Saturday, September 5, 2009

Response 1 to issue raised earlier about WO

(With reference to some issues raised in a comment to a post below)

Argument 1: Jesus did not ordain women as pastors/teachers, or call women to teach and therefore have authority over men so Paul (in, e.g. 1 Tim 2:11-15) confirms that this is right and proper in respect of the order of the church, undergirded as it is by creation and the fall – so arguments about the meaning of ‘authentein’ are possibly irrelevant – including the fact that naming the animals was a role given to Adam and not to Eve. The consequential challenge is to demonstrate from either Genesis or Jesus that women are called to the role of teaching and having authority over men.

I do not think this can be responded to in an Anglican context without a reminder, first, of Anglican approaches to interpreting Scripture. These I summarise as follows: (1) nothing repugnant to Scripture (2) anything consistent with Scripture (3) everything revisable according to Scripture.

(1) is a consistent principle of interpretation through all history of theology.

(2) is the hard won result of arguments with Puritans, tested subsequent to the Elizabethan Settlement, never resiled from despite temptations to do so at different times in English history since E1, thus, for example, we subscribe to the orders of deacons, priests, and bishops, as consistent with Scripture though this is not required by Scripture.

(3) is the principle of the Reformation, put into practice by the English Reformers, and subsequently has empowered Anglicans to consider proposed changes to faith and practice, including consideration of the ordination of women.

To the argument: some minor points to begin with. When engaging with Genesis 1-3 (indeed 1-11) which are important chapters lying at the foundation of all theological reflection about humanity and our relationship to God, some things are theologically ‘clear’, some less so.

Thus at the end of Genesis 1, one of the theological implications of creation is made explicitly clear, namely, that we are made in God’s image, and that we are made ‘male and female’ in that imaging-in-creation, implying a fundamental ontological equality between men and women; and at the end of Genesis 2, another fundamental point is made, that we are made male and female for the purpose of marriage, and marriage is to be an exclusive lifelong commitment.

Less ‘clear’ is the theological lesson of Adam naming the animals. It’s reasonably clear (I suggest) that this signifies a superiority of humanity over the animal species. But can we be clear about other implications of this naming? To draw from that some difference in role between Adam and Eve would have implications beyond the roles of husband and wife, or men and women in ministry: naming animals is a kind of scientific role, should we conclude that women may not be scientists? This would be an absurd restriction on women-in-science, and an outrageous basis on which to make the restriction. Consequently we should look for something more substantive, and, better, much clearer from Genesis before we start drawing conclusions about Genesis providing a basis for restriction of women in teaching and in leadership roles.

The major points for consideration from the argument set out above, then, are these: (a) the (apparent) lack of ordination of women, by Jesus, to the roles of pastors/teachers, and/or Jesus calling women to teach and have authority over women, and (b) the implications of the story of creation and the fall in respect of the relationship between Adam and Eve for ministry roles for women (the connection made explicit by Paul in 1 Timothy 2:13-14).

(a) What did Jesus commission the apostles to do, was it a commission limited to their gender?

At the end of Matthew, Luke’s, and John’s Gospels, and at the beginning of Acts, there are narratives of commissioning of the disciples, mostly, but not exclusively with ‘the Twelve’ in view. But the commission – to baptise, to teach, to make disciples (say, from Matthew 28:20) - is not worked out in practice in terms of an exclusive ministry order of the apostles and of their explicitly ordained successors. Notably in Acts we find ad hoc arrangements being made, along with a broad cast of Christians carrying out the commission of Jesus. One ad hoc arrangement is the commissioning of deacons in Acts 6 because the workload for the apostles has become too great. (The initial deacons, incidentally, are male, but by Romans 16 we have at least one female deacon named). Another ad hoc arrangement is the way ministry leadership develops and incorporates other ministry leaders: Barnabas, for instance, sent to Antioch from Jerusalem (sounds like an ‘official’ extension of the commission of Jesus from Jerusalem based apostles), but then taking initiative to go up to Tarsus to find Saul/Paul to bring him back to Antioch (seems like an unofficial, but inspired thing to have done).

Without canvassing all that the New Testament says about ministry in the days of the apostles, I note two items from a more extensive list of things to consider:

(1) when the apostolic band (Paul, an apostle; Silas, a companion to the apostle; and Timothy, arguably, yes, a minister of the gospel ordained by Paul; plus, the ‘we’, read for the first time in 16:10, is suggestive of Luke, another companion of the apostle joining the band) reach Philippi, their first convert is Lydia, a woman, whose household (without mention of a husband) is baptized, and whose leadership is such that she ‘prevailed’ upon the band to stay. Looks like Lydia was the first leader of the church in Philippi!

(2) The reference to ‘apostles’ in Romans 16:7 which raises significant questions as to (a) the extent of ‘the apostles’ in those days, (b) whether women were numbered among those called ‘apostles’, since one reading of this verse (NOT fairly witnessed to by the ESV) is, “Greet Andonicus and Junia, my kinsmen and my fellow prisoners. They are well known among the apostles, and they were in Christ before me.” One reason why they might have been accounted as ‘among the apostles’ is that this couple are the ‘Joanna, wife of Chuza’ (i.e. ‘Joanna = Junia’, and ‘Chuza = Andronicus’, h/t Richard Bauckham) of Luke 8:3, Joanna being one of the disciples of Jesus.

