I get emails —Without going into long-winded details, is it appropriate for a teenaged, baptized girl to lead a prayer in the presence of a baptized teenaged male? (This seems even more ridiculous now that I have typed this.) The reality is it is causing sharp disagreement to the point where the girl’s family is considering leaving our congregation.
Our minister, and we do not have an eldership, has counseled that we must not allow a woman to lead over a man and that this includes prayer. We have no problem with women asking questions in a mixed Bible study. In fact, we even have women read scripture that we are studying.
Personally, I do not see leading prayer as having authority over another. It’s a shame that leading a talk with our Creator is causing a problem!
Your thoughts, please.
Here’s my answer. What do you think?
As I’ve argued at length in Buried Talents, the prohibitions regarding women in 1 Timothy 2 have been severely misunderstood. But it’s a complex argument that would be hard to make in a congregation where girls praying in the presence of boys is considered sinful. But I don’t buy the whole authority argument, because it implicitly demeans the value of a woman’s opinion — which demeans the image of God. I argue the case in great detail in Buried Talents, from multiple angles, though, and so won’t repeat the arguments here. Rather, I’ll try to argue from within conservative theology, even though I think there are much better ways to address the question.
For reasons that elude me, girls praying aloud in the presence of boys has been made into a hot-button issue by the conservative editors. Church magazines push the issue, and those influenced by them see it as a big deal just because that’s what they’ve been taught. It’s become a litmus test for whether a youth minister is “sound.”
There are two issues — silence and authority. Since this is not prayer during the assembly, the silence argument has no application, even among the most conservative among us. Rather, the argument is that the girl exercises authority over the boy by praying aloud in his presence. But if that’s true, then could a husband listen to his wife pray aloud? Could a mother listen while her son prays aloud?
Thus, the argument has to be that in that particular setting, the girl is “leading” the prayer, and therefore is in an authority role. That logic is typically expanded to include a chain prayer — which is, in my experience, the most common form of teenage prayer where this controversy arises.
1 Corinthians 11 plainly speaks of women praying and prophesying in the presence of men. Paul’s command isn’t to be silent but to wear a veil! Paul quite plainly permits the women to pray and prophesy in the presence of men so long as they dress properly — in a way that doesn’t contradict the place of a man’s wife as his “suitable helper.”
Some argue that the women were acting under the influence of the Spirit and so outside the usual prohibition, but there’s no indication that their prayers were inspired.
The better understanding is that the women weren’t acting in a way that usurped authority. You see, a chain prayer or similar event simply isn’t about authority and therefore doesn’t remotely come under the prohibition of 1 Timothy 2. It’s not as though the person “leading” a prayer has the power to compel listeners to agree or say the same prayer. And in a chain prayer, there’s no indication that the prayer is the official prayer of the congregation: it’s just someone’s prayer being spoken aloud.
Just as a woman can speak in class without imposing her opinions from a position of authority, she can pray in the presence of men without imposing her views authoritatively. Just like class comments, her prayers are to be heard and responded to as each listener concludes is appropriate — with no compulsion to agree.
You know, somehow or other, a number of prayers spoken by women have made it into scripture, where men are allowed to read them and learn from them. For example,
(1Sa 2:1-10 ESV) And Hannah prayed and said, “My heart exults in the LORD; my strength is exalted in the LORD. My mouth derides my enemies, because I rejoice in your salvation. 2 “There is none holy like the LORD; there is none besides you; there is no rock like our God. 3 Talk no more so very proudly, let not arrogance come from your mouth; for the LORD is a God of knowledge, and by him actions are weighed. 4 The bows of the mighty are broken, but the feeble bind on strength. 5 Those who were full have hired themselves out for bread, but those who were hungry have ceased to hunger. The barren has borne seven, but she who has many children is forlorn. 6 The LORD kills and brings to life; he brings down to Sheol and raises up. 7 The LORD makes poor and makes rich; he brings low and he exalts. 8 He raises up the poor from the dust; he lifts the needy from the ash heap to make them sit with princes and inherit a seat of honor. For the pillars of the earth are the LORD’s, and on them he has set the world. 9 “He will guard the feet of his faithful ones, but the wicked shall be cut off in darkness, for not by might shall a man prevail. 10 The adversaries of the LORD shall be broken to pieces; against them he will thunder in heaven. The LORD will judge the ends of the earth; he will give strength to his king and exalt the power of his anointed.”
I guess the conservative argument would be that the prayers had been read and approved by men — and surely the same logic would allow a young girl to pray while in submission to her male youth minister or deacon, who would surely correct any serious error in her prayer.
So it boils down to whether you take your authority from the scriptures or the Gospel Advocate. The scriptures plainly permit the practice. Indeed, the scriptures strongly encourage prayer. Our problem is that we don’t pray enough.
Sadly I do know at least two women who will not pray out loud in the presence of their husbands because of their interpretation of submitting to their husband's spiritual leadership.
Any man that has a problem with his wife or daughter, friend or Mother leading their conversation with God Almighty has a masculinity and identity problem… I mean really, does a man think he is less of a man when his daughter prays? Seriously?? Just put a bridle in their mouth and tie them up to a post outside the church..
Real men of faith would be encouraging EVERYBODY to pray…
Too many in the church of Christ tradition have put traditions above scripture … or even rational thought.
This is just one example.
Two thoughts immediately come to mind. In Peter's discourse explaining the events of Pentecost he twice mentioned that both men and women would prophesy. (Acts 2:17,18) So, to those who claim their goal is to restore New Testament Christianity I ask "Where are those women?"
But the first thing that came to mind was your post asking if it's OK to leave a church where you are not being fed. I would not expose my family to legalism longer than a couple of hours. Legalists don't change easily, so I do not buy into the idea that you should stay and try to help them see grace. A child is to great a price.
Royce
This reminds me of the Pharisees who strained out gnats and swallowed camels. There are bigger issues that need urgent attention such as love, mercy, grace, and compassion.
I agree with Royce. I'd get my daughters out of there! What is the message being planted in their hearts from this kind of prejudice? I don't want to be an accomplice- by my complacency and silence- of putting them into such chains.
What do you mean by "leading"? Is all "leading" the same? When I pray in public, yes I'm leading and no, I'm not leading.
Now I'm leading this discussion. So what? When you respond, you are leading. Is either of us acting as an authority, controller, or exercising authority, etc over anyone else?
Someone said that it is easier to receive forgiveness for violating a scripture than a tradition! There may be some truth in that observation.
May the Lord have mercy on us all!
If I had a young daughter I can't think of anything I had rather her do in the presence of boys than pray!
I don't know of a single church of Christ that allows women to pray out loud with men present.
Many COC women today do lead pray in their homes with their family.
I believe it's Jeanene Reese of ACU who tells the story of being invited to speak at a church where she hadn't been before, and on arrival being given the gift of a lovely prayer shawl – indicating the elders' authorization of her speaking and prayer, whatever the custom of the early church might have been. She accepted and wore it gladly.
Scripture authorizes and exemplifies women speaking with a sign of authority – as you, Jay have aptly illustrated above. This church chose a head covering to symbolize it. Churches which forbid women speaking or deny them authority run counter to scripture. And – as pointed out – they likely do so inconsistently, despite any profession of consistency with scripture.
Girls not being allowed to pray? Straining gnats.
Keith, women praying with a sign of authority – do you know that 1 Cor. 11:10 actually say inthe original " the woman ought to have authority on her head" ? The "a sign of" is added by translaters.
Retha, I hope my point is that this church went with what they knew and Jeanene returned their respect with gratitude. It's a place to start.
Of course girls and women are always allowed to pray whether alone, with other women, or in the presence of men. The gnat straining from old legalistic throwbacks who place more focus on the letter of the misinterpreted law than they do on God's love, mercy, and grace. We can't properly interpret Bible doctrine coming from a legalistic foundation.
Jay,
I think you summed it up rather well in your closing comment,
"So it boils down to whether you take your authority from the scriptures or the Gospel Advocate."
Whether it is a magazine or a commentary or any other un-inspired writing or verbal command, the prohibition on women praying in the presence of a male believer either inside or outside of the assemblies of a group of believers is a man-made rule based on false teaching and NOT based on the scriptures inspired by God, despite any claims by any elder or preacher or deacon or pew-packing minister to the contrary. To give way to such false teaching is to give Satan a foothold in the congregation.
Among our many traditions among modern day believers, I find this to be one of the most aggregious violations of God's expressly and specifically stated will in His inspired word. Subverting the scriptures is a serious affront to God. The sooner we can root out this aberration of teaching on prayer, the better.
If that makes me an agent for change, the let's get to changing!
Grizz
This is one of the reasons my family is no longer a part of the church of Christ. Although my extended family still are active members, as the father of two girls, I cannot subject my daughters to this type of teaching. As Royce said above, a child is too high a price.
Well, Paul said so, so it is from God.
A church of Christ I previously attended would not let women pass communion trays for fear they would be leading the men.
@ Skip….funny how they won't allow it if they are standing up, but it's ok sitting down in the pew..
Last year I visited a coc in Texas and before communion a man and his wife stood before the congregation and their words were heart felt and beautifully put addressing the significance of the body and blood of Jesus and that he is coming again. No women helped serve that day but I assume they sometimes do.
If there is any time in the life of the local gathered church when "authority" should not be a consideration it is when we are sharing the Lord's Supper.
Price,
Years ago, I was teaching the Buried Talents series in a class at church. I mentioned the very point you just made. A woman replied, "We women don't need to help pass the trays. We need the men to do something!"
Jay. you may just have discovered a vital secret within the church…The women DON'T WANT to serve anymore than they ALREADY ARE !! LOL… I don't know of a church that operates efficiently where the women aren't the ones doing the "operating." The men just take credit for "oversight"… The women and the Good Lord know who's really getting it done !! That is just too funny….
Royce…we sure don't mind the women washing the communion dishes, huh? If there's a "wood-shed" in heaven there are a few of us that just might get taken to it !!
Don't look now, but there are women on this site teaching God's word.
Jay:
As you know some original research that looks at 1 Corinthians, Ephesians, and 1 and 2 Timothy from the background of the powerful Asian religions is in print. I will offer that many of the studies of Paul's letters have been flawed by not taking into account the growing body of understanding regarding the mystery religions of the region as key background to Paul's teaching regarding gender roles.
Your essay misses the background, especially of 1 Corinthians 11:2-16 and as well 1 Timothy 2:8-15. Paul is not allowing women to lead prayers in the assemblies, as 1 Corinthians 11:17 highlights. So, what was he doing? The Asian mystery religions featured much activity beyond a given sanctuary and it would have been fitting for the Christian prophetesses to be "in the streets" where Dionysian prophetesses were proclaiming and praying. Indeed, we know that the mystery religions make sense of the "hair discussion" by Paul in 1 Corinthians. Women in the cults would shear off their hair as an offering to supposed deity.
Certainly, women were involved in spreading the Word in the first century. And they need to be involved in our day — just as they are in this weblog. Indeed, we misunderstand the first century a good bit. Many religious settings associated with the mystery religions would have been "off limits" to men. It would have been crucial for the Christian prophetesses to reach into those gatherings — especially the many gatherings of women in the ancient world.
It is ironic that our American egalitarian perspective lines up very closely with the religious thought of the Dionysus cult of the first century. The cult's hubs of strength were in Corinth and Ephesus. I am aware that the facts may be difficult to hear for some and that my post may sound like no more than a conservative "rehash." However, the inscriptional evidence is certain. In the event that readers of your weblog want to know more about a recent publication from 21st Century Christian that looks at the mystery religions and Paul's letters to Ephesus in detail, they can message me at MortonBLSL7 at earthlink dot net.
In Christ,
Bruce Morton
Katy, Texas
Bruce
Please explain how your position does not turn the new covenant into salvation by law
ouch! lol@Himes.
Talk about women leading … in my church during college the elder's wives actually led the church. Not up front but in the homes they would complain about various issues and then the elder husbands would meet at church and decide to do what the wives suggested. There was a true vacuum in leadership and the elder wives pulled the strings behind the scenes. Thus it is disingenuous to believe that women aren't exerting influence just because in some churches they can't pray in front of men or pass the communion trays while standing.
Surely no Jewish male, of the bible, was ever led by a woman.
Luk 2:48 And when they saw him, they were amazed: and his mother said unto him, Son, why hast thou thus dealt with us? behold, thy father and I have sought thee sorrowing.
Luk 2:49 And he said unto them, How is it that ye sought me? wist ye not that I must be about my Father's business?
(how did that turn out)?
Jhn 2:3 And when they wanted wine, the mother of Jesus saith unto him, They have no wine.
Jhn 2:4 Jesus saith unto her, Woman, what have I to do with thee? mine hour is not yet come.
(how did that turn out)?
Laymond, Great stuff. How about:
In Judges 4 and 5, Deborah is described as both a Judge of Israel and as the leader of the army.
In 2 Kings 22:14-19 and 2 Chron 34:23-7, the prophetess Huldah was asked to validate the book found in the Temple — presumably the book of Deuteronomy. She spoke "….as the voice of God; 'Thus says the LORD' …Jeremiah and Zephaniah were in Judah also at the time but there is no record of their having been consulted."
The Hebrew Scriptures describe many other female Prophets, including Miriam, Noadiah, and Isaiah's wife.
David,
What exactly does "salvation by law" mean? Does believing that there are at least some necessary conditions an individual must meet in order to become or remain in a saved state entail "salvation by law"?
–guy
Guy
It means I must follow all the rules in order to be saved
It is the opposite of the truth that salvation is a gift. It is the idea that because of something you do God is obligated to look upon you in a favorable way.
The truth is that because of what Jesus did God looks upon you favorably.
Royce
There is not mauch to say. One party follows church traditions over scripture, the other one cultural/wishful thinkung above scripture. Either way is wrong:
Jay,
Good thought provoking and practical question. Don't argue with all the one sided comments, but the yare always interesting to say the least:)
So just some food for thought from the other side:) of those of us who do strive to take their authority from the scritures, but also do read and enjoy the Gospel Advocate:) (don't always agree with everything in it). I suspect you don't in Wineskins, etc.
Here's what someone who has indeed often written aticles for GA.
I don’t believe I could summarize my position or response to the emailers question any clearer or better than by the wise words by Dr. Everett Ferguson
“Most congregations that I know of do not have a problem with making a distinction between the home–in which women may lead in prayer, lead in song, and teach visitors and other members of the family, including the husband–and the church assembled, where the men take the leading roles. Most often questions arise with regard to what I may call intermediate situations. In a congregational setting, these include Bible classes and small group activities or in a college setting, chapel services. Difficulties in making distinctions does not mean no distinction is to be made. Any time we have to make judgments there is a danger of inconsistency or perceived inconsistency."
Ferguson continues,
"To help us make decisions in regard to these activities I would offer some guidelines in the form of questions to be answered. Are we presenting a meeting as representing the church? If so, we should follow the rules for the church. Some activities are an extension of the assembly. Others are not. Do we regard Bible classes and care groups as extensions of the assembly, or do we consider them smaller meetings of groups of Christians?
"Another, related, question is, What is the intention of the meeting? Not every group activity by Christians is "church," nor is it intended to be. The reverse side of this question is, How is the activity perceived by others? Here is where activities like a wedding or a funeral become ambiguous in regards to music. In all such cases good judgment must be used and tolerance respected.”
Ferguson further writes:
"The instructions given in scripture about women in the assembly imply no inferiority of women and their ability. Any given woman may be the spiritual superior of any given man. Silence in the assembly does not mean inferiority and should not be interpreted to mean this. I happily acknowledge the influence of many spiritual women in my life, and I readily defer to their spiritual insight and judgment on many matters."
“Why is a distinction made in regard to the assembly that is not made elsewhere? The scriptures do not explicitly give an explanation. Nevertheless, some inferences can be drawn from what is said. In all of the passages dealing with women in a public setting (1 Cor. 11; 1 Cor. 14; 1 Tim. 2) appeal is made to the creation and fall. In other words, the distinctions between male and female rest on relationships established in the beginning of human existence. I would suggest that in the assembly human beings approach God in a special way as their Creator. The redemption effected by Christ makes possible the removal of the results of the fall of humankind, but we still live in the fallen human condition and its circumstances; we must await the world to come for these consequences to be cancelled."
Ferguson concludes:
"In some way the assembly is meant to reflect the character of God and what he instituted at the beginning of the human race and to recognize the consequences that the fall brought on human beings. Therefore, the distinctions between men and women are reflected by different roles in the assembly. In the world to come, those distinctions will be abolished (Luke 20:34-36), but we should not be too quick to anticipate the eschatological age, as the Corinthians were doing (1 Cor. 4:8), before God's own time. Whether this explanation of the relation of creation and fall on one hand and the assembly on the other is the correct one and is the theological reason for limitations on women's role in the assembly, the instructions are still plainly in the text. Man and woman each has distinctive spheres in which to show identity as male and female. Those distinctions are extended to the assembly of the church. My suggestions about a theological reason for their application to the assembly may be treated as opinion, but the distinctions themselves are a fact. And the instructions about women's role in the assembly have not been successfully explained away.” (WOMEN IN THE ASSEMBLY, Dr. Everett Ferguson)
Now, for me, this isn't just some "abstract debate" on a website.
I know for me as someone who works within the life of a congregation in a position of leadership (pulpit minister), and as one who directs a week of church camp with about 120 teenagers each summer (Burnt Cabin Christian Camp, near Tahlequah, OK), this is a real issue that arises from time to time.
Partciuarly at camp, this has come up. My stance and "policy" if you will for our counselors is that in mixed settings of teenage boys and girls, in devotional and BIble class (and of course our evening public times of camp worship), the guys are to do the leading of songs, prayers, but we of course encourage the girls to read scritpures in class, make comments, etc.
But I know for me, I'm not arguing that it is a "sin" or anything if such we're to be done as I know it is practiced in more progressive congregations and even some of those congregations have women doing such in the times of public worshp assemblies of the church. (which I believe is a violation of 1 Timothy 2:8-15)
But again, for me in this situations and settings that have been raised by the email question, it is unwise and sets a trend and example that may eventually lead to a wider role of the involvement of women in public assemblies.
So I know for me, we do this more in light of the wise words by Dr. Ferguson above, and to encourage and be consistent with the principle of God's plan and roles for men and women in the worship assembly (cf. 1 Tim. 2:8-15)
BTW, my wife and I both pray together with each other and in our home with our children, and have also done so in small groups with a few close Christian friends and couples (chain prayers) and I guess we'd say as Ferguson says not as "meetings representing the church", or activities that are "an extension of the assembly."
No, I don't believe God has specifically spoken and addressed these type of other "church settings" (small groups, Bible classes, etc.).
But I do believe we should strive to be as consistent in our practice as possible and honor of such male spiritual roles (elders, deacons, preahers, husbands head of home, etc.) in the home and in the church.
To me, while it is clear that men were to assume the leadership roles in the church, women fulfilled equally important roles in the New Testament church as well.
They were not “silent partners” who simply sat in the background and never offered anything to the work or worship of the church.
So we don’t have to defend the "suppression of women" in order to maintain Biblical teaching about male leadership in home and church.
Sincerely,
Robert Prater
Actually there is not much to say. One party follws tradition over scripture, the other one follows contemporary culture over scripture. The word of God is quite plain and straightforward on the matter. And it wasn't debated for 1900 years (until about two generations ago).
Women may pray and prophesy with their heads covered.
It is clearly something put on the head for these special activities, not as long hauir which you wear all the time. And you can read verse 10 in twio ways indeed:
a) The women have authority to pray and prophesy
b) the women pray and prophesy acknowledging the authority of men as their heads
The latter is more in line with the whole reasoning of the chapter, while the first is still valid. And it is a testimony before the angels who also cover themselves in the presence of God (Isaiah 6).
Anyway, it is wrong to assume that praying equals leading or taking authority. If we pray together, having a time of fellowship in prayer (you may picture sitting around a table or in a circle), there is no "leader" but the Holy Spirit.
If however we envision a "formal" worship assembly, where one climbs up all the way to the pulpit and prays the "official prayer" into the sound system, the situation is different in as much as this kind of prayer is meant to be representing the whole church. Yet, I do belive that this kind of "formal worship" is alien to the New Tesament, again based on 1Co 11:2-16.
Alexander
Alexander,
I don't believe "follow scripture" as if it is law, or following culture as if scripture does not matter, are the only two options.
I believe there is guidance in scripture that was provided based upon the culture of the time. I believe there are principles laid down by God, which do not vary based on time or culture.
But I probably think there are fewer of the latter than you — based upon my reading of your many posts.
The only times Jesus referred to his own words as a command are in John 13 and John 15. Both times, Jesus followed "This is my command" with "love one another as I have loved you."
I believe that one command covers everything thing.
I quickly admit that following that command is very hard, and for humans, impossible to do completely.
Much of the epistles are in effect examples of the various writers telling us how that singular command works out is a variety of circumstances.
Are there cultural implications for how Jesus' love should be demonstrated? I think the answer is, of course.
How you show respect to others is different in the West than it is in Japan or in the Middle East. So while the principle remains unchanged, the actions may.
Even worse, I may successfully, based upon my knowledge and understanding of circumstances, be following Jesus' in the some action I take towards another person. However, because I have incomplete knowledge, I do the wrong thing. Did I sin? My heart was right, but my actions were wrong.
American culture does not apply any negative stereotypes to women whose hair is uncovered. In older times, that has been different.
One final point — I agree with your final paragraph about our modern concept of "formal worship". It's likely completely alien to what Jesus spoke about when he said worship in spirit and in truth. He was specifically contrasting true worship with the formal stuff that went on in the temple.
It amazes me how confusing the scriptures are. Look at the differences we all have with trying to get it right.
If it is truly inspired and every word written by God for us to obey or perish, seems He could of done a better job.
Either God can't write clearly or we can't (or won't) translate correctly.
Reducing God's will to love is a simplification that does not do justice to how the details of God's word are spelled out, David. And worse than that: It opens all doors and gates and windows for every kind of action that we (humans) consider loving.
Alexander
Alexander,
Appreciate your words and this discussion which I do think is important for the church today. I do sincerely admire your passion to be wholly Biblical.
Let me ask you though, in regard to 1 Corinthians 11, 14, don’t Paul’s words have to be understood to be in the context of being written during a time when miraculous spiritual gifts were still available and in use among Christians?
We know how several portions of the Corinthian letter deal with different aspects of spiritual gifts.
And in this regard, it is my understanding that prophesying and teaching are not the same things. The word translated as “prophesying” in 11:4-5 always means inspired revelation in the New Testament. (According to both Thayer and Strong’s, propheteuo means “to prophesy, to be a prophet, speak forth by divine inspirations…”) And it does seem that prophesying and teaching are differentiated in 1 Corinthians 12:28.
And if this is the case (i.e, since the miraculous gifts have ceased since that which is perfect, i.e., the revealed will of God has come, cf. 1 Cor. 13:10-13; Eph. 4:11-16)., then this passage cannot directly be appealed to, although it certainly includes the principle and issue of honoring and recognizing the headship of men and roles of men and women in the home and the church.
And I also do disagree with you and David’s comment about “formal worship” gatherings. They are as clear in the NT as the nose on your face brother:)
Whether you and I like the phrase or not, there was/is a formal time or “public/corporate assembly” of “when the church comes together”, namely on the first day of the week, the Lord’s Day (but not limited to onlythat time of course).
Again, there was a “public” gathering of the church for the express purpose to worship God in the early church. (cf. Heb. 10:24-25; Acts 20:7; 1 Cor. 16:1-2; Eph. 5:19; Col. 4:16; 1 Thess. 5:27). Now, it might not have had all the formal trappings of our modern, contemporary congregations, with buildings, PA system, other culture aspects, but the same principle is there; a public or formal coming together of the church for worship.
BTW, it was Origen (AD 185-254) simply observed that various women who are said to have prophesied in Scripture need not have done it in a public assembly:
“If the daughters of Philip prophesied, at least they did not speak in the assemblies; for we do not find this fact in evidence in the Acts of the Apostles. Much less in the Old Testament. It is said that Deborah was a prophetess … There is no evidence that Deborah delivered speeches to the people, as did Jeremiah and Isaiah. Huldah, who was a prophetess, did not speak to the people, but only to a man, who consulted her at home. The gospel itself mentions a prophetess Anna … but she did not speak publicly. Even if it is granted to a woman to show the sign of prophecy, she is nevertheless not permitted to speak in an assembly. When Miriam the prophetess spoke, she was leading a choir of women … For [as Paul declares] "I do not permit a woman to teach," and even less "to tell a man what to do." (Origen, Fragmenta ex commentaries in epistulam i ad Corinthios, English translation from Roger Gryson, The Ministry of Women in the Early Church, 1976, p. 28)
Once again, I offer the words of Dr. Everett Ferguson to this discussion and hope they might help us all better understand this question and issue.
