 |
|
| Author |
Message |
| lornewel Member Joined May 11, 2004 553 posts Location: Abbotsford |
 Asking the right question? |
Posted Jan 27, 2005; 3:54 pm |
|
This is my first post.
As of January 1st, I became Moderator at Northview Community church in Abbotsford, where I have attended for 20 years. During my growing-up and early adult years, I attended various evangelical churches. Since attending this MB church, I have read the MB Herald (usually coer-to-cover) and picked up some of the history and flavour of this Mennonite conference.
In the April 9th Herald I read about the request of the Manitoba conference for the Canadian conference to re-visit its current position on women in ministry. I found some things in Walter Unger's piece about that and the study sessions to follow disturbing. (More on that below.) Recently, I noticed that the study session in my town will be February 4th and 5th, dates on which I am unable to be there. Since I am new to my position, I called our church office and spoke with a pastor to see if my church had any delegates going, how they would be selected, what our position would be, etc. My impression is that our church does not put a high priority on participation in such things, tends to view them as attempts to "sell" the congregations on things the conference leaders intend to do anyway. I have noticed some letters to the Herald also express that. It also resonated exactly with one of my internal responses when I read Walter Unger's piece in April. I had noted in my journal at that time that the choice of language (e.g. "prepare the national church for a decision") indicated to me that the BFL (or at least Walter Unger) had already decided the question and the real meaning to me was "prepare them to accept a decision the BFL has already made" or "lead them toward a decision they were unwilling to make in the past."
I have noticed that in court cases or in political election campaigns, whoever gets to define "the question" has gone a long way already in determining the answer. I truly do not think the question is about women being restricted in ministry (which means "serving.") I don't know of anyone credible on any "side" of the discussion who would not agree that women are gifted by the Holy Spirit and called to be involved in ministry just as men are.
The real issue on which there is divergence and what the proposed change really addresses is: women in positions or roles of authority in the church (including authority over men.) As far as I am concerned, the current position is wrong on that as well. In the structure of Northview, for example, the Board of which I, as Moderator, am the chair, is "over" the Senior Pastor. Yet my position could be held by a woman and the senior pastor role not. So the "mixing" of discussion about "ministry" and about "authority" necessarily leads to muddled thinking about what we are trying to resolve.
Another area of divergence, it seems to me, is in approach. Walter Unger said the conference and the study sessions would examine not only the biblical, but the "pragmatic, political, symbolic and personal aspects of the current restrictions on women in ministry." Our confession of faith says that the scripture is our authroity, so why would we try to decide what God says about governing His church by the "pragmatic, political, symbolic and personal." Since when has God ever demonstrated that he does things for those reasons?
Then Walter Unger also said, "We will explore the biblical trajectory that points to the freeing of women for all ministry." What school of hermeneutics uses "biblical trajectory?" What does it mean? It seems to me to mean that if scripture does not say something I wish it did, I can say "But I think this scripture is pointing this direction, so if I follow its trajectory, and I say it lands over here." What could be more of a "private interpretation" (2 Peter 1:20) than that would lead to? If the conference already knows that there is a "biblical trajectory that points to the freeing of women for all ministry", why have "study sessions?"
If you choose to frame the issue in language such as "restriction" versus "freeing", the outcome is all but assured. When Adam and Eve were told not to eat of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, was that "restriction" or "freedom?" I think it was freedom, because they could eat of every tree in the garden but one. And the "restriction" about that one was for their good and all generations to follow. But the serpent persuaded Eve that it was "restriction" and that God did not have her best interests at heart and was holding out on her. So she disobeyed and ate and gave it to her husband. Lo and behold, violating that "restriction" resulted in losing all their "freedom" in the garden.
Beware - we are at the same type of junction right now. We are being tempted to throw off a "restriction." Since we cannot seem to find our warrant for that within the words of scripture, we are looking to things like "biblical trajectory" and the "pragmatic, political, symbolic and personal aspects."
Our churches are being encouraged to have their women ask, as Aaron and Miriam did in Numbers 12, "Has the Lord spoken only through Moses... Hasn't He also spoken through us?" The Lord quickly reminded them that Moses was His choice for leader and asked, "Why then were you not afraid to speak against my servant Moses?"
If you don't believe God has an order of authority for his creation and for the church, go ahead and arrange things however you want. But if you believe it is His church, not ours, and that he has an order of authority which He has never repealed, then be very careful. The order I see in scripture is God the Father, Jesus the Son, man, woman, children.
If we really insist on being pragmatic, I ask you to look at other denominiations who used these methods years ago to decide about women clergy. They are the ones now with gay clergy and who are publically advocating the government of Canada to approve gay marriage. If that's where our conference intends to end up, they should use the same methods of decison making.
I have to run now, and this is already long. Thanks for considering it.
THIS IS MY PERSONAL POST, AND HAS NOT BEEN SEEN NOR APPROVED BY ANYBODY ELSE. |
|
|
|
| gay lynn voth Member Joined Jan 25, 2005 693 posts |
| |
Posted Jan 27, 2005; 5:19 pm |
|
| I agree that it is so important to ask the right questions - especially in this matter ... It seems very complex and I believe that is why the MB conference wants to have members gather to discuss the topic ... In particular, to see how we are all understanding the issue. I had one question about the order of subordination listed in your post ... Are you working with the theological idea of the "eternal subordination of the Son (Jesus Christ) to the Father (God)? If so, how does that effect the equality within the persons of the Trinity? Thanks :) |
|
|
|
| Marshall Member Joined Feb 7, 2002 1191 posts Location: Langley, BC |
| |
Posted Jan 27, 2005; 5:42 pm |
|
(Oops, this post got messed up. I've tried to get it close to the way it was before.)
