Announcement

Collapse

Christianity 201 Guidelines

orthodox Christians only.

Discussion on matters of general mainstream evangelical Christian theology that do not fit within Theology 201. Have some spiritual gifts ceased today? Is the KJV the only viable translation for the church today? In what sense are the books of the bible inspired and what are those books? Church government? Modern day prophets and apostles?

This forum is primarily for Christians to discuss matters of Christian doctrine, and is not the area for debate between atheists (or those opposing orthodox Christianity) and Christians. Inquiring atheists (or sincere seekers/doubters/unorthodox) seeking only Christian participation and having demonstrated a manner that does not seek to undermine the orthodox Christian faith of others are also welcome, but must seek Moderator permission first. When defining “Christian” or "orthodox" for purposes of this section, we mean persons holding to the core essentials of the historic Christian faith such as the Trinity, the Creatorship of God, the virgin birth, the bodily resurrection of Christ, the atonement, the future bodily return of Christ, the future bodily resurrection of the just and the unjust, and the final judgment. Persons not holding to these core doctrines are welcome to participate in the Comparative Religions section without restriction, in Theology 201 as regards to the nature of God and salvation with limited restrictions, and in Christology for issues surrounding the person of Christ and the Trinity. Atheists are welcome to discuss and debate these issues in the Apologetics 301 forum without such restrictions.

Additionally and rarely, there may be some topics or lines of discussion that within the Moderator's discretion fall so outside the bounds of mainstream orthodox doctrine (in general Christian circles or in the TheologyWeb community) or that deny certain core values that are the Christian convictions of forum leadership that may be more appropriately placed within Unorthodox Theology 201. NO personal offense should be taken by such discretionary decision for none is intended. While inerrancy is NOT considered a requirement for posting in this section, a general respect for the Bible text and a respect for the inerrantist position of others is requested.

The Tweb rules apply here like they do everywhere at Tweb, if you haven't read them, now would be a good time.

Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less

Complementarianism vs. Egalitarianism

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Complementarianism vs. Egalitarianism

    Okay, I am getting tired of the insult wars in the dormitory section. We are going to have a reasoned discussion with actual scholarly arguments. There will be no insulting our beloved brothers and sister in this thread. I request for a mod to enforce that. Because insults are not arguments. Quote mining is not an argument. Circular reasoning is not an argument. Pretend that you know nothing about humans and approach the Bible from a historian's perspective of the culture it was written in. Again, I want actual arguments from both sides that don't devolve into a insult war. And I mean it!
    If it weren't for the Resurrection of Jesus, we'd all be in DEEP TROUBLE!

  • #2
    Originally posted by Christianbookworm View Post
    Okay, I am getting tired of the insult wars in the dormitory section. We are going to have a reasoned discussion with actual scholarly arguments. There will be no insulting our beloved brothers and sister in this thread. I request for a mod to enforce that. Because insults are not arguments. Quote mining is not an argument. Circular reasoning is not an argument. Pretend that you know nothing about humans and approach the Bible from a historian's perspective of the culture it was written in. Again, I want actual arguments from both sides that don't devolve into a insult war. And I mean it!
    Okay!!!

    Let's start with most important point: how do egalitarians defend views of theirs against what is in Holy Scripture? They say stuff like 'what Paul said is because of culture, so after we know this, we can dismiss relevance of verses for our time!!! Because now we know better'.

    And that is key to whole issue. Egalitarians say that perspectives in Bible is biased, but theirs is neutral, also enlightened!! When of course, 'egalitarian movement' in Christianity is only because of egalitarian worldly culture.

    So when egalitarian says that 'what Paul said was affected by culture of his', response should be 'so are you by culture of yours! You may think (honestly too!) that you are very very unbiased, but guess what is ruling dogma of world now - egalitarianism. And surprise surprise, that is position of yours!!!'
    Last edited by demi-conservative; 09-11-2017, 06:27 PM.
    Remember that you are dust and to dust you shall return.

    Comment


    • #3
      I didn't say that was my position. I want to know what the scholars say. Not what random joe on the interwebz says. Explain why Jesus allowed Mary to sit at His feet instead of helping Martha in the kitchen when only men were allowed to learn from rabbis. Explain what "there is no male or female in Christ" means. And use sources. Here's mine. http://christianthinktank.com/fem09.html

      [There is another string of passages that are sometimes used to support a view that Paul restricted women from church leadership--the 'submit to your husband' verses (Eph 5.22; Col 3.18; Tit 2.). This is not a strictly Pauline injunction, of course, since it is also repeated by Peter in I Peter 3.1-6. Since it is sometimes understood/appealed to in support of the broader view that women should not have authority over men IN ANY SPHERE, I want to make some summary observations about this issue, and why it cannot be applied to church leadership positions.

      First, it obviously applies ONLY to married women--not widows, not the unmarried, not divorcees, not celibate. And correspondingly, any authority it imputes to males is ONLY TO MARRIED MEN. We have no reason to believe that marriage (and the survival of the spouse!) were qualifications of teaching positions (!!!!). We DO have POSITIVE evidence that it was NOT required--Paul, Timothy, Lydia, etc.

      Second, the word for 'submission' in those passages is VERY different that the words used for slaves and children. They are told specifically to 'obey'--the wife is told to 'be submissive to'. This is a subtle but real difference. For example, when Paul says in Ephesians 5.22 "Wives, submit to your husbands as to the Lord" and then RE-STATES it in 5.33 as "the wife must respect her husband.", the meaning seems clear--the issue is respect and civility. [You must remember that the liberating effect of the Christian freedom in Christ--Gal 3.28--occasionally created 'hyper-liberated' women who showed public contempt and mistreatment of their husbands.]