“As I read 1 Corinthians 11:2, I would reconstruct the literary situation somewhat like this. Through their letter or through personal communication the Corinthians have said that they observe the traditions Paul delivered to them. These include the custom of women wearing a head covering in public and men not. But in this matter, the Corinthians are wondering, "Why?" In Roman religion, both men and women in the act of offering sacrifice veiled their heads. Moreover, the women in the church may have been pressing for full eschatological equality with men, so there is more attention to the question of women here. Even if women were accustomed to covering their head outside the home, they would not in the home, so if the church were meeting in one's home, the women of the house would have seen no reason to change their attire when other Christians were present.”
“In response to the Corinthians' comments or questions, Paul in 1 Corinthians 11 commends them for their observing his traditions but then goes on to offer reasons why in that cultural setting he made the distinction he did between male and female appearance in regard to a head covering. His subject here is the head covering and justification for it, not other matters.”
“This explanation may help to account for the apparent contradiction that many have observed between 1 Corinthians 11:2-16 and 1 Corinthians 14:33-35. 1 Corinthians 11:5 refers to a "woman who prays or prophesies" and 1 Corinthians 14:34-35 forbids a woman to speak in the assembly. And it may be that the Corinthian women were speaking publicly in these ways in the assembly; that would be why Paul has to write so explicitly on the matter in 1 Corinthians 14. Yet, readers often wonder why Paul does not say anything negative about the practice at its first mention in 1 Corinthians 11.”
“There is a current tendency to take 1 Corinthians 11:5 as normative and find some narrower interpretation of 1 Corinthians 14:34-35. That seems to be a strange exegetical approach. Whereas, the subject in the early part of 1 Corinthians 11 is the head covering, and the speaking roles of praying and prophesying are incidental to the main subject; on the other hand, the subject in 1 Corinthians 14 is precisely speaking roles in the assembly and under what circumstances they are to be exercised. The instructions expressed in the primary discussion should be regulative.”
"Paul's approach to the problems in the church at Corinth is to affirm their claims in theory and then to qualify them in practice.(7) This is often done immediately: 1 Corinthians 6:12, "`All things are lawful for me,' but not all things are beneficial. `All things are lawful for me,' but I will not be dominated by anything." 1 Corinthians 7:1-2, "`It is well for a man not to touch a woman.' But because of cases of sexual immorality, each man should have his own wife and each woman her own husband." 1 Corinthians 8:1, "Now concerning food sacrificed to idols: we know that `all of us possess knowledge.' Knowledge puffs up, but love builds up." Indeed, one could cite many of these corrective statements. The last example that I have cited introduces an instance when Paul's strategy of agreement with a principle (perhaps learned from him or misinterpreting something he taught) but limitation of its application or correction of it in practice is expressed with enough intervening material that the result appears to be a contradiction rather than a qualification. In 1 Corinthians 8:4-6 Paul agrees that "no idol in the world really exists" and "there is no God but one," and argues against "eating in the temple of an idol" (8:10) only on the basis of the effect on a weaker brother who does not have this knowledge. But then in 1 Corinthians 10, when he comes to lay down regulations in regard to various situations, he says in verses 20-21 that "Pagans sacrifice to demons and not to God" and "You cannot partake of the table of the Lord and the table of demons." There was no contradiction in Paul's mind, for idols had no real existence, but the demons that stood behind idolatry were real and were to be avoided. Even on the partial truth of the premises of the Corinthians' argument there was reason to stay away from pagan temples. But Paul does not stop when he mentions the claim that idols do not exist to explain that there is more to the reality than this simple denial. He waits until he gets around to prescribing under what conditions meat sacrificed to an idol may or may not be eaten to declare the reality of demons that stand behind idolatry. It may be that Paul is doing something similar in 1 Corinthians 11 and 14. The discussion of reasons for a woman having a head covering and a man not having one is prompted by a request from the Corinthians for an explanation. The further ramifications involved in a woman's speaking in the assembly are reserved for the detailed regulations given later."
Ferguson then concludes:
“It is normally assumed that 1 Corinthians 11:2-16 has to do with the assembly, because it is clearly some public situation in which both men and women are present. Yet it is not absolutely certain that 1 Corinthians 11:5 is the assembly of 1 Corinthians 14. That the settings are the same is an assumption, still to be demonstrated. Most take it as self-evident. Thus Gordon Fee says, "The two verbs `pray and prophesy' make it certain that the problem has to do with the assembly at worship. One may pray privately; but not so with prophecy."(8) He assumes that there are only two choices, something private and something in the assembly, but this is not so. Something may be "public" but not be a meeting of the church. The matter of eating meals is an obvious illustration provided from the context, both before and after 1 Corinthians 11. The Lord's supper was "in church" (11:18-20), but there were banquets and dinners "at home," whether another's home (10:27-28) or one's own (11:34), where many guests might be present and were in a sense "public" and not "private" in the sense of individual (see Chap. 3). Moreover, something may be a group activity of Christians, or a group of Christians may be together on some occasion, and an assembly for worship not be involved. The assembly was not the only place where prophecy was delivered. In Acts 21:8-12 the prophet Agabus delivered a prophecy to quite a large group. It included Paul, his traveling companions (seven are named in 20:4, to whom Luke is to be added on the basis of the "we"), and perhaps also Philip and his four virgin daughters (who also had the gift of prophecy), since their home was where Paul's company was staying. Yet this was not a "church," not an assembly of the church even though all present were Christians.(9) There could be public occasions of prayer and prophecy where women were the spokespersons but not be the times when "the whole church comes together" envisioned in 1 Corinthians 14 (note vs. 23). That distinction removes any contradiction between 1 Corinthians 11 and 14. On this explanation there were occasions that were not an assembly of the whole church when women prayed and prophesied in public.” (WOMEN IN THE ASSEMBLY by Dr. Everett Ferguson)
God bless us all in our study of His Word.
Robert Prater
David:
Hmmm? Are you suggesting that whatever Paul was teaching to the Corinthians (and let's leave the specifics from the discussion at this point), the Corinthians did not need to follow/obey?
I genuinely do not know where you are theologically by your question. Are you suggesting a version of Antinomianism similar to what the English Puritans embraced (e.g. Tobias Crisp)? If so I will offer that they misunderstood the teaching of Paul in Romans. They missed his message in Romans 3:31, for instance, as the summing statement of verses 3:21-30.
We are a long ways away from the initial topic of this weblog chain. So, I will stop at this point.
In Christ,
Bruce Morton
Katy, Texas
Mr. Prater…I mean no disrespect to you or Ferguson but it's difficult to imagine how the people INSIDE a BUILDING are considered the Church but the same people OUTSIDE of a building are not the Church.. It seems like one would have to embrace some sort of Temple worship concept to agree with that concept. And, it makes even less sense to me to say that people inside a PARTICULAR building are the church but if in a different TYPE of building (Home, Camp, etc.)they are not…
Alabama John….Even Peter thought that some of Paul's concepts were difficult to understand
(2 Pet 3:16).
Alexander…wasn't it Jesus who reduced the entire law and the writings of the prophets down to Love ?? If God could sum up a Covenant of Rules and Regulations that way, what would be incorrect about summing up a Covenant of Grace the same way ? I think Jesus made it pretty clear that the Law wasn't to be disregarded but the underlying driving force behind it all was love. What is different about a covenant of Grace that one would now have to revert back to command and regulations instead of Love ?
@ David…Everybody agrees with you whether they admit it or not.. they've just identified things differently than others as to what was cultural and what was a command for all the ages…
@ Mr. Prater again… there are so many things in your epistle of a post to take exception with but let's stick to your reflection on Huldah, Deborah, Anna and Phillip's daughter… Huldah was speaking for the Lord and her words commanded the actions of the King and The Priest and all of Isreal…Whatever she said to do, all the men in town jumped up and did…pretty impressive for a woman…
Deborah lead the army in battle and her song of victory is recorded as scripture which is inspired and profitable for teaching men how to act…And, as a Prophet AND Judge I think it's interesting to note that she was married and the Bible doesn't mention her husband as either prophet or judge..Again, pretty impressive credentials.
You mentioned Anna..Yes, she was an elderly woman when she went about telling "all who were waiting for the redemption of Israel" about Jesus.. Since the Word says she hardly ever left the Temple where she was fasting and PRAYING, I suppose she was telling everybody in the temple that she came in contact with about Jesus…Sounds like preaching and teaching to me…
And the Word doesn't say whether or not Phillip's daughter spoke in "church" or not but it says they were prophets so they surely spoke to somebody. Where they happened to be standing or sitting at the time seems irrelevant to the fact that God was using them to exhort, edify and encourage others through prophetic words… The "church" wasn't a building back then (and I contend that it isn't today either) so surely there were women prophesying in homes and in various assemblies if for no other reason than it was foretold by the Prophet Joel that it would happen. Apparently God didn't have a problem with it…
The examples that you mentioned are clearly God's approval of women in His service rather than the distortion you presented. Then there's Phoebe…!!
Price,
My point being we will be judged by how we lived and obey what we UNDERSTOOD to be correct and required of us in the word.
Where much is given , much is required.
Chances are nobody not gifted directly by God has had it just right.
Doesn't that open a lot of doors for folks through the ages til present day rather than closing them.
Jay…have you ever read Carroll Osburn's book, "Women in the Church" ?? He's an Abilene guy like Ferguson. Excellent book IMHO…He does a great job of fairly presenting both sides of the debate and goes back and looks closely at various women who are mentioned in the Bible.. I think he is a professor of Greek at Abilene..
Alabama John…I totally agree. The process of sanctification allows us to grow in our understanding and maturity without the risk of eternal damnation. Reminds me of the CoC preacher in Athens, GA that told me once, "It's a good thing God didn't put me in charge of the judgement because I would have sentenced people to hell for things that I have since changed my mind about." We ALL grow, and we ALL see things differently at times.. I meant my comment to support your conclusion however, I may not have done it as well as I intended !!
1 Tim 2:8-15. Note the context:
1. If the contrast is between men and women, and therefore, men must publicly pray not women, then
women are to dress modestly, be angry and disputing. Men are not to dress modestly and not do good deeds!
2. Note the contrast is men-men i.e. pray and not be disupting; women-women be known for modesty and good deeds.
3. There is no mention in this chapter of formal public worship. If this chapter is about the public worship of the church, them women are to give birth in church during worship, not home!
4. If a woman is not to teach and be silent, how can you permit congregational singing (Remember you "teach and admonish" in song.)
5. The Greek word for woman and wife is the same. The context is essential. "But women (i.e. wives) will be saved through childbirth". Is not the context primarily about wives and not women in general?!
PS. If 1 Tim 2 only applies to public worship, then men are only to pray and not be disputing in the assembly and can be otherwise outside of the assembly.
If women can't pray in the public worship, but can otherwise, then they must dress modestly for the assembly, but can be immodest outside of the assembly.
Can a woman "have authority" over a man outside of the assembly or just during public worshlip?
Remember Paul lived in the Middle East and never learned of modern western logic!
May the Lord have mercy on us all!
Bruce,
If I understand you correctly, you're arguing the women were prophesying and praying on the streets.
"Because of the angels" is usually interpreted in light of the Jewish thought that angels are gathered when people gather in the name of God. Paul is speaking of a gathering. We read in 1 Cor 14 that there was praying and prophesying in the assembly.
Bruce Winter, in After Paul Left Corinth, argues that "because of the angels" should be translated "because of the messengers," the "messengers" being spies for the government. It was, after all, a totalitarian state that banned all but certain approved religions and was, at the time, greatly concerned about women rebelling against their traditional roles (pp. 137-38).
Either way, the assembly is in mind. And there's no suggestion that Paul is speaking of the women prophesying in the street — which seems highly improbable given the Greco-Roman attitude toward women speaking in public —
http://hilo.hawaii.edu/depts/english/faculty/docu…
Laymond wrote,
I think Price nailed it: /2011/03/buried-talents-an-…. Deborah was a judge (decided disputes), a prophetess, and had authority over the army of Israel — as well as an author of the following chapter of Judges. If that's not authority, nothing is authority.
Robert,
I have great respect for Ferguson as a historian and as a man. I think his theology is seriously, seriously flawed. It would take a book to address all his points, and so I'll limit myself to this one —
You quote Ferguson as saying,
Let's see … in the eschatological age, swords will be beaten into plowshares. Therefore, we should fight wars in the assembly? Check. Got that one down!!! But we're deeply, deeply wrong to behave as the unredeemed in church, especially in the assembly.
So men should "rule" over women in the assembly — but not in the world at large. Gen 3:16 says "rule" not "provide spiritual leadership." Why would God want men to rule women in the assembly but not elsewhere?
Oh, and death reigns today, but will be defeated in the next age. Does the assembly therefore preach that we should fear death as the unredeemed do?
I mean, the whole idea that we should preserve the accursed state of the world in the assembly and yet be MORE redeemed OUTSIDE the assembly — where women may speak and, outside the church, have authority over men — is, to say the least, odd. It's backwards.
The gathered church, where Jesus has a special presence and his death is commemorated, should be an anticipation of the Eschaton! Indeed, the Lord's Supper anticipates the heavenly banquet of Revelation, and Jesus' presence there anticipate's God's presence on earth at the Eschaton. Our singing anticipates the singing of heaven.
The assembly anticipates heaven and most certainly doesn't preserve the unredeemed world in its futility. Yes, the Eschaton hasn't arrived and we've not yet received the fullness of its blessings. But that hardly means that we wallow in the corruption of this world and don't seek to escape it now. No — we are called to flee the corruption of this world today, to escape the consequences of the curse, and even to beat swords into plowshares now.
You see, Ferguson has turned his theology upside down, from Genesis to Revelation, to preserve a traditional interpretation. He's started with what he wants to prove, rather than with the narrative of the Bible. And as a result, he argues against God's work to redeem us from the curse of Genesis 3. It's more wrong than I have words to express.
Finally, a note on 1 Cor 4:8, which Ferguson cites as meaning we should not live as though the Eschaton had arrived. Compare —
Notice the flow of Paul's argument. If we will judge the world at the Eschaton — even angels! — surely we can try civil cases today! You see, he's telling the Corinthians to anticipate the Eschaton by living that way already! But, of course, not that they get to judge the whole world. Rather, to the extent present circumstances permit, let the Eschaton inform your behavior today. We'll be judges when Jesus returns. Therefore, within the Kingdom, we should judge cases today.
Therefore, Ferguson has plainly missed the meaning of 1 Cor 4:8.
(1Co 4:8 ESV) 8 Already you have all you want! Already you have become rich! Without us you have become kings! And would that you did reign, so that we might share the rule with you!
We are kings because we are in Christ — but we won't receive our crowns until the Eschaton. We aren't kings yet, but we can act like the King today. And we do that by submission, service, and carrying a cross. That's how the true king acts.
Thus, Paul asks the Corinthians to imagine a different way of being a king —
He is being facetious, even sarcastic. The apostles are most like the true King, because like him, they are "men sentenced to death." This is true kingship. This is true riches. The Corinthians have their understanding exactly backwards.
Their problem isn't that they anticipate the Eschaton, but that they anticipate reigning as the wrong kind of kings (hardly the last Christians to do so!)
Yes, Paul had riches — just not the kind of riches the Corinthians were seeking.
Price,
I have both editions of his book. Both are a source for my own Buried Talents, on the role of women. /books-by-jay-guin/buried-t…. And I agree. It's excellent.
Richard,
You make an excellent point. What on earth makes us think that women can have authority over men in the workplace but not in church? Until about 50 years ago, it was routinely argued that 1 Tim 2 applied to women every where. But when we decided we needed our wives to work to make money, we re-interpreted the passage.
To reach this conclusion, many graft 1 Cor 14:33-35 onto 1 Tim 2:18 ff, to get the result they want. But Timothy surely wouldn't have read it that way! Worse yet, to reach that conclusion, we reason as as follows:
1. 1 Cor 14:33-35 applies to "public" worship but not "private" activities, such as Bible study or Bible classes. Therefore, women must be silent in the assembly but need not be silent in Bible classes (although both are just as public).
2. 1 Tim 2:18ff allows women to teach men in private (Priscilla) but not in public. Therefore, they can't teach in Bible classes (which are public)!
We have a very ad hoc, confused theology of women.
Jay:
You have documentation in your possession of background evidence regarding the strength of the Dionysus cult and how it affected Asian society. So, I should need to say little. I hope you let the evidence surface that the Asian religious culture was comfortable with priestesses and that an estimated 25% of the religious leaders in Ephesus were women.
And did they work/preach "in the streets"? Absolutely. Indeed, that is why numerous feminist scholars over the past 20 years have been so fascinated with the ancient power of the mystery religion. (e.g. Kramer, Her Share of the Blessings; Pomery, Goddess, Whores, Wives, and Slaves). The religious portrait of women especially in Roman Asia has been much misunderstood until recently — and I suspect Kramer and Pomeroy's work is still not widely known. But that is changing.
Plutarch is no guide to the power of the Asian mystery religions.
Perhaps a webchain that gives attention to the studies by Ross Shepard Kramer's and Susan Pomeroy — both world-class studies of the ancient world — would benefit readers of your forum. I think the findings of those feminist scholars (and others) will be eye-opening for many/most of the people reading your weblog. My 21st Century Christian publication gives you ample information regarding where to start.
Think I have said enough for now.
In Christ,
Bruce Morton
Katy, Texas
Bruce, you lost me on your last post…What was the point you were trying to make ?
Jay:
I decided I probably needed to comment as well regarding your note to me about Corinth. A host of studies (including the world-class study by Wayne Meeks, The First Urban Christians) stumble in missing what we increasingly know about the mystery religions. Even the recently released egalitarian study by John Zens (What's With Paul and Women?, 2010) has missed the place of the mystery religions in the ancient world (glad to share that I have sent a copy of a 21st Century Christian publication to Jon and he and I have enjoyed comparing notes a little of late).
I am hopeful that recent work such as that by Hugh Bowden (Mystery Cults of the Ancient World, Princeton, 2010) and Everett Ferguson (Backgrounds of Early Christianity, 3rd ed., 2003) get more reading.
And yes the Dionysus cult held power in Corinth as well. You have some documentation of that as well (though not as much as regarding Ephesus).
In Christ,
Bruce Morton
Katy, Texas
Maybe the original question has been forgotten. The question raised was is it wrong for a teenage girl to pray aloud in the presence of a teenage boy?
Interestingly, most of those who would quickly say Yes would also apply that rule to both girls and boys who are as yet not baptized, who by their own standards are not Christians, not members of the church.
Is the teenage girl taking authority over the teenage boy by praying? Hardly is that that case.
What is the saying…something about straining at a gnat and swallowing a camel?
I was once a male chauvinist cloaked in the trappings of religion. It was only when I started to read the Bible for myself instead of just believing what others told me I should believe that I saw differently.
I have heard many stories of generational bad treatment of women by coc men, not only at church, but in the home. It is a disgrace and a reproach on the name of Jesus.
I believe male leadership is biblical and right. That being said, there is still room for women teachers, preachers, speakers at lectureships and Bible conferences, all sorts of church committees, leading music, serving communion, and serving others in a myriad of ways.
Yes, the Bible says, wives submit to your husbands. The same Bible says submit to each other. How is your submission to that sister you call wife?
Royce
Price:
In sum Jay is mistaken in his conclusions about the Greco-Roman religious perspective in Roman Asia and Corinth regarding women — and perhaps further. But I do understand where/how he got there; the understanding is pervasive. So, pointing to some places where people can start to reorient themselves in light of a growing body of evidence.
In Christ,
Bruce Morton
Katy, Texas
I don't think a man needs a degree in anthropology or ancient history to understand Paul's letters.
Respectfully Bruce, I think the readers of Jay's blog know where you are coming from. You never seem to leave the same track. And, apparently some of them, like me find you hard to understand.
You are a very nice guy, I have enjoyed conversations with you, and have read your book. However, I believe you are putting more weight on one topic of history and culture than is necessary.
Royce
@ Bruce…I sort of agree with Royce here…I find it unnecessary to fully appreciate every facet and detail of feminist religion to appreciate Paul's commendation, financial dependence and clear approval of Phoebe as a deacon of the church. Anna also served in the Temple day and night…There were home churches in HER house…Paul mentions by name several women who apparently held sway in the local congregations…So, regardless of the pagan religions and thier impact on society at large, God never failed to equally equip women for service in HIS Church… And, if he equipped them it's fairly obvious that He expected them to use thier gifting…then and now… Apparently God isn't intimidated by Satan and his exploitation of the truth…Didn't He, God, tell us through the Prophet Joel that HE would cause the women to be involved…And you know how He is about doing what He says He will do…I don't suppose He was surprised that it would happen in a pagan culture with feminist leadership do you?
Look at Romans 16 for a good list of woman involved in the work of the early church .
Please, Price! Giving a summray is not reduction! He points to the heart of the Law, but this does not mean, He had no specific commands. In fact, tread the Sermon on the Mount: His laying out of the essence of the Law makes the standard even higher than in the Old Covenant.
Again: Love is a summary, NOT a reduction.
Alexander
@Robert
Surely prayer is none ofthe miraculous gifts. If they ceased (the question is when, because the conuinued way into the third century, yet they diminished), then the regulation still applies to prayer, which is the question above.
As for formal worship: I mean One brother doing all, a pulpit and pews. This is not according to the pattern. Of course I am convoncved that the church shall gather regularly on the 1st day and inbetween to hold fast to everything written in Acts 2:42.
Alexander
@ Alexander… but then the Holy Spirit comes along and says this to the higher expectations of the Law..
Rom 3:20 (For by works of the law no human being will be justified in his sight, since through the law comes knowledge of sin.)
Rom 7:4,6 (Likewise, my brothers, you also have died to the law through the body of Christ, so that you may belong to another, to him who has been raised from the dead, in order that we may bear fruit for God.)
(But now we are released from the law, having died to that which held us captive, so that we serve in the new way of the Spirit and not in the old way of the written code.)
Rom 10:4 (For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to everyone who believes.)
and then Paul says this….
Rom 13: 8,10 (Owe no one anything, except to love each other, for the one who loves another has fulfilled the law…….Love does no wrong to a neighbor; therefore love is the fulfilling of the law.)
That is not in any way to diminish the need to do as we have been instructed…but not out of fear of punishment or false pride in our own ability to keep some rule or law but rather out of Love for the One who first Loved us and for our brothers and sisters in Christ… IMHO>
David,
(For some reason i'm not getting notified of comments anymore and didn't see this til this morning.)
Are there *any* rules at all a person must follow in order to become or remain saved? Or can a person never follow any rules whatsoever and yet become or remain saved?
–guy
Guy
Believe in and rely on Jesus for our salvation (faith), and seek to love one another, the way Jesus loved us.
David
Guy, I would ask if there is any sin which Jesus' sacrifice didn't or couldn't forgive ? Isn't the process of sanctification and growth in our spiritual maturity different from salvation which is not by the rules ?? I think David is accurately pointing out the distinction.
Following rules in order to be saved is oxymoronic. The OT Jews tried to follow rules for salvation in order to be saved and failed. Jesus is not the new "Moses" who simply has given us new rules for salvation. As Paul says in Galatians 3 "does God give you his Spirit and work miracles among you by the works of the law, or by your believing what you heard?"
I must have overlooked it: But where did I say we need to follow 1Co 11 in order to be saved? If that were the case, most Christians (at least in the West) would be damned.
But could it be that it is neither about salvation nor about a free-will-I-do-it-because of-love-thingy, but simply because He is God and deserves obedience and honor and glory?
We are so horribly selfish when making everything a salvation issue as if it was all about our gain and profit! No, He is God. Period. Therefore we do as He commands.
Alexander
Amen! abasnar
Alexander…I want to agree with what you said but something just didn't ring true so I looked up the word "reward" in the bible search site that I use…Do you know how many times Jesus spoke of one's reward in heaven…a bunch..:) I didn't count them but if you check you'll see… You'll also see Paul, John and the author of Hebrews speak of gaining a reward…So, if getting a reward was selfish then why would the Holy Spirit put it out there for us to consider? Perhaps it could be considered selfish but not necessarily.
Is Salvation not important? The CoC has divided 2 dozens times over the issues which they think prohibit one's salvation and that doesn't count those "denominationalists." This blog might not exist if there weren't so many controversial issues that divide us… Go back and look at the comments in the IM section… could salvation be the wrong focus? Perhaps but not necdessarily. Again, the Holy Spirit put the issue out there of being saved or eternal damnation in order for us to choose which way we wanted to go…
But, I couldn't agree more with your ascertion that God just simply deserves to be worshipped. Absolutely agree with that 100%… It's strange that He felt it necessary to offer us rewards and eternal salvation to motivate us to unconditionally submit to His authority…Perhaps it's because we are indeed selfish by nature…but He still offered it…
Royce:
I do agree with you that a man does not need a degree in ancient history or anthropology to read Scripture. However, I also believe all of us read Scripture based on the work of translators and historians who have helped us understand the words/paragraphs/etc. For example people before us took the time to see how "love" (Gk. apape) was used in ancient papyri and inscriptions in order to convey the crucial character of what the risen Lord is teaching His followers in the NT. I value that. I hope you do too.