In short, the complex, even messy evidence of the New Testament itself, undercuts any subsequent tendency towards a simple deduction that because none of the Twelve were women, therefore Jesus did not intend women to engage in the apostolic commission to teach and to lead the church.

(b) Given the supportive citation of the story of Adam and Eve in creation and the fall when Paul prohibits in 1 Timothy 2:12 and justifies it in 1 Timothy 2:13-14, what are the implications of the creation and the fall for ministry roles for men and for women?

In a number of ways, this simply takes us to the way we read 1 Timothy 2:12-15 and apply it to life today. Here goes again! The roles of women in the ministry of the early church of the days of the apostles does raise the question whether Paul was laying down in 1 Timothy 2:12 a blanket ban on all women teaching and leading men in mixed gender congregational settings; a ban on Phoebe, Prisca, Lydia, Junia, Euodia and Syntyche, to say nothing of the prophesying daughters of Philip the Evangelist undertaking any kind of teaching role or leading role in the mixed congregations of the early church. Imagine the prohibition in 1 Timothy 2:12 was not, in fact, in line with a general and, it should be said, somewhat draconian policy, given the esteemed women mentioned above circulating in the life of the early church (most notably, perhaps, Prisca/Priscilla). How might 1 Timothy 2:13-14 have been understood?

“For Adam was formed first, then Eve; and Adam was not deceived, but the woman was deceived and became a transgressor.”

The first thing that would not have been understood is that women are inherently prone to being deceived and consequently untrustworthy of the role of teacher because this would make a nonsense of the entrusting of the role of teacher to women (re other women and children) in Titus 2:3-5. It would also make a nonsense of the role of Prisca/Priscilla as a teacher of the faith.

More likely is that 2:13-14 would have been understood in terms of the danger of women taking a stance, as Eve did, in which (a) they listen to the word of the devil and permit it to deny the word of God, (b) act upon that word and thus disobey the word of God, and (c) draw men along with them in their disobedience. In the particular context of the Ephesus of 1 Timothy, Paul’s prohibition may have had particularly in mind (i) the cultural context of female dominated religion, i.e. the cult of Artemis in Ephesians (ii) the pervasiveness of false teaching affecting the church, especially a false doctrine of marriage as something to be forbidden. To this false teaching, incidentally, 1 Timothy 2:15, with its affirmation of the goodness of childbirth (and intrinsically also of sex and marriage), may have been a rejoinder.

In other words, 1 Timothy 2:13-14 is invoked because of a specific problem at Ephesus (a problem not confined to Ephesus in the long history of the church), but the implication is that 1 Timothy 2:12 does not apply where women are faithful and obedient to the word of God, allowing the word of God to deny the word of the devil.

Consequently the story of the creation and the fall does not set out for all time a rule for the role of women in relation to men which precludes women from teaching or leading men. We might note, incidentally, that the role of women as ‘helper’ (Genesis 2:18, 20) is a general role of support and supply, of companionship and partnership in the enterprise of life. Nothing in Genesis 2, which ends with male and female as ‘one flesh’ and not as two people in distinct roles, implies a rule for all time about the specific role or roles of women in relation to men, least of all an implication about not teaching or leading men.

If it did then Deborah, Huldah, Priscilla, and Phoebe should have been roundly castigated in Scripture for their disobedience to that rule. But in fact we find the opposite: these women are honoured for the way in which they discharge their callings.

33 comments:

  1. 'that the role of women as ‘helper’ (Genesis 2:18, 20) is a general role of support and supply, of companionship and partnership in the enterprise of life.'

    Yes, I have found it helpful to look at 'ezer' and where else in the scriptures this word is used.

    As always, thank you, Peter.

    ReplyDelete
  2. I wish I could see where you answered my question Peter, but I can’t. Can you tell me where in that long answer, Jesus empowered women to teach and have authority over women? Or where that is the case in Genesis? That was and is my question.

    I don’t have a problem with the fact that we are created equal from Genesis, in fact I insist on it .. and I wish the church hadn’t forgotten that fact for so long. As I said with regard to Adam naming everything, that is an example, one that bears further study I suggest. I find your suggestion that because I mention it, I mean women should not become scientists, risible, and a complete and I’m ashamed to say, deliberate misinterpretation of my point. Nevertheless, you continue FROM that terrible assumption. In your next sentence you say, ‘the [apparent] lack of ordination of women by Jesus.’ First, until you give me an example, the use of the word apparent is a challenge to me isn’t it? At least that’s how I read it. What do you mean apparent? Where is this example?

    Then you bring in the word ‘ordination’ but I will assume that is a mistake?

    Thereafter, after some mention of ‘ad hoc’ arrangements NOT made by Jesus, you bring up deacons. But I have no objection to women being ordained deacon, so other than trying to make it seem that in fact I DO object to that, I’m not sure why you are making these comments at all. You proceed to bring up other matters that were NOT part of my question. Lydia for instance. Peter, I BELIEVE that women are called to ministry, we are created EQUAL, we have VALUE before God, we are not to be ignored, we ARE part of Jesus’ church .. a very important part. If you set up a committee of ANY sort that does not include women, I think you’re making a BIG mistake, of course we are leaders in the church. That again, is not the question is it? Are women to teach and have authority over the church as a whole? From Jesus or Genesis? That’s the question I’d like an answer to please.