      Third, the Ephesians and Col. Passages are in the literary form of a "household code", but with a twist (so BBC:in loc): "Paul borrows this form of discussion straight from Greco-Roman moral writing. But unlike most ancient writers, Paul undermines the basic premise of these codes: the absolute authority of the male head of the house." And, at the summary verse .33, BBC adds "Although ancient moralists expected wives to respect their husbands (and Jewish teachers also expected the reverse), moralists usually also emphasized the wife's 'obedience'; Paul's exhortation to wives here would thus strike most ancient readers as quite weak."

      Fourth, the "household code" is turned on its head by the intro in verse 21: "Submit to one another out of reverence for Christ." BBC notes: "But although it was customary to call on wives, children and slaves to submit in various ways, to call all members of a group (including the paterfamilias, the male head of the household) to submit to one another was unheard-of." Verse 2--the call to MUTUAL submission--(the verb is 'shared' between 21 and 22, so there is no difference in quality) radically changes the nature of the household code.

      Fifth, the submission of wives to husbands was not on the basis of some gender-based authority; rather, it was a covenant-based relationship. So Wood, in EBC: "'As to the Lord' differs slightly from 'as is fitting in the Lord' in Colossians 3.18. In obeying her husband, the Christian wife is obeying the Lord who has sanctioned the marriage contract...The subjection, moreover, is voluntary, not forced. The Christian wife who promises to obey does so because her vow is 'as to the Lord'." Most marriage contracts had 'obedience' or 'submission' clauses in them, so in the context of a Christian marriage it was contract-based authority (i.e. the Lord) rather than gender-based authority that mattered.

      Sixth, the general tone of 'submission' verses for women is geared toward practical matters (and not more fundamental theological-authority issues). So, Titus 2.5: to be subject to their husbands, so that no one will malign the word of God. and I Peter 3.1: Wives, in the same way be submissive to your husbands so that, if any of them do not believe the word, they may be won over without words by the behavior of their wives,. In such a way, they appeal to more culturally-oriented values of the non-Christians around the church. So, just as Paul would suppress personal 'rights' out of desire to further the work of Christ (e.g. I Cor 9.1ff; I Cor 9.22f), so took we should 'subject ourselves' to each other, to move the Kingdom farther.

      You must remember that submission and servanthood go hand-in-hand. Christ said that He came "not to be served, but to serve." His submission to the needs of others was CERTAINLY not based on some 'superiority' or 'authority' they had over Him(!), but a submission based on love and other-centered behavior. The NT is replete with such passages that enjoin us to such mutual submission (e.g. Rom 12.10b; I Peter 5.5b; Phil 2.3; Gal 5.13).

      Seventh, there are a couple of passages in which wives are either charged with authority over themselves, or men are explicitly stated as being in some form of subjection to wives. So, in I Cor 11.10, the Greek says "the woman ought to have authority over her own head." (The English versions add 'a sign of' to this, without the slightest evidence!) and in I Cor 7.4f: The wife's body does not belong to her alone but also to her husband. In the same way, the husband's body does not belong to him alone but also to his wife. 5 Do not deprive each other except by mutual consent and for a time,. This is rather clear--the wife has 'authority' over the husband's body--mutually.

      Eighth, in I Cor 6.3, Paul states that the "saints" will judge the world AND the angels! He makes no distinction between male and female in a FUTURE situation of overt authority. (NB: the word sometimes rendered 'men of little account' in verse. 4 is simply a participle--not a clause with the word 'men' in it. As a participle it has to have linguistic "gender", and is "masculine" in accordance with standard praxis of the day. If an author wanted to draw attention to men, he would not 'hide it' in a humble participial ending, but rather he would use the deliberate words for "men", "husband", etc.)

      Finally, 'submission within marriage' CANNOT be relevant to matters of church leadership, simply because (1) we KNOW of a husband-wife pair in which the woman was the dominant teacher (Priscilla); and (2) entire congregations were told to 'submit' to women leaders in I Cor 16.16: "submit to such as these and to everyone who joins in the work (synergounti), and labors (kopionti) at it." We have already seen that Paul refers to numerous women by these titles. In this latter case we have men OBVIOUSLY 'submitting' to women (not necessarily their wives). So whatever "submission" means (and it DOES imply obedience-under-God in certain passages--Rom 13. 5), it is mutual enough to apply in several different directions.

      It must also be noted that Paul was very familiar with OT history, and accordingly he would have known that many of the main women leaders there were married (e.g. Deborah the Judge, Huldah the prophetess).

      So, I personally have to conclude that although submission is a very, very real command to a wife, it would be false to restrict it to her or to impute the 'traditional' notions of 'obedience' or 'obey your husband, right or wrong' to that word. The very mutuality and grounding of the notion in the person of Christ, indicates that it is concerned with respect, putting other's needs first (cf. I cor 10.24: Nobody should seek his own good, but the good of others.), and generally 'fitting in' ENOUGH within the cultural context as to not hinder the work of Christ.]
      If it weren't for the Resurrection of Jesus, we'd all be in DEEP TROUBLE!

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by Christianbookworm View Post
        Okay, I am getting tired of the insult wars in the dormitory section. We are going to have a reasoned discussion with actual scholarly arguments. There will be no insulting our beloved brothers and sister in this thread. I request for a mod to enforce that. Because insults are not arguments. Quote mining is not an argument. Circular reasoning is not an argument. Pretend that you know nothing about humans and approach the Bible from a historian's perspective of the culture it was written in. Again, I want actual arguments from both sides that don't devolve into a insult war. And I mean it!
        I'm inclined to take one of two approaches:

        -- I could post the text of the Danvers Statement and address my concerns with the various points and the proof-texts they adduce.

        -- I could find (stashed here on my laptop somewhere) a summary of (my understanding of) egalitarian thinking, with relevant Scriptures, and (probably after some editing) post it here.


        Does anyone have a preference?
        Geislerminian Antinomian Kenotic Charispneumaticostal Gender Mutualist-Egalitarian.

        Beige Federalist.

        Nationalist Christian.

        "Everybody is somebody's heretic."

        Social Justice is usually the opposite of actual justice.