We often get the beliefs we hold (including what Jay professes) based on someone's taking time to look at the history. Specifically, I hope you are not also critiquing Jay's referencing the work of Bruce Winter as well (I did not see such).
Most people are not aware of the recent works that I reference. And from what I can tell in this weblog, the egalitarian perspective is considered THE correct reading of Scripture that applies to the question Jay raises. However, the background of the Asian mystery religions provides a powerful corrective to what many people have read from an egalitarian stance (including what Jay references). I responded to Jay because I am convinced from the evidence that the conclusions he presents in his initial essay and subsequent postings represent a misreading of Scripture.
I will let my notes stand for others to consider — not from the vantage point of final judgment or the like but from the perspective of following the risen Lord and His teachings.
In Christ,
Bruce Morton
Katy, Texas
Price:
Let me confirm with you that indeed the Lord intended women to be at work in His church. You and Wendy are correct that women were involved in spreading the Word. And I think my posts above point out that I agree with that.
And lately I have read no one who believes Paul was chauvinistic or the like (we are making progress :-), only that there must have been some unique situations in Ephesus (and Corinth)… and that women can lead assemblies just as can men. That is what sits behind Jay's essay. Correct?
However, in all of the specific applications, we still come face-to-face with a very big cultural issue — that the ancient world faced just as we have (and that aspect is frequently missed since most are unfamiliar with all of the background to Paul's teachings). Paul was speaking to a people who thought much as we do in our dominant American egalitarianism. We keep thinking "gifted" as the basis for deciding that women can lead assemblies just as can men. And anyone who takes folks back to 1 Timothy 2:11-15 and 1 Corinthians 14:33ff. is said to be misinformed, stuck in conservatism, missing the giftedness of women, or something similar.
To confirm I do indeed believe in the giftedness of women, but that does not translate to my believing that American egalitarianism is appropriately applied as many have applied it in our day. I continue to believe egalitarian (and feminist) applications are missing the message of 1 Timothy 2:11-15 (and other texts).
In Christ,
Bruce Morton
Katy, Texas
Yes, there is a reward. But I thought of our focus. If a child obeys only because it is going to get a reward, then outwardly all seems perfect, but where is the heart?
Remember, the servants said to the master: "We only did our duty." They did not even expect a reward.
So I strive for an attitude that recognizes God as authority and at the same time lives by His love and grace. This means:
a) If God says something we shall do, I don't want to question it. I shall do it withoubt doubts and murmuring.
Even if a command seems insignificant or just symbolic.
b) If God approves an example in the Scriptures, I shall imitate it and not try to explain why it does not apply to me.
I don't expect to be saved because I do all and everything that is written. We all fall short of that. But if I willfuilly and persistenty ignore what I should obviously recognize as His will, I'll be in trouble on judgement day. When I start to find excuses and explanations for rather clear words of the Bible why I need not follow them – also a "lawyer's approach" (a cunning form of legalism), and even teach others to feel free about God's command, I'll be in even greater trouble.
I believe also there will be people who are rejected although they (outwardly) kept more commands than another one who did not know of so many instrucvtions, but strived to live by them out of respect and love for God.
True fear of God and true love for God (I always miss the first aspect in "progressive" posts) will not question God's word but do it. Not for selfish reasons (I will get a reward!), but because God is God. He deserves all glory, honor, loyalty and love.
There will be rewards beyond measure, because God is not unjust to forget our works.
There will be judgmenzt according to our works, and many will be lost because of their lack of works. But these works are not so much: Did you cover or uncover our head in prayer, but did you help the needy. There is no seminary degree necessary for that.
But those who belittle God's word, playing with words in order to make them obsolete, show great disrespect to our God. They treat Him like a human invention that they can remodel according to their own pleasures. This attitude starts with explaining away what is written, so that the outcome of interpreting a passage is not obedient application, but "Ah, this does not apply to us" or "doing this would be legalistic" or "but this is not al salvation issue".
It is a salvation issue how we view God. It is about our attitude, not about perfection in every Iota – but about striving to be perfected.
I hope, Price this makes it a little clearer. The result is quite similar to the outcome of conservative convictions, that's maybe why it always gets confused with this. But it is not only about our outward conformity to God's will.
Alexander
Alexander… I here again find myself agreeing with most of what you are saying.. That is causing me great anxiety…:)
Two quick points… I have a difficult time with Progressive, Conservative, and other "like" labels.. It all depends on one's "interpretation" of what God is saying and an attempt to show one's disregard for God's word when in fact it might be a disregard for another's interpretation of God's word. With regard to IM, I feel like I am the Conservative in that I believe that IM should be allowed because it was introduced by God Himself and there is no specific authoritative command to remove it…Others think that is very Progressive, or Liberal or some other term of division and I resent the labels. I try to avoid using them but I guess to each his own.
I agree with your recasting of the need to seriously consider and necessarily obey the instructions and commands put forth in the Word. Jesus said that if you Love you will indeed keep my commandments…I agree with you. My point is that Love in and of itself is the motivating factor toward obeying the commands that gets us closer to doing them than anything else. And, as the Bible says, "there is no fear in love." Jesus said that all the laws and the writings of the Prophets that were held so dear could be essentially rewritten with Love your God and Love your Brother… If we did that perfectly we would probably come close to not needing a written instruction… So, in my mind, Love is the focus, the instructions are there to set the standard of what love should look like.. I John so marries the two concepts that they can hardly be pulled apart…
I'm glad we have moved toward agreeing with one another on at least one point…Perhaps there will be more…
@ Bruce…We must be careful to impose our cultural influences restriction on the Word. I agree that there is a good bit of it in Paul's writings and that he needed to express what he did in light of the culture of the day…However, it would be difficult in some respects to transpose those words into our modern times..Let me give you one example… Whereas the feminist leadership in the cults was common, it was not common outside of the cult…There were few, if any, examples of female leadership outside of the cult as it was considered by the common man as inappropriate. That is not the case today. Females have demonstrated superb leadership skills in all aspects of life and have been accepted as equals, albeit with some residual bias and discrimination from old school males. People today would not be outraged if a Margaret Thatcher lead a country…or if a Mother Teresa served as lead missionary to India…Most outside of the CoC don't mind if a female teaches as long as she's teaching correctly…It's not that we believe females should usurp authority in the church but we believe that women should be given opportunity to outwardly express the spiritual gifts given them by God.. That, as a male believer, doesn't bother me whatsoever…
But in then there is Phoebe…a Deacon in a specific church. Perhaps the only deacon ever referred to specifically attached to a congregation… Carroll Osburn deals with that very conservatively and in the end one must accept her as a Deacon with great influence in the church… Can a woman work in such a capacity and be forbidden to participate in prayer in mixed company? I just don't see it. That she was such an important part of Paul's ministry and operation of the local church that she served in a time of such cultish feminism in culture should highlight God's FAVOR upon the female and His approval of her involvement AND LEADERSHIP… If she was indeed a rare exception then we have been taught by the Word to look for, recognize and equip these rare exceptions and not totally exclude female leadership. IMHO this would be consistent with the entire history of God's people in the written Word regardless of the culture which it happened.
And, if like Paul, we are to equip female leaders, should we not train them as little girls to be leaders ? When we take a position of exclusion we hamper God's talent in women to be used for His Kingdom..but only for a short while because women with true gifts and leading will go to where they can be used… If Momma ain't happy…….:)
David,
(Once again, not getting notifications and just noticed your response. Also–i'm not even seeing "reply" buttons underneath comments anymore. Am i the only one?)
You wrote:
"Believe in and rely on Jesus for our salvation (faith), and seek to love one another, the way Jesus loved us."
Is a person require to keep all the above rules in order to be saved?
–guy
Jay,
You are most certainly right about Dr. Everett Ferguson’s scholarship. It is widely recognized for being sound and is highly respected across the “denominational spectrum.” Apparently his
book "Backgrounds of Early Christianity" is a standard textbook for the last twenty years as well as “The Church of Christ: A Biblical Ecclesiology for Today” and his most recent work, “Baptism in the Early Church is being ranked right up there.
Scholars both within and outside our fellowship will assess and esteemed worldview among scholars of early Christian history. When the Australian Catholic University opened its Centre for Early Christian Studies in Brisbane in March 2003, Everett was invited to open it. On that occasion he delivered the inaugural address on ‘Baptism in the Early Church’, a much
shorter version than his 953-page "magnum opus" he released in 2009. (Incidentally, just a few years
earlier, the Roman Catholic Church changed its teaching and practice of baptism, nominating
believing adults as the preferred subjects and immersion as the preferred method).
Everett has received many honors around the world. Most recently he was honored in March of last year for the Vestigia Award for Excellence in Early Christian Studies from Wheaton Centre for early Christian Studies.
Yet, one of most wonderful qualities I admire about Dr. Ferguson is despite all that he has achieved, is his humility and gentle manner. He recently spoke at the campus of Oklahoma Christian to the Preacher’s Luncheon and demonstrated such over and over again by talking one on one for a few minutes with many of us “local preachers.”
Now, of course, he is just a mere man with misunderstandings, opinions, biases, etc. No one is
claiming he is an “apostle” nor is he “infallible” and neither is he our authority in religion and what to believe.
But he truly is one of the greatest thinkers and scholars in regard to early Christianity that we
probably have in churches of Christ and even close to the top half among evangelical writers and
scholars.
Jay, indeed you make a good and valid argument against Fergusson’s opinion regarding 1 Corinthians 4:8 and connection to the role of men and women in the assembly. I would tend to agree with you that he has “plainly missed the meaning of 1 Cor. 4:8”, but it was nonetheless a part of his broader comments on roles of men and women and the context of 1 Corinthians 11 and 14.
But, I think you are right. It does seem likely that Fergusson view of seeing Paul’s Corinthian readers with the lens of “over realized eschatology” is a flawed interpretive approach.
But to his credit, Ferguson does say:
“Whether this explanation of the relation of creation and fall on one hand and the assembly on the
other is the correct one and is the theological reason for limitations on women’s role in the assembly, the instructions are still plainly in the text. Man and woman each has distinctive spheres in which to show identity as male and female. Those distinctions are extended to the assembly of the church. My suggestions about a theological reason for their application to the assembly may be treated as opinion, but the distinctions themselves are a fact. And the
instructions about women’s role in the assembly have not been successfully explained away.”
I believe Jay you and other progressives who are openly advocating and promoting broader roles
of women in the worship assemblies “have not been successfully explained away.”
Back to Ferguson, he summarizes the evidence of the role of women within post-apostolic Christianity.
"Except in some heretical and schismatic groups, the churches in the early patristic period evidence prohibitions on women speaking in the assembly and serving in leadership positions of bishop/presbyter or presiding at liturgical functions." (Everett Ferguson,
"Women in the Post-Apostolic Church" in Essays on Women in Earliest Christianity, College
Press, 1993, p. 513)
Again, I come back to the question about whether or not even the context of 1 Corinthians 11 is referring to the church’s worship assembly but rather “outside” the assembly of the church.
Dr. Jack Cottrell agrees with this:
“Does 1 Cor. 11:2-15 refer specifically to public worship? Not everyone agrees that it does. It is my judgment that it does not. This is based on at least three considerations. First, in vv. 17-18 Paul specifically states that he is now ready to give
instruction concerning the public assembly (“when you come together as a church”), and he indicates that this is the first instruction of that nature (“in the first place”).
Second, there is no reference in vv. 2-16 to public worship. But beginning in v. 17, through the end of ch. 14, Paul says several times that he is referring to the gathered church (11:17, 18, 20, 33, 34; 14:19, 23, 26, 28, 35). Third, if vv.2-16 are not referring to public worship, then there is no difficulty harmonizing 11:5 with 14:34-35. Women may pray and prophesy in other context, but not “in church” (14:35).” (Jack Cottrell, Headship, Submission and the Bible)
Harold R. Holmyard, was long time Bible scholar at Grace Theological Seminary and who was an on the Broadman & Holman Editors and Translators committee which produced the Holman Christian Standard Bible in 2004.
He wrote:
“Believers in church gatherings represent the body of Christ, the society of God's people. Those who speak are in de facto leadership roles, since all others must listen. In planned, formal meetings men ought to assume these authoritative responsibilities. But in the many small, fortuitous groupings of everyday life a woman's speech need not imply authority over males. Males might not be present, or they might be non-Christians, or they might, because of sickness or other difficulties, be the ones in need of a word to or from God. Many other circumstances could explain the propriety of a woman praying or prophesying with men present in a nonchurch setting.” ( Harold R. Holmyard, "Does 1 Corinthians 11:2-16 Refer to Women Praying and Prophesying in Church?")
Carl Laney who is recognized Bible scholar and professor of Biblical literature and coordinator for Israel study programs at Western Seminary in Portland, Oregon writes:
“A viewpoint that is deserving of further consideration is the possibility that Paul was addressing two different situations in 1 Corinthians 11 and 14. Could Paul have been referring in 1 Corinthians 11:2-16 to women "praying and prophesying" in contexts other than the meeting of the church? If so, is it possible that his restriction in 1 Corinthians 14:34-35 applies only when the church is gathered in public assembly for the preaching of the Word and observing the ordinances of communion and baptism? It has been objected that 1 Corinthians 11 addresses the issue of communion, certainly a church event. But there is a clear transition between Paul's discussion of the head covering in 11:2-16 and his teaching regarding the Lord's Supper in 11:17-34. Only in the second section of chapter 11 does Paul mention the believers as coming together: "you come together" (11:17); "when you come together" (11:18); "when you meet together" (11:20); "when you come together" (11:33). Paul is clearly thinking of the gathered church in 11:17-34. But no such allusions appear in 11:2-16. One could make a strong case for the view that Paul is addressing two different contexts in chapter 11 — the first where believers are gathered in small groups for prayer, and the second where the church is gathered for teaching, preaching and communion. The ministry boundaries for one situation may differ from that of the other … this could have significant implications for our study of 14:34-35. Is it possible that Paul is giving a restriction on public speech in the church, a restriction which would not apply in the home or other informal group meetings? Paul does contrast the church and the home in 14:35 where he points out that it is permissible for women to ask questions in one place but not in the other. The possibility that Paul is addressing two different contexts in 1 Corinthians 11 and 14 is worth pursuing.” (J. Carl Laney, "Gender Based Boundaries for Gathered Congregations: An Interpretive History of 1 Corinthians 14:34-35" Journal For Biblical Manhood and Womanhood, Spring 2002, pp. 4-13)
John MacArthur writes:
“The mention of women's praying and prophesying is sometimes used to prove that Paul acknowledged the right of their teaching, preaching, and leading in church worship. But he makes no mention here of the church at worship or in the time of formal teaching. Perhaps he has in view praying and prophesying in public places, rather than in the worship of the congregation. This would certainly fit with the very clear directives in 1 Corinthians (14:34) and in his first letter to Timothy (2:12) … Women may have the gift of prophecy, as did Philip's four daughters (Acts 21:9), but they are normally not to prophesy in the meetings of the church where men are present. (John MacArthur Jr., 1 Corinthians, MacArthur New Testament Commentary, pp. 256-7)
Just for our considearation in our study.
God bless,
Robert Prater
Jay,
Please indulge me two additional quotes from two more highly recognized denominational Bible scholars regarding the different context of the non-assembly context of 1 Corinthians 11 and the assembly context of chapter 14 for consideration.
Always appreciate your graciousness.
Bible scholar from last centruy, A.W. Meyer wrote about 1 Corinthians 11 and 14.
“Prayer and prophetic utterances in meetings on the part of the women are assumed here [11:5] as allowed. In 14:34, on the contrary, silence is imposed upon them. Compare also 1 Timothy 2:12, where they are forbidden to teach. This seeming contradiction between the passages disappears, however, if we take into account that in chapter 14 it is the public assembly of the congregation, the whole ekklesia, that is spoken of (verses 4, 5, 12, 16, 19, 23, 26 ff., 33). There is no sign of such being the case in the passage before us. What the apostle therefore has in his eye here, where he does not forbid the praying and prophesying of the women, and at the same time cannot mean family worship simply (see on verse 4), must be smaller meetings for devotion in the congregation, more limited circles assembled for worship, such as fall under the category of a church in the house (16:19, Romans 16:5, Colossians 4:15, Philemon 2). Since the subject here discussed, as we may infer from its peculiar character, must have been brought under the notice of the apostle for his decision by the Corinthians themselves in their letter, his readers would understand both what kind of meetings were meant as those in which women might pray and speak as prophetesses, and also that the instruction now given was not abrogated again by the "let women be silent in the church assembly." The latter would, however, be the case, and the teaching of this passage would be aimless and groundless, if Paul were here only postponing for a little the prohibition in 14:34, in order, first of all, rovisionally to censure and correct a mere external abuse in connection with a thing which was yet to be treated as wholly unallowable (against my own former view). It is perfectly arbitrary to say, with Grotius, that in 14:34 we must understand as an exception to the rule, "unless she has a special commandment from God." (.A.W. Meyer, Critical and Exegetical Handbook to the Epistles to the Corinthians. Translated from the Fifth Edition of the German by Rev. D. Douglas Bannerman, 1884. page 249)
R.C.H. Lenski, the great Lutheran scholar and commentator writes:
“It is quite essential to note that no modifier is attached to the participles [praying and prophesying] to denote a place where these activities are exercised. So we on our part should not introduce one, either the same one for both the man and the woman, for instance, "worshipping or prophesying in church," or different ones, for the man "in church" and for the woman "at home." By omitting reference to a place Paul says this: "Wherever and whenever it is proper and right for a man or for a woman to pray or to prophesy, the difference of sex should be marked as I indicate." Whether men are present or absent when a woman prays or prophesies makes no difference; also vice versa. Each remains what he is or what she is apart from the other.”
Lenski continues:
“An issue has been made of the point that Paul speaks of a woman as prophesying as though it were a matter of course that she should prophesy just as she also prays, and just as the man, too, prays and prophesies. Paul is said to contradict himself when he forbids the women to prophesy in 14:34-36. The matter becomes clear when we observe that from 11:17 onward until the end of chapter 14 Paul deals with the gatherings of the congregation for public worship and with regulations pertaining to public assemblies. The transition is decidedly marked: 'that ye come together,' i.e., for public worship, v. 17; 'when ye come together in the church' (ekklesia, no article), v. 18; and again: 'when ye assemble together,' i.e., for public worship, v. 20. In these public assemblies Paul forbids the women, not only to prophesy, but to speak at all, 14:34-36, and assigns the reason for this prohibition just as he does in 1 Tim. 2:11, etc.”
He concludes:
“It is evident, then, that women, too, were granted the gift of prophecy namely the ability to present and properly to apply the Word of God by teaching others. And they are to exercise this valuable gift in the ample opportunities that offer themselves. So Paul writes "praying and prophesying" with reference to the woman just as he does with reference to the man. The public assemblies of the congregation are, however, not among these opportunities — note en tais ekklesiais, "in the assemblies," 14:34. At other places and at other times women are free to exercise their gift of prophecy. In the present connection [11:2-16] Paul has no occasion whatever to specify regarding this point … The teaching ability of Christian women today has a wide range of opportunity without in the least intruding itself into the public congregational assemblies.” (R. C. H. Lenski, The Interpretation of St. Paul's First and Second Epistles to the Corinthians, pp. 436-7)
The Lord bless us all in our study.
Robert Prater
Guy
Actually, based upon my reading of the Text, faith is the only requirement — everything else is the natural and inevitable consequence of faith — of which only God is the judge
David
Price,
It seems you have put words into myself and Dr. Ferguson’s mouth. We never once said that “the people inside a building are considered the church but the same people outside of a building are not the church.”
And you “Temple worship” comment is completely off base and strange to say the least brother:)
It seems you and I have different concepts of the Biblical notion of the “church” and the “assembly.”
The church “outside the building” if you will, are in fact, the church, 24/7 period. But the “church” outside the building if you will, is not church “assembled” 24/7, collectively.
Yes the church as a corporate body and Christians as individuals can worship at other times than the assembly on the Lord's day. But, in the NT there is a special significance to worship in the assembly on the Lord's Day.
Ferguson notes the importance of the church assembling:
"The New Testament has a rich doctrine of the Christian assembly and shows that the coming
together of believers is important. Faith may be private or individual in the sense that someone cannot believe for another, but faith has a community expression and involves a group. If one can sustain one's faith without the support of common worship, then it is not the Christian faith that is held" (Everett Ferguson, The Church of Christ, 231-32).
Price, we find the phrases “come together" (1 Cor. 11:17, 33-34; 14:26), "in church" (1 Cor. 11:18), "in the same place" (1 Cor. 11:20). Notice all three expressions in 1 Cor. 14:23; "gather together" (Acts 4:31; 11:26; 1 Cor. 5:4; also see Heb. 10:25; 1 Cor. 14:23; Acts 2:44, 47)
Ferguson further comments on this:
"The assembly exemplifies the doctrine of the church….To be a church [assembly], it must meet….A
family is not a family if it is never together or at least bound in memory of past gatherings and hope
of future reunions. The church may survive where there is a poor program of religious education,
little evangelism, virtually no benevolence; but it will not survive where it does not meet. In assembly, the church becomes itself. It becomes conscious of itself, confesses itself to be a distinctive entity, shows itself to be what is it—a community (a people) gathered by the grace of God, dependent on him, and honoring him" (p. 235).
Finally, Ferguson in commenting on acceptable behavior and the assembly notes:
“Not everything acceptable in other contexts has a place in the church meeting….Paul makes a
distinction between behavior that is appropriate elsewhere and what can be done in the assembly,
between outside activities and assembly activities….Paul does not support the idea that if something is right or good at other times it may be done in church" (p. 243)
Price, do you accept the idea that not everything acceptable for the church outside the "assembled" in worship is acceptable when the church "assembles" for worship?
Just curious.
Anway, Jay, needless to say, my voice and opinion is in the minority here and I don't want to pick "fights" just express a voice for the "other side."
We're not all "Contending (Contenious) for the Faith" on the moderate/conservative side:)
But it does seems for me, that I see this question about can a “girl/women pray in the mixed company of
boys/men”, is really just a “bait and switch”, it’s a red herring if ever I’ve seen one. For clearly outside the church’s worship “assembly”, there is no debate about this. We have no such prohibition against women praying together in the company of mixed audience. I think most moderate/conservatives would agree on this. But the assembly is another matter. (cf. 1 Tim. 2:8-14)
Again, like the IM debate, many of us "moderates" see the much larger “picture” on this issue. We don’t have our “heads buried in the sand”, indeed, I notice how you even word this post “Buried Talents.” This is the old tired argument that is certainly not new.
So what myself and others more conservative minded know is what is at stake and what is being threatened here. You’d have to be a text book definition of naivety to not see, at least, in this country with egalitarianism pushed to the extreme and in particular the push for broadening the leadership roles of women in churches of Christ.
To me this question has been and will always be about the “slippery slope” and how it very likely
could (and has in many places) lead to more active roles of women in the worship assembly of the
church.
I think F. LaGard Smith was way ahead of the game and saw this one coming when he wrote some
very wise words and gave an appropriate warning which is now over 20 years old in his excellent
book, “Men of Strength for Women of God.”
LaGard Smith writes:
“Even if lines are not drawn easily, they must be drawn, and drawn early. It won’t do to draw the
only line somewhere near the top of the leadership chart—even if a person conceded the inconstinatly of drawing the line there. (“Neither male nor female” except at the top level?) If all we maintain of the principle is male exclusivity at the highest levels of church government, then we not only have created an illogical and unbiblical dichotomy which women would have every right to see as sheer discrimination, but we have robbed the church of its broader male strength. The responsibility of spiritual leadership for all Christian men must never be confused with the
exclusive male hierarchy of just a few.” (p. 293)
Smith continues:
“Crack the door open in biblically neutral areas of service, and we will soon find it to be a threshold
to the biblically ordained leadership roles themselves. The slope is indeed slippery. As a lawyer, I am well aware of “floodgates” arguments which seize upon improbable ultimate consequences as a reason for not doing something that is imminently reasonable. Floodgate arguments should be used with caution. But in this case we already have proof. Already we have seen churches which have
made the rapid progression from women passing communion trays and leading congregations
prayers to being appointed deaconesses, pulpit ministers, and elders.” (p. 294)
“Why should women join with men in leading prayers or reading Scriptures in the worship? “Because,” we are told, “there is neither male nor female.” If that is true, then it is also true that women should be able to join men in the pulpit. Accepting that rationale for shared partipcation in seemingly innocent areas of public worship leaves no room for line-drawing whatever. That is why the ‘floodgate” threat is so real.” (p. 295)
Smith concludes:
“Maintain a high male profile in everything that the church does reminds us of the greater principle:
It is not what women could do, but what men should do………if we are given fewer guidelines than
we might hope for regarding other specific functions within the church, we nevertheless are bound
by the overarching principle of male spiritual leadership. Any involvement of women which
threatens that principle is contrary to God’s will. Sadly, today’s call for the wider role for women in the church appears to be just such a threat.” (p. 297-298)
Harding the the words spoken by an "extreminst" in the church or "chauvinist".