    After more stuff implying that what I’m saying is that women are to have no leadership roles in the church, which is the opposite of what I believe, you finally come to the decision .. presumably having found it impossible to demonstrate that Jesus authorised women to teach and have authority .. that Genesis does NOT ‘set out a rule for all time which precludes women from teaching or leading men.’ However you give no clear indication why you arrive at that conclusion. You agree with me that ‘helpmeet’ is ‘a general role of support and supply, of companionship and partnership in the enterprise of life’ .. but again, no indication why this support role transforms without apparently any actual words indicating that it should so transform, into a teaching/authority role.

    Like the women you name, it is my hope that more and more women will be ‘honoured’ for the way they discharge their calling. However my hope is that God honours it, He is the One who knows what that calling is.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Hi Rosemary
    At the beginning I would like to make clear that I never seek (never have, never shall) to deliberately misunderstand or misinterpret you!

    The question from Adam naming the animals is (I assumed) that something can be built on this action by way of a case for men being teachers and in authority over men and women not; my simple point (by way of demonstrating an absurdity that could follow) is that no such case can be built on such an action.

    Let me try to supply what appears to be missing from my post!

    (a) I do not understand Genesis as saying anything one way or another for or against men or women being ordained to positions in which they teach and have authority over men.

    (b) I accept that Paul, in 1 Timothy 2:11-15, prohibits women from teaching and 'authentein' (exercise or usurp authority, I lean to the latter) over men; and explains this in terms of Genesis 1-3, Adam formed first, Eve deceived, etc, but this is not on the basis of an inherent inability in women to take proper office as teachers and leaders of men signalled in Genesis 1-3, but on the basis of the danger of women denying the word of God under the influence of the devil. In short, I do not understand Genesis as prohibiting the ordination of women to the priesthood or the episcopacy. If one then wants to say 'Genesis does not support the ordination of women' my response is simply that I do not see it supporting the ordination of men either!

    (c) Yes, Jesus does not authorise women to teach and to lead over men. But the point I wish to make is that Jesus did not say or do anything much about ministry apart from (a) commissioning the Twelve, and (b) teaching quite a lot about general responsibilities of Christians for ministry and mission (be servants, work hard without thought of reward, etc). Unsaid by Jesus is whether there should be deacons or presbyters or bishops (the early church proceeded to institute these orders), what kind of succession there should be to the apostles as a council of governance for the church (the early and subsequent church has thus developed episcopal and presbyteral models of church governance), and, most relevant to our present discussion, unsaid is whether women may share in the ministry of leadership over men, men and women, and over women (the early church freely involved women in its leadership).

    But not yet addressed in this discussion are all the intriguing things Jesus did do or engage with which involved women: first witnesses to the resurrection, that kind of thing!

    ReplyDelete
  4. A comprehensive reply to Rosemary's question(s), Peter. Whether she will find it persuasive, however, is another matter, and we await her possible response with interest.

    Your handling of the Genesis texts is sound (a venerable evangelical term of approval) but in the interest of keeping some other discussions alive I have a short response to this part of your argument:-
    "When engaging with Genesis 1-3 (indeed 1-11) which are important chapters lying at the foundation of all theological reflection about humanity and our relationship to God, some things are theologically ‘clear’, some less so ... and at the end of Genesis 2, another fundamental point is made, that we are made male and female for the purpose of marriage, and marriage is to be an exclusive lifelong commitment."

    1. A close reading of the Genesis text suggests to me that God's stated purpose for dividing humanity into male and female is to overcome the "not good" state of aloneness rather than to establish the institution of life-long monogamous marriage.
    2. Jesus subsequently interprets the text as a prohibition of "any cause" divorce, highlighting the importance of "cleaving" (God's intention for humanity, creating companionship and social cohesion) over against first-century Jewish excuses for easy "putting away". One could argue that his use of the text is consistent with the resounding silence in scripture about the matter of polygamy. It is also consistent with his own unmarried status.
    3. If the Genesis text is "clear" about life-long-monogamous-marriage being the best possible state of all human beings (ie a prescription rather than a description) then why was this not so apparent to other scriptural writers? What I mean is that when we assess the place of this text within the canon we tend to read it with (what we take to be) Jesus' use of it in the foregound, and block out any awareness of other scriptural voices that might in fact enable us to understand Jesus' exegesis with a broader understanding. An fundamental exegetical issue is at stake here that may be highlighted by asking how non-Christian Jews might read the Genesis text, always a good corrective. I think this is worth a broader discussion...
    4. If God's purpose expressed in Gen 2 is possibly human social cohesion rather than the institution of marriage per se then perhaps we also have a broader framework within which to discuss the place of celibacy and faithful-life-long same-gender relationships.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Oops, my previous comment crossed Rosemary's in the pipeline, so we can see that she was not in fact at all impressed with your arguments, Peter. On the contrary, she is most riled at your lack of respect for the integrity of her position and her argumentation.

