 |
|
| Author |
Message |
| lornewel Member Joined May 11, 2004 553 posts Location: Abbotsford |
 My analysis of gaylynn's analysis |
Posted Jul 22, 2005; 1:33 am |
|
gaylynn wrote
| Quote: | One thing has become clear to me, however, in the posts I have read during this last week or so ... there are definitely disagreements about 'who' gets to lead ...
I think I have it summarized in the following way - but like you, I am open to correction
1. There are some who think a man needs to be in the ultimate place of authority in the church - whether as a pastor, elder board, etc. because the 'chain of command' works as
God (over) Christ (over) Men (over) Women (over) Children ?
This 'chain of command' is seen to be from creation because of Paul's words and in operation till Christ returns ...
women and men have different roles/functions and women cannot hold a role/function that places her 'over' a man administratively.
2. There are those who see the church as 'brothers and sisters in Christ', all of us being God's adopted children through Christ - the only begotten Son of God.
God is seen as the Source (kephale/head) of all life, including the human life of Jesus;
Christ as the 'source', kephale/head, 'mind' or 'leader' of the Christ(ian) church ...
In other words, we are his body on earth in a collective sense - so we all play a part, and it can get a bit mixed up at times, but that's O.K. but there is an important job to get done - telling the good news of Jesus to a needy world ....
|
What gaylynn summarizes as two views in "disagreement," I don't. I think I agree with both, if I understand the points being made. First, I don't know if I would call category #1 the "chain of command" view, because (a) scripture does not label it like that, and (b) such a label brings in emotional baggage which may not be helpful. I will grant you, however, that I do read the scripture you are quoting in that way.
| Quote: | | But I want you to know that the head of every man is Christ, the head of woman is man, and the head of Christ is God. 1 Cor 11:3 |
In the context of the chapter, I do think it means "God (over) Christ (over) Men (over) Women" as gaylynn set it out.
But I don't see how that does not also reconcile with gaylynn's second view of "God as Source (kephale/head) of all life, including the human life of Jesus; Christ as the 'source', kephale/head, 'mind' or 'leader' " But gaylynn, why did you switch at this point to say Christ as head of the church, instead of continuing the parallel of the 2 views as interpretations of the same verse to say, "Christ is the 'source', kephale/head, 'mind' or 'leader' of the man, and the man is the the 'source', kephale/head, 'mind' or 'leader' of the woman?"
Here is a real-life example of how I reconcile what you seem to need to contrast about headship and submission. I am the Executive Director of a ministry. In that role, I am the head, chief or boss (kephale) of everyone on staff. But there are people "under" me who are "above" me in their knowledge of their particular profession and job. So when it comes to those things in which they are gifted and knowlegeable, I "defer" or "submit myself" to them. But that does not make them the boss or head. I still am, though I choose to submit to them. I choose to work in a collegial manner, and I think that is a way which accords with my theology. But if there are varying views about a matter among my staff, I take those into account, weigh each person's input accounting for their areas of giftedness and make the decision that I will have to give account for to my Board or licensor or whoever is my "head." (Because unless you are God the Father, there is somebody to account to as your head.)
The elders of the church have to give an account for the flock (Hebrews 13:17, Acts 20:28) to Christ, their head (so they are men - I Cor 11:3). They "rule over" the flock (Hebrews 13:17) who must "obey" them, so they must be men since women do not rule over men in the church (1 Tim 2:11-12)
Gaylynn seems to be among those who do not want anybody ruling over anybody in the church; that somehow we are all going to submit to one another as equals and nobody is "in charge" and thus accountable. Then, what is the role of an elder? Who makes one an elder? Who "rules over" others and must "give account?"
Can't we, as you say "all play a part...[in] telling the good news of Jesus to a needy world " without getting "mixed up" because we have no discernable head based on roles and functions that God has told us are to be done by people of specific characteristics (in which He happened to include gender?) |
|
|
|
| Brent Member Joined Apr 9, 2005 243 posts Location: Simcoe Ontario |
| Re: I agree Brent |
Posted Jul 22, 2005; 6:35 am |
|
| gay lynn voth wrote: | Hi Brent - I agree - Paul and Christ are not to be 'pitted' against each other - that would disqualify Paul from his Christ(ian) ministry, wouldn't it? Paul is trying to faithfully interpret the 'Jesus' Way" for those in the churches he is building ... I am not so sure, however, that some of the leaders in the early Christian movement weren't at odds at times, in their understanding of the Jewish law and what Jesus really wanted his church to look like -
We see this in scripture when they meet for councils like the one at Jerusalem where they try to figure out how the important issue of circumcision needed to applied in the new Christian communities ... they decided to 'agree to disagree' on some matters, and found unity around 'taking care of the widows and orphans' and the collection for Jerusalem ... So while everyone, even today, is trying to faithfully follow Jesus, as part of the Christ(ian) churches, we will sometimes disagree about how to live and practice our Christian faith ... blessings  |
Yes Gay, pitting the two against each other would be a problem, in that it would effectively men we truncate the canon, and act like Marcion. To be sure that there were tensions among leaders (witness Paul and Peter, and Paul and Barnabas) and also tensions of teaching. Paul dealt with one such group who struggled with an erroneous idea od what Jesus church should look like, called the Judaizers by us.
