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.)
The commands by Paul are correct. They are not to be considered with the itching ears of cultural accomodation. Already it has been stated that creation and the fall are the reasons for women to not have authority over men . It is not because of disruption in the assembly. Yes there was at Corinth but the restriction about women preaching in the assemblies was for all the churches , not just Corinth. The traditional churches will be those who go beyond the teaching from Paul. They will listen to the voice of cultural accomodation. The non-traditional churches will recognize the design from God. They will understand the freedom in Christ is from obedience and submission to Kingdom rule. They will see the equality in salvation but the difference in leadership responsibilities and rejoice in His purpose and direction for the chuch , not culturally manipulated opinions that will only bring more intensified gender confusion.
Mike,
As I read your blog I was thinking Stackhouse’s position was strong and my thoughts immediately headed toward the place most conservatives were afraid this type of reasoning would lead. I was thinking I could substitute feminism for homosexuality and the argument would still hold strong. Then I went into the comments and saw your comment about Webb and Stackhouse apparently disagreeing with me. For those of us who don’t have access to the book, could you summarize their argument for why their position does not include both issues?
After nine years of ministry with my church I retired. Last Sunday I was asked to pray a prayer of blessing over our children and their future. I am thankful I am with a church where I was comfortable praying my heart before God in mixed company and that I had leadership that valued the prayers of my heart.
Hey, nice Chris,
I share your struggle, and I, too, have a troubled soul about this issue and about similar topics. Could you tell?
I fear that we have uncritically accepted a paradigm (by which I mean a “conceptual framework for understanding”) about God and about His plan for creation that is warped by our desire to discover in scripture the kind of “simple truths,” “bright-line rules,” and “clear commands” that will allow us to feel secure in our “obedience.” I’m afraid we often miss (among other things) that the “wrestling” we must do with these issues may well be God’s way of “growing” our relationship with Him. It may not be a treasure hunt for pat answers or “commands” to obey, but heart-exercise that focuses us on HIM, and on his eternal purpose for US. I worry much more these days about how my “theology” reflects HIS nature to others than I do about whether I’ve got it “right,” or whether I get a check in my obedience box. I am trying to discern, as best I’m able, how he really views the role of gender in human relationships and in the church.
It is not easy. I’m stupid, and He is all-knowing. As Stackhouse (and Mike) have stated, there IS an apparent conflict between different things we read in scripture about gender/roles. The issue is how to resolve it. I have joined with others here to challenge what I see as a rejection of Stackhouse’s analysis based on a simplistic proposition (again, as I see it) that THE ANSWER is found in “clear commands” that make up only one side of the conflict. In other words, Stackhouse doesn’t ignore those “commands,” he simply observes that they represent only one side of the pancake. He sees other (egalitarian) passages also, and proceeds to try to resolve the conflict in a principled fashion.
It seems to me that the comments rejecting Stackhouse’s Paradigm do so by simply declaring the complementary passages are “trumps,” that they are “clearer” and carry with them (or the one in 1 Tim, anyway) an expressed justification. I do not question the sincerity nor the integrity of those who have expressed that view. I do, however, think it ignores other scripture, as well as “truth” that we can derive from observation and experience, and leading we can receive from the Spirit (and Yes, Ethel, I think both of those are available outside the written word). Can we mistakenly comprehend experiential truth? Sure. Can we erroneously “discern” leading of the Spirit? Sure. Can we mis-interpret scripture? Just as surely.
I confess I cannot improve on Stackhouse’s Paradigm at this point in my journey, so I can only re-point you to it, and to the book by Wells that Mike suggested above. Blessings.
Ray B,
I appreciate your comments very much. A guy can get lonely on a thread like this
Oops! I mean Webb, not Wells — re the book. Sorry.
Brian L,
I believe Webb’s argument regarding women, slavery, and homosexuals boils down to the direction God’s instructions to (at least at first) the Israelites are going in comparison to the surrounding cultures.