    Interesting! Here is a woman energetically arguing with a recognized theological teacher of the Nelson diocese, male teacher that is, and taking him to task for not treating her arguments with more respect. And what is her position, for which she argues online, posting her riposte in the small hours of Saturday night, and not leaving it to her husband to express? Simply this - that Christian women should submit meekly to the male teachers in the Church ... hmmm. I think I applaud her example rather than her ideology!

    ReplyDelete
  6. Hi Howard
    Thanks for all thoughts in both comments.
    There is much to ponder in (3) and (4) ... one intriguing question of the Old Testament is whether it proffers any examples of non-marrying celibate people ... (from memory) I think Jeremiah is one, if not the only one!

    ReplyDelete
  7. Interesting! Here is a woman energetically arguing with a recognized theological teacher of the Nelson diocese, male teacher that is, and taking him to task for not treating her arguments with more respect. And what is her position, for which she argues online, posting her riposte in the small hours of Saturday night, and not leaving it to her husband to express? Simply this - that Christian women should submit meekly to the male teachers in the Church ... hmmm. I think I applaud her example rather than her ideology!

    I'm going to assume you weren't thinking in your normal charitable way when you wrote that, Howard. Otherwise it would leave you looking particularly mean-spirited and petty. Not to mention sophomoric in your argumentation

    ReplyDelete
  8. Peter, I am honestly quite surprised that you've put together this string of individually unconvincing arguments and drawn such a strong conclusion from it.

    Perhaps a few comments:
    You note that Adam's naming of the animal implies some form of superiority. This, as you note, you must concede. But then you struggle to apply the same already-observed principle in the same text. Now obviously nobody is arguing that Adam is "superior" to the woman in the same way as he is to the animals and yet the similarity of the language is striking.

    Your caricature of RB's position is, frankly, quite churlish. As Howard notes, albeit in a quite unpleasant way, RB is herself an articulate intelligent woman. To thus represent her position in such a way is doubly insulting: it shows an unwillingness to actually read her accurately and it shows a contempt of character in assuming that she maintains no personal consistency.

    More than that, it betrays an unwillingness to actually listen in any sense to those you are disagreeing with. It is not the first time you have been corrected on such a mis-statement of the complementarian position. If you then continue in your mis-statements what is to be concluded?

    That you are unable to understand what is being argued? Surely not. You're an intelligent man.

    Thus you force others to conclude that this is not a dialogue for there is no actual engagement with the other. That would be very sad.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Hi David
    We may have to agree to disagree!
    At no point have I attempted to or sought to caricature Rosemary's position, a person for whom I have a great respect; however I acknowledge that you read my attempt to engage respectfully with her arguments in almost the opposite manner from what is/was intended. Part of my respect is, of course, that I do engage and take some trouble through many words to attempt to do this!

    Now, a further matter on which we might have to agree to disagree: namely about the meaning of this comment, "You note that Adam's naming of the animal implies some form of superiority. This, as you note, you must concede. But then you struggle to apply the same already-observed principle in the same text. Now obviously nobody is arguing that Adam is "superior" to the woman in the same way as he is to the animals and yet the similarity of the language is striking."

    Clearly you understand yourself to be making some kind of important point here. I understand Adam as superior to the animals (because he names them). I understand that "obviously nobody is arguing that Adam is "superior" to the woman in the same way as he is to the animals". But what I do not understand is what is being argued about Adam as animal-namer in relation to Eve by making the observation that Adam names the animals.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Peter. perhaps, then, it's worth taking another look at what you wrote and actually considering whether your opponents are actually arguing silly stuff like "women shouldn't be scientists".

    Frankly, it makes you look unpleasant when you use such arguments because all they do is communicate that you think your opponent is an idiot. you may not intend that but it's certainly what comes across.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Hi David
    Thanks for the clarification.
    I still think the point holds, that focusing on the role of Adam naming animals as a basis for arguments about the ordination of women is a mistake because the extrapolation of that role forward to life in the modern Western world would raise questions about other roles, questions which, I suggest, could lead to absurdity.

    ReplyDelete
  12. But Peter, it only leads to "absurdity" (as you put it) if you insist upon an exact equivalence in the relationships.

    Instead, how about we read it properly and recognise 2 things -

    1. that men and women together are created in the image of God. Both are fully human with all the dignity that it implies.
    2. nevertheless, Adam names the woman just as he names the animals and thus we must struggle to understand what that tells us about their relationship one to another.

    You seem to be arguing that 1 negates the necessity to engage with 2. I would also suggest that you avoid this topic because you realise that a full engagement with 2 would undermine your position.

    ReplyDelete
  13. Hi David
    I agree that Adam naming the woman (your 2 above) is something we must struggle to understand (but this is the first time on this thread that this particular matter, distinct from naming the animals, has actually been mentioned).

    I do not think that your 1 above negates the necessity to engage with 2, and I certainly do not think that a full engagement with 2 "would undermine" my position.

    But any engagement with the observation that Adam names the woman just as he names the animals, raises the question 'what does this tell us about their relationship with one to another"?