Welcome, Lorne. Thanks for posting!
| lornewel wrote: | | My impression is that our church does not put a high priority on participation in such things, tends to view them as attempts to "sell" the congregations on things the conference leaders intend to do anyway. |
I've heard that sentiment elsewhere too, and about decisions at conventions as well as study conferences. I wonder how much is cause and how much is effect. Do these times turn into rubber-stamp sessions because not enough people participate in them, and some of those who do haven't researched the issues beforehand? Or, do people not attend or research the issues because they don't see their participation as mattering? It's probably a bit of both, and so probably a marked improvement will require change in both the conference and member churches.
| Quote: | | I have noticed that in court cases or in political election campaigns, whoever gets to define "the question" has gone a long way already in determining the answer. I truly do not think the question is about women being restricted in ministry (which means "serving.") I don't know of anyone credible on any "side" of the discussion who would not agree that women are gifted by the Holy Spirit and called to be involved in ministry just as men are. |
I think the conference has been cautious to not frame the question that broadly. I know that on the web sites, where I've been part of the process and so aware of some of these decisions, we've been very careful to present the issue as one of "Women in Ministry Leadership". That is the case here on the forum as well as on the main site. I quickly checked all the MB Herald news reports about the study conferences, and all of them use the same terminology instead of abbreviating the issue to "Women in Ministry". As such, I don't think the question has been defined in a way that is biased.
| Quote: | | The real issue on which there is divergence and what the proposed change really addresses is: women in positions or roles of authority in the church (including authority over men.) As far as I am concerned, the current position is wrong on that as well. In the structure of Northview, for example, the Board of which I, as Moderator, am the chair, is "over" the Senior Pastor. Yet my position could be held by a woman and the senior pastor role not. So the "mixing" of discussion about "ministry" and about "authority" necessarily leads to muddled thinking about what we are trying to resolve. |
That is an excellent point and a part of the debate that I feel needs to receive more attention.
| Quote: | | Then Walter Unger also said, "We will explore the biblical trajectory that points to the freeing of women for all ministry." What school of hermeneutics uses "biblical trajectory?" What does it mean? It seems to me to mean that if scripture does not say something I wish it did, I can say "But I think this scripture is pointing this direction, so if I follow its trajectory, and I say it lands over here." |
I think a good example of following a "biblical trajectory" is the issue of slavery. While specific biblical instructions speak of slaves being obedient to their masters and masters not mistreating slaves, the trajectory of Scripture is toward equality in Christ, where there is neither slave nor free (Galatians 3:28). When we focus on the details, we need to allow the larger picture to inform our interpretation.
| Quote: | | Beware - we are at the same type of junction right now. We are being tempted to throw off a "restriction." Since we cannot seem to find our warrant for that within the words of scripture, we are looking to things like "biblical trajectory" and the "pragmatic, political, symbolic and personal aspects." |
This is not the first time we've come to such a junction. In the past, we considered what to do with Paul's instruction that women should not have their heads uncovered in church (1 Corinthians 11:3-16). We've also agreed on other interpretations, such as that when 1 Timothy 3:2 says that an overseer must be "the husband of one wife", this doesn't exclude single men from this position. We've decided that when 1 Corinthians 14:34 says "The women are to keep silent in the churches; for they are not permitted to speak" that it is dealing with a particular situation and does not apply to all situations. And, even though 1 Timothy 2:12 says "But I do not allow a woman to teach or exercise authority over a man, but to remain quiet", we still allow women to teach men in many ways, but just not in the role of head pastor in a church (a point you mentioned earlier).
If we are truly to take these particular injunctions as absolute and literal as some propose, then we need to take back much of the freedom that women already have: the freedom to attend church without a head covering or long hair; the freedom to teach their acquaintances, male and female, about Jesus and God's word; the freedom to pray, read Scripture, and share information in church.
But, of course, in doing so we would be ignoring other parts of Scripture. If we think that women can never teach men, then what do we do with Acts 18:26 where it says that both Priscilla and Aquila instructed Apollos (and Priscilla's name is even mentioned first!)? What do we do with the instances of women prophetesses (Acts 2:17-18; 21:9), and Paul's teaching that every "one who prophesies speaks to men for edification and exhortation and consolation" and that "you can all prophesy one by one, so that all may learn and all may be exhorted" (1 Corinthians 14:3,31). According to Paul, prophesying is a form of teaching, and women are permitted to prophecy to men! If we interpret 1 Timothy 2:12 in a way that contradicts this, then we undermine Scripture.
| Quote: | | If we really insist on being pragmatic, I ask you to look at other denominiations who used these methods years ago to decide about women clergy. They are the ones now with gay clergy and who are publically advocating the government of Canada to approve gay marriage. |
It is true that how we interpret Scripture can influence our stance on homosexuality. It can also lead us to silencing women and rejecting their role in sharing the Gospel. Instead of worrying about which error we're closest to, we should focus in moving always nearer to the truth. Decisions should not be based on which alternative is furthest away from something we really dislike.
Last edited by Marshall on Jan 28, 2005; 12:26 am; edited 2 times in total. |
|
|
|
| lornewel Member Joined May 11, 2004 553 posts Location: Abbotsford |
| Reply - Asking the right question? |
Posted Jan 27, 2005; 9:12 pm |
|
1. To respond to gay lynn voth's question " | Quote: | | Are you working with the theological idea of the "eternal subordination of the Son (Jesus Christ) to the Father (God)? If so, how does that effect the equality within the persons of the Trinity? |
I don't really know - I haven't conducted a study of that topic, and I don't think it has anything to do with how I see the issue of women in leadership. The persons of the trinity are "of one substance", and I suppose "equal." Jesus said "I and my Father are one." "I am in the Father and the Father in me." But he also said that he is in us and we are in him and that we are one. Does that make me "equal" to God? Jesus is seated in the heavenlies at the right hand of the father, but he is not on his father's throne. He is not trying to usurp the Father's place even though he is equal. The scripture says Jesus is going to deliver the kingdom to the Father one day. Does that mean "eternal subordination?" I don't know. But I think subordination is what a dominator does to the dominated - he subordinates them. Jesus, on the other had, submitted himself to the Father and was obedient. The scripture does not call on men to subjugate women any more than the Father subjugated Jesus, but for the women (in marriage and the church) to submit to the leadership of the man; also for each, at the personal level, to submit to one another.
