Female Pastors

Not according to the Law...

Steven King

 

LOL - only voted once!

Steven King

 

confession time...

Okay okay. I admit to having voted 87 times on this thread. I needed to do it to make Bill feel like he's arguing against the odds. He always does much better, I think we can all agree, when we gang up on him. Whares' the reinforcements????

Okay, back to reality.

Bill, this is a tough issue. I don't expect us to resolve it "virtually" and perhaps not even this week(believe it or not). And yes, if the thread were to become long enough to close the issue, I would need to get paid.

I really appreciate that you are concerned with preserving the Pauline view of 1 Cor 14. I just don't think it's Paul. One can argue, for instance, that the linguistic markers in the text are so similar with the rest of the chapter that it must be Pauline. I also think that, if it is a quote, it is certianly the longest one in the whole text of 1 Cor. Anthony Thistleton brings out both of these points, I think, in his commentary. I don't have it handy, and honestly, I don't know what position he takes.

Regardless of the verbal similarity, if it is a quote, Paul may just as well use whatever terminology he likes to bring it out. It may be a quote that expresses a similar sentiment to what the Corinthians have. I still think there's room for the quote. Perhaps, a paraphrased quotation. I'm not sure.

Did you consider my issue with the rhetorical questions? Every time he quotes the church in Corinth, he uses rhetorical questions. It is an indirect argument, but along with my statement about the Torah, it could be added as supporting evidence.

My version of this is that "as in all the churches of the saints..." begins the quotation. I'm convinced that the clause begins the sentence and is separate from the prior sentence. So Paul wouldn't be legitimating the practice by appealing to authority, but the false Corinthians would be appealing to two authorities wrongly: the Torah, and the "as in all the churches" statement.

I'm open to changing my view, but I don't think you have really considered the weight of my argument about the Torah. You seem to go back and forth between the Torah explicitly saying that women cannot speak in church, and saying that there is a large OT tradition that supports the distinction between genders. We are in agreement that the OT tradition has a distinction between genders, calling them "male and female," but as far as I can tell, that's about it. Deborah, you know. What about the prophetess who was prophesying in the temple early in Luke, waiting for the Christ child?

If there is a passage in the Torah, on the other hand, which "Paul" appeals to explicitly, then I would ask you to find where it is (in the Torah), and where it says directly that a woman's teaching office should be limited to the same gender. That's about as close as the Torah could come to "women can't speak in church." If the argument in 1 Cor 14 was that "women are different from men" or even maybe that "women don't usually get the leadership positions" and then appealed to the OT in general, then maybe. But someone appealing to the Torah, a specific authority within the bounds of the OT tradition, for some specific purpose to indicate that women can't speak in church seems absurd to me. At least, until someone shows me where it is I don't think I can justify using an argument from silence to tell women in my church that God allows me to stand over them in a special way because of my gender.

I don't think I need to point out that the argument from lack of example is an argument from silence. If you are saying that there is a tradition that is the seed of this doctrine that women can't speak in church, it needs to be rooted in the Torah, located, exegeted and expounded upon.

Your question about 1 Cor 11 is a good one: how the Corinthians could be "against" prophecy already if they had such a policy as Paul supposedly represents. This takes me back to my hermeneutic. My best policy is that we should reconcile the author with his own statements first, then reconstruct the historical circumstances second. It only makes sense to me that the historical situation is more complex than a homogenous group that has a singular attitude toward women. I think it is more likely that the church in Corinth is non-homogenous than I think Paul will contradict himself, saying in one chapter that women can prophesy in public (I presume) and in another that women can't speak at all in the churches. I would begin with the more likely reality, that Paul is not contradicting himself, and use that to exegete the historical circumstances, which require laborious and very subjective work.

Of course, I don't think the Corinthians are engaging in open arguments with a rabbi. I think he is possibly recalling, or perhaps paraphrasing them to refute them, as he often does in this book, with rhetorical questions.

Why does Paul say that women should teach women? I say that it is because it was appropriate at the time to exort this. That doesn't mean that Paul, for some reason, had a policy that women should not teach men. That kind of conjecture is too subjective (and too easy, I think, in evangelical culture) to just infer it from that.

If Paul appeals to the Law in other places, that's fine with me. His interest in the law would no less be represented by correcting the wrong interpretations of others.