    I assume (e.g. in respect of a comment you make above) that Adam naming the woman Eve does not signify that Adam is superior to Eve in the way that Adam is superior to the animals. Adam and Eve are of the same kind (homo sapiens) and, as you say, 'both are fully human with all the dignity that it implies.'

    It is possible (making, I think, a reasonable guess about where you might head on this) that it implies that Adam and Eve are differentiated in terms of 'roles' (because A is a namer of animals and people, E is not), and also that Adam is (in some sense) the 'head' of Eve since, in Genesis 2, Adam (through his rib) is the source of Eve, and Adam has the responsibility of naming Eve. But perhaps that is enough for now as I may be running off in a different direction from what you have in mind by drawing attention to Adam's naming of Eve.

    ReplyDelete
  14. David, you obviously have no taste for irony, so in my own defence let me state plainly what I thought was implicit in my last comment.
    1. I admire feisty women, including Rosemary.
    2. I cannot abide any doctrine, including "the complementarian position" that forces some women to hide their sharp minds and forceful opinions behind a veil of submission.
    3. The church of God needs all the teachers it can get, male and female, and their healthy interaction with one another must frequently be argumentative in tone.
    4. Rosemary's tone in arguing with Peter shows a healthy lack of respect for his gender and office that I can only applaud.

    Now, which part of that is uncharitable, unpleasant or sophomoric?

    ReplyDelete
  15. ... I am having a wee think about the 'healthy lack of respect for his gender and office' ... :)

    ReplyDelete
  16. Well, OK Peter ... how about a healthy disinclination to pull her own punches even though you are both male and a recognized teacher in the church. Neither you nor I would ask that of her ... but then we don't hold to her position. I am simply pointing out what seems to be an inconsistency between ideology (unhealthy) and practice (healthy).

    ReplyDelete
  17. Hi Howard
    I did put a ":)" at the end of my comment: 'twas intended to be comedic!

    I do not mind a healthy lack of respect etc ... and sometimes I receive an unhealthy respect ... well, maybe when a blue moon is shining!!

    ReplyDelete
  18. One thing that interests me is that, under the Mosaic covenant, Israelite women were exempted from many of the religious obligations men had to fulfil. They didn't have to pay the temple tax. They didn't have to attend all the festivals. One could argue that this is because God was not interested in having women serve him in any formalised way. Or one could argue that it was because God was showing mercy towards women because of the exigencies of their lives.

    Jesus came to fulfil the Law of the Mosaic covenant. Some argue that the fact that he chose twelve males to accompany him on all his travels and learn from him shows that only men should be pastors/teachers. I suspect that Jesus was showing mercy to women because of the exigencies of their lives.

    Imagine if he'd said to some woman, "Follow me." She didn't have the freedom to just get up and go but would have had to ask some husband or father if she could. Whichever man would have complained about who was going to look after the children, do the cooking and cleaning and make the clothes, and who was going to accompany her as a chaperone. If she wasn't pregnant or breast-feeding (not great for travelling about and sleeping rough) she would have been regularly menstruating, which made everything she touched unclean (not great for everyone else with whom she was travelling). Imagine if 6 of the 12 had been women and all were menstruating at different times. That would have caused some serious bogging down of Jesus' mission.

    But now we're under the New Covenant in Jesus' blood. Nothing makes us impure but what comes out of our own hearts (Mr 7:21). Most pastors/teachers live settled lives and go home to their own beds every night. There are schools and day-care and, furthermore, women are considered worthy of being educated these days and a great number of them have been very highly educated indeed, including in theology.

    Too bad about the new female subordinationists. How long before they start wondering what point there is in educating girls if they're only going to be housewives and mothers? Then watch the infant mortality figures rise.

    And, David Ould, Adam didn't name the woman "Eve" until after the Fall. Calling her "woman" (or "isha") is not bestowing a name.

    Furthermore, David Ould, your inability to understand that a failure of communication is not only the fault of the the one who receives the communication, but must also be laid at the feet of the one doing the communicating, seems to characterise many of your interactions with others in the blogosphere. Certainly it characterises the ones I've followed or been a party to. Frankly, I would say that on your part, "it betrays an unwillingness to actually listen in any sense to those you are disagreeing with." And, frankly, it makes you look like a rude, pompous ass. Ordinarily I prefer not to deliberately insult other people but I feel a great need to make an exception for you because you lack the humility to consider that you may have misunderstood but just assume that whatever you perceive someone else has said must be what they intended to say and, on that basis, you have shown yourself to be perfectly willing to insult others. I hope that you will take my insult to heart because, really, I wish you well.

    ReplyDelete
  19. How unfortunate that this has degenerated into a discussion of personalities and personal attacks. Yes Howard, I too read your post as a personal attack. Your post was certainly not ironic, it was sarcastic, a mistake I make often enough that I recognise it clearly. By the way, I'm not in New Zealand, hence the hour of my posting.

    I feel a need to bring an end to this discussion for now, it is no longer fruitful is it? My final remarks are these ..

    1. I believe Peter, that you are indeed unaware of just how disrespectful you are towards me. You genuinely believe I am wrong in my theological view, and feel no hesitation in ridiculing my position .. because after all, I'm wrong!

