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.

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.

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)

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)

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.

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.

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 (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.

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).”

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.

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.

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?