        Proud member of the this space left blank community.

        Would-be Grand Vizier of the Padishah Maxi-Super-Ultra-Hyper-Mega-MAGA King Trumpius Rex.

        Justice for Ashli Babbitt!

        Justice for Matthew Perna!

        Arrest Ray Epps and his Fed bosses!

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by NorrinRadd View Post
          I'm inclined to take one of two approaches:

          -- I could post the text of the Danvers Statement and address my concerns with the various points and the proof-texts they adduce.

          -- I could find (stashed here on my laptop somewhere) a summary of (my understanding of) egalitarian thinking, with relevant Scriptures, and (probably after some editing) post it here.


          Does anyone have a preference?
          The second one. Actually, even better would be to locate some super scholarly sources! Because it is very easy to misinterpret ancient works if you lack context due to the nature of high context cultures. Paul's letters are like one side of a phone conversation.
          If it weren't for the Resurrection of Jesus, we'd all be in DEEP TROUBLE!

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by Christianbookworm View Post
            The second one. Actually, even better would be to locate some super scholarly sources! Because it is very easy to misinterpret ancient works if you lack context due to the nature of high context cultures. Paul's letters are like one side of a phone conversation.
            How about if I do the summary, but cite supportive sources for further reading (primarily books by Gordon Fee, P.B. Payne, Ben Witherington, and Craig Keener)?
            Geislerminian Antinomian Kenotic Charispneumaticostal Gender Mutualist-Egalitarian.

            Beige Federalist.

            Nationalist Christian.

            "Everybody is somebody's heretic."

            Social Justice is usually the opposite of actual justice.

            Proud member of the this space left blank community.

            Would-be Grand Vizier of the Padishah Maxi-Super-Ultra-Hyper-Mega-MAGA King Trumpius Rex.

            Justice for Ashli Babbitt!

            Justice for Matthew Perna!

            Arrest Ray Epps and his Fed bosses!

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by NorrinRadd View Post
              How about if I do the summary, but cite supportive sources for further reading (primarily books by Gordon Fee, P.B. Payne, Ben Witherington, and Craig Keener)?
              That would work.
              If it weren't for the Resurrection of Jesus, we'd all be in DEEP TROUBLE!

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by Christianbookworm View Post
                I didn't say that was my position.
                Whether it is or isn't is doesn't change truth of what I said.

                Simple fact: egalitarian Christians say what Paul said was biased by outside culture, can be discounted. But it is simple truth that egalitarianism movement in Christian is affected by outside culture just like they say of position of Paul's, if not more!!

                Egalitarianism of Christian egalitarians should be dismissed just like they dismiss position of Paul's!
                Last edited by demi-conservative; 09-12-2017, 01:54 PM.
                Remember that you are dust and to dust you shall return.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by Christianbookworm View Post
                  Let's see...

                  "Wives, submit to your husbands as to the Lord" and then RE-STATES it in 5.33 as "the wife must respect her husband.", the meaning seems clear--the issue is respect and civility.
                  Garbage logic. By logic of this 'submit...to the Lord' just means being respectful to our Lord. And of course, if you look at greek 'respect' is in better English 'reverence'!

                  Fourth, the "household code" is turned on its head by the intro in verse 21: "Submit to one another out of reverence for Christ." BBC notes: "But although it was customary to call on wives, children and slaves to submit in various ways, to call all members of a group (including the paterfamilias, the male head of the household) to submit to one another was unheard-of." Verse 2--the call to MUTUAL submission--(the verb is 'shared' between 21 and 22, so there is no difference in quality) radically changes the nature of the household code.
                  Common talking point of egalitarians (also scholars of theirs!), but unless you want to say parents are supposed to submit to children, then obviously 'submit to one another out of reverence for Christ' is general point, with subsequent verses of Paul to talk about main exceptions: husband-wife, parents-children, master-slave.

                  Egalitarians want to claim radical radical change from verse 21, but like to ignore that what writing of Paul right immediately afterwards keeps traditional hierarchy. Oops!!!

                  Fifth, the submission of wives to husbands was not on the basis of some gender-based authority; rather, it was a covenant-based relationship.
                  More garbage, this time ignoring "husband is the head of the wife".

                  Sixth, the general tone of 'submission' verses for women is geared toward practical matters (and not more fundamental theological-authority issues).
                  Even more garbage, ignoring 'but as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit to their husbands in everything.'

                  So much garbage. Let me know if you want me to continue clearing it!!!
                  Last edited by demi-conservative; 09-12-2017, 02:14 PM.
                  Remember that you are dust and to dust you shall return.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    My apologies, but it may take me a few days to get to this. I had to have a fridge replaced, and it turned out to be a hassle, with a lot of unexpected disruption to my household.
                    Geislerminian Antinomian Kenotic Charispneumaticostal Gender Mutualist-Egalitarian.

                    Beige Federalist.

                    Nationalist Christian.

                    "Everybody is somebody's heretic."

                    Social Justice is usually the opposite of actual justice.

                    Proud member of the this space left blank community.

                    Would-be Grand Vizier of the Padishah Maxi-Super-Ultra-Hyper-Mega-MAGA King Trumpius Rex.

                    Justice for Ashli Babbitt!

                    Justice for Matthew Perna!

                    Arrest Ray Epps and his Fed bosses!

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by NorrinRadd View Post
                      My apologies, but it may take me a few days to get to this. I had to have a fridge replaced, and it turned out to be a hassle, with a lot of unexpected disruption to my household.
                      That's fine. I just will not accept sound bites. This is not an issue that can be solved in a paragraph.
                      If it weren't for the Resurrection of Jesus, we'd all be in DEEP TROUBLE!

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Sorry about the delay. I've had this tab open for ages, so it would keep nagging me. Finally taking another shot at it.

