Female Pastors

Greetings Bill (and the rest):

Honestly, Bill, it is very hard to debate with you on the particle *e* issue. I cited those references, maybe irresponsibly, right out of BAG. But you are right about the particle, it is never used, at least in the list in BAG, to refute the opposing view immediately prior. I'm not acquainted with the NT well enough to know where to look for this sort of thing if it is anywhere else. But there's no textual variant in 1 Cor 14, it's just there.

So, although it displeases me some, I have to say that, to the best of my knowledge, I'm not correct about 1 Cor 14. Even though I still have a very hard time with this suspicious quotation of "the law" (which I still don't see how it could be Pauline), I have to acknowledge that you have a very good argument on this passage.

With that admission to you Bill, I want to add a couple of challenges to make this my last post on the issue. As I get to know the NT more, I will certainly keep this problem for my view in mind.

I'm just going to concentrate here on the areas where I think our differences to be particularly strong, and then close.

Bill:
But teaching involves, in the NT, authority over those being taught! This is clear from such as 1 Tim 4:11, "Command and teach." Teaching included in the NT directing the lives of those taught, "Teach them be reverent, not slanderers, not addicted to wine". (Titus 2:3) The teacher in the NT told the learner what to believe and how to act. The problem here , I think, is to divorce the authority of the NT teacher from the authority of the man in ecclestiastical affairs.

Chris: As far as I can tell, Bill, you are still arguing from example and lack thereof here. I'm worried about this, honestly... I think this is an epistemological issue.

A lot of evangelical systematic theologians do systematic theology by finding a normative "form" of life (Wittgenstein used this term, I think, similarly) beneath the text and make it normative. This move you are making does not surprise me because it's pretty common. We argue that there are normative traditions, and/or events that are more profound than the text of Scripture and bring the text of Scripture alongside other witnesses like Clement (Polycarp, etc.) and say that they all testify to the same normative events. It, functionally, makes the text of Scripture equal with respect to accessing revelation to any other possible witnesses that would function as historically true. I think this methodlogically devalues the text of Scripture.

I think the real issue here is where we find the authority to make these arguments. I think you are finding the apostolic authority strucutre that you have constructed as authoritative. This structure answers certain questions that may come up in church life, and it works in a convenient way. But I think the structure is more profound than the text and has a very subjective element to it when it is used as normative. It also looks to the NT more quickly than it looks to the Old. When events are normative, we have to choose which ones. We always opt for the "newer" ones over the "older" ones. So I think this kind of argumentation and structuring is unfair to the OT, ultimately, and too subjective to be helpful here (for me, at least).

You say here we shouldn't "divorce the authority of the NT teacher from the authority of the man in ecclestiastical affairs." I'm concerned with finding the authority of the NT anywhere but in the NT text. That is, not in the normative events you have constructed, but the text which we both hold in front of us, which gives us no privileged existential access to the events of the past but only the lexemes it shows us. God chooses to leave his witness to us in the form of text, not in the form of an apostolic "structure."

I had to read "The Eclipse of Biblical Narrative" by Hans Frei as required reading, both at Multnomah and Western. My view is similar to Frei's, but he probably couldn't be considered an evangelical because of other issues that I won't go into here. I would encourage you to read Frei some time, Bill, if you haven't already.

That is why I say that Edwards has a good point. He deals with the limitation of inference that we have, I think, and does not try to overcome it. Instead, he takes a "lack of example" at face value, as God has limited our understanding intentionally.

I do remember being impressed with I. Howard Marshall's commentary on 1 Tim 2. In it, as far as I remember, he argued that (the quotation that you have used as "proof" that Scripture constrains women from teaching) the passage hinges on the precise meaning of "authentein" (to exercise authority). Essentially, I came away with the understanding that a woman could teach men just as long as they did not do so "in such a way that exercises independent authority" (disregarding elder rule) over a man. Paul may not be trying to be as systematic as you would like here. He may be allowing women to teach, even when the elders are "in charge." That doesn't make the woman an elder, and it doesn't make any of the authoritative elders into women. But because your authoritative structure is, sort of, quasi independent from the text, you need to say that the examples as descriptions of events are clear so that they can be normative. This should clear up the difference between how I use Edwards and the way I think you are using Clement. I'm using Edwards to say that we listen only to what the text says, and you are using Clement to "get behind" the text to a normative practice.

Bill: a) First consider the tense of the verb. ...

Chris: As I understand it, not all aorist verbs are completed events. This one may be punctiliar, but then again, the argument shouldn't rest on this.

Bill: b) Second, consider the verb Luke chose to use. It is not the didache here being taught. The verb in 1 Tim 2 is 'didaskei.' That verb is the authoritative teaching . (as in: Acts 2:42; Rom 6:17; Titus 1:9; 2 Jo 9). ...

Chris: It does seem in the context here that this teaching turned the direction of Apollos, it had some degree of authority in his life. Apollos later becomes a big mover and shaker (1 Cor 1!). Even if the term isn't often used for this version of "authoritative teaching," this kind of context seems to be using this term in that way. Argue, if you will, that it is an isolated incident. But the context, to me, seems clear.

Bill: c) third, the locale. This was not the assembled church body.