Anyway, I’ll leave this topic alone for now. I’ve given “plenty” of quotes to consider. Incidentally,
at our Congregation on Sunday, we are beginning on Sunday and going through Wednesday night a
special series of lessons (i.e., Gospel Meeting) with Dan Chambers from Nashville, TN on “Culture
in Chaos” – Getting Back to the Basics.
Dan is a great scholar and thinker. 21st Century Christian published his excellent book, “Showtime!” Worship in the Age of Show Business, which with F.
LaGard Smith writing the preface.
There is a special connection between Central here in Shawnee, OK and F. LaGard Smith. His late father, Frank Smith was Central's preacher in the late 40's and early 1950's. LaGard came back here a few years ago and held a Homecoming for us. It was a special time and certainly one of the best weekends I've had in my ministry to spend some with this great thinker and writer:)
Just some tidbits.
God bless,
Robert Prater
Mr. Prater…To answer your question regarding activities INSIDE versus OUTSIDE the "assembly" I offer the following…..Where two or more are gathered in My name, there I am in the midst of them… If Jesus is present in my small group and women pray and He is not offended then why would He be offended if more are added to the group? If somebody strums on a guitar as we sing Kumbaya in a small group or camp setting and Jesus is present, how is that different from His presence in a larger group? Is it not worship ??
If the Elders in heaven are singing with harps are they not in the presence of God? I find the whole argument that the number of people present would impact what is correct and/or incorrect for worshipping God to be without sufficient merit. With all due respect to Ferguson…
Actually, the only thing that I see from I Cor 14 regarding the "assembly" that one might say is unique over a "small group" is that the worship service should be done in an "orderly fashion." I don't see any prohibition to females bringing a song, or prophesying or speaking in tonuges or interpretation of tongues, etc…, and if there is no prohibition in the assembly of these things, then I see no reason to consider passing out communion trays a slippery slope…I find the whole thing to be an over reaction to Paul's concern that a women would "usurp" (to seize and hold possession by force and without right) a man's role in worship as in his household…
Guy,
If you get the comments by email, it seems that, unlike DISQUS, you can't reply from the email. You have to reply from the webpage.
I'm looking into installing an alternative system — maybe over the weekend, now that Alabama's basketball season is over (Baseball is no temptation to me. Too slow.).
Robert,
I appreciate your willingness to concede the points I was making. As to the original question — girls praying aloud in the presence of boys — 1 Cor 11 becomes MORE relevant if 1 cor 11 speaks of women praying in the presence of men outside the assembly — because the original question is about prayer outside the assembly.
Back to Ferguson: one cannot interpret a passage apart from one's hermeneutic. Ferguson has a flawed hermeneutic. Therefore, his reading of the various male/female passages is suspect. There are plenty of "plain" passages that we don't bind on each other — if our hermeneutic informs us that those passages are based on cultural concerns no longer applicable — such as the repeated passages urging us to greet one another with the Holy Kiss.
Therefore, you can't even begin to approach the meaning of 1 Cor 14:33ff until we've first come to an agreed hermeneutic — or else we'll just keep talking in circles. I think a sound hermeneutic recognizes that we are in a not yet/already period, awaiting the Eschaton, but that the church, as the Kingdom present on earth but not-yet-fully realized, must pursue ethics and ecclessiology built on eschatological principles.
Paul repeatedly looks ahead to the end and back to the crucifixion, and finds principles of behavior in the gospel and in the Eschaton. Jesus speaks of the kingdom over and over — although the Kingdom won't have fully come until the Eschaton. But Jesus tells us how to live today based on kingdom principles.
Thus, we follow Jesus and Paul in anticipating the Eschaton, instructed by the gospel of grace — recognizing that of all communities, the church should be the most fully realized version of the Eschaton on earth today, and that the assembly should be the most fully realized version of the kingdom in our experience. After all, the assembly is the gathered church, with Jesus present, eating a heavenly banquet and singing praise to God. Sounds like the way John describes heaven!
Jay,
Wait–so the comments are no longer disqus is what you're saying? i didn't know that. And i never had tried to reply to the email. i always came to the website. But i'm currently not receiving any email notifications from this site about comments even though i was receiving them just about a week ago or so.
–guy
David,
You wrote:
"faith is the only requirement"
So there is one rule, and people are required to keep it to be saved? Yes?
–guy
Bart Ehrman makes a good argument that 1 Cor 14:33-36 is an addition to the original text. His reasons are
1 these verses are found in 2 places in the some of the manuscripts (also after verse 4), which leads to the belief that the verses were not original but were added as a kind of marginal note by a scribe and then inserted in the text in different places by various scribes
2 these verses do not sit well into their immediate context and interrupt Paul's addressing of prophecy in the church. If one removes the verses, the passage seems to flow seamlessly as a discussion of the role of Christian prophets
3 these verses directly contradict what Paul says in 1 Cor 11
Worth considering, especially if you consider that many scholars doubt that (1 and 2) Timothy were written by Paul (and hence the rest of Paul's writings would not be in conflict regarding the role of women)
verse 40, not verse 4…
Price:
I agree that outside of the religious realm America does not look like Roman Asia. No question. And certainly the place of women in jobs/civil servant roles is not the focus of Paul's attention. And that is part of the challenge we face. Our egalitarianism is far-reaching… and many cannot possibly see how Paul's words apply to OUR culture. Surely, he was meaning them for a unique situation. The Holy Spirit must have intended them only for the first century.
We begin to reason that way because we start with our society and reason from there. But Paul starts with Creation (1 Tim. 2:11ff.). That is why all of this becomes a watershed for many. Numerous egalitarians have concluded that Paul was actually mistaken when he argues as he does from Adam and Eve — from the beginning of humanity. When Paul places all of this on that foundation we face one of two alternatives: 1) religious egalitarian efforts to dismiss Paul's words from our day are nothing more than spiritual darkness or 2) Paul was not inspired.
Now that is what I call a watershed. And that is why Jay is correct. This is a religious "hot button"… because it ultimately reveals how we see our religious culture and how we see apostolic teaching.
In Christ,
Bruce Morton
Katy, Texas
Wendy:
I hope you do not listen too much to Bart Ehrman. His Lost Scriptures and Lost Christianities volumes have flaws — not the least of which is that he believes Christianity is absurd. As a professor of Religion, he undermines. That is not light, but darkness.
And darkness affects his judgment. For example the list of manuscripts that include 1 Corinthians 14:33ff. is impressive (P46, Codex Sinaiiticus, Codex Alexandrinus, and others). Yes, a limited number transpose verses. But few (excluding Ehrman) question their validity as Paul's writing.
As for 1 Timothy you are correct. The broad view of NT scholarship stands on the belief that Paul did not write 1 and 2 Timothy (but not all in even in our day stand there.). And in drawing that conclusion the scholars who make that decision ignore one remarkable piece of evidence. Polycarp quotes from the letters and announces them to be apostolic. Now that is an early witness (that some mention, but most want to ignore)!
I continue to believe we need to see that some NT scholarship faces the same challenge as the rest of humanity: the challenge of darkness. If there is a part of Scripture we do not want to hear/deal with, then the easiest answer is to… find a way to discard (just as some leading religious feminists, among others, are discarding all of the NT as inspired). We face challenging times.
In Christ,
Bruce Morton
Katy, Texas
Guy,
Yes, DISQUS died when Theobloggers changed servers, which also fixed the problems that led to me using DISQUS in the first place. We are now using the WordPress native discussion software.
When you make a comment, you'll see a block to check to receive follow up comments. It's possible that old comment subscriptions died with the conversion. It wouldn't surprise me, but then, there haven't been many comments on old posts since then — perhaps for that very reason.
One complaint I've received is that there is no way to subscribe via email to comments without making a comment. However, you now have an option, at the bottom right hand of the page, to "register" and thereby receive posts that way. I don't know if that sends comments or not.
I know you can subscribe via RSS using the button at the top, but that requires an RSS reader, such as the free Google Reader — which I'm a big fan of.
And maybe I'll be able to fix this over the weekend.
Bruce,
To suggest that all who find Paul's words no longer applicable today are either "spiritual darkness" or a challenge to Paul's inspiration is horribly unfair and untrue. You are better than that. One can disagree with your interpretation be neither damned nor dispute the inspiration of Paul.
Have you ever once heard me question inspiration? I know we disagree about some things, but have I ever done anything other than argue from the scriptures — as fully authoritative?
Therefore, I guess you figure I'm damned for disagreeing with your view on the role of women. What else might "nothing more than spiritual darkness" mean?
(Eph 5:7-10 ESV) 7 Therefore do not become partners with them; 8 for at one time you were darkness, but now you are light in the Lord. Walk as children of light 9 (for the fruit of light is found in all that is good and right and true), 10 and try to discern what is pleasing to the Lord.
(Eph 6:12 ESV) 12 For we do not wrestle against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the authorities, against the cosmic powers over this present darkness, against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly places.
Surely I can safely assume that you use "darkness" in the Ephesian sense of the word.
Brother, you overstate your case and damn many godly students of the Bible in so doing.
Yes, there are people who claim Paul made a mistake — but no one here. Nor is it necessary to make such an argument to conclude that the texts speak to a cultural concern that no longer exists, based on very serious, Biblical arguments.
Indeed, you may have noticed that I have more than once banned from this site people who persist in arguing against the inspiration of the Bible. I strongly recommend that you engage the arguments actually being made and not a strawman. No one here disputes inspiration, and accusing me and others of so doing is not a fair argument.
Now, if you want to argue that those who disagree with you are damned for so doing, please offer the Biblical text that so states, rather than making an unsupported allegation. I'm glad to discuss what damns a Christian and what doesn't.
Wendy and Bruce,
I'm not familiar with Ehrman, but there are very conservative students who agree with Wendy on text critical grounds. Lenski prudently states, "Some critics even cancel some of the verses. All such questions we leave in the hands of the textual critics who have the proper textual apparatus at their disposal."
Carroll Osburn reviews the authorities in "The Interpretation of 1 Cor 14:34-35" in vol 1 of Essays on Women in Earliest Christianity. He cites Gordon Fee as arguing that the verses are inauthentic. Fee's argument may be found at http://books.google.com/books?id=XlBp10nUTXAC&… which is part of the New International Commentary series — hardly a bastion of liberalism or "darkness."
Osburn ultimately rejects Fee's arguments, but Fee is a conservative scholar and his work is very well respected among the most conservative Christians. Many have been convinced by him.
In my own arguments here, including in Buried Talents (ebook available for free download here), I've not bought Fee's argument, but not because he's engulfed in spiritual darkness, but because Osburn, an egalitarian, doesn't buy it. But it's not an irresponsible argument, and one doesn't have to be trapped in spiritual darkness to find Fee a persuasive advocate.
Jay:
Please stop with the "horribly unfair and untrue" stuff. You yourself have spoken pointedly and strongly about what people believe on a number of topics. And sometimes on target. Now that I do I am "horribly unfair." You know as well as I do that what I stated as the alternatives is exactly how egalitarians and "complementarians" have viewed all of this and why all have taken the subject so seriously — just as do both of us.
For example 1 Timothy 2:13 is at the heart of this and Osburn, Nicole and others find "creative" ways of ignoring the text. And yes I know you believe that Paul is inspired. So, the question is what do you do with 1 Timothy 2:13? It grounds what Paul writes to Ephesus (and Corinth) in Creation, not culture. And all know that — egalitarians and complementarians alike. Correct?
Jay, the manuscript evidence for 1 Cor. 14:33ff. is considerable. Interesting, isn't it, how manuscript variants often gather little attention… until they involve clashes between what an apostle writes and how people in our time typically think and live.
And no I am not damning anyone. A choice of darkness at a point does not immediately leave people with ultimate judgment. You know I do not use the word "damnation" in my posts. So, please stop that line of writing; it misrepresents me and how I think (and what I have written on this subject multiple times before).
Can we move back to the substance of my posts about the background to Paul's words? You have based your reading of Scripture and your counsel/conclusions in your essay and subsequent posts in a view of the background that needs revisions. That is what I have been proposing to you. Osburn, Nicole, Fee and others have misread the evidence about the ancient world. And that is not my assessment alone. It is the assessment of Classicists whose work is just now surfacing for consideration.
The background regarding the Asian mystery religions and their egalitarian character is without question. And the fact remains that the Dionysus cult held great strength in Corinth and Ephesus. An increasing number of people are seeing how that sheds light on Paul's writings. It reveals that he was speaking to a society that compares closely to our own in terms of thought about religious leadership in worship being acceptable in the hands of both men and women. That is why Paul was being guided by the Spirit to write the correctives he writes.
In Christ,
Bruce Morton
Katy, Texas
Bruce…it seems that nearly in EVERY ERA God used Women to lead…Now if God chose to use women to serve Him in various ways throughout time with the people surrounded and influenced by cults of various kinds, I believe that's good enough to serve as a foundational position for women's roles… Adjusting for cultural influences seems appropriate so as not to disgrace the church but nowhere in scripture or in your own book, do I find support to remove women from consideration of being used by God…It's just not there…
There is no doubt that the male figure was assigned a responsibility to lead his family and the church. But, given that women serviced as prophets, judges, Temple assistants and Deacons…with God's approval…I just don't see the bridge that enables one to cross into the kind of restrictive position that many in the CoC defend…
Bart Ehrman makes a good argument that 1 Cor 14:33-36 is an addition to the original text. His reasons are
In the oldest manuscript in t is as present as in our Bibles today, though. I think it is P46, which some date as far back as the late 1st century (http://web.archive.org/web/20071130105031/members.aol.com/egweimi/p46.htm).
The question is: What is meant by "silence"
Two or three things to mention:
a) in the early times of the church of Christ 🙂 prayers were often said in unison – all (brothers and sisters) "recited" the same prayer.
b) Saying Amen to the prayer of another person makes this prayer one's one prayer (so the one saying Amen prays silently along with the one who is praying audibly)
c) Most of our songs are prayers – and the women do siong along
So silence is not silence. Only the parallel-passage in 1Ti 2 makes it clear that silence is limited to teaching the whole congregation. It is as simple as that. And then there is no contradiction with 1Co 11:2-16 anymore.
But, please, let no one approve of female preachers, elders and pastors. This is clear deviation from God's Word – and I do believe that God will be very strict on this on judgenmengt day because of all the Christological (BTW, Jay: Types and Antitypes !!!) implications.
Alexander
Sorry I forgot the Blockquote commands. The forst two lines are quoted from Wendy
Price,
I guess we'll just have to agree to "disagree":) You can with a wave of hand dismis scholars like Ferguson, but you other no real substance response.
You use of Matthew 18:20 is case in point. In context, it has everythign to do with church discipline, those caught up in sin and will not repent. The church is to do action and when it does so, with two or three do so in His name (authority), Jesus will be with such actions.
Friend, just because Christians come together for softball, volleyball, talent shows, and even if a pray or song is offered there, doesn't make that a "worship" assembly of the church.
Again, every activity the church may engage in "outside" the assembly, doesn't mean we are authorized to do such activity "inside" the assembly of the church.
You seem to be guided more by "I thinks" and "I feel" than divine revelation. You can't "explain" away 1 Timothy 2:8-15. Paul was writing to Timothy in working with the church at Ephesus and if hew as delayed they would know how they "ought to conduct themselves in the household of God, the church…" (1 Tim. 3;15)
But, our "debating" this point seems rather small when I consider that your words seem to clearly reveal that you believe the miraculous gifts of the Holy Spirit such as speaking in tongues, prophesy, etc. are still being exercised and have not in fact been done away with.
We just don't see scripture in the same way.
Robert Pratet
Mr. Prater, I don't dismiss Ferguson..he is a man that has spent many a day studying the word…I just, like many others within the CoC and without, don't agree with his conclusions. I think his view of IM is incorrect and many that are much more capable in historical and scriptural analysis than I have clearly, at least to my satisfaction, refuted his arguments, point by point. He is a good and respected man..However, he is in the miniscule minority regarding his opinions about IM..Therefore, when it comes to other matters that we might disagree on, I am not bound to agree with him simply because it is his opinion.
I have offered women that GOD HIMSELF chose to lead through Biblical history as an example of God's use of women in authoritative and leadership roles. Now one might object that many of those listed were in the Old Covenant…OK. Not sure what that has to do with God's view of the importance of women however, I listed several women in the New Covenant including Phoebe, who was in FACT a Deacon in the church of Cenchrea…Some object to her holding an "office" of Deacon but there is no context to forbid it unless you just don't like it and find some way to ignore it altogether…
Then, there's Junia..She was indeed a women of great influence.. and most translators hold to the opinion that she WAS an APOSTLE to the same degree that Barnabas, Silvanus and Timothy were…
Priscilla taught along with Acquilla but it is clear that SHE TAUGHT Apollos in PUBLIC..
Carroll Osburn speaks again to the Greek language in his book, Women in the Chruch and in his expert opinion how Paul refers to "female deacons" in I Tim 3:11…
I had not previously mentioned all of these and find it unnecessary to go and quote all the passages.. Interested persons can easily find and read all about them…
Yes, I do, in front of God and everybody state unequivocably that I believe in an active Holy Spirit today as much as He was ever active in the lives of any first century Christian…when He chooses to be. I could only hope and pray that He would open your eyes to His presence and allow you to live in the power and authority of the indwelling Spirit. Acts 2:39 is God's promise of the Holy Spirit to all who believe. That includes me…
Not that I don't have my own personal testimony but the ECF's wrote of their personal witness of the gifts of the Holy Spirit for 600 years after the time you say it ended…So it obvious that they didn't agree with your interpretation of I Cor 13 or the passage in Ephesians… God showing up sort of removes any question to whether he can or not, huh?
But, let me me clear…I believe that you are a man of faith and have a true, sincere heart for God…I just don't agree with you totally on the roles of women or at all in regard to an active Holy Spirit today.
Everything else in the Bible and every spiritual instinct, other than those two passages when taken out of context, tells me that women should be participating just as much as men in assemblies or any other situation where their input would be edifying. We're missing something here. There's something we don't know. And it must be the context in which the letters were written. The Bible is inspired and every scripture is profitable, AND YET they were in fact written in a certain time and place to certain people for certain reasons. Everybody understands this when it comes to greeting one another with a holy kiss or bringing Paul his coat and books.
It makes more sense that there was something shameful about the way women were speaking in Corinth, and Paul needed to correct it. It doesn't make sense that any kind of speaking is wrong.
It makes more sense that there was false teaching in Ephesus that Eve was created first and Adam was deceived and women were trying to authoritatively teach this over the men and Paul needed to correct that. It doesn't make sense for Paul to say that women should never teach at all for the reason of Eve being created second.
AND STILL enspecially THESE passges are ALL root in Genesis 2 and 3 and in a Christological Context: the Man is representing Christ and the Woman the church; this is called a "type" and a corresponding "antitype". This is something which somehow always gets overlooked.
I am going to be a little harsher now than usual: All these modern theologians HAVE NO IDEA of God's plans whatsoever, but try to conform the church to an apostate world. Period. And before you get mad at me because of that: PROVE that the submission of women to men is NOT rooted in creation – by the scriptures!
I am so full of despair, anger, sadness when I read some of the statements in this thread, I cannot express it in words. Some tend to make up their own Bible, ecclesiology, yeah even their own God. Please, please PUT ASIDE worldly reasoning, shun every cultural influences in your lives, cast out the demons of this world! For anyone who has ears to listen, these are hard words:
No, we are not the authors of Gods word, and we are not in the position to bring out an "update" to God's revelation. The Corinthians had to submit to what was handed down to them, and so must we.
No kidding: Am COMMAND of the LORD! And who are we to contradict our blessed King? Would anyone among you dare to say into the face of the Lord: "I don't accept this command of yours?" Who has this courage? Let him (or her) speak up!
Got it? It is a fellwoship issue! And this is painful to write or to say, believe me. But who will listen? Who will wake up and repent? How many more congregations will cause schism and alienation by casting aside portions of God's word at will?
We who claim to be restorationists are committed to the ANCIENT order of things, not to the fancies of modern society and culture!
Yes, I am … downhearted when I read all oif this …
Alexander
Price,
Again, we'll have to agree to "disagree":) But you are in fact wrong about Ferguson's view regarding IM in the early church. In fact, it is folks like you (no personal attack in that statement now), but you and others who believe IM is acceptable and was practiced in the early first century church, it is you who are in the minority my friend.
Pleas check for the record how for the past 2000 years of writings of church historians, music scholars,
early reformers, etc. and see that IM was opposed and believed to NOT have been the practice of the early church.
In regards to “Phoebe” being an “official deaconess”, yes, there is the possibility that she was a servant or “deaconness’ in an official sense and Paul may be giving the qualifications for a deaconess in 1 Timothy 3:11 instead of the traditional view that he is referring to wives of deacons.
But I don’t believe that is the case. First, if women deacons are in view in 1 Tim. 3:11, it seems rather strange that they should be discussed right in the middle of the qualifications for male deacons, rather than by themselves.
Also, Paul indeed seems to go out of his way to indicate that women are NOT deacons in the very next verse, for he says “Deacons must be husbands of one wife.” Again, if 1 Tim. 3:11 is addressed to women deacons, why are most of the qualifications not listed—that is, the only qualifications that pertain to the women would be the four specific things listed in vs. 11? The very fact that all these requirements seem so universal and yet are given specifically only to the men seems to argue against women deacons being in view in 1 Tim. 3:11.
We also know how that the original manuscripts of the New Testament were not divided by chapters and verses. And sometimes our divisions get in the way of seeing the overall context. There seems to be an unnatural break between chapters 2 and 3—or, at least, one that is too abrupt. I take it that 2:8 through 3:16 are all addressing conduct in the church. The issues revolve around men and women throughout these two chapters. And the very fact that Paul says in 2:12 that women were not to teach or exercise authority over men seems to govern what he says in chapter 3 as well.
It seems to me that if my understanding is correct, then the only way for one to see women deacons in 1 Tim 3:11 is either to divorce this verse from the overarching principle stated in 1 Tim 2:12 or reinterpret 2:12 to mean something other than an abiding principle for church life.
In regard to “Junia” being an apostle (Rom. 16:7) in the rank of the 12, you seem to really, really be “grasping at straws” (but you’re not alone in this as there have been scholars who take such view)
Personally, I take the phrase to mean more “well known to the apostles” than “well known among the apostles.” It seems Paul is saying he knew these two people quite well. Many scholars in recent years in giving analysis of the grammar of this text (i.e., M. H. Burer and D. B. Wallace, “Was Junias Really an apostle? A Reexamination of Romans 16:7,” New Testament Studies, 2001, p. 76-91) have demonstrated that this particular construction should be rendered “well known to the apostles.”
It just seems like there is no support for the idea that Junias (whether male or female) was herself/himself an apostle.
More than likely Paul is using the term “apostle in the more general of many indivuasls who were “sent out” by the church as a delegated representive or messenger (cf. Acts 13:3; 2 Cor. 8:23; Phil. 2:25)
This seems to be how many commentators point out how that "since Andronicus and Junias were Christians before Paul was, it may be that their longstanding ministry (reaching back before Paul's) is precisely what Paul might have in mind when he says 'of note among the apostles.' They may well have been known among the apostles before Paul was even converted" (cf. Piper/Grudem commentary)
So I find evidence or support for you claim from this passage for the suggestion that women held the apostolic office in the NT. You seem to be reaching here my friend.
My friend, got any other isolated, obscure passages to support your beliefs??:)
In regard to your statement that “I believe in an active Holy Spirit today as much as He was ever active in the lives of any first century Christian..”
So, you’re seen people raised from the dead? The lame, blind, deaf, restored completely and fully?? People go overseas and preach in a foreign language (tongue) which they have never studied before? I’d love for you to document such present day “works of the Holy Spirit” as He certainly did such in the first century church.
I’m sure all the major newspapers, radio, TV, CNN, etc. would love to document and report on such supernatural workings of God.
The fact is, my friend, you can’t. Oh, some might point to “backaches”, “migraines”, even things like “cancers, tumors” being removed, but those are not “Bible miracles” as such as found in the NT period.
Yes, I do believe can and does heal the sick by His same amazing power, but is no longer exercising those gifts through men today as the complete, final revelation of His word has been given. Those type of first century miracles were intended to confirm the word of God. It was (and is) the confirmed word of God, not the miracles themselves, that produced faith.
Jesus sent the Holy Spirit upon the Apostles, giving them the ability to perform miracles (Luke 9:1-2; 10:19-20; Acts 1:8). They were given this ability to demonstrate to the hearers that their message was true (Acts 4:29-30; Heb. 2:1-4; John 15:26). These miracles were given “first” (1 Cor. 12:28) so that the foundation of the church would be established by the apostles and prophets (Eph. 2:20). The Apostles had the power to transfer miraculous power to other believers (Acts 8:18; 14:3; 2 Tim. 1:6).