Maybe in heaven, where we are not "married nor given in marriage," men and women will not only be equal, but have identical roles - I don't know. But Jesus will always be the Son and not the Father, as far as I can see in scripture. My human father will always be my father and I will always respect him as that.
2) To Marshall also:
To me the issue is about roles and responsibilities, not about equality. The scripture clearly teaches that the body of Christ, just as a physical body, has many parts. All the parts do not have the same function, but they all have the same value. Men and women have the same value to God and to his body, the church. But they do not have the same roles.
It has been that way from the beginning. Man was formed first then the woman as his "helper/completer." I did not choose that. Woman was deceived by the serpent but man ate of the fruit deliberately (it seems.) Yet God made the woman subject to the man. That doesn't seem fair to me - but then my ways are not God's ways nor are my thoughts His. There were 12 tribes in Israel. God picked one, Levi, for no reason apparent to me, to be his priests. Not even Judah, through whom Messiah was to come, could enter the Most Holy Place. Does not seem fair to me - but then my ways are not God's ways nor are my thoughts His. He said only the priests could carry the ark of the covenant. When David tried to "modernize" the movement of the ark on a cart, and the oxen stumbled, Uzzah put out his hand to steady it. He was doing an act which seemed good, yet God struck him dead on the spot. Does not seem fair to me - but then my ways are not God's ways nor are my thoughts His. Among the Levites, only the males could be priests, go into the holy places, handle the holy things. Does not seem fair to me - but then my ways are not God's ways nor are my thoughts His. Only males who were "whole" could be priests - not the blind, lame, nor one injured in his privates. Does not seem fair to me - but .... When both Miriam and Aaron questioned Moses as the only one hearing from God (see my previous post), God angrily rebuked both of them, but only Miriam got leprosy. Does not seem fair to me - but ....
When Jesus came as Messiah, he treated both women and men with dignity, included them both in his teaching. But when he chose apostles, he only chose men. Does not seem fair to me - but .... When he gave instructions through his apostles and prophets about the oversight of his church, he said to appoint men, and specifically, not women. Does not seem fair to me - but .... The twenty-four elders around the throne seem to be men. Does not seem fair to me - but .... The 144,000 (whoever they are) are men.
The New Testament instruction is that women are to teach women and children. Some people want to bring up Priscilla to refute this, but she did not teach Apollos except as a team with her husband. So she did not "take authority over" either of the men. In my home church, the Pastoral Elders work as couples. In my understanding of scripture that is absolutely correct practice. Elders' wives biblically have to have very similar qualities to the men.
I cannot say I fully understand the 1 Timothy 2 passage which causes so much angst. The stuff about childbearing. And why the order of creation of Adam and Eve, and who was deceived (versus who apparently sinned deliberately) governs anything, I am not sure - though I have some thoughts about it. But it seems to me what is causing the debate is, as Mark Twain is reputed to have said: "It's not the parts of the Bible I don't understand which bother me - it's the parts I do understand." But once we start labelling one passage as "restrictive" and another as "liberating", we are getting in deep trouble. God gives "restrictions" for our own good, and we ignore them at great peril. After Paul, by the Holy Spirit, gives instrtuctions about men and women and their roles in the church in 1 Timothy 2 and 3, he immediately says, "I write these things... so that you may know how one ought to conduct himself in the household of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of truth." At the end of the epistle he writes (6:20) "O Timothy, guard what has been entrusted to you, avoiding worldly and empty chatter and the opposing arguments of what is falsely called "knowledge" - which some have professed and thus gone astray from the truth." I submit that these instructions have never been repealed. Scriptures too numerous to mention urge, command and exhort us to cling to the truth. Never do they indicate that the truth is situational, changing over time, etc. If we are going to let the "pragmatic, political, symbolic and personal" considerations of our "knowledge" override the teaching of scripture, we are headed for disaster.
Personally, women have contributed a lot to my life as a believer. I like to listen to the tapes my wife gets at women's conferences, to listen to female TV preachers, etc. There are for sure prophetesses, even today. But God never asked a woman to oversee his church. And lest we think that was mere oversight, he said the contrary. I am not advocating in any way "silencing women and rejecting their role in sharing the Gospel," Marshall. I just want to contribute to us "rightly dividing the truth."
Marshall, your post referred to Galatians 3:28, and the study session in Abbotsford will focus on that verse. In context, it is about our oneness in Christ, our equal inheritance of the promises of Abraham. It is not about roles in the body. If you say that the verse means there are no distinctions whatsoever within, say, gender, which is one category enumerated, then I, as a male, could just as readily be a wife as a husband. If there is, literally, "neither male nor female," then all the hullabaloo about the definition of marriage is "unchristian." But I submit, that if you read the whole sentence, that is not what Paul was getting at. If he were, then all his writings about the body and its distinctive parts having differing roles though they are of equal value, would be nonsense.
Sometimes, as in 2 Timothy, Paul's writings are hard for me to grasp. But as Peter said (2 Peter 3:15-17) we need to be on guard against the twisting and distortion of Paul's difficult writings. |
|
|
|
| Marshall Member Joined Feb 7, 2002 1191 posts Location: Langley, BC |
| Re: Reply - Asking the right question? |
Posted Jan 28, 2005; 12:23 am |
|
Thanks for the response, Lorne, but I still don't understand how you make the distinction you do. From what I can see, you are appealing to texts that say women should be silent or women should not teach in order to say that women should not be head pastors. It is the disconnect between those texts and your position that I still don't understand, especially since we agree that the head pastor is often responsible to higher positions within the local church, such as a church council and moderator. Why can women speak and teach and yet not be head pastor? Neither 1 Timothy 2:11-12 nor 1 Corinthians 14:34-35 make the case for this.