Ultimately, I think it comes down to a decision that a church has to make. Do the men care more about the concentration of power they have in a church so that they are unwilling to risk letting a woman teach? That is, do they think it impossible, and thus will preclude the possibility at the outset, that they will be blessed by a woman's teaching?

Most of the men I talk to about this tell me that they honestly would feel like it offended them to "sit under" a woman. I think this is a cultural thing that one, at least, has to be willing to put aside if that is what God is doing in a church. Because I don't think the testimony of Scripture is, at least, clear enough to preclude a woman from teaching men, I see it as a cultural issue.

Honestly, Bill, I don't think it's a mistake that you are from an older generation and that you hold this view. I would simply ask you to question how your culture has impacted your view in this. I am willing to change my view, and I try not to hold it dogmatically. Are you sure you believe this because of Scripture? How sure?

We frequently send women overseas on missionary work, expecting them to start churches and do it all. For some reason, the mission field is flooded with women because many gifted women dont' have a place that they can really freely exercise their gifts here. If we believe that they can teach men in Indonesia, why would we have a problem with them teaching us here?

These are good questions Bill. I appreciate you taking your time. I have most certainly taken mine. I trust that, either way, you are following Christ in your work and that is what pleases the Lord.

Blessings,

Chris

 

Re: confession time...

 

Re: confession time...

Well put, Chris. I believe the missionary effort has been at the forefront of my thinking throughout this entire discussion.

Kindly,
Steven King

 

Wayne Grudem Live

Found a link where Wayne Grudem is speaking live about the manhood and womanhood controversy.

http://www.cbmw.org/media/conference_archive.html

Others included here, too.

Steven King

 

Hey Steven,

First, by all means, no, I'm not offended. (I am STILL working on posting; including the "heart" of the post as well as the text.) Too often I post (here and elsewhere) without quite getting the softness in my posts as much as I'd like. No, no offense at all.


Ethical issues are different than hermeneutic issues.

Sure they are. I was expressing that I wasn't coming from an exegetical perspective here. But I don't think that just subjectivity applies to just the non-ethical. I wasn't appealing so much to right/wrong; I was appealing to our sense of "ought" (not always an ethical "ought".) And for sure, it isn't the definitive measure, and it's not to be accepted in place of exegesis. I surely didn't mean to convey that. I was just trying to add something of flavor to the discussion apart from the exegesis of the passages.


Of course our cultural understanding of slavery is different, let's say, than the time in which slavery was espoused as being "correct".

It has never been in any era of time that the entire culture--all the people of that culture--espousing slavery have believed it to be true; the slaves themselves surely didn't believe it to be right, and others, perhaps without much power or authority to do something about it, were in objection to it.

Subjective filtering systems do not do well in distinguishing truth from error.

Subjective filters are some of the strongest powers of discernment available to the human race. Surely we can't say that ALL laws--of any culture and any time--are purely judicial without some framework (the very subjective nature of men and women within the known context we all share of "it ought to be this (or that) way."

Look at history - when Hitler slaughtered 6,000,000 Jews in the Holocaust many German churches were woefully silent on the issue. Was their common sense filtering system merely "off" which kept them from crying out against the "obvious" error of ethnic cleansing? Did they not have the same Bible we espouse? Were they confused on the verses that speak to the sanctification of life? Apparently their subjective understanding, or perhaps their willingness to attain "survival" at any cost, impeded their common sense filtration.

Remember Deitrich Bonhoffer? One example of a man among many who were either in agreement with the Nazi's or were just plain silent though they disagreed with the Nazis who was ready to even assasinate Hitler. I'd say his subjectivism on the subject of killing people (be they Jews or Gentiles) was as high as his Biblical understanding--contrasted with those who would try to justify the Nazis. Who was correct, then? Hitler or BonHoffer?


Again, this is your experience...and your spin on the male/female issue. Gender issues are only obvious physically. We cannot suppress women in ministry because it fits within our ill defined understanding of spiritual differences. We cannot divorce cultural reletavism from biblical interpretation. To do so banishes us to obscurity and will cause us to alienate many who otherwise would not be inclined to entertain the salvation message.

