Women, throughout history and throughout Christian history have had it rough. If you think they haven't, take a minute to check out, "Women's Work," one of the most deeply moving videos I've ever seen. I link to it every year or so, and keep a copy on my desktop just in case it's ever not there when I go back. I've never watched it without tears.
The video does an interesting thing. It shows women. It doesn't show women "being" anything. It just shows women. Most of them are happy. Some are lost in thought. All of them are beautiful. A few of them are beautiful in ways of which Mark Driscoll and cosmetic ads would approve, but all of them are letting themselves shine through unguardedly, just as God created them. They're beautiful.
I believe beauty's important, and I believe egalitarians are in danger of mislaying the purpose of beauty in our quest for equality. We've started talking about gender-neutrality where gender-equality is the goal.
I offer this link not as an egregious example of some horrible mistake, but just as the little thing that made me sit down and write. CBE asks, "Are Men and Women from Different Planets?"
Evidently, at a recent conference one of the speakers wowed the crowd by showing how Christian bookstores are marketing differently to boys and girls. The impression I received from the article was both that the marketing portrayed girls as inferior and that marketing differently to boys and girls was in itself wrong. I left some comments to that effect, and was courteously received. My point was that girls wear pink and boys wear blue because of cultural conditioning. Commenters countered that girls wear pink and boys wear blue because of socializations.
That amused me.
I and my esteemed sisters at CBE agree that pink and blue are socializations. We disagree when they believe they are awful socializations while I believe they are wonderful socializations. I support pink and blue. I support pink and blue even as I oppose the abuse women have suffered over the centuries and continue to suffer over the last 25 years I've been paying attention to the issue.
The video above shows beautiful women, in all their individual and unique expressions of beauty. My question to my sisters in the struggle for equality is who doesn't want the bride of Christ to be beautiful? Christ, Solomon, and Paul certainly do. Beauty is a distinctly feminine thing, and a distinctly desirable thing in the bride of Christ. Why, in order to have equality, do we have to call femininity into question? What power is stripped from a woman because she is feminine?
Does a woman who is culturally feminine have to be irrational? Does she have to be less competitive or goal-oriented? Then let's fix the culture, but history and experience give plenty of examples of feminine women who were rational and effective. American advertisers falsely tell us femininity is a matter of appearance, but why does the egalitarian church agree by becoming unfeminine, gender-neutral?
When the culture says a Barbie figure and $200 hair are the defining characteristics of femininity, why do we flee into the arms of political correctness? Why do we answer their lies with "gender-neutral" toys and games? God did not create us gender-neutral, and He goes out of His way to emphasize His own assessment of the desirability of the feminine.
Gender-neutral is a path to nowhere, and I'll rejoice when the good folk earnestly pursuing gender-equality abandon it.
Showing posts with label Equality. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Equality. Show all posts
10 August, 2009
07 August, 2009
Which Came First
Respect in marriage.
Eggerich says the woman must respect her husband. I like that idea in theory, but I've known some evil husbands. When it becomes clear that the man is placing his own convenience ahead of the needs of his wife, she'd have to be a pathological self-liar to respect him. That woman must not respect her husband.
In a marriage between two decent people, though, I'm willing give Eggerich his due - after all, he is quoting scripture.
Imagine, though, the situation where a basically decent guy does something that obviously demonstrates his own convenience is more important to him than his wife's real needs. That man creates a chasm across which no healthy woman can easily cross. Asking any God-fearing, self-disciplined, wise wife to respect that man is asking her to violate herself. And yet, respect is necessary for marriage to work. What's to be done? Who's to do it?
Which comes first? The chicken or the egg?
Does the "chicken" of the man repenting of his sin come first, or is it the "egg" of the wife's mustard seed of respect freely given to a man in need of grace? Does the responsibility lie with the woman who is directly commanded by God to respect her husband, or does the responsibility lie with the man since some call him the God-ordained leader in the home?
The theoretical implications of that paradoxical connundrum could unman the bravest theologian. Philosophical finaglings and findings of falacy fool the poor guy who thinks it can be figured out.
Fortunately, the Lord doesn't care what we figure out.
If you've got chickens, make eggs. And if you've got eggs, grow chickens. Upon whomever the Lord has given the grace for a given need, is the responsibility for giving that grace laid.
I'm an egalitarian who believes there really is something to the idea that men and women have different gifts and needs. Those different gifts complement each other, but either can initiate the flow of God's grace into a wounded relationship. Whoever can give first, must.
Eggerich says the woman must respect her husband. I like that idea in theory, but I've known some evil husbands. When it becomes clear that the man is placing his own convenience ahead of the needs of his wife, she'd have to be a pathological self-liar to respect him. That woman must not respect her husband.
In a marriage between two decent people, though, I'm willing give Eggerich his due - after all, he is quoting scripture.
Imagine, though, the situation where a basically decent guy does something that obviously demonstrates his own convenience is more important to him than his wife's real needs. That man creates a chasm across which no healthy woman can easily cross. Asking any God-fearing, self-disciplined, wise wife to respect that man is asking her to violate herself. And yet, respect is necessary for marriage to work. What's to be done? Who's to do it?
Which comes first? The chicken or the egg?
Does the "chicken" of the man repenting of his sin come first, or is it the "egg" of the wife's mustard seed of respect freely given to a man in need of grace? Does the responsibility lie with the woman who is directly commanded by God to respect her husband, or does the responsibility lie with the man since some call him the God-ordained leader in the home?
The theoretical implications of that paradoxical connundrum could unman the bravest theologian. Philosophical finaglings and findings of falacy fool the poor guy who thinks it can be figured out.
Fortunately, the Lord doesn't care what we figure out.
If you've got chickens, make eggs. And if you've got eggs, grow chickens. Upon whomever the Lord has given the grace for a given need, is the responsibility for giving that grace laid.
I'm an egalitarian who believes there really is something to the idea that men and women have different gifts and needs. Those different gifts complement each other, but either can initiate the flow of God's grace into a wounded relationship. Whoever can give first, must.
03 October, 2007
Ecumenical Egalitarian Exclusionary Ethics
Yeah, my favorite part is picking the title. I figure I'm the only one who gets my joke sometimes, but when I don't see your distressed faces I can blithely assume everyone enjoys 18 syllable alliterations.
But this particular title is not a joke.
I am a subscriber to Touchstone Magazine. It's an ecumenical publication (meaning they want to bring all Christians together under one big tent) that seems to be primarily Roman Catholic in tone, financing and authorship. I read a lot in it by the different protestant denominations, and a good bit by orthodox clergy, but it still jolts my ear to hear the occasional Catholicism spoken like that good-ol' religion.
As I have read the mag, I have found about 30% of the articles are challenging and profitable (and yes, the Catholics are doing a good job, too), 10% of the articles are misguided, and the remaining 60% are the usual fluff. I mostly keep the subscription to keep my finger on several pulses at once, and it works well for me that way.
(Some day remind me to comment on a pair of articles they wrote concurrently on Anorexia Nervosa if you're interested - WOW stuff.)
There is one subject on which they regularly offend me, and I mean regularly and I mean offend. The world's ecuminicists all agree together that the only group they can bash as one are egalitarians (those who hold that women are often called by God to minister the gospel, and should be allowed to do so). People who agree to respect each other's opinions about 1) the elevation of the virgin Mary to veneration, 2) whether the Lord's Supper is the real body and blood of Christ (about which subject hundreds chose to die at the stake scant centuries ago), and 3) whether salvation can be found within each others' respective churches AT ALL have - [get this] - united in disdain for anyone who shows the slightest sympathy to the possibility that a woman might not pollute a pulpit if she spoke truth from behind it.
(I'm sorry if you had to read that sentence more than once to follow it. It takes a sentence like that for me to even begin to nibble at the edge of how truly irked I am.)
But I have said nothing until now, because I might be a little thin skinned on the subject. I happen to suspect an anti-egalitarian under every frock, so I gave them the benefit of my silence, if not my doubt.
Allow me to quote a paragraph from an actually quite nice lead editorial of the October 2007 issue (I looked for a link, but they only displayed one article. I will comment on that soon, and much more favorably.):
We draw a firm line between us and the skeptics, modernists, liberals, relativists, and others whose adherence to their own traditions is partial or corrupt, and a thin and flexible line between us and those conservative believers who accept some apparently worldly ideology opposed to the shared Christian heritage, egalitarianism being the most obvious example. Hence our ability to draw together people who disagree about whether infants can be baptized but our mutual decision to leave outside the circle (if often just outside the circle) those who declare that women can be ordained.
This paragraph is more irenic than most, but peace-loving though it may be it simply makes explicit the mutual decision of the Catholic, Protestant and Orthodox editors of this ecumenical effort to exclude those who hold with firm conviction that the bible requires women to preach the good news when so called.
And that brings me to my fourth E, Ethics. (My sole, lonely two syllable E.) I should not be surprised to find ecumenicists pandering like this - they need to beat up on someone after all, or they might not feel like a religious organization at all. And beating up on girls has been a politically safe move for millenia, so why not continue it in this fine example of their "ability to draw together people who disagree about" all manner of less important matters - like how people are brought to know God.
I cast shame on Touchstone Mag for taking pride in the ethics of heaping abuse on the abused in order to fudge - I mean forge - unity.
But this particular title is not a joke.
I am a subscriber to Touchstone Magazine. It's an ecumenical publication (meaning they want to bring all Christians together under one big tent) that seems to be primarily Roman Catholic in tone, financing and authorship. I read a lot in it by the different protestant denominations, and a good bit by orthodox clergy, but it still jolts my ear to hear the occasional Catholicism spoken like that good-ol' religion.
As I have read the mag, I have found about 30% of the articles are challenging and profitable (and yes, the Catholics are doing a good job, too), 10% of the articles are misguided, and the remaining 60% are the usual fluff. I mostly keep the subscription to keep my finger on several pulses at once, and it works well for me that way.
(Some day remind me to comment on a pair of articles they wrote concurrently on Anorexia Nervosa if you're interested - WOW stuff.)
There is one subject on which they regularly offend me, and I mean regularly and I mean offend. The world's ecuminicists all agree together that the only group they can bash as one are egalitarians (those who hold that women are often called by God to minister the gospel, and should be allowed to do so). People who agree to respect each other's opinions about 1) the elevation of the virgin Mary to veneration, 2) whether the Lord's Supper is the real body and blood of Christ (about which subject hundreds chose to die at the stake scant centuries ago), and 3) whether salvation can be found within each others' respective churches AT ALL have - [get this] - united in disdain for anyone who shows the slightest sympathy to the possibility that a woman might not pollute a pulpit if she spoke truth from behind it.
(I'm sorry if you had to read that sentence more than once to follow it. It takes a sentence like that for me to even begin to nibble at the edge of how truly irked I am.)
But I have said nothing until now, because I might be a little thin skinned on the subject. I happen to suspect an anti-egalitarian under every frock, so I gave them the benefit of my silence, if not my doubt.
Allow me to quote a paragraph from an actually quite nice lead editorial of the October 2007 issue (I looked for a link, but they only displayed one article. I will comment on that soon, and much more favorably.):
We draw a firm line between us and the skeptics, modernists, liberals, relativists, and others whose adherence to their own traditions is partial or corrupt, and a thin and flexible line between us and those conservative believers who accept some apparently worldly ideology opposed to the shared Christian heritage, egalitarianism being the most obvious example. Hence our ability to draw together people who disagree about whether infants can be baptized but our mutual decision to leave outside the circle (if often just outside the circle) those who declare that women can be ordained.
This paragraph is more irenic than most, but peace-loving though it may be it simply makes explicit the mutual decision of the Catholic, Protestant and Orthodox editors of this ecumenical effort to exclude those who hold with firm conviction that the bible requires women to preach the good news when so called.
And that brings me to my fourth E, Ethics. (My sole, lonely two syllable E.) I should not be surprised to find ecumenicists pandering like this - they need to beat up on someone after all, or they might not feel like a religious organization at all. And beating up on girls has been a politically safe move for millenia, so why not continue it in this fine example of their "ability to draw together people who disagree about" all manner of less important matters - like how people are brought to know God.
I cast shame on Touchstone Mag for taking pride in the ethics of heaping abuse on the abused in order to fudge - I mean forge - unity.
18 September, 2007
Biblical Monarchy - Protestants Unite
Suzanne hits ANOTHER one out of the park regarding the foolishness of the modern Christian interpretation of male headship.
Council for Biblical Hierarchy
Enjoy.
Council for Biblical Hierarchy
Enjoy.
05 May, 2007
I stand outside this woman's work
Kansas Bob and Milly both call this a powerful video. They are right. It was done by this lady, though I know nothing about her.
The song is from the movie, "She's Having a Baby." It's one of the best movies ever. It came out in the first year or two of my marriage, and it was so poignant at the time it will always be one of my favorites. I don't know whether it is a good movie or not, but the song moved me again today - hard. It's sung beautifully by a woman, but it's a father's story.
The lyrics are here: http://www.songmeanings.net/lyric.php?lid=53196
The young man, if you'll recall, was having a hard time figuring out whether being tied to a woman who could cook him gruper for dinner was really what he wanted for a lifetime. Toward the end of the movie, when she actually is having the baby, she experiences complications that threaten hers and the baby's life. While the young man sits out in the waiting room, dealing what he may be about to lose, this song plays in the background.
Choosing this song for the background of this video was inspired.
The video highlights a series of mostly famous quotes, starting with the granddaddy of them all, "Woman, you are the devil's gateway," launched by Tertullian. There are thoughts that ripple through societies and cultures, and that have tremendous power because they are silent. You can only see them if you look for them. Europe once believed that faerie folk were behind everything they didn't understand. It kept them from developing science for centuries. Breaking that misconception took centuries, and advances came in fits and starts.
The church is learning that women are profitable to the church in every area and by every gift, but the progress is coming by fits and starts. The quotes in this video are appalling, and very few people would agree with them in this context, but the underlying matrix of thought that allowed them in the first place must still be replaced - thought by thought. We need each other in every way.
I love a few women, and knowing that the things this video records have been said to them breaks my heart. Knowing that the true selves of these people, upon whom I have depended, are impugned in these ways weighs so heavily on my heart.
We love you, sisters.
The song is from the movie, "She's Having a Baby." It's one of the best movies ever. It came out in the first year or two of my marriage, and it was so poignant at the time it will always be one of my favorites. I don't know whether it is a good movie or not, but the song moved me again today - hard. It's sung beautifully by a woman, but it's a father's story.
The lyrics are here: http://www.songmeanings.net/lyric.php?lid=53196
The young man, if you'll recall, was having a hard time figuring out whether being tied to a woman who could cook him gruper for dinner was really what he wanted for a lifetime. Toward the end of the movie, when she actually is having the baby, she experiences complications that threaten hers and the baby's life. While the young man sits out in the waiting room, dealing what he may be about to lose, this song plays in the background.
Choosing this song for the background of this video was inspired.
The video highlights a series of mostly famous quotes, starting with the granddaddy of them all, "Woman, you are the devil's gateway," launched by Tertullian. There are thoughts that ripple through societies and cultures, and that have tremendous power because they are silent. You can only see them if you look for them. Europe once believed that faerie folk were behind everything they didn't understand. It kept them from developing science for centuries. Breaking that misconception took centuries, and advances came in fits and starts.