Two passages that deal specifically with the role of overseer are 1 Timothy 3:1-7 and Titus 1:6-9. Since both passages are quite similar, I'll just quote one:
| 1 Timothy 3:1-7 wrote: | | It is a trustworthy statement: if any man aspires to the office of overseer, it is a fine work he desires to do. An overseer, then, must be above reproach, the husband of one wife, temperate, prudent, respectable, hospitable, able to teach, not addicted to wine or pugnacious, but gentle, peaceable, free from the love of money. He must be one who manages his own household well, keeping his children under control with all dignity (but if a man does not know how to manage his own household, how will he take care of the church of God?), and not a new convert, so that he will not become conceited and fall into the condemnation incurred by the devil. And he must have a good reputation with those outside the church, so that he will not fall into reproach and the snare of the devil. |
Now, assuming that these guidelines apply directly to us, it seems to me that there's two possible interpretations here, both of which have biblical precedent. Perhaps Paul is using the term "man" the same way it is used in Romans 3:28, James 1:12 and many other passages. And, perhaps "husband of one wife" is used as an example of a general principle (that the person should not have more than one spouse), much like Luke 17:3 explains the general principle of forgiving a believer who sins against us by using the specific example of forgiving a brother in Christ. If that is the case, then this passage does not speak against women overseers, but rather uses male language to demonstrate requirements that any overseer would need to meet.
The other interpretation is that the male language is not demonstrative but rather prescriptive. In this case, the overseer must be male, must be married to one wife, and must have children who are well-behaved.
Now, in between the two, one could take the "man" part literally while disregarding the necessity of him being a "husband" with "children". However, if this approach is taken, surely it is clear that the interpretation is based on a best guess of what Paul meant rather than a plain reading of the text.
| lornewel wrote: | | Man was formed first then the woman as his "helper/completer." |
Just a sidenote, but the same word here used to describe the woman as a helper is used to describe God as Judah's helper in Deuteronomy 33:7. So, this term does not indicate a subservient role.
Last edited by Marshall on Jan 28, 2005; 1:45 am; edited 4 times in total. |
|
|
|
| lornewel Member Joined May 11, 2004 553 posts Location: Abbotsford |
| Re: Reply - Asking the right question? |
Posted Jan 28, 2005; 1:36 am |
|
"Marshall" said: "From what I can see, you are appealing to texts that say women should be silent or women should not teach in order to say that women should not be head pastors. It is the disconnect between those texts and your position that I still don't understand, especially since we agree that the head pastor is often responsible to higher positions within the local church, such as a church council and moderator. Why can women speak and teach and yet not be head pastor? Neither 1 Timothy 2:11-12 nor 1 Corinthians 14:34-35 make the case for this."
I never said anything about those passages precluding women from being head pastors. As a matter of fact, if we want to get onto that, I don't see the scripture saying anything about "head pastor." There is very little use of the word "pastor" in the NT (maybe twice). In Ephesians 4 there is a list of the so-called five-fold ministry of apostles, prophets, evangelists, pastors and teachers. But leadership is given to "elders" or "bishops", alternately called "overseers." The primary function of an overseer, as with a literal shepherd, is to guard or protect the flock. The elder may also exercise one or more of the 5 ministries or gifts, in order to "equip the saints to do the work of the ministry." But so may non-elders. I don't see scripture describing "clergy" and "laity" at all.
The passage I referred to in 1 Timothy 2 says the woman should be in quietness. Some versions say silence. The primary meaning of that word is:
1) quietness
a) description of the life of one who stays at home doing his own work, and does not officiously meddle with the affairs of others
In context, this is surely what is meant in 1 Timothy 2, as opposed to "soundless."
You say that maybe "man" does not mean a male person but the generic "mankind', maybe "husband" means "spouse", etc. Maybe, but if I had to bet, I'd bet not. If you look at the whole of the Bible, whenever God prescribed spiritual leadership, he either specifically prescribed males or used male language. So I would not be betting, based on our modern ideas of equality, that he did not mean the male language. If I had to choose between that and saying dropping head covering "proves" that's the way to approach scriptural interpretation, I'd rather say we were wrong about the head covering. |
|
|
|
| Marshall Member Joined Feb 7, 2002 1191 posts Location: Langley, BC |
| Re: Reply - Asking the right question? |
Posted Jan 28, 2005; 1:53 am |
|
| lornewel wrote: | | I never said anything about those passages precluding women from being head pastors. As a matter of fact, if we want to get onto that, I don't see the scripture saying anything about "head pastor." |
Okay, sorry for misunderstanding you. Which positions in the church do you think should only be open to men? And, should they only be open to married men with children?
| Quote: | | So I would not be betting, based on our modern ideas of equality, that he did not mean the male language. |
I'm not saying the male language is mistaken, but rather than it may be used inclusively. How do you read Romans 3:28 and James 1:2-3? If you apply these passages to men and women, on what basis do you do so?
| Quote: | | If I had to choose between that and saying dropping head covering "proves" that's the way to approach scriptural interpretation, I'd rather say we were wrong about the head covering. |
I appreciate you saying that. I agree. If that approach to Scripture is correct, then there's a number of other practices we should rescind. |
|
|
|
| McDLT Moderator Joined May 14, 2004 1451 posts Location: Toronto |
| |
Posted Jan 28, 2005; 9:43 am |
|
This discussion is great! I'm really enjoying it. Thank you so much for your insight Lorne.  |
|
|
|
| Todd Moderator Joined Sep 9, 2004 1088 posts Location: Winnipeg |
| |
Posted Jan 28, 2005; 10:48 am |
|
| Lorne, I too appreciate the responses you have given. You have given me much to think about. To me, certain texts are clear regarding male authority, but I struggle with how that applies in practise. You've done a better job than I could in making these texts practical. |
|
|
|
| lornewel Member Joined May 11, 2004 553 posts Location: Abbotsford |
| Asking the right question - "male language" |
Posted Jan 28, 2005; 3:52 pm |
|
Marshall: Thanks for staying engaged.
Todd & McDLT, Hi!
Marshall asked, "I'm not saying the male language is mistaken, but rather than it may be used inclusively. How do you read Romans 3:28 and James 1:2-3? If you apply these passages to men and women, on what basis do you do so? " [I'm not sure how to use those quote box thingys.]