For example, the instruction is more restrictive towards homosexuality than were the norms of surrounding cultures; this restrictiveness is continued in the New Testament. The instruction is more restrictive towards slavery than those of surrounding cultures, more generous towards people (especially towards others of God’s chosen people); this restrictiveness is continued in the New Testament in the form of instructions to masters with regard to their slaves. The instruction is more generous, however, with regard to women, and Jesus, in particular (but Paul as well), continued this giving to women more than what the surrounding culture would give. The point is that one can discern in God’s continuing revelation of himself and of his will a movement towards gender equality, away from distorted forms of sexuality, and away from the oppressiveness and selfishness and un-love that owning another person entails.
Chris,
I’ve been giving some thought about how to respond to your thoughtful questions. I don’t have the complete answer. I will say this much: If we are not fully obedient on X, that is not justification for not being fully obedient on Y. So for example, if a church lets women wear jewelry but does not let women preach, it is not evidence against the authority of Paul’s writings, so much as it is evidence of inconsistent use of scripture. Some people will want to respond to that inconsistency by allowing women to preach. Others will do the opposite, and get rid of the jewelry. Which you choose depends on your view of the authority of the Pauline epistles.
Some people suspect that occasionally the opposite occurs. They suppose that people don’t like what Paul commands, so therefore those people adopt a certain view of Paul’s epistles that leads to the conclusion they want. I don’t know if that really happens but I believe it can happen. Our hearts are deceitful so we all have to be on guard against that kind of biblical “hermeneutic.”
David wrote:
> The instruction is more generous, however,
> with regard to women, and Jesus, in particular
> (but Paul as well), continued this giving to
> women more than what the surrounding culture
> would give.
It is interesting that in Corinth there were Romans, Greeks, and Jews. The instructions Paul gave to the women in Corinth were comparable to the existing practice of the Jews, but were more restrictive than the common practice in the Greek and Roman culture–so much so, that Paul anticipated that the instructions would be controversial. So that doesn’t seem to support Webb’s theory.
For those of you who brought up the passage where it says “as in all the congregations of the saints,” I just thought I would point out that it doesnt necessarily read like that in the original text. That sentence seems as if it most probably fits with the next paragraph instead. So what we have here is perhaps an error in translation. Just thought I would mention that.
Alan, as someone who has lived in Greece and been to Corinth a few times, it is my understanding that the Greco-Roman world gave very little freedom to women of any kind so I wonder where you get a different impression. Women werent allowed to speak in any public forum, vote, own land etc, etc. So it seems Webb’s point stands.
Perhaps we should note that women participated in the worship in Corinth–it would be good if we had more worship services where any member who had a song, word of exhortation, etc.could do so and less emphasis upon preaching. In that context women could be free to participate as in Corinth.
We miss much when we don’t allow our sisters to pray, present a song, a word of exhortation. They have a unique manner of expression that speaks volumes.
Part of our problem with usurping authority is that we have made authority positions out of servant positions: song leading, serving communion, leading prayer, teaching, preaching. But let us say [for arguements sake] that they are authority positions–then if the elders give them permission–no authority is usurped. Of course this argument only fits for those who believe that elders are authority positions rather than shepherd positions.
Just an aside–we need more emphasis on the communion service in our worship–say equal to time the preacher preaches.
Hi Justin,
After some looking around for my source I must admit to being confused. I believe what I was remembering involved customary head coverings for Jews / Greeks / Romans rather than women speaking in public. Early signs of senility I guess. Or maybe not so early… Sorry folks.
I can boil it for me by the following guidelines:
1. If a women has a better idea use it.
2. If a woman can lead, get behind her.
3. If a woman is wise listen to her.
4. If a woman is not humble with 1-3 run away.
5. 1-4 apply to men as well.
Of course in my case, this would apply to where I mainly reside, general society.
This thread sounds like a conversation between Pharisees.
Since when did Paul’s letters become the new Pentateuch? Was man made for the Sabbath or the Sabbath for man? Was “man” made for the assembly, or was the “assembly” made for humankind?
I have read Mike’s blog for several years now, and although I have felt inclined to comment in the past, I’ve refrained. Maybe I’m getting braver.
I am struck by how radically irrelevant these issues are to the many millions of Americans who are in distress, poverty, or emotional turmoil. Our arguments about gender – nitpicking over verses that most people in the world have never read – destroy the spirit of gospel and prevent many people from ever hearing it preached.