Mind you Paul's way of dealing with that does not seem to allow for a trajectory hermeneutic, and if we were to lessen the force of his words, then we would be heading towards what he wants us to avoid.
I agree about areeing to disagree. Unfortunately the willngness to compromise we see in Acts 15, which you refer to, is absent in the current case. The old policy is that compromise and it is being done away with. |
|
|
|
| Brent Member Joined Apr 9, 2005 243 posts Location: Simcoe Ontario |
| Kephale as "source" |
Posted Jul 22, 2005; 6:40 am |
|
Thre is relevant material to this question in the following link:
An Open Letter to Egalitarians
Edit - to fix page margins - url too long. Just click on the words and it will take you to the pdf. |
|
|
|
| gay lynn voth Member Joined Jan 25, 2005 693 posts |
| another 'really long' response ... yikes |
Posted Jul 22, 2005; 11:14 am |
|
Good morning … I am writing in response to both Lorne and Brent … The reason I am responding in such great length is that the issues being raised in this particular forum are directly related to my doctoral studies, and it gives me an opportunity to think “on my feet” – so to speak – in a real, live discussion/debate. To ‘practice’ what I am writing about … and this is so helpful for me. I appreciate the good responses I receive
Brent has pointed out a number of times that Paul is using rhetoric as his style of discourse in his writings. He is so right … and three things are to be considered when Paul’s writings are viewed that way -
By the way, what Marshall is doing in his reading of Philemon, seems to me to be an appropriate rhetorical response to the arguments Paul is raising in other letters. We kind of get a peek at a bigger picture of Paul when we put his arguments ‘side-by-side’, even when the arguments are not related directly to one another.
Rhetoric is a particular method of raising arguments. (This may be the method Webb is using – I don’t know because I haven’t looked at his work in that light … would you mind checking while you are reading him, Marshall? Thanks …) 
Rhetoric (persuasive argument) assumes certain things:
1. A relationship between the speaker and the audience that shapes the argument at every point.
2. We are given a picture of the audience, the way the speaker sees the audience, and so we have to look for signs of the speaker’s ‘point-of-view’.
3. If the speaker is going to be effective in making his argument persuasive, s/he is more likely to do so if s/he is not misjudging the audience.
4. The speaker, to be effective, must also use the language an audience will understand, to work from where they are in order to move them toward where s/he wants them to be.
5. If there is an forceful argument being raised, we can assume that part of the audience, at least, is in opposition to the speaker.
Now, in light of this, Paul’s arguments have to be unpacked ‘letter by letter’ - ‘word by word’ … He is doing all of the above when he uses rhetorical argument in his letters:
1. Usually the introduction includes the writer’s self-presentation (ethos)
2. The rational part of the argument follows (logos) – this will often include the narration of the case.
3. The direct appeals to that audience (pathos) form the conclusion.
This rhetorical argument is really not as simple as “principle” – “application” – applied to every situation. As well, how the writer presents himself at the beginning of the argument (in this case Paul’s letters, forms the ethical ‘focus’ or a self-presentation that he sees as worthy of following).
All this to say, as a beginning to addressing Lorne’s question of why I did not follow the line of rhetoric about Christ as ‘the source, kephale/head, mind and leader of the church’ to the conclusion that therefore, all men are the ‘source, kephale/head, mind and leader’ of all women. 
I don’t see Paul arguing that all men ‘think’ for all women, or that all women need to be ‘led’. I do see him arguing for the first “Adam” (meaning the first “human” – more direct translation) as the source of the woman – and then all men have their source (beginning) from a woman …(I included this in the line of thought after the excerpt you included in your response, Lorne – so I won’t bother repeating it here but this might help to clarify what I was doing with the “Adam” analogy there)
I want to outline a short portion of a complicated argument in I Corinthians 11 to show you how I see Paul making this argument:
Vs. 2 praise is given for holding firm ‘to the traditions’ as they were ‘delivered’ by Paul – implying these were part of the Jewish tradition Paul knew. Paul does want to uphold some Jewish traditions as part of the new Christian communities – even though that are largely Gentile … just like we, today, hold on to the OT with more authority than we do the Greek philosophers. We identify with the Jewish understanding of Genesis, etc. and so Paul’s rhetoric obviously worked … 2000 years later we are still practicing what he preached – way to go Paul …
Vs. 8, 9 – a Jewish biblical understanding of the creation order as taken from Genesis – “Adam did not originate from Eve, but Eve from Adam … for indeed man was not created for woman’s sake, but woman for the man’s sake.”