To know how to interpret scripture, a widely accepted first rule is "interpret scripture by scripture." So, if different meanings for a passage are being proposed, and the first is in synch with the whole Bible and the second is not, or is less so, go with the first. A second principle is, look at the context. "A text without a context is a pretext" goes an old, reliable, adage. In a previous post, I was applying these two principles to see whether the useage of Galations 3:28 as abolishing gender roles is correct.
So the both the Bible-wide and the immediate contexts of the use of the word "man" in Romans 3:28 lead us to conclude it is being used by the writer as "humankind", not as "male." To conclude that the verse means that males are justified by faith but females are justified by law or maybe not at all, is completely out of synch with the whole of scripture. The context is not trying to make any distinction about genders. Futhermore, the specific Greek word used (anthropos) has "mankind" as its first and most common meaning.
Outline of Biblical Usage
1) a human being, whether male or female
a) generically, to include all human individuals
b) to distinguish man from beings of a different order
1) of animals and plants
2) of from God and Christ
3) of the angels
c) with the added notion of weakness, by which man is led into a mistake or prompted to sin
d) with the adjunct notion of contempt or disdainful pity
e) with reference to two fold nature of man, body and soul
f) with reference to the two fold nature of man, the corrupt and the truly Christian man, conformed to the nature of God
g) with reference to sex, a male
2) indefinitely, someone, a man, one
3) in the plural, people
4) joined with other words, merchantman
Likewise, in James 1:2 the word "brethren" is used. The same kind of analysis leads me (and I think anyone not being facetious) to conclude that the word is being used there inclusively and not gender-specifically. We have lots of examples in English, as well as in the Bible, of using a male word to mean, in context, all humanity. The specific Greek word used in James (adelphos) has the base meaning of "genetic brother", but, in context in the scripture is often used to mean brother (or sister) in the faith, "a fellow believer, united to another by the bond of affection ."
On the other hand, there are other passages of scripture which, both by the words used and the context, are purposefully distinguishing between male and female. For example, Gen. 1:27, Num. 3:12. More to the point for the topic of women in church leadership, 1Timothy 2 and 3 is one such passage which clearly, by both context and words, is making distinctions between men and women. So when God the Holy Spirit, speaking through Paul, says a women is not to have authority over a man, it would be quite disingenous to say that perhaps, based on Romans 3:28 and James 1:2, He may have meant "mankind" must not have authority over "mankind." When he says "it was the woman (not Adam) who was deceived", he surely does not mean "humankind" (not Adam) was deceived. Likewise in speaking of elders in chapter 3, is there some doubt that by "husband" and "wife", that he meant a generic "spouse?"
As for your question about which positions in the church I think should be only male, if it were up to me, I'd say, "none." But it is not my church. It is the church of the Living God and the church of the Firstborn from the dead. So when He causes his holy apostle to write something so the churches will "know how people ought to conduct themselves in God's household, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and foundation of the truth'" (1 Tim 3:15), I am extremely loath, not to mention afraid, to mess with it. Remember when Aaron and Miriam (Numbers 12) criticized God's choice for leader and said, "Don't we also hear from God?" What did God say? He asked, "Why were you not afraid?" I am asking "why are we not afraid" to propose women be in authority over men when God says "No?" In the context we may not be clear on whether elders/overseers/bishops could be single or childless, but is there any doubt that God said they were to be male?
I also think that the use of our language of "positions", "senior pastors" is based on our traditions about how to do church, with hired staff who could be fired, etc. In the church Jesus died to save and to which he gave instructions through his holy apostles, the elders were like fathers (e.g. the "elder" John and his "children", 1 John 3:1,4) It does not behoove the children to depose their fathers and install their mothers to rule over them.(Gen.3:16) |
|
|
|
| Marshall Member Joined Feb 7, 2002 1191 posts Location: Langley, BC |
| Re: Asking the right question - "male language" |
Posted Jan 28, 2005; 5:18 pm |
|
Lorne, I agree fully with your explanation of Romans 3:28 and James 1:2-3. I also agree that 1 Timothy 2 is clearly talking about men and women separately, and also that the deacons in 1 Timothy 3:8-13 are discussed separately, either as deacons and deacons's wives, or as deacons and deaconesses. So, we do appear to have a lot of common ground in how we interpret gender elsewhere in the Bible, but that does not help much in our disagreement on 1 Timothy 3:1-7.
Let's look at the first two verses:
"It is a trustworthy statement: if any man aspires to the office of overseer, it is a fine work he desires to do." According to blueletterbible.org, the Greek word translated "if any man" here is ei tis. It's definition is apparently "whoever, whatever". Not only does this word not contain gender, but it doesn't even distinguish between people or objects! It is often used elsewhere to refer to people in general, or even to things in general. So, this appears to be a case where some English translations include more gender-specific language than the Greek does.
"Now the overseer must be above reproach, the husband of but one wife..." In this verse, there is no doubt about the meaning of the words "husband" and "wife". The question, as I raised earlier, is whether Paul is using an example (husband of one wife) to explain a larger principle (bigamists not allowed). Since you've said that you don't think it is necessary for an overseer to be married, I take it that you at least partially agree with this reasoning.
The only other gender references in this text are in pronouns, and of course with pronouns the standard practice, both in Greek and English (until recently), is to use the male pronoun when referring to a single individual, whether male or female.
So basically, the entire case seems to rest on whether Paul could say "the husband of one wife" as shorthand for "the husband of one wife, or the wife of one husband, or a single person". Based on biblical precedent, such as Luke 17:3, I think that is quite possible.
Also, the other texts that we agree on show quite clearly how Paul can be specific about gender. Nobody doubts that 1 Timothy 2:12 makes a distinction by gender -- about the only thing I've heard is that it may refer to wives and husbands rather than women and men in general. And yet, in 1 Timothy 3:1-7, that type of clear language is not used. As such, I don't think it's something we can be dogmatic about.