Chris: You are right that this is not in the context of the church body. Do you think a woman's authority automatically shuts off when she enters the church door? If she's teaching a man the correct understanding of the way, the Scriptures or whatever... and she's doing it in a subway, or on a baseball field, she's teaching a man. Perhaps, because of the culture, getting all three of them outside the context of the church body was the means God used to create this divine appointment. Luke certainly thought it was notable that it was Priscilla doing most of the teaching.

Consider also the name switch, Bill. Why is the woman mentioned first? You don't think that's odd? Is it just a circumstance, especially when the prior list I noted in 17:34 mentions the women second? I think Luke is fully capable of choosing what he wants to emphasize, even with the economy of non-explicit language, just by using word order. You still haven't responded to this aspect of my argument. If Luke is emphasizing her involvement, it would increase the probability that this isolated incident is, in fact, a context of authoritative teaching.

Bill: The didache is not even yet formed..no Gospels or Epistolory yet written. So Anna had not that to "teach", even if she were teaching. The verb there is not "teach." Nor is this even the church. If one wished to equate Temple with church, then why were all priests male? Why a separate Courtyard for women? Why some portions of the Temple forbidden to women?

Chris: Why is it noted that the woman is doing in the instructing and not the many priests that Luke had to choose from? Again, my argument above that you are arguing based on normative events comes across very strong here. You choose to avoid an "Old Testament example" as "not normative" because it, in your view, doesn't have anything to do with the church. Why is in the canon, then? Why would Paul base his theology on it?

Anyway, I dont' put a lot of stock in this because of the other prophetesses in the NT.

Bill: I have referred you to 2 Tim 2:2, "faithful *men* who shall be able to teach.' You well know of 1 Tim 2:12, "I do not permit a woman to teach." The canon is NOT silent!

Chris: I remind you again, Bill, 2 Tim 2:2 is an argument from silence. Just because Paul exhorted men to teach doesn't mean he exhorted women not to teach. See above on 1 tim 2:12.

Bill: I have sustained an exegetical argument for my view and have tried to respond to your issues....

Chris: I agree that polls are schmolls. I'm glad that you are arguing passionately for your view as biblical. More teachers are needed like you, Bill.

to All: Regardless of our differences here, and I am aware that others are viewing this conversation, I think it is important to say to everyone that Bill and I are committed to unity in Christ. Although we disagree (to some extent), I have learned much from him here, and for the correction on the particle in 1 Cor 14, I am grateful.

to Bill: Feel free to respond, my friend. I'm calling it quits. I don't want to tell you that you can't respond, though. If the discussion goes on any further, I'd look forward to seeing what happens. But for the economy of time, I have to bid this one farewell.

Blessings,

Chris

 

Thanks Chris.
I'm happy to let you have the last word on this one.

Blessings,

 

Bill (and the rest!),

Hey, I think it has been at least a year since this last infamous post.

I wanted those who actually have decided to look at my final post to know that Bill has convinced me that his position is correct. He totally humbled me on the net here. So here it is. I was wrong.

I thought I should post this for the sake of those out there who don't think that the Bible is clear, and that evangelical scholars can come to a consensus by discussing the textual evidence. I was clearly in the wrong here. I want everyone to know that.

Blessings to you Bill,

Chris

 

I have always believed God can call anyone to the ministry, including the pastoral ministry. Remember, it was women who preached the first resurrection sermon.

An intersting site is http://www.gal328.org

 

===

Chris,

This was not needed Chris, but thanks.



Jimmy,

I defined my position and provided some of my arguments above in this thread. If you or anyone else wishes to discuss this issue and base argumentation on the Bible and the historico-grammatical method of the Reformers as the hermeneutic, then I will go on with this topic. But it is not really important to me that I do so. BTW, in my opinion the text in Galatians provides no evidence for egalitarianism.

 

Interesting side note: the Reform Jewish movement theoretically granted absolute equality to women (except circumcision) in all religious matters and functions in the 19th century but it wasn't until 1972 that they finally ordained a female Rabbi. The Conservatives followed suit much later.

I don't know about the theological arguments on this matter but it seems to me that the real but unspoken objections are CULTURAL and ATTITUDINAL and that sacred texts will be interpreted to serve as "cover" for these essentially non-textual policies. That is certainly my impression of the Orthodox argument.

Cultural considerations being very important in general, I do not pass judgment on the issue either way.

 

No thanks, Bill. But thanks for the offer, my good friend! I have just been amazed that the most important message in the history of humankind, the Resurrection of our Lord and Saviour, Jesus Christ, was first delivered by women.

If God felt women were qualified to deliver this critical message-- the message of Christianity--then it stands to reason, at least to me, women are qualified, if called by God, to deliver any message. Nothing deep, nothing theological, just plain old common sense and reason.

By the way, after month's of study, reading the various scholarly proponents of both beliefs, comparing Greek words and texts, I no longer hold to a unitarian theology.

 

===

I in no way intend to devalue by my interpretation , with which I admit many evangelicals disagree, how God has used women. As I say here I had at Western a woman as a prof. .I'm just as happy not to debate the issue of the Scripturalness of women as teaching pastors to men. IMO there are other more vital issues as your new understanding of God..

So , you are a Trinitarian now? If so, great (IMO) news!!!

 

I still don't like the words "Trinity" or "Trinitarian" but now see that God and Jesus are one and the same.

If I had all the resources at my disposal that you do, I would be happy to engage you in a discussion of "women as teaching pastors to men," but I don't and would end up looking foolish.