The church is learning that women are profitable to the church in every area and by every gift, but the progress is coming by fits and starts. The quotes in this video are appalling, and very few people would agree with them in this context, but the underlying matrix of thought that allowed them in the first place must still be replaced - thought by thought. We need each other in every way.
I love a few women, and knowing that the things this video records have been said to them breaks my heart. Knowing that the true selves of these people, upon whom I have depended, are impugned in these ways weighs so heavily on my heart.
We love you, sisters.
26 November, 2006
Presbuteras: Stan Gundry - Bobbed Hair, Bossy Wives, and Women Preachers (Not)
Mr. Gundry has written an excellent piece on his emigration to egalitarianism. For those of you still interested in the subject, I highly recommend it.
I also learned a new big theology word, "synthetically." It means to take all the little pieces, and see what they mean when put together. I recently received an anonymous critique that I might be making too huge claims based upon just a verse or two plus my fallen opinions. Now I know a big word to describe what I am really doing when I'm making this person unhappy.
Really.
I promise that as a rule, I have a lot more little verses in mind than I type out on this blog. If anyone would really like for me to reference more completely, I will consider it. It's just that once I have chewed on enough weeds, I want to get up over them, and look at the big picture. I'll admit that I may do it too quickly, and certainly always seem to do it too quickly, but I ask you to challenge me and let's see what comes of it.
Until then, I'm hiding behind "SYNTHETICALIZITATION."
I also learned a new big theology word, "synthetically." It means to take all the little pieces, and see what they mean when put together. I recently received an anonymous critique that I might be making too huge claims based upon just a verse or two plus my fallen opinions. Now I know a big word to describe what I am really doing when I'm making this person unhappy.
Really.
I promise that as a rule, I have a lot more little verses in mind than I type out on this blog. If anyone would really like for me to reference more completely, I will consider it. It's just that once I have chewed on enough weeds, I want to get up over them, and look at the big picture. I'll admit that I may do it too quickly, and certainly always seem to do it too quickly, but I ask you to challenge me and let's see what comes of it.
Until then, I'm hiding behind "SYNTHETICALIZITATION."
29 October, 2006
Presbuteras: Junia
If anyone would like to participate in a thorough discussion of whether Junia was an apostle, one is going on now at Better Bibles Blog.
After 3 posts, Suzanne has pretty much finished the initial look at whether Junia was a woman. I cannot begin to predict the level of detail to which she will drive, but it's all good stuff so far. She has found and posted a quote from men who quote the only ancient to identify Junia as a man.
Given Suzanne's level of scholarship, and the training of the regular commenters over there, and my lack of both, I will probably be silent for a good while, but I've learned a lot already.
Junia, the Apostle: Part 1
Junia, the Apostle: Part 2
Junia, the Apostle: Part 3
After 3 posts, Suzanne has pretty much finished the initial look at whether Junia was a woman. I cannot begin to predict the level of detail to which she will drive, but it's all good stuff so far. She has found and posted a quote from men who quote the only ancient to identify Junia as a man.
Given Suzanne's level of scholarship, and the training of the regular commenters over there, and my lack of both, I will probably be silent for a good while, but I've learned a lot already.
Junia, the Apostle: Part 1
Junia, the Apostle: Part 2
Junia, the Apostle: Part 3
05 September, 2006
Presbuteras: Summary and Index
Well, some day I am going to want to find these, so I had better index them. Who knows, maybe even some of you will want this. You should be able to find this post by searching for "Presbuteras codepoke summary" on any major engine. That's how I'll find it when the time comes.
As I reread them (skim them) I am disappointed at how long and rambly they are. I'm sure, now that they are written, that I could shorten them. Well - maybe I could add more content to them and keep them the same length. We all know that I cannot really shorten anything. I hope that they were not too very awful to read.
The comments make the difference for me. Without them, these would be half as valuable as they are (which avoids saying how valueless they were without them. :-)
Thank you all for keeping me typing.
In chronological order:
Presbuteras: Before I Start
The subject of women living in submission under men is a very personal one, and one about which feelings always run deep. Before starting, and before emotions have gotten wrapped up in the discussion of theological matters, I address the reality of the abuse of women under the protection of complementarian churches. Complementarianism does not cause this abuse, but it has not demonstrated the ability to address it.
Presbuteras: to Weekend Fisher
Weekend Fisher asked whether addressing an already emotional subject so emotionally might possibly be inappropriate, and added several points on reacting to abuse. I agreed with most of her points, and answered a couple. Find her post linked at the top of this one.
Presbuteras: What difference could it make?
I contend that women should be brought into full leadership in the church. I obviously believe that there is something to be gained by doing so, but what? Feminine insight and perspective directly involved in setting the vision and overseeing the follow-through of the church will strengthen us all.
Presbuteras: The Image of God
Women bear half of the image of God, Who is neither male nor female, and Who has both male and female attributes. The church cannot fully display the image of God when half His image is barred from setting the vision and course of the body. 1 Corinthians 11:7 has been used to suggest that women do not bear the image of God. Comparing scripture to scripture, we see that this interpretation must be wrong, or this verse would stand alone as an island.
Presbuteras: 1 Cor 11:1-16 - Veiling the Daughters of God
The great headcovering passage stands alone in scripture. There is no other passage that suggests that women should be veiled before God, so the interpretation of this passage must be rock solid for the practice to stand. It is another island in scripture. Actually, the traditional interpretation falls apart very quickly. Paul is here attempting both to end the practice of male head covering, as shameful before the Lord Who bought them, and to barely permit women to veil if not doing so would shame their husbands.
Presubuteras: Silencing the Daughters of God - 1 Cor 14:34 & 35
Paul does not tell women to be silent in the churches of God. Jewish legalists wrote a letter to Paul, asking him to confirm a number of their cherished traditions. Paul here quotes from that letter, as he solidly tells the Jewish crowd that the word of God did not come from them, and it will not be silenced. Women are not to be silenced during the meetings of the church.
The Familyhood Church: Presbuteras: Passing Over the Daughters of God
Paul's letters to Titus and Timothy describe the character of elders and deacons. Women are not directly mentioned in these descriptions. Does this mean that women cannot hold these positions? No. Phoebe is proof enough that women can be everything that these passages allow.
Presbuteras: Phebe - "Deacon?" - Demoting the Daughters of God - Rom 16:1&2
Phoebe's role as a true and meaningful deacon defended in detail.
Presbuteras: Subjecting the Daughters of the Lord - 1 Tim 2:11-15
Paul forbids women to take authority, but does he forbid all women to take any authority, or some women to take some authority. In light of the rest of scripture, and of Paul's comfort level working with women, it is hard to imagine that he prohibits all women from taking any leadership here. The work of Dr. Ann Nyland bears this hypothesis out from the Greek. Paul is specifically and directly confronting an Ephesian variation of gnosticism.
Presbuteras: The Early Church?
Is the tenor of the scripture as a whole really set against women taking authority? No. There are numerous examples of women in positions of authority in the church. This post contains links to 3 other posts that give copious details.
Presbuteras: Following the Daughters of God - Gen 21:12
What will it look like if women are not given the authority scripture allows to them?
Complementarianism needs to change to deal with the present and real effects that the recent cultural changes have had on women. It is not enough just to throw out proof texts, and let women figure out how to fit into their mould. Women will force themselves into that mould, but it is wrong to ask them to do so.
And what if they are given true, spiritual authority?
A number things will change, though the changes may not be dramatic from the first day.
---
The scripture calls us to discover whole truth about God, and we need our sisters to step up to this last plate before we can answer that call. Here's praying that it happens soon.
Kevin
As I reread them (skim them) I am disappointed at how long and rambly they are. I'm sure, now that they are written, that I could shorten them. Well - maybe I could add more content to them and keep them the same length. We all know that I cannot really shorten anything. I hope that they were not too very awful to read.
The comments make the difference for me. Without them, these would be half as valuable as they are (which avoids saying how valueless they were without them. :-)
Thank you all for keeping me typing.
In chronological order:
Presbuteras: Before I Start
The subject of women living in submission under men is a very personal one, and one about which feelings always run deep. Before starting, and before emotions have gotten wrapped up in the discussion of theological matters, I address the reality of the abuse of women under the protection of complementarian churches. Complementarianism does not cause this abuse, but it has not demonstrated the ability to address it.
Presbuteras: to Weekend Fisher
Weekend Fisher asked whether addressing an already emotional subject so emotionally might possibly be inappropriate, and added several points on reacting to abuse. I agreed with most of her points, and answered a couple. Find her post linked at the top of this one.
Presbuteras: What difference could it make?
I contend that women should be brought into full leadership in the church. I obviously believe that there is something to be gained by doing so, but what? Feminine insight and perspective directly involved in setting the vision and overseeing the follow-through of the church will strengthen us all.
Presbuteras: The Image of God
Women bear half of the image of God, Who is neither male nor female, and Who has both male and female attributes. The church cannot fully display the image of God when half His image is barred from setting the vision and course of the body. 1 Corinthians 11:7 has been used to suggest that women do not bear the image of God. Comparing scripture to scripture, we see that this interpretation must be wrong, or this verse would stand alone as an island.
Presbuteras: 1 Cor 11:1-16 - Veiling the Daughters of God
The great headcovering passage stands alone in scripture. There is no other passage that suggests that women should be veiled before God, so the interpretation of this passage must be rock solid for the practice to stand. It is another island in scripture. Actually, the traditional interpretation falls apart very quickly. Paul is here attempting both to end the practice of male head covering, as shameful before the Lord Who bought them, and to barely permit women to veil if not doing so would shame their husbands.
Presubuteras: Silencing the Daughters of God - 1 Cor 14:34 & 35
Paul does not tell women to be silent in the churches of God. Jewish legalists wrote a letter to Paul, asking him to confirm a number of their cherished traditions. Paul here quotes from that letter, as he solidly tells the Jewish crowd that the word of God did not come from them, and it will not be silenced. Women are not to be silenced during the meetings of the church.
The Familyhood Church: Presbuteras: Passing Over the Daughters of God
Paul's letters to Titus and Timothy describe the character of elders and deacons. Women are not directly mentioned in these descriptions. Does this mean that women cannot hold these positions? No. Phoebe is proof enough that women can be everything that these passages allow.
Presbuteras: Phebe - "Deacon?" - Demoting the Daughters of God - Rom 16:1&2
Phoebe's role as a true and meaningful deacon defended in detail.
Presbuteras: Subjecting the Daughters of the Lord - 1 Tim 2:11-15
Paul forbids women to take authority, but does he forbid all women to take any authority, or some women to take some authority. In light of the rest of scripture, and of Paul's comfort level working with women, it is hard to imagine that he prohibits all women from taking any leadership here. The work of Dr. Ann Nyland bears this hypothesis out from the Greek. Paul is specifically and directly confronting an Ephesian variation of gnosticism.
Presbuteras: The Early Church?
Is the tenor of the scripture as a whole really set against women taking authority? No. There are numerous examples of women in positions of authority in the church. This post contains links to 3 other posts that give copious details.
Presbuteras: Following the Daughters of God - Gen 21:12
What will it look like if women are not given the authority scripture allows to them?
Complementarianism needs to change to deal with the present and real effects that the recent cultural changes have had on women. It is not enough just to throw out proof texts, and let women figure out how to fit into their mould. Women will force themselves into that mould, but it is wrong to ask them to do so.
And what if they are given true, spiritual authority?
A number things will change, though the changes may not be dramatic from the first day.
---
The scripture calls us to discover whole truth about God, and we need our sisters to step up to this last plate before we can answer that call. Here's praying that it happens soon.
Kevin
03 September, 2006
Presbuteras: Following the Daughters of God - Gen 21:12
Gen 21:12 ... in all that Sarah hath said unto thee, hearken unto her voice; for in Isaac shall thy seed be called.
Abraham was about to make a mistake, when God told him to listen to his wife.
Why would God do that?
It's simple, really. Sarah was right, and Abraham was wrong.
Care to guess why I desire to submit to women in the church?
I know a 75 year old woman who knows the scripture and who knows pain. She's right and the men she follows are wrong a predictable portion of the time. She should be leading in that body. If she were, it would be a different and better place.
---
I was thinking about practical rules to put in place to move women into leadership in our churches.
First, turning the church entirely over to women is never what I wanted, so don't sweat that. It's not practical, and not profitable. Neither is making a rule that it is OK for women to lead, and waiting until the Spirit brings along Paulette the Apostlette. If a church waits for a woman so impressive that nobody could gainsay her appointment, no progress will be made.
I came up with the number, 20%.
20% seemed eminently practical. One in every five is enough to sway a vote, and few enough to allow women to mature into the position.
Then 2 details came to light that made me grin. First, DugALug let us know that 20% of the leadership in his church is female. Second, 20% of all legislators in America are female. I have not done an analysis of the names and roles mentioned in the new testament, but I'd just about bet that there's about a 1 to 4 ratio of women to men there, too.
So 20% really does seem like a good number. I think it's a great place to start. The next step is simple.
If your church has 4 elders, you should immediately appoint your most qualified woman to be the 5th elder.
---
Now, assume your church does the opposite. Your church decides that women's roles are limited by scripture.
What do I think will happen?
* Your explanation is going to have to get a lot better
You can tell a child that the "music truck" drives through his neighborhood every afternoon so that people can enjoy its (tired, boring, old) songs. That will last until the child notices his friends getting ice cream from it, and then things are going to have to change. You don't have to buy the ice cream, but you know you're going to have to come up with a real answer to his tough questions.
Today, I am prevented from being in a church led by my elder sister, my mother in the Lord, and I know that I could be. I've seen the ice cream in the workplace, and I've seen it in government, and I've seen it in my recreations. I want to see this woman leading in the church. I know she could be setting an agenda that would warm my heart, but she is prevented. She has no husband, and she has no other man's ear, so she will never have any kind of voice in her church. I want my ice cream. I need a better explanation why I cannot serve under her.
Throwing 1 Tim 2 and 1 Cor 11 & 14 at me and expecting me to stand down won't work, either. Even if I thought there was merit to the traditional interpretation, that's not an explanation. That's laziness. I need to hear how this church plans to ensure gender-based abuse will stop. I need to hear how they expect the full masculine and feminine sides of the image of God to be displayed before the world without direct feminine input. I need to hear how women with the gift of teaching will be encouraged to live out their calling. I need to hear how women with a vision for the church will be heard. I need to hear how, when the time comes that Sarah has a truth that Abraham lacks, Sarah will be heard.
If you want me to be happy in your church, build me a picture that I can get excited about.
No, I don't believe that you can.
* Women will continue to support your church
Women, please forgive me for what I am about to say. I know it is unpleasant, but I believe it is true.
You may not have noticed, but the most passionate defenders of complementarianism are women. You may also not have noticed, but most of the passionate defenders of the burka are the women who wear it. It's like Stockholm Syndrome, and it is a painful thing to watch.
Women, being dynamic living beings just like all of us, want to share in every facet of the church. They are told from the time they are 6 years old, though, that it is rebellion to want to speak truth to men. This is unnatural. It is confusing and painful.
Men, truly take a minute to imagine that you read in scripture that people with eyes the color of yours are not allowed to speak in a bible study - ever. Really, think about it. Eye color. It's a flawed, but useful analogy because it is completely out of your control. Imagine that Jewish men have thanked God for millenia that they were born with ANY other eye color than yours. From the time you were six, every bible teaching you received about speaking the truth had a little parenthesis added to it about your eye color. Before you were 20, you had been told 500 times or more that your eye color just doesn't see some truths of God, so you must submit to everyone else. You live in a community that will never, ever let you forget that you are different. Even in marriage, your sole job is to make sure your "other-colored" mate is able to do those things for God that you cannot.