                        I'll do my summary and supportive citations below. First, here are three good "professional" summaries readily available online. (Please don't regard these as "argument by link." These are just good, concise summaries by scholars, presented for those who might appreciate the convenience.) I don't think I can do as well, but I'll do what I can. It became much longer than I expected, so I'll split it up.

                        Detailed summary by Payne

                        Another by Payne

                        There is considerable overlap between the two, but also some variance.
                        Payne is more exhaustive and more detailed than most egalitarians, and presses some points farther and more forcefully.

                        Summary from Witherington.

                        >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>
                        Brief relevant testimony: I was what is now often called a "soft complementarian" (or sometimes "benevolent patriarchalist") from roughly 1980 to at least 1995, probably later. I noticed, and became increasingly uncomfortable with, the way the churches I attended handled women in ministry, compared to the prima facie reading of Scripture; and with the apparent inconsistencies within Scripture itself. I began probing. By the early 2000s, I had fully switched to egalitarian.
                        For those who confidently and unambiguously claim all egalitarians are just bowing to some kind of outside pressures, rather than honestly studying and being persuaded by Scripture, I cheerfully inform you that you are flat wrong. Further, if you are serious, and not speaking with hyperbole, then you are slanderers and bearers of false witness, and have joined forces with the adversary, the father of lies, the accuser of the brethren.
                        >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>-
                        Regarding "ministry," the affirmative case

                        >> Acts 2 -- The events are clearly tied to Luke's accounts of the Great Commission in Luke 24 and Acts 1. It also appears that Luke set things up to suggest a parallel between Luke 3-4 and Acts 1-2. Peter's quote of Joel is programmatic and apologetic in the same way as Jesus's quote from Isaiah. I infer from the wording that Luke and Peter intend that all kinds of people -- explicitly including males, females, and servants, an implicitly by the context, gentiles as well as Jews -- will be equal in terms of Spirit-empowered "ministry roles" in carrying out the Great Commission. (If I've seen this presented anywhere in even this small amount of detail, I can't recall where. It is alluded to in passing several places in ch. 2 of the 2004 Discovering Biblical Equality, dealing with egalitarianism in the 19th and early 20th Centuries.)

                        >> 1 Cor. 11 -- Whatever else this passage shows, it clearly shows it was expected that women *would* speak in the assemblies, since they were expected to "pray" and "prophesy" (11:5). In discussing this passage in ch. 8 of the 2004 Discovering Biblical Equality, Fee notes that subsequent portions of the letter, "all" or "each one" may pray, prophesy, etc., with no distinctions based on sex (14:23, 26, 29).

                        >> Gal. 3 -- The old Law and Covenant are no longer in effect (cf. Hebrews). The old priesthood is no longer in effect (Hebrews 7). One need not follow special "laws" to become part of the people of God, and in the absence of the Law, there are no longer special categories (priests, kings, etc.) limited to only certain family lines or to one sex. 3:28 casts it in terms of the three primary social classes in the NT world. The classes don't vanish, but in terms of how Christians treat each other, none of those classes are better or higher in rank than others, or restricted from ministries compared to others. (See esp. ch. 4 of Payne, Man and Woman, One in Christ and Fee's ch. 10 in the 2004 Discovering Biblical Equality. Also Witherington's Grace in Galatia commentary.)

                        >> Rom. 16:1-2 -- This has the form of an ancient letter of introduction/commendation, suggesting Phoebe is the courier and would be responsible for reading and explaining it to the recipients, and answering any questions. Rom. 16:1 is the only place where the construction "diakonos" of the "ekklesia" occurs, suggesting it refers to the "office" of deacon in that church. "Helper," especially given the connotations of that term in English, is a weak translation for "prostatis," especially given that a cognate of that word is used in 12:8 of the same book, and in several other places in Paul, to denote leadership or management. "Patron," "benefactor," "sponsor," and "leader" are all better. (See pages 61-63 of Payne's Man and Woman, One in Christ and pages 116, 121 by Belleville in Discovering Biblical Equality.)

                        >> Rom. 16:3-5 -- Prisca was co-leader with her husband of a house church. (On the significance of the order of their names in different contexts, Fee notes it in passing on p. 375, and Belleville addresses it in detail on pp. 121-122 of the 2004 Discovering Biblical Equality; cf p. 64 of Payne's Man and Woman, One in Christ.)

                        >> Rom. 16:7 -- Junia was an apostle, and a noteworthy one at that, albeit in partnership with her husband Andronicus. The ideas that either the person in question was actually a man, "Junias," or that the person was known "to" or "by" the apostles, but was not himself/herself "among" them have been thoroughly addressed, though especially in regard to the latter, undeniable proof is probably impossible. (See pp. 116-121 of Belleville's ch. 6 in the 2004 Discovering Biblical Equality and pp. 65-67 of Payne's 2009 Man and Woman, One in Christ.)

                        >> Col. 4 -- To me, the natural reading of Col. 4, taken on its own, is that Nympha is the "pastor" of a house church; she clearly hosts it, and no other leaders are greeted, which suggests to me she is either the primary or only leader. Keener (Bible Background Commentary) only refers to her as "leader of a house church." Witherington (The Letters to Philemon, the Colossians, and the Ephesians) calls her a "church leader," but only goes so far as saying it is "possible" she was the "head" of a household church. Fee cautiously suggests she was "head" of her household church in two of the chapters he contributed to the 2004 edition of Discovering Biblical Equality, DEB (on pages 245 and 375). Linda Belleville, somewhat typically, is most emphatic in stating Nympha was necessarily the head of that church in one of her chapters in DEB (pages 123-124).

                        >> I consider OT cases much less relevant. Still, I will note two:

                        -- Deborah (Jdg. 4-5) is probably the better known. She served as "judge" of all Israel. Most of the Judges in the eponymous book were primarily military deliverers (Jdg. 2:16). Deborah filled that role, but also held the more "traditional" judge role established by Moses in Ex. 18, and first filled by Moses himself: That of settling disputes, often by divine wisdom (4:4). Of all the Judges, only she seemed to be like both Moses (effectively the first) and Samuel (the last) in that she was also a prophet. In the days before the institution of the earthly monarchy, the Judges and priests were the leaders, and at least one woman filled the role.