Miraculous powers (the miraculous measure of the Holy Spirit) were only obtained by the laying on of an Apostle’s hand (Acts 8:14-24) or in the exception case found in Cornelius who received a baptism of the Holy Spirit directly from heaven. (And we’ve debated that ground before:)
In the book of Ephesians, as Paul discusses the development and growth of the church, he lists the various roles of service and leadership that existed as the church developed (4:11).
The purpose of these various roles was to "equip the saints" for the work of the ministry. The work of these leaders were crucial in helping an infintile church grow into adulthood (4:13). Having only a portion of God's message revealed, the church would easily be "tossed here and there by waves and carried about by every wind of doctrine" (4:14).
God's message was given progressively over the decades from time of the church's establishment.
My friend, eventually, the complete message would be completely given (around A.D. 95 with the completion of the last book of the New Testament). Thus, there was no longer any need for the miraculous confirmation of oral teaching (a major purpose of miracles as I previously noted, cf. Mark 16:20; Heb. 2:2-4).
The complete record was finished and the church had matured and was complete (until some would begin falling away from the faith once delivered for all–see 1 Tim. 4:1ff; 2 Tim. 4:1ff; Jude 3). When "the perfect" mature church developed with a complete message from God, the "partial" of miraculous gifts ceased.
Keep in mind also that once a message is confirmed as true, there is no longer any need for further confirmation. God’s word was revealed in “bits and pieces” through various prophets and inspired teachers (cf. 1 Cor. 14:29-33). Once the complete message of God was revealed and the church was no longer in its infancy (Eph. 4:11-16), there was no longer a need for the confirming purpose of miracles. The “partial” of miracles gave way to the “completeness” of God’s revealed will (1 Cor. 13:8-13; Eph. 4:13; 2 Pet. 1:3).
Price, again I state that surely, if one has the same power that the apostles had, then that one can do the same things that the apostles did. If not, why not?
The fact that none can do what the apostles did in the first century speaks loud and clear. It simply says that mankind today does not possess the power that the apostles had.
My friend there is a difference between the ordinary indwelling (non-miraculous) gift of the Holy Spirit people receive after they have repented and have been baptized into Christ (cf. Acts 2:38; 5:32; Rom. 8:9-11; 1 Cor. 6:19) and the supernatural miraculous gift(s) of the Holy.
I believe in the active role and work of the Holy Spirit in the life of the Christian, just not in the same misguided belief that you apparently have.
May God help us all to keep studying and only believe that which is in harmony with revealed truth.
Sincerely,
Robert Prater
Alexander… Are you saying God was wrong when He chose Deborah to be a Judge and Prophet rather than her husband based on your understanding of Gen 2-3 ?? Are you saying God didn't understand the ancient order of things when he chose Huldah to lead before the King AND the Priest ? Are you saying that somehow Phoebe and Junia didn't recognize their husbands and the local Eldership as heads of household and church ? Was Priscilla not in subjection to her husband Acquilla when she participated in teaching Apollos ??
I think you are confused with the concept of submission… My wife is in submission to my leadership as the head of my household…That however does not require me to treat her with little or no respect. It does not require me to make her wash the dishes..It does not require that I force her to do the laundry. I often throw some clothes in the laundry machine and do the dishes. I cook. I clean. I love my wife and I had rather LIFT HER UP as my wife rather than to force her to submit for the sake of submission. So, if I don't see anything wrong with my wife or any other wife passing out communion, then there is nothing to submit to…It's a freedom… I like to hear my wife pray from her heart..She is a child of God filled with the Spirit, the same Spirit, the only Spirit…
So, while you say that Paul requires submission I find it difficult to see where Paul requires me to MAKE her submit to ancient cultural practices which no longer apply in this day and age… If you want to tell your wife not to braid her hair because she represents a prostitue then go ahead…not me..
And lastly, Paul's submission is certainly conditional. I doubt Paul would expect a wife to submit to being required to do illegal drugs or be drunk daily because her husband required it of her. So, exactly why is it that she shouldn't be allowed to pray, or teach or lead when there are New Testament examples of that being done by women ?? Maybe it's not the woman's problem with submission as much as it is with the man's problem with control…
Mr. Prater… As I said, the IM debate was discussed here AT LENGTH… If you want to go back to that discussion and disagree or start all over be my guest…I'm as satisfied with the expert opinion offered and the scriptural analysis as is the largest church within the CoC faith heritage and the overwhelming majority of the Church universal…
Your subjection of God to your interpretation is your business. I've heard all your arguments and I've seen with my own eyes almost everything of what the Apostles did.. I know many, many faithful Christians who have likewise experienced the power of God in their lives. I have no desire whatsoever to go back to the dead religion you apparently enjoy but you are welcome to it.. But, I don't blame you entirely for your viewpoint.. It's experiential…Once you witness God showing up in your life then you will not speak as you do now. If that never happens, then He'll explain to you what you missed when you get to Heaven… But, there is no way that you could convince me that God isn't alive and doing miraculous things through ordinary human beings…as HE SEES FIT… I know what I know.
No, I am not saying that God was wrong in doing this. But I am saying that He is right when giving a specific order for the church.
If you look at Deborah, you must also look at the weak leadership of Barak. If you look at Hulda, please also take a look at the spiritually low situation in Israel. You cannot brush aside clear commands of God for the NT church by some extraordinary situations in the OT Israel. (One leading woman in the trime of the judges, and one prophetess in the time ofthe kings – we speak of two women in 1000 years!)
Of course, Price. But there is a book, a chapter and a verse for that, isn't it? (Acts 5:29) But this does not rule out the general rule, does it? And it does not allow women to stand in front of the assembled church to preach or even be their pastor/elder.
And this has NOTHING to do with ancient culture. On the contrary: Many ancient cults had female priests and prophetesses – the order in Christ's Church is CONTRARY to culture, both back then and today. So shall we MAKE the sisters submit? If need be, YES (Paul is doing this in his letters – publicly!).
And, PLEASE, Prica and Aquila conversing with Apollos was a PRIVATE setting, not a church meeting where Prisca taught the assembled church. PLEASE don't mix apples and pears, Price!
Are the commands in 1 Co 11:2-16, 1Cor 14:34-38; 1Ti 2:9-12 in any way unclear? If they are, then go and ask the multitudes of teachers of the past throught the first 1900 years of Christian History. They'll answer with one voice.
If the 20th century progressive wing of the churches of Christ (sorry for using that broad brush again) has lost its abiltiy to read, to understand and to follow, they should silently sit down at the feet of those who finished the race faithfully before them. I cannot and will not accept any modern interpretation of these crystal-clear passages that has been unheard of for almost 2 millenia (such as "long is the covering" or "this does not apply to us anymore"). This a-historic approach ("We today know it so much better)" is dead wrong, Price.
It is – just one aspect, though – a road leading to apostasy whether you are aware of it or not. Why? Because men by their own wisdom start deciding what in God's word can be dismissed as obsolte. Just take a look at other denominations who went along this path a bit before us: Epioscopalians, Lutherans, methodists … go down the list, and you'll find yourself on the broad way of worldlyness leading to damnation. It this where you really want to go?
It is not about a single command here or there that we disagree about. It is about a mindset, Price. I am not sure about you – maybe you just don't see the consequences of the ideas you quote (or even made up yourself).
Alexander
Alexander….
Regarding Deborah… I looked again and I didn't see anything from the word itself that remotely suggests that She was chosen by God because He couldn't raise up a man… Your assumption that the leadership was weak may in fact be correct but the fact that God chose a woman doesn't mean that He was incapable of raising up a man…He just chose to do it.. Was she a "type" for a Phoebe to come later ??
Regarding Huldah…Perhaps God DID intend to embarrass the male leadership of the time.. She even suggested as much. But God could have easily chosen a man but He chose a woman. But, I'll concede the point regarding Huldah that it was in fact because God was making a point.
Regarding Anna. She served in the Temple and was going about talking all that were in search of the Messiah (includes men).. Were the Jews themselves not concerned with this..If they were there is no mention of it.. She appears to have been serving and teaching about the Messiah in the Temple..
Regarding Phoebe…God didn't have to allow a woman to have that much influence in the church..If His intentions were to put women in their place then He messed up with Phoebe or Paul was out of order..I think both of these suggestions would be inappropriate to actually consider.
Regarding Junia.. same thing. Here she is clearly referred to as an Apostle or at a minimum she was considered a very outstanding leader within the church…
Regarding Priscilla.. Whether in public or private she did in fact participate in the teaching of a man.. Would that exclude a Sunday school class or small group ?? Does that mean a woman isn't allowed to give her opinion of what the scripture means to her if a man is present because he might actually see something different by her remarks and actually "learn" something? That just sounds terribly odd and inconsistent with Priscilla's involvement…
Now, I will also concede that these were unusual examples but I would also suggest they might not have been the only women that were leaders in the church just because they were the only ones mentioned. The I Timothy verse qualifying Elders and Deacons has been interpreted to include women as deacons by very conservative and expert Biblical scholars within the CoC…that suggests that there were many others that were female that were in leadership roles that Paul was acknowledging, however rare…
What I am saying, obviously very poorly, is that God used women in some very prominent roles within the workings of the church in the first century. Why could He not if He chose to, equip other women for leadership roles today? And, if He did, who would stand in His way? If there are clear and undisputed examples of His doing so then either God Himself went against His own instructions to us or perhaps we've misinterpreted His instructions to the church…
I am not saying that I agree with women Elders. Something in me says that men should lead in that role. I find no example of a female Elder…but for all other aspects I do see examples… teaching, serving as deacons, even their words being recoreded as divine scripture. Should the words of the Bible that were the words of women not be read in church if all scripture is able to be used for teaching ? Again, seems like an odd conclusion to me…
Lastly, if I personally have to answer to the Almighty for having allowed women to pray, teach, or whatever else I thought they were gifted by God to do then I will answer to Him from an honest position of believing that He had gifted them for that purpose. Being saved by Grace I have no doubt of my salvation and I would rather duck my head and apologize for having strayed from His instructions by giving freedom to women than having to answer for not recognizing His call upon their life and purposefully wrongly obstructing it. In the end, my view is that the most important things is that the Lord's name is proclaimed and the good news is preached to the entire world so that many may be saved..by whatever means necessary or available…
Alexander,
Explain why you do not greet your brethren with a holy kiss. Doing this will help you understand the viewpoint you are disagreeing with.
Alexander, I am a member of a church which has female elders, females preach at times and has had female pastors. I am immensely blessed by being part of a congregation where women can serve without restriction, but according to their gifting by God.
I love reading these discussions. They are informative and interesting.
However, as John mentioned earlier in the thread, men of good faith are constantly disagreeing about the "true" teachings of the Bible. We collectively struggle to interpret the truth of God only to find that, despite our best efforts, we constantly reach different conclusions. The group of people who respond to this blog are likely much more knowledgeable about scripture than the average person in a congregation. If disagreement is so widespread In here, it is no wonder we disagree so much "out there."
Spirited discussions can act as a catalyst for the discovery of truth but it can also detract from the big picture. It is my hope that all who are involved in this discussion will recognize that those who disagree with their position are still brothers in Christ.
But…
Are there any here who think that the issue of women's roles constitutes a matter of salvation?
Dear Wendy, I thought for some hours now how to answer you without being offensive. This is hard. I joined the churches of CHrist because of their vision of untity by returning to the "Ancient Order of Things". I was and more than ever am convinced of the necessity of restoration. Your church left this course – thats the way it is. Thus it is causing disunity – and ACU, Pepperdine and other semiraies add to this disunity, driving us into a defense-mode twoards brothers and sisters we should love. But we – honestly – cannot stand the howling of wolves, and we fear for our flock.
You are not in a church of Christ as I understand a church of Christ. Your congregation may bear the name, but it follows the worldly main-line denominations and left the way, the restoration movement was (and is still) on.
Not the issue itself, but the attitude behind it. Let me explain: If a group of believers just started a church and does not know much about these things, they might do things that are wrong, but still this does not count as sin. If their heart is right with God, they will do the necessary changes as soon as they come to a clearer understanding and stop doing things contrary to God's Word.
But if a church that claims to be Biblical to the Core and followiong the "Ancient Order of Things" decides to have female elders, it is leaving the "Old Paths" folowing a secular trend in society. Such a church fell in love with the world and is adulterous (Jas 4:4).
I am serious: I would not break bread with them, I could not fellwoship with them – because it is not a church of Christ but rather a church of the world. Not because if this one issue, but because of the attitude that led to such and other developments.
Imagine: The women are called to submit to their ahusbands as the church submits to Christ. That's one of the reasons for male leadership in the church, because elders or bishops shall be approved leaders of their households. Now this: If a church teaches egalitarianism, putting men on women on one level and denying the submission of women to men, installing female leaedership in churches, it basically says: The church is equal to Christ and does not have to submit to her Head. And that's how this church acts: She is throwing out Christ's commands at will. It starts with the so called "minors" (such as one cup or multiple cups) over more touchy issues (as IM) to really divisive ones (giving up headcoveringsm, installing female leadership) and it will end a little further down the road with what Episcoplalians, Lutherans and other denominations do today – provoking God's judgement.
That's why I don't even give in on "minors". I don't accept the distinction between "minors" and majors" but urge us to take Christ's command seriously that we should be faithful in small matters and keep also the least of His commands.
I am not sure whether these lines will be heard or understood. My inpression is that the "church of men" simply wants to have it their way and it seems impossible that they would recant their innovations. I'd be inclined to give up the battle, call it lost and accept that the church is and will be divided – which (from the bottom of my heart) I cannot do.
So let this be a call for repentance: My progressive brothers and sisters, I fear that you are on the way of death. At least: We are not going the same direction, so let's stop "playing" unity, where there is none anymore. Rememeber: You changed the course, so you caused the split.
Alexander
Alexander
Alexander,
Am I to assume that your position is as follows:
People who do not believe that the Bible affirms a complementarian (your view) theology, are necessarily "leaving the "Old Paths" folowing a secular trend in society" and, if they attend a seasoned congregation that teaches the same, are members of a church that …"has fallen in love with the world and is adulterous."
It bothers me when someone is so sure that their position is the correct one that they are willing to deride not just the interpretation of the other party but their motives as well. How can you know a man's motives?
Is it perhaps because you assume that anyone who reads the Bible properly will come to the same conclusion that you do, and, if not, are guilty of just wanting to "have it their way?" Again, how do you know this?
Alexander, (It wouldn't let me post this in the response above… said my response was too long)
You stated the following:
"Rememeber: You changed the course, so you caused the split." Really? You should remember that you are a "progressive" to some people. I am willing to wager that there is some aspect of your church that people have been willing to split over in the past…. fellowship halls, multiple cups, sunday school, located preachers, VBS, youth ministers, and on and on it could go. Many will argue that none of those examples are part of the "pattern." If your church is involved in any of those, aren't you guilty of changing the course? Couldn't you, for the sake of unity, agree to take the juice from one cup?
I was thinking that God called us to love each other not our assemblies…It's hard to imagine that God expected us to be unified if and only if we all agree on every point.. If we had to agree on every aspect to be unified then one would expect there to be many divisions…oh, yeah…There are.. Sad:(
Alexander,
What would you think of someone who dis-fellowshipped all who don't greet their brethren with a holy kiss? This is a clear statement of command found in Romans 16:16, 1 Corinthians 16:20, 2 Corinthians 13:12, 1 Thessalonians 5:26, and 1 Peter 5:14. Or dis-fellowshipped all elders who do not anoint the sick with oil (James 5:14)? Or dis-fellowshipped all who supported widows who haven't washed the saints feet (1 Timothy 5:10)?
The fact is many brethren "dis-obey" these commands, perhaps even you, because they interpret them as not to be taken literally for all time/all circumstances. And it's not about picking wily-nily what commands we like or don't like (although I suspect every single Christian in existence has been guilty of such at one time). We're honestly trying to follow God's Word.
It is possible to be a Christian who believes with every fiber of their being that the Bible is God's inspired word and our guide for life, and who stands strong against the temptation to follow the world and against false teachings, and yet has interpreted passages like 1 Cor. 14 and 2 Tim. 2 in such a way that still allows for women to pray and speak in assemblies
We have both ways of serving the wine in our church. In our house church it is one cup, real wine, mixed with water. WE could duiscuss all these issues in detail, if you please.
But the one debated in this thread has to do with clear restrictions and order. If we cannot agree on grammer and the meaning of words, we will have some serious communication problems. And it is this kind of communication problem that dived the camps.
THe underlöying problem is a diferrent theology that leads to a different understanding. Ehether you or others re aware of it or not, historical-criticism has entered the most prominent Christian Universities, which means:
a) The Bibel was written first of all by men
b) They were led by the Spirit
c) They were also limited by the cultural prejudices oftheir time
d) They addressed issues peculiar to the congregations in the 1st century culture
e) We have to sort that out so we can see what applies to us and what does not
I totally disagree with this kind of hermneutics, because it flatly denies the text itself. Especially concerning the issue debated here, the submission of women under men was never argued in the sense of "Oh, we must not be offensive to our patriarchal society", but it was always firmly rooted in the creation order, even prior to the fall, but also in the light of the fall. Not culture, but creation – which means: God's plan and will.
What have I heard from progressives in this matter?
.) We have to work towards reconciliation …
.) We have to liberate the women as we have liberated the slaves …
.) The 1st century Christians simply did not know any better …
I cannot read the Bible on any given subject with a person who thinks this way. There is no common ground for communication, because we disagree whether the word of God is the word of God or the word of men.
And this is a new thing! No one among Bible believing Christians up to two generations ago dared to even think such thoughts! Virtually ALL Christians throughout the centuries agreed on this issue: Leadership is male.
Now if some modern Christians come up with a new kind of theology that allows such shifts in doctrine andpractice, I sound the alarm immediately. This cannot be! Has the Holy Spirit just come in our time? Are we the ones who – finally – got a hold of th true meaning of Scripture? No. This is a true sign of apostasy, brother.
And don't say, "progressives" don't think the way I described (very briefly). I had an article by Doug Foster on reconciliation where he argued extaly this way (it was in the Christian Standard). I wrote to him three times, but never received an answer. We had a preacher on our pulpit who argued similarly – I spoke up to him afterwards.
This is the poison that comes from the enlightenment-philosophy. This theolgy was developed primarily in Germany under the influence of Spinoza, Lessing, Semler, Troeltsch and all the up to Bultmann. It is destructive, faithless and has no place among the church of Christ. But it creeps in through the Universities who try to keep an "academic standard" – this really makes me a non-institutionalist! Anyway, I do distrust our (CoC) universities deeply.
For the sake of brevity I'll stop here. This is a serious matter, and close to the core problem now.
Alexander
I imagine it would be almost impossible for someone who holds the views I talked about, in my first paragraph above, to understand how someone could just explain away these clear commands and yet not be a false teacher, men-pleaser, etc. Would they be wrong, or not?
Alexander,
Do you believe it is possible that your are simply wrong? Could you be honesly mistaken about your hermeneutic or interpretations? I confess that I could be wrong. Do you? If not, how do you ascribe such infallibility to your opinions?
Do you feel it necessary to label everyone who disagrees with you an apostate? (if this wasn't your implication, my apologies) Maybe a person can spend their lives reading the Bible and, in the end, be honestly wrong. Maybe they just misunderstand the Bible. Then again, maybe you are the one that misunderstands it.
I think it is important that we strive to understand the meaning of scripture but we must always do so with an intellectually humble spirit. We are not God and do not enjoy the luxury of infallible reasoning.
You said that you serve communion both ways at your church. If someone asked you to stop mixing in the wine (because they believe the Bible doesn't allow it) or asked you to stop using multiple cups because it is against the pattern, would you do it? You can't please both sides if both sides contend theirs is the only right way.
Alexander,
Brother, I for one, commend you for speaking with conviction and clarity in regard to Wendy and women elders. And I want you to know brother that I for one stand in agreement and unity with yo on this matter. You are speaking the truth in love. I want you to know this my dear brother, regardless of what others here may say about you or those like us who hold to such convictions.
We need more clarity on such matters. As you so correctly noted, the "wolves are howling" and we "fear for our flocks."
Friends, notice how we have "progressed" from a question about "girls/women" praying in the company of boys/men to the "slippery slope" of women preachers, elders in the church.
We are not naive about where such questions will ultiamately end up. The "pulpit" and the "eldership", and don't fool yourself for one minute that thsi is not the direction we are headed in churches of Christ (some are clearly already there)
Robert Prater
1 Timothy 3:4-5, the apostle writes that the prospective elder must be, “one who rules his own house well, having his children in submission with all reverence (for if a man does not know how to rule his own house, how will he take care of the church of God?)”
In his letters to both young evangelists Timothy and Titus who were working with congregations in Ephesus and Crete and were to “appoint elders”, he gave the following instructions and makes clear that only a man can serve as an elder, "husband of one wife" (1 Tim. 3;2; Titus 1:6)
We know from Ephesians 5:22-24 than wives are directed to submit to their own husbands and that “the husband is the head of the wife, as also Christ is head of the church.”
Thus, common sense and scripture combine to demonstrate that an elder learns the skills of leading a local congregation by the leadership he has exercised in the home. Only a man is authorized to be leader or head of the home, thus only a man can be qualified to be an elder.
Robert Prater
Keep in mind also the work of an elder involves the exercise of authority. In Hebrews 13:17 we are exhorted to “Obey those who rule over you, and be submissive, for they watch out for your souls…” The words “obey” and “rule” and “be submissive” demonstrate that authority adheres to this job.
Now, of course, it not authority as exercised by the rulers of the Gentiles (Matt. 20:25-28) and elders aren’t “lords” over the flock (1 Peter 5:1-3), but it certainly involves the congregation voluntarily submitting to or obeying the leadership of their elders.
All that is said to demonstrate that a woman is not permitted to lead in such a way. In verses immediately preceding his instructions to Timothy regarding elder qualifications, Paul writes, “And I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man…." (1 Tim. 2:12-14).
So, to understand that a woman would be qualified to serve as an elder, one must disregard God’s directions for the leadership of the home and the church.
Robert Prater
Robert,
I understand you very well. WE've gotten off haven't we.
I sure don't want women elders but like you said, back to the original question:
Yes, I believe girls can pray anytime and if it is a sincere prayer, I'll say amen at its ending.
Odd though is it seems OK for women to pray when we are sick or having a procedure in a hospital and the good sisters are all around our bed asking God to heal us. The worse we are sick, the OKer it is! So much rhetoric proposed goes down the toilet when faced with allow or not in real life.
Girl children lead many of us in thanks for our food, safe travel and many other things. Who better to get Gods ear than one with no sin at all.
Jesus sure thought like that and that's good enough for me.
Are all of our post being approved before its posted?
Have I been a bad boy?
You and Robert seem to require my approval for some reason — not of my doing. Have you been bad elsewhere on the internet? I can’t figure what the cause is.
Interestingly, in Titus 1:9, Paul says one of the qualifications of elders are; “an elder must be one who holds “fast the faithful word which is in accordance with the teaching, so that he will be able both to exhort in sound doctrine and to refute those who contradict.”
Indeed even the “qualifications” of elders themselves being men are under attack and those who would serve will need to be able to “refute those who contradict.”
Again, clearly, women “elders” is a violation of God's Divine instructions and plans for the Lord's church.
I personal believe in coming years we will see more and more churches of Christ appointing “elders.” and women "preachers."
Robert Prater
Finally:),
Just like with the instrumental music, I think we'll see this digression over time due to years and decades worth of preaching from progressives who reinterpret and teach such matters as either being bound by first century culture only, or simply “non-essentials” or not “matters of salvation”, where brethren can disagree over.
Friends, don’t be “fooled” or “mislead” by the “non-essentials” or “non salvation” question progressives like Jay love to throw out.
Obedience to the will of God is necessary for salvation. (cf. Mt. 7:21-24) All obedience is necessary, just because God has commanded it. (John 14:15; 1 John 2:1-4)
The Bible is God's Word and it tells us what is right and wrong. To the degree that anyone disagrees with the truths of God's word, to that same degree they are falling away from it.
"Now I urge you, brethren, keep your eye on those who cause dissensions and hindrances contrary to the teaching which you learned, and turn away from them. " (Rom. 16:17)
Sincerely,
Robert Prater
Alabama John,
I agree with you about the original question. Nothing wrong with girls praying with boys. Period.
But, again, we've got to get our "heads" buried out of the sand, and look beyond this harmless question, and see the real issue facing us
It didn't take long in these comments about this issue to quickly move to the issue of women preachers, deacons, and elders.
God regulated the worship assembly of His people for men to lead in praying and preaching and serving as elders and deacons. (1 Tim. 2-3)
This teaching is clearly under attack from within.
God bless brother,
Robert Prater
Robert and Alabama John,
If you'll Log In when you submit your next comments, creating an IntenseDebate or OpenID account, I suspect the spam filter will leave you alone. Just an experiment but well worth a try.
No. JUst thought you were testing and using me. Sure a good site you have and thank you for it!
I was taken off The Preachers Files a long time ago and did go to it this week to look at their lecture topics for Courtland and comment to some folks privately when asked to..