    2. After the brickbat, a bouquet. My thanks Peter for admitting that neither in Genesis, nor from the mouth of Jesus, can you find justification for the licensing of women to teach and have authority over the whole church. Perhaps sometime we could discuss your remark that you also cannot find justification for the licensing of men to teach and have authority over the whole church .. grin .. because quite obviously, I disagree!

    3. Would it be too much to ask that you recognise that those who believe as I do, have, on your own admission above, scriptural reason for not supporting WO. I don't understand why God has organised it that way, but it is my firm belief that this is so. Therefore I do my best to submit to my Lord in that.

    4. There is a problem here that needs to be recognised and spoken about. I don't think many are going to change their minds on this issue, it IS therefore, an issue that could be divisive. Howard has pointed out that I am writing on this issue, but my husband isn't. There's a reason for that. He has NEVER publically spoken against, or indeed about this issue, because over 20 years ago, he was called to work in a church that had made this decision. It is not for him a first order or salvific issue, therefore we have worked both for and within a church that views the matter differently, very happily. Recently however, things have changed. Various people within our church have made it quite clear that those who hold my views, are no longer welcome members of our church. This is therefore, an issue that must be faced up to and discussed, presumably first, by those who have now arrived at the conclusion that it is not in fact a second order issue, but one that must be adhered to by all church members. In other words, there is no longer recognition that those who hold my views have any theological reasons so to do.

    5. I have an underlying concern that I wish to articulate. I am deeply concerned about the spiritual welfare of both men and women, and it is this as much as anything else, that prompts me to speak out at all on this issue.

    ReplyDelete
  20. Alas, four or five weak arguments do not amount to one strong argument.
    1. There is no evidence that Lydia 'was the first leader of the church in Philippi'. That she was an influential character was not doubted.
    2. Allowing that 'Junia' is a woman and likely the wife of Andronicus, the Greek doesn't state that they were 'apostles' (a pretty select band, remember!), and if they were, 'apostles' would have the broader sense of 'missionaries'. As husbands and wives (Aquila and Priscilla) did work together in ministry, maybe that is in view here.
    3. There is no evidence that Euodia and Syntyche taught men.
    4. The Seven in Acts 6 are NOT called 'deacons'. That they later became elders seems likely (see Beckwith).
    5. Romans 16.1 could be general in meaning; it might not denote anything as specific as the diakonoi of 1 Timothy 3.
    Much as I admire Richard Bauckham's scholarship, we must be wary of seeing what we want to see or letting our imagination run free from the stony facts. Roger Beckwith's study 'Elders in Every City' is a careful examination of the origin on the presbyterate and its relationship to the Twelve.

    ReplyDelete
  21. Hi Rosemary
    Thanks for responding with both conviction and feeling!

    You feel I have ridiculed you and I acknowledge that - I simply say it is not my style to ridicule, nor is it my intention to do so with any commenter, least of all you; but in my ham-fisted way my words have been read differently to my intention.

    I am flabbergasted, however, by this comment, "Would it be too much to ask that you recognise that those who believe as I do, have, on your own admission above, scriptural reason for not supporting WO." I cannot think of ever thinking that those not supporting WO did not have scriptural reasons for their belief. Even Roman Catholics, with their arguments against WO, different to your arguments, have 'scriptural reasons' in their mix of reasoning!

    Your last comment points to something which is ever present in all your writings on these matters: your concern for spiritual welfare.
    Thank you.

    ReplyDelete
  22. Hi Anonymous,
    It depends what one is arguing!
    If one is arguing that, on the pages of the NT is crystal clear evidence of women overseeing the church and teaching mixed congregations, then your list may be assessed as 'four or five arguments do not amount to one strong argument'.
    I am trying to argue that there is sufficient variety of activity of women in ministry and in mission in the pages of the NT, including reference to women prophesying, to (1) cast doubt on whether 1 Timothy 2:12 represents the uniform and universally applied ruling that no woman ever taught or oversaw a mixed gender congregation; (2) give reason to think twenty centuries later when we are in a new cultural situation in respect of the roles of women that it is a fair trajectory from the pages of the NT to affirm women in ordained ministry rather than to deny that opportunity to serve the Lord.

    The converse of what I am saying, using 'weak' and 'strong' is this: in the face of many signs of God calling women to ordained ministry, gainfully and fruitfully employing women in ordained ministry, and generally seeing the church operating as a body in which a variety of ministries shared between men and women, lay and ordained, work together harmoniously (as in the Diocese of Nelson where I have the privilege of serving), is 1 Timothy 2:12-15 a 'strong' enough reason to reverse the trend of extending the ordained ministry to include both men and women because it lays down a universal, everlasting rule applicable to each and every culture?

    (I would ask the same question of the argument that 1 Timothy 2:12-15 should be combined with certain ideas about headship and roles derived from interpretations of Genesis 1-3 and/or certain notions about eternal subordination within the Trinity).

    ReplyDelete
  23. Hi Janice
    Thanks for your comment with its important points which contribute to understanding significant differences between Jesus' day and ours.