Think of it this way: if you were at sea in an emergency situation and the whole ship was going down, you need every hand on deck. The closest person to the helm of the ship with the capacity to steer it should go for it, and every other hand should be bailing or doing whatever needs doing. Or should we ask the women to huddle in the hold and bake something?
In 2007, the church is not in a peaceful valley. We are in Hurricane Katrina. Every hand is needed on deck, and how.
I say that partially because all this talk makes my head spin, but also becuase I really believe it’s true. Jesus intended for the church to be a beloved community that reaches out to a contemporary, hurting world – not to be a replicate of the elaborate system of rules and “fences around the law” that existed in first century Judaism. (He called the leaders of that movement whitewashed tombs – lovely on the outside, but rotting internally. Imposing burdens on others that they had no intention of bearing themselves. They eventually crucified him for turning their laws and rules upside down.)
I wonder how well we are fulfilling Jesus’ vision when we fear the consequences of a woman praising God publicly (praying and singing), or exhorting other believers toward love and good deeds (the act of preaching), and villify those men and women who say she should.
[Although I hesitate to comment because I fear the invective it may provoke (something that has caused me great pain in the past) I feel strongly that this discussion needs another feminine voice. So here goes.]
Leland -
You said everything I wanted to in about five lines. : ) Thanks.
Oh, on an unrelated note. I took my middle daughter fishing today at Battleground lake. She caught 5 perch and we saw a bald eagle fly right past us about 20 ft off the lake, circle the lake and fly away. It was amazing. It capped off our wonderful experience spending much needed time together.
The “slippery slope” concept is an interesting one. “If we allow women to pass out communion, next thing you know they’ll want to say the pray, then preach, then total world domination.”
Let’s be frank men – we begrudgingly threw women a bone 140 years ago by allowing them to sing in church, but, anything further would be dangerous. And, let’s totally forget the numerous specific examples in the NT of women deacons, and of the dozens of times Paul mentions his co-working women by name as they shared the Gospel with him.
Rachel — well said. Keep speaking.
Kent, no “We” didn’t. I wasn’t around 140 years ago. The term “begrudgingly” misses the point of this discussion and gets negative. Noone here that disagree’s with this assertion has even once made an aggressive, ugly, mean spirited comment with the exception of the other Chris. This is an issue of those who are struggling with Biblical teachings, BOTH SIDES! I hate to say it, by I resent your comment. I do not begrudge either side. I may disagree with the logic that led to another’s decision. Your comment is as unfair as a traditionalist saying the progressive’s make their determination of what is OK in the sight of God by what makes them emotional and feel good. Incorrect.
Yeah, Rachel!
It all finally comes back to obeying the clear teaching of the word and not allowing cultural accomodation to be the rule. The world is in desperate need of the divine imperatives for life. Not more culturally directed confusion. We can present Jesus , the gospel , the church and the will of God for men and women. You cannot improve on His design . It is perfect and just what the world needs to be free from the gender chaos . Only when we live in obedience to His will will the church be effective and relevant. I rejoice that our brotherhood is reaching out and many are now living with hope and a pure purpose in life.Many lives are being touched by hearts with compassion. Our best days are still ahead of us.
I very much agree with your comments, Rachel, but by commenting yourself, aren’t you also a Pharisee? I don’t think so at all, but I was a little stung that you can comment & NOT be Pharisaical in this dialogue, but the rest of us are. Did I misunderstand that part?
And, Leland, I loved your succinct summation so much!
I suppose I think of myself as a recovering Pharisee.
My comment was mostly directed to those parsing out the verse about head coverings.
Thanks, Rachel. Hey, we’re all struggling here because of heavy emphasis on the “rules we made up” in our fellowship for so many years. I’m trying, like I know you are, to be “salt & light” in my neighborhood, community, & to ANY body I come in contact with. To be Jesus in this crazy, mixed-up world.