You have a choice. Will you or won't you give up your desire to speak? Catch that. You must give up the desire to share God's truth. Anything less is a rebellion of the heart. You want to serve the Lord, but you mustn't do it by teaching. You want to talk about Him, even as you're sweeping floors for Him. You'll gladly be a janitor, but can't you just say a word or two? Can't you declare before the congregation the things that fill your heart?
You have a choice. You can either live with this secret rebellion in your heart, or you can turn fanatically against it. You love the Lord, so you will decide to purge yourself of this unholy desire to speak when your eyes are the wrong color. You will prove your zeal to yourself, to God and to your brothers by not even wishing your eye color was different, and squelching any who do. Your submission will be known to all when you argue against anyone who supports the holy hunger that still cowers in in the corner of your heart.
Women will support your church and its laws.
Shame on you for letting them.
---
Assume your church does put women in positions of true leadership.
What do I think will happen?
* The sun will rise in the morning, just like yesterday.
Hey. I know this isn't going to cure the common cold. It's likely to result in more chicken soup being handed out when the cold runs it course through the church, though. Let's face it. We men pretty much look at whoever is sniffling and tell them to buck up. But we all like it when someone we love brings us a cup o' soup.
Our problems won't go away because women are allowed to tackle them with us. We'll just have a more perfectly balanced set of tools with which to address them.
* The henpecking will go down by half.
Seriously, do we think it could be made worse? Do you complain more when you can or when you cannot directly improve your situation? Receiving authority always reduces complaints, or the whole of corporate America would not be singing the praises of empowerment. When you can control your own destiny, you don't complain; you throw your back into making things better. Much of the nagging in this world is an expression of helplessness, not bitterness. As soon as the disease is addressed, the symptom will fade on its own.
* Priorities will shift by about 20%, but that 20% will make a huge difference.
Women "do" life differently than men.
Take the example above with Sarah and Abraham. Women are criticized for being territorial, but Sarah was being territorial in that moment. That's cool because God needed someone to stand up and be territorial. Abraham was not going to be able to do it, so God placed Abraham into submission to Sarah. (OK, OK. Maybe God placed Abraham into submission to the truth that Sarah was declaring. :-)
Men and women cave on different issues, and stand firm on different issues. Women are caring and territorial. Men are goal oriented and hierarchical. Some men are more naturally caring than others, and some women are more naturally hierarchical. That's cool. The point is not to define the stereotype perfectly, but to get the benefits of balance. Yes, all men should learn to be more caring, and all women should learn to... well something, I'm sure. ;-), but that's peripheral. The point is to balance the church, and the balance will best come by putting women on the scales along with the men. Asking men to change their spots just ain't a recipe for success.
I don't even want to know what happens if women are running everything. I'm sure it would not be pretty. But, we already know what happens when men run everything. We get exactly what the male stereotype predicts. We get thousands of denominations, and the threat of another church split with every disagreement. We get doctrinal litmus tests, and a pecking order of theological machismo in every church. We get a church in which cool programs are launched to help widows and orphans and then forgotten as soon as the next goal shines just over the horizon.
* More needs will be seen
Women are amazed at how we men don't care about the needs all around us. But, that's exactly why we need women in leadership.
Us male creatures care deeply, once somebody helps us see what what to care for. Our eyes are on goals. The church is not praying. We are not deeply enough into the word. There are 34,827 people in our sub metro area, of whom 16,289 are probably unchurched and 853 may never have heard the gospel. You say Mary's roof is leaking? Wow! Why hasn't someone done something about that?! Let me get on the phone! We'll have Mary a new roof this week.
We may carry coffee around just like women, but we don't talk about the same things while we are doing it.
* Third party church leadership will end
The solution to unseen needs is not for women to, "tell their husbands."
Third party leadership is demeaning to everyone involved, and it is vastly less effective than first party leadership. Please, just let the woman who sees the problem have the power to call in every necessary resource to fix it. There is no good argument against this.
---
The status quo is gone. Grasping at the traditional interpretations is clinging to the railings of a sinking ship.
Our sisters have already tasted total freedom in every sphere of life, except the church, and that taste cannot be taken back. If you believe feminine freedom to be the curse of Pandora, and that it must be fixed, then do it wisely. It is the work of fools to try to turn back the hands of time, and to make believe that women cannot lead men. It is the work of slave masters to quote a verse, and to expect quiet obedience. It is the work of the kingdom to set captives free.
If you believe you can do this, and if you do cling to the traditional interpretation of Paul, then tell me how you will set my sisters free. If you believe you can draw out every gift God gave to women. If you believe you can stop the history of abuse that women have suffered under the church's care. If you believe you can find a way for my 75 year old mother in the Lord to be truly fulfilled and obedient to the scriptures while hiding truth she has received out of them under a bushel basket, then paint that picture.
I believe you will find your labors wasted. Paul is the only writer ever accused of saying anything against women being in charge, and he never said what you ascribe to him. An open look at each of Paul's statements shows that in every case he sets women free. We don't appeal weakly to culture, or to times having changed to sweep Paul's words under a rug. Paul worked easily and happily with women, and he wanted to see them trained and respected as leaders. His words to Corinth and Timothy show that clearly enough.
Instead, let's take a brave look at what it means for women to to be presbuteras - elders. Let's see how far the church can go when everyone in the ship has their oars in the water, and is rowing for all they're worth and according to the gifts God has given them. It may be that there are ways of loving God, loving each other, and overcoming the world that remain to be displayed before men and angels. Let's go through the door Paul threw open.
If you wonder how to make the church more effective, you could do worse than to remember the Lord said, "It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him a helper fit for him."
We need each other.
Abraham was about to make a mistake, when God told him to listen to his wife.
Why would God do that?
It's simple, really. Sarah was right, and Abraham was wrong.
Care to guess why I desire to submit to women in the church?
I know a 75 year old woman who knows the scripture and who knows pain. She's right and the men she follows are wrong a predictable portion of the time. She should be leading in that body. If she were, it would be a different and better place.
---
I was thinking about practical rules to put in place to move women into leadership in our churches.
First, turning the church entirely over to women is never what I wanted, so don't sweat that. It's not practical, and not profitable. Neither is making a rule that it is OK for women to lead, and waiting until the Spirit brings along Paulette the Apostlette. If a church waits for a woman so impressive that nobody could gainsay her appointment, no progress will be made.
I came up with the number, 20%.
20% seemed eminently practical. One in every five is enough to sway a vote, and few enough to allow women to mature into the position.
Then 2 details came to light that made me grin. First, DugALug let us know that 20% of the leadership in his church is female. Second, 20% of all legislators in America are female. I have not done an analysis of the names and roles mentioned in the new testament, but I'd just about bet that there's about a 1 to 4 ratio of women to men there, too.
So 20% really does seem like a good number. I think it's a great place to start. The next step is simple.
If your church has 4 elders, you should immediately appoint your most qualified woman to be the 5th elder.
---
Now, assume your church does the opposite. Your church decides that women's roles are limited by scripture.
What do I think will happen?
* Your explanation is going to have to get a lot better
You can tell a child that the "music truck" drives through his neighborhood every afternoon so that people can enjoy its (tired, boring, old) songs. That will last until the child notices his friends getting ice cream from it, and then things are going to have to change. You don't have to buy the ice cream, but you know you're going to have to come up with a real answer to his tough questions.
Today, I am prevented from being in a church led by my elder sister, my mother in the Lord, and I know that I could be. I've seen the ice cream in the workplace, and I've seen it in government, and I've seen it in my recreations. I want to see this woman leading in the church. I know she could be setting an agenda that would warm my heart, but she is prevented. She has no husband, and she has no other man's ear, so she will never have any kind of voice in her church. I want my ice cream. I need a better explanation why I cannot serve under her.
Throwing 1 Tim 2 and 1 Cor 11 & 14 at me and expecting me to stand down won't work, either. Even if I thought there was merit to the traditional interpretation, that's not an explanation. That's laziness. I need to hear how this church plans to ensure gender-based abuse will stop. I need to hear how they expect the full masculine and feminine sides of the image of God to be displayed before the world without direct feminine input. I need to hear how women with the gift of teaching will be encouraged to live out their calling. I need to hear how women with a vision for the church will be heard. I need to hear how, when the time comes that Sarah has a truth that Abraham lacks, Sarah will be heard.
If you want me to be happy in your church, build me a picture that I can get excited about.
No, I don't believe that you can.
* Women will continue to support your church
Women, please forgive me for what I am about to say. I know it is unpleasant, but I believe it is true.
You may not have noticed, but the most passionate defenders of complementarianism are women. You may also not have noticed, but most of the passionate defenders of the burka are the women who wear it. It's like Stockholm Syndrome, and it is a painful thing to watch.
Women, being dynamic living beings just like all of us, want to share in every facet of the church. They are told from the time they are 6 years old, though, that it is rebellion to want to speak truth to men. This is unnatural. It is confusing and painful.
Men, truly take a minute to imagine that you read in scripture that people with eyes the color of yours are not allowed to speak in a bible study - ever. Really, think about it. Eye color. It's a flawed, but useful analogy because it is completely out of your control. Imagine that Jewish men have thanked God for millenia that they were born with ANY other eye color than yours. From the time you were six, every bible teaching you received about speaking the truth had a little parenthesis added to it about your eye color. Before you were 20, you had been told 500 times or more that your eye color just doesn't see some truths of God, so you must submit to everyone else. You live in a community that will never, ever let you forget that you are different. Even in marriage, your sole job is to make sure your "other-colored" mate is able to do those things for God that you cannot.
You have a choice. Will you or won't you give up your desire to speak? Catch that. You must give up the desire to share God's truth. Anything less is a rebellion of the heart. You want to serve the Lord, but you mustn't do it by teaching. You want to talk about Him, even as you're sweeping floors for Him. You'll gladly be a janitor, but can't you just say a word or two? Can't you declare before the congregation the things that fill your heart?
You have a choice. You can either live with this secret rebellion in your heart, or you can turn fanatically against it. You love the Lord, so you will decide to purge yourself of this unholy desire to speak when your eyes are the wrong color. You will prove your zeal to yourself, to God and to your brothers by not even wishing your eye color was different, and squelching any who do. Your submission will be known to all when you argue against anyone who supports the holy hunger that still cowers in in the corner of your heart.
Women will support your church and its laws.
Shame on you for letting them.
---
Assume your church does put women in positions of true leadership.
What do I think will happen?
* The sun will rise in the morning, just like yesterday.
Hey. I know this isn't going to cure the common cold. It's likely to result in more chicken soup being handed out when the cold runs it course through the church, though. Let's face it. We men pretty much look at whoever is sniffling and tell them to buck up. But we all like it when someone we love brings us a cup o' soup.
Our problems won't go away because women are allowed to tackle them with us. We'll just have a more perfectly balanced set of tools with which to address them.
* The henpecking will go down by half.
Seriously, do we think it could be made worse? Do you complain more when you can or when you cannot directly improve your situation? Receiving authority always reduces complaints, or the whole of corporate America would not be singing the praises of empowerment. When you can control your own destiny, you don't complain; you throw your back into making things better. Much of the nagging in this world is an expression of helplessness, not bitterness. As soon as the disease is addressed, the symptom will fade on its own.
* Priorities will shift by about 20%, but that 20% will make a huge difference.
Women "do" life differently than men.
Take the example above with Sarah and Abraham. Women are criticized for being territorial, but Sarah was being territorial in that moment. That's cool because God needed someone to stand up and be territorial. Abraham was not going to be able to do it, so God placed Abraham into submission to Sarah. (OK, OK. Maybe God placed Abraham into submission to the truth that Sarah was declaring. :-)
Men and women cave on different issues, and stand firm on different issues. Women are caring and territorial. Men are goal oriented and hierarchical. Some men are more naturally caring than others, and some women are more naturally hierarchical. That's cool. The point is not to define the stereotype perfectly, but to get the benefits of balance. Yes, all men should learn to be more caring, and all women should learn to... well something, I'm sure. ;-), but that's peripheral. The point is to balance the church, and the balance will best come by putting women on the scales along with the men. Asking men to change their spots just ain't a recipe for success.
I don't even want to know what happens if women are running everything. I'm sure it would not be pretty. But, we already know what happens when men run everything. We get exactly what the male stereotype predicts. We get thousands of denominations, and the threat of another church split with every disagreement. We get doctrinal litmus tests, and a pecking order of theological machismo in every church. We get a church in which cool programs are launched to help widows and orphans and then forgotten as soon as the next goal shines just over the horizon.
* More needs will be seen
Women are amazed at how we men don't care about the needs all around us. But, that's exactly why we need women in leadership.
Us male creatures care deeply, once somebody helps us see what what to care for. Our eyes are on goals. The church is not praying. We are not deeply enough into the word. There are 34,827 people in our sub metro area, of whom 16,289 are probably unchurched and 853 may never have heard the gospel. You say Mary's roof is leaking? Wow! Why hasn't someone done something about that?! Let me get on the phone! We'll have Mary a new roof this week.
We may carry coffee around just like women, but we don't talk about the same things while we are doing it.
* Third party church leadership will end
The solution to unseen needs is not for women to, "tell their husbands."
Third party leadership is demeaning to everyone involved, and it is vastly less effective than first party leadership. Please, just let the woman who sees the problem have the power to call in every necessary resource to fix it. There is no good argument against this.
---
The status quo is gone. Grasping at the traditional interpretations is clinging to the railings of a sinking ship.
Our sisters have already tasted total freedom in every sphere of life, except the church, and that taste cannot be taken back. If you believe feminine freedom to be the curse of Pandora, and that it must be fixed, then do it wisely. It is the work of fools to try to turn back the hands of time, and to make believe that women cannot lead men. It is the work of slave masters to quote a verse, and to expect quiet obedience. It is the work of the kingdom to set captives free.
If you believe you can do this, and if you do cling to the traditional interpretation of Paul, then tell me how you will set my sisters free. If you believe you can draw out every gift God gave to women. If you believe you can stop the history of abuse that women have suffered under the church's care. If you believe you can find a way for my 75 year old mother in the Lord to be truly fulfilled and obedient to the scriptures while hiding truth she has received out of them under a bushel basket, then paint that picture.
I believe you will find your labors wasted. Paul is the only writer ever accused of saying anything against women being in charge, and he never said what you ascribe to him. An open look at each of Paul's statements shows that in every case he sets women free. We don't appeal weakly to culture, or to times having changed to sweep Paul's words under a rug. Paul worked easily and happily with women, and he wanted to see them trained and respected as leaders. His words to Corinth and Timothy show that clearly enough.
Instead, let's take a brave look at what it means for women to to be presbuteras - elders. Let's see how far the church can go when everyone in the ship has their oars in the water, and is rowing for all they're worth and according to the gifts God has given them. It may be that there are ways of loving God, loving each other, and overcoming the world that remain to be displayed before men and angels. Let's go through the door Paul threw open.
If you wonder how to make the church more effective, you could do worse than to remember the Lord said, "It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him a helper fit for him."
We need each other.
29 August, 2006
Presbuteras: The Early Church?