    However - gently - I feel the need to say that your words to David Ould are 'borderline' re moderation standards on this blog ... on this particular thread there has been a range of comments either received as (intended or not) or intended as 'ad hominem' remarks ... and, however, much it could be argued that X deserves riposte Y, because of their jibe Z, I do not wish to see any thread here get tangled up in ad hominem jousting ... which is to say that a number of remarks, not yours alone, herein have been borderline and I may have to apply a stricter standard in future!

    ReplyDelete
  24. Peter, I was simply saying that there is NO positive evidence for what you suggest (that some women "might" have been ruling and teaching elders over men in NT churches) and a lot of evidence that points the other way. As a historical claim it simply doesn't fly.
    Your second paragraph "in the face of many signs of God calling women to ordained ministry..." is petitio principii, and dangerously like the arguments used for gay ordination ('God has called me..').

    ReplyDelete
  25. Hi Anonymous
    Fair response!!
    "Calling" is that discerned by the church as a whole (represented in the Bishop and his or her advisers in respect of ordination and by Boards of Nomination for parish appointments) so the crucial thing is not how an individual feels but the guiding or prevailing theology in dioceses ... hence my "petitio principii" is dangerous only where dioceses cannot distinguish the difference between the two issues of women seeking ordained ministry and people neither married nor single seeking ordination.

    ReplyDelete
  26. I do understand just how easy it is to fall into the trap of ad hominem debate, that needs to be forgiven and lets move on. However I will be sad to see this discussion reduced to a cultural and/or experiential one.

    That our culture should drive our understanding of Scripture is, I would have thought given recent events .. proven to be a very dangerous route to take. Especially as it implies that our Creator God, did not anticipate our arrival at this place and time, when He clearly DID.

    Or that because the Nelson Diocese [and others I hope] has experienced such harmonious togetherness, it is necessarily God's Will. That reminds me strongly of the charismatic debate that experience trumps Scripture.

    Can we please stick to Scripture?

    ReplyDelete
  27. Hi Rosemary
    The answer to the question "Can we please stick to Scripture?" in the context of observations about the role of culture/experience admits of no easy answer ... so I will not attempt one here, suffice to note that sometime I would like to post on the issue (which I will call) 'the development of doctrine in the life of the church', an issue which is treated differently in the three great traditions (Roman, Eastern, Protestant) and accordingly tears Anglicans apart 'cause we are a bit of each!

    ReplyDelete
  28. 'the development of doctrine in the life of the church'
    - now there's an interesting topic! You know that the most eminent historian of this in recent years was Jaroslav Pelikan, the Lutheran who, er, became Orthodox...

    ReplyDelete
  29. Rosemary, I apologize for the sarcastic edge to my comment, accepting your forgiveness and invitation to move on. That said, I want to respond to your call that we should somehow leave experience out of our approach to scripture. I invite you to reflect on the importance at least one form of experience plays in your own understanding of scripture.

    In a comment to an earlier post you asked Rachel, “Which scriptures convinced you that God was calling you into a teaching ministry?” and later clarified this request: “ I was asking in a personal sense. A calling seems to me to require words…” You then gave an example: “I have a clear memory of the time my husband felt such a calling on his life. It happened over a period of time … I can also remember the specific texts.”

    It is evident that you, like many of us, place reliance on openness to receiving guidance from God as you read scripture. The particular passages used to guide your husband into his teaching ministry will always have a special significance and power for him. For many evangelicals over the years this process has been the archetypal means of communication between God and the believer, and the basis on which they affirm that God has indeed spoken his eternal Word into their lives. I share such experiences and have no wish to diminish their importance for me or others, apart from acknowledging their essentially subjective nature. Acknowledging that subjectivity leads me to several conclusions, and I am interested to know how far you might agree with me.

    1. Such revelatory personal experiences do not determine the meaning of the scriptural texts themselves. What I hear God saying to me when I read a particular passage, receiving that by faith as guidance for my life is not necessarily what he may be saying to everyone through the same passage. Nor is it necessarily a reliable guide to what it meant to the original writer and readers. Personal piety is no substitute for scholarly exegesis.

    2. Such personal experiences provide no reliable basis for establishing theology or the common policies of the church. For instance, they should not enter into a discussion of whether or not scripture supports the teaching ministries of women, which is the present topic. Other denominations may have attempted to found their common policies on the authoritative revelatory experiences of their leaders, but Anglicans have never gone down that path. Our pledge to follow the guidance of scripture defers to the leadership of scholars rather than mystics.

    3. The experiences of one believer should never become a means of evaluating those of another. In this regard, I question the propriety of your asking Rachel for an account of her subjective experience of a call to a teaching ministry when you then go on to refer to how it happened for your husband. It is difficult not to draw the inference that unless she could describe something similar then you would have less confidence in the validity of her call than you did in his. I may be missing the point entirely, and urge you to set me right if that is so.

    4. At the very least I hope we all agree that such subjective experiences of a calling, important though they may be for sustaining us in a ministry, are of little weight in the mind of the church communities within which we all serve. Any ministry is established and validated within the church by its manifest effects on others. Does the community in which we are called to serve experience our ministry as life-giving, and honoring to God? That is the most crucial criterion. It is also essentially subjective, experiential and culture-bound.