Chris – my sentiments are best expressed by annie’s comment prior to mine here. I certainly don’t direct my comments to someone specifically here – rather to the centuries-long mis-directed notion that women are second-class citizens guised in a “blame it on Paul” mentality. Let’s be frank – women’s role in 97% of cofC’s today is secretary, children’s Bible teacher up to age 12, cook and plate washers. That’s not the role I see of women specifically mentioned in the NT. It’s called tradition and culture.
Ray B, I am sorry to have to tell you this, but this just ain’t as simple as you see it. “Clear teaching” is an OPINION you hold, but it ain’t necessarily so.
And did I forget to mention earlier how galling it is — at least from the perspective of a 50-something male WASP who has stayed within the “CofC fellowship” all his life — to be blithely labeled a “cultural accomodator” for questioning one of the CORE precepts (tragically) of THAT very culture. My friend, I am not angry at all, but I beg you to consider that those of us who view Stackhouse’s Paradigm favorably aren’t just swimming upstream in our culture; we are in danger of being speared at any moment. Outside a few local churches, openly expressing egalitarian views — even on this blog — can expose one to some serious scrutiny by one’s local elders/brethren. Sadly, you have it precisely backward. It is love and concern FOR TRUTH that motivates folks to re-think and re-consider pat positions in light of new information and new ideas and a deeper desire to know and understand God’s heart. It is certainly not a love for popularity in THIS religious culture!
Rachel, you are right about the “salt & light” focus — but without discussions like these — at least in most congregations in this fellowship — how do you think folks like you (female) are EVER going to have a chance to help lead/speak/contribute? Maybe you are fortunate to be in a place that grants that — but most are not. It is easy to chide folks as “navel-gazers,” but some of us have had to gaze for a long time to see outside the box where we’ve lived too long. Bear with us.
The theory of unruly or noisy woMEN in the assembly at Corinth has no basis.If that was true then :
1. Paul was being very unfair. Why have all the women be silent when it was a problem with only those who were being disruptive ?
2. Why not say the same to the men who were being disorderly ? Acually he did say that the rudeness and disorderly conduct had to be stopped. That is why he commanded that the assemlies should have order. Then there could be edification and spiritual worship.
His command about silence and the reason is found in verse 34b, ” They are not allowed to speak but must be in submission as the Law says . ” In verse 33 , connected with verse 34 is the instruction that this is the standard for all the congregations.
To say that this was a uniques situation at Corinth is speculation. There is no data to say that the instruction about silence was only for Corinth in the the first century. It is in harmony with his teaching from I Timothy 2.
And remember , Paul spoke by the authority of Jesus Christ.
Gary,
I appreciate what you’re saying. My intention was not to chide. I would never characterize this thread as navel-gazing, as that is far too benign a title for what is really going on. Discussions of the gender “situation” in the churches of Christ are, I believe, discussions of gospel. It looks to me like you’re defending the gospel, and for that I am grateful. But I can hardly stomach the arguments anymore.
This whole conversation pains me to no end – which is why (Ed? are you still listening?) I made the tough decision to walk away from churches of Christ after several years in formal ministry both in the US and overseas. I am not alone in this, either. I believe that fact should be of concern to those listening here – I represent the older-end of the “net-gen,” and I suspect there will be others my age (and younger) who come to the same conclusions that I have. Not all women (or men!) will be willing to “wait it out” quite so long as may be necessary.
At the same time, I see value in the conversation and offer my own perspective as a woman born and raised in the churches of Christ. So here I am on Mike’s blog, grateful for the ways I have heard him preach the message of Jesus and thankful for the wonderful church families I have known throughout my life.
Rachel,
Excellent! Said with grace and tremendous insight into our existential situation.
Peace,
Paul
Sorry , meant…women without the capitals in the first sentence. Typo mistake.
David J,
Thanks. That was a good explanation of how the issues could be seen differently.
Gary,
I also have a very great love for the truth. What I have stated is my viewpoint.
Rachel, You were able to walk away; many of us can’t—-all for a myriad of reasons, BUT we can speak up from where we are, & try our best to dispute very flawed thinking & teaching. Be so grateful that your circumstances were such that you could leave. I’m just doin’ the best I can from where I am—as are all of us who long for the “fresh winds” that are blowing, and winds that I believe strongly are sent by Our Father.