Thanks again for the approval! Sure would like to meet you someday!!!
Robert,
What I see is more churches of Christ, labeled progressive and conservative alike becoming truly independent and doing what they think is right and not caring what those that hold to the old traditions are doing or are the progressives trying to invent new ones. Get a don’t care what the others are doing attitude and go after easier fish to fry. key word is GO AFTER, not just criticize, DO something.
Keeping what man thinks in the background and only discussing what does God want us to do in this church.
I realize that is what all churches of Christ say they do, but they really don’t.
You can visit one only a short time and see what college the preacher and the teachers of classes went to and many times what part of the USA he’s from by what he is teaching and how he’s teaching.
80 -90% of sermons outlines are not uplifting, but knocking others and instructing how to do the same.
Not a denomination? So untrue but, happily there are more of those dissatisfied rebelling and pulling out everyday. Sadly the conservatives let them go, shake their heads and say “they are going out from among us”. Once again, we aren’t doing anything wrong, they are.
We are our own worse enemy regardless who wins the debates. How the devil enjoys our division.
Alexander thanks for courageous words.
Let me amplify the discussion. Christ head as husband is head plus elder must be of one wife, clearly demark sex based roles. Christ honors submission so the most submissive could be the greatest. What are we trying to acheive?
If I read meat to idol issue correctly, the meat doesn't matter but the weaker brother does, so give up your freedom for them. Who causes splits? Perhaps its the one who values their freedom over another's beleif. Submission wins, why choose the losing team?
Price, et.al.:
Ccertainly God chose women to lead at specific times and ways in the history of His people. No question. And I know that women lead in specific ways in spreading the Word in the first century. Paul had coworkers. I am not aware that egalitarians and complementarians/others disagree about all of that.
Instead, the question is whether the congregation where Wendy attends represents an accurate application of apostolic teaching. The subject of this weblog eventually finds itself faced with the questions of female elders, congregational pulpit preachers, etc. (Osburn, as one voice, has been candid in noting such in his Women in the Church).
Eventually, the discussion comes face-to-face with 1 Timothy 2:13. The rationale for egalitarians to dismiss the teaching varies. Not written by Paul; Paul is mistaken; Paul was not using Genesis 1-3, but only an interpretation of such (Osburn); cultural only (but people have generally awoken of late to realize that makes no sense, given what Paul/someone is saying). All of this illustrates how and why the text is a watershed in our day. And it illustrates how dramatically it affects unity and why. It had the same affect in the early centuries of Christianity.
In Christ,
Bruce Morton
Katy, Texas
Alexander wrote:
"THe underlöying problem is a diferrent theology that leads to a different understanding. Ehether you or others re aware of it or not, historical-criticism has entered the most prominent Christian Universities, which means:
a) The Bibel was written first of all by men
b) They were led by the Spirit
c) They were also limited by the cultural prejudices oftheir time
d) They addressed issues peculiar to the congregations in the 1st century culture
e) We have to sort that out so we can see what applies to us and what does not"
Except for "c)" i don't see what's so troublesome about this method. Were they not men who wrote the letters and epistles and history and poetry? Is the Spirit unable to ensure that such men write what God wants written while allowing those men to nevertheless retain general continuity of identity? Did they think they *weren't* writing for purposes and circumstances particular to their explicit audience? Why would i presume that everything they said applies to me in precisely the same way that it applies to the original recipients?
"c)" however seems just ad hoc.
–guy
David,
It seems to me you think there are rules that must be kept and that a person must keep all of them. Your list just happens to be tremendously shorter that, say, Bruce's. So i can see a difference in degree between your "salvation by law" and his "salvation by law." But i don't see a difference kind. What makes your position *qualitatively* distinct from his such that your position does not in any sense fit your definition of "salvation by law"?
–guy
Jay:
In an earlier post I asked what conclusions you had reached regarding 1 Timothy 2:13. Raising the question again. I do not see your tackling that text in Buried Talents, beyond arguing against "eternal" relevance, based on the "childbearing" text (not getting into that in this post; focused on verse 13 here).
I am not convinced you can suggest such about verse 13, given what Paul writes. So, please share your conclusions and what the verse reveals regarding the question of gender roles, leadership and Paul's teaching.
In Christ,
Bruce Morton
Katy, Texas
As I read some of the discussion here and realize how much of its validity depends on historical scholarship, or cultural understanding, or hermeneutic consistency, or concurrence with one particular commentator or another, I am thankful that we have a more direct path to knowing the will of God in particular situations. Jesus promised us that the Holy Spirit would take what is His and make it known to us, and that we, as His sheep, know his voice.
When in doubt, ask the Author. He speaks clearly, currently, and does not leave us to ferret out his will from only ancient correspondence and human authorities. The main reason the email subject of Jay's initial post seemed so foolish to him as he related it was that it was not of the Spirit in any way, yet pretended to lead the children of God. I know my Shepherd's voice, and that was somebody else. Thanks for the blog, Jay.
in a) it is the "first of all"
this makes b) just a "hidden ingredient"
and c) becoimes predominant
this makes d) "irrelevant"
and e) a field of study for experts …
The faith (and this includes al scriptures, inspired by God) was deliveres oince and for all to the saints. We must not takle away nor add to it. This kind of theology is taking away constantly, and the word most often added to scripture (do you guess?) is … BUT:
Alexander
This article is a good read for all involved in this discussion and all interested in restoring New Testament Christianity. http://ptmin.org/role.htm
Also, anyone participating in this discussion who hasn't read Jay's book, Buried Talents, is going to be lacking. Many if not all the concerns brought up are dealt with there in a scriptural way.
Charles:
Your post reveals with clarity part of what challenges faith in our day. An increasing number of people in our time and place announce that they depend on the Spirit to personally guide them — which means to them that apostolic teaching ("ancient correspondence and human authorities") can get overruled. Correct?
Similarly, Elisabeth Schussler Fiorenza announces that we should depend on the Spirit… which includes everything but apostolic teaching. The Spirit guides the community of God's people in everything but the writings of the apostles. (Bread Not Stone, p. 140) A baffling conclusion by her.
I am aware of religious leaders who believe the Holy Spirit is guiding them to give away a supposed (obsolete) belief in the resurrection of Jesus (have had one tell me such point-blank; have read others who make the decision). Do you and Elizabeth also believe that the "ancient correspondence" can get overruled as well when it comes to the Shepherd's resurrection? How do we decide that the ancient correspondence about the resurrection of Jesus is more than merely human authority? What do we say about the resurrection of Jesus in the broadening world of American religious pluralism?
In Christ,
Bruce Morton
Katy, Texas
Steven:
I will offer you a copy of a publication — for free (published by 21st Century Christian) — should you have a willingness to consider further study in the area of this webchain. Jay's Buried Talents is based on a misreading of the background evidence at points. Please feel free to email me at MortonBLSL7 at earthlink dot net.
In Christ,
Bruce Morton
Katy, Texas
Best I can tell Jesus honored and obeyed Mosaic Law. That's much more demanding than the few NT rules. How much do you worry about the preparation, content of food, clothing, and hair care. Boy even by the most conservative list driven church, its far easier than Jesus' life. Jesus also said the Word of God cannot be broken. You must honor all of it, even if not understood. I'm sure Abraham did not understand the sacrifice of Isaac, but in faith and obedience set out to do God's revealed will. The minor items of sex based roles of tne NT are far less a test. Even in the gender roles there is check and balance revealed. Husband is commanded to love his wife. Hard to do in her worst interest if you love. She is only required to honor and obey. Perhaps God knew the hand that rocks the cradle would always have power, and gave the other gender sone equality!
I do not permit women to teach men, nor to lead men. I have too much respect for God, and His intended role for women.
Bruce,
Charles has not asserted that the Spirit overrules the apostles (who were, of course, Spirit inspired!) and certainly not that the Spirit contradicts the resurrection. You just assumed these things of Charles.
The scriptures plainly teach the influence of the Spirit on the heart and mind of the Christian. And yet when someone claims that the Spirit's influence matters, you accuse them of denying inspiration and the resurrection!
How could you be so interested in the book of Ephesians and yet not see Paul's teachings about the continuing role of the Spirit that shows up repeatedly in that book?
Bruce,
I suggest you read Buried Talents more carefully. Start at the beginning and read through to the section on 1 Tim 2. You can't skip the in-between parts and expect to understand what I'm arguing.
I actually argue 1 Tim 2:13 in considerable detail, but the argument will not carry the proper weight if you don't read what precedes.
Some time ago, I posted an entire series on the role of women (also called "Buried Talents") and we worked through the book chapter by chapter in considerable detail. I can't repeat that effort in the comments.
If someone is interested in my views, they should refer either to the book (/books-by-jay-guin/buried-talents/) or the blog series (/index-under-construction/theology-church-of-christ-issues/buried-talents-studies-in-the-role-of-women/). The blog series came later and so has some corrections, but nothing major. And 1 Tim 2 required 5 posts to cover.
I'll bet a dollar to a donut this guest is not married!
Jay:
Whoa! You missed my comments to Charles. He makes two important comments regarding "a more direct path to knowing the will of God in particular situations" and "He speaks clearly, currently, and does not leave us to ferret out his will from only ancient correspondence and human authorities."
He was announcing that direct dependence on the Spirit versus wrestling with Paul's teaching represented appropriate guidance, at times. Correct? I am not convinced of an either-or here. And I am also convinced that people can announce all day long (and do) that the Spirit guided them into believing something when it is in conflict with Scripture. And I cited such regarding the resurrection of Jesus — the belief of which is also under siege.
I will let my comments and questions stand. They are valid.
In Christ,
Bruce Morton
Katy, Texas
Alexander,
How do you think inspiration works? Did the author just go into a trance and wasn't even aware of what he was writing? Did the author get to retain his own personality and style?
Were the authors aware that the letters they were writing would be put into a collective volume that would function as an authoritative text for the church hundreds of years after they wrote?
Did the Holy Spirit inspire them to produce a work that was meant to function in that collected-volume, or did the HS inspire them to produce the work that was needed at the time and by the audience?
Is there *nothing* in the text that was meant for the original recipients and not for us?
–guy
How does inspiration work?
The question is not how it works, but what it means to us. The Apostles were meant to be foundational stones in the church (Christ being the corner stone). So Eph 2:20 is quite important as a starting point, and if we look at the New Jerusalem we sse that confirmed, because the foundationals there are the Apostles again.
A second aspect can be found in all the statements within the letters, that show that the teachings are meant to be universal: "So I teach in all churches", "as in all churches" … senteces like these can be found at least 5 times in 1 Corinthians, the very one letter that some say deals only with very local issues … But we see that we are called to the same obedience, because the word of God did not only come to them (1Co 14:36).
And this means, we have to take the instructions very seriously and (unless common sense indicates otherwise) literally.
Were the authors aware that the letters … would be put into one volume?
What they were aware of was the significance of their writings. Paul urged the Collossians to share their letter withe the Laodiceans; 1 Corinthioans was addressed to all Christians in all places 1Co 1:2 (thus meant to be copied and passed around!). Peter around 62 AD already had a collection of Paul's letters at hand.
But most of all, the Apostls knew that what they taught in the name of Christ was binding and not a mere advice for a specific situation – they saw no difference between their oral and written teaching (2Th 2:15). So wht we have in written form is the bare minimum of Apostolic Teaching we have, sometimes in a very condesed form.
So – to put it shourt – they were fully aware that their ministry was foundational for all churches through all ages.
First: See how they treated the OT scriptures: This was written for us, they said (1Co 10:11); SEcond: even a letter addressing specific questions of a specific congregation (such as 1st Corinthians) was on purpose written to all Christians, because
a) the questions may arise elswhere as well
b) the answers apply everywhere
And so: in this given debate: Women are to cover their heads when they pray. They must not teach in an assembly of the church, they are called to submission.
We cannot take that out as if these teachings were outdated. They are not. If someone still does that, he will have to answer Christ for that (Jas 3:1; Mat 5:19)
Alexander
Alexander,
Surely there is a difference between anything that came out of an apostle's mouth, or even anything an apostle wrote on in an epistle, and the category of teachings which serve as a foundation for the church universal.
In 2Timothy 4, Paul tells Timothy to bring him his coat and books. Is this foundational Apostolic teaching for the church-universal just because an apostle wrote it?
In Romans 16:3, Paul says "Greet Priscilla and Aquila, my co-workers in Christ Jesus." If Paul 'teaches the same thing in all churches,' then does that mean i and my congregation are obligated to greet Priscilla and Aquila? Clearly that's not even possible for me to accomplish.
Surely 2Tim 4:13 and Rom 16:3 show that just because it was uttered or penned by an apostle doesn't necessarily make it universally binding, but rather something can be binding *given certain conditions.* (In the above two cases, obviously the condition of being Timothy or the condition of being a Christian, the condition of being a contemporary of Priscilla and Aquila, and the condition of having read the letter to the Romans.)
(You may think that these are trivially obvious examples. But i think there are clearly some commands with specified conditions. 1Cor 16 on money collection for instance. The passage doesn't contain any command about what the Corinthian church was supposed to do *after Paul came and retrieved the money.* In fact, the passage says nothing about what the Corinthian church did or was supposed to have been doing *prior* to the writing of that letter. Yet CoC's have traditionally take this passage as being binding without condition, despite Paul explicitly stating a condition.)
Insomuch as those condition still hold, then what an apostle said may still bind me. Insomuch as those conditions don't hold, why would i think it does?
–guy
I have been happily married for years. My wife is aware of my views, and shares them. She, too, realizes the meaning of 'subordinate', and 'silent', and she accepts her role in the Church and our family.
So, did you lose a dollar or a donut in this wager? Perhaps neither, but you did lose your chance to make a good first impression on me.
@Alabama John
I have been happily married for years. My wife is aware of my views, and shares them. She, too, realizes the meaning of 'subordinate', and 'silent', and she accepts her role in the Church and our family.
So, did you lose a dollar or a donut in this wager? Perhaps neither, but you did lose your chance to make a good first impression on me.
Bruce, kindly let me meet my sister Elizabeth– or alternatively, listen to both of us a bit more carefully– before you combine our beliefs into a single strawman. Thanks.
All that aside, like you, I do not believe that we are speaking of an "either/or" situation in understanding the will of God. Jesus is The Word of God, the Bible is words from God, and the Holy Spirit is given to take what is of Jesus and make it known to us. So while I believe the scripture to be inspired, it makes no claim to being ALL that is inspired. That is a tradition developed long ago as a defense against heresy, but which is extra-biblical in and of itself. If there is a false dilemma being posed here, it is the idea that the believer who depends on extra-biblical input to understand God must also be open to an anti-biblical understanding of God. Has this been done? Certainly. But that shoe is one of a pair, mi amigo. Many claim biblical support for ideas which are not of God, but I do not call the scriptures into question because of that.
The same Holy Spirit who spoke to Saul speaks to us. Nothing in scripture teaches us otherwise. As to what is more worthy of our trust– shall we depend upon our developed ability to use our own reason and logic to ascertain God's will from an ancient text, or upon our capacity to hear God for ourselves, from both within and without that text? As terrifying as the latter prospect may be to some, it is the alternative supported by the actual promise of Jesus himself. The other is a claim of pure human origin, of human power, and not even claiming divine input. It may sound to some more impressive than the faith of a simple sheep, but I think it is not.
"If any of you lack wisdom, let him ask God, but understand that God has already given out all the wisdom He intends to. Your request will go to voice mail. God has left a message directing you to a fine book from which you may gather much wisdom, if your understanding is great enough. Good luck." This not-quite-tongue-in-cheek revision seems considerably leaner than the counsel of James, and more man-dependent than God-dependent.
-Charles
Jay:
Interesting response to my request of you regarding 1 Timothy 2:13. I am certain you could succinctly state your conclusions regarding the text for me (and others in this weblog). It remains a crucial question in all of this discussion and justifies a succinct response in this webchain (that you began).
It took Osburn little room to state his conclusions; others have been equally able to succinctly state theirs as well. Your decision to point me to ferret out your answer by reading Buried Talents represents a rare example of deferral (but I will read the work). Typically, you are prepared to write candidly in response to a pointed question and you press others for succinct, candid responses to you (even when they have written extensively on a subject as well). But now you defer to the "long answer." Hmmm.
In Christ,
Bruce Morton
Katy, Texas
Charles:
I appreciate your post — which clearly announces a different conclusion than Elisabeth Schussler Fiorenza (and others) have proposed of late. Thank you for sharing. Lately, I have heard an increasing number of voices dismiss the NT (or portions of it) — including the resurrection of Jesus — as mere myth or "religious language" — especially where it clashes with early 21st century American thought. E.g. I think a growing number of people are headed toward Bultmann's demythologizing of the mid-twentieth century. Your comments encourage.
As to the subject of this webchain, I will share that I have "waded in" to Jay's discussion more than I would have five years ago, and that as a result of a look at the Asian mystery religions (that was initially unrelated to the subject of this weblog). I think you will find the resulting publication (by 21st Century Christian) of interest and so will offer a copy free as a gift. I believe you will find it to be other than a "rehash." If an interest you can send me your mailing address at MortonBLSL7 at Earthlink dot net.
In Christ,
Bruce Morton
Katy, Texas
The true leading of the Spirit will never contradict what He has spoken in scripture. But some scriptures are difficult to interpret or are bound by circumstance and culture. Again I ask all who do not feel legally bound to greet their brethren with a holy kiss to explain why they do not. Or for that matter, what about the rest of 1 Corinthians 14? Does your church legalistically follow verse 26? Each having a psalm, a teaching, a tongue, a revelation, an interpretation? Observe yourself "expaining away" or "brushing off" these inspired scriptures.
Guest,
I will be married for 49 years tomorrow. Been looking back with my bride for several days now and one thing we both realize is its great to have had a sense of humor amidst all lifes seriousness.
Since you are happily married I will try to get my dollar or donut back by betting you both have one too.
Bruce,We are so far apart in our thinking that it would be pointless to offer a short answer. We have too much distance to cover to fit in a single chapter.
I have to agree with Guy. It’s naïve to pretend that we aren’t applying a hermeneutical filter to decide which commands are culturally limited and which apply today. No one applies ALL commands today. We ALL discern that some no longer apply and that some do.
When we disagree, we cope by accusing one side of denying inspiration for rejecting the plain commands of God or accusing the other side of legalism for demanding obedience to commands that plainly weren’t intended to apply forever.While both sides insist on their preferred “plain” meaning, each is applying a hermeneutical filter. And no one can credibly argue his case until he admits to having a filter and puts it on the table for examination against the scriptures.
My own filter has been laid out here in detail many times, and it starts with being consistent with the over-arching story of the Bible. God wants the church to behave in redemptive ways and, contrary to Ferguson, not be a museum for curse-induced behaviors.This means we can’t approach the “is it cultural?” argument merely by looking at First Century culture. Instead, we start with discerning the direction of God’s redemptive arrow. What is God trying to accomplish? Where are we headed? What happened at Gen 3 compared to what will happen at the Eschaton?
These aren’t easy questions, but they are the first questions, and you have to answer them long before you start pounding your brother with proof texts.
In the context of women, then, what was the relationship of Adam and Eve in the Garden? How did it change in Gen 3? What will be the male/female relationship after Jesus returns? Start there.Now for those who disagree with my approach, rather than disputing over proof texts, share with the readers the filter by which you decide whether a command is cultural or intended to last until Jesus comes back. How is this judgment made?
Obviously, purely subjective thinking — “common sense,” “it’s obvious,” and such — gets us nowhere. Tradition isn’t much help either, but it’s better than “just ask me and I’ll tell you.” I tend to think the answers will be found in the scriptures themselves.
Jay:
Both egalitarians and complementarians have agreed (of late) that 1 Timothy 2:13 is a watershed text. And clarity has developed around conclusions about the text. I understand exactly what Osburn and others have said; it is not difficult to determine (and now investigating how comfortable you are with Osburn's conclusions). Seems like you are working hard to make the look at the text more complex than both sides have agreed it really is. That is why I do not buy your response, but seeking to be kind in my challenge to a brother.
I am reading your work to see how you land where you land.
In Christ,
Bruce Morton
Katy, Texas
<blockqoute>
Surely there is a difference between anything that came out of an apostle's mouth, or even anything an apostle wrote on in an epistle, and the category of teachings which serve as a foundation for the church universal.
In 2Timothy 4, Paul tells Timothy to bring him his coat and books. …
I beg your pardon,. Guy. I vaguely remember I used the term "Common Sense" – which means: "Think a little!".
The implication is: Of course not all Christians today should go to Troas to get Paul's Cloak – Therefore the instructions in the letters are not all binding for all – Therefore – AND THIS IS THE IMMEDIATE CONTEXT OF THIS DEBATE – we can debate the commands of submission.
But, Guy, exactly these commands are put in a very strong and decisive form of universal commands, being based on creatiuon and said to be obeyed in all churches. Who does not accept this, will not bve accepted. If I had said such words, I'd be stoned – but these are Paul's probably strongest words.
Alexander
Jay:
A quick update. I appreciated your "starting point" in Buried Talents and agree:
"A critical step toward shedding our biases is disciplining ourselves to read, and
even study, the opinions of those who disagree with us." I am approaching your study to test conclusions I have reached, as I hope you have approached my publication, looking at the relatively new background of the Asian mystery religions for Paul's writings.
In Christ,
Bruce Morton
Katy, Texas
For some reason I hoped I was conversiong with people who don't belong to that group. Some thing should be taken for granted among menbers of the church of Christ, but obviously that's not the case. So, where shall we start? with basic grammar? The alphabet? In the beginning God created …? Is there any common ground left so we can communicate?
Alexander
Alexander, your reductio ad absurdum not withstanding, the fact remains that what one man considers "common sense" may not meet with universal agreement. It may also not concur with divine revelation. When Jesus related "Love your neighbor, and hate your enemies", he was relating "common sense". He then said, "But I say…"
I think there are some rational conclusions upon which most can find easy consensus, but presuming that every conclusion to which I come quickly is "common sense" (read "universal truth") is a bit of a reach.
Charles
Charles, please let's just consider the context of this discussion. Guy was giving examples where there is NO disagreement that these were notes that only applied in the situation back then (e.g. "Could you please get my cloak from Troas.") A little child would understand that it is not a biblical command to be followed today. That's what I mean with "common sense" here – of course "comon sense" is not sufficient to discern God's Will.
But -. and this really bothers me – if this is the method used to question everything else in the scriptures, I find it hard to find common ground. If from this analogy – see, bringing Paul's Cloak is not a universal command – it is implied that other scriptural commands can be questioned the same way: "Is it not so, that the submission of women was just because of the ancient culture? So it does not apply to us.", we do have serious problems.
a) the text itself does root these commands in the order of creation even before the fall (man was created first, then his wife).
We need to be able to agree at least on what is written, even if we disagree on obedience. If what is written is based on creation, then we have no right to say, "well actually it was because of the culture". If we do that, we flatly contradict scripture and send forth our own … theories. Everyone who dug a little deeper into ancient culture knows that the society in the Roman Empire of the first century was by no means as patriarchal as some commentaries make us think. And in religious matters women served in various cults as priestesses (Isis, Kybele, Artemis, Vesta …). So in fact we are facing a lie (!) when someone says, the submission of women in the NT was because of the ancient society.
b) The same method is used to deny Christ as the son of God
Many modern theologians say something to this effect: The idea that Christ is son of God is taken from the Greek mystery cults. It has its roots in the demi Gods of the Greek myths and was introduced by the church in order to find a concept for their new faith that would be better understood in their environment.
You see: Chrsit is called "Son of God", because that's a language the people back then could understand. But we today are not bound to believe this myth anymore. And that women should be submissive is also only because of the society back then – of course we should change that.
Do I really have to tell you, whose kind of reasoning this is? In case anyone has any doubts: Such thinking comes from the devil.
Alexander
@AlabamaJohn,
Your wager that I have a sense of humor is correct. I'd wager God does too. After all, wasn't he was named Isaac? That being said, I have very little humor regarding the liberal approach to understanding the word. The word of God is not incomplete, nor does it need to be molded to fit into the templates that society offers it. Such actions cannot be meshed with humor. At least, I'm not laughing.
It doesn’t make sense that the creation order or Eve being deceived would be the reason that women should not teach. It just doesn’t. Adam was deceived also, and Paul consistently lays the blame on him for bringing sin into the world (Romans 5:12-19; 1 Corinthians 15:20-22). Men can be deceived and teach falsehood. Yes, women are to be submissive to the husband who is commanded to love his wife, but teaching just means that you have something to impart that will benefit someone else. In any open participatory meeting of Christians for the purpose of glorifying God and building one another up, which is what the assembly is supposed to be, by the way, women have just as much to offer as men. God wants us to edify one another.