    In my view, there is no escape from the influence of experience this side of heaven, even when we are reading scripture. This is the way God has made us, and our experiences have been created by him to shape who we are, individually and collectively. I would not have it otherwise.

    ReplyDelete
  30. I feel the need to say that your words to David Ould are 'borderline' re moderation standards on this blog

    Yes. I understand very well. Maybe I should have left out the "pompous ass" bit. But what about this, from John Mark Ministries?

    When someone strikes you on the RIGHT cheek ([Mt]5:39) - as a master would backhand a slave to publicly shame them - turn the other cheek. That is, invite them to hit you again AS AN EQUAL, because your oppressor can't backhand you on the left cheek with the right hand, and the left hand is not used for food or human contact in Eastern cultures. That is: you are challenging your oppressor to treat you as a person and not a possession. When someone tries to sue you even to the point of taking your coat (5:40), give them your undercoat/shirt as well! That is, challenge them to strip you naked, which in Jewish culture at least, would publicly shame both them and you! Again, this forces your oppressor to take account of what they are doing to you!
    When a Roman soldier forces you to carry their load (5:41) for one mile (as marked by the Roman milestones on all Roman roads, and as explicitly permitted under Roman law), try to carry it for an extra mile also. This is NOT permitted under Roman law and may get the soldier into trouble - forcing them again to consider what they are doing to you and how they are exploiting you.


    Do we lovingly serve people if we never confront them over their abuse of ourself or of others? If you were one of those Iranian Christian women would you agree with your abusers that the mistake was yours?

    And regarding culture-driven theology, can we, in our modern, Western culture, properly understand the NT if we don't understand the culture(s) in which the NT books and letters were written? After all, as the writer of the above-linked article says, in our culture, "turn the other cheek" sounds, "rather like an invitation to get hit again, and again . . .". But if his understanding of the uses of the left hand and of stripping people naked in NT Judea is correct then the way most people currently understand what it means to "turn the other cheek" needs transforming if our behaviour in response to being abused is to have a chance of producing a transformative effect on the abuser.

    I think one of our major problems these days, on both sides of the WO debate (and the other ordination debate), is that our culture, or some aspects of it, is driving most people's understanding of Scripture. After all, we all start on The Way from where we were at the time of our conversion, i.e., thoroughly indoctrinated into the cultural norms of the society in which we grew up. And that includes the cultural norms of the translators of whichever version of The Bible we choose to read.

    ReplyDelete
  31. Thank you for that long post Howard, however you began with a wrong premise, so that I was left wondering who you were in fact talking to. I did not say that we should ‘leave experience out of our approach to Scripture’ .. but rather .. ‘that reminds me strongly of the charismatic debate that experience trumps Scripture.’

    When you say .. “It is evident that you, like many of us, place reliance on openness to receiving guidance from God as you read scripture.” I hoped I had explained that clearly, perhaps not. I EXPECT God to speak to me everyday through His Scriptures. You also said ..

    1. Such revelatory personal experiences do not determine the meaning of the scriptural texts themselves.
    I fear you and I may read the Scriptures somewhat differently. It is in trying to discern what the passage says that one learns. I do not go to the Scriptures looking for guidance for particular problems in my life, or what my next step might be.

    2. Such personal experiences provide no reliable basis for establishing theology or the common policies of the church.
    Isn’t that what I said?

    3. The experiences of one believer should never become a means of evaluating those of another. Isn’t that what I said?

    3. In this regard, I question the propriety of your asking Rachel for an account of her subjective experience of a call to a teaching ministry when you then go on to refer to how it happened for your husband. It is difficult not to draw the inference that unless she could describe something similar then you would have less confidence in the validity of her call than you did in his. I may be missing the point entirely, and urge you to set me right if that is so.
    You are quite wrong in your assessment, and really I take exception to your reading into my words what I have not said. You may draw what inference you wish of course, but this one is completely wrong.

    4. At the very least I hope we all agree that such subjective experiences of a calling, important though they may be for sustaining us in a ministry, are of little weight in the mind of the church communities within which we all serve.
    Again, if this is not what I said, this is what I meant.

    ReplyDelete
  32. Hi Janice
    I entirely agree that abuse should be confronted ... it can get a bit tricky in the specific context of "comments" on blogs where the "ad hominem" stuff can take on a life of its own, moving far from the immediate issue!

    Thank you for your thoughts re 'culture' which leads me to enlarge a little on my post above re the great men of theology.

    ReplyDelete
  33. I agree with Howard that the experience of being 'called to minsitry' is subjective - that is almost tautological to say so - but I would say 'necessarily' rather than 'essentially' to avoid being solipsistic because the apostles were bold enough to say 'It seems good to the Holy Spirit and to us', IOW they claimed an insight into the mind of Christ which Paul also asserted. Is this arrogance or the unique mark of an apostle? Could/would any Protestant church speak with such confidence today? That was the point of my reference to Jaroslav Pelikan as he left Lutheranism in his last years.
    Specific texts are not needed to discern a call to ministry, though God may certainly act in such a way. However, the call is not validated by the individual but by the Church.

    ReplyDelete