Do me a favor before you read this post, and count the number of "F" 's in this sentence.
FINISHED FILES ARE THE RE
SULT OF YEARS OF SCIENTI
FIC STUDY COMBINED WITH
THE EXPERIENCE OF YEARS...
Now, it is going to come as no surprise to you if the number you come up with, and the number a computer would come up with are different. The difference is conditioning. We see what we are conditioned to see.
If you saw three of our letters in that sentence, you are a perfectly normal person. Four is rare, and seeing six qualifies you as a genius.
The tenor of the scripture is often brought into this discussion. The problem there is that the tenor of the scripture is a function of our conditioning much more than of the scripture itself. We all come to the bible with glasses on. What you make of this verse probably has more to do with your glasses than with the verse itself. But, if you see three or more female elders and deacons in the following verses, you are a genius. :-)
Philippians
4:2 I beseech Euodias, and beseech Syntyche, that they be of the same mind in the Lord.
4:3 And I intreat thee also, true yokefellow, help those women which laboured with me in the gospel, with Clement also, and with other my fellowlabourers, whose names are in the book of life.
I once saw this verse through male-colored glasses. Paul had a male yokefellow, Clement, and some other fellow laborers. He also had respect for some especially helpful women. Paul's yokefellow was supposed to help the women and the other coworkers. The women needed help because they were the weaker sex, and the men needed help because they were doing important work.
Today, my glasses are of a different color. I see that those women labored with Paul in the gospel. They were doing important work, and needed help because of the importance of their work.
So, did my glasses change well?
I believe so with all my heart.
Did changing my glasses change the truth?
No.
Those women did whatever it was they did, and Paul doesn't tell us what it was. We are left to ruminate and pontificate on the matter. Still, there is a lot of material with which to form our opinions. Karen listed a bunch of them in a previous comment, I previously linked a post from God's Word to Women that lists a bunch of them, and back in February I did a post that listed them all over again.
I read those verses with glasses on before, and I still do. I know that. I've just changed the color. I changed them because the scripture pushed me back into a corner. I was one of those fellows who was mad at Bobby Riggs for tanking every man's rep by losing to a girl at what was clearly a man's game. I wrote posters and otherwise campaigned against the ERA. Chauvinism was clearly God ordained, when exercised with the same loving care that Christ had for His bride. I was a loving, Christian, giving chauvinist, and I was proud of it.
Then the edifice of scripture started coming down around me.
After finding that Paul in Corinthians probably did not say what I thought he said, in Titus probably did not say everything I thought he said, and in Timothy said vastly less than I thought he said, my world started to spin a little more slowly. When I searched out Apphia, Junia, Tryphena, and all the other women whose necks and lives were found at risk for their their work with Paul, they began to look different. These were women of stature and substance. With my newly colored glasses, there was nothing to prevent these women from being of equal stature with Clement or Archippus (and slightly above Apollos ;-).
The tenor of scripture is that fewer women are leaders than men, but that they are effective when God calls them. DugALug has defended this position ably, and I agree with him. It appears that our only difference is that I believe women should be elders, and not just peripheral leaders.
In my next, and probably last post in this series, I will talk about why. For a preview, see this from the Milly Times!
FINISHED FILES ARE THE RE
SULT OF YEARS OF SCIENTI
FIC STUDY COMBINED WITH
THE EXPERIENCE OF YEARS...
Now, it is going to come as no surprise to you if the number you come up with, and the number a computer would come up with are different. The difference is conditioning. We see what we are conditioned to see.
If you saw three of our letters in that sentence, you are a perfectly normal person. Four is rare, and seeing six qualifies you as a genius.
The tenor of the scripture is often brought into this discussion. The problem there is that the tenor of the scripture is a function of our conditioning much more than of the scripture itself. We all come to the bible with glasses on. What you make of this verse probably has more to do with your glasses than with the verse itself. But, if you see three or more female elders and deacons in the following verses, you are a genius. :-)
Philippians
4:2 I beseech Euodias, and beseech Syntyche, that they be of the same mind in the Lord.
4:3 And I intreat thee also, true yokefellow, help those women which laboured with me in the gospel, with Clement also, and with other my fellowlabourers, whose names are in the book of life.
I once saw this verse through male-colored glasses. Paul had a male yokefellow, Clement, and some other fellow laborers. He also had respect for some especially helpful women. Paul's yokefellow was supposed to help the women and the other coworkers. The women needed help because they were the weaker sex, and the men needed help because they were doing important work.
Today, my glasses are of a different color. I see that those women labored with Paul in the gospel. They were doing important work, and needed help because of the importance of their work.
So, did my glasses change well?
I believe so with all my heart.
Did changing my glasses change the truth?
No.
Those women did whatever it was they did, and Paul doesn't tell us what it was. We are left to ruminate and pontificate on the matter. Still, there is a lot of material with which to form our opinions. Karen listed a bunch of them in a previous comment, I previously linked a post from God's Word to Women that lists a bunch of them, and back in February I did a post that listed them all over again.
I read those verses with glasses on before, and I still do. I know that. I've just changed the color. I changed them because the scripture pushed me back into a corner. I was one of those fellows who was mad at Bobby Riggs for tanking every man's rep by losing to a girl at what was clearly a man's game. I wrote posters and otherwise campaigned against the ERA. Chauvinism was clearly God ordained, when exercised with the same loving care that Christ had for His bride. I was a loving, Christian, giving chauvinist, and I was proud of it.
Then the edifice of scripture started coming down around me.
After finding that Paul in Corinthians probably did not say what I thought he said, in Titus probably did not say everything I thought he said, and in Timothy said vastly less than I thought he said, my world started to spin a little more slowly. When I searched out Apphia, Junia, Tryphena, and all the other women whose necks and lives were found at risk for their their work with Paul, they began to look different. These were women of stature and substance. With my newly colored glasses, there was nothing to prevent these women from being of equal stature with Clement or Archippus (and slightly above Apollos ;-).
The tenor of scripture is that fewer women are leaders than men, but that they are effective when God calls them. DugALug has defended this position ably, and I agree with him. It appears that our only difference is that I believe women should be elders, and not just peripheral leaders.
In my next, and probably last post in this series, I will talk about why. For a preview, see this from the Milly Times!
23 August, 2006
Presbuteras: Subjecting the Daughters of the Lord - 1 Tim 2:11-15
Finally, it's time to throw caution to the wind, and jump into the core passage of this discussion. I had considered knocking down a few more of the supports under it, but I have probably tried everyone's patience enough as is.
1 Tim 2:11 & 12 is the rock against which everyone shipwrecks in this discussion. We egalitarians cannot tiptoe around it, and complementarians won't step off it. If it is taken at face value, then everything else I have said in this series is whistling through the graveyard. This passage means something, and whatever that is should decide how women serve God through the church.
For this interpretation of 1 Tim 2 I am entirely in the debt of:
Richard Clark Kroeger and Catherine Clark Kroeger, "Rethinking 1 Timothy 2:11-15 in Light of Ancient Evidence: I Suffer Not a Woman."
and
Dr. Ann Nyland, "The Source" New Testament, especially "1 Timothy with Notes."
Any time you spend reading these two sources will be highly valuable. Dr. Nyland's gritty interpretation of Paul is truly eye-opening.
1 Timothy 2 (KJV)
2:11
Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection.
2:12
But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence.
Paul never meant that women can only serve the church by learning in silence, and we have gravely erred in subjecting our sisters to this misapprehension for millenia. It is time to break the chains of this fiction.
In this letter Paul is coaching Timothy through solving several particularly knotty problems in Ephesus. One of them has to do with a contingent of lazy philosophers and a few rich women recently converted from the synagogue. These philosophers have discovered that there is a good living to be sucked up in mooching off these powerful, rich, recently converted women. These men earned their bread by preaching downtown for alms, but they found out after they converted to Christianity that these women would support them totally. They don't need to go out and beat the bushes looking for new prospects for their ideas. To fill their bellies, they need only set up shop in these ladies' homes and blend all the wisdom of the age for them.
These philosophers joined the church, but failed to meet the Lord. They succeeded in learning the doctrine and lingo of the Christians around them, but not in meeting the Master. These women are used to having the lead in religious life, and have naturally begun to take charge of things in Ephesus. Unfortunately, they have succumbed to these philosophical flatterers (2 Tim 3:6), and are mingling gnosticism into their Christianity.
Let's start with the "verse by verse" this time.
1 Timothy
2:9
In like manner also, that women adorn themselves in modest apparel, with shamefacedness and sobriety; not with broided hair, or gold, or pearls, or costly array;
In the churches, there was a tradition of addressing each other only by first name. Family names said too much about station in life, so they simply quit using them. Even so, to flaunt your position over everyone else in the church by apparel was wrong.
I drift from the standard interpretation in that most people consider this to be a verse about sexual display, where I consider it to be about the display of power and wealth. The words "modest," "shamefacedness," and "sobriety" all admit of my meaning, but the translators seem to have been focused on women as sexual objects. The preceeding and following verses address politics far more directly than carnality.
2:10
But * (which becometh women professing godliness) with good works.
Again, good works of love excel over displays of power and position. Dr. Nyland, however, adds a deeply significant interpretation of the parenthetical phrase. By it, she turns this verse on its ear.
The word for "godliness" is actually directly translated, "God-fearer." This was a bit of jargon for a person who was a practicing Jew, but not circumcised. That understood, the word, "professing," easily takes the meaning of "instructing." Paul says here that it becomes a woman who is teaching the God-fearers to adorn herself with good works. Dr. Nyland at this point documents several women who are historically identified as elders and teachers in the synagogue, thereby establishing that women could indeed have been teachers of the God-fearers.
These are our rich Jewish women, who were used to taking the lead in religious matters. As Jews, they had been teachers. Now they were Christians, and trying to get back into the driver's seat as quickly as possible.
2:11
Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection.
These women should not be teaching. They should be learning. They were teachers of the law (as Paul references in 1 Tim 1), but all their old knowledge is just vain jangling in the church. By their ignorance, they were causing a fuss, and that needed to end.
The word, "silence," here is not a verbal silence, but a practical one. It is used in Acts and Thessalonians, and in both cases it means to quit making a fuss. So these women were to quit being a disturbing issue in Ephesus. They were to learn without disturbing the lessons with their ignorance, and as we quickly learn, with their errors.
2:12
But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence.
Richard and Catherine Clark Kroeger have reworked this passage based upon their understanding of the word, "authentein," which is translated here, "authority." The core of their findings from ancient texts is that authentein (which appears only once in the bible) was a word co-opted by a local fertility cult. Dr. Nyland pursues the same conclusion, finding something even more amazing.
Dr. Nyland has Paul suffering not a woman to say she is before the man. She quotes one of several gnostic creation myths that has Eve breathing the breath of life into Adam, and therefore becoming the mother of all the living. Eve, they see as the source of all secret knowledge. She was the one who broke open the veil of mystery by taking of the fruit of knowledge. She was Vulcan who brought fire to God's creatures. Eve was their source of gnosis.
Paul says that he suffers not these Jewish women, mislead as they have been by their philosopher buddies, to teach that they are superior to men.
2:13
For Adam was first formed, then Eve.
Paul corrects the first error of this gnostic myth by a simple reminder from Genesis.
2:14
And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression.
Paul goes further in correcting this error. Far from doing the wisest, bravest thing ever for mankind, Eve blundered when she took in that fruit. The word translated here as transgression is actually a weaker Greek word for sinful blunder. The word for direct, rebellious sin is much stronger, and is used much more often.
Eve did not bravely risk death by choosing knowledge over subservience, as the gnostics taught. Eve made a childish mistake. She sinned stupidly.
2:15
Notwithstanding she shall be saved in childbearing, if they continue in faith and charity and holiness with sobriety.
Some believe that the childbearing referenced here is that of a Christian woman giving birth to hers and her husband's children. That is a very unlikely and weak understanding of this verse. Paul is still refering to the promise of Genesis, that the Seed of the woman would crush the serpent. This is in keeping with the entire argument. Eve was no hero for taking the fruit of knowledge, but Eve's gender can rejoice in being the bearer of the Redeemer. Contrary to gnostic fantasies, women and men are together in everything, including their dependence upon Christ for every blessing.
The entire argument goes like this.
Timothy, those rich women are causing a ridiculous fuss and stir because of their pride. They should quit with the ostentatious display of wealth, and begin acting the part of teachers, if that's what they think they are. But before they teach, they must first learn. They are asserting foolish things, and I cannot allow you to allow them to do this. Woman is not the source of all wisdom, and woman did not precede man in creation. Go back and read Genesis to them, and teach them that the birth of the Messiah is the only thing that matters. Let them rejoice in Him.
The follow-on to the argument is that women and men should both desire the office of elder.
1 Tim 3:1
This is a true saying, If a man desire the office of a bishop, he desireth a good work.
The word translated "man" here is not gender specific. To a Greek, it would have read, "If anyone desires..."
Let the sisters be trained, and let them learn the truth, then let them desire the office of elder.
Again, I wish to point out that I am taking Paul quite literally. Paul says that he suffers not a woman to teach, and I believe him. I just believe that Paul knew exactly which women it was that he was not allowing to teach and why. I even believe that he tells us.
Now, about those millions of other women who are alive today, and have a storehouse of treasure to offer the body....
---
It is late now, and I will be gone Thursday through most of Saturday, so I am going to leave off addressing counter-arguments to this scenario. I'm sure they will arise, and I'm sure they will be worthy, so I will try to comment as much as possible until I leave, then address the biggest one(s) when I return.
Thank you to all for your patience with my plodding pace on this. You have certainly made it a joy for me to keep after it.
1 Tim 2:11 & 12 is the rock against which everyone shipwrecks in this discussion. We egalitarians cannot tiptoe around it, and complementarians won't step off it. If it is taken at face value, then everything else I have said in this series is whistling through the graveyard. This passage means something, and whatever that is should decide how women serve God through the church.
For this interpretation of 1 Tim 2 I am entirely in the debt of:
Richard Clark Kroeger and Catherine Clark Kroeger, "Rethinking 1 Timothy 2:11-15 in Light of Ancient Evidence: I Suffer Not a Woman."
and
Dr. Ann Nyland, "The Source" New Testament, especially "1 Timothy with Notes."
Any time you spend reading these two sources will be highly valuable. Dr. Nyland's gritty interpretation of Paul is truly eye-opening.
1 Timothy 2 (KJV)
2:11
Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection.
2:12
But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence.
Paul never meant that women can only serve the church by learning in silence, and we have gravely erred in subjecting our sisters to this misapprehension for millenia. It is time to break the chains of this fiction.
In this letter Paul is coaching Timothy through solving several particularly knotty problems in Ephesus. One of them has to do with a contingent of lazy philosophers and a few rich women recently converted from the synagogue. These philosophers have discovered that there is a good living to be sucked up in mooching off these powerful, rich, recently converted women. These men earned their bread by preaching downtown for alms, but they found out after they converted to Christianity that these women would support them totally. They don't need to go out and beat the bushes looking for new prospects for their ideas. To fill their bellies, they need only set up shop in these ladies' homes and blend all the wisdom of the age for them.
These philosophers joined the church, but failed to meet the Lord. They succeeded in learning the doctrine and lingo of the Christians around them, but not in meeting the Master. These women are used to having the lead in religious life, and have naturally begun to take charge of things in Ephesus. Unfortunately, they have succumbed to these philosophical flatterers (2 Tim 3:6), and are mingling gnosticism into their Christianity.