                        -- Huldah (2 Ki. 22:14; 2 Chr. 34:22) was a prophetess. Both the priests and the king (via his servants) effectively submitted themselves to the her as the bringer of the word of the LORD.

                        Under the Obsolete Covenant, all of Israel was a "kingdom of priests" (Ex. 19:6; cf. Isa. 61:6). But they still had a separate ceremonial priesthood, and later also kings. The priesthood was, for whatever reasons (Payne has pragmatic speculations -- Item 8 here), limited to men (and specifically, men of a particular family lineage). The kingship likewise was limited to males, again of specific family lineage. There was no such restriction on prophets and judges, and their words carried high authority. Now, under the New and better Covenant, we are all "royal/kingly priests" (1 Pet. 2:9, and the NU for Rev. 1:6 and 5:10). Apart from Jesus and his Melchizedek High Priesthood, there is no other priesthood now in effect. We are all "royal," but apart from that, in the Kingdom of God, there is no King but Jesus. Even in the days before Gal. 3:28 and when Joel 2 was still completely future, women could be prophets. In the days before the Kings, they could be Judges, and in the days of the Monarchy, even the monarch had to respect their words if they were prophets. Since the prophetic "office" is still active, has never completely excluded women, and since the Acts 2 fulfillment of Joel 2 has explicitly included them on equal footing with men, there is no good reason to exclude them from the highest positions in the Kingdom (if "highest positions" even makes sense among people whose goal should be to *serve* one another).
                        Last edited by NorrinRadd; 07-29-2018, 02:59 AM.
                        Geislerminian Antinomian Kenotic Charispneumaticostal Gender Mutualist-Egalitarian.

                        Beige Federalist.

                        Nationalist Christian.

                        "Everybody is somebody's heretic."

                        Social Justice is usually the opposite of actual justice.

                        Proud member of the this space left blank community.

                        Would-be Grand Vizier of the Padishah Maxi-Super-Ultra-Hyper-Mega-MAGA King Trumpius Rex.

                        Justice for Ashli Babbitt!

                        Justice for Matthew Perna!

                        Arrest Ray Epps and his Fed bosses!

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Regarding "ministry," the objections

                          >> 1 Tim. 2:11-12 -- (This is probably the passage that had the most to do with my exploring this issue in the first place -- not because of what it says per se, but because of inconsistencies I observed. In my early Christian life, I used mainly the 1977 NASB and the 1984 NIV. In them, and still in many translations today, the plain sense of the wording of 2:12 was that women were never to teach men, and women were never to be in authority over men. Neither. That is the normal understanding of a disjunction in English. If, e.g., Peter had somewhere said, "I do not permit a man to wear pantyhose or lipstick," we would not take that to mean, "Well, a man can wear lipstick, as long as he is not also wearing pantyhose." But that was not what I saw in practice in the churches I attended. Women *were* allowed to teach men, and women *were* allowed some measure of authority over men, but only a man could be the head pastor. That was also not what I saw elsewhere in Scripture. I saw Priscilla and Aquila teaching Apollos, but 2:12 did not make an exception for the woman being with her husband. I saw Acts 2:17, which certainly seemed to allow more than 1 Tim. 2:11-12, and definitely did not require women to be "silent." I saw Gal. 3:28, which, even not yet having recognized the implications of the context, certainly seemed to allow much more than 1 Tim. 2:11-12. Eventually those inconsistencies pushed me to study the issue.)

                          The first thing to notice is that like most of the Epistles, this one is explicitly written "to" certain particular parties, for particular reasons -- Timothy at Ephesus, to deal with false teachings and teachers (1:3). There is no objective basis to assume it is a universal church manual. The context also supports this. 2:8 instructs the men to pray with raised hands, and without anger and strife; women are not mentioned, but surely this does not mean it is permissible for women to engage in angry arguments when they should be praying. Men are addressed, because men were the primary culprits in that error. By analogy, then, the instructions that follow, though addressed only to women, would also apply to men committing the same errors. It is surely unbecoming (though probably not recognized as such in prosperity-obssessed Western churches) for men, as well as women, to dress in either sexually seductive or ostentatiously expensive clothing. And surely if a man refused to behave with "hesuchia" and "hupotage" during a meeting, but instead presumed to "didaskein oude autheitein," Paul would "ouk epitrepto" it.

                          The verses should probably read something like this: "A woman must receive instruction in a tranquil <based on the sense of the cognate word used in v. 2 of the same chapter> and submissive way. I am not -- currently -- permitting a woman to domineeringly seize authority over a man, but rather to remain tranquil." (See esp. Payne, chs. 16-22 in Man and Woman, One in Christ and Witherington, pp. 223-232 in Letters and Homiles for Hellenized Christians, Vol. 1; also, more conveniently, here and here for Witherington. Fee has an interesting take in Chapter 4 of his book, Gospel and Spirit -- Issues in New Testament Hermeneutics. Belleville in ch. 12 of the 2004 Discovering Biblical Equality is interesting for her theory about Artemis worship as at least part of the false teaching, and how that would neatly account for vv. 13-15. Given that Artemis worship is the one false teaching we know from Scripture itself -- Acts 19 -- was present in Ephesus, I'm surprised how little regard other egalitarians show for this idea.)
                          The bottom line is that this passage constitutes a corrective for a temporary situation in a particular church.

                          >> 1 Tim. 3 and Tit. 1 -- The guidelines are not intended to be universal requirements, and in any case do not necessarily rule out women.
                          Payne addresses both passages in systematic detail, but stands out especially for making the case that neither passage includes any masculine pronouns, and each includes the word "man" only as part of the idiomatic construction, "one-woman-man," which he defends as meaning "faithful spouse" (of either sex). He believes the CEV and later the CEB translations properly reflect that aspect of the translation. (Man and Woman, One in Christ ch. 24.)