So why did Paul want the women in Ephesus to stop teaching, and then mention that Adam was formed first and the woman was deceived? Probably because they were falsely teaching the opposite. They were influenced by Diana worship, in which the females were dominant, and desired to be teachers of the law, understanding neither what they say nor the things that they affirm (1:7). They reversed the creation story to something that appealed to their desire to dominate. These were profane and old wive’s fables (4:7). Also, Diana was a fertility goddess. Women depended on her to protect them in child birth. Paul tells them that continuing in faith, love, and holiness will save them in childbirth (2:15). These head-scratching passages make a lot more sense when we consider the context.
There are many references to women teaching and laboring in the gospel, which is preaching (Acts 18:26; Rom. 16:1-3,6,7,12; Phil. 4:3). And the fact that all would benefit from their participation in a REAL first century patterned assembly is obvious.
Steven:
Please look again at what Paul says in 1 Timothy 2:13-14. He does not talk about the deception of Eve only. Egalitarians consistent try to force-fit 1 Timothy 2:13 into a look back at Genesis 3. But it is not. That is not what Paul writes.
In Christ,
Bruce Morton
Katy, Texas
This is a subject I've never came to a conclusion about and am more confused now than ever. Being a woman, I don't particularly like the teachng but have obeyed, believing it to be true.
I do always wonder however, why Jesus only chose men as his twelve apostles?
Alexander said: "If I had said such words, I'd be stoned – but these are Paul's probably strongest words "
Act 14:19 And there came thither [certain] Jews from Antioch and Iconium, who persuaded the people, and, having stoned Paul, drew [him] out of the city, supposing he had been dead.
2Cr 11:25 Thrice was I beaten with rods, once was I stoned, thrice I suffered shipwreck, a night and a day I have been in the deep;
I'm just saying.
Kirsty,
In my opinion It would be better on judgment day to be found guilty of praying and working too much in Gods kingdom and furthering too much of His gospel than doing too little out of indecision caused by so much disagreeing among others in their vain janglings.
I always keep in mind what one of our best thinkers Albert Einstein said: "If you can;t explain a subject in simple terms you do not know enough about it."
Bruce,
You're right, Paul does single out Eve as the one deceived. But it still doesn't follow that that would be the reason no woman should ever teach. It makes more sense that Paul is saying the women in Ephesus need to stop falsely teaching the reversal of the Genesis story, for Adam was formed first, etc.
How could it be that in the new covenant, where we are all kings and priests and one in Christ, a woman in an assembly has something to share that would be edifying to the body, yet because of the sin of Eve, she's not allowed to? It makes no sense and goes against all the principles of the new covenant.
And even if one believes that, back to the long ago original topic, why this would mean that a young Christian girl could not pray out loud in a group with Christian boys outside of an Official Worship Service is simply beyond credulity.
Aree you sure? Gross!
Girls can "lead" a prayer in presence of baptized men? I think that is the situation here! Is better the New Hermeneutic by Dr.Rubel shelly and Randall Harris? The Second Incarnation a Pattern for Apostasy. Or the CENI's Hermeneutic named by some of our progressives to apostasy that get contaminated with the teaching of Balaan! in Harvard,Yale and princeton, vandervil theological Seminaries ( Denominations)!
continuation…
where the chain prayers comes from? It's been that practice in the CoC? May be you are comparing the "Conservatives" as Jesus told in Luke 11:42 "42 “But woe to you Pharisees! For you tithe mint and rue and all manner of herbs, and pass by justice and the love of God. These you ought to have done, without leaving the others undone." But notice the end and I hope all we can learn fron this part of the Scriptures " These you ought to have done, without leaving the others undone." so both are necessary. No practice just what we like and reject what does not fit our agenda. Are you sure that the badly named CENI'sHermaneutic named by "somes" is not the way to understand the Scriptures? The CENI's is just a piece of The Hermeneutic used by the coC's.
2 Timothy "15 Be diligent to present yourself approved to God, a worker who does not need to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.
Kirsty,Regarding why Jesus chose male apostles, I think you have to start with why Jesus chose 12. Why 12 people?The Jews were a people steeped in symbolism. Whereas we Westerners tend to prefer the literal and the syllogistic, the Jewish (and Eastern) mind is much more about story and symbol. So what would 12 men symbolize? What story does the appointment of 12 men tell?Obviously, the 12 tribes of Israel. Hence, they symbolized the totality of all Israel. But the 12 tribes are the 12 sons of Jacob — twelve men. Thus, they also symbolize the 12 men — who are (in the Eastern mind) the 12 tribes.Now, if the 12 apostles are the 12 sons of Jacob, who would Jesus be? Who was the leader of the 12 sons of Jacob? Well, that makes him symbolic of Jacob, the father of the 12.And Jacob’s other name is Israel. By selected 12 male apostles, Jesus was (among many other things) symbolically staking a claim to being Israel — in symbol but also in prophetic fulfillment.I have written a post, which won’t show up for a while, on the interpretation of Isaiah’s Servant’s Song, and when you read it, this will make better sense. The symbolism matters at several levels.For example, we are baptized into Jesus, and so we become a part of the true Israel. Jesus is the true Israel and so those who are within him are a part of the true Israel. This understanding gives us a different understanding of the prophesies and the crucifixion. But that’s all for a later post.For now, the reason the apostles were all male is that the 12 sons of Jacob were male — and that Jesus had to become Israel, to pay the price for Israel’s sins, to demonstrate the life Israel was/is supposed to lead, and to bring the nations into Israel.
Guest,
We'll all stand alone before God and be judged. Each of us has to decide that path for ourselves. We should do all we can to please God.
Being like the man that buried his talent rather than doing something to increase it is not what I want to be found guilty of.
I've seen too much doing nothing but sitting in a pew afraid to move or say anything afraid it just may be wrong.
Alabama John,
I agree with everything you said in that last post. However, it is important that we realize God has a specific design for our relationship with him. We cannot substitute Movies for singing, sprinking for baptism, men for women, or any other compromise, no matter how much better we feel about it. Despite our feelings, we are imperfect, and our will is imperfect. This is why we can't get into heaven on our own.
Let's face the fact that, despite what society wants you to believe, men and women are not equal. They aren't the same. Their roles and strengths are different. Neither one is better than the other, but they aren't equal. God understands this better than anyone. He created us, after all. He designed us for the roles He gave us. Women are not to lead the Church. This is evidenced by Christ's choice in disciples, Paul's writings, and the qualifications for elders.
I find it remarkable that a truth seeking individual could come to a differing conclusion, considering the overwhelming amount of instructions provided.
Guest,
I agree that man is the head of the house and the leader in church. That does not leave the woman out completely as some say and preach.
I'll take all the prayers I can get, sex or age of the person praying doesn't matter at all.
God said for a man to not touch the ark, but one did when he saw it was falling and just couldn't let that happen even if it cost him his life. and he died for it.
It would be interesting to see what God says to him on judgment day. There is a big difference in todays doings and judgment.
Thank God for His wisdom.
@ Alabama John
Actually Paul did put it in very simple termes: Adam was created first, Eve was betrayed (yet Adam was held accountable). Do we suppose Paul did not know enough about these things? Or the Spirit that inspired him? Or all the other apostles and churches in the past that obeyed these words?
So the reasons given are simple indeed. If we don't understand the them, the problem lies with us. We could try to explain it in a deeper and more intense way, searching the scripture to see the ull picture and meaning of what Paul summed up in these two statements. This alone will lead us to undestanding, if we really look for it.
What it really makes it diccucult, however, is aour dislike for the teaching. It's not the simplicity – although some do scoff ath Paul's reasons – it's the teaching itself that is being rejected. So all intellectual abilities are used to find a way to explain it away. If this is done by atheists, they do it harshly, making Paul look like an old patrirach and enemy of women. Not so with Christians who want to keep Paul as a role model for Christians (at least in general). Their attempts to explain away what he said, by at the same time holding fast to the authority of the Bible, are really "extravagant". They really make it complicated by offering a number of disagreeing theories about how to deal with these texts without having to obey them.
So, as a matter of fact. It is simple. If we don't understand it, we can obey it anyway – or we can try to understand Paul by diligently searching the scriptures. If we don't like it, we should be honest enough to say that our motivation for explaining it away is our personla/cultural dislike. But even if we dislike God's Word, we still are called to obedience. WE have no right to take anything out of the scriptures.
Alexander
How about this sister's teaching?
[youtube R_jKWpnf12Q http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R_jKWpnf12Q youtube]
I am convinced that 1Co 11 binds together two crucial aspects in harmony:
Submission and the encouragement to participate in prayer and mutual edification. It provides a balanced approach to the topic.
(BTW: Have you heard this statement before: "Women don't need headcoverings, because they are to be silent anyway."? Doesn't fit scripture, does it.)
If we want to solve our dilemma, I believe the restoration (yeah, we are a Restoration Movement! Why have stopped short on that or even changed our course?) of the headcovering is the way; after all, it is part of the "Old Time Religion" that was good for our fathers, good for our mothers … it will be good for us, too.
Alexander
aBasner,
Her description of her marriage, portrays her and her husband as 'friends' and 'equals', not a patriarchy. She further says "as far as that is concerned, my submission is to God". She says that she doesn't go around her husband always '"groveling".
First of all, I find the portrayal of wife submissive to her husband as "groveling" a gross misconception of submission. Secondly, her distinction between being submissive to God and submissive to husband, as if there is a difference, is misguided. God's inspired word, and handed down direction to wives is to be submissive to their husbands. It would be as if I sent my daughter to school, with the instruction to be good and mind her teacher. When she arrived she decided that she and the teacher were equals, and that she only need submit herself to me. Since my command to her was to mind her teacher, and she decided that she only needed to mind me, and not her teacher, she would be running directly opposed to my direction.
A wife is not equal to her husband. She is neither below, above, nor equal. She is different. Her role is different. Any wife that claims to be equal to her husband, not in a patriarchal marriage, and submissive to God, claims to be in a paradox.
A wife cannot achieve equality with her husband and submission to God.
"A wife cannot achieve equality with her husband and submission to God"
And this is all caused by the offence Eve committed way back when ?
I guess Jesus didn't wash away all sins, just men's sins. Or does anyone who died before Jesus, not have any chance of salvation ? I thought Jesus came to take away the sins "of the world"..
She says it is a sign of submission to earthly and human authorities.
I see no error in this.
She sees the man as the head of the woman; yet Her own marriage seems to be "non authoritarian". But the way she describes it seems not "egalitarian", but that they have a good partnership/friendship. Still she confesses submission.
And of course it starts with submission to God. So this comes first and has to come first.
Anyway: The reason I chose her testimony (and there are more challenging ones) is that she is not a fanatic. She did not leave church because of that, and she has not the attitude of forcing her view on others.
Alexander
jay,
For those that have rejected the Old Hermeneutic (Way to understand) not just CENI'S (Learning How the bible Authorizes) but exagetical, parallelism, considering the context,understanding the 5-W's, Distinguishing between the Permanent and the Temporary, distinguishing between Literal and Figurative Language, Allowing the Bible interpred the Bible, Understanding differences between covenants, using and Accurate translation, Aproaching it with the Right Attitude towards the Scriptures.
All this is part of the conservative hermeneutic and not the false charge that just CENI'S according to some in our brotherhood. That is why the word "Cannon" that means "Rule" from his root word in arameic,Hebrew and Greek means a Rule and God like to keep everything in Order submitted under his inspired Word.
Dear :Charles Mclean,
I read this in one of the Post "The true leading of the Spirit will never contradict what He has spoken in scripture." We have the message of the Spirit the written word of God, I read your posting and I have some observations : You said " I believe the scripture to be inspired, it makes no claim to being ALL that is inspired. " Have you found 2 Timothy 3:16 " All scripture is given by inspiration of God" Do you believe that the truth was revealed in the 1st. Century? or are we still receiving modern revelation against what has been told by the Holy Spirit centuries ago?
You also said : "That is a tradition developed long ago as a defense against heresy" can you tell us " What is that tradition? and Who started that tradition? where do you get your sources? Because through the Holy Spirit message we have the Bible today in the written way using regular Human beings to write and we know that Jesus taught about "False prophets" and also the apostles through the Spirit warning us of Apostasy 1 timothy 4:1 "Now the Spirit spaketh expressly, that in the latter times some shall depart from the faith giving heed to seducing spirits," all that comes from man are ideas, and the apostles inspired by the Holy Spirit warning us 1 John 4:1 "Beloved, believe not every spirit ( with lower case) "preachers or his teachings" but try the spirits whether they are of God: because many false prophets (Teachers)
are gone out into the world." Sure Jesus is the living word and his word are spirit and life and those words has been recorder in the sacred text. If I hear a preacher that does not mention the bible just his experiences or stories is that a "Gospel Preacher" I have heard those that claim be guided by the Holy Spirit and their message is contrary to the teaching of the Holy Spirit taught us, most of their message is motivational but not the word of God. There is a difference between a "Joker (Motivational speaker) Than a Gospel Preacher that cite Scripture to show God's word. The Whole counsel of God Acts.20:27. and God put bishops, elders, shepherds to take care the flock from those that are showing heresy against the teaching of the Holy Spirit . all doctrine taught have two origins from God or Man.
@laymond,
Jesus saves women just as much as men. Both can be made perfect through His sacrifice. However, men and women aren't equal. They are different. Also, this isn't because of "the offence Eve committed way back when". This is caused by an event that happened even BEFORE that offense. It is caused by the way that Eve was created. She was created different than than man. They are different, not equal.
(note: I am "guest", and just registered a name.)
Jay,
Why you don't give the simple answer? The bible teaching is that God create adam first and then Eve. and the Apostle Paul confirm that teaching it does not contradict the Holy Spirit message. but at the end your answer is right " the reason the apostles were all male is that the 12 sons of Jacob were male".
Land of Uz, good name!
God originally for this planet earth only made man that tells me there is one sex or kind in Heaven. Then He saw mans needs and made a woman for man.
WE know when a person is born here and how old its body is, but its spirit that lives forever? How long was it around before birth on earth?
Jesus spirit was around for a long time before being placed in a human body.
At the Smithsonian there is a famous picture of Eve laying almost naked and to us ol' country boys it is obvious its not one of Eve. Why? It has a navel and she was not born of woman so she and Adam didn't have one.
When I mentioned that to the guide she got mad! I'm a man, she should of been in subjection.
Alabama John, you said Eve should not have a navel, if you keep talking like that around women, you might come up missing another body part. :'(
Loribelle,
That can’t be right.
(Rom 5:14 ESV) 14 Yet death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over those whose sinning was not like the transgression of Adam, who was a type of the one who was to come.
(1Co 15:22 ESV) 22 For as in Adam all die, so also in Christ shall all be made alive.
In Romans and 1 Corinthians, Paul blames Adam. And that makes sense, because mankind didn’t fall until both Adam and Eve sinned. And the rabbis used to argue that God gave the command not to eat of the tree to Adam before Eve was even created — making Adam more culpable.
Now, I’m not remotely suggesting that Paul contradicts himself — only that we are misreading 1 Tim 2:13-14. Those verses cannot possibly mean that all women are subordinate to all men for all time because Eve was more sinful than Adam.
Paul says she was “deceived.” If Adam was not also deceived, he willfully rebelled — which is worse. And Paul was a great student of the Torah. He knew this. Why else did he eat the fruit? And why else would Paul blame Adam in his most profound theological writings?
Therefore, he was making an entirely different argument from what we assume he argues. I would suggest a chiastic argument. A “chiasm” is a form of Greek argument that follows the outline —
A
B
B’
A’
That is, it’s an argument where responses are given in reverse order. We Westerners find that kind of outline very unnatural. (Scholars have found other examples of chiasms in Paul’s writings.)
Here’s the argument stated chiastically —
A 11 Let a woman learn quietly with all submissiveness.
B 12 I do not permit a woman to teach or to exercise authority over a man; rather, she is to remain quiet.
B’ 13 For Adam was formed first, then Eve;
A’ 14 and Adam was not deceived, but the woman was deceived and became a transgressor.
Now, in a chiastic structure, women are to learn because learning responds to the need to prevent deceit. If you read the rest of 1 Tim and 2 Tim, you’ll see that Paul is greatly concerned that women are being deceived by false teachers. What’s the solution? They should learn.
And that was a radical answer in those days. It was many centuries before Jewish women were allowed to study Torah. The Jewish culture (and the church was still very Jewish in Paul’s day) denied women the right to study — and Paul taught, contrary to the culture of the day, that women should learn so that, unlike Eve, they won’t be deceived.
Compare —
(2Co 11:3 ESV) 3 But I am afraid that as the serpent deceived Eve by his cunning, your thoughts will be led astray from a sincere and pure devotion to Christ.
Paul’s point is to compare Satan’s deception of Eve with the false teachers’ deception of the Corinthian church. The solution? Paul taught them better. He is not saying the Corinthians must be forever subordinate and without authority. He’s saying that deception can lead to a terrible fall, and so it’s important to learn the truth.
While we’re here, the B/B’ part of the argument deals with the creation order. The animals were made before Adam, and yet he was given rule over them. There is no great creation-order rule in the sky that makes the second person made inferior to the first. Eve was “flesh of my flesh” “bone of my bone.” This hardly argues for inferiority!
Rather, she was made for a purpose, that being to be Adam’s “suitable helper.” And “helper” in Hebrew normally refers to God as Israel’s helper. It does not mean inferiority or submission — unlike “helper” in English.
And so the wife has a role to be a helper to her husband — and as a husband, I say, “Praise God for his gracious provision!” Yes, men need their wives.
Eve (and all wives) have a duty to their husbands to be supportive and not insolent or rebellious. Therefore, the creation order is about the fact that God made Adam, found it “not good for him to be alone” and then made Eve to cure his loneliness and need for a companion.
Thus, wives may not act in a way that brings embarrassment to their husbands. Period. They must respect their roles as helpers (“complement” is a better word).
Now, the relationship between husbands and wives found in the Garden of Eden is between husbands and wives. Not all women must submit to all men. Wives are only suitable helpers for their husbands, not for all men.
And the words translated “women” and “men” are perfectly ambiguous in the Greek and so could be equally well translated “wives” and “husbands.” This makes much more sense in terms of Paul’s argument from Genesis. (And Paul would only expect wives to be “saved through childbearing”!)
In some cultures, especially the Jewish culture, it was considered shameful for a woman to speak in a public setting. For a wife to violate cultural taboos would be to sin against her husband.
I have no doubt many readers will disagree with me. If I’m wrong, explain why Adam gets the blame in Romans and 1 Corinthians?
Being male however does not mean being infallible. And saying: "I'm the man. Period." as the last argument is a weak argument. Exercising leadership in a Christian way is leading through love and example in the first place. Yes, men shall be the spritualö guides in their homes and in churches. They should be committed to studying the scriptures, be the first ones to suggest a time of prayer together. And if need be, they must make the decision when there is – in spite of all that – still disagreement. But what we strive for is conviction and consensus.
Having said that, you are perfectly right: Adam and Eve had no navel.
Alexander
Jay:
Hmmm. I thought you were unwilling to talk about 1 Timothy 2:13. (Or maybe that is just with me — because we are so far apart.)
Have almost finished reading Buried Talents. I appreciate your revealing how some aspects and applications of "paternalism" have represented unbiblical conclusions. You are on-target at those points. And you are correct that a dark world has hindered our seeing such. I too believe a spiritual siege has hindered' And I believe it has hindered us from seeing some of the realities of American egalitarianism as well.
Your post to Loribelle reveals again a question you did not answer in Buried Talents. Do you believe 1 Timothy 2:13 was written from the perspective of Genesis 3 or 2? You write as if you believe it is based on Genesis 3.
I think a simple question — with implications that egalitarians seem to have wanted to avoid discussing. Carroll Osburn carefully sidesteps the discussion of the implications as well. So does the feminist scholar who penned the view of Genesis 2-3 that Osburn has embraced. Phyllis Trible espoused what Osburn has suggested 20 years before Osburn's Women in the Church. But Trible does not believe 1 Timothy 2:13; she is quite clear about that in her God and the Rhetoric of Sexuality.
So, as we wade into all of this further, please clarify your "take" regarding 1 Timothy 2:13.
In Christ,
Bruce Morton
Katy, Texas
Steven:
The questions you ask illustrate well exactly where all of us often find ourselves. We live in a country that has embraced egalitarianism. And part of what Paul writes clashes with such. We struggle to realize that it clashed just as much with the religious and marital culture of Ephesus.
One illustration regarding all of this:
I have read recently in one religious blog that folks now want to retranslate "submit" (Gk. hupotasso) as "respect." A nice, comfortable American rendering — that ignores that original meaning of the term.
A second illustration as you wade into 1 Timothy 2:13 and its implications. Consider one comment by a leading egalitarian theologian of our day, Elisabeth Schussler Fiorenza:
"Jesus' call to service in the gospels is addressed to those in power, to those who are first in the community, not to those who are least." (Bread Not Stone, 82). She never reveals how she comes to that conclusion. And she never tackles Matthew 20:20-28. And that is revealing.
In Christ,
Bruce Morton
Katy, Texas
Well, Bruce, maybe this question is too obvious. Asking whether 2Ti 2:13 is based in Gen 2 or 3 is like asking wether water is wet or dry.
This is clearly Gen 2, because Eve was formed before she was betrayed by Satan.
But the next verse is based on Gen 3:
We should also note that still Adam was held responsible by God for Eve's naivity. That'y why it is called the sin of Adam (not of Eve).
So Paul gives two reasons for the submission of women:
a) Adam was created first
b) Eve was betrayed (but Adam was held responsible)
In 1Co 11 Paul also points to Gen 2 and explains that because Man was created first, he ought not cover his head. Paul is consistent in his theology.
Alexander
Bruce and Alexander,
I have to agree that 1 Tim 2:13-14 refer to the passages Alexander mentions. It most certainly does not refer to Gen 3:16 —
The reference to Eve being deceived is not an argument for a return to either Genesis 2 or 3 but an argument that terrible things happen when women are deceived — and therefore they should be educated: “they should learn.”
The reference to the order of creation is not to some imagined rule that whoever is made first is preferred to whoever is made second. God preferred Isaac over Ishmael and Jacob over Esau. Adam was placed over the animals, although they were made after him.
Rather, the reference to the order of creation harkens back to Gen 2 and the reason Eve was made: to complete the man. It was “not good” for man to be alone. Wives have a duty to their husbands and should not act in ways that shame them, as that would be contrary to their roles as helpers. Eve was made second because she was made to complete what was lacking. She should therefore never act to shame or harm her husband. She has a duty toward him.
Now, if I’m mistaken, I would ask these questions:
1. Is it okay for a woman to have authority over a man in a business owned and run by Christians?
2. … in a church ministry?
3. … in a Christian college?
4. … in a church nursery?
5. … in a church preschool?
6. … in a secular business owned by non-Christians?
7. … in the government position?
8. May a Christian woman hold a governmental office?
If the answer is that women may have authority over men in one or more of those cases, where do we find that rule in Genesis 2/3? Why would the order of creation impact authority relationships in the church but not in the business world? If all women are subordinate to all men because of the order of creation, then why not when it comes to making money? Why should the church — not in place until thousands of years after Eden — be the only place where the order of creation matters?
What was the order-of-creation rule during Old Testament times? Could a women be a leader over men? A judge? A prophet? A military commander? Where did women have to be silent in the Old Testament?
I’ve looked through the Law of Moses to see whether women were required to be silent under Moses, and I can find no such rule. But if Paul traces the rule back to Genesis, surely it’s always been the rule! (Yes, but perhaps we’ve misunderstood the rule.)
You see, there is no basis to apply the traditional rule solely within the church and nowhere else. Nor should we have to guess at the scope of the rule. The scope of the rule should be as broad as the reason for the rule — and the creation order principle would seem to apply all the time, everywhere, in all contexts.
Now, take the same questions and apply them to silence. Why must women be silent in the formal assembly but not in classes? Why not in the foyer? Why not in the presence of men everywhere at all times? Why is the scope of this rule narrower than the “no authority” rule? Why doesn’t it have the very same scope if it’s based on Gen 1-3 as well?
Just so, why must women wear headcoverings in the assembly but not in the church building generally? or at other church gatherings? or away from the church? Wouldn’t it be MORE important that they show their submission in the world than at church? Why would they only be required to show submission in the assembly? Is God not present everywhere? Are we hiding our principles from a lost world?
You see, we’ve grown so accustomed to the traditional interpretation of these rules that we don’t even notice their arbitrariness.
In Gentile cities, the early church met in homes, not in “public.” There was no public worship, and yet we’ve invented this foreign public/private distinction, arguing that Bible classes are “private” and so women may speak, whereas the assembly is “public” and so they must be silent. However, when it comes to teaching, women may teach men in private — that is, in the homes — but may not teach in “public” — and so we ban teaching in Bible classes (which are private in terms of speaking but public in terms of teaching). And yet the early church held both the assembies and any classes they had in homes. One was as private or public as the other.
Indeed, today, when we advertise the times of our services, we advertise both the worship hour and the class hour, and yet we pretent one is public and the other is private. This does not make sense.
I reiterate what I’ve said many times before. Genesis 2 is speaking of the relationship of husbands and wives, and therefore so is Paul. He is simply not teaching that all women are subject to all men. (And do you really want to teach your daughters that they must be subject to ALL men?)