Thanks for posting these, Mike. I’ll look up the book. Thank you, too, for putting up with my frustrated e-mails and endless questions.
No, Rachel, you are not alone, and the “exodus” will only increase in pace and volume. Of that I am sure. And it grieves me no end. Not that I think those who are leaving should not; nor that I think their leaving will have any adverse impact whatsoever on their discipleship journey — or on God’s rescue and redemption work, generally. But I do grieve the loss of precious voices and tireless fellow-workers from our dwindling ranks — dwindling, I fear, not just in numbers, but in the kind of community dynamic that really fuels kingdom work. I have watched it happen for years already, and have seen it ignored and denied — and even cheered by those focused on “holding fast” to what they consider “the faith once delivered,” which I believe you accurately described as “a replicate of the elaborate system of rules and ‘fences around the law’ that existed in first century Judaism.”
I also greatly appreciate your observation that discussions like this are “discussions of the gospel.” I believe that with all my heart, but I think we are in a minority. So many belive “the Gospel” is a 5-step plan that you “obey,” in order to get your ticket validated so you can travel to heaven when you die — assuming you stay obedient to that elaborate system of rules and fences until you do die. I am not trying to be mean or cruel in saying that. My heart grieves equally for everyone who has been “sold” that bill of goods.
I know it sounds condescending, and I don’t mean it that way, but the greatest mission field may be among our own number. I wish there was some way to prompt sincere defenders of the flatly-complementarian view of the gender issue to fresh thought and FULL consideration of at least two things:
1. that ALL of us, even them, are INTERPRETING scripture. There is no such thing as “simply accepting God’s clear commands.” Why that is so difficult to see, I don’t know.
2. what their “obedience to clear commands” rationale necessarily SAYS about the kind of God that we worship and serve. I have tried to make that point in this discussion, but unsuccessfully, I think. Folks resist the notion that they are necessarily describing a God that is arbitrary and even capricious in nature by pledging allegience to “clear commands” they admit they can’t understand — and would not have issued.
I think the problem ultimately lies in our human misunderstanding (and subsequent distortion of) the concept of “authority.” We seem wed to the idea that authority must be understood in terms of coerciveness. The one “in authority” has the power/right to issue directives, and that authority is measured by obedience to the directives. In this paradigm, finding and following directives is key. And the ultimate measure of authority is the ability to enforce compliance or punish non-compliance.
But doesn’t the actual gospel story really reveal a completely different paradigm for understanding authority? Not just our authority, or Paul’s authority, or scriptural authority, but God’s authority? God has all authority, and Jesus says it was all given to him. Did Jesus ever do or say anything that supports our notions about authority and how it is to be handled in the kingdom of God here on earth? Obviously, I do not have the time or space (much less the talent) to fully develop this point here. I do wish those who are struggling with “clear commands,” “obedience standards” “subordination,” “usurpation,” and all such matters would reflect on how God actually demonstrated His love and his “authority” in sending Jesus on that rescue mission.
Like Rachel, I wish we could focus exclusively on joining that mission, but right now, in most of our churches anyway, we have slammed the door on half or more of the workers. Despite the protests I’m sure will follow if anyone is still following this thread, we are exercising authority to prevent eager disciples from using their gifts in kingdom work. Period. The question of whether God is requiring us to do that, or is weeping about it, is an important one.
Just to stir up the discussion a little further, I believe that the issues of homosexuality and slavery are different from the issue of women’s roles in the assembly precisely because they involve things that take place outside the assembly. It is my belief that it is outside the assembly where obedience is important; that it is outside the assembly that one is most capable of “doing justice, loving mercy, and walking humbly with God”; that it is outside the assembly where one may “present [one's] body as a living sacrifice, pleasing and acceptable to God” and that that presentation of our bodies to God is the truest “spiritual worship”. The general things that happen in most Christian assemblies are the same: we sing, we pray, we read Scripture, we engage in communal discernment of Scripture (although more often this is simply a monologue), we eat the Supper. I think we’re still, in talking about who can speak in the assembly, engaging Scripture as though the priests–the ones that speak–are offering sacrifices for us. The roles for men and women in the assembly of the church are not the “divine imperatives for life,” the design to which all people must accommodate themselves. Our Lord, in his teaching on the “city on a hill” did not seem to think the matter of women speaking of ANY importance.
