects us to discern and he knows whether our failure to discern is due to slowness of mind or hardness of heart.
We should accept one another despite differing opinions, outside of a few core truths (2 John 7-10 etc). But still, on these disputed topics, there is a true answer. It is not ok to be indifferent to the truth. We should seek it out. If God has revealed a truth, regardless of how subtle or difficult to discern, we should want to know it, even as we must admit when we do not yet know it.
Pride is the enemy of learning. We have to be willing to admit that we might be wrong. That’s one of the hardest things in growing as a Christian.
Alan,
In a previous post you said:
“Similarly, the subordinate role of women entered the world due to the deception of Eve (according to Paul, 1 Tim 2:13). As God said to Eve:
Gen 3:16 To the woman he said, “I will greatly increase your pains in childbearing; with pain you will give birth to children. Your desire will be for your husband, and he will rule over you.†”
Which I took to mean that you acknowledge that the subordination of women was not God’s original design, not part of what He called very good after it was created, that it was a result of the fall.
I would like to point out four things
1 We have overcome half of Eve’s “curse”, the childbirth part. I don’t know of any Christians who have a problem with a Christian woman having an epidural during childbirth. (Although I can only imagine that there are some) So if we feel comfortable modifying that half, why not the other half of her “curse”?
2 This brings me to Adam’s “curse”. “By the sweat of your face you shall eat bread until you return to the ground…..” Gen 3:19. Since most of the posts to this blog are made during business hours I assume that the men participating are sitting at a desk at work and not engaging in any kind of sweaty physical labor for their food:) Again how is this different from the subjection part of Eve’s “curse”?
3 This Genesis passage is only talking about Eve’s desire for and ruling over by Adam. Nothing in it indicates the subjection of all women to all men, only wives to their husbands.
4 Shouldn’t a part of God’s will on Earth being done, part of kingdom work, be to restore the original relationship he created between the two beings made in his image? (Which was part of the creation He called very good in Gen 2:31) I see evidence of this already happening in Jesus’ ministry and in the early church (in the examples of female leadership and other egalitarian passages found in the New Testament)
Amanda,
I think all that will be restored when we get to heaven, where we will not be married but will “be like the angels.”
I have not had the joy of giving birth to a child (!) but I have witnessed it, and it is still painful. At least it was 23 years ago. The fact that we can medicate to prevent that pain shows God’s mercy IMO but the fundamental situation has not changed.
Adam’s curse likewise is reduced by the mercy of God. Actually, after the flood God said that he would never again curse the ground. (Gen 8:21) But based on the inspired testimony of the apostle Paul in 1 Tim 2:14, there remain consequences to women because of the fall from Eden. And, lest we all forget, death itself remains as a consequence for the sin of Adam (Rom 5:12ff)
It is ok to be doctrinally precise and with it to be a people of compassion. Out of doctrine comes the basis for many acts of compassion. Paul writes about justification by faith for eleven chapters then writes about being a living sacrifice and defines it in many preactical ways of ministry.
Because of the mercies of God.
Just because the scripture is imperative about male leadership does not mean women are unimportant and cannot use their talents and gifts to reach out to hurting people or to enhance the fellowship of the church. I worship and work in a church where we have a large number of highly educated women , articulate , talented and gifted. Those who have not had the educational opportunies of some are still very creative , energetic , highly intelligent and also very talented and gifted.They are all very involved in a number of good works. Ministry that is very important and vital.Teaching , evangelism , benevolence, edification, visitation, etc. They have no desire to have authority over men and deeply appreciate the design God has given to the Kingdom.
Jesus gives us a good model when he said that even a cup of cold water is important. It is not about ego or human glory. It is all about service and giving God all the glory.
Following the biblical mandate about gender roles does not hinder the church , it enables the church to be very effective and very relevant to a world that is very confused , hurt and lost and without hope. It is our responsibility to reach out with love but to teach the truth in love. Doctrinally and with love we can make a difference. The church is making progress. Much good is being accomplished everyday
Steve,
I posted a reply to your last questions but for some reason it never showed up. I do agree that we interpret the scriptures based on our experiences and previous knowledge, which differ from person to person. Our interpretations therefore are fallible. But the fault lies in us, not in the scriptures. God knows what we are made of, and does not hold us accountable for things we cannot do.
OTOH we are accountable to obey what we understand. And as Paul said in 1 Cor 4:4, just because we keep our consciences clear, that doesn’t make us innocent. Sometimes our consciences are misinformed.
Fair enough, Alan. Thanks for the lively exchange!
Thank you, RM and Alan, for the link to the review of Webb’s book. I read it with great interest. I appreciated Mr. Schreiner’s summary of Webb’s book and read his rebuttal carefully. Near the beginning of his review, he states what I took to be his main point of advice: “We should follow the pathway of Jesus and the apostles in teaching that the OT scriptures point to Christ and are fulfilled in him.” He references Hebrews 1:2. I could not agree more—Jesus is who we are to follow and it is into His likeness that we are all being transformed. Schreiner goes on to say on two occasions in his article (p. 54-55, 58) that Jesus himself gives us the key to how we are to approach OT regulations and our view of men and women, based on Creation. He says, “We should simply note (as Webb does) that such an approach to OT regulations comes from Jesus himself (Matt 19:3-12).†He relates this to Ephesians 2:11-3:13: “A case can be made that the law was given to distinguish Israel from the Gentiles, but now that Christ has come the era of separation between Jews and Gentiles is over.†He goes back to Matthew 19 again later when he says, “Jesus’ appeal to creation in the matter of divorce and remarriage (Matt 19:3-12) functions as the best parallel to the texts about women in ministry.†I may not be thinking of all this correctly, but when I read Matthew 19, I see Jesus’ words and His point of view to be that the “two†become “one†I see that men and women are both created beings in the image of God. This is the same language Paul uses (and Scheiner uses) to show that there is no longer any difference between Jews and Gentiles. I see no words of superior/subordinate in Matthew 19 or in Genesis 1. Jesus’ words appear to be counter culture regarding women. In fact it seems the men who heard these words were perplexed at the difficulty of viewing women and marriage in this light.
Am I missing something?
quick note to Amanda about childbirth–no we have not eliminated the pain of childbirth. Epidurals relieve pain in some women, but not always. Sometimes they are the beginning of severely traumatic births (witness my friend who is suffering now because of the use of vacuum *and* forceps to get a stuck baby out. The epidural she had for labor does nothing for that and may have played a role in causing the problem in the first place).
I don’t have any problem with alleviating pain when possible. But it seems to me that trying to eliminate it, or to change God’s creation and order can sometimes cause more problems than it fixes–epidurals included.