To avoid such an interpretation, we limit Paul’s teaching to the church (where the men are presumably at least nice) as though the relationship of the sexes only has to be godly in the church building. The better approach is to recognize that all these are about spouses and thus about wives acting as suitable helpers for their husbands.
The Greek certainly allows that outcome. Indeed, the ESV translates —
And consider —
Correct me if I’m mistaken here, but it sure seems that Paul has wives in mind. Whom should the single women ask at home?
The ESV omits the “own” before “husbands.” Paul’s point is that the wives should not speak to another woman’s husband, for this was very unseemly in some cultures.
Again, Paul seems to be addressing married women.
We haven’t understood the command until we’ve understood the reason behind the command. And if the reason is as simple as the order of creation (without regard to the role of Eve as suitable helper), then the command must be applied consistently with that reason. Men outside the church are just as much sons of Adam as are men inside the church. And so no woman should authority over any man. Most 18th Century theologians would agree.
If we want to narrow the scope of the rule to relationships within the church, we need to explain why it is that Christian women may have authority over Christian and non-Christian men in other settings — founded on Genesis 1 – 3.
Cr 7:3 Let the husband render unto the wife due benevolence: and likewise also the wife unto the husband.
1Cr 7:4 The wife hath not power of her own body, but the husband: and likewise also the husband hath not power of his own body, but the wife.
1Cr 7:13 And the woman which hath an husband that believeth not, and if he be pleased to dwell with her, let her not leave him.
1Cr 7:14 For the unbelieving husband is sanctified by the wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified by the husband: else were your children unclean; but now are they holy.
1Cr 7:15 But if the unbelieving depart, let him depart. A brother or a sister is not under bondage in such [cases]: but God hath called us to peace.
1Cr 7:16 For what knowest thou, O wife, whether thou shalt save [thy] husband? or how knowest thou, O man, whether thou shalt save [thy] wife?
Sounds like Paul thought the Lord considered the bonds of marriage, an equal contract,even in religious matters.
That was a very long and well thought answer, Jay. THe thoughts are quite new to me, because I never saw what you see in this text.
Let's start here:
Is that the intention of the text? Let's read it again:
First women may and shall learn. That's a point of agreement. But how? In η?συχι?α and with υ?ποταγη?. Honestly: Does that imply that she may learn in order to lay become able to lay aside quitness and submission? Shall they learn in order to become teachers and elders in the church?
The answer is in the second verse: A resounding "I do not permit". Period. Not "I do not permit … until she is educated enough."
Another thing: It is simply not true that all women were too uneducated. This is a very broad brush, and the New Testament itself indicates otherwise! Think of Timothy himself: He was raised in the faith by his mother and grandmother and he knew the scriptures from childhood on. Sounds not like uneductaed women who are simply unable to teach. And when it comes to women in ministry, advocates thereof quickly point to Priscilla or Phoebe to show how God used these women. Were they uneducated? Priscilla (together with her husband Aquila) could speak up to a gifted teacher of the church (Apollos).
And now think: If there was such a number of prominent and capable sisters in the NT churches, Paul would have written very differently here. He would have said something like: "As long as they are not trained enough, don't let women teach."
But there is more to the story: WE speak of the church in Ephesos. Paul spend three years there! Whoe had the main responsibility that the women were educated? Well, Paul of course, and he strived to admonish and encourage every sould day and night. What does that mean: Either Paul failed in educating the women, or Paul says in general women may not teach men. I believe the latter is the case.
Another reason: It has to do with male-female realtions and not with education. Because a woman may not take authority over men (by teaching). Why? And mark that, the reasons he goves now have nothing to do with education:
One reason – and you may try to move around it – is that Adam was created first. This cannot be changed through education. But that's an argument he also uses in 1Co 11:8-10 which shows he is not "improvising" here, bvut following a definite understanding of Genesis.
The second, that Eve was deceived, has nothing to do with being uneducated. Adam instructed here to keep away from that tree as God had instructed Adam. So, all there was to know about living safely in Paradise Eve knew. She did not fail, because she was uneducated, but in spite of her education.
So, whatever we make with this (I will stop here), the idea that Paul was only waiting until the women were educated enough to become "pulpit ministers" is very weak to say the least.
Alexander
Jay:
Alexander's response has raised good questions for discussion — and I appreciate.
I will offer in brief that Carroll Osburn and others have been guessing regarding the specifics of the Ephesians situation. And the question remains, do the specifics render "Adam was formed first" invalid? This is one of the places where egalitarianism clashes with the New Testament. There is no mistaking Paul's message regarding a Creation order and the application for gender roles.
One of the big questions we face in our time and place is are we willing to listen? Do we believe the Spirit is guiding Paul here? I do.
Will let you mull.
In Christ,
Bruce Morton
Katy, Texas
Alexander, I thank God for you. I have never considered myself a legalist but obedience is a major Bible principle. Jesus had great honor in Revelation because He was obedient to God's will, even to death. God no longer asks us for animal, vegetable or altar sacrifices, only our selves. "we take up our cross", that's sacrifical, and its total obedience. Personally, "neither male nor female… all are one in Jesus" sounds modern and high ethics, rather than the sex based distinctions given. However the words are there, and I find myselft thinking why dip in the Jordan, Mesopotania has better rivers. But the power isn't in the dipping, or the river, or us, or the prophet, but obedience in faith to God's revealed will. Lastly, remember Abraham pleading 50, 40, 30 etc. righteous save the cities? Isn't odd that later when asked to sacrifice Isaac, no plea? The request is more irrational than every NT sex based role, but when Isaac asks about the animal for sacrivice, Abraham says "God will provide". Wow, obedience without wavering faith. For the trivial constraints on our lives, may we accept with equal faith.
Sound words, Larry! thank you – and thanks also for your ebcouraging words.
Alexander
Alexander wrote,
I’ve not argued that they should lay aside quietness and submission.
Well, of course they should learn to become teachers. Even the most conservative among us agree that women may teach other women, and nearly all agree that women may teach men in private.
Elders is another question, which can’t be properly addressed until we sort out the interpretation of 1 Tim 2:11 etc. But I’m sure we’re agreed that women should learn the scriptures, that they should do so in quietness and submission, and that they may, in at least some circumstances, be teachers. (And I would assert that these statements are true of men as well.)
I’ve argued that the women in Ephesus, which is where Timothy was ministering when this letter was written, needed instruction. The text is clear —
Regardless of what considers to be the case for women in the Roman world generally, in that congregation, at that time, they had women who were being easily deceived by false teachers because of their weakness.
Paul himself says there were women there being easily deceived, and so either they weren’t fully instructed by the time he left or they arrived later. It’s easy to imagine a church that was reaching out to the community and making many converts having this problem — even with the best of instructors, as certainly was the case.
You’ve ignored my earlier comments on this very point. And you’ve not answered the questions I posed in those comments.
Yes, Paul argues from the fact that Adam was made first. Now, there are two ways to take this, and those two ways have two different consequences —
1. It’s just a grand cosmic rule that if you get made first you have authority for whoever is made second.
If that’s true, then it’s not just true in the New Testament church. It was true in ancient Israel. It’s true in the workplace. It’s true in the schools. It’s true on the playground. It’s just true. And if it’s true, all females are subject to all men in all places at all times.
No traditionalist offers a reason why this isn’t true. We are all sons of Adam and daughers of Eve all the time, everywhere. Why would the order of creation not matter until the coming of Pentecost and then only apply in church affairs? (A 20th Century idea — before the 20th Century, the principle was applied broadly.)
2. Or it could be that Paul is arguing from what the Bible actually says about the order of creation, assuming that we have also read Gen 2. And Gen 2 does not teach the subordination of women to men. It teaches that wives are to be suitable helpers for their husbands. And that means that wives may not act in a way that shames their husbands.
That is also a rule that applies throughout the ages, in all locations and all circumstances. But I don’t have to run from that rule and contend that God’s will for male/female relationships applies at church but not in the workplace. And I have no problem explaining women such as Deborah, who plainly contradict the first theory but not the second.
We need to let Paul use his metaphors the way he wants to. He also wrote,
The Corinthian church had been taught by Paul personally and had received letters from him. They did not lack instruction, but they were nonetheless at risk of being deceived. And what was Paul’s solution? Well, he wrote them yet another letter — more instruction.
Being instructed and being instructed enough are two different things. Paul instruction to teach the women is a product of their being easily deceived (in that time and place), as evidenced by the scriptures themselves, quoted above. They needed more instruction.
Just so, the Corinthian congregation — the entire church — was also easily deceived, despite having what I am sure was an all-male leadership structure — and Paul’s solution was further instruction.
Paul uses the “Eve was deceived” in two cases in the NT, and both times resolves the problem with additional instruction. His point is that Satan’s deceit leads to terrible, terrible consequences and so we should do what it takes to prevent that outcome. The argument is about the grave dangers of allowing ourselves (or our women) to be deceived.
Now, I refer you to my earlier comment: /2011/03/buried-talents-an-email-about-girls-who-pray-in-the-presence-of-boys/#comment-32312 (4/10/11 at 2:39). No one has answered the questions I pose there.
Deborah was a Judge and Prophetess.. Clearly an authoritative position. She was married. Her husband was not a judge or a Prophet. So exactly how does her being a person of authority transgress the Man-Woman or Husband-Wife role? Wasn't it God Himself that gave her the words of prophecy? Wasn't it He who placed her in a position to judge between men? Why would He have so clearly established her in an Authoritative role if it were a contradiction to His own will for either a Woman or a Wife to do so ?
And, just curious…If Adam wasn't deceived…What was his deal.. Overt and callous disregard for what God had told him? Boy, that's setting an authoritative standard of excellence. The women is deceived by a talking snake which might have been odd..Was God the only one that talked? Did all the animals talk? Maybe she thought this was God? (like you wouldn't think something strange and incredible about a talking snake) but the man just eats the fruit cause his wife tells him to in blatant disregard for God's instructions…Yeah, put him in charge !! think about that…instruction can help with being deceived…what helps a person from being rebellious…Adam doesn't get all that much credit in my eyes…He was henpecked at best and stupid at worst… She was deceived by a talking snake…he was deceived by a talking woman… Gotta go with the snake as the most convincing. She might have thought she were talking to God…He knew he was talking to Eve..
We never disagreed on that, and that’s not the question. My statement was concerning becoming teachers in the church (speaking doctrine to the assembly).
That’s a far stretch, Jay, concluding from this verse that THE women in Ephesos needed instruction! THE women means ALL women or at least the vast majority. but this would lead to the situation that THE women in Ephesos were also burdened with sins and passions, not only … HEY, WAIT A MINUTE! He says: WEAK, not UNEDUCATED! In fact these may be even quite intellectual persons, because they are always learning, but – because of their lack of obedience (still bound in sin) unable to know the truth.
Aside from this little misreading of yours – weak is tied to a carnal lifestyle that has not overcome sins and passions, not to education! – I think it is clear that this verse does not speak of all women. He peaks of false teachers that creep into households, and they do this by seeking the weak persons, like lions won’t catch a healthy antilope.
Having said that, 1Ti 2:12 is indeed a general statement, because he is speaking of a creation order. Therefore 1Ti 2:12 speaks of ALL women regardless whether they are educated of not, simply because they are female.
Now, please, accept some historic facts that you seem to be unaware of:
(From: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Women_in_Ancient_Rom…
You might also take into consideration that especially the well educated and noble women were eager to accept the gospel. You can see this in Acts 17:4 for instance, and I am sure this was the case in other cities as well, especially where Paul had the chance to stay and work longer (as in Corinth and Ephesos)
Both Corinth and Ephesos had a strong Roman influence, in fact Corinth was a Roman City, rebuilt under Caesar around 50 BC and inhabited by many Latin speaking Romans. In both letters we find the strongest texts concerning women in church.
No, Jay, it is not about education.
Concerning the order of creation:
The relationship of Adam and Eve is – Yes, AGAIN – a TYPE of Christ and the church. Paul makes that very clear in Eph 5. So the order of creation – Adam being made first – has it’s parallel in Christ being the firstborn. If you can prove to me that the church or any Christian don’t have to submit to Christ, then I am with you. But you won’t be able to do that.
Also: YOU don’t see the call for submission in Gen 2, but Paul did, because he uses this argument as a reason for submission. So he saw something in this text that you don’t see. But that’s basically your problem. I see it the same way as Paul, because I follow the same typological reasoning that he teaches.
So the first proposal is right:
You have that in the rights of the firstborn also. and although God on purpose (for prophetic reasons) sometimes preferred the second or last son to the firstborn, He generally adoüpted this for Christ: He is the Firstborn. And although all CHristuans are equal to Him in nature and relationship to God, all Christians submit to Christ the Firstborn; to Christ the head of the church. And this is reflected in the relationship between men and women.
Think about it
Alexander
Alexander….the secular education of the women …what has that got to do with the biblical training necessary to teach? Obviously, Priscilla was trained and trained properly because she was able to teach a man. Perhaps by her husband. But, were the women generally trained in the study of scripture?? Seriously, I'm just asking. Doing one's ABC's isn't the same as being able to discern the minor prophets if one were to be speaking with ANY authority in the assembly…
But, I have to go back to what Jay was saying…If it is as you seem to agree that all women are to be submissive to all men then why does the church allow female members to own businesses, hold office, etc, etc., ad nauseum…?? Wouldn't that contrary to your idea of submission in that they held ANY position of authority ? And how do you contrast this concept with the God-ordained authority of Deborah and her role as wife?
Jay, et.al.
I hope this webchain does not get consumed with discussions that can distract us from 1 Timothy 2:13 and Paul's teaching. The apostle to the Gentiles is not talking about civil matters and women managing in commerce and government, holding court, etc. And he is not talking about women teaching beyond the assembly. My manager is a woman. Any issues with that? Certainly not. Lydia, Prisca, and Proverbs 31 are three examples that reveal with clarity. And does the example of Deborah as a prophetess and Judge clash with the Spirit's teaching through Paul here? Not at all.).
Paul is specifically speaking of congregational worship/teaching in the text. Correct? And whatever the specifics of the situation, he is saying that the submission of women in the congregational teaching setting is based first on Adam being formed first, then Eve. And the translation should not be "usurp." Hundreds of years ago that word meant "take"; the NIV translation gets at the meaning for our day: "have." Or "exercise" as some have suggested.
In Christ,
Bruce Morton
Katy, Texas
I skipped that for two reasons:
a) it leads away from the core discussion
b) It presents a case that works like the following: See a Christian women can become president of the United States – so why not an elder in the church?
c) My answer would have hurt some feelings – as scriptural as it may be.
But since you demand that blow:
a) Women are primarily (not exclusively) called to become mothers.
b) Christians in general havo NO BUSINESS AT ALL with politics
c) The church is the church and the world is the world.
Yet, modern "scholars" seem to have forgotten a lot of things … forgotten or forsaken …
Alexander
Alexander wrote,
regarding 2 Tim 3:6.I’m not sure how you’d expect the church to improve the weakness of these women other than through instruction. Not all instruction is intellectual, you know. And there are other verses showing the special need to instruct the women in Ephesus —
Clearly, there was a problem with the women in that congregation. If you had this problem in your church, wouldn’t the ease with which they are deceived remind you of Eve? Wouldn’t you insist that the women be taught better?
There is nothing at all in Eph 5 about Jesus being the firstborn. Yes, the Bible says he’s the firstborn, but that’s not the reason given for the church being in submission to him. I was born before many readers on this blog. Do they have to submit to me?“Firstborn” is a reference to primogeniture among monarchs. The firstborn of a king is the next king and — before that — co-regent with his father.
Jesus is firstborn and therefore heir to the throne and now co-regent with God. But among the Jews, all sons inherit from the father in equal shares. The younger sons don’t serve the oldest son — unless the father is the king!The firstborn is also the animal who is sacrificed and the son who is dedicated especially to God, under the Torah:
Yes, Jesus is king, and we submit to him as such. But that hardly proves that the firstborn is always preeminent over those born later — as shown by Isaac and Jacob and countless other examples. Otherwise, I would have to serve my two older sisters and my little brother would have to serve me. And I guess he’d have to be silent in my presence and never teach me. And I could never teach my older sisters.I mean, it’s just plainly obvious that there is no principle that the second born serves the firstborn.
It’s far, far simpler and far more consistent with the history of God’s dealings with his people to accept that Paul is teaching from Genesis 2 that wives are to be suitable helpers for their husbands. The order of creation is because it was “not good” for Adam to be alone, and so God had to complete him with a wife.
Alexander wrote,
True enough, but aren’t we required to live by the church’s standards while in the world? Or are Christians allowed to live like the world lives while in the world? If it’s sin for a woman to have authority over a man in church, it’s a sin outside the church.Paul’s logic, as you interpret it, is based on the order of creation in Gen 2 — which surely would have applied with equal force while Deborah was a judge. And surely applies to how Christians behave both inside and outside the church.You see, we bring to 2 Tim 2 the assumption that Paul is speaking about how to act in church only. But let’s read it more carefully —
Do Christians only make “supplications, prayers, intercessions, and thanksgivings” in the assembly? Or does this instruction apply all the time?
Does “every place” mean “in the assembly only” or should men praying without anger at home and at work, too?
Should women dress modestly to church and immodestly to the marketplace? I agree that some behave as though this passage only applies to the assembly, but I think we agree that it applies all the time.
How do we figure Paul is now speaking solely of the assembly? Alexander Campbell applied the instruction to his college, requiring women to sit in the back and never ask questions. That was a typical 19th Century interpretation.
Where does this say “in the church” or “in the assembly”? How do we limit Paul’s rationale in v. 13 to the assembly and the hierarchy of the congregation? I’ve yet to meet anyone who would argue that women may not have authority over men in the workplace, and I’ve never heard an argument for how Paul’s explanation can be limited to the church.
This is like a ball game, Jay. The reason we discuss these verses is tha question whether women may be teachers in the church. I say, no because man was created first and Eve was deceived.
These are two reasons based on Genesis 2 and 3 that apply to ALL women.
You started out with the reason, that is is not the way it was meant. The true reason (although not stated by Paul; maybe some hidden truth that he passed on orally, or that he was not aware of himself, but now we’ve got it … thanks to a fuller indwelling of the Holy Spirit?) – again: the true reason was that the women were ignorant because they had no education back then.
You tried to prove that with pointing to 1Ti 3:6-7 stating
The natural reading of this is that you mean “intellectual” instruction, that is, reading, understanding, didactical skills and the like – things people learn at a seminary for instance or in Bible Classes.
Now – when I pointed out to you that this is not the case at all in this verse – you go give it a whole different meaning. To sum up, what I tried to show you:
a)The key word is weak, not uneducated
b)It is not about all women in general, but only about those who have this weakness (not all are weak)
c)The weakness shows itself not in a lack of education, but in sin and passions
d)They do learn constantly but – let me add that – in a Gnostic manner
And to this you reply, that it is not about instruction. I do agree that intellectual instruction alone is not enough, but I do affirm that intellectual instruction is necessary to become a teacher in Christ’s Church (we have to know the scriptures).
So it is a ball game. Let me pitch again, and I’d like to see some umpire call it a clear strike …
Again, let me point out the clear differences between 1Ti 2:12 and 2Ti 3:6-7
a)They are in two different letters with two different purposes. That’s important.
b)The purpose in 1st Timothy is presenting general behaviour in the house of God (1Ti 3:15)
c)Thus 1Ti 2:12 is general in its application and is valid way beyond the borders of the city of Ephesus and the time period of Paul
d)This is underlined by its roots in Genesis 2 and 3 – a creation order.
e)2nd Timothy was written under the shadow of Paul’s execution, and in light of the “latter days” Paul gave some specific warnings
f)2Ti 3:6-7 comes after 2Ti 3:1. But understand this, that in the last days there will come times of difficulty.
g)So this verse is also not only an Ephesian topic, but just one issue from a list of “difficulties” we have to face.
h)It has to do with Gnostic teachers who seemed to have followed the strategy of spying out such “weak women”.
i)But also Timothy was warned not to be deceived by them, and he was male (1Ti 6:20-21)! So it is not a specific female issue.
I have a letter in one of my books at home from a Gnostic teacher addressed to a Christian sister Flora. This letter shows for once the “strategy” I pointed out under point (h) and second the capability of women of that time to engage in such discussions.
What is wrong in your approach:
a)You turn a general statement (1Ti 2:12) into a limited statement (limited to that time and situation in Ephesus)
b)You take a limited statement (2Ti 3:6) – the weakness of some women – and generalize it (“The” women in Ephesos)
c)You ignore the immediate context and purpose of the two different letters.
You see, Jay, this makes it extremely difficult to discuss with people from that “school of thought”: You cannot change the meaning of words at will, you cannot take verses out of context and put them together at will – but that’s precisely what you and others do.
Back to the ball game: a-b-c These are three strikes! You are out, if the umpire is not blind.
Alexander
For the sake of not leaving the topic, I won't go into this. Let's stay focussed on 2Ti 2:12.
Alexander
" These are three strikes! You are out, if the umpire is not blind "
Judge and jury. Pitcher and ump. how could one go wrong?
Jay:
I saw you had written this:
"I’ve yet to meet anyone who would argue that women may not have authority over men in the workplace, and I’ve never heard an argument for how Paul’s explanation can be limited to the church."
Hmmm? Since when do we have license to take Spirit-guided teaching about Creation order in the home and congregational worship, teaching, and leadership and apply it beyond what the apostle has written?
You sound like a man arguing with Paul, Jay. On any other subject I think you would be arguing with the person making the statement you make and indicate that they had become a legalist!
In Christ,
Bruce Morton
Katy, Texas
Phoebe was so weak that Paul instructed the leadership of the church in Rome to do whatever SHE needed them to do… A deacon instructing the Elders…A female deacon instructing the Elders… But, then Deborah was a "type" for Phoebe, huh?
Price, your inout is intreresting in as much as it shows plainly that you are not interested in principles and order, but try to find loopholes and exceotions in order to rule out rules. This is a terrible apporach to scripture, Price!
Seriously, Price. Can't you read what is written?
Concerning Phoebe – a diacon instructiong elders?
Where do you get that idea? Certauilly not from the text itself:
Just as a guideline for thinking: What could the needs of a person be that moves from one city to another?
Alexander
Just one more note, Jay. You ask:
In 1Ti 3:15, Jay. It is the purose of the whole letter to define behavior in the church. That's what this letter was written for – itr is truly something like a handbook for chuch life, written tio Timothy in case Paul would not make it to Ephesos.
And – that's a key issue – this letter is not limited to the church in Ephesos, but "the house of God" is the same everywhere. Even today. So although Tiomothy was in ephesos this is not a letter addressing specific Ephesian issus, but the general behavior in Christ's Church.
And this links it to 1st Corinthinas in a very remarkable way: This letter – although addresing specfic Corithian troubkes and questions – was addressed to all Christians in all places (1Co 1:25), making this epistle a universal letter to all Christians.
Both 1st Timothy and 1st Corinthians contain the most detail descriptions and regulations for church life – and both deal in a very consistent manner with the ministry of women in the church. In both letters the limitations to females are rooted in Genesis 2 and 3.
So it is a wrong apprioach to find any hint in the local situation of either city that would provide a "rationalization" forthese "problematic" texts. The instructions are not based on a local situation, but are universal.
Theologoy among oprgressive Universities has taken a serious wrong turn in the last decades – and I find it shocking that hardly anyone seems to recognize that the exact words of the texts in discussion become ignored for the sake of human "egalitarian" ideas. They take away from scripture and add to it by doing this – and I fear the reward for such teaching is not very desirable …
Alexander
Boy, this is a new record for typing errors.
A necessary correction: was addressed to all Christians in all places (1Co 1:25) It's 1Co 1:2 !
Alexander
Personally, I would conceeded to Alexander's chain of order: Christ head of church, man head of household: finally women not usurp authority. The firstborn had significance to the ancients but doesn"t seem to be an absolute Divine rule. Still, the older should teach the younger has divine blessing. This gets silly when applied to the secular world: the CEO is head as Christ is head of the church. Does the oldest firm or corporation rule the younger? Was Ronald the only scriptural president; since he was older that most?
I will still remind the depth of Biblical leadership; the leader showld love his followers, and be willing to die for them. I'm pretty sure that is not in any CEO's contract. Do you want to be in charge like Jesus? Little prestige, honor, or reward in this life.
From all these posts, I have been enriched with thoughts on the sex based roles of the NT. Thanks to all writers.
Alexander, David LIbscomb would like your style. He thought that war, politics, even voting were not Christian endevours. However, His reflection on Garfield admidts that maybe someone doesn't get corrupted. Sometime, you will have to explain the political views in light of Joseph or David. I see God putting them in the areana.
I don't know too much about David Lipscomb, but my "Anabaptist Soul" sure found a kindred spirit in him.
Alexander
Pingback: One In Jesus » Buried Talents: 1 Timothy 2:12-13: A More Formal Argument