                          For reference, the CEB of 1 Tim. 3:1-13 as a sample:
                          1Tim 3
                          1 This saying is reliable: if anyone has a goal to be a supervisor in the church, they want a good thing. 2 So the church’s supervisor must be without fault. They should be faithful to their spouse, sober, modest, and honest. They should show hospitality and be skilled at teaching. 3 They shouldn’t be addicted to alcohol or a bully. Instead they should be gentle, peaceable, and not greedy. 4 They should manage their own household well—they should see that their children are obedient with complete respect, 5 because if they don’t know how to manage their own household, how can they take care of God’s church? 6 They shouldn’t be new believers so that they won’t become proud and fall under the devil’s spell. 7 They should also have a good reputation with those outside the church so that they won’t be embarrassed and fall into the devil’s trap. 8 In the same way, servants in the church should be dignified, not two-faced, heavy drinkers, or greedy for money. 9 They should hold on to the faith that has been revealed with a clear conscience. 10 They should also be tested and then serve if they are without fault. 11 In the same way, women who are servants in the church should be dignified and not gossip. They should be sober and faithful in everything they do. 12 Servants must be faithful to their spouse and manage their children and their own households well. 13 Those who have served well gain a good standing and considerable confidence in the faith that is in Christ Jesus.

                          In some contrast to Payne, Witherington believes the elder/overseer lists for Ephesus (1 Tim.) and Crete (Tit.) should not be hastily treated as interchangeable. They are not identical, and differences may speak to the different situations, and the relative maturity of available candidates. He does not treat "one-woman-man" as Payne does, but definitely finds 1 Tim. 3:11 refers to female deacons, that 3:12 suggests they -- either sex -- should have leadership skills, that 3:13 possibly suggests they -- either sex -- some may become candidates for "promotion" to overseer, and that the literal reading of 3:13 ("parresia," "freedom of speech") could suggest some sort of speaking role. In any case, he sees the qualifications as relating to character, reputation, and ability, and to be not rigidly fixed. (Letters and Homilies for Hellenized Christians, Vol. 1)

                          >> 1 Cor. 11:2-16 -- Obviously this passage does not preclude women from speaking, since it takes for granted women will be praying and prophesying. The only explicit mention of "authority" in the passage is v. 10, where most translations questionably insert the words "sign of," "symbol of," "token of," etc. NIV, CEB, and ISV render it as the woman having "authority over her (own -- NIV, ISV) head; CEV makes the odd choice to include "sign," but in a way that conveys the same sense of NIV, ISV, and CEB: "sign of her authority." There seems to be considerable uncertainty about "head" when used metaphorically; about "akatakaluptos" (does it refer to an item of clothing, or to the hair itself?), and about the relevant cultural practices and mores among Jews, Christians, Greeks, and Romans, in life in general, and in worship contexts in particular. Payne, typically, is quite certain of his views, which take up eight chapters of his 2009 Man and Woman, One in Christ, but can be accessed more readily in [url=https://www.linguistsoftware.com/Payne2006PP1Cor11_2-16.pdf]this PDF[/i]. Witherington addresses the issue at some length in his 1995 Conflict & Community in Corinth; his conclusions are somewhat less egalitarian than those of others. Keener addresses the passage at some length in his 2005 commentary on 1-2 Corinthians, but his most current and concise (but much less documented) work is in the notes of the 2016 Cultural Background Study Bible.

                          Whatever is the actual problematic practice -- hairstyle or head covering -- it was in some way inviting shame and disgrace. Paul affirmed that the men and women were equal -- vv. 11-12 -- and that the women had authority over their own heads -- v. 10. But he wanted them to forego the right to exercise that authority by doing the things that were inviting shame and disgrace. Today the prohibition would apply to anyone abusing their liberty and rights by behaving in worship in a way that would bring dishonor on his or her spouse.

                          >> 1 Cor. 14:34-35 -- Keener believes this is a temporary restraint to prevent uneducated women from participating disruptively in the Socratic method style of instruction that was at least part of teaching in those days; this seems to me a jarring digression from the context. Witherington agrees it may be related to the relative lack of education of women, but believes it relates to the pagan practice of viewing prophets as oracles who would answer questions; that seems an odd explanation for "ask... husbands at home." Regarding the allusion to the Law, Witherington cites Hab. 2:20 (see Summary article near page top) to claim the command is to all to be silent and submissive when the LORD is speaking. (Paul addresses it to women, because they were the ones causing disturbance.) This seems to me a stretch, especially since the citation is NOT from "the Law" per se.

                          I am becoming increasingly sympathetic to the various scholars -- notably Fee and Payne -- who believe on textual grounds that vv. 34-35 comprise a later interpolated margin gloss that was never part of "inspired" Scripture.

                          What is absolutely certain is that the verses cannot have their prima facie meaning; the requirement to be "silent" -- a stronger word that that used in 1 Tim. 2 -- would directly contradict the assumption in ch. 11 that women would both "pray" and "prophesy," and would implicitly contradict the "anyone" in 14:27.

                          (For Witherington -- He addresses some of this in his Conflict and Community in Corinth commentary. AFAICT, he does *not* therein address the "Law" allusion. He dismisses the gloss/interpolation idea, but never cites Fee in this regard, and as the commentary is dated 1995, it is unclear whether he was at that time aware of the material Fee presented in a 9-page excursus in God's Empowering Presence in 1994.)

                          (For Keener -- His case can be found in his Chapter 9 of the 2004 Discovering Biblical Equality, and in his own 2005 commentary on 1-2 Corinthians. He explicitly cites in a footnote Fee's view referenced above, but finds it unpersuasive.)

                          (For Payne -- His work is probably the most current and extensive, presented as a 50-page chapter in his 2009 Man and Woman, One in Christ.)
                          Last edited by NorrinRadd; 07-29-2018, 02:40 AM.
                          Geislerminian Antinomian Kenotic Charispneumaticostal Gender Mutualist-Egalitarian.