If gender issues between men and women are only physical, the were there no word from God, then homosexuality would be acceptable; male domination would be acceptable; rape (men raping women) would be acceptable. For there would be nothing---nothing at all--to either define the genders beyong their bodies or of respect in regard to one another's persons. For that matter, there is nothing, then,--nothing at all--to be lived out in view of subjectivity. I think you know what I mean here: we don't need a culture or a Bible to just "know" certain things. It's built right into us. I'm NOT saying it's perfect, and I'm not saying it's the primacy for rule-making. I'm only saying it exists and that it's worthy paying attention to.

If you're taking offense to this - I apologize. I can not believe this issue is as "black and white" as you imagine.

Heavens no, it's not black and white. It's greyer than all get-out! But...it is a color that is there. That's all.

Now that I've completely strayed from whatever the hek this subject was . . . oh yes, women in ministry. Personally, I have nearly no problem with it; I'm trying to learn the exegetical issues as well as the next guy.

Thanks,

Starkman

 

Re: Re: confession time...

 

Hey Bill

Thanks for the lengthy and careful response.

I thought I would give this forum a break for a while just so I could relax about the issue.

I can't take it upon myself to argue for this position as its spokesman par excellence because I'm not the NT that I would like to be.

in Brief: Do you feel that it is okay that your seminary prof was a woman, and that you sat under her and facilitated her teaching role if you don't believe they should be able to do this, biblically?

Bill: The quotations of the Corinthians are short (eg 6:12 ; 10:23) and they are followed by substantial qualifications which are unambiguous and sharp. These criteria do not match 14:33-35 and its context.

Chris responds: The matter of style on the rhetorical questions are sharp in 1 Cor 14 as far as I can tell. Did the word of God come from you, Bill??? That's the tone I get from Paul.

Bill: I feel there is a clear and convincing exegetial reason to reject that view. 14:36 begins with a disjunctive particle "e." What is the function of that particle? Its function is to enforce NOT reject the proceeding. I am saying that the presence of that word which the KJV renders "what" demonstrates that verses 33-35 are Paul's own view! Consider the usage even in 1 Corinthians. In 9:6 it reinforces 9:3-5. In 10:22 it reinforces 10:18-21. In 6:16 it reinforces 6:12-15. In fact Chris, I'll bet that you cannot provide *one* NT occasion where that is not the function!

Chris' response: Like I said, you are a good Greek student. Maybe you can clarify for me what it says in my BAGD, that often the particle that you point out is used (letter delta, beta, bottom p. 342) to introduce rhetorical questions, several examples being 1 Cor. 6:9, 16, 19, 10:22, and 2 Cor. 11:7. Does the particle, when used to introduce a rhetorical question, have the same function as a reinforcer of the prior clause when the "disjunctive" use is a separate use in the dictionary? What about the other use for the particle that simply continues a string of rhetorical questions at the leg end, where the dictionary sites as an example being 1 Cor. 7:16, 9:7 and Rom. 3:1? In that case, at least with my knowledge of the makeup of the dictionary, the element of "reinforcement" is a separate use for the particle, the second listed use on p. 342.

Bill: That argument was that as Paul does not cite the exact verse in the Law that therefore he cannot be referencing the Law. However, if this is a Corinthian claim that the Law supports their gender restrictions, then why does Paul not simply say there is no such OT text?

Chris responds: In the case of 1 Cor 14 Paul would not say "there is no such OT text" because it is plain by his rhetorical question "did the word of God come from you?" Or, I paraphrase, "you didn't write the Bible, did you?" That's another way of implying indirectly, "there is no such OT text." Precisely.

Bill: Why no Corinthians appeal to the Law elsewhere in the book?

Chris responds: I don't know why. I don't think this is a strong argument, though.

Bill: But Paul himself has just alluded to the Law in discussing gender roles in chapter 11...