Vs. 11 – however, in the Lord, neither is woman independent of man, nor is man independent of woman, for as the woman originates from the man, so also the man has his birth through the woman, and all things originate from God.
Here Paul seems to countering other view(s) of the Adam and Eve relationship 'at the beginning of time'. In another post response I outlined what the two other predominately Greek myths popular, at the time Paul was making his argument, were –
One is a very negative view of women at the beginning, (the good god created only men, and they were living happily with one another till an evil god created woman and threw her into the 'mix', causing everything to get 'mixed up' … So all problems were seen to have been caused by women). This is why I responded the way I did to the Reuben text – some Jewish men did believe this view but they gave the One God all the credit for the mix-up/mess-up.
The other creation view is very positive – the Isis argument - ... (I won't review it here - but women come out looking 'really good' - to good to be true  )
Paul seems to be rejecting BOTH the negative view and the overly positive view here and arguing for keeping the biblical tradition of the Genesis account - I heartedly agree with him … that is the account I know I prefer … 
In other words - Adam (the first human created by God in the “image of God”) became the source for both ‘male’ and ‘female’ - Adam ‘lost’ something – was changed – when God took “bone of his bone” to make a woman out of the same ground as God made the first Adam from … therefore Adam says “flesh of my flesh” - both have flesh from the ground … and both were ‘made by God’ … without distinction of roles/functions other than the uniqueness of ‘being one made into two’ … male and female - "to be fruitful and multiply" and "to work/shepherd the earth".
The order of God to be ‘fruitful and multiply’ made the male and female interdependent – just as Paul notes … not one the ‘head’ over, or one the ‘mind’ of … in other words – each was accountable for their decisions – their own thinking, their own decision to sin … etc. The Genesis story makes that point clearly, doesn't it?
Eve is autonomous enough to make an independent decision (grant it, it was a really bad one …) - She is never blamed for not 'listening to her husband' - she is held accountable for not obeying God.
Adam got to make his own decision (also a really bad one) … We are never told that Eve 'deceived' him, the way the serpent deceived her. You can't suddenly get one ‘good’ Adam – a man who is such a ‘good thinker’ that he can think for everyone in the human race – out of this story … You have two faulty thinkers – two persons who after that will both have a ‘knowledge’ of ‘good’ and ‘evil’ -
Somewhere along the line, humanity came up with the idea that a man could think ‘rightly ‘ – escape deception – but a woman couldn’t think rightly if she tried - could only be deceived.  and hence - men should think for women ... oh boy - that didn't keep us from sinning, did it?
This is not what Paul is arguing for in I Timothy - he is saying, it seems - “look, the woman made a bad decision based on ‘listening to the devil’ – the deceiver … but man made a bad decision even without that extra-ordinary influence …he made a bad decision on his own” Bad decisions both ways ...
There is no mention here that Adam was ‘deceived’ by his wife - the point Paul is making is the opposite of that - Adam was NOT deceived … he made his own bad decision to not obey God … this is not a call for men to dominate women because women make them sin … "the woman made me do it" instead of "the devil made me do it" Both excuses didn't work ... 
I believe, this is a call for each one of us to obey God … for each sinned … bottom line - When we ead Paul’s theology of sin in Romans we see he claims no exception for anyone regardless of their rant/role/function, for everyone has sinned … therefore, everyone needs the salvation offered through Christ - the new Adam ... anyone can be made a 'new person', in Christ ... This is an invitation to newness and to laying aside the hostilities and prejudgments that can divide us.
Each of us has to think for ourselves, and take accountability for our own actions (after some reasonable age) irrespective of gender. No getting around it - both men and women, I believe, have minds and they both better be using them
Last edited by gay lynn voth on Jul 25, 2005; 9:18 am; edited 1 time in total. |
|
|
|
| Brent Member Joined Apr 9, 2005 243 posts Location: Simcoe Ontario |
| You're taxing my ability to deal with ADD |
Posted Jul 22, 2005; 11:33 am |
|
| with long posts, Gay. |
|
|
|
| gay lynn voth Member Joined Jan 25, 2005 693 posts |
| i think i'm taxing my own ability |
Posted Jul 22, 2005; 11:51 am |
|
to stay focused on the other writing I should be doing ... God bless you Brent - have a good day
Last edited by gay lynn voth on Jul 25, 2005; 8:56 am; edited 1 time in total. |
|
|
|
|
|