Also, I'm still not sure of your answer to the question about which positions should be restricted to men. You said that if it was up to you, your answer would be "none", but the Bible says otherwise. However, you never did state what you felt the Bible said about exactly which positions should be restricted to men. Church council positions? Church moderator? Senior pastor? All pastors? I'd really like to know, because I think our discussion of the text is useless if we don't apply it.
| Quote: | | In the context we may not be clear on whether elders/overseers/bishops could be single or childless, but is there any doubt that God said they were to be male? |
Why are you willing to gamble on one and not the other? I think there's about an equal amount of doubt as to whether these positions can be held by women or single men. After all, it comes down to the term "husbands". |
|
|
|
| Marshall Member Joined Feb 7, 2002 1191 posts Location: Langley, BC |
| Quotes |
Posted Jan 28, 2005; 5:56 pm |
|
| lornewel wrote: | | [I'm not sure how to use those quote box thingys.] |
Just use code that looks like this:
| Code: | | [quote]Text you want to quote.[/quote] |
You can also do a quote box that says who you're quoting. To do that, use this code:
| Code: | | [quote="Author's name"]Text you want to quote.[/quote] |
Hope that helps!
Edit: For more ways to quote, see the topic Forum Tip - Quoting which McDLT just made.
Last edited by Marshall on Jan 28, 2005; 8:06 pm; edited 1 time in total. |
|
|
|
| gay lynn voth Member Joined Jan 25, 2005 693 posts |
| |
Posted Jan 28, 2005; 6:49 pm |
|
It is quite interesting to see how this discussion is developing. There are definitely some unique foundational presuppositions working in the various arguments. It would seem helpful to think about what these presuppositions are. The reason I asked the question about the "eternal subordination" of the Son to the Father, addresses one of those presuppositions. We use metaphorical language when we try to understand the relationship within the Trinity. God, in so many ways, is above and beyond our understanding, comprehension, and language, since God is transcendent and infinite, as well as Spirit. Sometimes we assume that we know exactly what God was saying to one group of people, or individual, within scripture, without knowing the context in which these words are spoken. I don't just mean the biblical context, but the historical context. Moses, Aaron and Miriam, for example, were real people, working within real historical realities, ministering to real people who were experiencing real oppression at the hands of an unjust ruler. I think we need to be careful that we don't assume we 'automatically' can know what the relationship is between Moses, as leader, and the pastors we call to ministry within the MB churches. (Maybe Wally Unger is taking on the role of "Moses" in our conference :)
We need a good understanding of the apostle Paul's relationship with the Mosaic tradition, and how he is referencing this scriptural tradition as he develops a distinctly Christian theology. In other words, at many times in his letters, Paul is drawing attention to the Jewish scriptures, but he does not always interpret them in the conventional Jewish way. For an example of this see Galatians 4 where he gives the identity of the children of Sarah to the Christian followers and the identity of the children of Hagar to those who still hold to the Jewish laws (especially circumcision, hence the reference to children of the "flesh").
Reading and interpreting scripture is a complex task it seems, and not as simple as referencing one set of scripture alongside another. Anabaptists, for example, believed that it was important to view the OT through the lens of Jesus' teachings. They held that the NT tells us of the good news - the gospel - the new covenant made possible between God and his people. Paul is working with this idea when he discusses the relationships of Jew and Gentile, male and female, slave and free in Galatians 3:28. He says that "in Christ" we are moving beyond the social stigmas and conventions given to each of these groups ... in other words, the Gentiles who are believers are now given a different status than they had in the OT, and Jewish folk who reject Jesus as the Messiah, will be given a different status than they had in the OT. In time, slavery would be seen as so 'unfair', Christian believers would work hard to make sure that no one could be 'owned' by someone else as property, even though both the OT and part of the NT can be seen as endorsing the social class of 'slave'. Slavery was not just a matter of one human being subjegated to another in harsh ways, but a matter of one human being being able to physically "own" another person, making decisions for them that they would not make for themselves. In other letters, Paul argues that even though the social class of slave and free continued, each was to treat the other as though these differences did not seperate them into 'less than' or 'better than' within the body of Christ. The slavery issue and the relationship between "Jew" and "Gentile" has been worked at throughout the centuries - with some good resolve at times.
We are still working on what the relationship between male and female should look like within the body of Christ. I do agree that 'in Christ' we are one with each other, as Christ in one with the Father ... we have unique roles related to our biological identities ... in other words, women continue to be the part of the human race that bear children. Men are not the childbearers but do contribute what is feasibly related to the male contribution to the ongoing human race. We each contribute a vital part - and each contributes a unique part. We are not the "same". The matter of 'equality' is another thing, however. Though Christ, as the incarnate God, was uniquely different in his human condition, than his pre-incarnate state (see the text in Phil. 2), he regained his previous equality with God after the resurrection. He did not, in his human condition, considered his equality with God a thing to be grasped, but humbled himself, taking upon himself the 'form of a servant' ... being obedient to God ... If Jesus' prayer that we would be 'one' as 'he and the Father are one' - see John 17 - is to be fulfilled, we will have to ask the question about how it is possible for us to be 'one' in the way Jesus sees it happening. It seems to be that male and female will become one through the Spirit of God - who unites us with God and each other in new ways because of the work Jesus has accomplished for us. Before Christ, and after, male and female can become one in the flesh - 'the two becoming one' through sexual union - In Christ, these sexual, biological differences are not the important things - what is important that each of us is 'made new in Christ'. Many people, I fear, do not know that the restrictions placed on Jewish women - as part of public religious ceremonies - was directly related to 'childbirth' but not in the ways that are commonly discussed, except for in Levictus (see Lev. 12, for an example) ... Women were to be excluded from public activities, including religious ceremonies, during menstrual bleeding and for a period of time after giving birth. It is interesting to note that giving birth to a male child required only 7 days of seclusion, but giving birth to a female child required 14 days - 7 days for the mother's impurity, and 7 days for the 'impurity' of the female child. There are many social restrictions placed on women till today in deeply traditional societies, directly related to female bleeding ... For example, in one tribal culture, one that still carries many of the moral values of past millenium, a woman is placed in a hut in the bush, away from any help, to give birth... A mid-wife may help her but it means that the mid-wife has been contaminated by the woman's blood, and so she has to stay removed from the village for a period of time as well - a time of purifying. Many of these older ideas are a silent part of our contemporary views on why women are 'impure' -
You are so right, in some of the comments I read in these forums, about Paul linking childbirth and Eve's sin together in I Timothy ... Giving birth to a child is an honorable thing, as Paul says, and God will be with a woman as she goes through this vulnerable, painful journey ... See Psalm 22 for more about God being with those who are suffering from a "curse" - God does not despise 'the affliction of the afflicted - neither does he hide his face from us - when we cry to him, he hears us ... even in the difficulty of bearing children ... Jesus quotes from Psalm 22 as he hangs, a 'cursed' man, on the cross - for us - He prays - "My God, my God, why hast though forsaken me" ... and hopes that all his followers - those who become one "in Him" - will remember the rest of this poignant psalm and hear Jesus says ... " I will declare thy name unto my brethren (even the Mennonite Brethren), in the midst of this congregation, will I praise thee".