Let's start with the "verse by verse" this time.
1 Timothy
2:9
In like manner also, that women adorn themselves in modest apparel, with shamefacedness and sobriety; not with broided hair, or gold, or pearls, or costly array;
In the churches, there was a tradition of addressing each other only by first name. Family names said too much about station in life, so they simply quit using them. Even so, to flaunt your position over everyone else in the church by apparel was wrong.
I drift from the standard interpretation in that most people consider this to be a verse about sexual display, where I consider it to be about the display of power and wealth. The words "modest," "shamefacedness," and "sobriety" all admit of my meaning, but the translators seem to have been focused on women as sexual objects. The preceeding and following verses address politics far more directly than carnality.
2:10
But * (which becometh women professing godliness) with good works.
Again, good works of love excel over displays of power and position. Dr. Nyland, however, adds a deeply significant interpretation of the parenthetical phrase. By it, she turns this verse on its ear.
The word for "godliness" is actually directly translated, "God-fearer." This was a bit of jargon for a person who was a practicing Jew, but not circumcised. That understood, the word, "professing," easily takes the meaning of "instructing." Paul says here that it becomes a woman who is teaching the God-fearers to adorn herself with good works. Dr. Nyland at this point documents several women who are historically identified as elders and teachers in the synagogue, thereby establishing that women could indeed have been teachers of the God-fearers.
These are our rich Jewish women, who were used to taking the lead in religious matters. As Jews, they had been teachers. Now they were Christians, and trying to get back into the driver's seat as quickly as possible.
2:11
Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection.
These women should not be teaching. They should be learning. They were teachers of the law (as Paul references in 1 Tim 1), but all their old knowledge is just vain jangling in the church. By their ignorance, they were causing a fuss, and that needed to end.
The word, "silence," here is not a verbal silence, but a practical one. It is used in Acts and Thessalonians, and in both cases it means to quit making a fuss. So these women were to quit being a disturbing issue in Ephesus. They were to learn without disturbing the lessons with their ignorance, and as we quickly learn, with their errors.
2:12
But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence.
Richard and Catherine Clark Kroeger have reworked this passage based upon their understanding of the word, "authentein," which is translated here, "authority." The core of their findings from ancient texts is that authentein (which appears only once in the bible) was a word co-opted by a local fertility cult. Dr. Nyland pursues the same conclusion, finding something even more amazing.
Dr. Nyland has Paul suffering not a woman to say she is before the man. She quotes one of several gnostic creation myths that has Eve breathing the breath of life into Adam, and therefore becoming the mother of all the living. Eve, they see as the source of all secret knowledge. She was the one who broke open the veil of mystery by taking of the fruit of knowledge. She was Vulcan who brought fire to God's creatures. Eve was their source of gnosis.
Paul says that he suffers not these Jewish women, mislead as they have been by their philosopher buddies, to teach that they are superior to men.
2:13
For Adam was first formed, then Eve.
Paul corrects the first error of this gnostic myth by a simple reminder from Genesis.
2:14
And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression.
Paul goes further in correcting this error. Far from doing the wisest, bravest thing ever for mankind, Eve blundered when she took in that fruit. The word translated here as transgression is actually a weaker Greek word for sinful blunder. The word for direct, rebellious sin is much stronger, and is used much more often.
Eve did not bravely risk death by choosing knowledge over subservience, as the gnostics taught. Eve made a childish mistake. She sinned stupidly.
2:15
Notwithstanding she shall be saved in childbearing, if they continue in faith and charity and holiness with sobriety.
Some believe that the childbearing referenced here is that of a Christian woman giving birth to hers and her husband's children. That is a very unlikely and weak understanding of this verse. Paul is still refering to the promise of Genesis, that the Seed of the woman would crush the serpent. This is in keeping with the entire argument. Eve was no hero for taking the fruit of knowledge, but Eve's gender can rejoice in being the bearer of the Redeemer. Contrary to gnostic fantasies, women and men are together in everything, including their dependence upon Christ for every blessing.
The entire argument goes like this.
Timothy, those rich women are causing a ridiculous fuss and stir because of their pride. They should quit with the ostentatious display of wealth, and begin acting the part of teachers, if that's what they think they are. But before they teach, they must first learn. They are asserting foolish things, and I cannot allow you to allow them to do this. Woman is not the source of all wisdom, and woman did not precede man in creation. Go back and read Genesis to them, and teach them that the birth of the Messiah is the only thing that matters. Let them rejoice in Him.
The follow-on to the argument is that women and men should both desire the office of elder.
1 Tim 3:1
This is a true saying, If a man desire the office of a bishop, he desireth a good work.
The word translated "man" here is not gender specific. To a Greek, it would have read, "If anyone desires..."
Let the sisters be trained, and let them learn the truth, then let them desire the office of elder.
Again, I wish to point out that I am taking Paul quite literally. Paul says that he suffers not a woman to teach, and I believe him. I just believe that Paul knew exactly which women it was that he was not allowing to teach and why. I even believe that he tells us.
Now, about those millions of other women who are alive today, and have a storehouse of treasure to offer the body....
---
It is late now, and I will be gone Thursday through most of Saturday, so I am going to leave off addressing counter-arguments to this scenario. I'm sure they will arise, and I'm sure they will be worthy, so I will try to comment as much as possible until I leave, then address the biggest one(s) when I return.
Thank you to all for your patience with my plodding pace on this. You have certainly made it a joy for me to keep after it.
16 August, 2006
Presbuteras: Phebe - "Deacon?" - Demoting the Daughters of God - Rom 16:1&2
DugALug comments on my suggestion that Phebe was a deacon, in the truest spiritual sense of the word:
Nice try, but we use the work Deacon in english to mean that you are a person of leadership in the church... or you could be someone who attends wake forrest.
With that logic I could also conclude that Jesus was a physical door. It is all about context, and you haven't established that the context is the same.
I like that you keep me honest, sir. :-) As I started answering this, the comment block on the previous post began begging for mercy. So, I gave up trying to fit it all in a little comment. Establishing a context seems to take a little verbiage. ;-)
Here goes.
16:1
I commend unto you Phebe our sister, which is a servant of the church which is at Cenchrea:
16:2
That ye receive her in the Lord, as becometh saints, and that ye assist her in whatsoever * * business she hath need of you: for she * hath been a succourer of many, and of myself * * also.
Let's start with the word, "commend". With this word, Paul defines himself as an apostle (by affirming that he need not defend his commendation from the Lord.)
2Co 3:1 Do we begin again to commend ourselves? or need we, as some others, epistles of commendation to you, or letters of commendation from you?
2Co 5:12 For we commend not ourselves again unto you, but give you occasion to glory on our behalf, that ye may have somewhat to answer them which glory in appearance, and not in heart.
Paul is giving Phebe some exceptionally high praise, if she is just a servant to some member of the church in Cenchrea.
2Co 10:18 For not he that commendeth himself is approved, but whom the Lord commendeth.
Phebe does not commend herself here, but rather Paul does. And I might say that whom Paul commends is probably worthy of some attention.
---
Now on to the word, "receive".
[Prosdechomai]
Phil 2:29 Receive him therefore in the Lord with all gladness; and hold such in reputation:
(Of Epaphroditus, whom Paul is sending back to Philippi as a faithful servant.)
[dechomai]
Col 4:10 Aristarchus my fellowprisoner saluteth you, and Marcus, sister's son to Barnabas, (touching whom ye received commandments: if he come unto you, receive him;)
Php 4:18 But I have all, and abound: I am full, having received of Epaphroditus the things which were sent from you, an odour of a sweet smell, a sacrifice acceptable, wellpleasing to God.
Ga 4:14 And my temptation which was in my flesh ye despised not, nor rejected; but received me as an angel of God, even as Christ Jesus.
2Co 7:15 And his inward affection is more abundant toward you, whilst he remembereth the obedience of you all, how with fear and trembling ye received him.
[Of Titus]
Paul uses this word, "receive," often to talk about accepting profitable workers into the church's heart. There is no textual reason to assume that he means any less here. Add to that simple command to receive Phebe, the fact that Paul tells this church to receive her "in the Lord," and it becomes an almost irresistible weight pulling us in the direction of seeing Phebe as a worker in the Lord on a similar plane with Epaphroditus, Marcus or Titus.
---
As to the business she had in Rome. Pragma can mean any number of things. The assumption of many is that she was on a business trip or some such. She was certainly a woman of some means, so there is just cause to lean in that direction. Still,
2Co 7:11 For behold this selfsame thing, that ye sorrowed after a godly sort, what carefulness it wrought in you, yea, what clearing of yourselves, yea, what indignation, yea, what fear, yea, what vehement desire, yea, what zeal, yea, what revenge! In all things ye have approved yourselves to be clear in this matter.
The word, "pragma," appears 3 times in this passage, talking about the business of repentance.
Heb 11:1 Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.
Again, pragma is the substance and evidence in Heb 11:1. Her business could as easily be spiritual as not.
---
Succourer is never again used in the New Testament, so it is hard to know what Paul might have meant by his use of that word in that place. A student of Greek could go to extra-biblical references, but I am certainly not one of those. Instead, I turn to a lexicon.
Thayer's and Smith's lexicon has this to say:
1. a woman set over others
2. a female guardian, protectress, patroness, caring for the affairs of others and aiding them with her resources
Hmmm. Leadership and/or guardianship. Paul uses a strong word to describe her position in the church.
---
Lastly, she was entrusted by Paul to deliver the word of God to the church in Rome! That needs more exclamation points!!! And Paul himself testifies that he knows that what he is writing is the very word of God.
Find me another of Paul's letters that was delivered by a Christian businessman, just because he happened to be heading in that direction. It doesn't exist. And this is not just some simple letter. This is Paul's magnum opus, and he knows it. Paul always, always sent his letters by the hands of church leaders whom he trusted. (Well, there's Onesimus carrying the letter to Philemon, but that was kind of special.) Why would he send this treasure by the first businesswoman who happened to be headed West on Tuesday?
Paul had all of the brothers in Corinth and Cenchrea (they're what, 6 miles apart?) to choose from when he was deciding by whom to send this letter to Rome. Paul chose Phebe. She was not a scullery maid who cooked great biscuits for Paul! She was not even merely a woman of human wealth who opened her home to Paul. She was the single person, of all the members of two commendable churches, whom Paul believed should deliver this letter to a fledgling church with awesome potential.
Phebe was the deacon sent by Paul and the Spirit to minister to a young church made up of elder Christians, and Paul commended her, commanding that she be received as such.
If Phebe had been "Jason" or "John" or "Gaius," we would not be having this discussion. All the textual evidence points to "deacon" meaning "deacon", and emphatically so.
Nice try, but we use the work Deacon in english to mean that you are a person of leadership in the church... or you could be someone who attends wake forrest.
With that logic I could also conclude that Jesus was a physical door. It is all about context, and you haven't established that the context is the same.
I like that you keep me honest, sir. :-) As I started answering this, the comment block on the previous post began begging for mercy. So, I gave up trying to fit it all in a little comment. Establishing a context seems to take a little verbiage. ;-)
Here goes.
16:1
I commend unto you Phebe our sister, which is a servant of the church which is at Cenchrea:
16:2
That ye receive her in the Lord, as becometh saints, and that ye assist her in whatsoever * * business she hath need of you: for she * hath been a succourer of many, and of myself * * also.
Let's start with the word, "commend". With this word, Paul defines himself as an apostle (by affirming that he need not defend his commendation from the Lord.)
2Co 3:1 Do we begin again to commend ourselves? or need we, as some others, epistles of commendation to you, or letters of commendation from you?
2Co 5:12 For we commend not ourselves again unto you, but give you occasion to glory on our behalf, that ye may have somewhat to answer them which glory in appearance, and not in heart.
Paul is giving Phebe some exceptionally high praise, if she is just a servant to some member of the church in Cenchrea.
2Co 10:18 For not he that commendeth himself is approved, but whom the Lord commendeth.
Phebe does not commend herself here, but rather Paul does. And I might say that whom Paul commends is probably worthy of some attention.
---
Now on to the word, "receive".
[Prosdechomai]
Phil 2:29 Receive him therefore in the Lord with all gladness; and hold such in reputation:
(Of Epaphroditus, whom Paul is sending back to Philippi as a faithful servant.)
[dechomai]
Col 4:10 Aristarchus my fellowprisoner saluteth you, and Marcus, sister's son to Barnabas, (touching whom ye received commandments: if he come unto you, receive him;)
Php 4:18 But I have all, and abound: I am full, having received of Epaphroditus the things which were sent from you, an odour of a sweet smell, a sacrifice acceptable, wellpleasing to God.
Ga 4:14 And my temptation which was in my flesh ye despised not, nor rejected; but received me as an angel of God, even as Christ Jesus.
2Co 7:15 And his inward affection is more abundant toward you, whilst he remembereth the obedience of you all, how with fear and trembling ye received him.
[Of Titus]
Paul uses this word, "receive," often to talk about accepting profitable workers into the church's heart. There is no textual reason to assume that he means any less here. Add to that simple command to receive Phebe, the fact that Paul tells this church to receive her "in the Lord," and it becomes an almost irresistible weight pulling us in the direction of seeing Phebe as a worker in the Lord on a similar plane with Epaphroditus, Marcus or Titus.
---
As to the business she had in Rome. Pragma can mean any number of things. The assumption of many is that she was on a business trip or some such. She was certainly a woman of some means, so there is just cause to lean in that direction. Still,
2Co 7:11 For behold this selfsame thing, that ye sorrowed after a godly sort, what carefulness it wrought in you, yea, what clearing of yourselves, yea, what indignation, yea, what fear, yea, what vehement desire, yea, what zeal, yea, what revenge! In all things ye have approved yourselves to be clear in this matter.
The word, "pragma," appears 3 times in this passage, talking about the business of repentance.
Heb 11:1 Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.
Again, pragma is the substance and evidence in Heb 11:1. Her business could as easily be spiritual as not.
---
Succourer is never again used in the New Testament, so it is hard to know what Paul might have meant by his use of that word in that place. A student of Greek could go to extra-biblical references, but I am certainly not one of those. Instead, I turn to a lexicon.
Thayer's and Smith's lexicon has this to say:
1. a woman set over others
2. a female guardian, protectress, patroness, caring for the affairs of others and aiding them with her resources
Hmmm. Leadership and/or guardianship. Paul uses a strong word to describe her position in the church.
---
Lastly, she was entrusted by Paul to deliver the word of God to the church in Rome! That needs more exclamation points!!! And Paul himself testifies that he knows that what he is writing is the very word of God.
Find me another of Paul's letters that was delivered by a Christian businessman, just because he happened to be heading in that direction. It doesn't exist. And this is not just some simple letter. This is Paul's magnum opus, and he knows it. Paul always, always sent his letters by the hands of church leaders whom he trusted. (Well, there's Onesimus carrying the letter to Philemon, but that was kind of special.) Why would he send this treasure by the first businesswoman who happened to be headed West on Tuesday?
Paul had all of the brothers in Corinth and Cenchrea (they're what, 6 miles apart?) to choose from when he was deciding by whom to send this letter to Rome. Paul chose Phebe. She was not a scullery maid who cooked great biscuits for Paul! She was not even merely a woman of human wealth who opened her home to Paul. She was the single person, of all the members of two commendable churches, whom Paul believed should deliver this letter to a fledgling church with awesome potential.