                          Beige Federalist.

                          Nationalist Christian.

                          "Everybody is somebody's heretic."

                          Social Justice is usually the opposite of actual justice.

                          Proud member of the this space left blank community.

                          Would-be Grand Vizier of the Padishah Maxi-Super-Ultra-Hyper-Mega-MAGA King Trumpius Rex.

                          Justice for Ashli Babbitt!

                          Justice for Matthew Perna!

                          Arrest Ray Epps and his Fed bosses!

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Regarding the "home"

                            >> Gen. 1-3 -- In ch. 1, there is no observable hierarchy between male and female; they are equally created in the image and likeness of God, and He gave them equally the task to rule and subdue.

                            In ch. 2, woman is created as the man's "helper," but not in the sense of "subordinate assistant" common in English usage. The Hebrew "ezer" or "azar" is used many times in the OT, and usually refers to military support. Most of the other uses refer to rescue of one sort or another by a stronger party. In both military and nonmilitary scenarios, the strong party providing the help is often God. (See the Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament.) The woman is a strong helper who is "suitable for" or "corresponding to" the man. The whole passage is about their compatibility, equal partnership, and unity. The idea that the man's "naming" of things suggested authority is not inherent in the text, and is dubious in general. It is at least as likely that the naming is about observation and discovery, where the names he gave were based on things he observed about the animals. We know he *did* have authority over the animals, because ch. 1 said so. It says no such thing about him having authority over the woman, and in fact everything it *does* say, including the name he gave, suggests equality. The fact that he was created prior to the woman says nothing about hierarchy; since she was not "born" from him, primogeniture rights are tenuously related, if at all, and in any case, Scripture records that God frequently chooses to directly break those cultural mores. 1 Tim. 2:13 has no relevance as a commentary, since its meaning and application are also in dispute; the result would be circular reasoning.

                            Ch. 3 is the first place where hierarchy is evident. The passage invites questions, but does not provide ready answers for some. The man was to tend the garden, but also "keep" or "guard" it (2:15); since he was the one who named the serpent and must have been aware that it was "crafty," why was he not on guard? The man was alone -- woman had not yet been created -- when God gave the instructions about food and the Forbidden Tree (2:16-2:17). Did God also personally instruct the woman, but it was never recorded, or did He give that responsibility to the man? When the serpent tempted her, why did her wording not match the instructions given to the man? There was no prohibition against *touching* the tree or its fruit, only against *eating* the fruit. Where did she get that idea? Did God give her a slightly different version; did Adam convey the teaching slightly erroneously; or did she alter it herself? At what point did the man come to be "with her" (3:6)? If he was there all along, why did he not correct her response, and dissuade her from engaging in the conversation?

                            Immediately after their disobedience, their relationships changed. Instead of being "not ashamed," they hid from God. Instead of the unity of "one flesh," they cast blame. God told them the consequences of their actions. Interestingly, the word "curse" is used of the serpent and the ground, but not directly of either the man or the woman. The end of verse 16 is the first place hierarchy appears. The same two words -- "teshuqah" and "mashal" -- occur together again only about 15 verses later, and nowhere else in Scripture. That suggests they should be understood similarly in both cases, implying verse 16 is saying that the woman would desire to control the man, but he would dominate her.

                            Whether that was "imposed" by God, or just an unfortunate consequence of the Fall, it was not the original plan as shown in the prior chapters. Even though we still live in a cursed world, we should not take that behavior as normative -- especially since as Christians, we are "in Christ" (2 Cor. 5:17; Gal. 3:28, inter alia) who is the "last Adam" (1 Cor. 15:45), and the new creation has come (2 Cor. 5:17; Gal. 6:15). For us, the normative husband-wife relationship should be more like the unity and equality intended and evident before the Fall. (For much of the first four paragraphs, see Richard Hess's ch. 4 in the 2004 Discovering Biblical Equality.)

                            >> Gal. 3:28 -- All I add here, as sort of an addendum to the previous section, is the note that Paul intentionally changed his grammar in for the last pairing, changing "or" (oude) to "and" (kai), and used "male" and "female" as opposed to the more usual "man" and "woman," thereby using the phrasing of the LXX Gen. 1:27.

                            >> 1 Pet. 3:1-7 -- This is a "domestic codes" context that actually runs from about 2:12 to 3:17. It is mostly strategic and pragmatic, rather than a normative ideal. Much of it assumes an infidel householder. The wife and slaves have little choice but to be submissive and obedient, but they can choose to view this as identifying with Christ's sufferings, and hope that their actions win over the husband and master. In the case where the householder is a believer, he is instructed to be relatively kind by the standards of the culture. Still, the patriarchal structure is to prevail -- for the specific purpose that their behavior be viewed as "excellent" by the surrounding culture (2:12), but consistent with "every human institution" (2:13). They are to limit the expression of their equality and freedom so as not to invite "slander" from the surrounding patriarchal culture. If we were to try to directly apply this passage as normative in the Modern West, we would have to decide which portions to disobey -- the parts that require unilateral submission by wives, or the parts that require behavior consistent with "every human institution" and what the surrounding culture finds "excellent." (See ch.13 by Peter Davids in the 2004 Discovering Biblical Equality.)

                            >> Col. 3-4 / Eph. 5-6 These are also "domestic codes" passages. In the former, the focus is typically on 3:18-19 or at most 3:18-21; in the latter, the focus is typically on 5:22-33 or at most 5:22-6:4. In both cases, this leaves out relevant context. In the former, the context goes through at least 4:1, though 4:9 also turns out to be relevant. In the latter, the context is grammatically linked to the preceding passage, esp. v. 21, because 5:22 in the Greek contains no verb and so relies on the verb in 21; it continues through 6:9.