I know that as a woman, sometimes it is difficult for me to 'praise God' in the midst of my 'brethren' but I do so because I believe that God, who did not turn his face from the affliction of his Son, has not turned his face away from me - a 'cursed' woman - set free from that curse because God loved me enough to send a Saviour to fully redeem me. I know that not everyone around me believes that, as a woman, I am fully redeemed, but I am so thankful that my husband does, and that many of my friends and colleagues do ... I am also glad that my country chose to recognize the 'fairness' of this moral issue, and declare all women 'persons' equal with the personhood of men, in 1929. I am now waiting for some of my Christian brothers and sisters to also see that God is Good, and God is righteous in his judgments - He is always fair (he saves all who turn to him, He is not partial to some - He does not play favorites - see the book of James) - God is just ... and fairness is linked to justice. His ways are not always understandable though ... in others words, we don't know why some are born female, and some are born male, why Moses, who struggled to speak well, was called by God despite his human limitations, and why some were given the gift of prophecy, while others, both male and female, were given the gifts of helps and service ... we don't know why one child is limited to a body with CP, or a friend gets cancer ... but we do know that our God is fair, and He is with us in our afflictions ... The world is full of so much pain and suffering, lets not add to it by being insensitive to those who read the Bible differently than we do - on boths sides of the issue - 'male or female', 'complementarian or equalitarian', 'cursed' or 'redeemed' ... lets all follow our Savior to the cross, and there give our praise to the one who has made us 'righteous IN Him' ... Brothers and sisters, let us love one another ... For this is the commandment of our Savior and our God |
|
|
|
| lornewel Member Joined May 11, 2004 553 posts Location: Abbotsford |
| More on: Asking the right question |
Posted Jan 29, 2005; 1:27 am |
|
Marshall: I don't think you and I really do disagree on the actual words of 1 Tim 3:1-7. For example I agree that "if any man desires" in 1 Tim 3:1 is more accurately rendered "if anyone desires."
However, readers need to remember that in the original text, there were no chapter divisions. So what we call chapter 2 runs right into what we call chapter 3. So if, as you say, the language of chapter 2 and of verses 8-13 of chapter 3 are making clear distinctions about men and women, why would we say we should interpret the 7 verses in between as though the language is really generic, so that "husband" does not mean husband, etc. Context, context, context!
I submit that a brief summary of 1 Timothy 2 and 3 could fairly be stated as: "For good reasons, God has placed men, not women, in authority and here's how you recognize those (men) who are to be in authority in the church."
| Code: | | Why are you willing to gamble on one and not the other? I think there's about an equal amount of doubt as to whether these positions can be held by women or single men. After all, it comes down to the term "husbands". |
I am not gambling. That women are not to be in authority over men is explicit in the text. But whether those men must be married or have children is only possibly implicit. If you look at the Bible-wide context when trying to imply something, you must conclude that singleness and childlessness (Jesus, Paul) are certainly not bars to being in positions of authority over men, whereas femaleness is an explicit bar.
Let's cut to the chase by answering a series of questions about scripture:
1. Does God explicitly say men are to be in authority over women? Yes.
2. Does God explicitly say women are to be in authority over men? Never.
3. Besides explicit instructions, are there Biblical examples of God choosing men to be in authority over his people? Numerous.
4. Besides explicit instructions, are there Biblical examples of God choosing women to be in authority over his people? Debatable. Few, if any.
If the above are true answers, why are some trying so hard to make scripture "say" that God has chosen women to be in any and every position in the church? Is it not that our own ideas, shaped by our times and culture, see what scripture says about church leadership as so unfair and unequal and denigrating, that it cannot possibly be what the God we conceive of would say? Does not seem fair to me, but then it is not my church.
| Code: | | Also, I'm still not sure of your answer to the question about which positions should be restricted to men. You said that if it was up to you, your answer would be "none", but the Bible says otherwise. However, you never did state what you felt the Bible said about exactly which positions should be restricted to men. Church council positions? Church moderator? Senior pastor? All pastors? I'd really like to know, because I think our discussion of the text is useless if we don't apply it. |
I guess I did not make myself clear in my previous post. The Bible says nothing explicit about "Church council positions", "Church Moderator", "Senior pastor" or "All pastors." These are names that we have created for the persons in the "church" structures we have invented. The New Testament describes and prescribes the church being under the authority and oversight of elders/bishops/overseers. All of these are men. None of them are women. Am I clear now?