Phebe was the deacon sent by Paul and the Spirit to minister to a young church made up of elder Christians, and Paul commended her, commanding that she be received as such.
If Phebe had been "Jason" or "John" or "Gaius," we would not be having this discussion. All the textual evidence points to "deacon" meaning "deacon", and emphatically so.
Presbuteras: Passing Over the Daughters of God
Because of these three passages, we pass over women as potential elders and deacons in the church. Titus 1: 5-9, Titus 2: 3 -5, 1 Timothy 3: 1-13
Needless to say, I believe this is a mistake, and for pretty simple reasons.
This morning, I posted a ridiculous comment about the PBR and Ice Dancing. I specifically addressed "Gentlemen," asking them to answer with their opinions on the subject. Knowing, of course, that only Milly knew anything meaningful about bull riding it was a pretty safe assumption that I should get her opinion, but I didn't ask for it. I simply knew I could count on it, and I was glad when she responded with a wink and some solid information.
When I did not forbid women to answer my post, I just assumed that the one who knew the answer would jump in and give it.
Even so....
Search those three passages all day long, and you will not find any word forbidding women to take the position of elder or deacon. You will infer from the fact that 1 Tim 3:1 says "man" that only a man can desire this position. Of course, the Greek does not say, "man." The Greek says, "any." The same is true in Titus 1. If "any" desire the office of bishop, he desires a good work. If "any" be blameless.
I will cut through a bunch of my usual rambling to make the point directly.
1 Tim 3:10 & 11
And let these also first be proved; then let them use the office of a deacon, being found blameless. Even so must their wives be grave, not slanderers, sober, faithful in all things.
This is the best verse for "proving" that Paul only meant for men to be deacons and elders. The word for wife here is not the word for "spouse," if such a word exists, so it surely means that only a husband can be a deacon.
The only problem with that argument is Rom 16:1.
Romans 16:1
I commend unto you Phebe our sister, which is a servant of the church which is at Cenchrea:
The word, "servant," in Greek is Diakonos. Yep, exactly the same word as is found in 1 Tim 3:10. So, "Phebe our sister" directly violates this very popular inference.
There is no command in any of these three passages forbidding a woman to lead in the church. These three passages reveal clearly that it was uncommon for a woman to be a leader, but that's small potatoes. It was utterly forbidden for a woman to read the scripture just 60 years prior, when Christ was toddling! In ~20 years to have reached the place that Phebe could be a living challenge to our modern inferences is beyond amazing - it is miraculous.
And we have fallen back from that high water mark.
Shame on us.
There remains only one more passage to discuss, 1 Tim 2:11. I hope to rein it back in Sunday night. Until then!
Needless to say, I believe this is a mistake, and for pretty simple reasons.
This morning, I posted a ridiculous comment about the PBR and Ice Dancing. I specifically addressed "Gentlemen," asking them to answer with their opinions on the subject. Knowing, of course, that only Milly knew anything meaningful about bull riding it was a pretty safe assumption that I should get her opinion, but I didn't ask for it. I simply knew I could count on it, and I was glad when she responded with a wink and some solid information.
When I did not forbid women to answer my post, I just assumed that the one who knew the answer would jump in and give it.
Even so....
Search those three passages all day long, and you will not find any word forbidding women to take the position of elder or deacon. You will infer from the fact that 1 Tim 3:1 says "man" that only a man can desire this position. Of course, the Greek does not say, "man." The Greek says, "any." The same is true in Titus 1. If "any" desire the office of bishop, he desires a good work. If "any" be blameless.
I will cut through a bunch of my usual rambling to make the point directly.
1 Tim 3:10 & 11
And let these also first be proved; then let them use the office of a deacon, being found blameless. Even so must their wives be grave, not slanderers, sober, faithful in all things.
This is the best verse for "proving" that Paul only meant for men to be deacons and elders. The word for wife here is not the word for "spouse," if such a word exists, so it surely means that only a husband can be a deacon.
The only problem with that argument is Rom 16:1.
Romans 16:1
I commend unto you Phebe our sister, which is a servant of the church which is at Cenchrea:
The word, "servant," in Greek is Diakonos. Yep, exactly the same word as is found in 1 Tim 3:10. So, "Phebe our sister" directly violates this very popular inference.
There is no command in any of these three passages forbidding a woman to lead in the church. These three passages reveal clearly that it was uncommon for a woman to be a leader, but that's small potatoes. It was utterly forbidden for a woman to read the scripture just 60 years prior, when Christ was toddling! In ~20 years to have reached the place that Phebe could be a living challenge to our modern inferences is beyond amazing - it is miraculous.
And we have fallen back from that high water mark.
Shame on us.
There remains only one more passage to discuss, 1 Tim 2:11. I hope to rein it back in Sunday night. Until then!
09 August, 2006
Presbuteras: 1 Cor 11:1-16 - Veiling the Daughters of God
You might want to review 1 Cor 11, and I will quote it in full further down the page.
Tremendous thanks are due to Katherine Bushnell for her book, God's Word To Women. Much of the meat of this post and certainly its key point are a mere retelling of her analysis of 1 Cor 11.
1 Corinthians 11 is the sole chapter of the bible that discusses women and veils. 1 Sam 15:30 talks about David covering his head while ascending Mount Olive in a state of mourning. The Greek word for cover, as used here, appears three times in the New Testament - all in this chapter. The word covering, as used here, appears one other time in Hebrews and refers to the heavens that God will fold up and change. Nave's Topical Bible references wimples worn by wanton daughters of Zion, Rebekah wearing a veil when meeting Isaac (a custom of her homeland, not Isaac's), and Tamar imitating a harlot to gain a child by Judah who had betrayed her. Not a whisper about women veiling in prayer. There's nothing in the bible on this topic.
Well, there is 2 Cor 3:13-18. Paul, shortly after writing 1 Cor 11, wrote 2 Cor 3, which ends But we all, with open face beholding as in a glass the glory of the Lord, are changed into the same image from glory to glory, even as by the Spirit of the Lord. Paul carefully explains how the physical veil kept Israel from seeing the whole law on Moses' face, and how the spiritual veil kept them from understanding the truths they heard.
So, we are dealing with another scriptural island. We have no other scriptures that confirm the standard interpretation of 1 Cor 11.
And the standard interpretation of 1 Cor 11 has more than a couple of holes! Let me address one immediately out of sheer disgust.
11:10
For this cause ought the woman to have power on her head because of the angels.
The standard interpretation of this verse, that fetching women will tempt their angels, is offensive to all parties. It's offensive in it's ludicrousness most of all. Human women do not tempt neuter angels, and if they did, they would have plenty of opportunity to do so while doing other things than prophecying and praying. Would these interpreters have women fear to pray without a clothing check first? Should women fear their own ministering spirits? If there were any weight to this slur, it would collapse on its own. What, do women become invisible to angels when they have veils on? Or just unattractive?
Look, I know that someone is going to have to bring up the Nephilim, etc. Just know that the men who came up with the unbecoming theory about the "sons of God" in Genesis are the same men who say charming little things like, "I would sooner feed the scripture to my dog than let a woman read it." This verse as written contains no such implication of lust. Why add it?
Back to the subject.
1 Cor 11 is an island in the scripture, so we must use internal methods of interpreting it. It seems to say things that are opposite to the rest of scripture, namely that women should veil when praying. Paul himself says a short time later that we all come to God with open faces. Given these external conflicts, we might expect to see some internal contradictions. And we do.
Does nature teach you that long hair is a shame to a man? It doesn't teach me that. I played in an all spanish speaking soccer league, and there was nothing unmanly about some of the manes those men sported. Certainly not to the women who flocked to them. Does the lion teach us that long hair is a shame to the male? The peacock? The question makes no sense.
Paul seems to give us a straight hierarchy of headship in verse 3. Then he says that a man covering himself before his Head is a shame, and a woman uncovering herself before her head is a shame. What sense does that make?
Paul goes to a lot of bother to seemingly show that the woman is under the man in verses 2-9, then reverses himself in verses 11 and 12. I will grant you before you make the argument that you can finagle the verses to kind of mean something, but Paul is not known for contradicting himself this confusingly.
And he finishes the whole passage by saying that his churches have no such custom. Why not just accept at face value that Paul is saying Corinth is the only place on earth that is trying to veil their women. That's the plain meaning of the verse, but the standard interpretation will have none of that. What then do they say Paul means? That the churches have no custom of being contentious? That's a falsehood on the surface. ;-) But, even if we try to make that meaning work, it doesn't. Who would say that his church didn't have a custom of being contentious?
Somebody is working really, really hard to make this chapter say what he thinks it says.
The Chief Clue to Clearing up 1 Corinthians 11
11:4
Every man praying or prophesying, having his head covered, dishonoureth his head.
It is all very simple if the problem is exactly what is stated in verse 4. Men are covering their heads. Women are imitating the men. Paul does not consider either the actions of the men or the women to be right, but neither is he willing to declare them anathema.
Verse by Verse
1 Be ye followers of me, even as I also [am] of Christ.
This verse belongs at the end of chapter 10, not at the beginning of 11. I wonder how mistakes like this get propagated over the centuries? Note that even the translators place a paragraph mark at the second verse.
2 ¶ Now I praise you, brethren, that ye remember me in all things, and keep the ordinances, as I delivered [them] to you.
Paul does not begin with a rebuke, but praise.
3 But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman [is] the man; and the head of Christ [is] God.
"Head" in Greek can as easily mean "fountainhead" as "hierarchical head." For reasons found below, I will accept the fountainhead meaning. Either way, the verse does not remove Christ from the woman. The man is another fountainhead for the woman, but Christ will always be her Head.
4 Every man praying or prophesying, having [his] head covered, dishonoureth his head.
Jewish men wear a covering called a Tallith in prayer. This covering is not a veil, but it conforms to the meaning of the Greek word for "covering" admirably. When a Jewish man dons the Tallith today, wikipedia reports that he speaks the following blessing.
Blessed are You, Lord, our God, King of the universe, Who has sanctified us with His commandments, and commanded us regarding the commandment of fringes
May it be the will before you, Lord, my God and the God of my forefathers, that it should be considered the commandment of fringes before You as if I had fulfilled it in all its aspects, its details and its intentions, as well as the 613 commandments that are dependent on it. So be it, [consider what we have said].
So, the tallith is a testimony to a dead law. Well might Paul say that when a man dons the covering, he dishonours his Head - Jesus Christ - Who took away that law that was set against us. That man binds back to himself those dead ordinances Christ died to loose.
5 But every woman that prayeth or prophesieth with [her] head uncovered dishonoureth her head: for that is even all one as if she were shaven.
We will search in vain to find anywhere in scripture that urges a woman be shorn. We find her head being uncovered by the priest in Numbers, during the administration of the water of jealousy, but it would be a stretch to assume this to be Paul's point of reference for verse 6. Paul is here referencing an Oral Law of the Jews. The commentaries pretty uniformly either accept or at least do not reject this view.
Given that point, Paul is here explaining that the shame that the woman brings upon her head is shame brought upon her husband. If a Jewish wife appears in public uncovered, Jews outside the church might call for her husband to divorce her. This would be a shame upon her husband.
6 For if the woman be not covered, let her also be shorn: but if it be a shame for a woman to be shorn or shaven, let her be covered.
Paul here quotes the oral law, then makes a concession to it. The word, "but," here carries the sense of "therefore." This law exists, therefore if you are a Jewish man, and since Jewish oral law would require you to acknowledge your wife as disgraced if she went unveiled, then I permit her to be covered.
Paul tells the man he must not shame Christ with a covering, but the woman he permits to be covered even before her God for the sake of a disgrace she might bring on her husband before men.
7 For a man indeed ought not to cover [his] head, forasmuch as he is the image and glory of God: but the woman is the glory of the man.
Do you see how the contradictions of the standard interpretation melt away? A man should not cover his head because he steals from the glory of the Lord Who bought him with a great price. The woman, however, might shame her Jewish husband should she break this oral law of the Jews. The woman is the image and glory of God as much as is the man - namely in as far as she is in Christ, Who is the only true Image of God. But the woman is also the glory of her husband.
8 For the man is not of the woman; but the woman of the man.
Therefore, a wife is allowed to support her husband in this matter. Paul makes it a matter of liberty for her.
9 Neither was the man created for the woman; but the woman for the man.
So Paul concludes his arguments freeing the woman to cover if it is deemed necessary. He flatly forbids men to cover, but women operate in freedom if not covering would shame their husbands.
10 For this cause ought the woman to have power on [her] head because of the angels.
But whose decision will it be? Will the man or the woman decide whether she should cover herself? Paul gives the woman power to make the decision for herself. He reasons that if her ministering spirits can appear before God uncovered, then surely she who is bought by her Head, and free to boldly approach the throne of Grace, and with open face to behold the glory of God, can make this decision herself.
This is Paul's conclusion in the matter. The rest of his words will clarify his preference in it. Much of what Paul just said by way of allowance, he will now contradict by way of preference. Paul will make concessions to Jewish husbands and wives, but in Christ we have access to better things. You will note that this is a common method of argument for Paul, and so it is a natural fit in understanding this passage.
11 Nevertheless neither is the man without the woman, neither the woman without the man, in the Lord.
Paul doesn't want to make rules that are different for men and women, because they are not ever without each other. Everything before this verse has been "in the Jewish world." Now we begin to talk about, "in the Lord." In the Lord, the man and woman are together in everything.
12 For as the woman [is] of the man, even so [is] the man also by the woman; but all things of God.
Yes, Paul says. The woman came from the man, but even though I just said the man is not of the woman, that's only true in the Jewish world. In the Lord, the man is also by the woman. This is true because both are entirely of the Lord.
13 Judge in yourselves: is it comely that a woman pray unto God uncovered?
Judge what amongst yourselves? Not whether long hair is shameful, but whether the man is of the woman. Are the sisters you love merely second generation photocopies of the image of God? Or are they co-equal with us lofty and exalted men as the Jewish oral tradition would have you believe?
That leaves us with Paul's statement that it is comely that a woman pray to God uncovered. As Oloryn pointed out, the original manuscripts contain no punctuation, and no word reversals to indicate when a sentence is a statement and when it is a question. In English we say, "Are you coming" or "You are coming" so that we can tell which is a question and which is a statement, even without the convenience of the "?." There are no such clues in the Greek, so the translator is bound to determine from context whether a sentence is question or statement.
When Paul clearly states in 2 Cor 3:18 that we all with open face behold the glory of the Lord, we have to assume that Paul here is saying that it is comely for a woman to pray uncovered. To assume that he is directly contradicting himself is without justification.
14 Doth not even nature itself teach you, that, if a man have long hair, it is a shame unto him?
Again. Drop the question mark. Nature does not teach you that if a man has long hair it is a shame to him.
15 But if a woman have long hair, it is a glory to her: for [her] hair is given her for a covering.
Continued from 14. Nature also does not teach you that long hair is a glory to a woman. Nor does anything teach us that hair is for women a covering. When only one verse in scripture says a thing, and the Greek is open to two exactly opposite interpretations, it is not wise to choose the one that flies against everything else we know.
16 But if any man seem to be contentious, we have no such custom, neither the churches of God.
And finally, Paul closes the argument. If there is a man amongst you who searches the scripture, and for some reason continues to believe that everyone should be covered in prayer, be aware that no other church covers in prayer at all.