I have not been an active commenter on your blog lately. I think seriously about the things you post, however. This subject is near my heart and while I can study and think about it and handle civil discussion on the matter from varying viewpoints, I hate arguments. It hurts to know that many of my brothers today believe that God created women subordinate. There is no way to say that without saying that women are inferior. Inferior and subordinate are the same word. They both mean located below. To believe that my brothers who profess to love me in Christ also believe that I am lower because I was born with two X chromosomes hurts my heart and does not sound like anything from the heart of God. I can make textual arguments to support an egalitarian view of scripture, including resolving the “clear implications” of 1 Corinthians 11 and 1 Tim. 2, but I think that looking simply at the nature of God is the clearest answer. He is a father who loves his children, male and female because we are his and created in his image. BOTH in the image of God. It hurts that people believe God could be so arbitrary and petty as to make gender the sole requirement for leadership. Maleness carries with it no exceptional godliness by virtue of its maleness. Neither does femaleness. Both men and women possess talents and passions that can build up the body of Christ. There is no pink holy spirit and blue holy spirit. He gifts his children for service and they are subject to HIM. They submit to one another out of love and in obedience to HIM, not to patriarchy or legalism.
I think it is a very important discussion and one we have to face. We can’t simply “agree to disagree” on this one any more than we could in reference to slavery. This is going to get ugly and it’s going to be divisive and I’m sorry to see it happen, but it needs to. Sometimes growing hurts.
What does it mean when we pray “Thy will be done on earth as it is in heaven� Will there be male voices only in heaven? Did our God create one image-bearer subordinate to the other?
As has been expressed by several others, our view of each other is generally a reflection of our view of God.
It seems to me that we have had to jump through all kinds of hoops to keep up the premise that women speaking may lead to “gender chaosâ€. We have even gone so far as to skew gracious acts of service such as passing a tray of bread, reading aloud from God’s Holy Word, or offering a humble prayer to our Father as some kind of sign of “leadership.†How sad for us—and how prideful we can be at times.
You know, it may not just be our view of God or our view of Scripture that informs our decisions/opinions. Perhaps it is also Whom we try to imitate—Jesus Christ or a group of fellow believers past or present?
Let me wade into these waters one last time.
Anyone who thinks that God’s will is always clear and obvious needs to reflect a bit more deeply upon biblical history.
The transition from the OT to the NT was radical and discontinuous in a manner that was wildly unpredictable. This shift in salvific history was so discontinuous God ended up creating two world religions (Christianity and Judaism).
Thus, Paul’s entire treatise to the Romans is an attempt to justify God’s actions for this discontinuous shift. And Romans itself is not an easy or clear read. Witness the history of its interpretation.
The point is this, Romans is a complicated theological edifice to justify God’s ways to humankind. Romans is long, complicated, opaque in places, and wordy. It creates, erects, and deploys a very complicated PARADIGM to read Scripture. A paradigm that was, interestingly, not wholly persuasive (and thus the creation of another world religion).
Conclusion: Building complicated paradigms to interpret Scripture or to justify God’s ways to humankind is PAR FOR THE COURSE. Complexity, transparency, or mere number of words does NOT speak to the truth value of the position. Further, the paradigm may NOT be wholly clear or persuasive (again, see the history of the interpretation of Romans). Simplicity and obviousness are not necessarily symptoms of truth. So, please quit deploying those ideas as credible support for the truth-hood of a position. And if someone IS building a complicated paradigm, as Paul does in Romans, keep paying attention.
The truth of what Paul teaches in I Cor.14 and I Tim 2 is clear and it is obvious. That is where I stand. No all will agree with me but it is my conviction.
Ray B (and I’ll throw in Alan),
Let’s cut to the chase.
Do you speak in tongues?
My guess? No.
But why not? Because that is the clear example and witness of the bible. And yet you refuse to stand there. (Paul himself, your apostolic model in these discussions, spoke in tongues for heaven’s sake!)