Chris responds: I'm considering your argument, Bill. There are some difficulties still. First, honestly, I don't understand Paul's use of Gen. in 1 Cor 11 either. I agree that there is a deep logic of gender difference in the creation account. We agree on that. Further, there seems to be some normativity to this tradition for Paul. There is a logic in gender difference in the Torah, even a tradition that may influence Paul's teaching here. However, while I consider your view, I still stumble over 1 Cor 14 because 14:34 claims to RECOVER THE INTENT of the Pentateuchal text. Paul does not claim to do this in 1 Cor. 11. Does the Torah, anywhere, intentionally address this? No, of course not. That's why I made the distinction above between one of Paul's uses that finds an example in the Torah in 1 Tim 2, similar to what he does in Galatians with Hagar and Sarah. I don't see that kind of use of the law here. This is arguing on the basis of the discursive intent of the author of the Pentateuch as embodied in the Pentateuchal text. That's not right, at least, as best as I can tell from where I'm at here.

Bill: there is absolutely no conflict between chaps 11 and 14 if the resriction on women is taken only to have as its referent the evaluation of prophecy rather than complete silence, which after all is the context in 14.

Chris responds: I agree that there is no conflict that can't be explained away. But I do think, especially 14:34, that the women must "keep silent" and "are not permitted to speak" is a pretty different idea than 1 Cor. 11. The reconciliation between these two by saying that the context is in terms of the interpretation of prophecy doesn't change the fact that the statements in 14:34 do not appear to be qualified. "it is improper for a woman to speak in church."

Bill: As said, Paul is not contradicting himself. To prophesy is not the same as judging the prophets as the latter would require correcting men in the assembly. So I am not therefore forced to say 14:33-35 is of the Corinthian mind. The disjunctive particle in v36 clearly disproves this. As to the Corinthians having varied views this is possible but it really seems to be reaching and straw grasping to say that Paul's chapter 11 was targeted at a different and heterogenous group than chap 14, and that therefore 14:33-35 must be exclusively the view of that second group. Paul references divisions among them concerning baptism (1:11-17) and in the Lord's supper (11:18) ; therefore, that here he mentions no such divisions suggests that the Corinthians were not disunited on the topic of women speaking in church.

Chris' response: Actually, Bill, you have just pointed out that Paul addresses groups with differing views on the topics he writes about. All that needs to be proven in my case is that such is the case, possibly. Even from the beginning, Paul corrects those who say "I follow Paul," and "I follow Apollos." (I would add, he corrects them with rhetorical questions, another example). I think forcing the Corinthians into a kind of doctrinal mold to insist that it can't be a quote because they all agree on the issue a priori is an artificial historical reconstruction. If the Corinthians can't decide which disciple to follow, why in the world would you think they would all agree on gender issues? Besides, for all we know, the quotation he cites could come from the majority. Perhaps 99%. All I need to show is that there is no Corinthian "policy" on women that is homogenous to defeat that argument. Paul constantly divides his letters, like he does in 1 Tim, with "this is a trustworthy saying" to address different groups: himself, the church, Timothy.

Bill: Well OK, again I ask: If it is subjective to say that Paul in 2 Tim 2:2, wherein he requires that *men* be chosen as teachers, is not revealing a general "policy" then show me some verses which objectively demonstrate that women had the office of teaching/eldership in apostolic churches.

Chris responds: I agree on this, that Paul addresses specific issues with permanent applications. However, a policy is a policy, and Paul's policy, according to my exegesis, is never that women can't teach men. So, I really think that the onus of falsification is upon you to show me, from the inspired text, why women can't teach men if 1 Tim 2 (I just appeal to Marshall) and 1 Cor 14 don't insist this. This argument just goes around in circles when we look for "examples" and then infer from generalities. If Paul, nowhere, takes those historical events and applies them to articulate his policy that women can't teach men, then the Word of God doesn't give us that policy, and neither do the "examples" that lack the commentary you are looking for.

Bill: Rather the issue is the observed culture of our Lord and the inspired writers. Why no female apostles among the 12 if there were no gender restrictions? Why no female authors of NT books if there were no gender restrictions? Why no references to female elders if there were such? Why the requisite in 1 Tim/Titus that elders be male? And why does Clement of Rome, perhaps a companion of Paul, himself, require in 1 Corinthians that only men be elders?

Chris' response: The assertion on authorship precludes the "anonymous books" and an a priori (A woman likely didn't write Hebrews, but we aren't positive). While this is likely, it is also an assumption.

And by the way, I haven't ever said there are "no gender restrictions." Statements like these, honestly Bill, make me feel like you aren't listening to my perspective at all. The first post I entered on this thread says that women can teach all they want, but they can't be elders. An elder must be a "husband," etc.