---
This reading of 1 Cor 11:1-16 is completely literal, and far more consistent with the entire revelation than the standard interpretation. This is consistent with Paul's usual way of arguing. It is consistent with the chapter preceeding it, in which Paul is talking about Christian liberty. It is consistent in glorifying Christ as Head over all.
This passage does not yet say that women should ever take authority over men, but it does say that the man is not the head of the woman with relation to Christ. Christ is the Head of both the man and the woman together. In the case of Jewish marriages, Paul makes allowances, but he revokes them as soon as possible. Paul does not here say anything about headship within marriage, but only headship in prayer and worship, so I will not jump ahead to the Eph 5 discussion. As a matter of fact, I doubt that I will address headship within marriage at all in this series. I want to confine the discussion to leadership in the church.
1 Cor 11 is frequently used to assert that the woman cannot lead the man, because the man is over her in authority as Christ is over the man. That interpretation is measured and found wanting.
Next, we move up a little further in 1 Corinthians.
Tremendous thanks are due to Katherine Bushnell for her book, God's Word To Women. Much of the meat of this post and certainly its key point are a mere retelling of her analysis of 1 Cor 11.
1 Corinthians 11 is the sole chapter of the bible that discusses women and veils. 1 Sam 15:30 talks about David covering his head while ascending Mount Olive in a state of mourning. The Greek word for cover, as used here, appears three times in the New Testament - all in this chapter. The word covering, as used here, appears one other time in Hebrews and refers to the heavens that God will fold up and change. Nave's Topical Bible references wimples worn by wanton daughters of Zion, Rebekah wearing a veil when meeting Isaac (a custom of her homeland, not Isaac's), and Tamar imitating a harlot to gain a child by Judah who had betrayed her. Not a whisper about women veiling in prayer. There's nothing in the bible on this topic.
Well, there is 2 Cor 3:13-18. Paul, shortly after writing 1 Cor 11, wrote 2 Cor 3, which ends But we all, with open face beholding as in a glass the glory of the Lord, are changed into the same image from glory to glory, even as by the Spirit of the Lord. Paul carefully explains how the physical veil kept Israel from seeing the whole law on Moses' face, and how the spiritual veil kept them from understanding the truths they heard.
So, we are dealing with another scriptural island. We have no other scriptures that confirm the standard interpretation of 1 Cor 11.
And the standard interpretation of 1 Cor 11 has more than a couple of holes! Let me address one immediately out of sheer disgust.
11:10
For this cause ought the woman to have power on her head because of the angels.
The standard interpretation of this verse, that fetching women will tempt their angels, is offensive to all parties. It's offensive in it's ludicrousness most of all. Human women do not tempt neuter angels, and if they did, they would have plenty of opportunity to do so while doing other things than prophecying and praying. Would these interpreters have women fear to pray without a clothing check first? Should women fear their own ministering spirits? If there were any weight to this slur, it would collapse on its own. What, do women become invisible to angels when they have veils on? Or just unattractive?
Look, I know that someone is going to have to bring up the Nephilim, etc. Just know that the men who came up with the unbecoming theory about the "sons of God" in Genesis are the same men who say charming little things like, "I would sooner feed the scripture to my dog than let a woman read it." This verse as written contains no such implication of lust. Why add it?
Back to the subject.
1 Cor 11 is an island in the scripture, so we must use internal methods of interpreting it. It seems to say things that are opposite to the rest of scripture, namely that women should veil when praying. Paul himself says a short time later that we all come to God with open faces. Given these external conflicts, we might expect to see some internal contradictions. And we do.
Does nature teach you that long hair is a shame to a man? It doesn't teach me that. I played in an all spanish speaking soccer league, and there was nothing unmanly about some of the manes those men sported. Certainly not to the women who flocked to them. Does the lion teach us that long hair is a shame to the male? The peacock? The question makes no sense.
Paul seems to give us a straight hierarchy of headship in verse 3. Then he says that a man covering himself before his Head is a shame, and a woman uncovering herself before her head is a shame. What sense does that make?
Paul goes to a lot of bother to seemingly show that the woman is under the man in verses 2-9, then reverses himself in verses 11 and 12. I will grant you before you make the argument that you can finagle the verses to kind of mean something, but Paul is not known for contradicting himself this confusingly.
And he finishes the whole passage by saying that his churches have no such custom. Why not just accept at face value that Paul is saying Corinth is the only place on earth that is trying to veil their women. That's the plain meaning of the verse, but the standard interpretation will have none of that. What then do they say Paul means? That the churches have no custom of being contentious? That's a falsehood on the surface. ;-) But, even if we try to make that meaning work, it doesn't. Who would say that his church didn't have a custom of being contentious?
Somebody is working really, really hard to make this chapter say what he thinks it says.
The Chief Clue to Clearing up 1 Corinthians 11
11:4
Every man praying or prophesying, having his head covered, dishonoureth his head.
It is all very simple if the problem is exactly what is stated in verse 4. Men are covering their heads. Women are imitating the men. Paul does not consider either the actions of the men or the women to be right, but neither is he willing to declare them anathema.
Verse by Verse
1 Be ye followers of me, even as I also [am] of Christ.
This verse belongs at the end of chapter 10, not at the beginning of 11. I wonder how mistakes like this get propagated over the centuries? Note that even the translators place a paragraph mark at the second verse.
2 ¶ Now I praise you, brethren, that ye remember me in all things, and keep the ordinances, as I delivered [them] to you.
Paul does not begin with a rebuke, but praise.
3 But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman [is] the man; and the head of Christ [is] God.
"Head" in Greek can as easily mean "fountainhead" as "hierarchical head." For reasons found below, I will accept the fountainhead meaning. Either way, the verse does not remove Christ from the woman. The man is another fountainhead for the woman, but Christ will always be her Head.
4 Every man praying or prophesying, having [his] head covered, dishonoureth his head.
Jewish men wear a covering called a Tallith in prayer. This covering is not a veil, but it conforms to the meaning of the Greek word for "covering" admirably. When a Jewish man dons the Tallith today, wikipedia reports that he speaks the following blessing.
Blessed are You, Lord, our God, King of the universe, Who has sanctified us with His commandments, and commanded us regarding the commandment of fringes
May it be the will before you, Lord, my God and the God of my forefathers, that it should be considered the commandment of fringes before You as if I had fulfilled it in all its aspects, its details and its intentions, as well as the 613 commandments that are dependent on it. So be it, [consider what we have said].
So, the tallith is a testimony to a dead law. Well might Paul say that when a man dons the covering, he dishonours his Head - Jesus Christ - Who took away that law that was set against us. That man binds back to himself those dead ordinances Christ died to loose.
5 But every woman that prayeth or prophesieth with [her] head uncovered dishonoureth her head: for that is even all one as if she were shaven.
We will search in vain to find anywhere in scripture that urges a woman be shorn. We find her head being uncovered by the priest in Numbers, during the administration of the water of jealousy, but it would be a stretch to assume this to be Paul's point of reference for verse 6. Paul is here referencing an Oral Law of the Jews. The commentaries pretty uniformly either accept or at least do not reject this view.
Given that point, Paul is here explaining that the shame that the woman brings upon her head is shame brought upon her husband. If a Jewish wife appears in public uncovered, Jews outside the church might call for her husband to divorce her. This would be a shame upon her husband.
6 For if the woman be not covered, let her also be shorn: but if it be a shame for a woman to be shorn or shaven, let her be covered.
Paul here quotes the oral law, then makes a concession to it. The word, "but," here carries the sense of "therefore." This law exists, therefore if you are a Jewish man, and since Jewish oral law would require you to acknowledge your wife as disgraced if she went unveiled, then I permit her to be covered.
Paul tells the man he must not shame Christ with a covering, but the woman he permits to be covered even before her God for the sake of a disgrace she might bring on her husband before men.
7 For a man indeed ought not to cover [his] head, forasmuch as he is the image and glory of God: but the woman is the glory of the man.
Do you see how the contradictions of the standard interpretation melt away? A man should not cover his head because he steals from the glory of the Lord Who bought him with a great price. The woman, however, might shame her Jewish husband should she break this oral law of the Jews. The woman is the image and glory of God as much as is the man - namely in as far as she is in Christ, Who is the only true Image of God. But the woman is also the glory of her husband.
8 For the man is not of the woman; but the woman of the man.
Therefore, a wife is allowed to support her husband in this matter. Paul makes it a matter of liberty for her.
9 Neither was the man created for the woman; but the woman for the man.
So Paul concludes his arguments freeing the woman to cover if it is deemed necessary. He flatly forbids men to cover, but women operate in freedom if not covering would shame their husbands.
10 For this cause ought the woman to have power on [her] head because of the angels.
But whose decision will it be? Will the man or the woman decide whether she should cover herself? Paul gives the woman power to make the decision for herself. He reasons that if her ministering spirits can appear before God uncovered, then surely she who is bought by her Head, and free to boldly approach the throne of Grace, and with open face to behold the glory of God, can make this decision herself.
This is Paul's conclusion in the matter. The rest of his words will clarify his preference in it. Much of what Paul just said by way of allowance, he will now contradict by way of preference. Paul will make concessions to Jewish husbands and wives, but in Christ we have access to better things. You will note that this is a common method of argument for Paul, and so it is a natural fit in understanding this passage.
11 Nevertheless neither is the man without the woman, neither the woman without the man, in the Lord.
Paul doesn't want to make rules that are different for men and women, because they are not ever without each other. Everything before this verse has been "in the Jewish world." Now we begin to talk about, "in the Lord." In the Lord, the man and woman are together in everything.
12 For as the woman [is] of the man, even so [is] the man also by the woman; but all things of God.
Yes, Paul says. The woman came from the man, but even though I just said the man is not of the woman, that's only true in the Jewish world. In the Lord, the man is also by the woman. This is true because both are entirely of the Lord.
13 Judge in yourselves: is it comely that a woman pray unto God uncovered?
Judge what amongst yourselves? Not whether long hair is shameful, but whether the man is of the woman. Are the sisters you love merely second generation photocopies of the image of God? Or are they co-equal with us lofty and exalted men as the Jewish oral tradition would have you believe?
That leaves us with Paul's statement that it is comely that a woman pray to God uncovered. As Oloryn pointed out, the original manuscripts contain no punctuation, and no word reversals to indicate when a sentence is a statement and when it is a question. In English we say, "Are you coming" or "You are coming" so that we can tell which is a question and which is a statement, even without the convenience of the "?." There are no such clues in the Greek, so the translator is bound to determine from context whether a sentence is question or statement.
When Paul clearly states in 2 Cor 3:18 that we all with open face behold the glory of the Lord, we have to assume that Paul here is saying that it is comely for a woman to pray uncovered. To assume that he is directly contradicting himself is without justification.
14 Doth not even nature itself teach you, that, if a man have long hair, it is a shame unto him?
Again. Drop the question mark. Nature does not teach you that if a man has long hair it is a shame to him.
15 But if a woman have long hair, it is a glory to her: for [her] hair is given her for a covering.
Continued from 14. Nature also does not teach you that long hair is a glory to a woman. Nor does anything teach us that hair is for women a covering. When only one verse in scripture says a thing, and the Greek is open to two exactly opposite interpretations, it is not wise to choose the one that flies against everything else we know.
16 But if any man seem to be contentious, we have no such custom, neither the churches of God.
And finally, Paul closes the argument. If there is a man amongst you who searches the scripture, and for some reason continues to believe that everyone should be covered in prayer, be aware that no other church covers in prayer at all.
---
This reading of 1 Cor 11:1-16 is completely literal, and far more consistent with the entire revelation than the standard interpretation. This is consistent with Paul's usual way of arguing. It is consistent with the chapter preceeding it, in which Paul is talking about Christian liberty. It is consistent in glorifying Christ as Head over all.
This passage does not yet say that women should ever take authority over men, but it does say that the man is not the head of the woman with relation to Christ. Christ is the Head of both the man and the woman together. In the case of Jewish marriages, Paul makes allowances, but he revokes them as soon as possible. Paul does not here say anything about headship within marriage, but only headship in prayer and worship, so I will not jump ahead to the Eph 5 discussion. As a matter of fact, I doubt that I will address headship within marriage at all in this series. I want to confine the discussion to leadership in the church.
1 Cor 11 is frequently used to assert that the woman cannot lead the man, because the man is over her in authority as Christ is over the man. That interpretation is measured and found wanting.
Next, we move up a little further in 1 Corinthians.
07 August, 2006
Presbuteras: The Image of God
The image of God is both male and female.
That's really an odd sentence, and it's horribly confusing if you stop and actually think about it. The key is that it is not God Who is both male and female, but God's image - us. God is neither. Male and female are attributes of physical beings, while God is Spirit.
So, if we step back in light of that distinction, and look at the image of God again we must be looking at men and women. It takes (unfallen) men and women together to represent God in the way He intended. When God was deciding how to form a physical image of His Spiritual perfection, He settled on creating mankind male and female. God, as Spirit, is and does things He centered in males. He also is and does things that he centered in females. Why? I don't know, but it's a beautiful picture that He has created.
I would love to jump into applications of this fact, except that Paul says:
1 Cor 11:7
A man ought not to cover his head, since he is the image and glory of God; but woman is the glory of man.
Paul has made what sounds like a solid declaration that the woman bears the image of the man, and not of God - that she is an image of the image of God.
Crushing.
I cannot say that I know anyone who truly believes that the image of God is not borne by women. Maybe by this time tomorrow, that will have changed, but I am starting here as a possible point of common ground. Hopefully, we all will see this in a reasonably similar way. My objectives are two-fold. One, I hope that we will all agree that the image of God cannot be properly represented by males alone. Two, I hope that we will all agree that Paul's statements are not always clear.
If I am going to take a look at the image of God, and see how it is borne, I am going to look at two things, the first mention of His image, and what we know about Him.
The First Mention of the Image of God
Gen 1:26&27
And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth. So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.
(That's pretty cool - when I cut/paste from Crosswalk, the lexicon entries still work.)
Gen 5:1&2
This is the book of the generations of Adam. In the day that God created man, in the likeness of God made he him; Male and female created he them; and blessed them, and called their name Adam, in the day when they were created.
Check this out. Click "man" in the 7th word of the first passage. You will go to a page that tells you about ~da, which is Adam. If you then refresh this page, you will note that "Adam", the 8th word from the end of the second passage is purple (or whatever color displays for visited links.) This is because the word for "man" and the word for "Adam" in Hebrew are exactly the same word, so when you visited the word for "man," you also visited the word for "Adam."
So, when God created Adam, He created man. This word also means, "mankind." So, the writer of Genesis has gone out of his way to tell us that mankind was created in the image of God as male and female.
Score one for the image of God being properly represented by a plurality of people including both male and female.
What We Know About God
If we know God to be and do things that we would understand as male and female attributes, then we can logically conclude that His attributes could not be completely represented by only male or female. We all accept that God does things typically interpreted as masculine. Is God and does God do things typically interpreted as feminine?
Yes.
1) El Shaddai is often interpreted as God Almighty. It is readily accepted by many, though, that this could better be interpreted as God our Nurture/Supply. This is because shad, in the Hebrew, is breast. If God the Nurturing Breast is a reasonable interpretation of El Shaddai, then we have a solid reference to a feminine attribute of God.