Why?
Well, I bet you would trot out a little paradigm, a non-obvious one, to justify your refusal to conform to the clear and obvious example and teaching of Scripture.
The conclusion:
You’re making Scripture dance to YOUR tune.
Ray,
In citing the fact that it is “your conviction” that these are “clear” and “obvious” passages (which I’m not trying to debate at all), you effectively prove the point that many of those against whom you’re arguing are trying to make. This is your view, but other views are possible from others equally convicted by the text and equally interested in seeking the truth.
Here’s the thing–and please consider all of what I’m about to say before you respond: No text is ever transparent–even this one I’m writing here. All must be parsed through an interpretive structure–a hermeneutic. Hermeneutical approaches take into account both tangible structures like the words, sentence syntax, and genre of a text, but they also take into account intangibles like tone, style, context, etc. What we choose to give more weight to and what we choose to give less weight to in our reading affects the meaning that we extract from a text: hence, you’re arguing (with a conviction that grows out of your hermeneutical approach) that the texts about women’s subordination are clear, but you don’t necessarily see Paul’s other injunctions about women’s head coverings and jewelry wearing–or perhaps about the “holy kiss” or other details of first-century Christian practice as being equally compelling. That’s appropriate–provided we share a hermeneutical approach. But you’ll have to acknowledge that someone reading those other bits and giving them more weight may disagree, or may see Paul saying something else, or may advocate an approach with which you simply don’t agree. And this has nothing to do with the purity of people’s hearts or with them caving in to social pressure. It has to do with how they read.
You may, for example, be reading what I’m writing in a number of ways: am I being sarcastic? Caring? Dismissive? Thoughtful? Your feeling about what I’m writing will influence the message you derive from it and therefore your response to it. Others will interpret it differently. Of course, I know how I mean it–and theoretically, I could reveal my authorial intent to everyone (perhaps some might wish Paul could do so about the topic of this thread to clear up the conflicts we’re seeing), but there’s a problem: I can only reveal that authorial intent through words–through language–which once again must be subjected to a hermeneutical reading. Do you see the problem here? Whenever we encounter language–written, spoken, or even nonverbal in the form of looks and gestures–that language must be parsed and is always in danger of some slippage. Perhaps you yourself have had the experience of being misunderstood (I certainly have), and in trying to explain how you’ve been misunderstood, you find that the other person continues to misunderstand you… It’s a not uncommon experience.
And it’s not even just language that poses the problem. Physical evidence doesn’t really “speak for itself” either. If it did, we wouldn’t need courts to try cases. A jury could assemble, have the physical evidence placed before it, and then they’d come to a conclusion. The problem is, of course, that how we assemble, contextualize, and interpret that evidence can alter whether we see the defendent as innocent or guilty–and even if you think that process goes wrong sometimes, that’s the point. It should give us all pause since it may be hard to tell which person’s gotten it wrong–especially since all have seen and are using the same evidence to justify their verdict. Even if everybody’s going in with the best of intentions to find the truth, and even if they’re perfectly convinced that they’ve gotten to it and can argue their case with the evidence–they can be perfectly at odds with somebody else who’s equally perfectly convinced and equally capable of proving their side. That, I think, is what’s happening here.
Regarding the issues discussed in this thread, I think there are a couple of meta-lessons we must learn from the difficulty presented by language and its interpretation (and this has nothing to do with women’s issues at all). First, we must be humble and willing to listen and reevaluate (isn’t that really a paraphrase about what made the Bereans noble–they kept exploring, questioning and testing things, never getting too cemented to one position because they always allowed the Spirit to continue molding their views. I think that’s what many are calling for here). Second, we have to realize that we need each other. Only in community can truth be approached because community helps us see things more broadly and is a check against the vicissitudes of our own narrow perspectives. That’s why we need the church and why one of the traditional collective activities of the church has been the reading and interpretation of scripture.