Now, women are to teach other women as the scripture says (Titus 2). If someone wants to call a teacher of women a "women's pastor", why should anyone care? It is not the title which matters, but the role, function or authority. Show me one scripture that says a woman should be an elder/bishop/overseer. Show me one that says a woman "may" be in that role. According to scripture she may pray, prophesy, have dreams and visions, minister, serve, labour, contribute. In short, it appears she may do anything and everything in the body except have authority over men. According to 1 Cor. 12, in the body of Christ as in a human body, there are many parts, each with its own separate function. The parts do not all have the same function, but all the parts are necessary and equally valuable, though not doing the same thing. Unless they all work, the body does not function. What seem to be the weaker parts may be the most necessary. None can say to the other, "I do not need you." All parts are to be cared for equally by the others. And who decides the functions? Do the parts of the body say, I want to be the pastor, the moderator, the bishop? No, "But now God has set the members, each one of them, in the body just as He pleased." (1 Cr. 12:18) Or as Paul spoke to the Ephesian elders, "Therefore take heed to yourselves and to all the flock, among which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers, to shepherd the church of God which He purchased with His own blood." (Acts 19:28) So it is up to God who to put in places of authority in the body - and he said "not women." |
|
|
|
| Marshall Member Joined Feb 7, 2002 1191 posts Location: Langley, BC |
| Re: More on: Asking the right question |
Posted Jan 29, 2005; 5:43 am |
|
| lornewel wrote: | | However, readers need to remember that in the original text, there were no chapter divisions. |
You're right, of course. I have made that point to others about other passages, but I lost sight of it in this discussion.  I've mainly been content to skip over 1 Timothy 2:11-15 because I do not understand that passage, you mentioned that you also do not fully understand it, and we both seemed to agree that it isn't a wholesale prohibition against women speaking or teaching. And so, I've approached the other texts separately, and I think all the other texts can be reconciled with women leaders quite easily, including 1 Timothy 3:1-7 for the reasons I gave in my last post. But, when I consider that this passage comes just a few verses after 1 Timothy 2:12, I agree that what would otherwise be a reasonable interpretation is no longer reasonable.
Anyway, I just finished reading 1 Timothy from start to finish -- something I don't remember ever doing in a single sitting, even though it's quite short. I was struck by how the entire letter focuses on teaching and false teachers. Early on, Paul warns about people who have swerved from sound teaching and yet desire to teach others (1:6-7). Paul says that he also was like these people, but God called him and gifted him as a teacher (1:12-14; 2:7). Then, Paul gives general instructions for all believers (2:1-4), brief instructions for men (2:8) and lengthy instructions for women (2:9-15). It appears that Timothy was dealing with situations where many of the problems and false teaching were fomented by women, judging by the focus here. Paul then outlines the qualifications for overseers (3:1-7), deacons (3:8-10,12-13), and deacon's wives (3:11). After this Paul warns again about false teachers and those deceived by them (4:1-3), and exhorts Timothy to teach and display holiness (4:11-16). The next chapter deals with widows, returning to an earlier theme about how women can avoid Satan's snares and be saved through childbearing and holy living (compare 1 Timothy 2:13-15; 5:14-15). The final chapter again warns of false teachers (6:3-5).
So, a unifying theme of the letter seems to be who is qualified to teach and who isn't. Paul says that many people aren't qualified, including women. Now my question is... why? From the letter, it seems evident that it is because of the problems they are causing and how they are leading others astray due to their ignorance (a point brought up again in 2 Timothy 3:6-7). So, I find myself wondering if the command is tied to these conditions or absolute. Obviously, if the false teachers turn from their errors, they can become qualified to teach, as the example of Paul shows. And, in other letters addressed to other audiences, Paul is clear that women can prophesy and speak in the church, something he doesn't mention at all here. I don't think Paul is interested here in limiting women to teaching women and children. It seems likely they are restricted from teaching for the same reason as those described in 1 Timothy 1:6-7. They aren't qualified to teach anybody; instead they are to learn and do good works (1 Timothy 2:9-11). This leads me to think that Paul's guidance here is more drastic because of the circumstances. Since we live in a culture where women are no more likely to lack education or lead others astray than men, does the prohibition against women teachers still apply?
If the answer to that question is "Yes", are we willing to take that seriously? Frankly, I don't think so. Partly, this is evident by the way we're willing to tone down verses like 1 Timothy 2:12 so that it doesn't interfere with allowing women to lead care groups attended by men and women, allowing women to lead worship, allowing women to serve as missionaries, or allowing women to serve on church councils. It seems self-evident that there's nothing wrong with these things in this day and age, and I would agree. But, I'm starting to see that these things are inconsistent with an approach to Paul's epistles that directly applies all his instruction to the recipients of the letters to our churches today.
Earlier, we also discussed how this interpretational approach would also seem to require head coverings for women based on 1 Corinthians 11:3-16. Instead of confronting that or these other issues, we've come up with ways to work around these injunctions, much like how I was finding ways to read the individual passages differently. We've worked around them all, except for not permitting women to be senior pastors. For some reason that seems to have nothing to do with the Bible, we've drawn a line there and said that overriding that is going too far.
| Quote: | | I guess I did not make myself clear in my previous post. The Bible says nothing explicit about "Church council positions", "Church Moderator", "Senior pastor" or "All pastors." These are names that we have created for the persons in the "church" structures we have invented. The New Testament describes and prescribes the church being under the authority and oversight of elders/bishops/overseers. All of these are men. None of them are women. Am I clear now? |
Not completely.  Are you saying that (1) we should change our structure to line up with the biblical structure, or (2) that the differences between our structure and what is in the Bible allows us "wiggle room" around the biblical limitations, or (3) that these limitations specifically apply to our positions of "church council member", "church moderator", "senior pastor", "pastor", and "deacon"?
| Quote: | | Show me one scripture that says a woman should be an elder/bishop/overseer. |
I can't. But then, I can also point to verses that say deacons should be the husband of one wife, just like overseers. Yet, my church treats a deacon couple as both being deacons, rather than as a deacon and his wife. My point is that our practice already deviates from an exact application of the pastoral epistles. Either changing circumstances can rightly lead to a different application, or the application is universal and we are currently not following it. Since a universal application is also tough to reconcile with other parts of Scripture (such as Phoebe being a deaconess according to Romans 16:1 and Priscilla and her husband teaching Apollos in Acts 18:26), I think the other explanation is the right one. |
|
|
|
|
|