Also Clement isn't inspired. The rest are arguments from silence.

I'm open to chaning my view. let me know what you think... I'm especially interested in this particle issue, and the "law," now that I think you'll understand what I'm saying.

Chris

 

I've been reading this discussion with interest this morning, and though I do not have time to look up each Scriptural reference nor am I nearly qualified to participate in your discussion, to my lay person's point of view, your arguments read like this:

If you can't prove having women pastors was done and acceptable then, it shouldn't be now.

Do I read you (most of you) right?

Good heavens.

Melissa

 

You read

Hello Melissa,
There are lots of diversity and disagreement in this particular thread. Those who do not support women pastors would be inclined to agree with your statement. Those who do maintain that there exists a wide cultural gulf between what was established in Pauline writings (many of which are debated by scholars) and today's reality.

Dogmatic thinking pervades both sides, as is I'm sure, par for the course for any strongly debated subject.

Steven King

 

Since having a member in good standing is a qualification for the clergy, maybe a measure of faith should be done with a ruler (or a yardstick).

To select a new pope, have the cardinals meet in the Vatican locker-room.

 

Another point for Bill

Hey Bill, one more thing.

I wasn't able to post my entire thing last night because I went over the allotted number of words.

I want to say something briefly about the "argument from silence" because I think it is of particular importance and can be easily be misunderstood.

I'm saying that I think the onus of falsification is upon you because arguing from an example or lack thereof to a prohibition is a kind of fallacy, at least where I'm presently at. For instance, one does not prohibit drums in church because there aren't any examples of people using drums in the NT church.

Jonathan Edwards had a good rubric for evaluating church practices when the canon is silent. He evaluated holy laughter during the "great awakening" according to whether or not it produced the fruits of the Spirit. In that case, lack of example, at least according to Edwards, did not result in a prohibition.

Also, I just happened to read this morning, and maybe I'm wrong on this one...

Acts 18:18 and 18:26, "Priscilla and Aquila" are both mentioned as instructing Apollos. Luke's usual practice in listing names is to name the woman second (eg., 17:34). But Priscilla is mentioned first in both instances here, as far as I can tell, probably because she was more instrumental in instructing Apollos from the Scriptures.

The issue here isn't whether or not her husband was with her, or whether she was under some kind of male-oriented supervision. I made clear early on that I don't think a woman should teach without the elders' approoval in the church. That is what I think Marshall says about 1 Tim.

The issue here is whether or not a woman is, in fact, teaching a man. Here, as far as I can tell, she is.

There are other examples of prophetesses, (Luke 2, Ac. 21:9), but that doesn't really show a woman in supervision. Perhaps, Anna in Luke 2:36 was instructing others since she spoke to many people in the temple. There's a fine line if she's not "instructing" here.

These examples are incidental. My knowledge of the NT is probably much more sparse than yours.

Chris

 

Re: Hey Bill

 

Hey Bill

Hey Bill,

I see your reply, but haven't read it yet. I will read and respond sometime soon. But I just want you to know that, as much as I respect you and think this is an important issue, I'm going to have to commit to myself to only reply one more time. This isn't a cop out, and I think the other members of the forum will understand. I've got a bunch of stuff piling up.

Chris

 

Re: Hey Bill

=======

I'm ready to quit when you are, and I respect and value you too!

 

The "best" pastors that I have personally known have all been women. Conversely, the worst have all been men. Since I have been a member of two denominations that ordain women, I have come into contact with a great deal of both male and female pastors. Almost without exception, the women were better preachers and administrators.



Tom Nixon

 

One of the most spiritual people I ever met was a nun who was a professor. She had a unique gift for connecting with people and sharing her faith (which was conservative Christianity and not radical feminism). She did believe that women could be effective pastors. She pointed to the fact that the risen Christ showed himself to women first while the men were cowering in the upper room. It was the women who carried the message to the men of the resurrected Christ. It was the women who stuck around after the Christ's death while others hid. She convinced me that if ever there was a women called to pastoral ministry it was her. Her knowledge, faith, communication of the gospel, etc. was exceptional. I know there are arguments on both sides of the issue as we have seen.

North

 

Re: Another point for Bill