Both of these lessons are illustrated by Peter when he brought the issue of gentile believers before the church in Jerusalem for discussion. Do they need to be circumcised? God’s scripture said CLEARLY that circumcision was a mark of his people FOR ALL TIME. Yet the assembled group decided that that clear scriptural referent might not be so clear–might be metaphorical (“circumcision of the heart”) rather than literal. It was a radical interpretation that went against thousands of years of tradition and practice. But I think most of us would agree that it was the right call–a call arrived at by the collective wisdom of a lot of thoughtful Christians, including those who were willing to challenge the received wisdom (like Peter himself).
If we read this event not just as a Bible story, but as a historical account of the church working to figure out a new thing–and as a model for how we, too, should figure out new things–then we’re on the right track…
Hey Ray B,
We may never think alike and you probably will not convince people of your argument with your current method but if you are a good friend to someone who needs it badly, I like you.
Bill, after parsing your comment through my own interpretive structure, I have absolutely no idea what you were saying . As a matter of fact, after reading your post, I am now convinced I can never know what anyone means. However, thinking about it again, I’m not sure how I got that out of it or if that is what you meant. Even if you did mean that, I’m not sure I should have been able to come to that conclusion given all the assembling, contextualizing, and interpreting that has to go on.
One of the things the Bereans did was that they checked to see if things were true. To me, that implies they were actually able to do that, but that is probably just my own faulty hermeneutic at work that has been too influenced by Locke, the Enlightenment and the Scottish common sense philosophy.
Actually, Bill, I do understand what you are saying and wouldn’t disagree necessarily with any of it but (and this is really my only serious point), I think if we are not careful, we may convince ourselves we can never come to the truth about anything. Isn’t that obvious? Well of course not because nothing is obvious anymore!
I’m confused and think I’ll go to bed.
(Just in case anyone’s interpretive process is not synchronized with mine, please understand I wrote this with a smile on my face and was not being sarcastic, dismissive, or thoughtful — just rambling; so nobody take this too seriously. It wasn’t meant to be. I was just having a little fun after getting back from a late-night teaching assignment. And, my wife is out of town and not here to prevent me from posting such drivel.)
In the interest of fairly exploring the diversity of angles on the Biblical gender discussion I want to encourage everyone to read Slaves, Women and Homosexuals. I would then encourage you to also take a look at Tom R. Schreiner’s review of the position Webb takes at http://www.sbts.edu/docs/tschreiner/6.1_article.pdf. I think this will give a good hearing to some of the main currents happening in the discussion. I find myself a hyper-soft patriarchalist which often gets me in trouble from the more extreme ends of both sides of this discussion:)
I think it only fair that if we read Webb, or Stackhouse, we be willing to consider some of the sincere and critical voices of his position. I was actually pretty into Webb until I came upon this article. This review is one reason I have fallen where I have (through intense prayer and study which I think we all practice in coming to the biblical texts). It really pokes at some of the potential holes in the redemptive-historical developments Webb wants to point us to. My own position encourages most of the female leadership participation egalitarians desire yet holds off by suggesting through observing psychology, biology, sociology and the biblical texts (thanks to 1 Cor. 11 among other texts) there does seem to be an underlying current of males being guides and protectors in their best frame of mind.
I encourage adamant egalitarians to continue giving an ear to the voice of those maintaining views differeing than your own. Some have given reason to end the conversation by their poor actions. Yet, many come to the text sincerely and come to a non-egalitarian conclusion. It’s true! And, they can play and pray with egalitarian brothers and sisters at the end of the day.
Thanks for this place of positive discussion on such an important issue.
Addendum to my last comment:
Sorry, I just wanted to clarify a bit of my last comment, “…there does seem to be an underlying current of males being guides and protectors in their best frame of mind.” By saying men are intended to be guides and protectors in their most basic nature in no ways implies, in my mind, women have lesser value or can’t take any kind of leadership, only that there seems to be a nature about things testified in different fields of study expresseing this need for men to provide a leadership found in masculinity that is genereally not found in femininity.
Love and Peace.
RM,
I am going to read Schreiner’s review, but based on the fact that he comes at the text from a Calvinist interpretive framework, I’m almost certain that there will be some divergence between his views/conclusions and my own.
Here’s a tip in case you have trouble with RM’s link: remove the period at the end. Or just use this:
http://www.sbts.edu/docs/tschreiner/6.1_article.pdf