2) The Spirit was a Mother Bird over all the earth.
Gen 1:2 And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.
Jamieson, Fausset and Brown
[This the text from Crosswalk.com]
the Spirit of God moved--literally, continued brooding over it, as a fowl does, when hatching eggs.
[This is the text from the bound version of the same commentary]
moved on -- Our English version does not give the meaning correctly; for this word does not convey the idea of progressive motion, but that of brooding over -- cherishing -- the act of incubation which a fowl performs when hatching its eggs.
[Fascinating how different the two texts are. I wonder who made the changes?]
Matthew Henry
as the hen gathers her chickens under her wings, and hovers over them, to warm and cherish them, Mt. 23:37,—as the eagle stirs up her nest, and flutters over her young (it is the same world that is here used), Deu. 32:11. Learn hence, That God is not only the author of all being, but the fountain of life and spring of motion.
[Baker's Evangelical Dictionary lists this verse as a reference on sexual immorality. That's a kick.]
I'm reasonably sure we could find lots of references for the Spirit's brooding over the face of the deep as a feminine act.
3) Let me quote a number of verses all neatly aggregated for us by Christians for Biblical Equality at their page, What Language Shall We Use? There is a lot on this link that I have not quoted here for those who are interested.
Deuteronomy 32:18: “You deserted the Rock, who bore you. You forgot the God who gave you birth.”
Hosea 13:8: “Like a bear robbed of her cubs, I will attack them and rip them open.”
Isaiah 46:3–4: “[Y]ou whom I have upheld since you were conceived, and have carried since your birth. Even to your old age and grey hairs I am he, I am he who will sustain you. I have made you and I will carry you; I will sustain you and I will rescue you.”
Isaiah 66:13: “As a mother comforts her child, so will I comfort you.”
Job 38:29: “From whose womb comes the ice? Who gives birth to the frost from the heavens... ?”
Psalm 90:2: “Before the mountains were born or you brought forth the earth and the world . . .”
Hosea 11:3–4: “It was I who taught Ephraim to walk, taking them by the arms; but they did not realize it was I who healed them. I led them with cords of human kindness, with ties of love; I lifted the yoke from their neck and bent down to feed them.”
Also from this page, let me quote:
Holy Spirit (in Hebrew is feminine, ruah...)
4) The Lord does "women's work" for us.
Gen 2:18 And the LORD God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him.
The word "meet" in that verse, as in "help meet", is "ezer" in Hebrew (as you will see if you click on the link.) It appears 21 times in scripture according to Crosswalk's count, and the overwhelming majority of times it appears describing what God is to us. Here it describes what the woman is to be to the man. I'm cool with either seeing this as elevating the role of the wife to be like that of God toward us, or simply describing the work of God as the same as the work of a wife. Either the woman is doing something distinctly unfeminine here, or God is doing something feminine in the Psalms.
Ps 20:2
Send thee help from the sanctuary, and strengthen thee out of Zion;
Ps 33:20
Our soul waiteth for the LORD: he is our help and our shield.
Ps 70:5
But I am poor and needy: make haste unto me, O God: thou art my help and my deliverer; O LORD, make no tarrying.
Ps 89:19
Then thou spakest in vision to thy holy one, and saidst, I have laid help upon one that is mighty; I have exalted one chosen out of the people.
Ps 115:9
O Israel, trust thou in the LORD: he is their help and their shield.
Ps 115:10
O house of Aaron, trust in the LORD: he is their help and their shield.
Ps 115:11
Ye that fear the LORD, trust in the LORD: he is their help and their shield.
Ps 121:1
I will lift up mine eyes unto the hills, from whence cometh my help.
Ps 121:2
My help cometh from the LORD, which made heaven and earth.
Ps 124:8
Our help is in the name of the LORD, who made heaven and earth.
Ps 146:5
Happy is he that hath the God of Jacob for his help, whose hope is in the LORD his God:
Paul and the Image of God
On the human side, we have seen that from the beginning, God made all of mankind the bearer of His image, and that this mankind includes male and female. On the heavenly side, we have seen that God is not ashamed to ascribe to Himself feminine attributes and actions. The obvious conclusion is that the masculine and feminine sides of mankind both show forth (glorify) crucial portions of the Godhead.
So, what is Paul's take on all this? It seems pretty negative so far!
Paul uses the Greek word for, "image," 7 other times according to Crosswalk.com.
Ro 1:23
And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things.
Ro 8:29
For whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brethren.
1Co 15:49
And as we have borne the image of the earthy, we shall also bear the image of the heavenly.
2Co 3:18
But we all, with open face beholding as in a glass the glory of the Lord, are changed into the same image from glory to glory, even as by the Spirit of the Lord.
2Co 4:4
In whom the god of this world hath blinded the minds of them which believe not, lest the light of the glorious gospel of Christ, who is the image of God, should shine unto them.
Col 1:15
Who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature:
Col 3:10
And have put on the new man, which is renewed in knowledge after the image of him that created him:
Of those 7 other times, Paul refers to idols 1 time, all of us being made like Christ 4 times, and Christ Himself bearing/being the Image of God 2 times. When Paul refers to us being made like Christ, it is clear that he is refering equally to men and women, but he is not refering to the likeness of God that we bear. Neither is he refering to this likeness when he talks about idols.
That leaves us with 2 verses that say Christ is the Image of God, and one verse seeming to say that all males are the image of God. Paul has left us with precious few guideposts to interpreting his statement about males being the image of God. We have even fewer guideposts regarding women being the image of men.
This verse is an island in the scripture. It speaks truth, but we only have negative clues so far as to its meaning. That declared, I am content to say that the negative evidence is overwhelming. Whatever Paul meant, it was not that only men bear the image of God. When Paul speaks of the Image of God, he is going to capitalize the noun, and be speaking of Christ. That is not the case here, so it must mean something else.
---
Like I said at the beginning of this post, I hope that everyone agrees with this analysis. (Who'm I kidding - I hope that everyone agrees with all my analyses. ;-P] Do you agree with the basic idea of looking at a verse in this way? If you find its common interpretation to be out of step with the rest of scripture, do you agree that looking for some stronger interpretation makes sense?
Next, we have to go to the positive meaning of 1 Cor 11:7. What *is* the truth Paul is speaking here? For that we need to go to the internal context of 1 Corinthians, and I fear I have already gone on long enough with this post. So, until some time later this week...
That's really an odd sentence, and it's horribly confusing if you stop and actually think about it. The key is that it is not God Who is both male and female, but God's image - us. God is neither. Male and female are attributes of physical beings, while God is Spirit.
So, if we step back in light of that distinction, and look at the image of God again we must be looking at men and women. It takes (unfallen) men and women together to represent God in the way He intended. When God was deciding how to form a physical image of His Spiritual perfection, He settled on creating mankind male and female. God, as Spirit, is and does things He centered in males. He also is and does things that he centered in females. Why? I don't know, but it's a beautiful picture that He has created.
I would love to jump into applications of this fact, except that Paul says:
1 Cor 11:7
A man ought not to cover his head, since he is the image and glory of God; but woman is the glory of man.
Paul has made what sounds like a solid declaration that the woman bears the image of the man, and not of God - that she is an image of the image of God.
Crushing.
I cannot say that I know anyone who truly believes that the image of God is not borne by women. Maybe by this time tomorrow, that will have changed, but I am starting here as a possible point of common ground. Hopefully, we all will see this in a reasonably similar way. My objectives are two-fold. One, I hope that we will all agree that the image of God cannot be properly represented by males alone. Two, I hope that we will all agree that Paul's statements are not always clear.
If I am going to take a look at the image of God, and see how it is borne, I am going to look at two things, the first mention of His image, and what we know about Him.
The First Mention of the Image of God
Gen 1:26&27
And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth. So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.
(That's pretty cool - when I cut/paste from Crosswalk, the lexicon entries still work.)
Gen 5:1&2
This is the book of the generations of Adam. In the day that God created man, in the likeness of God made he him; Male and female created he them; and blessed them, and called their name Adam, in the day when they were created.
Check this out. Click "man" in the 7th word of the first passage. You will go to a page that tells you about ~da, which is Adam. If you then refresh this page, you will note that "Adam", the 8th word from the end of the second passage is purple (or whatever color displays for visited links.) This is because the word for "man" and the word for "Adam" in Hebrew are exactly the same word, so when you visited the word for "man," you also visited the word for "Adam."
So, when God created Adam, He created man. This word also means, "mankind." So, the writer of Genesis has gone out of his way to tell us that mankind was created in the image of God as male and female.
Score one for the image of God being properly represented by a plurality of people including both male and female.
What We Know About God
If we know God to be and do things that we would understand as male and female attributes, then we can logically conclude that His attributes could not be completely represented by only male or female. We all accept that God does things typically interpreted as masculine. Is God and does God do things typically interpreted as feminine?
Yes.
1) El Shaddai is often interpreted as God Almighty. It is readily accepted by many, though, that this could better be interpreted as God our Nurture/Supply. This is because shad, in the Hebrew, is breast. If God the Nurturing Breast is a reasonable interpretation of El Shaddai, then we have a solid reference to a feminine attribute of God.
2) The Spirit was a Mother Bird over all the earth.
Gen 1:2 And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.
Jamieson, Fausset and Brown
[This the text from Crosswalk.com]
the Spirit of God moved--literally, continued brooding over it, as a fowl does, when hatching eggs.
[This is the text from the bound version of the same commentary]
moved on -- Our English version does not give the meaning correctly; for this word does not convey the idea of progressive motion, but that of brooding over -- cherishing -- the act of incubation which a fowl performs when hatching its eggs.
[Fascinating how different the two texts are. I wonder who made the changes?]
Matthew Henry
as the hen gathers her chickens under her wings, and hovers over them, to warm and cherish them, Mt. 23:37,—as the eagle stirs up her nest, and flutters over her young (it is the same world that is here used), Deu. 32:11. Learn hence, That God is not only the author of all being, but the fountain of life and spring of motion.
[Baker's Evangelical Dictionary lists this verse as a reference on sexual immorality. That's a kick.]
I'm reasonably sure we could find lots of references for the Spirit's brooding over the face of the deep as a feminine act.
3) Let me quote a number of verses all neatly aggregated for us by Christians for Biblical Equality at their page, What Language Shall We Use? There is a lot on this link that I have not quoted here for those who are interested.
Deuteronomy 32:18: “You deserted the Rock, who bore you. You forgot the God who gave you birth.”
Hosea 13:8: “Like a bear robbed of her cubs, I will attack them and rip them open.”
Isaiah 46:3–4: “[Y]ou whom I have upheld since you were conceived, and have carried since your birth. Even to your old age and grey hairs I am he, I am he who will sustain you. I have made you and I will carry you; I will sustain you and I will rescue you.”
Isaiah 66:13: “As a mother comforts her child, so will I comfort you.”
Job 38:29: “From whose womb comes the ice? Who gives birth to the frost from the heavens... ?”
Psalm 90:2: “Before the mountains were born or you brought forth the earth and the world . . .”
Hosea 11:3–4: “It was I who taught Ephraim to walk, taking them by the arms; but they did not realize it was I who healed them. I led them with cords of human kindness, with ties of love; I lifted the yoke from their neck and bent down to feed them.”
Also from this page, let me quote:
Holy Spirit (in Hebrew is feminine, ruah...)
4) The Lord does "women's work" for us.
Gen 2:18 And the LORD God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him.
The word "meet" in that verse, as in "help meet", is "ezer" in Hebrew (as you will see if you click on the link.) It appears 21 times in scripture according to Crosswalk's count, and the overwhelming majority of times it appears describing what God is to us. Here it describes what the woman is to be to the man. I'm cool with either seeing this as elevating the role of the wife to be like that of God toward us, or simply describing the work of God as the same as the work of a wife. Either the woman is doing something distinctly unfeminine here, or God is doing something feminine in the Psalms.
Ps 20:2
Send thee help from the sanctuary, and strengthen thee out of Zion;
Ps 33:20
Our soul waiteth for the LORD: he is our help and our shield.
Ps 70:5
But I am poor and needy: make haste unto me, O God: thou art my help and my deliverer; O LORD, make no tarrying.
Ps 89:19
Then thou spakest in vision to thy holy one, and saidst, I have laid help upon one that is mighty; I have exalted one chosen out of the people.
Ps 115:9
O Israel, trust thou in the LORD: he is their help and their shield.
Ps 115:10
O house of Aaron, trust in the LORD: he is their help and their shield.
Ps 115:11
Ye that fear the LORD, trust in the LORD: he is their help and their shield.
Ps 121:1
I will lift up mine eyes unto the hills, from whence cometh my help.
Ps 121:2
My help cometh from the LORD, which made heaven and earth.
Ps 124:8
Our help is in the name of the LORD, who made heaven and earth.
Ps 146:5
Happy is he that hath the God of Jacob for his help, whose hope is in the LORD his God:
Paul and the Image of God
On the human side, we have seen that from the beginning, God made all of mankind the bearer of His image, and that this mankind includes male and female. On the heavenly side, we have seen that God is not ashamed to ascribe to Himself feminine attributes and actions. The obvious conclusion is that the masculine and feminine sides of mankind both show forth (glorify) crucial portions of the Godhead.
So, what is Paul's take on all this? It seems pretty negative so far!
Paul uses the Greek word for, "image," 7 other times according to Crosswalk.com.
Ro 1:23
And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things.
Ro 8:29
For whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brethren.
1Co 15:49
And as we have borne the image of the earthy, we shall also bear the image of the heavenly.
2Co 3:18
But we all, with open face beholding as in a glass the glory of the Lord, are changed into the same image from glory to glory, even as by the Spirit of the Lord.
2Co 4:4
In whom the god of this world hath blinded the minds of them which believe not, lest the light of the glorious gospel of Christ, who is the image of God, should shine unto them.
Col 1:15
Who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature:
Col 3:10
And have put on the new man, which is renewed in knowledge after the image of him that created him:
Of those 7 other times, Paul refers to idols 1 time, all of us being made like Christ 4 times, and Christ Himself bearing/being the Image of God 2 times. When Paul refers to us being made like Christ, it is clear that he is refering equally to men and women, but he is not refering to the likeness of God that we bear. Neither is he refering to this likeness when he talks about idols.
That leaves us with 2 verses that say Christ is the Image of God, and one verse seeming to say that all males are the image of God. Paul has left us with precious few guideposts to interpreting his statement about males being the image of God. We have even fewer guideposts regarding women being the image of men.
This verse is an island in the scripture. It speaks truth, but we only have negative clues so far as to its meaning. That declared, I am content to say that the negative evidence is overwhelming. Whatever Paul meant, it was not that only men bear the image of God. When Paul speaks of the Image of God, he is going to capitalize the noun, and be speaking of Christ. That is not the case here, so it must mean something else.
---
Like I said at the beginning of this post, I hope that everyone agrees with this analysis. (Who'm I kidding - I hope that everyone agrees with all my analyses. ;-P] Do you agree with the basic idea of looking at a verse in this way? If you find its common interpretation to be out of step with the rest of scripture, do you agree that looking for some stronger interpretation makes sense?
Next, we have to go to the positive meaning of 1 Cor 11:7. What *is* the truth Paul is speaking here? For that we need to go to the internal context of 1 Corinthians, and I fear I have already gone on long enough with this post. So, until some time later this week...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