                            Taken on its own, the Colossian passage seems clear: The wife is instructed to submit to the husband. The husband is instructed to "love" his wife -- highly unusual in that patriarchal culture -- but not pressed further. So the passage seems an unambiguous endorsement of patriarchalism, albeit of the benevolent variety. Equally unambiguously, it endorses slavery.

                            There are good reasons to NOT take the Colossian passage strictly on its own: The letter commonly regarded as being written to the church at Ephesus (the name is not actually present in some of the oldest and best mss.) was written contemporaneously (while Paul was imprisoned), involved a sister church (Ephesus) in Asia Minor, was *possibly* the letter "from Laodicea" (Col. 4:16), if Paul meant a letter coming by route of Laodicea, and most importantly, covers strikingly similar material in similar language, but, in regard to the domestic codes, in much more detail. Further, in light of the mention of "Onesimus," the contemporary epistle to Philemon is also relevant.

                            The passage in Ephesians is much longer and more detailed. Verse 22 grammatically links to v. 21 (which in turn grammatically links to the previous section on the characteristics of being continually filled with the Spirit -- which is significant, because it clarifies the fact that all the things spoken of apply to all believers). Thus, despite the way it sounds prima facie, the passage cannot be instructing unilateral submission by the wives; Paul would not instruct all the believers to submit to each other, and then immediately, in the same sentence, negate that by saying wives are to submit to husbands, but not vice-versa. The passage ends with instructions to the master (same person as the husband) to treat his slaves "the same way" as the previous several verses told the slaves to behave toward the master. Clearly the passage moves well beyond mere benevolent patriarchy to something at least resembling true equality.

                            (Keener spends a few chapters on this in his 1992 book, Paul, Women, and Wives, focusing mainly on the Ephesian passage. He spends a couple of those chapters discussing the social and cultural background of Ephesus, with its various pagan mystery cults. Some of them were radically female-exalting, and viewed as subversive to Greco-Roman society.)

                            (Payne devotes a single chapter of his 2009 Man and Woman, One in Christ to these passages. He focuses almost exclusively on vocabulary, grammar, and syntax. A notable result is that he finds that in the Ephesians passage, "head" is used in the sense of "source," not "ruler.")

                            (Witherington deals with the passages at length in his 2007 The Letters to Philemon, the Colossians, and the Ephesians. He does not believe that Greco-Roman concerns about the mystery cults played a significant role in Paul's instructions. He does not find the "source" meaning of "head" a convincing argument. He several times mentions "trajectory," suggesting a hermeneutial approach akin to that of William J. Webb, available in Chapters 22 and 23 of the 2004 Discovering Biblical Equality, or perhaps more conveniently, in the articles here. He takes Colossians as a first pass, casting the house codes as still patriarchal, but much more benevolent than any in the surrounding culture, whether Jew or pagan. Ephesians is a second pass, developing the idea much further. Philemon is a third pass, where the idea is pressed to the point where the recipient was urged to actually manumit Onesimus. Apparently his view is that in the process of time, similar "trajectory" would apply to husbands and wives, such that the ideal of Gal. 3:28 would be realized.

                            He also makes the important observation that these passages cannot be totally separated from "church" or "ministry" settings, since the local churches usually met in homes. Therefore, in Col. and Eph., the portions that immediately precede the domestic codes tables and talk about the characteristics of being richly indwelt by the word and continually filled with the Spirit -- including speaking to one another and even admonishing and teaching one another -- are for all believers, irrespective of sex.)
                            Geislerminian Antinomian Kenotic Charispneumaticostal Gender Mutualist-Egalitarian.

                            Beige Federalist.

                            Nationalist Christian.

                            "Everybody is somebody's heretic."

                            Social Justice is usually the opposite of actual justice.

                            Proud member of the this space left blank community.

                            Would-be Grand Vizier of the Padishah Maxi-Super-Ultra-Hyper-Mega-MAGA King Trumpius Rex.

                            Justice for Ashli Babbitt!

                            Justice for Matthew Perna!

                            Arrest Ray Epps and his Fed bosses!

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              In preparing this, I've obviously been reviewing some of the resources I have at hand. Discovering Biblical Equality is an exceptionally varied and thorough presentation. (I'm speaking of the original 2004 edition. A new edition is due late 2018 or early 2019.) People on both sides would do well to read Fee's chapter 14 of the 2004 edition, and bear in mind how little the text of Scripture itself actually teaches as universally normative about various matters of praxis, including "offices" and "authority structures" in churches.
                              Geislerminian Antinomian Kenotic Charispneumaticostal Gender Mutualist-Egalitarian.

                              Beige Federalist.

                              Nationalist Christian.

                              "Everybody is somebody's heretic."

                              Social Justice is usually the opposite of actual justice.

                              Proud member of the this space left blank community.

                              Would-be Grand Vizier of the Padishah Maxi-Super-Ultra-Hyper-Mega-MAGA King Trumpius Rex.

                              Justice for Ashli Babbitt!

                              Justice for Matthew Perna!

                              Arrest Ray Epps and his Fed bosses!

                              Comment

                              Related Threads

                              Collapse

                              Topics Statistics Last Post
                              Started by Thoughtful Monk, 03-15-2024, 06:19 PM
                              35 responses
                              166 views
                              0 likes
                              Last Post Cow Poke  
                              Started by KingsGambit, 03-15-2024, 02:12 PM
                              4 responses
                              49 views
                              0 likes
                              Last Post Thoughtful Monk  
                              Started by Chaotic Void, 03-08-2024, 07:36 AM
                              10 responses
                              120 views
                              1 like
                              Last Post mikewhitney  
                              Started by Cow Poke, 02-29-2024, 07:55 AM
                              14 responses
                              72 views
                              3 likes
                              Last Post Cow Poke  
                              Started by Cow Poke, 02-28-2024, 11:56 AM
                              13 responses
                              60 views
                              0 likes
                              Last Post Cow Poke  
                              Working...
                              X